Revisionism

[red_che]

This was an excerpt of a statement by Armando Liwanag, Chairman of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the Philippines regarding its second great rectification movement in the early '90s. :)

Care to have comments?

"Revisionism is the systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism, the basic revolutionary principles of the proletariat laid down by Marx and Engels and further developed by the series of thinkers and leaders in socialist revolution and construction. The revisionists call themselves Marxists, even claim to make an updated and creative application of it but they do so essentially to sugarcoat the bourgeois antiproletarian and anti-Marxist ideas that they propagate.


The classical revisionists who dominated the Second International in 1912 were in social-democratic parties that acted as tails to bourgeois regimes and supported the war budgets of the capitalist countries in Europe. They denied the revolutionary essence of Marxism and the necessity of proletarian dictatorship, engaged in bourgeois reformism and social pacifism and supported colonialism and modern imperialism. Lenin stood firmly against the classical revisionists, defended Marxism and led the Bolsheviks in establishing the first socialist state in 1917.


The modern revisionists were in the ruling communist parties in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They systematically revised the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism by denying the continuing existence of exploiting classes and class struggle and the proletarian character of the party and the state in socialist society. And they proceeded to destroy the proletarian party and the socialist state from within. They masqueraded as communists even as they gave up Marxist-Leninist principles. They attacked Stalin in order to replace the principles of Lenin with the discredited fallacies of his social democratic opponents and claimed to make a "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism.


The total collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, has made it so much easier than before for Marxist-Leninists to sum up the emergence and development of socialism and the peaceful evolution of socialism into capitalism through modern revisionism. It is necessary to trace the entire historical trajectory and draw the correct lessons in the face of the ceaseless efforts of the detractors of Marxism-Leninism to sow ideological and political confusion within the ranks of the revolutionary movement.


Among the most common lines of attack are the following: "genuine" socialism never came into existence; if socialism ever existed, it was afflicted with or distorted by the "curse" of "Stalinism", which could never be exorcised by his anti-Stalin successors and therefore Stalin was responsible even for the anti-Stalin regimes after his death; and socialism existed up to 1989 or 1991 and was never overpowered by modern revisionism before then or that modern revisionism never existed and it was an irremediably "flawed" socialism that fell in 1989-1991.


There are, of course, continuities as well as discontinuities from the Stalin to the post-Stalin periods. But social science demands that a leader be held responsible mainly for the period of his leadership. The main responsibility of Gorbachov for his own period of leadership should not be shifted to Stalin just as that of Marcos, for example, cannot be shifted to Quezon.


It is necessary to trace the continuities between the Stalin and the post-Stalin regimes. And it is also necessary to recognize the discontinuities, especially because the post-Stalin regimes were anti-Stalin in character. In the face of the efforts of the imperialists, the revisionists and the unremoulded petty bourgeois to explain everything in anti-Stalin terms and to condemn the essential principles and the entire lot of Marxism-Leninism, there is a strong reason and necessity to recognize the sharp differences between the Stalin and post-Stalin regimes. The phenomenon of modern revisionism deserves attention, if we are to explain the blatant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship in 1989-91.


After his death, the positive achievements of Stalin (such as the socialist construction, the defense of the Soviet Union, the high rate of growth of the Soviet economy, the social guarantees, etc.) continued for a considerable while. So were his errors continued and exaggerated by his successors up to the point of discontinuing socialism. We refer to the denial of the existence and the resurgence of the exploiting classes and class struggle in Soviet society; and the unhindered propagation of the petty-bourgeois mode of thinking and the growth of the bureaucratism of the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie in command of the great mass of petty-bourgeois bureaucrats.


From the Khrushchov period through the long Brezhnev period to the Gorbachov period, the dominant revisionist idea was that the working class had achieved its historic tasks and that it was time for the Soviet leaders and experts in the state and ruling party to depart from the proletarian stand. The ghost of Stalin was blamed for bureaucratism and other ills. But in fact, the modern revisionists promoted these on their own account and in the interest of a growing bureaucratic bourgeoisie. The general run of new intelligentsia and bureaucrats was petty bourgeois-minded and provided the social base for the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie.


In the face of the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes, there is in fact cause for the Party to celebrate the vindication of its Marxist-Leninist, antirevisionist line. The correctness of this line is confirmed by the total bankruptcy and collapse of the revisionist ruling parties, especially the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the chief disseminator of modern revisionism on a world scale since 1956. It is clearly proven that the modern revisionist line means the disguised restoration of capitalism over a long period of time and ultimately leads to the undisguised restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. The supraclass sloganeering of the petty bourgeoisie has been the sugarcoating for the antiproletarian ideas of the big bourgeoisie in the Soviet state and party.


In the Philippines, the political group that is most embarrassed, discredited and orphaned by the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes is that of the Lavas and their successors. It is certainly not the Communist Party of the Philippines, reestablished in 1968. But the imperialists, the bourgeois mass media and certain other quarters wish to confuse the situation and try to mock at and shame the Party for the disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes. They are barking at the wrong tree.


There are elements who have been hoodwinked by such catchphrases of Gorbachovite propaganda as "socialist renewal", "perestroika", "glasnost" and "new thinking" and who have refused to recognize the facts and the truth about the Gorbachovite swindle even after 1989, the year that modern revisionism started to give way to the open and blatant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. There are a handful of elements within the Party who continue to follow the already proven anticommunist, antisocialist and pseudodemocratic example of Gorbachov and who question and attack the vanguard role of the working class through the Party, democratic centralism, the essentials of the revolutionary movement, and the socialist future of the Philippine revolutionary movement. Their line is aimed at nothing less than the negation of the basic principles of the Party and therefore the liquidation of the Party."

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:21 PM
This was an excerpt of a statement by Armando Liwanag, Chairman of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the Philippines regarding its second great rectification movement in the early '90s. :)

Care to have comments?

"Revisionism is the systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism, the basic revolutionary principles of the proletariat laid down by Marx and Engels and further developed by the series of thinkers and leaders in socialist revolution and construction. The revisionists call themselves Marxists, even claim to make an updated and creative application of it but they do so essentially to sugarcoat the bourgeois antiproletarian and anti-Marxist ideas that they propagate.
And the people who most frequently use this term "revisionist" practice the "systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism" as much as anyone.

I'd like to see someone try to define "revisionist" by describing the actual political ideas they're talking about. But I never have. It seems to be just a general curse-word and insult to be used against all political opponents.

As in this case:

Among the most common lines of attack are the following: "genuine" socialism never came into existence; if socialism ever existed, it was afflicted with or distorted by the "curse" of "Stalinism", which could never be exorcised by his anti-Stalin successors and therefore Stalin was responsible even for the anti-Stalin regimes after his death; and socialism existed up to 1989 or 1991 and was never overpowered by modern revisionism before then or that modern revisionism never existed and it was an irremediably "flawed" socialism that fell in 1989-1991.

These are pretty much all the different ideas out there on the history of the USSR! Except of course for the "correct line" held by Liwanag himself.

So Liwanag puts everyone who disagrees with him into a bag together and calls them "revisionist". No single analysis can apply to all one's opponents; so this is not an analysis but rather an excommunication.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Off the strictest definitions I would think we are all revisionists. Eithere we are, or we are orthodox. The revisionist/neo-marxist movement may have some negatiive conotations attatched, but essentially it is a necessary stance for a Marxist to maintain relevance.

Of course much depends on how you view Marx's work, but it is unMarxist in my oppinion not to be a revisionist to some extent.

[red_che]

And the people who most frequently use this term "revisionist" practice the "systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism" as much as anyone.

I'd like to see someone try to define "revisionist" by describing the actual political ideas they're talking about. But I never have. It seems to be just a general curse-word and insult to be used against all political opponents.

Who are revisionists then? Chairman Armando Liwanag defined revisionism based on Mao's and Lenin's same definition and, in fact, agreed by many communist parties all over the world in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations.

How about you present your own definition of revisionism, Severian?


As in this case:

QUOTE
Among the most common lines of attack are the following: "genuine" socialism never came into existence; if socialism ever existed, it was afflicted with or distorted by the "curse" of "Stalinism", which could never be exorcised by his anti-Stalin successors and therefore Stalin was responsible even for the anti-Stalin regimes after his death; and socialism existed up to 1989 or 1991 and was never overpowered by modern revisionism before then or that modern revisionism never existed and it was an irremediably "flawed" socialism that fell in 1989-1991.



These are pretty much all the different ideas out there on the history of the USSR! Except of course for the "correct line" held by Liwanag himself.

So Liwanag puts everyone who disagrees with him into a bag together and calls them "revisionist". No single analysis can apply to all one's opponents; so this is not an analysis but rather an excommunication.

Same argument by those who cannot present an argument against the definition and practice of revisionism. No solid argument.



Of course much depends on how you view Marx's work, but it is unMarxist in my oppinion not to be a revisionist to some extent.

Can you elaborate this further, please, hegemonicretribution?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:35 PM
How about you present your own definition of revisionism, Severian?
I did. It's meaningless.

On the other hand, I found the original "official Marxist-Leninist" definition of modern revisionism, in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas: (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-19)


Early in 1957, the Soviet ideologist Boris Ponomarev defined the seven sins of Revisionism in terms which illustrate this double purpose: (1) minimization of im-
perialist aggression; (2) denial of CPSU leadership; (3) rejection of class struggle and collaborationism between classes; (4) social-democratism; (5) denial of Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat; (6) rejection of a centralized, disciplined Party; and (7) adoption of national Communism (Brzezinski [1962], p. 305)

Clearly most of those labelled "revisionist" do not hold all or even most of these ideas.

The dictionary goes on to summarize some well-known history:

In the antirevisionist campaign which followed (and which involved the execution of Imre Nagy and his associates), the Chinese took the lead; and within the next two years their attacks on “modern revisionism” began to be aimed at the Soviet Union rather than the Yugoslavs. The main Chinese argument in support
of their accusation has been that the Soviet leaders have compromised with imperialism. In 1968 a Soviet spokesman, prompted by the Maoist inspiration of
some of the French student rebels of May 1968, referred to the struggle against the revision of Marxism-Leninism both from the Left and from the Right
(Pravda, 19 June 1968), and the term “left revisionism” has appeared since on occasion (see, e.g., Chesnokov [1968], p. 3). Like medieval schismatics, each side has called the other heretic, using the terms appropriate to convey odium theologicum in a secular movement.

Everyone claiming to be Marxist can be and has been labelled "revisionist" by somebody.

[red_che]

Originally posted by Severian+Nov 6 2005, 06:37 AM--> (Severian @ Nov 6 2005, 06:37 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 11:35 PM
How about you present your own definition of revisionism, Severian?
I did. It's meaningless.

On the other hand, I found the original "official Marxist-Leninist" definition of modern revisionism, in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas: (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-19)


Early in 1957, the Soviet ideologist Boris Ponomarev defined the seven sins of Revisionism in terms which illustrate this double purpose: (1) minimization of im-
perialist aggression; (2) denial of CPSU leadership; (3) rejection of class struggle and collaborationism between classes; (4) social-democratism; (5) denial of Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat; (6) rejection of a centralized, disciplined Party; and (7) adoption of national Communism (Brzezinski [1962], p. 305)

Clearly most of those labelled "revisionist" do not hold all or even most of these ideas.

The dictionary goes on to summarize some well-known history:

In the antirevisionist campaign which followed (and which involved the execution of Imre Nagy and his associates), the Chinese took the lead; and within the next two years their attacks on “modern revisionism” began to be aimed at the Soviet Union rather than the Yugoslavs. The main Chinese argument in support
of their accusation has been that the Soviet leaders have compromised with imperialism. In 1968 a Soviet spokesman, prompted by the Maoist inspiration of
some of the French student rebels of May 1968, referred to the struggle against the revision of Marxism-Leninism both from the Left and from the Right
(Pravda, 19 June 1968), and the term “left revisionism” has appeared since on occasion (see, e.g., Chesnokov [1968], p. 3). Like medieval schismatics, each side has called the other heretic, using the terms appropriate to convey odium theologicum in a secular movement.

Everyone claiming to be Marxist can be and has been labelled "revisionist" by somebody. [/b]
The definition of revisionism you've found is but a small particular portion only of what is meant by Chairman Liwanag. While those enumerated maybe considered a revisionist line, it is quite not accurate. Liwanag said that revisionism is the systematic revision of and deviation from the basic principles of Marxism. When the basic principles of Marxism was changed it is revisionism, that is clear. While Marxism continues to develop its theory, its basic principles remain to be as valid today as it was before Lenin and would continue until communism is reached. And same is true with the contirbutions given by Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

The problem with revisionists is that, they deviated from the basic principles of Marxism and yet continue to masquerade as Marxists and criticizes those who have contributed in the advancement of Marxism such as Stalin and Mao, and utilizes some mistakes made by these two great thinkers in destroying all of their contributions to the advancement of the socialist revolution.

What makes things more obscure is that revisionists claim themselves to be Marxist and uttering Marxist lines, but gave their Marxist-Leninist lines, were merely paying lip service to Marxism and were using it against Marxism itself and the other great thinkers and leaders of the communist movement.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 10:57 AM


The definition I used s a personal, all encompassing one. That is non-orthodox Marxists; those that have contributed to or altered the deviated from teachings of Marx in any way.


The problem with revisionists is that, they deviated from the basic principles of Marxism and yet continue to masquerade as Marxists and criticizes those who have contributed in the advancement of Marxism such as Stalin and Mao

It depends what you term basc principles. Deviation from the most basic principles is in effect deviation from Marxism I agree. Again what are the basic principles, your oppinion or someone elses?


What makes things more obscure is that revisionists claim themselves to be Marxist and uttering Marxist lines, but gave their Marxist-Leninist lines, were merely paying lip service to Marxism and were using it against Marxism itself and the other great thinkers and leaders of the communist movement.

This is another issue, but I would say that Marxist-Leninism is definately revisionist, perhaps in both senses.

[redstar2000]

Rare as it is for me to find myself in agreement with Severian, I think he's entirely correct in this matter.

Revisionism did have a clear and unambiguous meaning back in the early years of the 20th century: it referred to those who "revised" Marx to eliminate all of the revolutionary aspects of his ideas.

But since Lenin's day, the word "revisionism" has simply degenerated into a theological term of abuse that modern Leninists fling at one another to gain factional "advantage".

Asking "who is a revisionist" now simply means "who is a heretic".

Or, more precisely, who can plausibly be painted as a heretic.

It is, after all, far easier to say you're nothing but a fucking revisionist than to actually give critical attention to the views of those with whom you disagree.

It also seems to me that Chairman Armando Liwanag would be well advised to pay a good deal more attention to the struggle against U.S. imperialism and its quisling regimes in the Philippines than to obscure theological quarrels between the followers of this or that "great leader".

You know...priorities.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

It also seems to me that Chairman Armando Liwanag would be well advised to pay a good deal more attention to the struggle against U.S. imperialism and its quisling regimes in the Philippines than to obscure theological quarrels between the followers of this or that "great leader".

Well, this is his contribution to the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations and a part of his Internationalist responsibility, as a communist, to contribute in the struggle against revisionimsm that is widespread today. Don't dare tell him what to prioritize 'cause he knows what is important more than you think what it is.


Revisionism did have a clear and unambiguous meaning back in the early years of the 20th century: it referred to those who "revised" Marx to eliminate all of the revolutionary aspects of his ideas.

But since Lenin's day, the word "revisionism" has simply degenerated into a theological term of abuse that modern Leninists fling at one another to gain factional "advantage".

During Marx's time, he was in struggle against the classical revisionists (the social democrats, people like Proudhon, Plekhanov, Kautsky, Bakunin, and their contemporaries). However, when the first socialist society was established in Russia in the 20th century, revisionism took on a new form because the revisionists wetre within the party itself and corroding it from within. When Stalin died, they became bolder in more aggressive in attacking Marxism-Leninism until the open deviation of the USSR to socialism and its eventual collapse in early 90s. After which, it was followed by the other revisionists and capitalist-roaders in the former socialist countries.


The definition I used s a personal, all encompassing one. That is non-orthodox Marxists; those that have contributed to or altered the deviated from teachings of Marx in any way.

Those that have altered or deviated Marxism are revisionists, of course, like Trotsky who denies one country its socialist development unless all or majority of the countries are liberated first. This is really a deviation and an alteration of the basic principles of Marxism. But those who contiributed in its development are not revisionists. They simply added new developments, such as Lenin's theory on Imperialism, it altered nothing on Marx's analysis of the political economy of Capitlism, it in fact strengthened Marx's thesis of Capitlism's parasitism and is doomed to decay and would be replaced by socialism.

[celticfire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:04 PM
Rare as it is for me to find myself in agreement with Severian, I think he's entirely correct in this matter.

Revisionism did have a clear and unambiguous meaning back in the early years of the 20th century: it referred to those who "revised" Marx to eliminate all of the revolutionary aspects of his ideas.

But since Lenin's day, the word "revisionism" has simply degenerated into a theological term of abuse that modern Leninists fling at one another to gain factional "advantage".

Asking "who is a revisionist" now simply means "who is a heretic".

Or, more precisely, who can plausibly be painted as a heretic.

It is, after all, far easier to say you're nothing but a fucking revisionist than to actually give critical attention to the views of those with whom you disagree.

It also seems to me that Chairman Armando Liwanag would be well advised to pay a good deal more attention to the struggle against U.S. imperialism and its quisling regimes in the Philippines than to obscure theological quarrels between the followers of this or that "great leader".

You know...priorities.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Okay, priorities. While I was helping with WCW I was verbally assaulted by anarchists who resfused to go to the protests because Maoist-communists were involved. Then they got on the local IMC and started bashing and starting rumors about me. Their common argument: "you're just another fucking vanguard Leninist!"

By your logic redstar, they are using the same tactic! They have yet to come at me with legitimate arguments, rather they throw "insults" like the one above.
But you don't COMPLAIN about them, do you? Even though they were driving - or attempt to drive people away from protesting Bush.

That seems awfully hypocritical to attack communists for adjectives like "revisionist" when the flipside to that is "Leninist!"

I don't like arguments like that, but it is entirely HYPOCRITICAL of you to accuse Leninists alone of this tactic.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:10 AM
Of course much depends on how you view Marx's work, but it is unMarxist in my oppinion not to be a revisionist to some extent.
I fully agree. Marxism should be a "living doctrine" that constantly changes and adapts to reflect reality. Once the core principles remain unchanged of course. Personally I've always thought that Marx would be insulted if he could see how codified and dogmatic Marxism had become.

While a great deal of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of those bureaucrats who first developed Marxist-Leninism, people have always found it easier to simply follow than think for themselves.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:39 AM

Okay, priorities. While I was helping with WCW I was verbally assaulted by anarchists who resfused to go to the protests because Maoist-communists were involved. Then they got on the local IMC and started bashing and starting rumors about me. Their common argument: "you're just another fucking vanguard Leninist!"

By your logic redstar, they are using the same tactic! They have yet to come at me with legitimate arguments, rather they throw "insults" like the one above.
But you don't COMPLAIN about them, do you? Even though they were driving - or attempt to drive people away from protesting Bush.

That seems awfully hypocritical to attack communists for adjectives like "revisionist" when the flipside to that is "Leninist!"

I don't like arguments like that, but it is entirely HYPOCRITICAL of you to accuse Leninists alone of this tactic.
umm...but they are Leninists/Maoists and they are a "vanguard" party. It's not like the label "revisionists" which people would deny and be insulted by. It's the truth!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Don't dare tell him what to prioritize 'cause he knows what is important more than you think what it is.[/b]

Whoops! A mere mortal "dared" to criticize an aspiring Maoist "great leader".

Oh dear! :o

You know that your response perfectly illustrates the problem of Maoism in the "west". You seek to recruit us to your particular version of Leninism on the grounds that it's "more revolutionary" than "all the old crap" (social democracy, Trotskyism, revisionism, etc.).

And yet you can't restrain yourself from that standard Leninist reflex: the great leader has spoken; flop on your belly and worship him!

And woe be unto those who do otherwise...especially those like me who "don't show proper respect" to your new Authority.

Why, we "must be revisionists"!


Those that have altered or deviated Marxism are revisionists, of course, like Trotsky who denies one country its socialist development unless all or majority of the countries are liberated first. This is really a deviation and an alteration of the basic principles of Marxism. But those who contributed in its development are not revisionists. They simply added new developments, such as Lenin's theory on Imperialism, it altered nothing on Marx's analysis of the political economy of Capitalism, it in fact strengthened Marx's thesis of Capitalism's parasitism and is doomed to decay and would be replaced by socialism.

Obviously subjective! The Leninists whom you agree with "developed Marxism" while the ones you disagree with are "revisionists".

As a matter of fact, it was V.I. Lenin himself who revised Marx by claiming that "socialist revolution" could take place in proto-capitalist or even pre-capitalist countries.

Thanks to Lenin, many people to this day think that the old USSR or the Mao-era PRC were "Marxist" regimes...a source of endless confusion.

Confusion that you are obviously a victim of yourself.


celticfire
Okay, priorities. While I was helping with WCW, I was verbally assaulted by anarchists who refused to go to the protests because Maoist-communists were involved. Then they got on the local IMC and started bashing and starting rumors about me. Their common argument: "you're just another fucking vanguard Leninist!"

I do not dispute your observation. Young anarchists tend to be very intolerant of all forms of Leninism. In the U.S., they particularly resent the Maoists who are in or associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party.

I think there are two obvious reasons for that. Firstly, the RCP is virtually the only publicly active Leninist formation in the United States.

In other words, the RCP competes with the anarchists for the attentions of the discontented.

Secondly, of course, is the personality cult surrounding the RCP's Chairman, Bob Avakian. Even people who are not in any reasonable sense "anarchists" nevertheless find this cult simply disgusting.

I've seen threads on some IndyMedia sites where the RCP actually had something interesting and relevant to say...only to have their points completely lost in a barrage of anti-Avakian rhetoric. Hell, even I was accused of being an "Avakianite dupe" once! :o

Neither you nor I nor anyone else is under any obligation to accept rhetorical abuse from anyone as a "substitute" for political discussion.

People whose response to political discussion is simple abuse are no longer worthy of your attention and should just be dismissed with contempt.

Over time, I think you will discover people who will engage in a serious way with your Leninist "sympathies" -- some "left communists" like myself and even some serious anarchists as well.

As you know from the threads I have participated in on the Another World Is Possible board, I am willing to argue in a serious way and at considerable length with Avakian's ideas.

I think the younger people in the RCP and especially the RCYB are sincere in their revolutionary aspirations...and frankly, I would like very much to "win them all back to Marx".

After all, I remember what young Leninist-Maoists were like back in the 60s and 70s. For all their ideological errors, they really tried to fight the despotism of capital.

Just as young anarchists today do!

That consideration weighs heavily with me and how I personally evaluate various trends and groups in and even outside the "left"...and what my attitude towards them might be.

It's why I have little time for nearly all of the "professional left"...they seem to me to be little more than opportunistic careerists seeking paid positions as "loyalist critics" of the prevailing social order.

I have different priorities and I think you do as well. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cph_shawarma]

Those that have altered or deviated Marxism are revisionists, of course, like Trotsky who denies one country its socialist development unless all or majority of the countries are liberated first.
Like Lenin, then, who disposed of the entire party theory of Marx and replaced it with his own? Or Mao who even changed positions from industrial proletariat to rural peasants? You can't even have read a word of Marx.

[Led Zeppelin]

As a matter of fact, it was V.I. Lenin himself who revised Marx by claiming that "socialist revolution" could take place in proto-capitalist or even pre-capitalist countries.

"It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated “stages” which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope. The same is demanded of revolutionary policy at critical moments. It may be said that the first distinction between a revolutionist and a vulgar evolutionist lies in the capacity to recognize and exploit such moments.

Marx”s breakdown of the development of industry into handicraft, manufacture and factory is part of the A.B.C. of political economy, or more precisely, of historico-economic theory. In Russia, however, the factory came by skipping over the epoch of manufacture and of urban handicrafts. This is already among the syllables of history. An analogous process took place in our country in class relationships and in politics. The modern history of Russia cannot be comprehended unless the Marxist schema of the three stages is known: handicraft, manufacture, factory. But if one knows only this, one still comprehends nothing. For the fact is that the history of Russia—Stalin should not take this personally—skipped a few stages. The theoretical distinction of the stages, however, is necessary for Russia, too, otherwise one can comprehend neither what this leap amounted to nor what its consequences were." Trotsky

[red_che]

QUOTE (red_che)
Don't dare tell him what to prioritize 'cause he knows what is important more than you think what it is.



Whoops! A mere mortal "dared" to criticize an aspiring Maoist "great leader".

Oh dear!

You know that your response perfectly illustrates the problem of Maoism in the "west". You seek to recruit us to your particular version of Leninism on the grounds that it's "more revolutionary" than "all the old crap" (social democracy, Trotskyism, revisionism, etc.).

And yet you can't restrain yourself from that standard Leninist reflex: the great leader has spoken; flop on your belly and worship him!

And woe be unto those who do otherwise...especially those like me who "don't show proper respect" to your new Authority.

I'd rather listen to him because he is doing a great job at leading an entire revolutionary movement in the Philippines than to you (redstar2000) who haven't proven anything. Oh, and by the way, I am not recruiting you to be a Maoist, I am not interested to you anyway. :)


Obviously subjective! The Leninists whom you agree with "developed Marxism" while the ones you disagree with are "revisionists".

As a matter of fact, it was V.I. Lenin himself who revised Marx by claiming that "socialist revolution" could take place in proto-capitalist or even pre-capitalist countries.

Thanks to Lenin, many people to this day think that the old USSR or the Mao-era PRC were "Marxist" regimes...a source of endless confusion.

Confusion that you are obviously a victim of yourself.

Of course I agree with Leninism than those other so-called "new thread" in Marxism. I agree with Leninism not because I disgaree with others, It's because Lenin's thought follow strictly Marxism and, as I have said numerous times, it developed Marxism and adapted it to Russia's concrete conditions at the time. Now, it was Leninism who advanced Russia's condition at the time and made great leaps and bounds in their economy than any other country had. It is not subjective as facts prove it. And what have you proven at this time, huh?! :!:

And please, refute it by way of giving sound arguments, not by merely cheap character attacks.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:57 PM

Those that have altered or deviated Marxism are revisionists, of course, like Trotsky who denies one country its socialist development unless all or majority of the countries are liberated first.
Like Lenin, then, who disposed of the entire party theory of Marx and replaced it with his own? Or Mao who even changed positions from industrial proletariat to rural peasants? You can't even have read a word of Marx.
Elaborate, don't just accuse.

[redstar2000]

It's because Lenin's thought followed strictly Marxism...

No, it did nothing of the sort.

But I frankly despair of communicating this to you...I have posted dozens of collections of my posts on the gross contradictions between Marxism and Leninism at my site and can only wish that you would read one or two of them.

I don't think you will. :(

In your eyes, I am a "hopeless heretic" and "confirmed in sin". I have rejected LENIN -- "the Messiah" -- and "deserve" whatever bad things might happen to me...like dying in complete political obscurity perhaps.

I can no more "refute" your political faith than I could "convert" a Southern Baptist into a militant atheist.

But there is still a little hope. It may well be that political experience may accomplish what my words cannot. You may sign up with some Leninist party and find out for yourself "what it's really like".

When you actually encounter the elitism, the arrogance of the party leadership, the complete sterility of internal party "discussion", the cynical and manipulative attitudes towards the working class, being treated even worse than a worker at McDonald's or some other really shitty employer...when you go through this yourself, I hope that you'll remember what I've said here.

The death of Leninism is a crucial prerequisite for the rebirth of Marxism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Invader Zim]

The death of Leninism is a crucial prerequisite for the rebirth of Marxism.

It is rather rare, (not as rare as it once was) but I find my self in complete agreement with Redstar. Leninism is a parasite sucking the life blood from radical leftwing ideologies across the board. While the image and existance of leninism remains we can never hope to be taken seriously, by anybody, because Leninism is tried and failed. Quite why people insist on flogging a dead horse is beyond logical understanding.

[More Fire for the People]

I would say that those that are revisionists are the ones that let elements of anarchism and petty-bourgeois ideas creep into our respective ideologies.

An example of which would be so-called “left-communism”. Left-communism is inheritly an anti-Marxist movement as it opposes the Marxist concept of a centralised state that represents the proletariat. It is inspire by the anarchist concept of opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat — or closing one’s eyes to obvious facts!

Left-communists don’t go so far as opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat but asserting that it is really just “a confederation of workers’ councils”. With this concept the left-communists poison the communist movment with rampant idealism and destruction of a concrete communist movement.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 9 2005, 07:33 PM
I would say that those that are revisionists are the ones that let elements of anarchism and petty-bourgeois ideas creep into our respective ideologies.

An example of which would be so-called “left-communism”. Left-communism is inheritly an anti-Marxist movement as it opposes the Marxist concept of a centralised state that represents the proletariat. It is inspire by the anarchist concept of opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat — or closing one’s eyes to obvious facts!

Left-communists don’t go so far as opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat but asserting that it is really just “a confederation of workers’ councils”. With this concept the left-communists poison the communist movment with rampant idealism and destruction of a concrete communist movement.
Engels said that the first example of the dicatorship of the proletariat was the Paris Commune; you may notice it has nothing to do with "leninism"

[Scars]

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 10 2005, 04:15 AM--> (JKP @ Nov 10 2005, 04:15 AM)
Diego [email protected] 9 2005, 07:33 PM
I would say that those that are revisionists are the ones that let elements of anarchism and petty-bourgeois ideas creep into our respective ideologies.

An example of which would be so-called “left-communism”. Left-communism is inheritly an anti-Marxist movement as it opposes the Marxist concept of a centralised state that represents the proletariat. It is inspire by the anarchist concept of opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat — or closing one’s eyes to obvious facts!

Left-communists don’t go so far as opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat but asserting that it is really just “a confederation of workers’ councils”. With this concept the left-communists poison the communist movment with rampant idealism and destruction of a concrete communist movement.
Engels said that the first example of the dicatorship of the proletariat was the Paris Commune; you may notice it has nothing to do with "leninism" [/b]
To quote Marx:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

I wish that people would look past 'Left communism: an infantile disorder', which is a long diatribe designed to attack those who opposed Lenin's vision for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In fact, Left Communism more closely resembles the works of Marx and Engels than Leninism does.

[red_che]

No, it did nothing of the sort.

But I frankly despair of communicating this to you...I have posted dozens of collections of my posts on the gross contradictions between Marxism and Leninism at my site and can only wish that you would read one or two of them.

I don't think you will.


.......?



In your eyes, I am a "hopeless heretic" and "confirmed in sin".


Hoping you really are.



But there is still a little hope. It may well be that political experience may accomplish what my words cannot. .

Is there really one?


You may sign up with some Leninist party and find out for yourself "what it's really like".

When you actually encounter the elitism, the arrogance of the party leadership, the complete sterility of internal party "discussion", the cynical and manipulative attitudes towards the working class, being treated even worse than a worker at McDonald's or some other really shitty employer...when you go through this yourself, I hope that you'll remember what I've said here.


Actually, I did and still am for a considerable time now, and I've found out that Leninists really are the true advocates of Marxism. And frankly, I saw into your posts your arrogance.



I have posted dozens of collections of my posts on the gross contradictions between Marxism and Leninism at my site and can only wish that you would read one or two of them.


Nothing in your articles in your site attract a bit of my attention.




Engels said that the first example of the dicatorship of the proletariat was the Paris Commune; you may notice it has nothing to do with "leninism"


It's simply because Lenin wasn't maybe even born yet at that time. :)



The death of Leninism is a crucial prerequisite for the rebirth of Marxism.


Subjective, accusive and doesn't make any sense at all. Tell me why is this so...



I would say that those that are revisionists are the ones that let elements of anarchism and petty-bourgeois ideas creep into our respective ideologies.

An example of which would be so-called “left-communism”. Left-communism is inheritly an anti-Marxist movement as it opposes the Marxist concept of a centralised state that represents the proletariat. It is inspire by the anarchist concept of opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat — or closing one’s eyes to obvious facts!

Left-communists don’t go so far as opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat but asserting that it is really just “a confederation of workers’ councils”. With this concept the left-communists poison the communist movment with rampant idealism and destruction of a concrete communist movement.


I fully agree. :marx: :engles:



I wish that people would look past 'Left communism: an infantile disorder', which is a long diatribe designed to attack those who opposed Lenin's vision for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In fact, Left Communism more closely resembles the works of Marx and Engels than Leninism does.


Really? Haven't seen one, though.

[Led Zeppelin]

Leninism is tried and failed

Tell me, when did a state which adhered to Leninism fail?

Are you implying that the USSR was a state adhering to Leninism? If so, you obviously have no clue what Leninism is.

If not, then you are probably repeating something you're history teacher told you.

[black magick hustla]

I like how some leninists here think that "anarchistic tendencies" are "reformist" :lol:

maybe we should talk about how rosa luxembourg was a counter revolutionaire.....

damn left communists and their bourgeosie philosophy :angry:

[Hiero]

I think some people are confused about the term revisionism and orthordox Marxist.

A Orthodox Marxist doesn't view Marxism as a science to be used to understand the world, but as the the actual words of Marx.

A revisionist is someone who downplays Marxists main theory of class war and dictatorship of the proletariat. They propose class colobaration, open markets etc.

A Marxist is someone who applies the theory to society and conclude that class war only finishes with Communism.

So a revisionist is not a Marxist, a revisionist isn't just some one who is not orthodox.



I'd like to see someone try to define "revisionist" by describing the actual political ideas they're talking about. But I never have. It seems to be just a general curse-word and insult to be used against all political opponents.


But since Lenin's day, the word "revisionism" has simply degenerated into a theological term of abuse that modern Leninists fling at one another to gain factional "advantage".


These are both absurd. The revisionist were clearly explained in many of the works writen against the revisionist. I have posted one in theory, which no one commented on, which explained the revisionist line in regards to art. It clearly labels what the revisionist line is regarding art.

I doubt both of you have read any work that was an attack against the revisionists.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/.../1969/04/01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1969/04/01.htm)

He is one a good read from Comrade Lin Biao.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 12:36 PM

Leninism is tried and failed

Tell me, when did a state which adhered to Leninism fail?

Are you implying that the USSR was a state adhering to Leninism? If so, you obviously have no clue what Leninism is.

If not, then you are probably repeating something you're history teacher told you.
History teacher? Ha sorry to disappoint but I am a History student at university, what I know is from my own research, something you should try instead of repeating tired rhetoric parroted from the internet.

The USSR failed from its conception, in a marxist 'state' leadership can not be held by one man, benevolent or not.

The resulting fiasco, like it or not, is a result of an inept collection of theories put into practise.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ha sorry to disappoint but I am a History student at university, what I know is from my own research, something you should try instead of repeating tired rhetoric parroted from the internet.


Getting info off of the internet is also "my own research", I don't know if you've noticed, but they have books and articles on the net. :o


The USSR failed from its conception, in a marxist 'state' leadership can not be held by one man, benevolent or not.

The resulting fiasco, like it or not, is a result of an inept collection of theories put into practise.

That is not a Marxist analysis of history, more like a "history channel" one.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Diego Armando
Left-communism is inherently an anti-Marxist movement as it opposes the Marxist concept of a centralised state that represents the proletariat.

Both Marx and Engels said it in plain words. The Paris Commune was an example of what they meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Your own terminology gives you away. It is not a matter of a state that "represents the proletariat" but rather a state in which the proletariat runs the show!

Understand?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeOm]

The Commune was gloriously democratic but crucially indecisive. The Bolsheviks on the other hand had their "democratic centralism" but possessed the iron discipline necessary to complete the revolution. Both were failed revolutions, both occurred when the material conditions were not yet perfect (and in Russia barely existed) and both failed for the opposite reasons. Funny really.

Its not easy to imagine a democratic Bolshevik revolution. But what if the Commune had possessed the discipline of their Russian successors? Perhaps Marx would have seen socialism in his lifetime. I’m usually not one to let quotes doing the talking for me but Trotsky did sum it up when he said:

The proletariat of Paris did not have such a party. The bourgeois socialists with whom the Commune swarmed, raised their eyes to heaven, waited for a miracle or else a prophetic word, hesitated, and during that time the masses groped about and lost their heads because of the indecision of some and the fantasy of others. The result was that the revolution broke out in their midst, too late, and Paris was encircled. Six months elapsed before the proletariat had reestablished in its memory the lessons of past revolutions, of battles of yore, of the reiterated betrayals of democracy - and it seized power.

These six months proved to be an irreparable loss. If the centralized party of revolutionary action had been found at the head of the proletariat of France in September 1870, the whole history of France and with it the whole history of humanity would have taken another direction.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:27 AM
The Commune was gloriously democratic but crucially indecisive. The Bolsheviks on the other hand had their "democratic centralism" but possessed the iron discipline necessary to complete the revolution. Both were failed revolutions, both occurred when the material conditions were not yet perfect (and in Russia barely existed) and both failed for the opposite reasons. Funny really.

Its not easy to imagine a democratic Bolshevik revolution. But what if the Commune had possessed the discipline of their Russian successors? Perhaps Marx would have seen socialism in his lifetime. I’m usually not one to let quotes doing the talking for me but Trotsky did sum it up when he said:

The proletariat of Paris did not have such a party. The bourgeois socialists with whom the Commune swarmed, raised their eyes to heaven, waited for a miracle or else a prophetic word, hesitated, and during that time the masses groped about and lost their heads because of the indecision of some and the fantasy of others. The result was that the revolution broke out in their midst, too late, and Paris was encircled. Six months elapsed before the proletariat had reestablished in its memory the lessons of past revolutions, of battles of yore, of the reiterated betrayals of democracy - and it seized power.

These six months proved to be an irreparable loss. If the centralized party of revolutionary action had been found at the head of the proletariat of France in September 1870, the whole history of France and with it the whole history of humanity would have taken another direction.
Then it would of taken a Leninist direction, which is to say it would of resulted in something other than the "dictator ship of the proleteriat"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Trotsky
If the centralized party of revolutionary action had been found at the head of the proletariat of France in September 1870, the whole history of France and with it the whole history of humanity would have taken another direction.

Boilerplate Leninism.

All failed revolutions have one explanation.

Either a "Leninist vanguard" did not exist or, if one did, then it "wasn't really Leninist", or, if it was, then it "degenerated" and was taken over by "bourgeois elements".

The PARTY is the "motor force of history" and nothing else really counts for anything at all.

That those folks still call themselves "Marxist" would simply outrage Marx himself.

How do they dare to brazenly substitute their own self-appointed elites for the revolutionary masses???

And how is it that they are still "getting away with it"? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:38 PM

Then it would of taken a Leninist direction, which is to say it would of resulted in something other than the "dictator ship of the proleteriat"
My mistake. This must be catchphrase day where every post must include "dictatorship of the proletariat". Let’s try this… if the Commune was in fact a fully functioning, all singing and dancing, dictatorship of the proletariat then why did it fail? The commune erred on a number of issues and proved to be highly indecisive. Given the determination of its population and their situation in Paris its survival was possible. But the French government had both time and, thanks to the refusal of the Communards to seize the banks, money to raise an army and crush the Commune.

And the solution was not better organisation or discipline because that's what Lenin did? Looks like the Communards were in a no-win situation there. Poor bastards.


Boilerplate Leninism.

All failed revolutions have one explanation.

Either a "Leninist vanguard" did not exist or, if one did, then it "wasn't really Leninist", or, if it was, then it "degenerated" and was taken over by "bourgeois elements".

The PARTY is the "motor force of history" and nothing else really counts for anything at all.

That those folks still call themselves "Marxist" would simple outrage Marx himself.

How do they dare to brazenly substitute their own self-appointed elites for the revolutionary masses???

And how is it that they are still "getting away with it"?
I’ll tell you what redstar, let’s leave aside claims of "bourgeois elements" or "Leninist nonsense" for a minute. No doubt it’s a shortcoming but my first reaction when looking at a problem is to examine the actual, physical, reasons for something before trying to figure out the theoretical Marxist reason.

Now why did the Commune fail? As I’ve mentioned I see nothing wrong with Trotsky’s conclusion that it was indecisiveness and, dare I say it, a lack of leadership that doomed the Commune. It did not capitalise on its situation and so it failed the first test of any revolution. I’ve suggested that the Communards would’ve benefited from something approaching the Bolshevik discipline, without compromising their democratic ideals.

[JKP]

Don't change the subject. The point isn't whether or not the commune failed, the point is that Leninism is profoundly in contradiction with Marx.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:56 PM
Don't change the subject. The point isn't whether or not the commune failed, the point is that Leninism is profoundly in contradiction with Marx.
The subject was the dictatorship of the proletariat and what form that took. Of course that’s some distance from the original topic but that’s the nature of these threads and I didn’t bring the Commune into this. If you present an example its understood that you can at least defend it.

As for Lenin being revisionist I do find that hard to see. He certainly tabled new theories but I see that as desirable. If there's one thing I would've thought we learned from the USSR it was the foolishness of creating a dogma to which nothing may be added. Of course that’s probably because I’m a Leninist and therefore blinded by the glorious nature of [Insert Tyrant Here], no?

Leninism does not replace one iota Marxism, it complements the original ideology. Lenin developed his ideas after observing the impossibility of implementing "traditional" Marxist methods in Russia. Marx paid scant attention to these undeveloped nations. Does typical Bolshevik vanguardism work with a developed proletariat? Of course not. Does it need to? No, if Marx is right they are capable of leading themselves. That’s not to say that a bit of focus wouldn’t go amiss of course, see the Commune.

Other aspects of Lenin's work (thinking of imperialism here) have proven to be very useful in explaining the world today and how to change it.

[вор в законе]

Lenin was correct to create a centralised state in Russia and it was a wise thing to do at the time.

As for the comparison between the Paris Commune and ''Leninism'', Marx's view was that the Parisians lost too much time with their democratic procedures and that they should have instead marched straight to Marseille. They didn't and as a result the revolution failed.

Keep in mind that Lenin acted as he thought that the Bolshevik government were temporary, a holding action until relieved by the World Revolution.

Anyhow, i believe that the only thing that we achieve by labeling each other as ''bougeoise'' or not true communists , is to further divide the proletariat and
assist the capitalists to continue their work.

[Led Zeppelin]

"ComradeOm" needs to start reading Lenin before he starts defending Leninism:

"The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness." Lenin

So basically this:

"Lenin developed his ideas after observing the impossibility of implementing "traditional" Marxist methods in Russia. Marx paid scant attention to these undeveloped nations. Does typical Bolshevik vanguardism work with a developed proletariat? Of course not. Does it need to? No, if Marx is right they are capable of leading themselves."

Is nonsense.

Oh and redstar, please respond to the Trotsky quote I posted, on the skipping of historical stages.

[More Fire for the People]

Both Marx and Engels said it in plain words. The Paris Commune was an example of what they meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Paris Commune to an extent is an ideal state but the material conditions that prevailed at the time have changed, they were changing as Marx wrote The Civil War in France. The relevancy of the Paris Commune for the modern communist movment is universal arming of the proletariat, a state composed of workers — representing the masses — who are popularly elected and recallabe at any time, and abolition of the military.

It is interesting that you say “The Paris Commune was an example of what they meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat.” You paraphrze what Engels said in the 1891 postscript. Yet, you’ve seemed to have glanced over the part of the postscript in which Engels criticizes the lack of organization amongst the Proudhounists.



Your own terminology gives you away. It is not a matter of a state that "represents the proletariat" but rather a state in which the proletariat runs the show!
A state composed of workers and represetning workers is a state where the proletariat “runs the show”.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To quote Marx:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

Uhh, that was Engels. It's from the introduction to The Civil War In France.

The book is written by Marx, but the intro by Engels.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:48 PM

To quote Marx:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

Uhh, that was Engels. It's from the introduction to The Civil War In France.

The book is written by Marx, but the intro by Engels.
Done from memory, the grammar and wordings is probably not exact either. Engels, Marx, the point still stands- Marx & Engels saw the Paris Commune as an example of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Paris Commune performed badly, I'll give you that. They were too meek, but their defeat was inevitable. An irregular citizen-army could not defeat the might of the Prussian army at that point in time, particularly with the support of the French army (what was left of it, that is). Even if they had taken the money, they still would have been crushed sooner or later.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 10 2005, 04:43 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 10 2005, 04:43 PM)
Trotsky
If the centralized party of revolutionary action had been found at the head of the proletariat of France in September 1870, the whole history of France and with it the whole history of humanity would have taken another direction.

Boilerplate Leninism.

All failed revolutions have one explanation.

Either a "Leninist vanguard" did not exist or, if one did, then it "wasn't really Leninist", or, if it was, then it "degenerated" and was taken over by "bourgeois elements".

The PARTY is the "motor force of history" and nothing else really counts for anything at all.

That those folks still call themselves "Marxist" would simple outrage Marx himself.

How do they dare to brazenly substitute their own self-appointed elites for the revolutionary masses???

And how is it that they are still "getting away with it"? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Well said. I hear that kind of "explanation" all the time for why this or that revolution failed and it's just pathetic.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 10 2005, 10:43 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 10 2005, 10:43 AM)
Trotsky
If the centralized party of revolutionary action had been found at the head of the proletariat of France in September 1870, the whole history of France and with it the whole history of humanity would have taken another direction.
All failed revolutions have one explanation.

Either a "Leninist vanguard" did not exist or, if one did, then it "wasn't really Leninist", or, if it was, then it "degenerated" and was taken over by "bourgeois elements".

[/b]
Honestly, even in your abandonment of dialectics you should be able to tell yourself from your analysis of history that this is the case in all revolutions. Did not bourgeois revolutions fail because of the introduction of feudal elements? How is it that you see the proletarian revolution as somehow special from history, that it can transcend the problems of past revolutions. I'm sorry redstar2000, but your idealism doesn’t bide well with those who under history.


The PARTY is the "motor force of history" and nothing else really counts for anything at all.
All Marxists accept the fact that all of history has been a struggle between classes. You seem to forget that all class epochs — revolutions — are spearheaded by a vanguard. The proletarian revolution was and will be the most advanced form of revolution so far as it was and is equipped with the Communist Party.


That those folks still call themselves "Marxist" would simple outrage Marx himself.
Slander.


How do they dare to brazenly substitute their own self-appointed elites for the revolutionary masses???
Marxist-Leninist do not argue the rule of an elite, but of the proletariat under a vanguard until the quantitave rule (number of representatives, elections) of the state changes the qualitative properties (the whithering away of the state) of the state.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Let’s try this… if the Commune was in fact a fully functioning, all singing and dancing, dictatorship of the proletariat then why did it fail?[/b]

It was outgunned.

That's not "hard to understand", is it?

To be sure, there are "other factors". Marx correctly criticized the communards for not seizing the gold stored in French banks. Engels correctly deplored the failure of the communards to march "at once" on Versailles and disperse the bourgeois regime that was being put together there.

Working people make mistakes. Anyone surprised by that?

But mistakes aside, not only did the communards face the hostility of the remnants of the French Army; they also faced a large undefeated German Army only 75 miles from Paris.

Still worse, the urban workers in other French cities did not rise in sympathy with Paris and the French peasantry was actively hostile to the Commune.

When Leninists assert that "things would have been different" if only "a Leninist party had been present" in Paris, they are simply blowing smoke out of their asses.

There were a whole bunch of self-described Leninist parties in France in May of 1968.

Big help, weren't they? :angry:


Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Oh and redstar, please respond to the Trotsky quote I posted, on the skipping of historical stages.[/b]

I had to look back for it, but this is what you are referring to, right?


[email protected]
It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated “stages” which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope.

"Stages" in history don't simply refer to the particular relations of production that characterize a particular form of class society.

They also refer to what it is possible to do based on the level of consciousness attained as a consequence of the technological development of the means of production.

The great German peasant rebellion of the 16th century contained "proto-communist" elements...but communism was a practical impossibility for those folks.

The same was true in France in 1789, in Germany in 1848, and so on.

But the "laws of history" appear to demand that capitalism must precede communist society.

To be fair, Trotsky didn't know what we know...though a more careful reading of Marx would have told him.

We now know what happens to "communist revolutions" in pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist countries. They don't "establish communism"; they clear the way for the emergence of modern capitalism.

Not only is there nothing "wrong" with that; it is absolutely necessary for that to happen.

What is wrong is confusing the bourgeois revolution with modern proletarian revolution.

We know now that centuries of technological, economic and cultural development separate those two stages. How many centuries is, of course, disputable.

But "skipping stages" is an idealist fantasy that has nothing in common with Marxism.


Diego Armando
A state composed of workers and representing workers is a state where the proletariat “runs the show”.

Well, you know as well as I that no Leninist state (or even party) has ever fit your own definition...even remotely.

The swollen party/government bureaucracies in Russia, China, etc. were largely composed of middle-class and even upper-class "intellectuals"...who no more "represented" the working class than Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader "represent" me!

Further, do I need to add that the whole idea of "representative government" is a bourgeois invention?

Clearly a "proletarian state" would have an entirely different character than a bourgeois state with a fresh coat of red paint.

Right???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[More Fire for the People]

Well, you know as well as I that no Leninist state (or even party) has ever fit your own definition...even remotely.
I agree to an extent but it remains that the majority of the lower bodies of political power in the Soviet Union — the soviets — were primarily workers’ organizations. Pre-Xiapong China and Pre-Kruschev Russia also saw growth of proletarian political power in the state.


The swollen party/government bureaucracies in Russia, China, etc. were largely composed of middle-class and even upper-class "intellectuals"...who no more "represented" the working class than Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader "represent" me!
The CPSU and CPC were never “swollen” nor were the governments of the Soviet Union and China a proper bureaucracy until the rise of revisionists. You are also assuming that all intellectuals are somehow petty-bourgeois. Teachers, architects, and other intellectual workers are indeed that, workers. Several clasically petty-bourgeois occupations — such as criminal case defence lawyers, professors, and technicians — take on a revolutionary and proletarian nature during a proletarian revolution.


Further, do I need to add that the whole idea of "representative government" is a bourgeois invention?
The Leninist concept of the state would not be properly a “representative government” as it would incorporate concepts of the Paris Commune, democratic centralism, and the mass line to create a new type of state — a proletarian state.

[ComradeOm]

"ComradeOm" needs to start reading Lenin before he starts defending Leninism:

"The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness." Lenin

So basically this:

"Lenin developed his ideas after observing the impossibility of implementing "traditional" Marxist methods in Russia. Marx paid scant attention to these undeveloped nations. Does typical Bolshevik vanguardism work with a developed proletariat? Of course not. Does it need to? No, if Marx is right they are capable of leading themselves."

Is nonsense.
Lenin was a product of his time and the conditions that created him. As such while perfectly correct on his reading of Russian politics those actions that he undertook to build the revolution he was the foremost authority on the working class in developed nations. Its for good reason that, after a century, Leninist parties have made little impact on the Western proletariat. Elements can of course be incorporated into Marxist mass movements in the West but to nowhere near the same effect as they have in underdeveloped nations.


It was outgunned.

That's not "hard to understand", is it?

To be sure, there are "other factors". Marx correctly criticized the communards for not seizing the gold stored in French banks. Engels correctly deplored the failure of the communards to march "at once" on Versailles and disperse the bourgeois regime that was being put together there.

Working people make mistakes. Anyone surprised by that?

But mistakes aside, not only did the communards face the hostility of the remnants of the French Army; they also faced a large undefeated German Army only 75 miles from Paris.
These mistakes cost the Commune dearly. Had they not been made then perhaps the Communards could have at least escaped such brutal reprisal. Paris had withstood the Prussians for six months and many of the Communards were deserting soldiers. Surely its clear that with a bit more direction it would have had a much better chance of surviving.


Still worse, the urban workers in other French cities did not rise in sympathy with Paris and the French peasantry was actively hostile to the Commune.

When Leninists assert that "things would have been different" if only "a Leninist party had been present" in Paris, they are simply blowing smoke out of their asses.
Whoever controls Paris controls France and whoever controls France controls Western Europe. The Parisians could’ve leveraged their position into something much more far reaching… if they’d had the correct direction of course. You can’t imagine the Communards doing much except keeping the streets clean.

And that’s the problem. Both Marx and Engels greatly admired the democratic control that the Commune gave the workers but both also lamented the indecision of the Communards. Some control over the masses must be maintained to ensure that revolution can survive in imperfect conditions.


There were a whole bunch of self-described Leninist parties in France in May of 1968.

Big help, weren't they?
Don’t get me wrong, I have little interest or respect for Western Leninist parties. But when the material conditions are not yet perfect some discipline is required.

[Led Zeppelin]

I had to look back for it, but this is what you are referring to, right?


Yes.


As such while perfectly correct on his reading of Russian politics those actions that he undertook to build the revolution he was the foremost authority on the working class in developed nations.

What does this mean?


Its for good reason that, after a century, Leninist parties have made little impact on the Western proletariat.

I can say the same about Orthodox Marxist parties, or the impact of Leninist parties on the African proletariat.

What's your point? "It didn't work for so long so it won't work at all"?


Elements can of course be incorporated into Marxist mass movements in the West but to nowhere near the same effect as they have in underdeveloped nations.


Yes, they have been more successful in underdeveloped nations, this has nothing to do with the level of class consciousness of the western proletariat though.

This has to do with Imperialism being the highest stage of Capitalism, and of Finance Capital replacing Capital.

[red_che]

There is a well-known saying that if geometrical axioms affected human interests attempts would certainly be made to refute them. Theories of natural history which conflicted with the old prejudices of theology provoked, and still provoke, the most rabid opposition. No wonder, therefore, that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serves to enlighten and organise the advanced class in modern society, indicates the tasks facing this class and demonstrates the inevitable replacement (by virtue of economic development) of the present system by a new order——no wonder that this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.
Needless to say, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, officially taught by official professors in order to befuddle the rising generation of the propertied classes and to ““coach”” it against internal and foreign enemies. This science will not even hear of Marxism, declaring that it has been refuted and annihilated. Marx is attacked with equal zest by young scholars who are making a career by refuting socialism, and by decrepit elders who are preserving the tradition of all kinds of outworn ““systems””. The progress of Marxism, the fact that its ideas are spreading and taking firm hold among the working class, inevitably increase the frequency and intensity of these bourgeois attacks on Marxism, which becomes stronger, more hardened and more vigorous every time it is ““annihilated”” by official science.
But even among doctrines connected with the struggle of the working class, and current mainly among the proletariat, Marxism by no means consolidated its position all at once. In the first half-century of its existence (from the 1840s on) Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it. In the early forties Marx and Engels settled accounts with the radical Young Hegelians whose viewpoint was that of philosophical idealism. At the end of the forties the struggle began in the field of economic doctrine, against Proudhonism. The fifties saw the completion of this struggle in criticism of the parties and doctrines which manifested themselves in the stormy year of 1848. In the sixties the struggle shifted from the field of general theory to one closer to the direct labour movement: the ejection of Bakuninism from the International. In the early seventies the stage in Germany was occupied for a short while by the Proudhonist Müühlberger, and in the late seventies by the positivist Düühring. But the influence of both on the proletariat was already absolutely insignificant. Marxism was already gaining an unquestionable victory over all other ideologies in the labour movement.
By the nineties this victory was in the main completed. Even in the Latin countries, where the traditions of Proudhonism held their ground longest of all, the workers’’ parties in effect built their programmes and their tactics on Marxist foundations. The revived international organisation of the labour movement——in the shape of periodical international congresses——from the outset, and almost without a struggle, adopted the Marxist standpoint in all essentials. But after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.
Bernstein, a one-time orthodox Marxist, gave his name to this trend by coming forward with the most noise and with the most purposeful expression of amendments to Marx, revision of Marx, revisionism. Even in Russia where——owing to the economic backwardness of the country and the preponderance of a peasant population weighed down by the relics of serfdom——non-Marxist socialism has naturally held its ground longest of all, it is plainly passing into revisionism before our very eyes. Both in the agrarian question (the programme of the municipalisation of all land) and in general questions of programme and tactics, our Social-Narodniks are more and more substituting ““amendments”” to Marx for the moribund and obsolescent remnants of their old system, which in its own way was integral and fundamentally hostile to Marxism.


Here (Marxism and Revisionism by V.I. Lenin), Lenin is identifying the trends on how Revisionism came into existence (even during Marx's time) up to his time. Here, we can see how systematic revisionism is in corroding Marxism from within. As can be seen today, many are masquerading to be Marxist while in fact, they were destroying the basic principles of Marxism.

In the ensuing paragraphs of the same pamphlet, Lenin has this to say:


Pre-Marxist socialism has been defeated. It is continuing the struggle, no longer on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism. Let us, then, examine the ideological content of revisionism.
In the sphere of philosophy revisionism followed in the wake of bourgeois professorial ““science””. The professors went ““back to Kant"——and revisionism dragged along after the neo-Kantians. The professors repeated the platitudes that priests have uttered a thousand times against philosophical materialism——and the revisionists, smiling indulgently, mumbled (word for word after the latest Handbuch) that materialism had been ““refuted”” long ago. The professors treated Hegel as a ““dead dog””,[2] and while themselves preaching idealism, only an idealism a thousand times more petty and banal than Hegel’’s, contemptuously shrugged their shoulders at dialectics——and the revisionists floundered after them into the swamp of philosophical vulgarisation of science, replacing ““artful”” (and revolutionary) dialectics by ““simple" (and tranquil) ““evolution””. The professors earned their official salaries by adjusting both their idealist and their ““critical”” systems to the dominant medieval ““philosophy”” (i.e., to theology)——and the revisionists drew close to them, trying to make religion a ““private affair””, not in relation to the modern state, but in relation to the party of the advanced class.
What such ““amendments”” to Marx really meant in class terms need not be stated: it is self-evident. We shall simply note that the only Marxist in the international Social-Democratic movement to criticise the incredible platitudes of the revisionists from the standpoint of consistent dialectical materialism was Plekhanov. This must be stressed. all the more emphatically since profoundly mistaken attempts are being made at the present time to smuggle in old and reactionary philosophical rubbish disguised as a criticism of Plekhanov’’s tactical opportunism.[1]
Passing to political economy, it must be noted first of all that in this sphere the ““amendments”” of the revisionists were much more comprehensive and circumstantial; attempts were made to influence the public by ““new data on economic development””. It was said that concentration and the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production do not occur in agriculture at all, while they proceed very slowly in commerce and industry. It was said that crises had now become rarer and weaker, and that cartels and trusts would probably enable capital to eliminate them altogether. It was said that the ““theory of collapse”” to which capitalism is heading was unsound, owing to the tendency of class antagonisms to become milder and less acute. It was said, finally, that it would not be amiss to correct Marx’’s theory of value, too, in accordance with Bööhm-Bawerk.[3]


Lenin clearly defined revisionism during his time. And it is as clear now, today, who are revisionists. They again took on another form, and much more agressive and more "wilder" today than was during Lenin's, Stalin's and Mao's times.

Mao also has this say:


It will take a long period to decide the issue in the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism in our country. The reason is that the influence of the bourgeoisie and of the intellectuals who come from the old society will remain in our country for a long time to come, and so will their class ideology. If this is not sufficiently understood, or is not understood at all, the gravest mistakes will be made and the necessity of waging the struggle in the ideological field will be ignored.


Mao concluded:


Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the differences between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line. In present circumstances, revisionism is more pernicious than dogmatism. One of our current important tasks on the ideological front is to unfold criticism of revisionism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well, you know as well as I that no Leninist state (or even party) has ever fit your own definition...even remotely.

The swollen party/government bureaucracies in Russia, China, etc. were largely composed of middle-class and even upper-class "intellectuals"...who no more "represented" the working class than Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader "represent" me!

What about Cuba, where the only way to enter the party is to be elected a model worker by your coworkers?


Further, do I need to add that the whole idea of "representative government" is a bourgeois invention?

So was industrialization.


Clearly a "proletarian state" would have an entirely different character than a bourgeois state with a fresh coat of red paint.

Right???

It seems to me that they do/have.

user posted image

[ComradeOm]

What does this mean?

My mistake, there should be a hardly in there. It should read As such while perfectly correct on his reading of Russian politics those actions that he undertook to build the revolution he was hardly the foremost authority on the working class in developed nations. In other words Lenin wrote about what he knew first hand – the condition and potential of the Russian proletariat. In much the same way Marx drew his conclusions from the more developed proletariat that he observed.


I can say the same about Orthodox Marxist parties, or the impact of Leninist parties on the African proletariat.

What's your point? "It didn't work for so long so it won't work at all"?
The vast majority of all Marxist parties since 1917 have subscribed to Leninist doctrine. Unfortunately they’ve taken all his ideas, even those more suited to underdeveloped nations, and implemented them in a rigid and unthinking manner to societies for which they were never developed.

Leninism has yet to work as it should but I'm 100% against throwing out the whole ideology. Its an integral part of Marxism but it has never achieved its potential. Its either been tried in the West (where it simply doesn't work) or been perverted in the East (Marxism-Leninism and Maoism).


Yes, they have been more successful in underdeveloped nations, this has nothing to do with the level of class consciousness of the western proletariat though.

This has to do with Imperialism being the highest stage of Capitalism, and of Finance Capital replacing Capital
I fully agree and I consider Lenin's work on imperialism to be his greatest, and most universally applicable, legacy. When the revolution comes it will start in the East. However that still doesn't excuse the complete incompetence of Western Leninist parties.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:36 AM
And yet you can't restrain yourself from that standard Leninist reflex: the great leader has spoken; flop on your belly and worship him!
It strikes me, Redstar, that you're using the word "Leninist" in the same way all of the self-proclaimed "Marxist-Leninists" use the word "revisionist": as a curse-word disconnected from any definite political definition.

At first glance, one might think Leninist refers to Lenin's politics: but as you've admitted in the past, nobody in the Bolshevik party flopped on their bellies and worshipped Lenin (while he was alive.) There was controversy and debate. As usual, you're using "Leninist" to refer to people who have nothing in common politically with Lenin, just as "revisionist" is applied to people who have nothing in common with Bernstein.

What does it mean in your mouth? Hard to say, 'cause there's no consistency. Sometimes you seem to apply it to everyone claiming to be Leninist (questionable enough). Then in this thread you refer to the RCP as the most visible Leninist group, which is not remotely true unless you are using some other definition of Leninist.

Who knows, except that Leninism is supposed to be bad?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+Nov 13 2005, 10:36 PM--> (Severian @ Nov 13 2005, 10:36 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 09:36 AM
And yet you can't restrain yourself from that standard Leninist reflex: the great leader has spoken; flop on your belly and worship him!
It strikes me, Redstar, that you're using the word "Leninist" in the same way all of the self-proclaimed "Marxist-Leninists" use the word "revisionist": as a curse-word disconnected from any definite political definition.

At first glance, one might think Leninist refers to Lenin's politics: but as you've admitted in the past, nobody in the Bolshevik party flopped on their bellies and worshipped Lenin (while he was alive.) There was controversy and debate. As usual, you're using "Leninist" to refer to people who have nothing in common politically with Lenin, just as "revisionist" is applied to people who have nothing in common with Bernstein.

What does it mean in your mouth? Hard to say, 'cause there's no consistency. Sometimes you seem to apply it to everyone claiming to be Leninist (questionable enough). Then in this thread you refer to the RCP as the most visible Leninist group, which is not remotely true unless you are using some other definition of Leninist.

Who knows, except that Leninism is supposed to be bad? [/b]
I must concede that your points (with one exception) are not without some justification.

One way that I use the word "Leninist" is in reference to a paradigm...a coherent framework of concepts actually formulated by Lenin himself and within which all the varieties of those who claim to be Leninists construct their theory and practice.

The competition between various strands within the Leninist paradigm naturally leads to some Leninists challenging the "credentials" of other Leninists. In fact, the divisions go even further. You know better than I that Leninism-Trotskyism is full of groups that say about one another "Oh, them! They're not even real Trotskyists at all!"

To any Trotskyist, Maoism is "not real Leninism" and to any Maoist, Trotskyism is "not real Leninism".

As an "outsider", it seems to me fair to consider Trotskyism and Maoism as variants of Leninism...because they both share the most basic assumptions of the Leninist paradigm.

That doesn't mean, of course, that Lenin is personally responsible for all the idiocies practiced "in his name".

Lenin himself did not think that "personality cults" were "a good thing"...and there may even be an extant text that actually dismisses the whole idea with contempt. (I have a very hazy memory of seeing something along those lines...but I can't recall the exact reference.)

But, since the days of Stalin, the appearance of "personality cults" has been highly correlated with Leninist vanguard parties...including even some Trotskyist parties, right?

You may fairly respond that "correlation" is "not cause"...and you'd be right, of course. Not every Leninist party has a "Great Leader" and there doesn't appear to be, at this point, an "iron law" that says such an outcome is "inevitable".

What Leninist parties all seem to have in common is the concept of disciplined obedience to the party leadership -- an idea that was rather clearly articulated by Lenin himself in the last years of his life.

I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that such an atmosphere is exceptionally favorable to the emergence of a personality cult around a "Great Leader".

The one point with which I must disagree is your suggestion that the RCP is "not" the most publicly visible Leninist party in the U.S. at the present time.

They do seem to be "out in the streets" much more than anyone else right now.

I note also that they "turn up" on this board and on various IndyMedia sites far more than other Leninist groups seem to.

As unfortunate as it may seem to you (or I!), that "makes an impression".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:02 AM
One way that I use the word "Leninist" is in reference to a paradigm...a coherent framework of concepts actually formulated by Lenin himself and within which all the varieties of those who claim to be Leninists construct their theory and practice.
Eh...no. There's no such paradigm used by all those claiming to be Leninist to "construct their theory and practice." You don't even try to explain what the features of this paradigm are, that is define Leninism in terms of ideas.

As I pointed out in this thread on the definition of "Stalinism", (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=08&f=6&t=41124&p=1291946565&st=)

They were defined by their allegiance to these bureaucratic regimes, and identified the interests of the world working class with the interests of the "workers' fatherland", as defined by its rulers.
....
For the apparatchik regimes in power, the "Communist Parties" were diplomatic bargaining chips in their efforts to make deals with the capitalist world. The Stalinist regimes ordered one or another policy, and developed and discarded "theories" to excuse and rationalize whatever policy fit their needs of the moment."

That's the "paradigm" used to "construct the theory and practice" of most of those claiming to be Leninist. It has nothing to do with Lenin's ideas or political practice.


But, since the days of Stalin, the appearance of "personality cults" has been highly correlated with Leninist vanguard parties...including even some Trotskyist parties, right?

It's "highly correlated" with Stalinist parties, especially the most old-fashioned type which haven't thrown Stalin and Mao themselves overboard. Which also tend to be the smaller ones, basically political sects.

It's occurred sometimes in Trotskyist parties....that's another term which does not refer to any definite set of political ideas, no matter who uses it. Occasionally, when someone applies this label to me, I ask them what they mean by it, and never get an answer.


What Leninist parties all seem to have in common is the concept of disciplined obedience to the party leadership -- an idea that was rather clearly articulated by Lenin himself in the last years of his life.

I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that such an atmosphere is exceptionally favorable to the emergence of a personality cult around a "Great Leader".

Alternately, I could suggest this is a common phenomenon in small political sects, which, as Marx pointed out, are always religious.


The one point with which I must disagree is your suggestion that the RCP is "not" the most publicly visible Leninist party in the U.S. at the present time.

They do seem to be "out in the streets" much more than anyone else right now.

Where did you get that idea? Not from your own eyes: they don't exist where you live (or many other places). Only 9 actual offices (http://rwor.org/a/online/contac_e.htm)

Not from the media. (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22revolutionary+communist+party%22&btnG=Search+News)


I note also that they "turn up" on this board and on various IndyMedia sites far more than other Leninist groups seem to.

Oh! You got that idea because they post on the internet a lot. Well, yes, they are more visible on the 'net than other groups.

Drawing conclusions about the real world based on subjective impressions picked up on the 'net is not a good idea. But you do seem to do it a lot.

Since celticfire is talking about anarchists who post on the local IMC, the RCP's net-visibility might really be one reason the RCP became their target. Then again, he gives the impression the "verbal assault" started in real life, so lemme suggest a non-web-based explanation.

The RCP is the largest national organization advocating ultraleft tactics, tactics, and red flag waving. (Though probably not ultraleft enough for many anarchists.)

That puts them in competition for resources with anarchists. They are rivals for the same ecological niche, so to speak. Appealing for the same potential recruits and so forth.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Eh...no. There's no such paradigm used by all those claiming to be Leninist to "construct their theory and practice." You don't even try to explain what the features of this paradigm are, that is define Leninism in terms of ideas.[/b]

Perhaps because I think it is already widely known.

Recently I summarized it thusly...


redstar2000
Remember that a Leninist party is supposed to be a combat organization...and combat organizations do not "discuss things" -- they carry out their orders. The "model" that Lenin was really working from in What Is To Be Done was the German General Staff...which enjoyed enormous prestige after Germany's victory over France in 1870. Lenin thought that his party should be "the general staff of the proletariat"...a highly-trained and professional officer corps of the larger revolutionary movement.

"Democratic" Centralism -- the Road to Despotism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1124636438&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

One occasionally runs into someone who will argue that all the "heirs" of Lenin "got it wrong"...distorted to an unacceptable degree the ideas of Lenin himself.

But I do not find that a credible assertion.


It's occurred sometimes in Trotskyist parties....that's another term which does not refer to any definite set of political ideas, no matter who uses it.

Indeed? I think it would be a fairly simply project to go through any issue of any publication of a Maoist party and simply substitute Trotsky's name, quotations from Trotsky, references to his works, etc. for those of Mao.

You'd end up with, more or less, the same thing...which might be unreadable, of course.

But it was unreadable in the original. :lol:


Drawing conclusions about the real world based on subjective impressions picked up on the 'net is not a good idea. But you do seem to do it a lot.

I'm an "old guy" and don't "get out much" any more...so I do indeed rely on the internet to tell me what's happening "in the real world".

It beats the hell out of the bourgeois media! :lol:


The RCP is the largest national organization advocating ultraleft tactics, tactics, and red flag waving. (Though probably not ultraleft enough for many anarchists.)

Well here you just reveal your own bias. You are known on this board for your general hostility to the "ultra-left"...no matter what forms it might take.

There's just something about "raising hell in the streets" that you dislike...and perhaps have always disliked throughout your political life.

Each of us finds -- or, if necessary, invents -- the political "style" with which we are most personally comfortable. I don't think you are very comfortable with any hint of popular insurrection.

You intellectually acknowledge the need for revolution...but you want it to take place only within the well-disciplined limits of a Leninist party with a "tested leadership".

Otherwise, it's "just ultra-left rioting" that, if anything, "helps the right wing".

Perhaps you think this is "too harsh"...but it seems to me to be an eminently fair evaluation of your whole approach to political questions.

I'll readily grant that you "do your homework"...often much more diligently than I do. You frequently provide much interesting documentation (from the internet) on various political controversies.

But it seems to me that even back in 1964 you would have been regarded as "old left"...that you seem to lack "the revolutionary imagination" (for want of a better phrase) that has characterized the more interesting political movements of our time.

Perhaps you would have felt more "at home" in the 1930s...popular rebellion in those days was "disciplined" in a way that would be widely regarded as unacceptable now.

There are "living fossils" in politics just as there are in biology...and I think you are one of them.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 14 2005, 08:01 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 14 2005, 08:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Eh...no. There's no such paradigm used by all those claiming to be Leninist to "construct their theory and practice." You don't even try to explain what the features of this paradigm are, that is define Leninism in terms of ideas.

Perhaps because I think it is already widely known.

Recently I summarized it thusly...


redstar2000
Remember that a Leninist party is supposed to be a combat organization...and combat organizations do not "discuss things" -- they carry out their orders. The "model" that Lenin was really working from in What Is To Be Done was the German General Staff...which enjoyed enormous prestige after Germany's victory over France in 1870. Lenin thought that his party should be "the general staff of the proletariat"...a highly-trained and professional officer corps of the larger revolutionary movement. [/b]
Lenin's party was not, in fact, organized along military lines.

Nor are all parties claiming to be Leninist organized in the same way.

What's more, a form of party organization is not a paradigm used to construct that party's theory and practice. You're changing the subject.

The rest of your post is so obviously an attempt to change the subject that it doesn't require a response.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Lenin's party was not, in fact, organized along military lines.

Well...yes and no. :)

Clearly there was a "gulf" between "what Lenin wanted" and what actually existed.

Lenin wanted disciplined professional revolutionaries. However, those who were attracted to his vehement opposition to Czarism were not necessarily "good soldier material".

I think the 10th Party Congress in March of 1921 marked the significant turn towards the militarization of the Bolshevik Party in practice. No doubt the decisions of the congress simply reflected what had already been going on from the "seizure of power" (coup) in October 1917.

If you consult the rules for affiliation to the 3rd International (supposedly written by Lenin himself), you'll find a heavy emphasis on iron military-like discipline.

This was made far more explicit under Stalin, of course.


Nor are all parties claiming to be Leninist organized in the same way.


Well, you know the formula ("democratic centralism") as well as I do. No doubt there are minor variations...due to both the style of the founders and the age of a particular party.

Very young Leninist parties tend to be theoretically tumultuous and "undisciplined"...and only as time passes, the leadership becomes entrenched, etc., do the more repressive features of Leninism emerge.


What's more, a form of party organization is not a paradigm used to construct that party's theory and practice.

I disagree. It is common in Leninist parties to disparage "abstract democracy" in favor of "correct line".

What this overlooks is that practice shapes theory. A "military bureaucracy" encourages some kinds of ideas and discourages or suppresses other kinds of ideas. Most importantly, it emphasizes that foundation of military organization: unquestioning obedience to orders from an authorized superior.

That is an idea at the very core of the Leninist paradigm.

Politicians & Soldiers; Social Democracy and Leninism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082733763&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

The vanguard party did lead in practice to a giant bureaucracy that supressed the working class. It doesn't matter that much who's at the head of it. Look what happened to the Workers Opposition. Massive voting fraud and outright suppression of the working class. Trotsky was as much a bureaucrat as Stalin, he just didn't play the game as well as Joe. So then he did a 360 to portray himself as an opponent of "Stalinism". :lol:

[red_che]

Clearly there was a "gulf" between "what Lenin wanted" and what actually existed.

Lenin wanted disciplined professional revolutionaries. However, those who were attracted to his vehement opposition to Czarism were not necessarily "good soldier material".

I think the 10th Party Congress in March of 1921 marked the significant turn towards the militarization of the Bolshevik Party in practice. No doubt the decisions of the congress simply reflected what had already been going on from the "seizure of power" (coup) in October 1917.

If you consult the rules for affiliation to the 3rd International (supposedly written by Lenin himself), you'll find a heavy emphasis on iron military-like discipline.

This was made far more explicit under Stalin, of course.


You are again distorting facts and inserting your own words into Leninism to make it appear to what you wanted it to appear.

It is true that Lenin wanted disciplined professional revolutionaries. But this should not be associated exactly as what military discipline means. Military discipline (read: bourgeois military that means fascist discipline which follows all orders without question) is entirely diferent and the exact opposite of the party discipline that Lenin is referring to. The idea of iron discipline is that tight grasp of Marxism and its application to social conditions in order to achieve victory. One that means politics in command (the political line of overthrowing the bourgeoisie).



What this overlooks is that practice shapes theory. A "military bureaucracy" encourages some kinds of ideas and discourages or suppresses other kinds of ideas. Most importantly, it emphasizes that foundation of military organization: unquestioning obedience to orders from an authorized superior.

That is an idea at the very core of the Leninist paradigm.


Again, don't put words into Lenin's mouth, or for that matter, Leninism. If this is your interpretation of "Democratic Centralism", then you're distorted. My advice is, stop masturbating your mind so you would be able to comprehend things correctly.

Democratic Centralism is that organizational line/principle that tends to replace the old bourgeois bureaucratic hierarchy. It is a necessary organizational structure while the party and the proletariat is still gaining strength against the well-organized fascist bourgeois regimes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
It is true that Lenin wanted disciplined professional revolutionaries.
But this should not be associated exactly as what military discipline means.

Why not? If you are willing to "do what you're told", what difference does the color of the flag make?

You are or will become a mindless robot...a machine that can no longer think for yourself any more than a tank can "think for itself".

Indeed, many of your posts here show already the symptoms of "Lenin's disease"...anyone who raises an empirical objection to your ideology is met with a combination of incomprehension and personal abuse.

You simply offer Maoist platitudes...no different in character, really, from the assertions of the overtly superstitious.

For example...


Democratic Centralism is that organizational line/principle that tends to replace the old bourgeois bureaucratic hierarchy. It is a necessary organizational structure while the party and the proletariat is still gaining strength against the well-organized fascist bourgeois regimes.

Not only is this statement absurd on its face -- a rough translation in ordinary English might read "we must be more fascist than the fascists in order to defeat them" -- but it has the "smell" of a theological assertion.

There's simply no "room" in it for critical examination or discussion.

To be sure, there are many truthful statements about the real world that are "just as dogmatic". The answer to the question "what is 2 + 2?" is always "4" and never "3.9" or "4.1" or anything else.

But your statement about the "necessity" of "democratic centralism" is not mathematical in any sense.

In fact, given the objective evidence for the failure of the Leninist paradigm during the last century, you come off sounding like a "creationist" still denouncing the Darwinian "heresy".

In the "west", the Leninist paradigm accomplished nothing. All that "iron discipline" was just a fucking waste of time and energy!

And you, "in the name of Mao", want us "to do it again"???

No.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:13 PM
Lenin wanted disciplined professional revolutionaries. However, those who were attracted to his vehement opposition to Czarism were not necessarily "good soldier material".
A disciplined professional revolutionary is not the same thing as a soldier. Doesn't need to be.

The Bolshevik Party was structured for political, not military, combat. Form follows function. It never was an armed organization, or had party armed groups on any significant scale. "General staff" is an analogy and like all analogies has limits. Overly literal, rigid thinking is an obstacle to understanding anything.

One difference is, that party discipline was a two-way street...in an army, the ranks have no way of changing the orders of the high command. But in the Bolshevik Party, Lenin repeatedly had to appeal to the ranks against the Central Committee, and was often successful in doing so. That's a historic fact.

Another difference is voluntary as opposed to compulsory discipline...the Bolshevik Party didn't have the means of compulsion an army has. And even in power, the maximum penalty for violations of party discipline was expulsion from the party. (In Lenin's time, that is.)

People became disciplined professional revolutionaries precisely because they were attracted to "vehement opposition to tsarism", and because they understood that was necessary in order to not only overthrow tsarism, but bring to power a revolutionary government that would sweep away all the feudal rubbish associated with tsarism...not because a draft or economic necessity made them do it, not because they went through boot camp...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:13 PM
Well, you know the formula ("democratic centralism") as well as I do.
That "formula" means different things to different people. To you, it means what the Maoists told you it means. I was trained in a different political tradition.

Here's a thread where the Maoists explain what they mean by "democratic centralism" - and I point out that has nothing to do with what Lenin meant. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39826)

So even on stated organizational concepts, there are great differences.


No doubt there are minor variations...due to both the style of the founders and the age of a particular party.

Very young Leninist parties tend to be theoretically tumultuous and "undisciplined"...and only as time passes, the leadership becomes entrenched, etc., do the more repressive features of Leninism emerge.

Heh. All the Maoist parties are younger than the party I belonged to. The SWP was founded in 1938, and traces back under other names even further.

It's the most democratic organization I've ever had any contact with....and I'd guess it's more democratic than the RCP ever was.

Democracy is not counterposed to centralism; on the contrary, real democracy requires that the decisions of the membership are actually carried out. Which, in a decentralized social-democratic style party, they rarely are.



What's more, a form of party organization is not a paradigm used to construct that party's theory and practice.

I disagree. It is common in Leninist parties to disparage "abstract democracy" in favor of "correct line".

What this overlooks is that practice shapes theory.

What you overlook is that organizational forms are not political practice. Political practice shapes not only theory, but also organizational forms. Form follows function and the class interests and organization is built to serve.

And in fact, organizations calling themselves Leninist have followed wildly different political practices.

[Janus]

If revisionism is defined as a deviation from orthodox Marxism and orthodox Marxism has never been practices by a government, then all communist governments past and present would be considered revisionist. Since there really doesn't seem to be a clear definition to the term revisionism, it has been used by many communist countries particularly China to insult another communist government for personal and propaganda reasons only. Therefore, this superficial definition has been interpreted by many to mean that a revisionist is one who wants to become a supporter of capitalism. However, revisionism also has postitive connotations because different people have adjusted Marxism to fit their situations. Examples would be Lenin who proposed that the proletarians be led by an elite, humanistic socialism or "socialism with a human face", and evolutionary socialism. As you can see some of these deviations or revisionist have made postivie contributions. All in all, every form of communist government has been created by a deviation from orthodox Marxist thought since strictly following it would be unpragmatic in certain situations.
To answer the question, I believe that the revisionist of today are the socialists who have become so infused with capitalism that it has become almost impossible to distinguish from the two such as the main socialist party in England and the SDP in Germany.

[red_che]

(redstar)

Why not? If you are willing to "do what you're told", what difference does the color of the flag make?

False generalization.



You are or will become a mindless robot...a machine that can no longer think for yourself any more than a tank can "think for itself".

You're not being critical.



anyone who raises an empirical objection to your ideology is met with a combination of incomprehension and personal abuse.


It is only you who got those "personal abuse" from me, you know why?...

'Cause you're arrogant and twists facts to suit your tastes.



Not only is this statement absurd on its face -- a rough translation in ordinary English might read "we must be more fascist than the fascists in order to defeat them"


Again, spinning things around. In simple terms, we must be organized in facing the bourgeoisie.



In fact, given the objective evidence for the failure of the Leninist paradigm during the last century, you come off sounding like a "creationist" still denouncing the Darwinian "heresy".


Really? Were your ideas gained victories? No, there isn't. You were simply a hopeless bourgeois ideologue.



(Comrade Qiu)

If revisionism is defined as a deviation from orthodox Marxism and orthodox Marxism has never been practices by a government, then all communist governments past and present would be considered revisionist.


No, not in that sense. Revisionism is the systematic deviation to and alteration of the basic principles of Marxism. That means that if the basic principles of Marxism while it is being applied to particular conditions of a society/country where changed that is revisionism. In our party, Marxism serves as our guide in understanding the particular conditions of our history and revolution. Of course, when Marxism is applied to certain country, such as ours, there are particular conditions that does not necessarily be like what was experienced in the Paris Commune, in the October Revolution of Russia, in the Chinese Revolution, etc. What is important is that, the basic principles of Marxism would serve as the guide in conducting our revolution. Any deviation to these basic principles would lead to revisionism, suc as what Kruschev and his successors did in Russia, and Deng and his successors did in China and so do their followers.



Since there really doesn't seem to be a clear definition to the term revisionism, it has been used by many communist countries particularly China to insult another communist government for personal and propaganda reasons only.


A thourough inspection of the Kruschev regime in Russia clearly show these deviations to Marxism-Leninism, and in fact in the end, as history had proven, the Kruschev regime's criticisms, or should I say "Anti-Stalin" attacks, were not really meant to advance socialism but to bring defeat to socialism. As clearly shown, their attacks on the so-called personality cult of Stalin was not an attack against Stalin's mistakes only, but rather it is a vicious attack on Stalin himself, in particular, and to Marxism-Leninism, in general. They were only masquerading as Marxists, but have in fact turned their backs on Marxism.

And when Mao have died, the same thing happened in China. Deng Xiaoping and his cohorts systematically deviated to Marxism-Leninism.

Now, since there is no strong socialist country adhering to Marxism-Leninism, revisionist parties and individuals have mushroomed all the over the globe side-byside with the bourgeois ideologues who were covertly and overtly attacking Marxism-Leninism.



However, revisionism also has postitive connotations because different people have adjusted Marxism to fit their situations.


Marxism should not be applied dogmatically to the situations and conditions of one country. Only that, the basic principles of Marxism should serve as the guide in these revolutions.



Examples would be Lenin who proposed that the proletarians be led by an elite


Lenin never advocated that the proletariat be led by an elite. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not an elite bureaucracy. He merely reinforced what was stated in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat needs to build its own political party and organize itself as a class. And Lenin never made any changes or deviation to Marxism. He merely added the new developments in society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
And Lenin never made any changes or deviation to Marxism.

Have a look at this thread...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42894

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 18 2005, 04:46 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 18 2005, 04:46 PM)
red_che
And Lenin never made any changes or deviation to Marxism.

Have a look at this thread...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42894

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Nothing significant. Gramsci is one example of a revisionist. He expertized on using Marxism against Marxism.

[Severian]

"This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety"
---Dick Cheney source (http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14016745)

Look, kids, anybody can use "revisionism" to label their opponents! It's easy and fun!

(In this case, Cheney's referring to "historical revisionism" - a revisionist historian is one who opposes the conventional view of a subject, i.e. seeks to revise the traditional view. Revising history is perfectly legitimate, of course - sometimes the traditional view is wrong - but some people think it's a dirty word for some reason. Possibly because Holocaust deniers describe their view as "revisionist" in order to disguise it as a legitimate disagreement over the interpretation of historical evidence.)