communism vs anarchism

[cpjames_elsocialista]

i'm quite confused by these two ideologies.

will someone please enlighten me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You might have to be more specific. There are lots of other threads which go through the basics of each.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Basically both communists and anarchists want an end to capitalism and class antagonisms; a world where there are no states or leaders or bosses and people work together freely, not so one person can make money off of or control others.

[Jadan ja]

Communists and anarchists disagree on how should a society that will repleace capitalism look like. Anarchists think that after capitalism, state should disappear, while communists believe that between stateless comunist society and capitalism must be a period of socialism (during which state exists).

[enigma2517]

Reminds of that other rather ridiculous thread about dictatorship of the proletariat. Oh no they're attacking our libertarian ideals! Haha

Honestly, these guys hit the nail on the head here.

The difference is the transition.

Both recognize capitalism as being an oppressive system that needs to be replaced with a society free of all hierarchies, economic and political. The difference is the method.

Both agree that the bourgeosie need to be overthrown forcefully, and suppressed until class lines completely erode. Anarchists believe this needs to happen through horizontal and libertarian organization while Communists advocate a state structure acting on behalf of the proletariat.

Note, the semantics here get a little tricky. Notice how I capitalized Communists? This is usually done to refer to more authoritarian communists, such as Leninists, Maoists, etc. "communism" (lowercase c) could be used to refer to both types (the largest and most prominent tenant of anarchism is in fact anarcho-communism, thus we are all "communists" in a sense).

Don't take my word for it, this is just how I've seen the language used...its not set in stone. The best way to find out is to really look past the label and see whats actually in the package. This will help you from being mislead *cough* RCP *cough* Chairman Bob

[Storming Heaven]

Don't take my word for it, this is just how I've seen the language used...its not set in stone. The best way to find out is to really look past the label and see whats actually in the package. This will help you from being mislead *cough* RCP *cough* Chairman Bob

Perhaps the most excellent advice I've heard in a long time.

But what of so-called 'anarcho-communists', and those Anarchists who advocate private property...where do they fit into enigma's definition?

[Lamanov]

Anarchists (in theory) believe that state itself is the source of social antagonism and that it's direct abolishment will lead to the emancipated society.

Marxists and Leninists (in theory) say that state is the product of class antagonism and that abolishment of the classes will lead to emancipated stateless society.

Marxists and Leninists, however, differ on the matter of transition.

Marxists (Left Communists and non-Leninist Marxists) emphasize the role of the masses and the necesity of direct democracy formed within the workers' "state" which itself rests on the essential economic-political basis dinamically set to destroy itslef and it's cause. This workers' "state", of course, is not a state at all, but an external form of self-organized proletariat.

Leninists ("classic" Bolsheviks, Trotskyists) and "Leninists" (Stalinists, Maoists, Titoists) emphasize the role of the "vanguard" and the political leadership within the "workers'" state.


P.S.

The so-called "transitional period" of Socialism is not a nececary element of the communist doctrine. As time passes many of communists believe that it's becoming more and more obsolete.

[rebelworker]

WOW this is the least crazy discussion I have ever see on this site, how refreshing...

We often tslk alot about theory but I want to post some comments about personal experiences that helped me understand th differences between "communists"

I started our identifying as a communist in my youth, because I grew up facing class opression and beleived in a society based on eequality and solidarity and direct democracy.
when I moved to a big city I tred to join the "communst" party.
But wait,Stalin, yuck, I dont want to be an part of that.

Later at a demonstration I joined an "International Socialist" group.
They talked about workers controll and all sorts of other good stuff.
If only Trotsky had take power and not stalin, evertthing would have turned out great.

At this point I was still not very well read and just sold lots of newspapers and went to demos. Someone in Toronto made all the important political descisions.
I stayed involved because we had lots of tuff going on but after a year or so I started having concerns.

I the party was run by a central comitee, "elected" once a year(although there was never any oposition slates running and no discussion about what they stood for).
But I lived very far away and was very buisy with work and school so I didnt think about it too much, Im sure they know what they are doing.

As time went on I realised that my organisation was really nothing more than a collage debating society where mst members jst paid their dues and didn't know that much about how desicions were made.

On a trip to Nicaraga(Iwas luck that in quasi socialist quebec, a free city collage ofered this trip as part of a study of third world revolutions) I began to realise that a revolution is made by the mass of people through their unions, community organizations and such and not(as I had been told by the socialist experts)by a vanguard of profesional revolutionaries.

When I returned home I stoped goin to meetings and started hanging out with another "independant" working class socialist I had know. I began to realise that I had never read an account of revolutionary history that wasnt written by someone in my party. I had always be told to ignore the anarchists, I was even discouraged from organizing a debate against them. I remember on one occasion I had gotten into adiscussion with anther young man from a rival trotskyist group, Two older members, one from my group, one from his, had come and seperated us.

Everything was about keeping me under controll, I felt like I was in Church again, all I had to do was read the right doctrine and leave the rest up to the experts.

Well years later I have read alott more, and more importantly been involved in struggles for justice in my union, workplace and community. I started to get togeather with other working class militants and learn from eachother.

In my new readings I learned that the Bolsheviks had killed thousands of other revolutionaries who disagreed with the on the direction that the revolution shoul take.
Trotsky was driven out of Russian with no oposition, why dudnt the workers rise up to defend him against stalin. It was always clear to me that China and Russia had gone horrably wrong. I began to understand why, all the talk about external pressures, this personality vs that, taking the correct line, It all boiled down to the state. When you put all the power in the hands of a few, no mater how well meaning, things are bound to go horribly wrong.

When a revolution becomes more about holding power than opressed people empowering ourselves, the revolution has failed.

Women will not see the end of sexism because it is mandated by some benevolent leader. People of color wll not see the end of discrimination and imperialism because some central committee wills it. Working people will not get free untill we organize ourselves, eventually with gun in hand and take back our workplaces and communities.

For the last five years or so I have worked towards communism, real communism from the base. I now identify with the communist current within anarchism(which I have now learned has historically been much larger than marxism globally, before it was written out of history by the "communist" Party).

I hope this will help answer a few of you questions.
I didnt adress the differences within anarchism or other trends of anti lenninist marxism but mabey Ill leave that for others for now, this post has been long enough.

In Solidarity,
rebelworker

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by rebelworker
When you put all the power in the hands of a few, no mater how well meaning, things are bound to go horribly wrong.

When a revolution becomes more about holding power than opressed people empowering ourselves, the revolution has failed.

Well said.


I didnt adress the differences within anarchism or other trends of anti lenninist marxism but mabey Ill leave that for others for now, this post has been long enough.

As far as I am concerned, any form of non-Leninist Marxism and Anarcho-Communism -- regardless of the mentioned differences in the domain of theory -- in reality of practice and revolutionary doctrine are very much alike, and probably closer than any other currents may come to each other within the left-spectrum, and probably the only ones which gap is not rising, but shrinking.

[which doctor]

In their true and pure forms they are remarkably similar. In the end they are both the free organization of the workers. There are no states or authority. No one has power over another. People do as they wish (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone).

[redchrisfalling]

I agree that communists and anarchists are escentialy the same but the major conflict that i find myself adressing when i sqare off against commies is the emphisis we put on different values. Bith movements belive in liberty equality and solidarity, communists stress solidarity where there is still some form of governing body to take care of the weakest links in the society. Anarchists on the other hand stress liberty and put huge amounts on faith on the intrensic goodness of humans, more specificly our ability to recognize and do our part to make society function. It is a small difference yes, that is why we have been able to sett aside our differences and face the common enemies, the church and state.

[enigma2517]

Anarchists (in theory) believe that state itself is the source of social antagonism and that it's direct abolishment will lead to the emancipated society.

Haha ah yes the labels come into play once again. I'm going to contest this one :)

I've always had the impression that anarchists attack what the name says, hierarchy. That being said, I believe economic hierarchy is the stem of it all. It's the private ownership of wealth that creates the state. Yes, the state is there to protect this disparity, however, it relies on that division to exist in the first place.

The reason why I shy away from the state arguement is because I think that simplying "smashing the state" will lead to the actual stereotype that people often have of anarchy, i.d. chaos, destruction, etc.

Without a well thought-out system of participatory economics to replace the current system we will have a situation like Katrina...everybody scrambling to find food and shelter.

If we seize control of the economy, we own everything. Thats right...everything! The state is but a small minority and a widespread general strike will easily topple even the strongest "government".

This brings up an interesting point...economic power is something that is seized on the grassroots level. If a "communist party" were to seize the state, it would mean very little. Thus, I find the Leninist/reformist ideals to be well...idealistic :)

EDIT!

Sorry, DJ-TC, just read the second half of your post.


Marxists (Left Communists and non-Leninist Marxists) emphasize the role of the masses and the necesity of direct democracy formed within the workers' "state" which itself rests on the essential economic-political basis dinamically set to destroy itslef and it's cause. This workers' "state", of course, is not a state at all, but an external form of self-organized proletariat.

Perfect. Pretty much what I was saying. I don't recognize lifestylist anarchists any more than Leninists. Class struggle is definetely the only way to go.

This is why things like the Red And Anarchist Network (RAAN) was founded. Left-marxists and anarchists actually have identical goals and almost identical methods, perhaps only seperated once again by semantics. The word state is such a hot button.

I attack the use of the word state because if it is meant in the traditional sense then that can only mean the rule of a minority over a majority. However, just as you described it, an autonomist, horizontally organized organ of self-organization used to suppress the bourgeosie and establish dictatorship of the proletariat is exactly what we need. I really think that our methods are so close to each other that they are indistinguishable. We might vary on a few specific points but there is nothing wrong with that. A little debate and an alternative viewpoint is something that is always useful.

So hey, let's unite, against the bourgeosie and against fake "Communists"



As far as I am concerned, any form of non-Leninist Marxism and Anarcho-Communism -- regardless of the mentioned differences in the domain of theory -- in reality of practice and revolutionary doctrine are very much alike, and probably closer than any other currents may come to each other within the left-spectrum, and probably the only ones which gap is not rising, but shrinking.

I <3 you guys. I really do.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 11:22 PM
As far as I am concerned, any form of non-Leninist Marxism and Anarcho-Communism -- regardless of the mentioned differences in the domain of theory -- in reality of practice and revolutionary doctrine are very much alike, and probably closer than any other currents may come to each other within the left-spectrum, and probably the only ones which gap is not rising, but shrinking.
Except that that little concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" isn&#39;t going anywhere soon <_<

[Lamanov]

Well, enigma, I stand corrected. There are even more similarities than I thougth. :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Except that that little concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" isn&#39;t going anywhere soon <_<[/b]

. . .


Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected]
Marxists (Left Communists and non-Leninist Marxists) emphasize the role of the masses and the necesity of direct democracy formed within the workers&#39; "state" which itself rests on the essential economic-political basis dinamically set to destroy itslef and it&#39;s cause. This workers&#39; "state", of course, is not a state at all, but an external form of self-organized proletariat.


enigma2517
I attack the use of the word state because if it is meant in the traditional sense then that can only mean the rule of a minority over a majority. However, just as you described it, an autonomist, horizontally organized organ of self-organization used to suppress the bourgeosie and establish dictatorship of the proletariat is exactly what we need.

[anomaly]

The &#39;vs&#39; in this thread is really irrelavent. The two are on in the same, for the most part. Now, some would claim that communists, unlike anarchists, are in favor of an &#39;intermediate&#39; stage of socialism, but I disagree. People who want socialism are called socialists. Truly, anarchism and communism should be combined into a single ideology: anarcho-communism.

[Orthodox Marxist]

Anarchists consider Communist form of social organisation a danger to the free development of the individual many anarchiststs believe in a social ideology that refuses to accept an authoritarian ruling government basically that individuals should organize themselves in any way they wish in order to fulfill their needs traditional anarchists (not all) believe Communism inevitably leads to concentration of all property in the hands of the state anarchists seek the abolition of the state thats one point of division Communism by the standards of Karl marx advocates the holding of all properties by the state "collectivism"

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Red Marxist [email protected] 13 2005, 07:54 PM
Anarchists consider Communist form of social organisation a danger to the free development of the individual many anarchiststs believe in a social ideology that refuses to accept an authoritarian ruling government basically that individuals should organize themselves in any way they wish in order to fulfill their needs traditional anarchists (not all) believe Communism inevitably leads to concentration of all property in the hands of the state anarchists seek the abolition of the state thats one point of division Communism by the standards of Karl marx advocates the holding of all properties by the state "collectivism"
wrong. your making communism sound like a leninist paradigm.

anarchism is a way to obtain communism. most anarchists ARE communists. you have lifestylist and individualists and primmi&#39;s but they dont count because that stuff is a load of bullshit.

anarchists want to abolish the state during revolution and go straight to transitioning power to the workers and people through direct democracy. while some marxists want a "socialist" "state" others such as the council commies, etc. are VERY similar to anarchists.


communism is the stateless classless society that marxists and anarchists want, they have different ideas on how and by what means to get there.

[kurt]

As far as I am concerned, any form of non-Leninist Marxism and Anarcho-Communism -- regardless of the mentioned differences in the domain of theory -- in reality of practice and revolutionary doctrine are very much alike, and probably closer than any other currents may come to each other within the left-spectrum, and probably the only ones which gap is not rising, but shrinking.
Agreed. In modern capitalist societies, the practice of an anarchist and a left communist is growing more and more similar with each passing year. The gap is shrinking.


Except that that little concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" isn&#39;t going anywhere soon <_<
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means something considerably different to a leninist than it does to a left communist.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:08 AM
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means something considerably different to a leninist than it does to a left communist.
Actually, it could be said that it&#39;s totally different.

[ComradeOm]

Well I&#39;m not sure just how different the suppression of one class over another can be. What is the state? It is the extension of the ruling class used to oppress the other classes, in socialism that means the proletariat runs the show. Maybe you can and the capitalists can all just hold hands and get along :rolleyes:

[rebelworker]

Stupid statements like that dont help at all to further the "serrious" debate about how the working class should organize itself during radical political transformation.

Anyway just about every lenneist i have ever met is middle class and knows nothing about real class struggle...

Anarchist communists see the need to combat reactionary forces, we have just seen that putting all the power in the hands of a self describes vanguard of intellectuals who will eventually become a new oppressive beurocratic class helps us not at all.

Now the subtle differences between Anarchist Communists and left communists(non lenninists) ideas on how exactly the working class should organize ourselves, especially in the case of a civil war or protracted reactionary sabotage and missinformation, is at this point of the development of a new revolutionary movment that has learned the lessons of the past crutially important.

I feel that the divisions between us might be bridgable, and if so then this would help to bolster our megar numbers.

I think the Idea for most of us anarchist communists(though i guess im only speaking for myself) is that to the extent that it is possible during periods of revolutionary practice. Workers should take there workplaces and begin to federate them. I would also include the need for neighborhood assemblies to negotiate the consumption needs of the population and include issues tht fall outside the workplace, like housing, crime, social relations, education. This would also give a place for the currently jobless to start to re integrate into the labour force, need could be assesed and extra bodies could go where demand is greater.

Now these bodies would obviously exclude the ruling class, I would say small shop owners and up(many dont actually live in the local where there shop is located anyway).

For larger workplaces, some levels of lower management I think could be trusted, if and only if, they were accepted by the assembly of workers.
The point is that each community and workplace assembly will have to decide who is included and who is not. If we are talking about a large scale class war bassed uprising most of the ruling class will flee working class strongholds anyway.
As for a response to the eventuality of external invasion(like russia or the ukrain) or internal facist or military takeover(like spain 36) then the lines might not be so clearcut.

If national fronts arrise (like spain) revolutionaries, where they are strong enough, should immediatly dismantly the old state and replace it with this federation of workers and community councils. This in my opinion was one of the major failures in Spain and where the platformist tendancy(represented by the friends of durrutti group, developed by the anarchist experience of failure in the face of bolshevism) fits in. There is a need for a strong coheirent revolutionary tendancy to push for these kind of actions at times of uncertainty in the mass of our class. Now i think most of us agree that the model of a revolutionary party seizing stae controll is a disater for the working class(but a great time for the petty burgeoise intellectualls who make up the leadership of the party) but we still need an organisation.

I am a member of NEFAC, I would like to know what left communists think on the question of organization. My personal beleif is that all anti authoritarian communists should be working togeather, if ideologically possible, to re create such a revolutionary organsation. I have heard of the Red Anarchist Action Network but it seems to be so spread out, and a network not a real revolutionary organization participating in the class struggle, correct me if im wrong.

In Solidarity,
rebelworker

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:11 PM
Stupid statements like that dont help at all to further the "serrious" debate about how the working class should organize itself during radical political transformation.

Anyway just about every lenneist i have ever met is middle class and knows nothing about real class struggle...
Its good to see that the leftist tradition of replying to arguments, even "stupid" ones, by labelling the opponent as bourgeois still survives. It looks like anarchism and Leninism have something in common after all <_<

Like it or not the various ideologies that you and others so sneeringly refer to as Leninism still survive and still, based on my estimations, make up the majority of the left. Whether this will be the case in a decade or two is another matter of course.

A drift towards anarchism by those Marxists who do not subscribe to Leninist ideals is natural given that anarchists remain the only real revolutionary alternative. Strip away Lenin’s contributions, and apparently the concept of socialism as well, and today Marxism consists of historical materialism and the related economics. Vital tools but ones that today advocate sitting around and waiting for a "pure" revolution. Anarchism provides a handy flag to rally around, a fig leaf of revolutionary credentials.

Reading back on that it’s slightly bitterer than I intended but I do tire of the seemingly endless shitting on any and all Leninists.

[kurt]

Well I&#39;m not sure just how different the suppression of one class over another can be.
Working class power is different than a party despotism.


Like it or not the various ideologies that you and others so sneeringly refer to as Leninism still survive and still, based on my estimations, make up the majority of the left. Whether this will be the case in a decade or two is another matter of course.
I contest those estimations. "If you gathered all the members of all the self-proclaimed vanguard parties in the U.S. together, you couldn&#39;t fill a small minor league ball park." (RedStar2000, Revolutionary Spontaneity?)
I think that holds true.


A drift towards anarchism by those Marxists who do not subscribe to Leninist ideals is natural given that anarchists remain the only real revolutionary alternative.
What exactly then are you trying to say?


Strip away Lenin’s contributions, and apparently the concept of socialism as well, and today Marxism consists of historical materialism and the related economics.
That&#39;s all marxism ever really was. "Marxist-Leninism" was simply an extension of this. It was a bad one.


Vital tools but ones that today advocate sitting around and waiting for a "pure" revolution.
Not many of these marxists you speak of advocate sitting and waiting. They advocate engaging in class struggle, right now.


Reading back on that it’s slightly bitterer than I intended but I do tire of the seemingly endless shitting on any and all Leninists.
I have no problem with shitting on shit. It may advance their revolutionary "theory" by giving them more to work with ;).

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by rebelworker+--> (rebelworker)I am a member of NEFAC, I would like to know what left communists think on the question of organization.[/b]

We&#39;re usually councilists and support the working class self organization. Spontaneous.

So far we&#39;ve seen factory committees and councils (soviets) as a way of struggle with capital and state.


My personal beleif is that all anti authoritarian communists should be working togeather, if ideologically possible, to re create such a revolutionary organsation. I have heard of the Red Anarchist Action Network but it seems to be so spread out, and a network not a real revolutionary organization participating in the class struggle, correct me if im wrong.

I agree with you.

As I&#39;ve said...


DJ&#045;TC
...any form of non-Leninist Marxism and Anarcho-Communism -- regardless of the mentioned differences in the domain of theory -- in reality of practice and revolutionary doctrine are very much alike, and probably closer than any other currents may come to each other within the left-spectrum, and probably the only ones which gap is not rising, but shrinking.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:59 PM
Like it or not the various ideologies that you and others so sneeringly refer to as Leninism still survive and still, based on my estimations, make up the majority of the left.
Actually, reformist utterly dwarf both anarchists & leninists put together.

[Hiero]

Communists and anarchists disagree on how should a society that will repleace capitalism look like.

It is not about disagreement it is about different analysis, or incomplete analysis.



The so-called "transitional period" of Socialism is not a nececary element of the communist doctrine. As time passes many of communists believe that it&#39;s becoming more and more obsolete.

Which Communists? What do you base this on?

[ComradeOm]

Working class power is different than a party despotism.
Because all Leninists are power hungry bastards who dream of taking power and then living the high life in the Kremlin? If we’re going by stereotype then its safe to say that all anarchists are bomb throwing maniacs who live to kill a cop.


I contest those estimations. "If you gathered all the members of all the self-proclaimed vanguard parties in the U.S. together, you couldn&#39;t fill a small minor league ball park." (RedStar2000, Revolutionary Spontaneity?)
I think that holds true.
I like the impartial source. But are you proposing that the number of Marxists who reject Lenin is significantly higher? Because based on my observations that is not the case. I doubt there’s even a majority on RevLeft, a particularly libertarian themed site.


What exactly then are you trying to say?
It helps if you take a sentence in conjunction with the one that follows it. Its bad enough breaking an argument into paragraphs and arguing them one by one, but there’s no need to go down to individual sentences.


That&#39;s all marxism ever really was. "Marxist-Leninism" was simply an extension of this. It was a bad one.
That’s perfectly true. The thing is that in the 1800s that was revolutionary. Today, with the drastically changed material conditions, it is a matter for the academics. Both democratic socialism and Leninist inspired ideologies were efforts to bring about change in the poor material conditions that followed Marx&#39;s death.


Not many of these marxists you speak of advocate sitting and waiting. They advocate engaging in class struggle, right now.
Are you sure? I’d ask them if I were you. These “true” Marxists hold that revolution cannot occur without the appropriate material conditions. That’s from Criticising the Bolsheviks 101. All Leninists argue that revolution can be achieved if a certain segment of the proletariat is class conscious enough. In other words the material conditions need not be perfect for revolution.


I have no problem with shitting on shit. It may advance their revolutionary "theory" by giving them more to work with .
So much for maintaining even a degree of civility. I’m always open to an argument on this but it gets tiring when some posters devote every second post to why Lenin was wrong and why all those who agree with him are hero worshiping fools flopping about on their bellies. You can have too much of a good thing ;)


Actually, reformist utterly dwarf both anarchists & leninists put together.
I wouldn&#39;t define social democracy as a left movement. Once that would&#39;ve been true but the arrival of neo-liberal economics was the final nail in democratic socialim&#39;s coffin. The only major exception I can think of offhand would be chavez.

[kurt]

Because all Leninists are power hungry bastards who dream of taking power and then living the high life in the Kremlin? If we’re going by stereotype then its safe to say that all anarchists are bomb throwing maniacs who live to kill a cop.
I never said that. I would never propose that leninists are all "evil" people who only dream of taking power for themselves, although I wouldn&#39;t doubt some hold this goal in the back of the mind.
The whole leninist paradigm is developed around following a hierarchy of leaders. When someone&#39;s world outlook is shaped by such a paradigm, it&#39;s only natural that a despotism develops.
I&#39;m not stereotyping, I&#39;m simply telling it how it is. It&#39;s not about "bad ideas" or even "good ideas".

Oh and on a further note, killing a cop is virtually the same as blowing up a cop car, military tank, etc. They&#39;re all tools of state oppression, something with which I have no opposition to destroying.


I like the impartial source.
It wasn&#39;t meant to be a source to prove anything. I simply thought he said it best with that statement, and since I don&#39;t like to plagurize...


But are you proposing that the number of Marxists who reject Lenin is significantly higher? Because based on my observations that is not the case. I doubt there’s even a majority on RevLeft, a particularly libertarian themed site.
You might be right, and I wouldn&#39;t propose that left-communists are in greater numbers. I honestly don&#39;t know.


Are you sure? I’d ask them if I were you. These “true” Marxists hold that revolution cannot occur without the appropriate material conditions. That’s from Criticising the Bolsheviks 101.
I hold that a working class revolution will not happen until appropriate material conditions arise. It doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m not out educating and agitating.


All Leninists argue that revolution can be achieved if a certain segment of the proletariat is class conscious enough. In other words the material conditions need not be perfect for revolution.
This really shines a light on the leninist departure from historical materialism.


So much for maintaining even a degree of civility. I’m always open to an argument on this but it gets tiring when some posters devote every second post to why Lenin was wrong and why all those who agree with him are hero worshiping fools flopping about on their bellies.
I&#39;m not civil towards something which I perceive as reactionary. I&#39;ll leave that for something more "tolerant" like you.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Hiero
Which Communists? What do you base this on?

Leninist doctrine of transitional system is obsolete.

I base it on historical and actual reality.

[ComradeOm]

The whole leninist paradigm is developed around following a hierarchy of leaders. When someone&#39;s world outlook is shaped by such a paradigm, it&#39;s only natural that a despotism develops.
I&#39;m not stereotyping, I&#39;m simply telling it how it is. It&#39;s not about "bad ideas" or even "good ideas".
The Party debates and then the Party acts. When the Party is democratic and reflects the will of its members then the only despotism is that of the majority.


Oh and on a further note, killing a cop is virtually the same as blowing up a cop car, military tank, etc. They&#39;re all tools of state oppression, something with which I have no opposition to destroying.
Apart from the fact that it achieves nothing. The anarchist “Big Bang” theory of revolution is even more discredited than Stalin’s “socialism in one country”.


I hold that a working class revolution will not happen until appropriate material conditions arise. It doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m not out educating and agitating.
Ahhh Doublethink. Have you ever tried to put the two parts of that sentence together? Educating and agitating will not lead to revolution unless the material conditions are right. So the theory goes at least. A strict interpretation of historical materialism dictates that the revolution will come when the material conditions are ready and no sooner. You may as well spend your years climbing the corporate ladder or pig farming in Peru for all the good it will do.

I reject that notion. Marxism must be a revolutionary ideology, striving for revolution not in a century or two but tomorrow.


I&#39;m not civil towards something which I perceive as reactionary. I&#39;ll leave that for something more "tolerant" like you.
And I’m not particularly found of what I see as a regressive and frankly dangerous trend. I’m still able to debate and argue without open hostility though.

[kurt]

The Party debates and then the Party acts. When the Party is democratic and reflects the will of its members then the only despotism is that of the majority.
This is rarely how a leninist party works in practice. In effect, there is nothing "democratic" about democratic centralism. The "central committee" sends orders from the top-down, and the party cadre is expected to tow the party line. Sometimes their may be a vote or affirmation after the action is taken.


Educating and agitating will not lead to revolution unless the material conditions are right. So the theory goes at least.
I&#39;m not under the false impression that simply educating and agitating will lead to revolution. Even if the material conditions aren&#39;t quite in place yet, it still does serve to deepen class consciousness, or at the very least attack the legitimacy of the capitalist system.


A strict interpretation of historical materialism dictates that the revolution will come when the material conditions are ready and no sooner.
If you don&#39;t even believe in this basic tenet of historical materialism, you can hardly be considered a marxist. Although I&#39;m sure you could still qualify as a leninist.


You may as well spend your years climbing the corporate ladder or pig farming in Peru for all the good it will do.
If that&#39;s how you would like to spend your years, go for it.


I reject that notion. Marxism must be a revolutionary ideology, striving for revolution not in a century or two but tomorrow.
Strive for it to happen "tomorrow" all you want, it&#39;s commendable. But don&#39;t be upset when it doesn&#39;t happen as "quick" as you want. Even if you and your party have the correct "line".


And I’m not particularly found of what I see as a regressive and frankly dangerous trend. I’m still able to debate and argue without open hostility though.
Well, I&#39;m above personal attacks, but I have no problem with insulting paradigms. Good for you for being "above that" I suppose.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[ComradeOm]

This is rarely how a leninist party works in practice. In effect, there is nothing "democratic" about democratic centralism. The "central committee" sends orders from the top-down, and the party cadre is expected to tow the party line. Sometimes their may be a vote or affirmation after the action is taken.
Which is why past Leninist parties have failed. It’s a matter of practice, not theory.


I&#39;m not under the false impression that simply educating and agitating will lead to revolution. Even if the material conditions aren&#39;t quite in place yet, it still does serve to deepen class consciousness, or at the very least attack the legitimacy of the capitalist system.
For what purpose? I’m trying to understand just how you are looking at this. You know that the revolution will occur when the material conditions are right. You know that you cannot alter these conditions. And yet you continue to insist that there is some point to your actions?


If you don&#39;t even believe in this basic tenet of historical materialism, you can hardly be considered a marxist. Although I&#39;m sure you could still qualify as a leninist.
And if you continue to uncritically accept anything then I don’t see how you can call yourself a Marxist. Marxism is a living doctrine and refusing to question it makes you no better than the Stalinists.

Marx was not an economic determinist. To simply accept that the revolution will happen when the economic conditions click in a century is not Marxist.


Strive for it to happen "tomorrow" all you want, it&#39;s commendable. But don&#39;t be upset when it doesn&#39;t happen as "quick" as you want. Even if you and your party have the correct "line".
To continue from above, we are all bound by the material conditions of our time but those conditions can be changed. In the West the political superstructure is too firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie to achieve much. The real change will come when the proletariat in underdeveloped nations revolt. No doubt you don’t accept that but that’s irrelevant. When the exploitation of Eastern labour by the Western capitalists has ended then we’ll see change in the West.

[kurt]

And if you continue to uncritically accept anything then I don’t see how you can call yourself a Marxist. Marxism is a living doctrine and refusing to question it makes you no better than the Stalinists.
I think you expand even further on that. Marxism is simply a set of tools with which we use to analyze material reality. I simply believe that this "strict" interpretation of historical materialism happens to be the "correct" one. I don&#39;t agree with everything Marx said, some of the things he said were in fact in direct opposition to historical materialism. Take for example the "transitional demands" in the communist manifesto. However, I believe the totality of Marx&#39;s works were in a broad sense correct. This isn&#39;t uncritical acceptance.


To continue from above, we are all bound by the material conditions of our time but those conditions can be changed.
And they do change over time.


In the West the political superstructure is too firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie to achieve much. The real change will come when the proletariat in underdeveloped nations revolt.... When the exploitation of Eastern labour by the Western capitalists has ended then we’ll see change in the West.
- my emphasis

I&#39;m not quite sure as to the nature of the proletariat in underdeveloped nations. If a nation is "underdeveloped", and it&#39;s no doubt that nations under imperial dominance usually are "underdeveloped", there lacks a majority proletariat. These revolutions will generally be capitalist in nature, and serve to develop their own modern capitalist systems.

The overthrow of quisling regimes, and the removal of foreign dominance will surely weaken the imperialists domestically which bodes well for the proletariat of the advanced nations. This is why we must always support any resistance to imperialism.

[ComradeOm]

I think you expand even further on that. Marxism is simply a set of tools with which we use to analyze material reality. I simply believe that this "strict" interpretation of historical materialism happens to be the "correct" one.
And I disagree. Broadly yes, the laws are sound. Socialism requires a proletariat, a body that only capitalism can create. However revolution need not wait until the material conditions are perfect. Once there is a proletariat then there is the possibility of revolution.


And they do change over time.
My point there is that the material conditions can be changed by those with the means and the will. We are not dependant of the whims of economists.


I&#39;m not quite sure as to the nature of the proletariat in underdeveloped nations. If a nation is "underdeveloped", and it&#39;s no doubt that nations under imperial dominance usually are "underdeveloped", there lacks a majority proletariat. These revolutions will generally be capitalist in nature, and serve to develop their own modern capitalist systems.
This is where the proletariat comprises the minority of the overall population. In these circumstances the vanguard is necessary to both destroy the capitalist state and seize control of the political superstructure. From this position of power a proletarian body can be constructed. The perfect case study here is of course Russia 1917.

For the record this is the only occasion where I’d advocate a traditional full blown Leninist vanguard.


The overthrow of quisling regimes, and the removal of foreign dominance will surely weaken the imperialists domestically which bodes well for the proletariat of the advanced nations. This is why we must always support any resistance to imperialism.
Yes and no. A war of national liberation will always weaken the direct imperialist influence on a nation. However a resultant bourgeoisie regime (especially one resulting from a liberal revolution) will welcome foreign capital. Indeed the replacing of a feudal or regressive regime with a bourgeois one is always beneficial to the Western capitalist.