Socialism vs Anarchism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am curious about what people here think. Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society? If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism? What do communists feel are the flaws of anarchist philosophy, and vise versa?

Sorry that I am not bringing a ton into the conversation. I mainly want to get others debating and learn from what everyone else thinks. As a libertarian socialist, I am slanted in one direction, obviously, but I have yet to discover how an anarchist revolution can succeed.

Marx vs Bakunin is where the debated originated, but I draw much more inspiration from Marx. However, I don't see Bakunin as being the "Marx" of anarchism, so to speak, but I could be wrong.

~Thanks

(I posted a similiar thread elsewhere but someone suggested that it was better suited for this forum).

[violencia.Proletariat]

Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society?

thats not perfectly clear yet, but as an anarchist and looking at history i say no.


If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism?

the same as autonomist marxists, DOP. supression through councils, workers militias, etc.


What do communists feel are the flaws of anarchist philosophy

i think you should ask what do "marxists" feel are the flaws. we are all communists here whether we believe in anarchism or socialism.


Marx vs Bakunin is where the debated originated, but I draw much more inspiration from Marx.

as do i. i believe in historical materialism, and marx's class analysis. i am not well read on "dialectical materialism" yet so i cant agree with it. i also do not agree with a "representative" state such as the paris commune. i would rather see worker councils taking on that role and direct democracy instead of representation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 AM
Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society?
No.


If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism?

There are currently three different strands of anarchism in the contemporary anarchist/anti-capitalist movement. Class-struggle anarchism, which is the classical form of anarchism, anti-civilisationism or anarcho-primitivism and individualist anarchism, often referred to pejoratively as lifestyleism.

Lifestyleism is a middle-class trend that advocates an evolutionary process in which, by showing people how to resist capitalism and by creating actual alternative ways of living, capitalism will eventually seize to be.

The other two forms of anarchism see violent revolution as a means of change, although anarcho-primitivism holds that class is no longer a vsable or viable wehicle in which change can occur, seeing insurrection more as a means of destroying capitalism

Ignoring Lifestyleism and primitivism, class struggle anarchism is a materialist based ideology that sees the working class as the only vehicle in which revolutionary change can happen to an extent that capitalism collapses.

What replaces capitalism immediately after a revolution is hard to say, but it is safe to assume that whatever it is, the state does not exist in the Socialist sense. If we take Spain as an example, collectivism and council organisation was used to begin a process of transition and it worked well, largely speaking.


I have yet to discover how an anarchist revolution can succeed.

As we all are.

No anarchist revolution has succeeded in the context that capitalism no longer exists, but in terms of applying anarchist theory into practice, in terms of replacing the state with workers councils, collectivism and militias, it has been a success.


Marx vs Bakunin is where the debated originated, but I draw much more inspiration from Marx.

They both offered different understandings on different things. Marx was first and foremost an economist. His analysis of capitalism and its effects on human production and interaction were the makings of the anti-capitalist movement.


However, I don't see Bakunin as being the "Marx" of anarchism, so to speak, but I could be wrong.

Bakunin created the classical anarchist movement, which has led to the contemporary anarchist movement. The single unifying principles of anarchism including non-hierarchical and anti-state were from the analysis of Bakunin. So in the sense that an individual created a several definitive traits within the ideology, Bakunin certainly achieved that.

Bakunin pretty much advocated Collectivism which was developed into anarchist communism after he died by people like Errico Malatesta and Peter Kropotkin who have had allot more input into developing anarchist theory. Kropotkin's work was far more economic orientated and far more consistent and coherent than Bakunins, but they are ideas which are contest within the differing variants of the ideology.

Also note that many class-struggle anarchists, including myself see collectivism as a transitional period between capitalism and communism, regardless of whether they realise it.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is an interesting, although post-long, thread about this subject.

Anarchist paradigm for transition (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34437&hl=)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society?[/b]

What do you define Socialism as? ....back in Marx's day it was used to describe the collective running of industry, not the mass nationalisation of industry.

Plus Marx described the post-revolutionary society as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Which meant it would be a society that was run by everybody.


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)What do communists feel are the flaws of anarchist philosophy, and vise versa?[/b]

If I had to say what the "flaws of Anarchism" were. I'd say that it lacks definition. As much as "labelling" is annoying, it can serve a purpose. If someone says they are a Leninist or a Maoist, you will have a reasonable understanding of what their political outlook is. If someone says they are an Anarchist, they could mean a number of things.

However, Marxists have far more baggage that needs to be dealt with, namely Leninism and its children.


Originally posted by nate
the same as autonomist marxists, DOP. supression through councils, workers militias, etc.

Which is, more or less, what Marx himself advocated.


[email protected]
i also do not agree with a "representative" state such as the paris commune.

As I understand it, there is some confusion as to what the Paris Commune actually was. Some people (myself included) are of the opinion that nearly all of the initiatives came from below.

However I too think the Paris Commune was too conservative, we can and will "do better."


The Anarchist Tension
Ignoring Lifestyleism and primitivism, class struggle anarchism is a materialist based ideology that sees the working class as the only vehicle in which revolutionary change can happen to an extent that capitalism collapses.

Which is more or less Marxism with a few differences in terminology.
______

There is in my opinion, virtually no serious difference between Marxism and Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. And the differences that there are, could be overcome.

This thread may interest you -- Uniting anti-Bolshevik Marxists and Anarchists, It must be done. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43438) -- unfortunately, Leninists decided that they should comment and the thread quickly deteriorated.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 20 2005, 04:14 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 20 2005, 04:14 PM) If I had to say what the "flaws of Anarchism" were. I'd say that it lacks definition. [/b]
How is that true?


If someone says they are an Anarchist, they could mean a number of things.

That's the same with any ideology. There are of course specific and definitive aspects to them. Anarchism is an ideology which is anti-capitalist, non-authoritarian and anti-state. You'd never get more specific by asking what Leninism or Marxism was.



The Anarchist Tension
Ignoring Lifestyleism and primitivism, class struggle anarchism is a materialist based ideology that sees the working class as the only vehicle in which revolutionary change can happen to an extent that capitalism collapses.

Which is more or less Marxism with a few differences in terminology.

Anarchist has a specific analysis on the state and authoritarianism, it is not just Marxism with different terminology. The basis of class struggle anarchism is Marx's analysis of capitalism and history but the actual theoretical and practical ideology is fundamentally different.


There is in my opinion, virtually no serious difference between Marxism and Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. And the differences that there are, could be overcome.

What are these "no" differences and how are they overcome?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 02:49 PM
Ignoring Lifestyleism and primitivism, class struggle anarchism is a materialist based ideology that sees the working class as the only vehicle in which revolutionary change can happen to an extent that capitalism collapses.
One word: why? Marxists can point to historical materialism and Marx's economic analyses as "proof" that capitalist will eventually collapse. I'm aware of a number of anarchists who agree with these tools and make use of them but is there any purely anarchist theory as to why or when the proletariat will take power?


This thread may interest you -- Uniting anti-Bolshevik Marxists and Anarchists, It must be done. -- unfortunately, Leninists decided that they should comment and the thread quickly deteriorated.
Well excuse us for insisting that we're not all dead yet :rolleyes:

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 AM
I am curious about what people here think. Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society? If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism? What do communists feel are the flaws of anarchist philosophy, and vise versa?

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. Anarchists do not object to Marx' communism/socialism. Lenin however used socialism as a word for a form of capitalism where the state owned the means of production. All anarchists and many marxists don't view socialism in Lenin's sence of the word as anything to strive for.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)How is that true?[/b]

Well the term Anarchism is a broad term. You said as much in your own post, you have lifestylists, syndicalists etc. All with different goals and methods for achieving them.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)You'd never get more specific by asking what Leninism or Marxism was.[/b]

Well generally if someone says they are a Marxists, they agree with the theories Marx set and the same is true with Leninism. Its not a great way of defining someones politics, but it does give a quick insight into what their politics are.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Anarchist has a specific analysis on the state and authoritarianism

Yes they do. That the state as a function will in time create separate classes is more or less completely correct in my opinion.

However, I think that a post-revolutionary society should start the transition to Communism straight after the revolution and that the most important thing would be to get rid of money as soon as possible. Money and the uneven distribution of it, is far more likely going to create new classes than a "state."


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
but the actual theoretical and practical ideology is fundamentally different.

There's not a great deal of difference between say Council Communist descriptions of a post revolutionary society and Anarchist descriptions.

And actually a few different models, with any form of centralisation ruled completely out, is not a bad thing. A post-revolutionary society may well run into problems and having more than one model to "try out" would be extremely beneficial.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
What are these "no" differences and how are they overcome?

Well I can't list the "no" differences because they aren't there.

As for them being overcome, well I think it would be very good if someone combined parts of Marxism, Council Communism etc. with parts of Anarchism and came up with a whole new revolutionary theory.

However I don't think that even this is necessary, on this board for instance, most Anarcho-Communists and Left Communists already agree on most issues and the disagreements are pretty petty.


[email protected]
but is there any purely anarchist theory as to why or when the proletariat will take power?

Who cares? .....if Anarchists feel Marx was right. It really doesn't matter if an Anarchist version of Marxism comes about, because they can already borrow the good bits of Marxism and ignore the "waffle."


ComradeOm
Well excuse us for insisting that we're not all dead yet :rolleyes:

Not "yet." :lol:

[bombeverything]

I am curious about what people here think. Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society? If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism?

No. The workers are able to liberate themselves without resorting to hierarchies of power and inequality. Most anarchists agree that there would be a need for some kind of organised communal self-defence within a world with continuing states and other oppressive institutions. However, this must be carried out by the workers themselves. Most likely, this would take the form of an armed voluntary militia not seperate from the community that is organised on a collective basis [e.g Spain].


What do communists feel are the flaws of anarchist philosophy, and vise versa?

By communists you seem to be referring only to marxists. In general, marxists argue that anarchism is not "scientific enough" because it does not always fit comfortably with Marx's economic determinism. Many marxists refer to anarchists as idealists, even though anarchists who base their ideology on a class analysis are technically materialists. They argue that we ignore issues of class by focusing only on the nature of political power, and that we cannot defend ourselves from invasion and counterrevolution.

On the other hand, anarchists believe that many marxists are too dogmatic in their interpretation and belief in his work. They also believe that their theory is too determinist and ignores issues of control and power by focusing only on economic issues. Anarchists argue that this method can dehumanise social and political analysis, and is based upon a very mechanistic view of the way the human mind works.

Anarchists have a deeper understanding of the structure, nature and danger of the state apparatus. As a result, we also argue that his idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the form of a hierarchical state could only result in the creation of another ruling class and eventually the reintroduction of capitalism. We feel that this has been proven throughout history. As a result we feel that all forms of hierarchical power must be destroyed if a free society is to be achieved, whilst many Marxists wish to retain the state but change the individuals who have control over it.

However it is important to remember that there are a number of similarities between the two. Also, as someone mentioned before there are different types of Marxism so this can often get a bit messy.

Although I hope this helps a bit.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by bombeverything+--> (bombeverything)As a result, we also argue that his idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the form of a hierarchical state[/b]

This is one of the supposed "sticking points." Personally I think a lot of, Marxist and Anarchist disagreement is semantics. In its most basic form, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the rule of the whole of the proletariat through structures created by the proletariat.

Basically, when the working class seizes power they will do what they want as a class. If an Anarchist, Marxist or Leninist "bigwig" decides that they are going to tell the working class what to do, the working class will tell them to fuck off.

Really, when the working class seizes power, they will as a class do what is practical. If it is impossible to abolish money straight away, they won't do it. If it can be done, they will do that.


bombeverything
whilst many Marxists wish to retain the state but change the individuals who have control over it.

That is the kind of dogma that has in the past stopped the unity of anti-Bolshevik Marxists and Anarchists.

It is a shame that Anarchists still equate Marxism with Leninism, but I hope this will change over time.

[Albert Hofmann]

After a revolution there will be no point in having a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - there will no longer be the bourgeoisie or the proletariat as classes. Class society would cease to exist.

[Zeitgeizt]

Yeah right. And after Nazi Germany ceased to exist there were no more Nazis.

Where do you people get this stuff? I don't think I could repeat what you just said with a straight face.

History proves over and over again that they are just as present as before, and fight vigorously to restore their old way of life...look at Vaclav Havel, and the Cubans in Miami....

[anomaly]

As Zeitgeizt correctly notes, we cannot expect the bourgeosie to have 'disappeared' after the revolution. Pockets of resistance springing up are not something we just expect to happen; they are inevitable. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is neccesary so that the proletariat, as a class, may have legitimate authority for a certain period of time, that is, until the bourgeoisie, as a class, cease to exist. At such time, communism will exist.

The revolution will be victorious once the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established. It will produce communism once the proletariat has destroyed the bourgeoisie as a whole.

[Salmonax]

"Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society?"

If you mean there is a necesity for some kind of "transition state", than no. Transition states have always been used simply to keep a state and to ensure the power of which ever ruling bureacracy took power. Trotsky even went so far as to say that this state required a strong dictatorship that should last for decades before we can have communism. Im not sure, but I think Marx also advocated a "transition state" which would illuminate one of his flaws, in my opinion.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Albert [email protected] 21 2005, 05:28 AM
After a revolution there will be no point in having a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - there will no longer be the bourgeoisie or the proletariat as classes. Class society would cease to exist.
...but during the revolution? We must make the classes cease to exist, they wont by themselves.

The revolution is a process, not just the moment when the revolutionary violence reaches it's peak. The revolution first ends when the classes are extinct.


Salmonax
I would not say that Marx also advocated a "transition state".

bombeverything
Marx was not an economic determinist.
Many marxists perhaps, but not Marx himself.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:38 AM
Although I hope this helps a bit.
That was very helpful, and everyone else has helped as well. Thanks.

In short, it seems that a transition state isn't necessary; however, is there a detailed manner by which communism can be achieved? I realize collectives will play a part, but I am wonder how they will do this. Furthermore, Engels, if I recall correctly, said completely decentralization and removal of the state is impossible. What do anarchists say to this? How would the necessary functions of the state be organized in a decentralized society? Would collectives distribute the functions of hte state amongst themselves and meet to discuss universal issues such as healthcare? Would these meetings occur in different places every time to avoid centralization?

[Albert Hofmann]

Originally posted by Djehuti+Dec 21 2005, 08:12 AM--> (Djehuti @ Dec 21 2005, 08:12 AM)
Albert [email protected] 21 2005, 05:28 AM
After a revolution there will be no point in having a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - there will no longer be the bourgeoisie or the proletariat as classes. Class society would cease to exist.
...but during the revolution? We must make the classes cease to exist, they wont by themselves.

The revolution is a process, not just the moment when the revolutionary violence reaches it's peak. The revolution first ends when the classes are extinct.


Salmonax
I would not say that Marx also advocated a "transition state".

bombeverything
Marx was not an economic determinist.
Many marxists perhaps, but not Marx himself. [/b]
Who says that revolution will be some long, drawn out process? The power of the bourgeoisie is just an illusion. If everyone stopped participating in the capitalist system the bourgeoisie would no longer have any power. It's as simple as that.

If the bourgeoisie cease to exist how can you oppress them? And why would you oppress the ex-bourgeoisie? What purpose would that serve?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)I realize collectives will play a part, but I am wonder how they will do this.[/b]

Check out thus thread -- RevolutionaryLeft Community Archives (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=5983) -- especially the stuff by the Anarchist writers (Goldman, Kroptokin, etc.) and some of the stuff by the "Left" Communists (Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc.).

A good place to start would be the "Anarchist FAQ." That if I remember correctly outlines what an Anarchist society could look like.

You should also check out some of the writers listed by "DJ-TC" in this thread -- Council Communist Literature, Any recommendations? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44010) -- they also outline what a Communist society could look like.


Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Engels, if I recall correctly, said completely decentralization and removal of the state is impossible.

It would be interesting to hear the context of this statement. If he said this during the arguments between the Anarchists and Marx, then it is possible he was saying it just to "pick a fight."

Even great thinkers aren't above petty squabbles.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 19 2005, 07:23 PM
I am curious about what people here think. Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society? If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism? What do communists feel are the flaws of anarchist philosophy, and vise versa?

Sorry that I am not bringing a ton into the conversation. I mainly want to get others debating and learn from what everyone else thinks. As a libertarian socialist, I am slanted in one direction, obviously, but I have yet to discover how an anarchist revolution can succeed.

Marx vs Bakunin is where the debated originated, but I draw much more inspiration from Marx. However, I don't see Bakunin as being the "Marx" of anarchism, so to speak, but I could be wrong.

~Thanks

(I posted a similiar thread elsewhere but someone suggested that it was better suited for this forum).
Marx talks about Socialism, but never really seems to say if it is truly necessary. I guess it just depends on how dogmatic you want to be. It seems that most Marxist(-Leninist) states have been getting stuck at Socialism. The U.S.S.R, Cuba, China. None of them can seem to get past that one stage of destroying social class and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I believe that it is necessary, even though it's pretty hard to get through, it's the only way to get to free communism/self orderly anarchy.

I'd love to hear what anarchists offer as a substitute for Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, since I really have no idea on the Anarchist point of view of this.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 04:20 PM
Who cares? .....if Anarchists feel Marx was right. It really doesn't matter if an Anarchist version of Marxism comes about, because they can already borrow the good bits of Marxism and ignore the "waffle."
If they feel Marx was right. I'm interested in whether there's any anarchist alternative to historial materialism and Marxian economics.

[Albert Hofmann]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Dec 22 2005, 12:08 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Dec 22 2005, 12:08 AM)
Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 04:20 PM
Who cares? .....if Anarchists feel Marx was right. It really doesn't matter if an Anarchist version of Marxism comes about, because they can already borrow the good bits of Marxism and ignore the "waffle."
If they feel Marx was right. I'm interested in whether there's any anarchist alternative to historial materialism and Marxian economics. [/b]
A lot of anarchists agree with Marxist economics and Marx's critique of capitalism - like Bakunin.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Albert Hofmann+Dec 21 2005, 05:59 PM--> (Albert Hofmann @ Dec 21 2005, 05:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:12 AM

Albert [email protected] 21 2005, 05:28 AM
After a revolution there will be no point in having a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - there will no longer be the bourgeoisie or the proletariat as classes. Class society would cease to exist.
...but during the revolution? We must make the classes cease to exist, they wont by themselves.

The revolution is a process, not just the moment when the revolutionary violence reaches it's peak. The revolution first ends when the classes are extinct.


Salmonax
I would not say that Marx also advocated a "transition state".

bombeverything
Marx was not an economic determinist.
Many marxists perhaps, but not Marx himself.
Who says that revolution will be some long, drawn out process? The power of the bourgeoisie is just an illusion. If everyone stopped participating in the capitalist system the bourgeoisie would no longer have any power. It's as simple as that.

If the bourgeoisie cease to exist how can you oppress them? And why would you oppress the ex-bourgeoisie? What purpose would that serve? [/b]
If everyone stopped 'participating' (that is, working) in the capitalist system, all the economies of the world would shut down. And if this happens, the borgeoisie will surely survive longer than the proletariat will. In addition, the likelihood that the entire proletariat just 'stops' working is rmeote. Many starving unemployed people would jump at such an opportunity. The bourgeoisie would also the backing of the army and police (atleast in the beginning). Violence will prove neccesary. And with it comes a rather long process. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Why should we oppress the 'ex-bourgeoisie'? Well, because they will likely gather their strength and attack us if we don't 'oppress' them! After all, when communism is implemented, the 'ex-bourgeoisie' will have nothing to lose and everything to gain by opposing it. Until they prove that they will not attack communism, the bourgeoisie will have to be oppressed. And if history is any indicator, the bourgeoisie will not just 'accept' communism, but rather will fight to restore the old system in which they had power.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Dec 22 2005, 12:08 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Dec 22 2005, 12:08 AM)
Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 04:20 PM
Who cares? .....if Anarchists feel Marx was right. It really doesn't matter if an Anarchist version of Marxism comes about, because they can already borrow the good bits of Marxism and ignore the "waffle."
If they feel Marx was right. I'm interested in whether there's any anarchist alternative to historial materialism and Marxian economics. [/b]
Depends.

Alot of anarchists don't believe in the garbage of the historical-deterministic-religion aspect of Marxism.

There is not a "scientifical" alternative of anarchism, because it is not a science at all Whenever you see a group of peasants fighting for self management and the abolition of hierarchy or hear about a group of unemployed argentinians ocupying factories, you will find the spectre of anarchism floating over them.


Marxian economics is mostly based around criticizing capitalism and explaining how it works, rather than promoting an alternative.

[Albert Hofmann]

If everyone stopped 'participating' (that is, working) in the capitalist system, all the economies of the world would shut down. And if this happens, the borgeoisie will surely survive longer than the proletariat will. In addition, the likelihood that the entire proletariat just 'stops' working is rmeote. Many starving unemployed people would jump at such an opportunity. The bourgeoisie would also the backing of the army and police (atleast in the beginning). Violence will prove neccesary. And with it comes a rather long process. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

If everyone stopped working inside of the capitalist system and took over the factories, etc. what could the bourgeoisie do? Nothing. They would be powerless.


Why should we oppress the 'ex-bourgeoisie'? Well, because they will likely gather their strength and attack us if we don't 'oppress' them!

If all that is left are ex-bourgeoisie you have nothing to worry about. What are a very small minority of people going to do against an overwhelming majority of people? Why become hypocrites and start oppressing people?


After all, when communism is implemented, the 'ex-bourgeoisie' will have nothing to lose and everything to gain by opposing it. Until they prove that they will not attack communism, the bourgeoisie will have to be oppressed. And if history is any indicator, the bourgeoisie will not just 'accept' communism, but rather will fight to restore the old system in which they had power.

That is idiotic. Do they have to take a test to 'prove' they support communism? Who cares if a very small minority of people do not want communism? What are they going to do in the face of an overwhelming majority that do want communism?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Albert [email protected] 21 2005, 11:58 PM

If everyone stopped 'participating' (that is, working) in the capitalist system, all the economies of the world would shut down. And if this happens, the borgeoisie will surely survive longer than the proletariat will. In addition, the likelihood that the entire proletariat just 'stops' working is rmeote. Many starving unemployed people would jump at such an opportunity. The bourgeoisie would also the backing of the army and police (atleast in the beginning). Violence will prove neccesary. And with it comes a rather long process. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

If everyone stopped working inside of the capitalist system and took over the factories, etc. what could the bourgeoisie do? Nothing. They would be powerless.


Why should we oppress the 'ex-bourgeoisie'? Well, because they will likely gather their strength and attack us if we don't 'oppress' them!

If all that is left are ex-bourgeoisie you have nothing to worry about. What are a very small minority of people going to do against an overwhelming majority of people? Why become hypocrites and start oppressing people?


After all, when communism is implemented, the 'ex-bourgeoisie' will have nothing to lose and everything to gain by opposing it. Until they prove that they will not attack communism, the bourgeoisie will have to be oppressed. And if history is any indicator, the bourgeoisie will not just 'accept' communism, but rather will fight to restore the old system in which they had power.

That is idiotic. Do they have to take a test to 'prove' they support communism? Who cares if a very small minority of people do not want communism? What are they going to do in the face of an overwhelming majority that do want communism?
Ah, take over the factories. I thought you meant just a general strike. But it's still not so easy. The bourgeoisie, as I mentioned, would have the support of most of the army and the police, in all likelihood.

Do you really want us to just let the pockets of resistance go about their business? should they not be dealt with? It is highly unlikely that the remaining bourgeoisie will go without a fight. Are we to just let them thrive among us? When they would kill us had they the chance? I think that letting the remaining bourgeoisie be is a very,very bad idea.

Of course a 'test' is not required. If they live peacefully within communism, they obviously support the system. When the time comes, I think it will be quite clear which of the bourgeoisie support communism and which would have us return to capitalism. About the latter, you suggest we do nothing!

No, I suggest we 'get them' before they 'get us'.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Alot of anarchists don't believe in the garbage of the historical-deterministic-religion aspect of Marxism.[/b]

So materialist philosophy as in historical materialism is "historical-deterministic-religion." :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)There is not a "scientifical" alternative of anarchism, because it is not a science at all[/b]

Then how would an Anarchist possibly hope to explain why an Anarchist society would be created?


Originally posted by Marmot
you will find the spectre of anarchism floating over them.

You really shouldn't borrow lines from those you choose to criticise --


Originally posted by Karl Marx
A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism.

-- it looks like Mr. Marx has had some effect on you after all. :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
Marxian economics is mostly based around criticizing capitalism and explaining how it works,

What's wrong with that? .....you need at least some knowledge of how a system works before you can change it. Imagine calling for the working class to rise and not knowing how to define a worker.


[email protected]
rather than promoting an alternative.


Karl Marx
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

You're right Marx didn't offer and promote an alternative. :lol:

[black magick hustla]

What.


So materialist philosophy as in historical materialism is "historical-deterministic-religion."

Saying that history will pass through some forceful stages is deterministic. Maybe you believe in that fantasy about how capitalism will forcefully collapse, and inevitably lead to communism. I don't.

You are probably one of the persons that believe that russia became capitalist because it needed to pass forecefully through advanced capitalism first. :lol:


Then how would an Anarchist possibly hope to explain why an Anarchist society would be created?

You cannot explain it, we are not sure about an anarchist society being created.


You really shouldn't borrow lines from those you choose to criticise --


Originally posted by Karl Marx+--> (Karl Marx)A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism.

-- it looks like Mr. Marx has had some effect on you after all. :lol: [/b]

Hahaha, I did borrow a word I think.

Who said i wasn't influenced by marx anyway? That I don't agree with the religious aspect of marxism, doesn't means I don't agree with some parts of marxism at all.

That is the problem about some of you marxists. You think that borrowing good ideas from theories anarchists criticize is wrong.



What's wrong with that? .....you need at least some knowledge of how a system works before you can change it. Imagine calling for the working class to rise and not knowing how to define a worker.

There is nothing wrong about that. I was merely addressing ComradeOn's question about anarchists having an alternative to marxian economics.





Karl Marx
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

Ha!

What I was talking about was what marxist economics encompass, not the totality of marxist theory. When someone talks about marxist economics, they mostly refer to marx's critique of capitalism and how it works.

Don't put words in my mouth ok. :angry:

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

First off, I completely agree with Djehuti's point about how Marx used socialism and communism.

The whole question of transition is poorly put. Sure there will be a transitionary period when we are destroying capitalism, but have not yet finished. It's callled "revolution".

capitalism --> revolution --> communism

The question is, during a revolution do we stop attacking capitalism/creating communism at some point, and try to create some kind of state run capitalism ("socialism")? The answer of any real revolutionaries is of course "HELL NO!". That doesn't mean there is no transition. The revolution is the transition.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Saying that history will pass through some forceful stages is deterministic.[/b]

Who cares if it is "deterministic" if it is right?


Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Maybe you believe in that fantasy about how capitalism will forcefully collapse, and inevitably lead to communism.[/b]

Well I agree with Marx's prediction that at some point in time the working class will realise that it is in its self interest to overthrow the bourgeois.


Originally posted by Marmot
You are probably one of the persons that believe that russia became capitalist because it needed to pass forecefully through advanced capitalism first. :lol:

I don't know why you are laughing. The overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that a country must first become Capitalist before it can become Communist.

I suppose you resort to blaming that "evil bastard" Lenin for Russia's failure and that "evil bastard" Mao for China's failure.

You know, "Great men in history" theories are "going out of fashion" because they are about as useful as religion. And to think you call Marxism "religious." :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
You cannot explain it

Well an explanation can be found. The working class will realise it is in their self interest to overthrow their rulers and create a classless society.


[email protected]
That I don't agree with the religious aspect of marxism

The "religious" parts being the materialist parts? :lol:

You're not a "post-modernist" are you?


Marmot
You think that borrowing good ideas from theories anarchists criticize is wrong.

No I don't think that. If you look back in this thread, you will see I said a "meshing together" of the good parts of Communist and Anarchist theory would be a good thing. However, the most important thing in that whole "meshing" would be to keep the Marxist materialist outlook.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 22 2005, 08:26 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 22 2005, 08:26 AM)
Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Saying that history will pass through some forceful stages is deterministic.[/b]


Originally posted by Marmot
Maybe you believe in that fantasy about how capitalism will forcefully collapse, and inevitably lead to communism.


Originally posted by Marmot
You are probably one of the persons that believe that russia became capitalist because it needed to pass forecefully through advanced capitalism first. :lol:




Originally posted by Marmot
You cannot explain it


[email protected]
That I don't agree with the religious aspect of marxism




Marmot
You think that borrowing good ideas from theories anarchists criticize is wrong.

No I don't think that. If you look back in this thread, you will see I said a "meshing together" of the good parts of Communist and Anarchist theory would be a good thing. However, the most important thing in that whole "meshing" would be to keep the Marxist materialist outlook. [/b]


Who cares if it is "deterministic" if it is right?


History doesn't works like that chap.




Well I agree with Marx's prediction that at some point in time the working class will realise that it is in its self interest to overthrow the bourgeois.



I also hope that, but I don't think it will surely happen.


I don't know why you are laughing. The overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that a country must first become Capitalist before it can become Communist.

It is really easy to conclude that socialism can only appear in countries with "superabundant" resources.

However, history has clearly showed that the most "radical" sectors of the populace have appeared in backward countries.

You don't see as much wildcat strikes and anarchist militants in USA right now than in, lets say, before WWI. The american proletariat was much more fucked at that time than today.



I suppose you resort to blaming that "evil bastard" Lenin for Russia's failure and that "evil bastard" Mao for China's failure.

You know, "Great men in history" theories are "going out of fashion" because they are about as useful as religion. And to think you call Marxism "religious." :lol:


Ahahahaha, redstarism.

I am not a maoist or leninist, i don't agree in the dependance on the altruism of just a bunch of individuals. The russian revolution failed, but it wasn't exactly because of material conditions.

The whole ideology of leninism depended on the benevolence of an elite. It the elite "fucks up" or is "bad", everybody gets fucked.

There is a whole lot of many other reasons why centralization and authoritarianism are bad.

Certainly, the anarchist mentality of Spanish militants wasn't bred only by the economical condition of spain. It did play a huge part, but the biggest part was that Bakuninists came first to Spain than Marxists did. This led to an anarchist heritage that lasted for many decades, with the construction of anarchosyndicalist unions that led to a practice of direct action.

It would have been probably very different if Marxists would have made it first to Spain than Bakuninists.



Well an explanation can be found. The working class will realise it is in their self interest to overthrow their rulers and create a classless society.


It is very convenient to make conclusions like that.

Current capitalism has shown a remarkable ability of recuperating itself and rendering people to its subjugation using very efficient ways of brainwashing and seduction.

Current alienation is much more powerful than the alienation experienced by workers in the 19th century.


The "religious" parts being the materialist parts? :lol:

You're not a "post-modernist" are you?

The religious part is the deterministic part. Like History always passing through a set of stages to finally reach the utopia (communism).

I do like some post-modernist theories, i can admit this. :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)History doesn't works like that chap.[/b]

If you look at the whole picture of human history, you see that it is very deterministic. Single events and certain periods may "buck a trend" but overall you'll find human history, more or less, follows a set path.


Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)I also hope that, but I don't think it will surely happen.[/b]

We and Marx, could be wrong. However I think that that is a very slim possibility.


Originally posted by Marmot
It is really easy to conclude that socialism can only appear in countries with "superabundant" resources.

Communism requires "superabundance" otherwise it won't work.


Originally posted by Marmot
However, history has clearly showed that the most "radical" sectors of the populace have appeared in backward countries.

Even if that were true, history has shown us that for all of their "radical words" they've proceeded to produce Capitalism on every occasion.

There were probably people during the transition to Feudalism that advocated a form of proto-Capitalism, they may well have attempted this but they would have ended up creating Feudalism all the same.

The English Civil War comes to mind here. They overthrew the King and proceeded to install a new King soon afterwards. No doubt they were sincere in their "radical words" but actually making them happen was impossible.


Originally posted by Marmot
The american proletariat was much more fucked at that time than today.

Yes it was, but will the present American proletariat remain as "well off" as it is today forever. The large scale export of high paid jobs suggests things are already going downhill.


Originally posted by Marmot
The russian revolution failed, but it wasn't exactly because of material conditions.

Yes it was. The Russian working class was too small and to backward to run things for themselves.

Leninism was the likely, if undesirable, outcome of this situation.


Originally posted by Marmot
It would have been probably very different if Marxists would have made it first to Spain than Bakuninists.

Maybe, maybe not.

The actions of the German Communist Party suggest that a purely "Marxist" response to fascism in Spain, may well have been almost identical to the Anarchist response.

Who knows? ....and more importantly, who really cares?


[email protected]
Current capitalism has shown a remarkable ability of recuperating itself and rendering people to its subjugation using very efficient ways of brainwashing and seduction.

For an Anarchist you sound a lot like the Leninists. The working class is not "brainwashed" or "seduced" by Capitalism. It is at the moment in the self interest of the working class to keep Capitalism.

This self interest may be partly perceived, but for most workers Capitalism is in their real self interest when compared with the sacrifices of revolution.

However this won't always be the case. When things go downhill then the "shit really hits the fan."


Marmot
Like History always passing through a set of stages to finally reach the utopia (communism).

Well the Communism part was a prediction. The rest, about the past has been largely proved and with the fall of 20th century "Socialism." Seems to be proved even more.

History is deterministic, we can't bend it to our will. Conscious doesn't effect being, it's the other way round.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 20 2005, 05:20 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 20 2005, 05:20 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)How is that true?[/b]

Well the term Anarchism is a broad term. You said as much in your own post, you have lifestylists, syndicalists etc. All with different goals and methods for achieving them. [/b]
But it's exactly the same with Marxism. I don't see how this is a flaw?



Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
You'd never get more specific by asking what Leninism or Marxism was.

Well generally if someone says they are a Marxists, they agree with the theories Marx set and the same is true with Leninism. Its not a great way of defining someones politics, but it does give a quick insight into what their politics are.

Equally with anarchism.



Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Anarchist has a specific analysis on the state and authoritarianism

Yes they do. That the state as a function will in time create separate classes is more or less completely correct in my opinion.

That's apart of the analysis but it's nowhere as near the reality of it. Contemporary marxists and anarchists fundamentally disagree on the nature of the state, which has nothing to do with semantics.


However, I think that a post-revolutionary society should start the transition to Communism straight after the revolution and that the most important thing would be to get rid of money as soon as possible. Money and the uneven distribution of it, is far more likely going to create new classes than a "state."

In reality the state doesn't create new classes, it maintains old ones.



The Anarchist [email protected]
but the actual theoretical and practical ideology is fundamentally different.

There's not a great deal of difference between say Council Communist descriptions of a post revolutionary society and Anarchist descriptions.

That's very true, but we're talkig about differences between Marxists and anarchists.


And actually a few different models, with any form of centralisation ruled completely out, is not a bad thing. A post-revolutionary society may well run into problems and having more than one model to "try out" would be extremely beneficial.

Possible, but Council Communists usually don't have a problem with the concept of hierarchy and authority. which are two fundamental aspects of anarchist ideology; the opposition to both.



The Anarchist Tension
What are these "no" differences and how are they overcome?

Well I can't list the "no" differences because they aren't there.

Well, "no" differences would be similarities, so I'm interested to know what these similarities are, other than then ones already mentioned.

My point being, that on investigation, you will find that it is much more than semantics which divide us.


As for them being overcome, well I think it would be very good if someone combined parts of Marxism, Council Communism etc. with parts of Anarchism and came up with a whole new revolutionary theory.

I think you miss the understanding of people's beliefs and convictions. For me, as an anarchist, I see the abolishment of hierarchy an integral and fundamental part of creating an anti-capitalist society whereas the Marxists believe that hierarchy is an integral part of winning a revolution.

In order for a synthasis of these ideas to happen, there would have to compromise on key theoretical issues, and that is never ever going to happen.


However I don't think that even this is necessary, on this board for instance, most Anarcho-Communists and Left Communists already agree on most issues and the disagreements are pretty petty.

I don't think ideas on hierarchy and the nature of the state are very petty.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)But it's exactly the same with Marxism. I don't see how this is a flaw?[/b]

Generally if someone says they are a Marxist, that is what they are. If they are a Leninist, Maoist etc. They will specify.

Now obviously Marxism itself can be quite broad, but the difference between one strand of Marxism and another is nowhere near as wide as the difference between Lifestylism or Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Sydicalism.

Though really this is a superficial problem and I suppose I personally would like something to be specifically pro-working class and anti-Capitalist. Sometimes these two simple principles get a bit lost in both Communist and Anarchist camps.


Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Contemporary marxists and anarchists fundamentally disagree on the nature of the state, which has nothing to do with semantics.[/b]

I don't know about that. On this board for instance there are quite a few Marxists who advocate a "straight to Communism" approach. They may not necessarily give any credit to Anarchist theories on the state, but they more or less accept them.


Originally posted by TAT
That's very true, but we're talkig about differences between Marxists and anarchists.

I suppose this comes down to how we define "Marxists." I tend to think the only real Marxists are the Council Communists and the Left Communists. I certainly don't consider Leninism or Maoism to be in any way related to Marxism any more.

So really when I talk about a possible merger between Marxism and Anarchism, that's what I'm thinking of.


Originally posted by TAT
but Council Communists usually don't have a problem with the concept of hierarchy and authority. which are two fundamental aspects of anarchist ideology; the opposition to both.

I must admit I've not come across any Council Communist literature that implies either hierarchy or authoritarianism. However I haven't read a tremendous amount of it, so I'll take your word on that one.


Originally posted by TAT
so I'm interested to know what these similarities are,

Well in short you have two materialist schools of thought, both committed to bringing an end to Capitalism and class society and both of which advocating that the working class as a whole should seize power.


Originally posted by TAT
My point being, that on investigation, you will find that it is much more than semantics which divide us.

Well like I said, I'm not so sure. A lot of Marxists are acting like Anarchists and hold very similar views, even on the state. I think over a century of sectarian bickering makes it unlikely that some Marxists will ever credit Anarchist theorists for being right on anything.

Personally I think Anarchism has and is being far more innovative, both theoretically and practically and not only would it be a shame if Marx was completely ignored, but also if the possibility of uniting Left Communism and Anarchism and creating a whole new school of thought was dismissed.

I think a "messing together" of all the best bits could produce something breathtaking. Of course it could be a dismal failure, but it's worth a try.


[email protected]
whereas the Marxists believe that hierarchy is an integral part of winning a revolution.

Again I think most Marxists base their ideas for what a revolution will be like on the Spanish Civil War, not the Russian Revolution.

Obviously there are improvements that can be made on the Spanish model, but I would imagine that is the type of model you are thinking of?


TAT
I don't think ideas on hierarchy and the nature of the state are very petty.

As I've said I don't think there is much of a disagreement left on these issues and any difference there is, I expect to grow smaller over the coming years. With the Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories, even if they choose not to admit it.

[ComradeOm]

I don't know about that. On this board for instance there are quite a few Marxists who advocate a "straight to Communism" approach. They may not necessarily give any credit to Anarchist theories on the state, but they more or less accept them.
Then they’re not Marxists.


As I've said I don't think there is much of a disagreement left on these issues and any difference there is, I expect to grow smaller over the coming years. With the Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories, even if they choose not to admit it.
I’m still waiting to hear just what these theories that we should be using are. I am interested in knowing just what anarchism has that Marxism doesn’t.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Then they’re not Marxists.[/b]

Not in the theological Marxist sense, no. However, if they have used "the tools of Marxism" and come to a different conclusion, then it could be said that they have advanced Marxism. You know the kind of advancement you think Leninism is.

You may be interested in this piece -- A Contribution to the Critique of Marx. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/marx_critique.htm) -- it is a very good piece and in my opinion goes a long way to explain why Marx thought a state was necessary.

As with everything, Marxism is a fluid theory, the basic "laws" may stay the same, but elements and sometimes the "laws" themselves are improved. After all, Lenin completely changed some of Marx's laws. Perhaps he wasn't a Marxist either?


ComradeOm
I am interested in knowing just what anarchism has that Marxism doesn’t.

Zest. :)

[ComradeOm]

Not in the theological Marxist sense, no. However, if they have used "the tools of Marxism" and come to a different conclusion, then it could be said that they have advanced Marxism. You know the kind of advancement you think Leninism is.
A number of historians, sociologists and economists make use of aspects of Marxism but that does not make them Marxist. By the same token if someone were to study historical materialism and come to the conclusion that communism is impossible then they would be a fool. No matter how preferable it may be, 2+2 does not equal 5.

I am all for adaptability, what some would call revisionism, in Marxism but there is a limit to how far the theory will bend. One of those is the need for socialism, in whatever form. This was not the result of the era that Marx lived in but a simple continuation of the historical trends that he had identified and analysed.

Marx was a realist, a materialist, and those "Marxists" who discard his conclusions in such a fashion are simply building castles in the sky.


Zest.
Revolutionary spirit is the term I’d use. Something noticeably lacking from post-Leninist Marxism. Though I’d be interested in knowing how you can reconcile this "zest" with your conviction that the revolution will come only when the proletariat is advanced enough.

But I am genuinely interested in whether anarchists have any alternative to historical materialism and Marx’s economic analyses. In other words, why the revolution will come about. They’ve been surprisingly quiet on this point.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by TAT
but Council Communists usually don't have a problem with the concept of hierarchy and authority. which are two fundamental aspects of anarchist ideology; the opposition to both.Though Left Communists may not be motivated to revolt by the problems of heirachy and authority, they still advocate workers councils, are anti-state, talk down the authority of the "vanguard" etc. If this was not true then would not be such a close link between councilism and anarchism.

Has it genuinely been accepted by this board that the main problem with anarchism is a lack of a definition of the concept. Is this really the biggest threat on success of an @ revolution? Or heaqven forbid the functioning of an @ society?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 22 2005, 09:27 AM



If you look at the whole picture of human history, you see that it is very deterministic. Single events and certain periods may "buck a trend" but overall you'll find human history, more or less, follows a set path.

What path?

Why was the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece much more advanced than the Middle Ages?
Why did the Spanish had a counter reformation movement and actually made their economical conditions more backward?
Is it really true that Alexander the Great's conquered alot of land mostly because of its economical conditions rather than the lust of power of Alexander?

Is it really true that all human psyche and historical outcomes are decided solely on economical conditions?



Communism requires "superabundance" otherwise it won't work.

I do understand this conclusion, however I already addressed the problem.

I don't know is communism is reachable frankly, but I do know that socialism (by this I mean workers controlling the means of production, not the marxist state type) can happen in some places you consider "not apt to communism".


Even if that were true, history has shown us that for all of their "radical words" they've proceeded to produce Capitalism on every occasion.

There were probably people during the transition to Feudalism that advocated a form of proto-Capitalism, they may well have attempted this but they would have ended up creating Feudalism all the same.

The English Civil War comes to mind here. They overthrew the King and proceeded to install a new King soon afterwards. No doubt they were sincere in their "radical words" but actually making them happen was impossible.


I admit I don't know much about the English Civil War, I will give you the benefit of doubt.


Yes it was. The Russian working class was too small and to backward to run things for themselves.

Leninism was the likely, if undesirable, outcome of this situation.

Oh, that narrowminded view of the peasants and glorification of urban working class!

Seriously, does who think the peasantry will always be more reactionary than the proletariat have never talked to a peasant through their whole life!

I live in Mexico, and I can assure you the most radical elements of the populace have always been "the peasantry". They where the ones that started armed revolts for self management of land and they where probably the ones that instigated workers to insurrection in order to take over sugar refineries in the South from 1940-1970. In fact anarchist theory affected more the peasant populace than the urban populace. In the Mexican Revolution, the urban working class allied with the liberal bourgeois while the rural class was actually killing their bourgeois and trying to install democratic councils.


Maybe, maybe not.

The actions of the German Communist Party suggest that a purely "Marxist" response to fascism in Spain, may well have been almost identical to the Anarchist response.

Who knows? ....and more importantly, who really cares?

You didn't get my point didn't you?

I was arguing about anarchist heritage and anarchist practice owing alot to the Bakuninists coming first. This small variable didn't have to do with "Economical conditions" at all.

If by purely "marxist" you meant Rosa Luxembourg and her Spartacist buddies, then I don't think so. Luxembourg was a phenomenom, and they simply took a different interpretation of marxism.

Remember that the whole argument of the first international between Bakunin and Marx mostly revolved around how a "red bureacracy" would form if marx's socialism was implemented.

What prevented vanguardism of being implemented in Spain was probably the strong contradiction anarchism has with centralization.


For an Anarchist you sound a lot like the Leninists. The working class is not "brainwashed" or "seduced" by Capitalism. It is at the moment in the self interest of the working class to keep Capitalism.

This self interest may be partly perceived, but for most workers Capitalism is in their real self interest when compared with the sacrifices of revolution.
Nice theory.

There is nothing more convenient about capitalism at all. If you think working countless of hours in a boring job, just to return to home and watch a bit of tv is convenient, then you probably are a very boring person.

People love shit like violent movies and violent video games because simply, their lives lack real life "thrill".

You don't think that creating the illusion that your life would be more "fun" and fulfilled if you buy flat panel tvs and expensive cars is not brainwashing at all? Or how some women are obsessed with buying clothes of "good brands"?

You see, by capitalism recuperating I mostly meant shit like economy being recovered by keynesianism in the United States. I wouldn't be surprised if for example, the United States would turn fascist because capitalism is at danger. It won't be that difficult you know, there is a strong zealous movement and a strong nationalistic movement in America. The perfect amount of superstition.


Well the Communism part was a prediction. The rest, about the past has been largely proved and with the fall of 20th century "Socialism." Seems to be proved even more.

History is deterministic, we can't bend it to our will. Conscious doesn't effect being, it's the other way round.

Or maybe the fall of 20th century socialism has proved that the dependedance of an elite leads to a catastrophe?

Just because they call themselves "worker democracies" means they are "worker democracies" at all.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 21 2005, 12:54 AM
Personally I think a lot of, Marxist and Anarchist disagreement is semantics.
Yeah basically. If you discount Leninists (who aren't really communists/Marxists anyway) and non-class struggle anarchists (who are basically wankers) then you're left with disagreement over how to organise in a pre-revolutionary society and slight quibbles over at which point one stops "supporting" the Bolshevik revolution (if it all).

(Oh yeah, and take the newspapers off the Trots, they're just gonna annoy you anyway. :lol:)

The important point to remember is what is meant by the dictatorship of the proleteriat. I don't think Marx is supposed to be taken literally on that point, he basically meant using the bourgeios means of production and state resources as a means of survival during the revolution.

(Sorry if that's already been said, I can't be arsed reading it all.)

[anomaly]

So, ComradeOm, you insist that socialism is 'neccesary'? How do you propose socialism be structured, if not by the Leninist models, which have historically proven to be an utter failure?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:28 AM
So, ComradeOm, you insist that socialism is 'neccesary'? How do you propose socialism be structured, if not by the Leninist models, which have historically proven to be an utter failure?
I’m not arguing that Leninist models are necessary, not here at least. What is certain though is the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in whatever form it may take. Anyone who suggests "jumping straight to communism" is wrong

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:00 AM
I’m not arguing that Leninist models are necessary, not here at least. What is certain though is the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in whatever form it may take. Anyone who suggests "jumping straight to communism" is wrong
How do you define the dictatorship of the proletariat? In an anarchist sense, could it be using capitalist resources in a decentralized manner to defend the socialist state from capitalism?

Personally, many anarchists, such as myself, do not object to using socialism as transitionary phase, but I do object to centralization. The proletariat must democratically and, without elected representatives, use council communism or collectives to project the socialist state.

If a revolution were to occur, a centralized and hierarchical state will not protect it from capitalism. Capitalist countries, while socialism is moving towards communism, will have the ability to accumulate wealth at a faster rate. Unless socialism is ingrained within the hearts of the people, I fail to see how it will be successful. Centralization leads to bourgeois rule because the probability corruption is high. Theoretically, it could succeed, but I don't want to wait that long.

In terms of moving directly to communism, I think it would be favorable, but I am not certain of whether or not it will work.

[guerrillaradio]

I still don't 100% understand what is meant by socialism. Personally I'm not interested in any kind of revolutionary change that doesn't result in socialism. Surely all it is is the socialisation (ie popular involvement therein) of means of production, decision-making etc. I think it's pretty despicable when anarchists sneer about "socialism", cos without it anarchist theory is completely redundant.

RE: the Marxist "phase" of dictatorship of the proleteriat. I think people should be wary of taking Marx too literally on that. I interpret the progression towards communism as a hugely gradual process, and the revolution could take many, many years. Similarly, the transition from capitalism to communism could be very eventual...and I think Marx was trying to indicate that, rather than set in hyper grand narrative. Quit looking at things in terms of stages and instead, more as part of an evolutionary process.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Albert [email protected] 21 2005, 11:59 PM
Who says that revolution will be some long, drawn out process? The power of the bourgeoisie is just an illusion. If everyone stopped participating in the capitalist system the bourgeoisie would no longer have any power. It's as simple as that.

If the bourgeoisie cease to exist how can you oppress them? And why would you oppress the ex-bourgeoisie? What purpose would that serve?
The bourgeoisie are nothing without the proletariat, the proletariat is everything without the bourgeoisie. That is true.

Still, the whole working class will not stop being variable capital at the very same moment. Also the bourgeoisie will use force to make the workers go back to work, the working class must organize in order to seize being working class, without organization the bourgeoisie will succeed. Their rule must be undermined, their dominance must be repressed.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Dec 23 2005, 06:00 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Dec 23 2005, 06:00 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 01:28 AM
So, ComradeOm, you insist that socialism is 'neccesary'? How do you propose socialism be structured, if not by the Leninist models, which have historically proven to be an utter failure?
I’m not arguing that Leninist models are necessary, not here at least. What is certain though is the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in whatever form it may take. Anyone who suggests "jumping straight to communism" is wrong [/b]
I certainly agree. In my opinion, the revolution cannot be won by the proletariat until they have created the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, the formation of this will signal that the revolution is victorious. The dictatorship of the proletariat will make their power legitimate, and with this power, they can begin to wipe out the remaining bourgeoisie.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)By the same token if someone were to study historical materialism and come to the conclusion that communism is impossible then they would be a fool.[/b]

Yet these Marxists have not done that.

They have studied material reality and come to the conclusion that with the level of technology around now and the level of education of the modern working class. No centralisation will be required.

That's hardly misusing the "tools of Marxism." Marxism after all should "evolve" in accordance with changes in the material conditions and if anything, a misuse of Marxism would be those in the Leninist and Maoist camps that proclaim that what was relevant in 1917 and 1949. Is still relevant today and still relevant to the advanced Capitalist nations. It's not.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)One of those is the need for socialism, in whatever form.[/b]

The key there is in the word "form."

Even those who advocate a "straight to Communism" approach. Agree that there is a "lower stage of Communism." Marx called this the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the term "Socialism" has often been used.

However, these days the word "Socialism" means a completely different thing than it did in Marx's day. Today "Socialism" means "State Socialism" as practised in Russia. Which was completely different from the Paris Commune type Socialism which Marx referred too.

So been as the word "Socialism" now has such a negative meaning. A lot of people have had to bring out their Thesaurus's and come up with a new word for workers control of industry. Therefore we now hear phrases like "lower stage of Communism" where "Socialism" was once used.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
but a simple continuation of the historical trends that he had identified and analysed.

There is no historical trend that says that there will be "State Socialism." Indeed the whole point of Communism being a prediction, is that we have never seen anything like it before.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Marx was a realist, a materialist, and those "Marxists" who discard his conclusions in such a fashion are simply building castles in the sky.

Did you read the piece I linked? .....if you did, you'll notice that the author outlines the difficulties in being a "materialist" during Marx's lifetime. The triangle proposition was in my opinion most interesting.

That one short piece has contributed more to Marxism, than Lenin ever did.


Originally posted by ComrdeOm
Something noticeably lacking from post-Leninist Marxism.

Leninist Marxism is hardly brimming with activity either. The last time I checked most Leninist parties were happily participating in bourgeois democracy and not even getting far with that.

Indeed the RCP is the only Leninist party I have heard of that begins to match the Anarchists for "revolutionary spirit."

However what was interested about the piece that I linked, was that it comes from a Communist site that is having its contents transfered to "Anarchist Federation" website.

It seems as though post-Leninist Marxism is at least contributing a bit to that "revolutionary spirit" in the Anarchist camp.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Though I’d be interested in knowing how you can reconcile this "zest" with your conviction that the revolution will come only when the proletariat is advanced enough.

What are you talking about? .....I've said that revolution can't be forced by a small elite vanguard. This doesn't mean I have an objection to "zestful" activism.


Originally posted by Marmot
Why was the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece much more advanced than the Middle Ages?

Do I really need to explain this? ....and anyway, what does it have to do with the statement "If you look at the whole picture of human history, you see that it is very deterministic."


Originally posted by Marmot
Is it really true that Alexander the Great's conquered alot of land mostly because of its economical conditions rather than the lust of power of Alexander?

Marxism as you are probably aware, is a macro-science. Applying it as a micro-science, won't produce the most consistent results.


Originally posted by Marmot
Is it really true that all human psyche and historical outcomes are decided solely on economical conditions?

You should have asked -- "Is it really true that all human psyche and historical outcomes are decided solely on perceived material self interest?"

Now I don't think anyone could argue that what drives us is our perceived self interest based on the material reality we are in. Human activity is directly linked to our material surroundings and our ability to understand them.


Originally posted by Marmot
(by this I mean workers controlling the means of production, not the marxist state type)

That statement does show your ignorance of what Marx actually wrote.


Originally posted by Marmot
can happen in some places you consider "not apt to communism".

I think the disasters of worker owned factories where workers bought factories and then in no time at all became Capitalists. Shows that material abundance is a must, before any kind of worker control can happen.


Originally posted by Marmot
and glorification of urban working class!

No, I said the Russian working class in 1917 was backward. Hardly glorification.


Originally posted by Marmot
have never talked to a peasant through their whole life!

I'm happy to admit that where I live there are no peasants and therefore I have never met a peasant.

My views on the peasantry are purely perception.


Originally posted by Marmot
and I can assure you the most radical elements of the populace have always been "the peasantry"

No doubt that in certain areas of the world the peasantry is very progressive. However in the modern Capitalist nations they are not progressive at all.

Indeed in these nations the "peasant class" is rapidly declining and an agricultural proletariat is taking its place.


Originally posted by Marmot
while the rural class was actually killing their bourgeois and trying to install democratic councils.

What we don't know is what would have actually happened had they succeeded. The Bolsheviks were no doubt incredibly sincere in their aims of creating Communism, but material reality stopped them.
_______

I actually don't have that big a problem with the peasantry of the developing world. In my opinion they are far more progressive than the urban working classes most of the time. Mainly because they get a "worse deal."

However, this does not mean the "peasant class" is progressive in advanced Capitalist nations. They are actually quite regressive because they no longer have a role to play.


Originally posted by Marmot
You didn't get my point didn't you?

No. :(


Originally posted by Marmot
This small variable didn't have to do with "Economical conditions" at all.

The Spanish working class no doubt has string sympathies for the Anarchist movement. They after all fought, and died, for the interests of the Spanish working class.

They would have probably felt the same had the Leninists come first. Indeed, as I understand it, there are still a few prominent Trotskyist parties in Spain.


Originally posted by Marmot
If by purely "marxist" you meant Rosa Luxembourg and her Spartacist buddies

No, I was talking about the Stalinist German Communist Party and its militant reaction towards Nazism.


Originally posted by Marmot
Luxembourg was a phenomenom, and they simply took a different interpretation of marxism.

You are really full of Anarchist "hogwash" towards Marxism. Just in case you don't know, Leninism has nothing to do with the ideas of Marx.


Originally posted by Marmot
how a "red bureaucracy" would form if marx's socialism was implemented.

Yes Bakunin's "lucky guess." ;)

If you look a few posts up I linked a piece, here it is again -- A Contribution to the Critique of Marx. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/marx_critique.htm) -- it is a very interesting piece, which is worth reading. Particularly interesting is how it points out that the material reality of that time, meant that a "red bureaucracy" or "State Socialism" was all that a committed materialist could envisage.

Another piece that may interest you is this -- Marx, theoretician of anarchism by Maximilien Rubel (1973) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42843) -- worth a read at the very least.


Originally posted by Marmot
There is nothing more convenient about capitalism at all.

If you can put food on the table, heat your home and have a holiday once a year. Then Capitalism is going to work for you at the moment.


Originally posted by Marmot
then you probably are a very boring person.

I am a "boring person." Just look at my post count. :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
You don't think that creating the illusion that your life would be more "fun" and fulfilled if you buy flat panel tvs and expensive cars is not brainwashing at all?

Big TV's and fast cars are fun. There is no brainwashing involved, because if you like these things, then owning them is fulfilling.

Out of interest, do you have primitivist leanings?


Originally posted by Marmot
Or how some women are obsessed with buying clothes of "good brands"?

What's wrong with wanting to wear nice clothes?


Originally posted by Marmot
by capitalism recuperating I mostly meant shit like economy being recovered by keynesianism in the United States.

However the American economy is no longer recovering. There are some primitive indicators that a major recession might be on the way.


Originally posted by Marmot
I wouldn't be surprised if for example, the United States would turn fascist because capitalism is at danger.

It almost went fascist in the thirties, I suspect they'd try something similar again. We've just got to make sure that they lose.


[email protected]
Or maybe the fall of 20th century socialism has proved that the dependedance of an elite leads to a catastrophe?

Indeed that argument could be made and no doubt it is pretty clear that future workers movements should be out of principle leaderless and de-centralised. After all, we are Communists and therefore the Communist movement should reject hierarchy out of principle.


Marmot
Just because they call themselves "worker democracies" means they are "worker democracies" at all.

Indeed.

However I have never suggested Russia post 1918 was anything close to a "workers democracy." I just don't think it would have been any different had the Anarchists held sway.

[ComradeOm]

Yet these Marxists have not done that.

They have studied material reality and come to the conclusion that with the level of technology around now and the level of education of the modern working class. No centralisation will be required.
Perhaps I should have filled in the dots. Anyone who studies Marx and comes to the conclusion that socialism is unnecessary is a fool. By the same token anyone who says they can go straight to communism is implying that class differences will disappear. That is bullshit.

This thread is not about Lenin and its not about Mao. Its about the continued existence of the bourgeoisie after the revolution. Thus the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat which requires the state. It may be a completely new form of government or it may be a bourgeois in form, that is not the point in question here, but the state will continue.


The key there is in the word "form."

Even those who advocate a "straight to Communism" approach. Agree that there is a "lower stage of Communism." Marx called this the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the term "Socialism" has often been used.

However, these days the word "Socialism" means a completely different thing than it did in Marx's day. Today "Socialism" means "State Socialism" as practised in Russia. Which was completely different from the Paris Commune type Socialism which Marx referred too.

So been as the word "Socialism" now has such a negative meaning. A lot of people have had to bring out their Thesaurus's and come up with a new word for workers control of industry. Therefore we now hear phrases like "lower stage of Communism" where "Socialism" was once used.
Fuck semantics. Communism is classless society and socialism is the period between capitalism and communism. Start screwing around with terms like that and you’re in trouble.


There is no historical trend that says that there will be "State Socialism." Indeed the whole point of Communism being a prediction, is that we have never seen anything like it before.
Modern capitalism is completely different from feudalism. Yet how different were the first forms of capitalism from their predecessors?

In any case where there is class conflict there will be the state. The stronger the friction between the classes the stronger the power and centralisation of said state.


Did you read the piece I linked? .....if you did, you'll notice that the author outlines the difficulties in being a "materialist" during Marx's lifetime. The triangle proposition was in my opinion most interesting.

That one short piece has contributed more to Marxism, than Lenin ever did.
I read the piece, I just didn’t agree with its conclusions. And whoever argues that Marx was not a materialist is quite simply a fool and a dangerous one at that.

The triangle is interesting though. A visualisation of an idea that I’ve been interested in for a while.

What the author of this piece, and apparently you, errs is in believing that material conditions progress like the straight line on a graph. That is incorrect. The material conditions for reality rise and ebb as various factors come into play. In Marx’s day it was perfectly possible to connect the three sides of the triangle, that’s how Marxism came about. Lenin’s additions to the theory were attempts to both explain but why the triangle no longer held and how to reconnect it.


Leninist Marxism is hardly brimming with activity either. The last time I checked most Leninist parties were happily participating in bourgeois democracy and not even getting far with that.

Indeed the RCP is the only Leninist party I have heard of that begins to match the Anarchists for "revolutionary spirit."
True Leninism has been dead for the better part of a century. Now that the Stalinists and Maoists are discredited the way is clear for orthodox Leninists. It has the correct theory to build on, it is able to complete the triangle so to speak.


What are you talking about? .....I've said that revolution can't be forced by a small elite vanguard. This doesn't mean I have an objection to "zestful" activism.
To what point? By your fatalist interpretation of historical materialism revolution will happen regardless of what we do. In other words, you’re wasting your time as you can’t complete the triangle.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)By the same token anyone who says they can go straight to communism is implying that class differences will disappear. That is bullshit.[/b]

You see the "straight to Communism" approach requires that we go straight to a lower stage of Communism. In the past that was called "Socialism." The democratic control of workplaces etc.

However these days Socialism means "State Socialism" and large scale nationalisation of industry with very little, if any, worker control.

To me, and Marx for that matter, Socialism meant something completely different to what Leninists propose.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Thus the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat which requires the state.[/b]

How did you work that one out? .....the "dictatorship of the proletariat" requires whatever the proletariat decides it requires.

There is a fundamental difference between the way Marxists view the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and how Leninists view it. Indeed the "most radical" idea I've heard from the Leninist camp is multi-party Socialism, and that is hardly radical at all.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
but the state will continue.

If there is any state it is supposed to last for a very brief period of time and then "wither away."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Fuck semantics.

No we can't "fuck semantics."

People use the same words but these words have profoundly different meanings when used by the different camps. It is therefore important to clearly define what these words mean.

Out of interest, what does Socialism mean to you?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Yet how different were the first forms of capitalism from their predecessors?

Do you mean how different was early Capitalism for late feudalism? .....well it was radically different. There were completely new structures and institutions developed by the new ruling class. Why should the proletariat be any different?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The stronger the friction between the classes the stronger the power and centralisation of said state.

And there we have a recipe for postponing Communism forever.

The state gets stronger and starts to reinstall Capitalism and then because of this class conflict the state takes more power and then the class conflict grows even more.

It is a viscous circle and quite frankly would make a revolution pointless. We overthrow the old bastards and get a whole new set. :(


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And whoever argues that Marx was not a materialist is quite simply a fool and a dangerous one at that.

Was Marx above the mortal whims of occasional idealism? :lol:

Anyway, the author of that piece argued that Marx was too much of a materialist and that it might have been batter if he'd been more utopian when describing the future.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
is in believing that material conditions progress like the straight line on a graph. That is incorrect.

They may have temporary setbacks and speed up at times. However generally once we pass a certain epoch there is no going back.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In Marx’s day it was perfectly possible to connect the three sides of the triangle

It was, if you wanted to become a bourgeois revolutionary. Did you miss that part of the piece where the author describes how it was an "era of Capitalist revolutions" and therefore this severely hindered Marx's ability to be a materialist Communist theoretician.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Now that the Stalinists and Maoists are discredited the way is clear for orthodox Leninists.

I await the re-entry of Leninism as a major political player. :o


[email protected]
By your fatalist interpretation of historical materialism revolution will happen regardless of what we do.

This must be a Leninist thing.

Are you not able to grasp the point that small elites can't bend reality to their wills and therefore all our "revolutionary work" will only make a small splash in the ocean.

This doesn't mean that we stop splashing. It just means that we are largely insignificant when it come to changing material reality.


ComradeOm
In other words, you’re wasting your time as you can’t complete the triangle.

I don't think anyone can complete the triangle completely.

[ComradeOm]

How did you work that one out? .....the "dictatorship of the proletariat" requires whatever the proletariat decides it requires.
The state is the expression of the ruling class. In socialism the ruling class is the proletariat. Until there are no class divisions there will always be some form of state.

I don’t give a damn, not in this thread of least, of the nature that this state will take.


No we can't "fuck semantics."

People use the same words but these words have profoundly different meanings when used by the different camps. It is therefore important to clearly define what these words mean.
Then either define what your terms are or be more accurate in their use. What do you expect people to think when you say “jump straight to communism”?


Out of interest, what does Socialism mean to you?
The period between capitalism and communism. As I imagine it means to almost everyone else on these forums.


Do you mean how different was early Capitalism for late feudalism? .....well it was radically different. There were completely new structures and institutions developed by the new ruling class. Why should the proletariat be any different?
The Emperor of France mean anything to you? ;)

I imagine that the initial structure of the state in socialism will be similar to existing governments. It will take time, hopefully not to long of course, before the means of production will be completely socialised. A transition stage so to speak. Over time the state will then proceed to wither away.


And there we have a recipe for postponing Communism forever.

The state gets stronger and starts to reinstall Capitalism and then because of this class conflict the state takes more power and then the class conflict grows even more.

It is a viscous circle and quite frankly would make a revolution pointless. We overthrow the old bastards and get a whole new set.
Except that the state will be run and governed by the people. There will be no “set of bastards”. This not impossible to have both a centralised and democratic state. As I mentioned above, over time the state will shed its powers to regional councils or communes until the state ceases to exist.


Anyway, the author of that piece argued that Marx was too much of a materialist and that it might have been batter if he'd been more utopian when describing the future.
You can’t be too much of a materialist ;)

In any case no doubt if Marx had been more utopian his works wouldn’t have nearly the same impact as they do today. Marxism is a science


They may have temporary setbacks and speed up at times. However generally once we pass a certain epoch there is no going back.
Naturally. However there are fluctuations of the conditions within an epoch. Its only natural as the various factors that influence the economic base come and go.


It was, if you wanted to become a bourgeois revolutionary. Did you miss that part of the piece where the author describes how it was an "era of Capitalist revolutions" and therefore this severely hindered Marx's ability to be a materialist Communist theoretician.
And here we are living in a capitalist era. That must make us bourgeois :o

It is denying historical fact to state that the revolutions that those workers of Marx’s day were liberal. It is an insult to them and all the fought for to claim that they were pawns of the bourgeoisie.


This must be a Leninist thing.

Are you not able to grasp the point that small elites can't bend reality to their wills and therefore all our "revolutionary work" will only make a small splash in the ocean.

This doesn't mean that we stop splashing. It just means that we are largely insignificant when it come to changing material reality.
It is a Leninist thing. Without either Leninism or anarchism there is nothing particularly revolutionary about Marxism today. You can “splash” about all you want but, using a strict interpretation of historical materialism, it makes no difference whatsoever

Obviously I find that to be defeatist and frankly an insult to all that the workers have won to date.


I don't think anyone can complete the triangle completely.
Except using either Lenin’s additions to Marxism or anarchist “zest”

[black magick hustla]

Do I really need to explain this? ....and anyway, what does it have to do with the statement "If you look at the whole picture of human history, you see that it is very deterministic."
Is it really true that Alexander the Great's conquered alot of land mostly because of its economical conditions rather than the lust of power of Alexander?


What is "macro" to you though. What do you mean about the whole history? Have youread about civilizations in America before European interference? Did you see how many native americans, (while having a well defined hierarchy) didn't know private property, and instead worked the land communaly? Why did anarchism in Mexico adapted so well to the indigenous communal heritage? Why did the indigenous did had a communal heritage, while many europeans didn't? Why was the peasantry in Mexico much more radical than the proletariat in Mexico? Why did the aztec empire was much more advanced than europe in many areas but the only metasl they knew how to control was gold and silver?


Look at all this questions closely, and ask yourself if really that "materialist conception of history" you marxists talk always about is true.



You should have asked -- [i]"Is it really true that all human psyche and historical outcomes are decided solely on perceived material self interest?"

Now I don't think anyone could argue that what drives us is our perceived self interest based on the material reality we are in. Human activity is directly linked to our material surroundings and our ability to understand them.
Please give a more specific example.



That statement does show your ignorance of what Marx

I don't know what was I actually thinking when I wrote that. However, Marx was very ambigous in his writings. Some interpreted it in a a very libertarian way, and others interpreted it in a despotic way. You cannot accuse Leninists of being unmarxist, because most of their marxism "did comform" with marx's writings. Marx didn't lay a "plan" on how the dictatorship oif the proletariat would be accomploished.

Sure, you could point out about how "Russia wasnt capitalist blahblahblah". However, most marxists, regardless of how fucked up their country is, would always try to take advantage of the radical traits passing through a population at any given time.


You could always point out how Marx and Engels said that the Paris Commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat. But their are some problems with this:

1) Most socialists at that time embraced the communard insurrection-
2) Marx didn't deny that their could be other "strategies" for achieving the revolution.





I think the disasters of worker owned factories where workers bought factories and then in no time at all became Capitalists. Shows that material abundance is a must, before any kind of worker control can happen.

Of course they became "capitalist". Factories operating in a capitalist system, where they need to sell their shit and compete with other factories will turn "capitalist". Thus doesn't means however, that co-operatives in capitalist countries don't have socialist traits.


No doubt that in certain areas of the world the peasantry is very progressive. However in the modern Capitalist nations they are not progressive at all.

Indeed in these nations the "peasant class" is rapidly declining and an agricultural proletariat is taking its place.

Of course, and this proves my point that "your historical materialism" doesn't works always.




What we don't know is what would have actually happened had they succeeded. The Bolsheviks were no doubt incredibly sincere in their aims of creating Communism, but material reality stopped them.

The Bolsheviks were sincere. This also proves my point about how the Leninist paradigm will not work in achieving communism. Regardless if their strategies are implemented in developed or underdeveloped countries.



The Spanish working class no doubt has string sympathies for the Anarchist movement. They after all fought, and died, for the interests of the Spanish working class.

They would have probably felt the same had the Leninists come first. Indeed, as I understand it, there are still a few prominent Trotskyist parties in Spain.


There was the POUM, and it wasn't never very big. The POUM was very libertarian compared to other trot parties, no doubt. I think though, that the POUM became a "libertarian" party simply because they got influenced by the anarchists. The anarchism was "bigger" than marxism in Spain, so it is not farfetched to say that anarchism influenced marxism.


Big TV's and fast cars are fun. There is no brainwashing involved, because if you like these things, then owning them is fulfilling.

Out of interest, do you have primitivist leanings?



Why is living your life through spectacles much more fun that actually living it yourself? Obviously, TV did find its niche in today's consumerist and monotonial society simply because people don't have time to live "their own lives" or they are "afraid" of living them. To many hours of boring jobs does affect, you know.

I am not a primitivist, but I guess I do have some "primitivist leanings".




What's wrong with wanting to wear nice clothes?

What are nice clothes though, who defines why are them nice? What is the "fun" of an abercrombie tshirt to the point of having people dedicate so much time and effort to actually get them. The few times i have gone with friends to "shopping" i would get bored as fuck.


However the American economy is no longer recovering. There are some primitive indicators that a major recession might be on the way.


It is not about the "economy recovering". It is about "capitalism" recovering.

Whether it takes the form as fascism or as laissez de faire, it has been able to stay standing for a while.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)In socialism the ruling class is the proletariat.[/b]

Indeed the ruling class is the proletariat. However do you really think it is possible for the whole of the proletariat to express their rule through one centralised un-democratic body?


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Then either define what your terms are or be more accurate in their use.[/b]

Most Marxist theoreticians who advocate the "straight to Communism" approach. Make it more or less clear that they mean the "lower stage of communism." Which used to be called Socialism.

Maybe I should have said this originally.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The period between capitalism and communism.

No. What do you think it will look like?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I imagine that the initial structure of the state in socialism will be similar to existing governments.

Why? .....all the other forms of society have been based around a privileged elite keeping power. A proletarian society for it to work, would have to be radically different.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
This not impossible to have both a centralised and democratic state.

Name one centralised state that has managed to be democratic for say over five years?

Your interpretation of a post-revolutionary society, seems to be a nicer kind of the parliamentary system in Britain now. It's not good enough for me, I want people in all communities to have power, not just delegates form those communities who have been sent to Westminster.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In any case no doubt if Marx had been more utopian his works wouldn’t have nearly the same impact as they do today.

Not his works on Capitalism, no. However the author of the piece suggested that he should have been more utopian when describing what he saw as a future society.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is denying historical fact to state that the revolutions that those workers of Marx’s day were liberal.

You yourself called the Chartist movement bourgeois. :lol:

However it is not "denying historical fact." Those revolutions all produced "liberal democracies."

You interestingly, don't deny that "being determines conscience." You just change what that "being" was. Consider this little extract --


Originally posted by Letter from Marx to [email protected] 30 July 1862
It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm).

Do you honestly think that in a period in time where the most advanced fighters for equality called people "Jewish nigger[s]" (earlier in the letter) it was possible to create an egalitarian society.

As I have said before, Marx was a product of his times and by todays standards that time was incredibly reactionary.

Therefore it is not that hard to think that some of this "historical baggage" would have rubbed off on even a man as intelligent as Marx.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is an insult to them and all the fought for to claim that they were pawns of the bourgeoisie.

Never mind that I didn't say they were "pawns of the bourgeois" (though such a statement is possibly very accurate). Why does it matter if I do insult them? ......they are dead, which means they're hardly going to come down and "smite me."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You can “splash” about all you want but, using a strict interpretation of historical materialism, it makes no difference whatsoever

This point is really lost on you isn't it? ......saying that one person or a small group of people aren't going to create a mass uprising. Doesn't mean that one person or small groups of people can't try their hardest to help bring about this event.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Except using either Lenin’s additions to Marxism or anarchist “zest”

So somehow Lenin's additions or Anarchist activity can give us superpowers? :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
What is "macro" to you though.

Everything. :)


Originally posted by Marmot
Look at all this questions closely, and ask yourself if really that "materialist conception of history" you marxists talk always about is true.

Well I am not a "Marxist scholar" nor do I have a particular interest in the history of South America. However I imagine there have been "Marxist historians" who have answered these questions. I actually did read something a while back about some Marxists (who saw the Marxist materialism as euro-centric) adapting it and developing it to fit the rest of the world.

It may well be that Marx was completely wrong about the nature of pre-feudal societies. Not surprising given the lack of information on them in Marx's time, indeed good sources are still hard to come by.

However there seems to be an implication in your post, that somehow other societies can pass through epochs of production and have radically different class societies.

How can this be explained in a materialistic way? ......perhaps you think it is somehow genetic. That certain genetic groups have different tendencies. This interestingly, despite sounding a bit like the foundations of race science, may have some basis.

Certain genetic groups (as I understand it) have been shown to have certain attributes and before wide scale travel, the original "races" would have been far more "defined."

However, I don't think that any differences (which are tiny) in physical or mental attributes can really that radically change what form of class society is present. Therefore this hypothesis doesn't seem all that plausible to me, so what other reason could there be?

Personally I would be interested to find out what kind of production capabilities "tribal" societies (which were pretty horrid societies to live in) had. Were they for instance at the feudal level? .....and if they were, could we then find the feudal class structures in these societies?

Of course what would vital is that the aesthetic things are not only clearly defined, but then completely discarded. A good historian has to look beneath appearances and the sometimes "romantic" view we have of pre-Capitalist societies, is hard to overcome.

As I said, you would probably be best served by finding a "Marxist historian" who looked into the subject and reading their views. Unfortunately I know of no such works, like everyone else my knowledge is limited and therefore perhaps you could make a thread asking for help?


Originally posted by Marmot
Why was the peasantry in Mexico much more radical than the proletariat in Mexico?

Why is Maoism popular in the west? .....particually in petty bourgeois circles whose inhabitants are certainly not "peasant guerrillas?" ......my answer is that it is an anachronism, an "historical accident."

The Marxist view of history does not rule these things out, it just says they will be very rare.

In this case I don't think it is an "historical accident." The Mexican peasantry in the climate of a bourgeois revolutionary period was attracted to more radical ideas. However these were just ideas, we don't know if these ideas would have been possible ten years down the line.

Personally I think it would have all fallen apart, not because the ideas were bad. Just that material reality wouldn't allow for their implementation.


Originally posted by Marmot
Please give a more specific example.

What a more specific example of "Human activity is directly linked to our material surroundings and our ability to understand them." You know "being determines consciousness" and all that.

If you don't accept such self evident things, then all I can say is that you are "lost in a swamp of idealistic drivel."


Originally posted by Marmot
[b]Marx was very ambigous in his writings.

More like he was sometimes contradictory. The piece I linked earlier does a good job explaining this and I think the writer more or less "hit the nail on the head."

Something that is perhaps a failure of the Marxist tradition is not adopting the post 1900 Anarchist tradition of no "isms." The "ism" in and of itself does degrade the theory and over time can make it a kind of theology. We see this regularly with Communists (usually Leninists) "doing battle with quotes."

However it does serve its purpose, these days if someone says they are a Marxist, it means they are not a Leninist.


Originally posted by Marmot
You cannot accuse Leninists of being unmarxist

Not in 1917, no. Now, yes.


Originally posted by Marmot
because most of their marxism "did comform" with marx's writings.

Well when Marxist do delve into the theological "battle of quotations." They do manage to show the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin.

You may wish to read this -- Marx and Engels "On Leninism" March 23, 2004 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083760715&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- Redstar too calls "battles of quotations" "theological" and there was me thinking I'd said something original. :( :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
Marx didn't lay a "plan" on how the dictatorship oif the proletariat would be accomploished.

Well he said the proletariat would rule society. Perhaps he didn't say it enough, but he still said it.

You seem to only want to use Marxism if you agree with it all. Somewhat strange if you ask me, parts of Marx's writings can and should be "junked." They are in many ways useless for todays world and we can do this because Marxism is not a religion.

However the really important parts should be kept and these two pieces might interest you -- How Marxism Works by Chris Harman (http://www.comcen.com.au/~marcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/) and The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082947254&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- the Chris Harman piece is the first piece I ever read on Marxism and wet my appetite and the Redstar piece was one that really helped explain a lot to me in very basic terms that I could understand.

It is a shame that not only is Marx's work written in "old English" (which I hate) but that parts of it aren't easy to understand. Particularly when he decided to participate in a dialectal spell. It's also a shame that so many "intellectual" Marxists choose to write in a theoretically dull and difficult style. As Chris Harman points out in the introduction --


Originally posted by Chris Harman
It is a myth also encouraged by a peculiar breed of academics who declare themselves to be ‘Marxists’: they deliberately cultivate obscure phrases and mystical expressions in order to give the impres*sion that they possess a special knowledge denied to others.

Happily Redstar and Chris Harman "buck the trend." It took a genius (Marx) to lay down the theories so that intelligent people could understand "how the world worked" and then the intelligent people could then "convey the message" to the rest of us. Hopefully over the next century more intelligent Marxist will lay out the framework of Marxism in simple and understandable terms, which will hopefully lead to more Communists.


Originally posted by Marmot
Sure, you could point out about how "Russia wasnt capitalist blahblahblah".

That is the most important point.


Originally posted by Marmot
However, most marxists, regardless of how fucked up their country is, would always try to take advantage of the radical traits passing through a population at any given time.

It is perhaps the great weakness of revolutionaries, we can get a bit utopian and idealist at times. Doesn't mean they are right though and no doubt if successful material reality will confer this. Harsh, but true.


Originally posted by Marmot
1) Most socialists at that time embraced the communard insurrection

So what? .....should Marx have rejected it because others "embraced" it?


Originally posted by Marmot
2) Marx didn't deny that their could be other "strategies" for achieving the revolution.

Again, so what? .....you are clutching at straws here to blame Marx for Russia. You know Marx didn't ever offer an opinion on men with little goatees, that has to make him responsible for Lenin. :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
Factories operating in a capitalist system, where they need to sell their shit and compete with other factories will turn "capitalist".

And factories which come about just after feudalism will become Capitalist too. Perhaps in this context Hayek's "road to serfdom" argument has some meaning, though I doubt it.


Originally posted by Marmot
Thus doesn't means however, that co-operatives in capitalist countries don't have socialist traits.

I don't want "Socialist traits." I want Communism.


Originally posted by Marmot
Of course, and this proves my point that "your historical materialism" doesn't works always.

Uh, no it doesn't prove that. I said "No doubt that in certain areas of the world the peasantry is very progressive." Which means in certain undeveloped countries with primarily feudal and proto-Capitalist relations, the peasantry (and for that matter the bourgeois) are progressive.

If you think that historical materialism is so simplistic as to say all peasants are "reactionary bastards" then you really ain't got it at all.


Originally posted by Marmot
Regardless if their strategies are implemented in developed or underdeveloped countries.

I agree with you there. The Leninist "way" will not create Communism in ether developed or under developed countries. However Anarchism won't create Communism in under developed nations either, because nothing will.


Originally posted by Marmot
I think though, that the POUM became a "libertarian" party simply because they got influenced by the anarchists.

That's the only reason. I guess any Marxist who's libertarian has been "influenced by Anarchists" in your eyes? .....Rosa Luxemburg talked to an Anarchist once and Anarchism "rubbed off on her."


Originally posted by Marmot
The anarchism was "bigger" than marxism in Spain, so it is not farfetched to say that anarchism influenced marxism.

No its not that farfetched and is definitely one of the factors. However, the biggest factor in my opinion is that during the Spanish Civil War people actually saw that something better than Russia could happen.

Therefore they drifted away from the conservatism of Leninism and became more radical. Its really not as simple as "bad Marxism" being changed by "good Anarchism."


Originally posted by Marmot
Why is living your life through spectacles much more fun that actually living it yourself?

Well I have to wear spectacles because I am as "blind as a bat." :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
TV did find its niche in today's consumerist and monotonial society simply because people don't have time to live "their own lives" or they are "afraid" of living them

Unfortunately I do not look like Brad Pitt, nor will I ever become "an action hero" or a comic. Therefore TV does offer a nice little escape from time to time. In a Communist society I would hope the TV is even better.

You would be free to jump off cliffs or drive fast cars. I am happy to sit on my arse and watch TV. People enjoy themselves in different ways.


Originally posted by Marmot
To many hours of boring jobs does affect, you know.

Many people actually enjoy their jobs. They resent the stress of wage slavery and bosses and other crap, but their jobs do give them enjoyment.

My next door neighbour for instance, spent a large portion of her working life doing home care, in other words wiping the arses of old people and doing their washing. For some reason she found this a most enjoyable career, with the only problem being the terrible pay.


Originally posted by Marmot
but I guess I do have some "primitivist leanings".

It shows. :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
What are nice clothes though, who defines why are them nice?

Well nice clothes are defined by the person wearing them. Sure people have different tastes, but if person A wants to wear a suit and person B wants to wear a t-shirt. I have no problem with that, you obviously do. Why?


Originally posted by Marmot
The few times i have gone with friends to "shopping" i would get bored as fuck.

Well don't go then. The few times I've taken certain drugs I've fallen asleep and/or been sick. So I don't do those drugs any more. Simple as.


[email protected]
It is not about the "economy recovering". It is about "capitalism" recovering.

I don't get that point. If the American economy suffers, American Capitalism is suffering.


Marmot
Whether it takes the form as fascism or as laissez de faire, it has been able to stay standing for a while.

Feudalism was standing for a lot longer, it still fell.

There is a notable trend within revolutionaries of impatience, everyone thinks "this is the decade" etc. Me, I much to laid back. Capitalism in my opinion, has at least another century left. :(

[anomaly]

Nice post ArmchairSocialism. I agree. Though, I am a bit more hopeful as to how long capitalism 'has left'. Judging by what is happening in the US and Europe, I am guessing, and hoping, that capitalism has perhaps 30-75 years left. But, maybe that is just me being hopeful. Predictions are tricky things, aren't they? :P

I am also more hopeful for new possibilities for the third world emerging very soon. Possibilities that, while they won't be communism, will atleast be better than Leninism. I am of the particular beleif that Leninism simply can't be the 'best they can do' in the third world.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)Nice post ArmchairSocialism.[/b]

Well thank you good sir. :wub: :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
I am guessing, and hoping, that capitalism has perhaps 30-75 years left.

Your guess is as good as mine.

My guess is a kind of cyclical thing. If we say Capitalism started in 1800 (I know the dates are earlier and modern Capitalism started later, but for this it'll do) and then we say Capitalism hit its peak (wealth per worker in first world) around 1950 to 1970. Then its been around 150 years and therefore we'll see the first revolution and Communist society in 2100 to 2120.

Mind you that rather crude estimate is not at all a "materialist viewpoint." Indeed I don't know how someone could ever hope to formulate an "educated guess" on the subject.


anomaly
I am of the particular beleif that Leninism simply can't be the 'best they can do' in the third world.

I don't know whether it would be better, actually it would probably be far worse, but I think we could see a rise of bourgeois revolutions cloaked in religious fundamentalism. Sort of like Iran. :o

However I wouldn't rule out a return of the original bourgeois revolution proclaiming the "New Republic" and all that. Especially if the developed world runs into problems and the shackles of imperialism are loosened a bit.

I suppose it would be nice to see someone really investigate this and write a book on it. It wouldn't serve much of a purpose for Communist revolutionaries, but as a historical text and indeed a historical genre, it could be fascinating.

[ComradeOm]

Indeed the ruling class is the proletariat. However do you really think it is possible for the whole of the proletariat to express their rule through one centralised un-democratic body?
Democracy is an essential requirement for any socialist government. As you so kindly pointed out any undemocratic body would not represent the whole of the proletariat and so would not be socialist.


Why? .....all the other forms of society have been based around a privileged elite keeping power. A proletarian society for it to work, would have to be radically different.
And you imagine that this society will spring out of thin air? Socialism will be very different to capitalism, that much is obvious, but it will take time to take shape. You don’t have a major shift in the relations of production and suddenly expect everything to work like clockwork. A national government will most likely be first formed to bridge the crisis period with power being continually devolved until we arrive at communism.

In reality of course there’s far to many variables to say what will happen.


Your interpretation of a post-revolutionary society, seems to be a nicer kind of the parliamentary system in Britain now. It's not good enough for me, I want people in all communities to have power, not just delegates form those communities who have been sent to Westminster.
Yes, I do expect that the initial form of the socialist state will be much like, though obviously more democratic, the bourgeois ones left behind. Simply because it is an existing structure that people know.

As I said above, socialism is the transition period – there will be no set state or model. Instead we will start with a not unfamiliar structure that will slowly devolve its powers (wither away) until it ceases to exist.

But I put the same question to you. What do you think socialism will look like?


Not his works on Capitalism, no. However the author of the piece suggested that he should have been more utopian when describing what he saw as a future society.
To what effect? Marx was not trying to lie to the proletariat, he was simply showing them and the world how society worked. That was revolutionary back then. Today its academic, something that the author of that piece fails to grasp. Times change.


However it is not "denying historical fact." Those revolutions all produced "liberal democracies."
Wrong. The liberal revolutions of the 19th century created liberal societies. In some cases the socialists fought alongside the liberals only to face another them when the monarchs were overthrown. In many cases, certainly after the 1850s, the socialists struggled against the bourgeoisie from the start. The Chartists do not fight for socialism but rather a voice in the bourgeois state.


Do you honestly think that in a period in time where the most advanced fighters for equality called people "Jewish nigger[s]" (earlier in the letter) it was possible to create an egalitarian society.

As I have said before, Marx was a product of his times and by todays standards that time was incredibly reactionary.

Therefore it is not that hard to think that some of this "historical baggage" would have rubbed off on even a man as intelligent as Marx.
I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make here. Marx’s personal views have little to anything to do with his scientific writings. I fully agree that a number of these views have no place in any society but do you think they somehow taint his entire body of work?

In which case we are all fecked as we are all products of capitalism.


Never mind that I didn't say they were "pawns of the bourgeois" (though such a statement is possibly very accurate). Why does it matter if I do insult them? ......they are dead, which means they're hardly going to come down and "smite me."
It’s a simple respect for those that fought and died for the socialist cause :rolleyes:


This point is really lost on you isn't it? ......saying that one person or a small group of people aren't going to create a mass uprising. Doesn't mean that one person or small groups of people can't try their hardest to help bring about this event.
You’re right. I can’t get my head around this point. Let me try one more time.

1) You believe that the revolution will occur when the material conditions are perfect and no sooner.

2) There is little that anyone can do to influence these material conditions.

(Here’s where I completely lose you)

3) It won’t do any good but we can still be active and agitate.

Personally I believe that all three points are factually wrong but does that sum it up? I can’t reconcile your activitism with your economic determinism. These are two diametrically opposed ideals…

I can understand being active without Marxism (anarchism), being economic determinists (ie too strict an interpretation of historical materialism) and a mixture that combines both (Leninism) but you seem to be standing at either extreme. Doublethink? Or just something to do on a Saturday night?


So somehow Lenin's additions or Anarchist activity can give us superpowers?
Lenin has already given us two superpowers :lol:

Both anarchism and Leninism allow the triangle to be closed – the former using ignorance and the latter an insight into modern capitalism and the possibility for third world socialism. Your brand of Marxism does not.


Originally posted by anomaly
I am also more hopeful for new possibilities for the third world emerging very soon. Possibilities that, while they won't be communism, will atleast be better than Leninism. I am of the particular beleif that Leninism simply can't be the 'best they can do' in the third world.
Leninism is pretty much Marxism adapted to underdeveloped nations. You'll be hard pressed to see another system that works nearly as well in creating modern capitalism.

With luck the fall of the Iron Curtain will force those revolutionary CPs back onto the communist path. Perhaps we'll finally see Vladimir's work being put to good use.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Democracy is an essential requirement for any socialist government.[/b]

However, a representative parliamentary system is far from democratic.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)A national government will most likely be first formed to bridge the crisis period with power being continually devolved until we arrive at communism.[/b]

This little bit says a lot.

Yes there will be "crisis" periods, however you seem to think the working class itself won't be able to solve these crises and that the working class will require "managers."

Why would a working class that has just overthrown its "managers" wish to install new "managers?" .....would they suddenly decide as a class that they are not fit to rule?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
the bourgeois ones left behind. Simply because it is an existing structure that people know.

I think every Leninist has to assert in one way or another that the working class is not really capable of self rule. That they have to be "broken in slowly" because they can't imagine anything radically different. I wonder are Leninists all readers of sociobiology?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
What do you think socialism will look like?

Well I think it is more than likely that many that many things will be decentralised during the revolution and therefore after it finishes, there will be no need to re-centralise it.

I suspect that very quickly everything will be run in small communes, each commune being similar in size to council boroughs. Maybe a few services, electricity, water etc. will have to be run centrally, but even these will be run by democratic worker councils from each area electing the "managers."

The only use I can see for a national parliament would be that delegates get sent there to discuss the successes and failures of each commune. However, with the internet such an event would be meaningless and therefore perhaps the only reason to send delegates to a parliament would be if an invasion by an imperialist power was about to happen.

That is the short version, if you wish for me to expand then do ask. :)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
To what effect?

The effect that the State-Capitalism of the last century wouldn't be called Marxist. Mind you it shouldn't be called Marxist anyway, but there are a few scraps of Marx's work that can be dragged out to support such models.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Today its academic, something that the author of that piece fails to grasp.

Today it's academic? ....State-Capitalism is still the model proposed by most "Communist" parties, they still think nationalising industries counts as Socialism.

Therefore the author of that piece is directly attacking such stupid assertions and trying to show how they are no longer revolutionary. There's also a very stinging attack on the policy of the SWP there if you're interested -- HOW SOCIALIST IS THE SWP? (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/swp.html) -- you may want to read it because it's related to the point I'm making.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The liberal revolutions of the 19th century created liberal societies.

And a liberal society has a liberal democracy. "Liberal democracy" is a word I commonly use to describe bourgeois democracy and I also sometimes use the words "political democracy" to describe them.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Chartists do not fight for socialism but rather a voice in the bourgeois state.

And they thought this voice would lead to Socialism. Many people of that era thought along these lines, including Kautsky and Lenin.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make here.

That like everyone else, Marx suffered from being a man of his time and therefore a lot of what he wrote is effected by the limits of that era, particularly his views of what is capable in a post revolutionary society.

Indeed if someone said such things on this board they would be banned and if they said it in public they would likely get a "smack in the chops." How's that for cool, we're more progressive than Marx.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In which case we are all fecked as we are all products of capitalism.

Yes we are all effected by Capitalism, did you think revolutionaries rose up above their surroundings. That the fundamental materialist philosophy "being determines consciousness" does not affect revolutionaries? .....a Marxist who disregards such a concept is not a Marxist at all.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It’s a simple respect for those that fought and died for the socialist cause

So we're all supposed to respect and un-critically support Socialists just because they "fought and died for the socialist cause." I don't do "hero worship."


[email protected]
2) There is little that anyone can do to influence these material conditions.

That you don't get this frankly baffles me. No one person can't fundamentally effect material conditions, but lots of people can. The material conditions of a human society are made not just through technology, but through the activities of human.


ComradeOm
the latter an insight into modern capitalism and the possibility for third world socialism.

The possibility of third world Socialism. We've seen how that turned out, modern Capitalism. :lol:

[anomaly]

ComradeOm, am I correct when I notice that you are particularly frustrated by this:

"1) You believe that the revolution will occur when the material conditions are perfect and no sooner.

2) There is little that anyone can do to influence these material conditions.

(Here’s where I completely lose you)

3) It won’t do any good but we can still be active and agitate."?

If you are frustrated by the seemingly hopeless prospects of communism any time soon, you shouldn't be. Though Marx did theorize that each epoch of production must be passed trhough before we get socialism, there is still much to do now. I, for one, think that we need to look hard at the third world, and find new possibilities for it, other than the usual suggestion of Leninism.

We also need to begin 'spreading the word' about communism in the first world, and begin discrediting the 'Communism' of the old USSR and China, since that is still what a majority of the population thinks of when they think of communism. Material neccesities will come in time, and, as I see it, they are already happening in the way Marx predicted. That is, the 'middle class' is slowly diappearing; thus the old '3 class' model of 'upper, middle, and lower' which was formed soon after the fall of feudalism being replaced by the two class model of Marx: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

So, no reason to be frustrated at all. There is much to do.

[ComradeOm]

This little bit says a lot.

Yes there will be "crisis" periods, however you seem to think the working class itself won't be able to solve these crises and that the working class will require "managers."

Why would a working class that has just overthrown its "managers" wish to install new "managers?" .....would they suddenly decide as a class that they are not fit to rule?
To address both this and your idea of socialism below, there’s a simple answer. It will take time for the proletariat to construct the socialist state.

Is this not obvious? Is it not clear that it is highly utopian to expect a fully formed socialist state to simply spring out of the revolution? I’d like to think that we could “jump” to your ideal society but I’m not that optimistic.


I think every Leninist has to assert in one way or another that the working class is not really capable of self rule. That they have to be "broken in slowly" because they can't imagine anything radically different. I wonder are Leninists all readers of sociobiology?
Being determines consciousness. Why do you assume that this will change? It will take time for a proletariat born and raised under capitalism to create the state most suited to itself. It’s the exact same way that it took the bourgeoisie the better part of a century to arrive at liberal democracy.


The effect that the State-Capitalism of the last century wouldn't be called Marxist. Mind you it shouldn't be called Marxist anyway, but there are a few scraps of Marx's work that can be dragged out to support such models.
I suspect that I was posing a rhetorical question. It’s a lot easier to respond if you don’t chop paragraphs and sentences.

Do you really want to revisit the entire Leninist debate again?


Today it's academic? ....State-Capitalism is still the model proposed by most "Communist" parties, they still think nationalising industries counts as Socialism.

Therefore the author of that piece is directly attacking such stupid assertions and trying to show how they are no longer revolutionary. There's also a very stinging attack on the policy of the SWP there if you're interested -- HOW SOCIALIST IS THE SWP? -- you may want to read it because it's related to the point I'm making.
And sitting around criticising is more revolutionary? Leninism allows Marxism to retain its activist nature, without it you have a nice little tool that it useful to historians and nobody else.

As an aside, nationalisation is the first step in socialising the means of production.


And a liberal society has a liberal democracy. "Liberal democracy" is a word I commonly use to describe bourgeois democracy and I also sometimes use the words "political democracy" to describe them.
Perhaps I should use bold more often. I’ll try again - The liberal revolutions of the 19th century created liberal societies/democracies.

In other words, these liberal democracies were not the result of socialist revolutions.


And they thought this voice would lead to Socialism. Many people of that era thought along these lines, including Kautsky and Lenin.
I don’t know where you’re getting this from but the Chartists were not Marxists. They were not striving for socialism or communism… just a more inclusive capitalism.


That like everyone else, Marx suffered from being a man of his time and therefore a lot of what he wrote is effected by the limits of that era, particularly his views of what is capable in a post revolutionary society.
If anything the opposite is true. Marx lived amongst a far more active and revolutionary proletariat.

Marx and Engels clearly possessed a number of backward personal views but they did made great efforts to keep these out of their works. Considering that these views were common at the time I can only summarise that this is an example of Marx striving to remain as scientific as possible. Again to our advantage.


Yes we are all effected by Capitalism, did you think revolutionaries rose up above their surroundings. That the fundamental materialist philosophy "being determines consciousness" does not affect revolutionaries? .....a Marxist who disregards such a concept is not a Marxist at all.
And yet you expect a proletariat that knows only capitalism to immediately construct a radically new state?


So we're all supposed to respect and un-critically support Socialists just because they "fought and died for the socialist cause." I don't do "hero worship."
Who said anything about hero worship? Is it too much to ask that you give a little respect to those who have died trying to bring about what we talk about? Or perhaps they were too backward to be worthy of that.


That you don't get this frankly baffles me. No one person can't fundamentally effect material conditions, but lots of people can. The material conditions of a human society are made not just through technology, but through the activities of human.
Then what in the hells are you continually going about when you insist that Leninists are wasting their time? Let me guess, we’re wasting our time but when you’re active you’re creating the right material conditions :rolleyes:


The possibility of third world Socialism. We've seen how that turned out, modern Capitalism.
We’ve seen just how that whole Marxist thing worked out as well… oops. Or no doubt that’s due to Leninist practices?

anomaly, my frustration is aimed solely at those who believe the points that I outlined above. That is, those who place too much of an emphasis on a strict interpretation of historical materialism to the detriment of activism. Personally I consider capitalism to be at its peak today but that could change rapidly.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)It will take time for a proletariat born and raised under capitalism to create the state most suited to itself.[/b]

Indeed it will and no doubt there will be "teething" problems. However you seem to suggest that a proletariat that "being" has just been to overthrow Capitalism still has more "baggage" than a group of "revolutionary leaders" who are likely bourgeois in origin.

Tell me, who's "being" is better suited, that of a revolutionary prole or that of a bourgeois managerial Communist?

Also in case you haven't noticed, on occasions where the workers have seized power they have been quick to set up councils and get on with their business, like the Soviets in Russia for instance.

Who would have thought that those who's lives are effected are much more able to run and set up institutions than bourgeois managers who don't know a thing?


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Do you really want to revisit the entire Leninist debate again?[/b]

Shit no, that's why I'm trying to keep this one short.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Leninism allows Marxism to retain its activist nature

"Ground control to ComradeOm." Where are these active Leninist parties in the first world? ......and you can't say the RCP because you don't consider them Leninists.

And anyway, what is it about Leninism that allows Marxism to retain its activist nature?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
nationalisation is the first step in socialising the means of production.

Poo!

I'm not aware of a single industry that became socialised after nationalisation. The industry in Russia and China never became socialised after nationalisation.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
these liberal democracies were not the result of socialist revolutions.

Well of course not, there were no Socialist revolutions in the 19th century.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I don’t know where you’re getting this from but the Chartists were not Marxists.

Well of course not, in 1848 there was no Marxism. However do you think Marx just invented Socialism and Communism? .....there were plenty of Socialists and Communists before Marxism.

Indeed nearly every major Union and Working Men's group was involved and if memory serves me correctly Marx too did play a part later on.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
were not striving for socialism or communism… just a more inclusive capitalism.

Indeed that's what they achieved, but they no doubt that they would achieve more...


Originally posted by The six points of the People's Charter
1. A VOTE for every man twenty one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. THE BALLOT.--To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. NO PROPERTY QUALIFICATION for members of Parliament—thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. PAYMENT OF MEMBERS, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country.
5. EQUAL CONSTITUENCIES, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors,--instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of larger ones.
6. ANNUAL PARLIAMENTS, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelvemonth; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

Link (http://www.chartists.net/The-six-points).

...these things may not seem like much today, but back in 1848 things like the vote for every man were considered "revolutionary." Indeed the Capitalists themselves were fearful that this could lead to their overthrow, hence their opposition.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Marx lived amongst a far more active and revolutionary proletariat.

Pull the other one. Marx lived amongst an illiterate, weak and superstitious proletariat. They were no more capable of self rule than I am of growing breasts.

The main aim of the majority of the English proletariat was survival. They had neither the confidence nor the ability to consider themselves "a class fit for ruling." Even now we haven't reached this point even in some revolutionary circles, hence the Communist infatuation with "middle class managers."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Marx and Engels clearly possessed a number of backward personal views but they did made great efforts to keep these out of their works.

If they made an effort to keep them out of their work, this would suggest that they knew some of their views were bigoted and I doubt this.

Indeed when Marx said his favourite quality in women was "weakness." This was because he was a pretty strong patriarch himself, despite his rants against bourgeois morals.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And yet you expect a proletariat that knows only capitalism to immediately construct a radically new state?

I expect a revolutionary proletariat that has just overthrown Capitalism to have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. You alternatively think that we should leave this task to bourgeois managers who all in all have had a nice experience with regards Capitalism.

Honestly, who do you think would be more capable?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Is it too much to ask that you give a little respect to those who have died trying to bring about what we talk about?

I don't necessarily not respect them. I just look at what they actually achieved. As Marx said "Everything should be doubted" and that means we have to look beneath the rhetoric and see what actually happened.


[email protected]
Then what in the hells are you continually going about when you insist that Leninists are wasting their time?

In the third world where they are creating bourgeois revolutions they are certainly not wasting their time. In the first world they probably are.

They for instance constantly undermine the confidence of proletariat by quite bluntly saying they are not fit to rule. And when even "revolutionaries" say this, it has a detrimental effect.

Its actually the same message that all bourgeois politicians spout.


ComradeOm
Or no doubt that’s due to Leninist practices?

You are no doubt aware that I don't subscribe to "devil theories." However we have seen how Leninism in the first world worked out and it was like a car wreck, not very nice to watch.

Therefore we certainly do need to start thinking about coming up with a new revolutionary method and in my opinion, this should start on the basis that it is exclusively proletarian.

[anomaly]

"Therefore we certainly do need to start thinking about coming up with a new revolutionary method and in my opinion, this should start on the basis that it is exclusively proletarian."

ArmchairSocialism, are you here suggesting a new method for the third world? In my mind, the 'method' for the first world is rather simple: the proletariat, as a class, rise up and revolt. they have the material means to create socialism.

However, in the third world, things are not so simple. Is it here that you suggest we need a new 'revolutionary method'?



So, ComradeOm, essentially you believe that material reality is not so strong that we cannot 'do something' right now? And, to 'move forward', do you suggest Leninism?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)ArmchairSocialism, are you here suggesting a new method for the third world?[/b]

No. I like the idea of purely revolutionary proletarian organisations (not party's) being formed in the first world. I think I've read it on this board before, the term "revolutionary workerism" and that sounds pretty good to me.

This group should be basically as you described, it would say that "the proletariat, as a class, rise up and revolt. they have the material means to create socialism."

Hopefully it would be very militant. For instance I think a good place for it to start would be constantly oppose (violently if necessary) all racist marches. If the BNP or National Front turn up somewhere, the "revolutionary workerists" should be there too.

That in my opinion would be a good base to start from and then hopefully it could move on to oppose all reactionary things. If there's an anti-abortion march, the "revolutionary workerists" turn up and oppose them, if there's an anti-gay march, turn up and oppose them etc. etc.

Personally I think building your base and reputation around opposing reactionary things always present in a Capitalist society, offers a far greater possibility than creating your base from an anti-imperialist war stance. After all, once the war is over, you've lost your "big issue."

This doesn't mean that no opposition should be given to imperialism, I just think building a movement around it isn't the best strategy.


anomaly
However, in the third world, things are not so simple. Is it here that you suggest we need a new 'revolutionary method'?

At the moment various strands of Leninism seem the only thing that work in the third world. Perhaps Chavez style "revolution" or Iranian style religious fundamentalism will take over in this century.

However, as I said earlier, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of old bourgeois revolutionary methods returning, especially if world markets have a "slump" and abilities of foreign capital are reduced.

[anomaly]

Ah, so when speaking of the first world, you essentially say the same as me. I thought it was assumed that in the first world we simply want the proletariat to rise up as a class without any 'party' 'leading them'. But I suppose mentioning such things is neccesary in light of what the Leninists propose.

In the third world, I suggest rather that we look closely at what the Zapatistas have done, and see if it is possible anywhere else. Autonomism, essentially.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)Ah, so when speaking of the first world, you essentially say the same as me.[/b]

Pretty much.

However like you mentioned, such things as the proletariat rising up, overthrowing its rulers and then running society are not proposed by Leninists and therefore I think we should distinguish ourselves from them. I certainly don't think we should allow them to "hijack" the word Communism and make it synonymous with "a switch in management."

We need to say that this is what Communism is about (workers running society) and this is what it means to be a Communist (promoting workers as a class that can run society).

I think I have arrived at a point where I consider Leninism, Maoism etc. to fundamentally anti-working class, certainly amongst the party "elite." Certainly nothing in the Leninist tradition actually breeds confidence in the "collective minds" of the working class that they can actually run society.

I think in essence (real) Communists should play the role of a support group. We tell the truth and we tell the working class that it can run society.


anomaly
In the third world, I suggest rather that we look closely at what the Zapatistas have done

I'm not to familiar with the Zapatistas (haven't they now gone into reformism?). A model I quite like is the Sandinista model. Considering everything that happened in Nicaragua, it stood up pretty well and seems to have a pretty good balance between development and social causes.

[anomaly]

The Zapatistas haven't grown into 'reformism'. Subcomandante Marcos is only trying to 'spread the word' across Mexico. It may be well argued that Marcos has sunken to reformism. But, the Zapatistas, in Chiapas, are alive and well.

Perhaps you could tell me about the Sandinistas, as I'm not familiar with any 'model' they used. All I know is that the US aided the Contras against the Sandinistas.

I completely agree with you about distancing ourselves from the Leninists and their 'means' of 'achieving communism'.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)It may be well argued that Marcos has sunken to reformism. But, the Zapatistas, in Chiapas, are alive and well.[/b]

Ah right.

When you mentioned them, I had a quick glance at the wikipedia article on them. They didn't seem to be anything special....


Originally posted by wikipedia+--> (wikipedia)Unlike its predecessor, the new Zapatista rebellion is a smaller and more peaceful uprising that has had few serious encounters with the government. A brief spurt of violence accompanied its inception when several thousand peasants seized five Chiapan towns. Hundreds of lives were lost when the military was sent to pacify the rebels. Another spate of violence occured when forty alleged Zapatista sympathizers were killed during the Acteal massacre in 1997.

Presently, the Zapatistas are offering more nonviolent resistance. The most recent large demonstration was a 2001 march to Mexico City with only very scattered episodes of violence. Since the late 1990's, the movement has been involved in an introspective series of Councils of Good Government within their realm of influence. While the rebellion may appear to be in somewhat of a standstill, the people are still very active in their attempts to acquire autonomy. The government remains reluctant to address the rebellion because doing so might lend an impression of political instablity.

As part of the campaign promises of Vicente Fox during the 2000 Mexican Presidental election, he claimed he would solve the EZLN guerrilla problem in "fifteen minutes" . His promise failed to be realized, however, when, after being elected, he simply turned over the constitutional changes demanded by the Zapatistas to Congress to deal with.[/b]

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatistas).

They don't seem to have launched anything more than a few minor uprisings and therefore their effectiveness as "bourgeois revolutionaries" can't really be judged.

However, I have had a quick search and most sites on them are in Spanish. Do you know of anywhere on the web in English that gives a good account of their activity?


[email protected]
Perhaps you could tell me about the Sandinistas, as I'm not familiar with any 'model' they used.

I'm no expert on them, actually I don't know a great deal, but this is a good start....


Sandinista rule (1979–1990)
The Sandinistas inherited a country in ruins, with a debt of 1.6 billion dollars (US), an estimated 50,000 war dead, 600,000 homeless, and a devastated economic infrastructure. To begin the task of establishing a new government, they created a Council (or junta) of National Reconstruction, made up of five members – Sandinista militants Daniel Ortega and Moises Hassan, novelist Sergio Ramírez Mercado (a member of "the Twelve"), businessman Alfonso Rebelo Callejas, and Violeta Barrios de Chamorro (the widow of Pedro Joaquín Chamorro). The preponderance of power, however, remained with the Sandinistas and their mass organisations, including the Sandinista Workers' Federation (Central Sandinista de Trabajadores), the Luisa Amanda Espinoza Nicaraguan Women's Association (Asociación de Mujeres Nicaragüenses Luisa Amanda Espinoza), and the National Union of Farmers and Ranchers (Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos).

While prominent rebel leaders such as Daniel Ortega were strongly Marxist, the new junta initially contained a broad spectrum of ideology. Upon assuming power, its political platform included the following:

Nationalisation of property owned by the Somozas and their collaborators.
Land reform.
Improved rural and urban working conditions.
Free unionisation for all workers, both urban and rural.
Control of living costs, especially basic necessities (food, clothing, and medicine).
Improved public services, housing conditions, education (mandatory, free through high school; schools available to the whole national population; national literacy campaign).
Nationalisation and protection of natural resources, including mines.
Abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty.
Protection of democratic liberties (freedom of expression, political organisation and association, and religion; return of political exiles).
Equality for women.
Free, non-aligned foreign policy and relations.
Formation of a new, democratic, and popular army under the leadership of the FSLN.
Pesticide controls
Rain forest conservation
Wildlife conservation
Alternative energy programs

One of the most notable successes of the revolution was the literacy campaign, which saw teachers flood the countryside. Within six months, half a million people had been taught to read, bringing the national illiteracy rate down from over 50 per cent to just under 13 per cent. Over 100,000 Nicaraguans participated as literacy teachers. One of the stated aims of the literacy campaign was to create a literate electorate which would be able to make informed choices at the promised elections. The great success of the literacy campaign was recognised by UNESCO with the award of a Nadezhda Krupskaya International Prize.

The FSLN also created neighbourhood groups, similar to the Cuban Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, called Sandinista Defence Committees (Comités de Defensa Sandinista or CDS). Especially in the early days following the overthrow of Somoza, the CDSs served as de facto units of local governance, distributing food rations, organising neighbourhood cleanup and recreational activities, and policing to control looting and apprehend remnants of the National Guard. During the subsequent Contra war, they also organised civilian defence efforts against Contra attacks. Critics of the Sandinistas decried the CDS as a system of local spy networks for the government, and a means of political control.

By 1980, conflicts began to emerge between the Sandinista and non-Sandinista members of the governing junta. Violeta Chamorro and Alfonso Robelo resigned from the governing junta in 1980, and the governing role of the Sandinistas became obvious as Ortega and his allies consolidated power. Allegations spread among critics that the Ortega clique were planning to turn Nicaragua into a Communist state like Cuba. In 1981, the U.S. administration of Ronald Reagan began organising remnants of Somoza's National Guard into guerrilla bands known as "Contras" (short for "contrarrevolucionarios", or counter-revolutionaries) that conducted attacks on economic, military, and civilian targets. During the Contra war, the Sandinistas arrested suspected Contras and censored La Prensa as well as other publications that they accused of collaborating with the U.S. and the Contras to destabilise the country.

In contrast to the Cuban revolution, the Sandinista government practised political pluralism throughout its time in power. A broad range of new political parties emerged that had not been allowed under Somoza. Following promulgation of a new constitution, Nicaragua held national elections in 1984. Daniel Ortega and Sergio Ramírez were elected president and vice-president, and the FSLN won 61 out of 90 seats in the new National Assembly, having taken 63 per cent of the vote on a turnout of 74%. Independent electoral observers from around the world, including the UN, stated that the elections had been free and fair. The United States refused to recognise them, alleging that the opposition had been marginalised in the media and elsewhere by the government; United States President Ronald Reagan denounced the elections as a sham.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista#Sandinista_rule_.281979.E2.80.931990.29 ).

There are a lot of really radical policies in there and it's a shame that they couldn't repel America and have a period free from direct attack in which to develop.

[anomaly]

There's plenty of information out there in English. Just google it and read some. It seems that right now the Zapatistas aren't doing so hot, but the idea of autonomism is still a good one. I think it may work in some areas of the third world.

The Sandinistas model there appears a favorable one. It is no surprise the US opposed them! :lol:

In any case, both seem to present some serious ways of moving forward in the third world. But, unfortunately, it may be that the Chavez 'Napoleon-like' method wins out. :(

But, who knows.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)Just google it and read some[/b]

I'm always slightly wary of "googling" and then reading. Quite often you find what you've just read is at best, useless, and at worst, a misleading piece which fabricates evidence and statistics.

However I have found this site that looks interesting -- zapatistarevolution.com (http://www.zapatistarevolution.com/) -- and in particular this book -- Zaparista (http://www.zapatistarevolution.com/private/zapatista.pdf) -- probably worth a glance at the very least.

I also found a couple of "tit-bits" on BBC news....


Originally posted by Mexico press ponders Zapatista future+--> (Mexico press ponders Zapatista future)Leading newspapers in Mexico have received the news that Zapatista rebels are apparently set to announce a major political initiative with cautious optimism.[/b]

The article goes on to say....


Originally posted by Mexico press ponders Zapatista future
The declaration concludes: "We have reached a point where we cannot advance any further. A new step forward in the Indian struggle is only possible if the Indian joins workers, farmers, students, teachers, and employees. We could loose everything we have if we stay as we are."

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4634649.stm).

The article suggests that this alliance would be a "farewell to arms." However it seems to me that such an alliance could well create a stronger and more capable "insurgency."

However a lot of the news seems to suggest that the Zapatistas are going to lay down their arms.....


Originally posted by Mexico hails rebel 'initiative'
The Zapatistas statement was issued from their Chiapas strongholds and signed by their military leader Subcomandante Marcos.

"With the approval and support of the broad majority of its members, the EZLN [Zapatista National Liberation Army] will undertake a new national and international political initiative," it said.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4632355.stm).

I wouldn't say entering the political scene would make radical changes impossible, after all they could become a Chavez style government, however I think they may well achieve more by holding out, at least for a little bit longer.

I think Marmot mentioned he was Mexican, it would be interesting to hear his take on this.


Originally posted by anomaly
but the idea of autonomism is still a good one.

I suppose you are here referring to Autonomist Marxism? .....the idea certainly seems attractive, in fact its not too dissimilar to what I proposed earlier on (I never have an original idea).

However....


Originally posted by wikipedia
Like other Marxists, they see class struggle as of central importance, but unlike most Marxists, they have a broad definition of the working class that includes the waged (white collar and blue collar) and the unwaged (beneficiaries, homemakers and so on).

I don't know whether I agree with white and blue collar (management type) workers being accepted as part of the working class. It's an interesting idea, as is Negri's multitude theory, but I don't know whether it sits all that well with me.

However....


Originally posted by wikipedia
Autonomists are less concerned with party political organisation, and with theoretical clarity, than other types of Marxist thought; instead it focuses on self-organised working class action and the development of its theoretical tools in accord with actual working class struggles.

That gets my full backing, almost. I don't necessarily like the idea of a lack of "theoretical clarity." Personally it seems to me that they view theory as an organic process of sorts. Which reeks of post-modernism, something I don't have much time for.

I suspect that there are two ways "Autonomism" can go. Either it develops a coherent theoretical foundation, no doubt incorporating Marx and becomes a strong worker orientated revolutionary movement.

Or it becomes a kind of "all is nothing, nothing is all" movement, that doesn't know whether up is down and down is up. Basically becoming another useless abstract philosophical genre.


Originally posted by anomaly
I think it may work in some areas of the third world.

I don't know about that. It seems a distinctly post-Marxist European style revolutionary theory. I certainly don't see how it would be possible to teach illiterate people to undertake the "development of its theoretical tools in accord with actual working class struggles."

However going straight to the peasants and workers and helping them organise themselves into a revolutionary force does seem to be a decent idea. However I doubt it would be able to survive without incorporating some kind of "bourgeois leadership." I really doubt that any country, never mind third world countries, have a working (and peasant) class ready to stand on its own.


Originally posted by anomaly
In any case, both seem to present some serious ways of moving forward in the third world.

They do. And if one of them were to be successful we would likely see the "winner effect" propel them and they would become commonly used.

We'd also, no doubt, see a bunch of "lefties" proclaim that Socialism, Communism or whatever, had been achieved in "outer-crapolia." Optimism is a cruel mistress.


[email protected]
But, unfortunately, it may be that the Chavez 'Napoleon-like' method wins out. :(

Why the grim smilie? .....I don't necessarily see a massive problem with the Venezuelan style. At least it doesn't cloak itself in Marxist rhetoric.


anomaly
But, who knows.

Indeed.

However my crystal ball is working pretty well this week. :lol:

[anomaly]

As we seem to agree on a number of things, I may well here ask you what you think needs to be done in the first world, which is, of course, much more relevant to us.

For certain we need some type of communist organization, composed and led by the proletariat only. No bourgeoisie should be allowed in it, in my opinion. Do you like Redstar's idea of a 'new communist organization'? I do rather like it, and demarchy is just fine with me (although, in communism I'd prefer direct democracy, if it is possible).

There is one more thing that I think is crucial if we are to seriously mose forward. I was reading about it on Redstar's site the other day, and it really hit home with me. Anarchists and (non-Leninist) Marxists seem to see very nearly eye to eye. To move forward, I think we need to unite, anarchists and (non-Leninist) Marxists, as I feel there is very little we disagree upon.

What are your thoughts on these issues?

[black magick hustla]

You are a hard nut to crack Armchair Socialism :(

I am not good at debating, but it is constructive and I do learn alot of new shit. ;)


Well I am not a "Marxist scholar" nor do I have a particular interest in the history of South America. However I imagine there have been "Marxist historians" who have answered these questions. I actually did read something a while back about some Marxists (who saw the Marxist materialism as euro-centric) adapting it and developing it to fit the rest of the world.


Why trying to adapt a theory that doesn't seems to work in other places?

Why not throwing it away and start over?

It sounds to me like modern Popes, they always try to adapt "catholicism" instead of just "throwing it away".


Personally I would be interested to find out what kind of production capabilities "tribal" societies (which were pretty horrid societies to live in) had. Were they for instance at the feudal level? .....and if they were, could we then find the feudal class structures in these societies?

Depends of what Native American society you are talking about.


From what I have gathered though, it appears it differs from different regions.

An eztec for example, wouldn't starve simply because any hungry person could take food from the first two lines of an area for cultivation. If he was caught "smuggling for profit" he would get killed though.

Aztec modes of production where organized in a radically different way than european "feudal" societies.

For example, the aztecs would have two areas of land, one for the peasantry and one for the nobility.

The one for the peasantry would be worked by themselves, and the one for the nobility would be mantained by slaves. Big pyramids and shit like that would be built generally by slaves. The nobility owned the land "collectively" rather than each one having an individual set of "acres". For the emperor, this was a very good idea, because this prevented the nobility from gaining alot of power. In european feudal societies, feudal lords would get so much power that even some of them were more powerful than the king.

This is radically different from European feudalism, where a "baron" would hold a big piece of land and he would protect peasants in exchange of their labor.

You could argue as a Marxist though, that many Latin American countries did enter through a quasi-feudalistic state in late 19th century and early 20th century. In Mexico, it appears that it had to do with the fact that indigenous people were ignorant regarding the laws of land property emerging in the young republics, therefore wealthy educated people could just rip them off, and seize their land through an unfair bargain. This lead to a capitalist class (hacendados) that would gain power through owning big pieces of land. They would hire peasants and then, they would drive them into debt. By doing this, peons would have to work until they pay off their debts, and when they die, ther sons would have to work for the hacendado too.

However, this quasi-feudalistic state was a product of a bourgeois revolution and a capitalist class. I don't think it has to do with "transcending through stages" as you Marxists claim.




Of course what would vital is that the aesthetic things are not only clearly defined, but then completely discarded. A good historian has to look beneath appearances and the sometimes "romantic" view we have of pre-Capitalist societies, is hard to overcome.

I haven't heard people romanticizing american societies.

Many were clearly "war-like" and did have horrid suspertiitious practices and a well defined hierarchy. However, property and class structure was different than that of Feudal Europe.


I have read though that northern american tribes in the more northern parts where much more "egalitarian" than mexican societies though.




As I said, you would probably be best served by finding a "Marxist historian" who looked into the subject and reading their views. Unfortunately I know of no such works, like everyone else my knowledge is limited and therefore perhaps you could make a thread asking for help?


This is a good idea.



The Marxist view of history does not rule these things out, it just says they will be very rare..

Maoist nutjobs in the west aren't in significal amounts, I agree.





In this case I don't think it is an "historical accident." The Mexican peasantry in the climate of a bourgeois revolutionary period was attracted to more radical ideas. However these were just ideas, we don't know if these ideas would have been possible ten years down the line.

There aren't accidents simply because history isn't so simple and doesn't follows a template.

I am only knowleadgable in Mexican revolutionary history when talking about Latin America, however, I am pretty sure that this "phenomenon" could have been seen in other Latin American countries.



What a more specific example of "Human activity is directly linked to our material surroundings and our ability to understand them." You know "being determines consciousness" and all that.

If you don't accept such self evident things, then all I can say is that you are "lost in a swamp of idealistic drivel."

Oh.

it is just that I have seen many marxists attacking other theories using arguments like "it lacks a material base".
I am more of a "materialist" than an "idealist" even if you don't believe it.

However, "matter" is much more spontaineous and "colorful" than the marxist usage of materialism.

You just make seem as if all human psyche and progression of history is just a boring piece of programming code, while in reality it isn't.


However it does serve its purpose, these days if someone says they are a Marxist, it means they are [b]not a Leninist.


I think "orthodox marxists" should just call themselves ultra leftists. We all know that not sharing the glory of being Marx's true descendants with a bunch of authoritarian nuts may serve your ego, but in reality, Leninists are as "marxist" as "marxist ultra-leftists". "Liberation theologians" are as much christian as "Lutherians".




Well when Marxist do delve into the theological "battle of quotations." They do manage to show the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin.

You may wish to read this -- Marx and Engels "On Leninism" March 23, 2004 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083760715&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- Redstar too calls "battles of quotations" "theological" and there was me thinking I'd said something original. :( :lol:


Interesting.

However, it appears that most of those quotes come from "Engels" in his later years, except the last one.

The last one just deals with historical materialism.

It may be though, that Marx at the end was a pretty libertarian person. It appears tthat after the Paris Commune, Marx became increasingly more "anarchistic" than when he was before that event.

However, as I said before, Marx was very ambigous and vague when dealing with this new utopia he prophesed.



So what? .....should Marx have rejected it because others "embraced" it?

No.

It just proves that not only libertarians embraced the Paris Commune, therefore making it possible that marx could have embraced it while being an authoritarian.



Again, so what? .....you are clutching at straws here to blame Marx for Russia. You know Marx didn't ever offer an opinion on men with little goatees, that has to make him responsible for Lenin. :lol:

No.

He "approved" the Paris Commune, but that doesn't means he couldn't have approved other more authoritarian methods of achieving the Revolution.




And factories which come about just after feudalism will become Capitalist too. Perhaps in this context Hayek's "road to serfdom" argument has some meaning, though I doubt it.

You seem not to get my point.

In order to survive, a factory cooperative needs to deal with the capitalist method of trading. it needs to give salaries to the proletarians because they need a way of adquiring commodities in order to survive. It needs to compete with other factories, because the other factories are "capitalist".



If you think that historical materialism is so simplistic as to say all peasants are "reactionary bastards" then you really ain't got it at all.

Well, it seems marxists don't trust peasants anywhere.


No its not that farfetched and is definitely one of the factors. However, the biggest factor in my opinion is that during the Spanish Civil War people actually saw that something better than Russia could happen.

Therefore they drifted away from the conservatism of Leninism and became more radical. Its really not as simple as "bad Marxism" being changed by "good Anarchism."



You could argue that the POUM was libertarian because it already saw that the anarchist experiment "works", therefore believing that there is something better than the Leninist Paradigm.

this is pointless, because we cannot be sure about what really molded the POUM. However, as I said before,POUM wasn't really "big".



Unfortunately I do not look like Brad Pitt, nor will I ever become "an action hero" or a comic. Therefore TV does offer a nice little escape from time to time. In a Communist society I would hope the TV is even better.

You would be free to jump off cliffs or drive fast cars. I am happy to sit on my arse and watch TV. People enjoy themselves in different ways.

I have seem some pro-situs (I am a pro-situationist btw) argue that we should really abolish the TV, because it is too "spectacular".

I don't have a problem with the TV, I think that if everyone could participate in it, it would become a wonderful tool.

My problem with "Spectacles" starts when people spend a considerable time living their life through "spectacles" like video games, computers, and TV than living their life themselves.

Not only is boring, it makes a person become alienated and become a "spectator". As a spectator, you leave the "complex politics" to professional politicians and other specialized wings.

However, TV and (internet message boards hoihohoho) are much more boring than living a real life. Long hours of alienated labor are boring too.

Boredom is counterrevolutionary! :lol:





My next door neighbour for instance, spent a large portion of her working life doing home care, in other words wiping the arses of old people and doing their washing. For some reason she found this a most enjoyable career, with the only problem being the terrible pay.


Most people really hate their jobs, and this is a fact.

Most people would rather spend their time doing something else than doing uncreative shit.





Well nice clothes are defined by the person wearing them. Sure people have different tastes, but if person A wants to wear a suit and person B wants to wear a t-shirt. I have no problem with that, you obviously do. Why?

I do have a problem when brands are being bombarded through our everyday life as being "good". Therefore, a person that just dresses "creatively" gets ostracized by tthe people who believe in the the fashion dictated by few specialists and agents of consumerism.

"free time" today is increasingly becoming "time for buying again your labor in form of commodities".

Such activities make Consumerist Capitalism "even more stronger".

An average guy who likes GAP doesn't really cares that it was made by "heavily exploited Latin American workers"-


Do you think nike would be considered "as good" if it wasn't for advertisement?

How would "fashion" be in a real communist society?

I think it would be radically different.



Feudalism was standing for a lot longer, it still fell.

Feudalism was radically different when mantaining its authority.

In Feudalism, terror played a much more prominent part than seduction did. As Capitalism becomes more advanced, more "genuine" followers become convinced by capitalism's advanced methods of spectacular communication. In third world capitalism, submission is mantained mostly through terror, while in places modern places, it becoming increasingly more mantained by "seduction".



You made me type a huge post! :angry:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)You are a hard nut to crack Armchair Socialism :( [/b]

Stubbornness is my only virtue. ;)


Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Why not throwing it away and start over?[/b]

I haven't really delved into the realms of post-Marxist historical materialism. Indeed I gather that most of the proponents are post-modernists of some sort. Which is frankly quite strange in my opinion, they're trying to develop a theory that their own logic would dispute. Go figure.

However, on the issue of "throwing it away." I would suspect the people trying to improve historical materialism, view it in the same way Darwinists view original Darwinism. It had faults, but the basic principles were right.

However it should also be noted that Marx himself dismayed at those who used historical materialism as a "master-key to history". Indeed that is what he was referring to when he said "There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits" (1872 Preface to the French edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1).

I myself probably would have earned scorn from Marx for my "vulgar" interpretation of historical materialism. I certainly haven't done enough research to authenticate my claims, however that in itself would be problematic.

What I think people should note is that there is no better way to understand it than to read Marx (and Engels). Read anyone else and you're left with interpretations which may or may not be very good or accurate.


Originally posted by Marmot
This is radically different from European feudalism, where a "baron" would hold a big piece of land and he would protect peasants in exchange of their labor.

It was radically different on a logistical and technical side. However, the key class relations were still feudal.

Therefore without disproving Marx, new discoveries mean that what we thought was feudalism now has slightly more "variations." For instance, if we say history moves upwards in stages 1 to 5 and in each stage there are two variations, finding another variation doesn't mean that history doesn't still move upwards.

I mean Russia and China showed us a new form of Capitalism all together, however these countries are still explained pretty well within the Marxist materialist outlook. It actually verifies it.

By the way, that was a nice post on the social relationships of Mexico. If you don't mind I'll probably use the information at a later date (likely a cut and paste job).


Originally posted by Marmot
This lead to a capitalist class (hacendados) that would gain power through owning big pieces of land. They would hire peasants and then, they would drive them into debt. By doing this, peons would have to work until they pay off their debts, and when they die, ther sons would have to work for the hacendado too.

This sounds more like the actions of a feudal landed aristocracy than that of an emerging bourgeois. Certainly the slave like lives of the peasants seems more like a description of serfdom than peasantry.

For the sake of clarity, I don't think the "hacendados" could be called a Capitalist class. They seem more like a landed aristocracy, and at best perhaps some form of proto-bourgeois.


Originally posted by Marmot
However, this quasi-feudalistic state was a product of a bourgeois revolution and a capitalist class. I don't think it has to do with "transcending through stages" as you Marxists claim.

Well the "transition through stages" is an interesting one. China for instance was on the verge of Capitalism in the 14th (or 15th) century. Yet it took till 1949 for the process to really get under way.

This doesn't mean that China in say 1692, looked completely feudal, it may well have had elements of Capitalism. However the core (and majority) class relationships were feudal and therefore it was a feudal society.

The "transition" is a gradual process, often over centuries. However one dramatic event is often used as they "key date" to mark that transition.

However, this does not mean a stage can be "skipped."

Interestingly while searching for a "quick and easy" description of historical materialism, I came across this one (by Lenin of all people). Hope this is useful....


Originally posted by V.I. Lenin
1. Social progress is driven by progress in the material, productive forces a society has at its disposal (technology, labor, capital goods, etc.)
2. Humans are inevitably involved in production relations (roughly speaking, economic relationships or institutions), which constitute our most decisive social relations.
3. Production relations progress, with a degree of inevitability, following and corresponding to the development of the productive forces.
4. Relations of production help determine the degree and types of the development of the forces of production. For example, capitalism tends to increase the rate at which the forces develop and stresses the accumulation of capital.
5. Both productive forces and production relations progress independently of mankind's strategic intentions or will.
6. The superstructure -- the cultural and institutional features of a society, its ideological materials -- is ultimately an expression of the mode of production (which combines both the forces and relations of production) on which the society is founded.
7. Every type of state is a powerful institution of the ruling class; the state is an instrument which one class uses to secure its rule and enforce its preferred production relations (and its exploitation) onto society.
8. State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political upheaval.
9. When a given style of production relations no longer supports further progress in the productive forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur.
10. The actual historical process is not predetermined but depends on the class struggle, especially the organization and consciousness of the working class.

Is there anything there you particularly disagree with?


Originally posted by Marmot
I haven't heard people romanticizing american societies.

You see it from time to time....


Originally posted by Chris Harman
But ‘human nature’ does in fact vary from society to society. For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scien*tists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.

How Marxism Works -- Understanding history (http://www.comcen.com.au/~marcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/).

I very much doubt the Sioux Indians were quite as pleasant as that. It's possible that this statement in and of itself is a little misleading. If the Indians didn't know what the test was, they probably would have cooperated more.

It's actually a while since I read that Chris Harman work and after a little glance I take back my praise. I certainly won't link it as a good introduction to Marxism again, it has a few very dubious statements.


Originally posted by Marmot
I have read though that northern american tribes in the more northern parts where much more "egalitarian" than mexican societies though.

It has been said that observers results showed their cultural prejudices. If they thought egalitarianism was good, they saw it in the tribes. If they thought hierarchy was good, they saw it in the tribes.

I think anyone looking into the subject would have massive problems finding objective studies.


Originally posted by Marmot
There aren't accidents simply because history isn't so simple and doesn't follows a template.

Well what does history follow then? .....is it some sort of chaotic process where anything can happen? .....in that case what is the point in trying to change anything?

That Marxist materialism has survived 150 years of criticism and attack. And yet is now used in one way or another by nearly every decent historian, is in my opinion testament to its accuracy.

There is nothing that even comes close.


Originally posted by Marmot
I am pretty sure that this "phenomenon" could have been seen in other Latin American countries.

Well careful examination of all bourgeois revolutions would no doubt show that peasants are "revolutionary." There is nothing in Marxist materialism that would dispute this.

However, it is pretty clear that the peasant class is virtually unable to stand as a class on its own. There are scraps of evidence however that the working class can.

Certainly in the advanced Capitalist nations, the peasantry is a hindrance to revolutionary workers, not an ally.


Originally posted by Marmot
You just make seem as if all human psyche and progression of history is just a boring piece of programming code, while in reality it isn't.

Obviously human history is far to complex to be put into simple mathematical formula. However when talking about such complex things we have to simplify them, any debate would be impossible otherwise.

However in a few centuries time, I suspect some mathematicians will have started on some kind of formula for human history and probably in the next millennium there will be an "E=mc2" type equation for human history. At least some of it.

Science is still very primitive and therefore is unfortunately a much simpler method than we can expect in the future. This doesn't however mean that what we have now (including Marxist materialism) won't form the foundations of this future understanding.


Originally posted by Marmot
I think "orthodox marxists" should just call themselves ultra leftists.

That's fine with me. :)


Originally posted by Marmot
Leninists are as "marxist" as "marxist ultra-leftists".

Are Anarcho-Capitalists as Anarchist as Anarcho-Communists?


Originally posted by Marmot
However, it appears that most of those quotes come from "Engels" in his later years, except the last one.

Well Engels himself wrote some of Marx's work for him, even when Marx was alive. I think it is relatively clear that they both agreed on most things. For instance upon their second meeting, they spent 10 straight days discussing theory.


Originally posted by Marmot
However, as I said before, Marx was very ambigous and vague when dealing with this new utopia he prophesed.

However Marx was a materialist, not a prophet. He spent a lot of time criticising non-materialists, including utopian Communists. He couldn't then go and write "utopianly" himself.

However, that he called a post-revolutionary society "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Is evidence enough that he thought that the proletariat should run a post-revolutionary society.

There were certain Anarchist writers who were anti-Semites. Perhaps I should make a big deal about that? .....after all they weren't "vague" on the subject.

I'm sure that every Anarchist must have a book called "Marx the evil bastard" and every Leninist a book called "Anarchist are counter revolutionary." Each outlining stereotypical and baseless arguments.


Originally posted by Marmot
It just proves that not only libertarians embraced the Paris Commune, therefore making it possible that marx could have embraced it while being an authoritarian.

Wouldn't the whole ultra-democracy got on his nerves a bit? .....after all, Marx spent countless hours criticising what he didn't like, surely he would have criticised libertarianism too?


Originally posted by Marmot
You seem not to get my point.

Yeah I do. You think worker run organisations are sustainable in places where there is not material abundance. I think that in such places eventually the workers will have to submit to some form of class system.


Originally posted by Marmot
Well, it seems marxists don't trust peasants anywhere.

Well first world peasants, no.

You should probably ask Noxion what he thinks of the "Welsh peasantry." It won't be mild.


Originally posted by Marmot
You could argue that the POUM was libertarian because it already saw that the anarchist experiment "works"

I could also argue that they became libertarian because they saw that the Marxist experiment worked, but as you said it would be "pointless."


Originally posted by Marmot
(I am a pro-situationist btw)

For all post-modernisms disgust with Marxism, there seems to be a certain neo-Hegelian streak in there. Post-modernism seems very dialectal, in other words meaningless.


Originally posted by Marmot
argue that we should really abolish the TV, because it is too "spectacular".

Have fun telling that message to the working class. :lol:


Originally posted by Marmot
(internet message boards hoihohoho)

Well actually by posting on this message board both you and I are able to convey "complex politics" to a far wider audience than would be possible through normal life.


Originally posted by Marmot
Most people really hate their jobs, and this is a fact.

It is a fact? ...really?

You realise that this is a "ruling class" argument against both Communism and Anarchism. That if people didn't have to work, they wouldn't.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the "Communist work ethic" yet?


Originally posted by Marmot
How would "fashion" be in a real communist society?

Tremendously diverse I imagine.

However you seem to feel that all fashion now is "wrong" because it is linked to Capitalism. A t-shirt doesn't have an ideology.


Originally posted by Marmot
Feudalism was radically different when mantaining its authority.

It wasn't that different. All class systems have the same characteristic, suppression of the lower classes.


Originally posted by Marmot
In third world capitalism, submission is mantained mostly through terror, while in places modern places, it becoming increasingly more mantained by "seduction".

Well that's because third world Capitalism (proto-Capitalism to be exact) has not yet reached the level of first world Capitalism. When it does we'll see the same "seduction" and "decadence" in the third world too.


Originally posted by Marmot
You made me type a huge post! :angry:

:lol:


Originally posted by anomaly
I may well here ask you what you think needs to be done in the first world, which is, of course, much more relevant to us.

What I said earlier...


Originally posted by Dec 27 [email protected] 08:23 PM
I like the idea of purely revolutionary proletarian organisations (not party's) being formed in the first world. I think I've read it on this board before, the term "revolutionary workerism" and that sounds pretty good to me.

This group should be basically as you described, it would say that "the proletariat, as a class, rise up and revolt. they have the material means to create socialism."

Hopefully it would be very militant. For instance I think a good place for it to start would be constantly oppose (violently if necessary) all racist marches. If the BNP or National Front turn up somewhere, the "revolutionary workerists" should be there too.

That in my opinion would be a good base to start from and then hopefully it could move on to oppose all reactionary things. If there's an anti-abortion march, the "revolutionary workerists" turn up and oppose them, if there's an anti-gay march, turn up and oppose them etc. etc.

Personally I think building your base and reputation around opposing reactionary things always present in a Capitalist society, offers a far greater possibility than creating your base from an anti-imperialist war stance. After all, once the war is over, you've lost your "big issue."

This doesn't mean that no opposition should be given to imperialism, I just think building a movement around it isn't the best strategy.

Is pretty much my basic "blueprint" for what I see as my hopes for a future movement.


Originally posted by anomaly
composed and led by the proletariat only.

Certainly an all proletarian organisation would be good. However strictly worker is slightly exclusive, housewife's and househusbands providing their spouse is a "prole" should be accepted, as should unemployed people.

However out of principle (like you said) there should be no "middle management types." Though I'm still slightly undecided on the self-employed, I'm bordering on promoting their exclusion too.

The leadership in my opinion, should be non-existent. The organisations motto could well be something like "United Workers, NO Leaders!" That sounds and is Communist and that's how the organisation should be.

If for instance the organisation is asked to do media work, talk to the local paper, appear on TV etc. Then I think the organisation should vote on who to represent it. Perhaps a yearly vote for the "mouthpiece" could happen, though I'd prefer there to be lots of "mouthpieces."


Originally posted by anomaly
Do you like Redstar's idea of a 'new communist organization'?

I presume you are referring to this piece -- A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- I like most of it, but I have a few objections....


Originally posted by redstar2000
1. The organization must first of all be communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the primary goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society. New members are admitted on the recommendation of some small number of existing members, who shall vouch for the new member's understanding of Marxism. There should be a probationary period to see if a member is really serious.

If I were to re-word that I would say....

"The organization must first of all be communist and working class. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the primary goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society. However "crash courses" will be given to potential members if they have little knowledge of Marxist concepts."

The last couple of lines seemed rather silly to me. I don't like the idea of "vouching" for someone and the "probationary period" gives the impression of a country club not a revolutionary organisation.

This I would like to expand on....


Originally posted by redstar2000
4. Communist leadership shall consist of guidance, advice, consultation, teaching, etc., but shall never under any circumstances be construed or articulated as the power of command.

I think the "Communist League" has a policy of helping members learn new skills, teaching them basic English using Marxist texts etc.

I like that idea, it builds a kind of personal bond between workers and a cooperative spirit.

Again I'd like to expand on this....


[email protected]
8. The media that the organization may establish shall be open on a reasonable basis to the views of every member of the organization.

I think any organisation should have a board like this to debate on. The public (if they wished) could view most of the theoretical debates between members and it would breed a kind of openness.

Plus if the organisation does publish a newspaper, I would like to see debate within the newspaper itself. Disagreement is a hallmark of "ultra-democracy."


anomaly
and demarchy is just fine with me

I'm in two minds about the idea of demarchy at the moment. I suspect I won't be able to make up my mind until I see it in practice.


To move forward, I think we need to unite

Certainly. A Marxist-Anarchism seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps under the banner of "revolutionary workerism."

I think such a potentially volatile union would be great for the theoretical debates within the organisation. There would be a really radical edge to the debates, well hopefully there would be.

Plus I am an admirer of Anarchist activism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:09 AM
There was the POUM, and it wasn't never very big.
I don't have time to reply to everything in this thread, but this in particular needs correcting.

First of all, it's patently untrue to assert the POUM "wasn't very big"; they had at least a million members at its height.

Secondly, the POUM wasn't Trotskyist and in actual fact Trotsky condemned the POUM as being anti-Marxist.

[ComradeOm]

I’ll try to keep this one as short as possible.


Indeed it will and no doubt there will be "teething" problems. However you seem to suggest that a proletariat that "being" has just been to overthrow Capitalism still has more "baggage" than a group of "revolutionary leaders" who are likely bourgeois in origin.

Tell me, who's "being" is better suited, that of a revolutionary prole or that of a bourgeois managerial Communist?
Tell me, what part of the proletariat creating the socialist state did you not understand? Leave your prejudices aside and debate the point as it is. At no point did I suggest that "bourgeois managers" or "revolutionary leaders" would be involved :rolleyes:


"Ground control to ComradeOm." Where are these active Leninist parties in the first world? ......and you can't say the RCP because you don't consider them Leninists.
This comes back to semantics, always fucking semantics. I consider myself to be a Leninist - that is someone who thinks that Lenin was onto a good thing. The term Leninist can also refer to all ideologies that have grown out of Lenin’s works (Marxist-Leninism, Maoism and Trotskyism). In this context I’ve been using the latter meaning.

The majority of the Marxist-Leninist parties have always been bourgeois, no argument here. But, from personal experience in Ireland, there are still a number of active workers parties. The Socialists have a particularly active youth branch. I have no idea what its like in the UK but it seems that no one has informed the Irish parties of the death of Leninism.


And anyway, what is it about Leninism that allows Marxism to retain its activist nature?
We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means. In other words, no sitting around waiting for the material conditions to click, we recognise that they can be changed. It’d difficult, if not impossible, in the first world but there is plenty of scope for change in the third world.

But perhaps a more fundamental difference is the acceptance of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. You may well disagree but this gives the reasoning behind why the material conditions of today are so barren for revolution. This is in sharp contrast to those who simply go on about the proletariat “not being ready” and whatnot.


I'm not aware of a single industry that became socialised after nationalisation. The industry in Russia and China never became socialised after nationalisation.
As I said, its the first step. Completing the transition depends on having a state controlled by the proletariat.


Well of course not, there were no Socialist revolutions in the 19th century.
Incorrect. There were plenty of failed socialist revolutions all throughout the 19th century. I’m not sure how well you know the history but that century saw almost constant worker agitation and revolt.


Originally posted by On Chartism+--> (On Chartism)...these things may not seem like much today, but back in 1848 things like the vote for every man were considered "revolutionary." Indeed the Capitalists themselves were fearful that this could lead to their overthrow, hence their opposition.[/b]
Look back through the list of demands you posted, are those socialist demands? It is merely government reforms. I imagine it was a product of Britain’s slightly unorthodox and prolonged transition from feudalism to liberal democracy.


Pull the other one. Marx lived amongst an illiterate, weak and superstitious proletariat. They were no more capable of self rule than I am of growing breasts.

The main aim of the majority of the English proletariat was survival. They had neither the confidence nor the ability to consider themselves "a class fit for ruling." Even now we haven't reached this point even in some revolutionary circles, hence the Communist infatuation with "middle class managers."
Funny that. You usually give Leninists stick for shitting on the proletariat.

Those “weak and superstitious” workers have achieved more than you or I are ever likely to. To claim that they were somehow inferior to you reeks of both arrogance and ignorance.


If they made an effort to keep them out of their work, this would suggest that they knew some of their views were bigoted and I doubt this.
Feel free to search for any references to “Jewish niggers” in the Manifesto, Kapital, Gotha… well any of his published works. Marx was a very intelligent man who prided himself as a scientist, its highly unlikely that he would have allowed any prejudices to shine through in his work.


They for instance constantly undermine the confidence of proletariat by quite bluntly saying they are not fit to rule. And when even "revolutionaries" say this, it has a detrimental effect.
We acknowledge material reality and, like Marx and his refusal to become more utopian, we’re not about to lie about it. The proletariat in the West today are not revolutionary. You disagree?

What we do know is that this is primary due to economic factors… not simply because they are not as advanced as you’d like them.



anomaly
So, ComradeOm, essentially you believe that material reality is not so strong that we cannot 'do something' right now? And, to 'move forward', do you suggest Leninism?
Capitalism is too firmly entrenched in the West to do much right now. There’s not much we can do about that.

However in the third world there is plenty of scope for small dedicated cadres to seize power. After that we’ll see a knock on effect in the West. And Leninism is tailor-made for revolution in these underdeveloped nations. In fact it’s the only socialist ideology that can even incite revolution in these conditions.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Dec 28 2005, 01:18 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Dec 28 2005, 01:18 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 02:09 AM
There was the POUM, and it wasn't never very big.
I don't have time to reply to everything in this thread, but this in particular needs correcting.

First of all, it's patently untrue to assert the POUM "wasn't very big"; they had at least a million members at its height.

Secondly, the POUM wasn't Trotskyist and in actual fact Trotsky condemned the POUM as being anti-Marxist. [/b]
I understood that when the POUM started, it started as a fusion between the a Trotskyist Left Communists of Spain and the Workers and Peasants Bloc. Their leaders where heavily influenced by trotsky's theories even if trotsky didn't like the party. However, I didn't know that Trotsky was against the POUM, thanks for clarifying that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Secondly, the POUM wasn't Trotskyist and in actual fact Trotsky condemned the POUM as being anti-Marxist.[/b]

Which means it was probably a pretty decent revolutionary group. If the Bolsheviks, past and present are denouncing you, you know you're on the right track.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Tell me, what part of the proletariat creating the socialist state did you not understand?[/b]

You propose some kind of "national government." Which would have to be representative and in that respect undemocratic. You as I have noted seem to support a kind of parliamentary Socialism, which would undoubtedly serve to re-create classes and class society.

The proletariat as a whole, can't govern through a "national government." Therefore meaning that a new class of rulers will be created.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
At no point did I suggest that "bourgeois managers" or "revolutionary leaders" would be involved

So you're not advocating some form of party, particularly vanguard style, organisation?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Socialists have a particularly active youth branch.

Is that the IRSP youth? ....'cause from what I've heard they're a mixed bag which even includes Anarchism.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I have no idea what its like in the UK but it seems that no one has informed the Irish parties of the death of Leninism.

And what are they doing at this moment in time? .....playing around in electoral politics?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means.

Therefore you are definitely not Marxists and certainly not "Marxist materialists." I actually have a hard time believing Lenin himself would have approved what you are saying.

For the first time I feel a bit of pity towards old Vlad.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You may well disagree but this gives the reasoning behind why the material conditions of today are so barren for revolution.

As I've mentioned before, it's not Lenin's theory at all, like other parts of his work it was a "cut and paste" job. It also in and of itself denies "Marxist materialism." The same "Marxist materialism" that both Marx and Engels used to predict the outcome of the Russian revolution, with a lot of accuracy.

It's also "bettered" by "Marxist materialist" explanations in far simpler, accurate and verifiable terms.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
This is in sharp contrast to those who simply go on about the proletariat “not being ready” and whatnot.

Material reality really has no part in your political outlook does it?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As I said, its the first step.

Which has never led to the second step (complete worker control of the means of production)? ....indeed in the case of Russia, it actually reversed the second step in places.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There were plenty of failed socialist revolutions all throughout the 19th century.

Legitimate Socialist revolutions (with a realistic chance of creating Socialism)? .....I can only think of two, at best three. Paris 68' (the best of the lot), the Spanish Civil War and Germany 1918. However Germany could certainly be contested and Spain could too. Feel free to add.

Oops, you were talking about the 19th century, not the 20th. From the 19th century I'd say the Paris Communes is the only legitimate Socialist revolution.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Look back through the list of demands you posted, are those socialist demands?

Well to determine that I would have to read what the Socialists of 1848 thought of these demands. I'm pretty sure that these Socialists involvement means they were reasonably happy with the demands.

Now these demands are outdated, like some of the aims in the Communist Manifesto, back then they were "radical."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Funny that. You usually give Leninists stick for shitting on the proletariat.

Today they most do play the role of anti-worker Communists. In Russia they had to play that role, now they don't.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Those “weak and superstitious” workers have achieved more than you or I are ever likely to. To claim that they were somehow inferior to you reeks of both arrogance and ignorance.

Union rights, the vote, lower working hours, better wages etc. etc.

However these are reforms. They may have looked revolutionary back then, but today we know differently and therefore I want my generation of workers to surpass all these reforms by overthrowing Capitalism. Now that would be an achievement.

You also shouldn't forget that my generation of workers has pretty much given religion the boot. A pretty big achievement in and of itself.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Marx was a very intelligent man who prided himself as a scientist, its highly unlikely that he would have allowed any prejudices to shine through in his work.

However it is very plausible that some of his other "baggage" would have "shone through." Unless of course you think Marx's work is somehow above all that?

Plus in certain cases we don't know whose work it was. Engels acted as ghost writer for quite a few pieces and Engels certainly was as good as Marx at dumping some of his "baggage."

Apply to all of Marx's work Marx's favourite motto, "Everything should be doubted." That includes Lenin's "masterpieces" as well.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The proletariat in the West today are not revolutionary. You disagree?

They're not revolutionary. You're right on that one. However it doesn't mean that they are now approaching, or perhaps reached the point where they could run a society successfully.


[email protected]
What we do know is that this is primary due to economic factors…

Mainly that technological and educational progression is not yet far enough. Plus Capitalism is doing alright.


ComradeOm
In fact it’s the only socialist ideology that can even incite revolution in these conditions.

What about the Sandinistas or the "Chavez revolution?"

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Friedrich Engels famously responded to Bakunin, refuting the argument of total decentralisation, or anarchism, by scoffing "how these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us".

This is from wikipedia, so it may not be true. Regardless, I thought Marxism advocated anarcho-communism as an end result and supporting centralization in socialism only?

[anomaly]

ComradeOm, please stop with the idealism here:

"We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means. In other words, no sitting around waiting for the material conditions to click, we recognise that they can be changed. It’d difficult, if not impossible, in the first world but there is plenty of scope for change in the third world." (emphasis added).

You simply ignore material reality, instead suggesting that a 'small group' can somehow have the 'means' and (I love this one) the 'dedication' ( :lol: ) to 'change' society. That may be true, but recognize this small group will change the society into a despotism (is this what you are suggesting?). Leninism will not create socialism in the first world, let alone in the third world. And the reason for the latter is simply material reality.

A very large group can change material conditions, but a small group cannot. This 'small group' will indeed 'lead' a 'revolution', and they will replace the former bourgeoisie, and, in doing so, take their place at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.

So, I have a question for you. Are you in favor of Leninist revolutions in the third world and the despotism that goes with them? Or are you simply an idealist who thinks that 'socialism' can be 'created' in the third world by a 'dedicated' small group of 'leaders'?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'm sure some people want Marxism to become a religion, perhaps with Marx as God and Engels as Jesus. Anyway here we go....


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Friedrich Engels famously responded to Bakunin, refuting the argument of total decentralisation, or anarchism, by scoffing "how these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us".[/b]

Now I can't be bothered to look into the accuracy of this quote, so we'll take it as face value.

Firstly, I would assume this was from the time of the "battles" with Anarchism. If so then it is not that "far out" to assume that Engels was being an arsehole, being difficult for the sake of it. I mean Engels once wrote a piece (which I haven't read) that criticised Anarchists for being anti-authoritarians when revolution was an authoritarian act. Clever word play that's all, nothing of real substance.

Secondly, this could have been a serious question. Perhaps the Anarchists of that time hadn't thought out this issue properly. Workers were (in the main) uneducated at that time. Is it so unwise to suggest uneducated people may not be able to run a workplace without having to resort to some form of authority?

Engels (and Marx) had a habit of "picking holes." They once wrote a two page polemic against a woman who'd had her book reviewed by a philosopher they didn't like. They were often to annoying for their own good.

And thirdly, and this is what distinguishes Marxism from a religion, we have to ask "was Engels right here?" .....in this case it seems as though he is talking crap. We can put this little quote in the dustbin of history because it is no longer relevant.

The Anarchists of today, have got plans, mountains of them in fact about how a post-Capitalist society could work.


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected]
Regardless, I thought Marxism advocated anarcho-communism as an end result and supporting centralization in socialism only?

Marx and Engels did advocate centralisation at times. However is that still relevant today? ....take the following...


The Communist Manifesto
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


Notice how they start with the phrase "in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable." Well in the most advanced countries today, the following is generally not applicable.

Points 2, 5, 8, and 10 can be completely discarded. And probably the rest can be too, or maybe just modified. I don't know of any Marxist who could say point 10, in particular the "Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form." Is still applicable "in most advanced countries," it would be barmy.

[ComradeOm]

You propose some kind of "national government." Which would have to be representative and in that respect undemocratic. You as I have noted seem to support a kind of parliamentary Socialism, which would undoubtedly serve to re-create classes and class society.
Re-create classes? This is socialism we’re talking about, classes already exist.


The proletariat as a whole, can't govern through a "national government." Therefore meaning that a new class of rulers will be created.
Today’s state is an extension of the bourgeoisie. A socialist state will be an extension of the proletariat. I have no idea where you’re getting this notion of a “new class of rulers” emerging. Certainly not from any Marxist definition of the state.


So you're not advocating some form of party, particularly vanguard style, organisation?
Not in this discussion at least. Here we’re solely concerned with a revolution in the first world.


Is that the IRSP youth? ....'cause from what I've heard they're a mixed bag which even includes Anarchism.
No relation. I don’t know much about the Republican Socialist Youth.


And what are they doing at this moment in time? .....playing around in electoral politics?
Agitating, building community and union support… generally being active ;)


Therefore you are definitely not Marxists and certainly not "Marxist materialists." I actually have a hard time believing Lenin himself would have approved what you are saying.
Why thank you for clearing that up. Though coming from somebody who advocates some combination of anarchism and Marxism I think I’ll seek a second opinion. Preferably from someone who can finish the paragraph before commentating.

However in the name of symmetry I feel compelled to throw the accusation right back at you. Marx was not an economic determinant and it has been demonstrated that the material conditions can be changed. Those who continue to believe otherwise are not Marxist.

I suggest your read this letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm) from Engels. There’s no “nigger” references but its still an excellent piece on historic materialism. Original emphasis retained.
According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.



As I've mentioned before, it's not Lenin's theory at all, like other parts of his work it was a "cut and paste" job. It also in and of itself denies "Marxist materialism." The same "Marxist materialism" that both Marx and Engels used to predict the outcome of the Russian revolution, with a lot of accuracy.
“Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” is the most complete and definitive work on imperialism. I’m well aware that others had identified the occurrence (perhaps Rosa was no Marxist?) around the same time.

I am also interested in how you feel this contradicts materialism. The most common critique of imperialism is that it is inherent in capitalism, I’m not aware of many Marxists who believe that it is a fundamental departure from historical materialism.


Material reality really has no part in your political outlook does it?
It defines it ;)



Which has never led to the second step (complete worker control of the means of production)? ....indeed in the case of Russia, it actually reversed the second step in places.
It reversed the second step that never happened? In any case that is a matter of failing to put theory into practice.


Oops, you were talking about the 19th century, not the 20th. From the 19th century I'd say the Paris Communes is the only legitimate Socialist revolution.
Paris was the only successful… well almost successful… revolution of the century. But from 1948 to the late 1880s there were plenty of failed revolutions, the majority little more than riots, that demonstrates the revolutionary nature of the proletariat of the time.


Well to determine that I would have to read what the Socialists of 1848 thought of these demands. I'm pretty sure that these Socialists involvement means they were reasonably happy with the demands.

Now these demands are outdated, like some of the aims in the Communist Manifesto, back then they were "radical."
1948 was a liberal year, you could say the end of Western European liberal revolutionaries. But what was socialist then is socialist now. Even a child can tell the difference between a list that demands seats in Westminster and one that demands the abolition of private property.

But naturally you don’t think the English proletariat were capable of being revolutionary. After all, they had “neither the confidence nor the ability”.


You also shouldn't forget that my generation of workers has pretty much given religion the boot. A pretty big achievement in and of itself.
The changing material conditions destroyed religion, as Marx foretold they would. The workers had little to do with it.



However it is very plausible that some of his other "baggage" would have "shone through." Unless of course you think Marx's work is somehow above all that?

Plus in certain cases we don't know whose work it was. Engels acted as ghost writer for quite a few pieces and Engels certainly was as good as Marx at dumping some of his "baggage."
Actually I do consider that Marx’s work would be above this “baggage”. Marx knew as well as anyone that he was a product of his times but he was also a scientist who strove to complete his objective and impartial, as far as was possible, research into history and society. Again, search his published writings for racist or degrading slurs. Their absence is down to this desire to build a science of history.

I’m very grateful to Engels as I’ve often found his writings to be much easier reading. But, like Marx, despite what he may have written in private (see quote in signature) Engels bought into the idea that he was helping to shape a science in which there was no room for such prejudices.

Ironically this dedication to science was extremely popular at the time, when science as we know it was still quite young, and is the only “baggage” that shines through in their works.


Apply to all of Marx's work Marx's favourite motto, "Everything should be doubted." That includes Lenin's "masterpieces" as well.
Naturally. Out of curiosity, did you read Lenin’s major works before or after you read criticisms of him?


They're not revolutionary. You're right on that one. However it doesn't mean that they are now approaching, or perhaps reached the point where they could run a society successfully.
You don’t think the proletariat of today could successfully rule themselves? That’s where we differ.


What about the Sandinistas or the "Chavez revolution?"
You’re a fan of the Sandinistas? I’m surprised given their Marxist-Leninist past and current position as parliamentary opposition. Chavez may drift further to the left with time but right now he can hardly be called communist.


anomaly, I’ve taken some pains to avoid the whole vanguard argument here. But meh.

I am not a great proponent of the vanguard in the first world because I feel that it will not be entirely necessary. However in underdeveloped nations it is the only viable route to overthrowing capitalism. In these nations the proletariat can, in conjunction with the peasants, be mobilised to overthrow the capitalist state. The aim is to install a “despotism” of the proletariat. Oh I’m such a wit.

Or perhaps you have an alternative that no one has stumbled on before?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Re-create classes? This is socialism we’re talking about, classes already exist.[/b]

Well, not really.

There would have just been a revolution where the working class has just overthrown its rulers and the working class would be the only significant class around.

Sure there may be a few bourgeois saboteurs, but nothing massive. In effect the revolution will itself have destroyed classes as we know them.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)I have no idea where you’re getting this notion of a “new class of rulers” emerging.[/b]

Well if someone spends their time "managing" people, factories, transport systems etc. Before long they will start to think like a manager, not a worker. Therefore in time they will start to consider themselves the new ruling class and go on to "abolish" the old system.

Russia is a great example of this. For over 80 years the workers had had no power and the party elite had acted as the bourgeois in waiting. Then finally in 91' (or 92') they formalised this position.

There was no substantial worker opposition to this move either, which is a good indicator of the class relations in "Socialist" Russia and in fact quite a few workers supported this ratification.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
No relation. I don’t know much about the Republican Socialist Youth.

They're the group "Olgach's" involved with.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Agitating, building community and union support… generally being active

Which is precisely what most Anarchists are doing and yet you think Anarchist activism is silly.


Originally posted by ComradeOm quoting Engels
According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.

I don't think I only emphasise the "economic element." Indeed a page back I quoted Lenin's ten points of historical materialism, which is a pretty good description....


Originally posted by V.I. Lenin
1. Social progress is driven by progress in the material, productive forces a society has at its disposal (technology, labor, capital goods, etc.)
2. Humans are inevitably involved in production relations (roughly speaking, economic relationships or institutions), which constitute our most decisive social relations.
3. Production relations progress, with a degree of inevitability, following and corresponding to the development of the productive forces.
4. Relations of production help determine the degree and types of the development of the forces of production. For example, capitalism tends to increase the rate at which the forces develop and stresses the accumulation of capital.
5. Both productive forces and production relations progress independently of mankind's strategic intentions or will.
6. The superstructure -- the cultural and institutional features of a society, its ideological materials -- is ultimately an expression of the mode of production (which combines both the forces and relations of production) on which the society is founded.
7. Every type of state is a powerful institution of the ruling class; the state is an instrument which one class uses to secure its rule and enforce its preferred production relations (and its exploitation) onto society.
8. State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political upheaval.
9. When a given style of production relations no longer supports further progress in the productive forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur.
10. The actual historical process is not predetermined but depends on the class struggle, especially the organization and consciousness of the working class.

It's actually a pretty good description of the basic principles of historical materialism, and if applied to Russia will produce better answers than "devil theories."

Also it would be interesting to see how your statement "We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means." Holds up to Lenin's description, particularly point 8.

How can a small group of "dedicated" men do this.... "State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political upheaval." If we use Lenin's framework then surely the only thing that your "dedicated" men will achieve is a change in the section of the ruling class that has most power, not actually a change of the class that rules itself.

This little note from that Engels letter is most instructive....


Originally posted by Engels
In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event.

In particular the line "Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event." Is there not a serious contradiction between what Engels said there and what you assert?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I am also interested in how you feel this contradicts materialism.

It certainly contradicts what Marx and Engels wrote on materialism, plus Lenin relies mainly on "economic determination" something you just criticised me for.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It reversed the second step that never happened?

In Russia the nationalisation of certain industries rendered the Soviets useless. The Soviets would have likely failed naturally in ten years (tops) anyway, but Lenin and co. certainly helped that process along.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In any case that is a matter of failing to put theory into practice.

There is an element of truth in this statement, however all Leninists seem to think of revolution and post-revolutionary society as a "battle of ideas (or theory)." You offer no explanation of why the "good ideas" are mostly ignored and tend to come across as if you think that ideas fall out of the sky and that they have no link to material reality.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But from 1948 to the late 1880s there were plenty of failed revolutions, the majority little more than riots, that demonstrates the revolutionary nature of the proletariat of the time.

So in your book the riots in France would show the "revolutionary nature" of the French proletariat?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But what was socialist then is socialist now.

No, not really.

If you look above you'll see a offered a little criticism of the goals in the "Communist Manifesto."

For instance, no revolutionary (in the developed world) would now call for "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Or "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form."

Those things have been done (and are still done) and no longer constitute revolutionary goals.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But naturally you don’t think the English proletariat were capable of being revolutionary. After all, they had “neither the confidence nor the ability”.

Well they didn't. A class that is ready to stand for itself starts to act in that way. The bourgeois towards the end of feudalism were confident, insightful and inventive. They were really smug bastards who knew they were the future.

The working class back then, and in some respects now, is still pretty weak and dependent on their rulers. Indeed even the times when the advanced working class has seemed revolutionary they still relied on bourgeois revolutionaries to lead the way.

When the working class does become "ready to rule." I expect them to act like it, we'll see the "working class outlook" and the emergence of the "working class critique" and other things. The working class will all start to become proletarian Communist, Anarchists etc.

Indeed I think a good time to judge when the working class is ready would be when it produces a Marx, or even just an Engels. Classes that are about to rule society, usually know so for around a century.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The changing material conditions destroyed religion, as Marx foretold they would. The workers had little to do with it.

Yes, but the workers themselves still had to give religion the boot. Material conditions create the circumstances for things to happen, people still have to act.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Actually I do consider that Marx’s work would be above this “baggage”.

That's what all the theologians say about "holy books." :lol:

Take the goals of the "Communist Manifesto." What is the demand "Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form." If it is not "baggage?"

Indeed that Marx (or maybe Engels) said "in its present form." Suggests that they had no problem with child labour if done nicely and safely. Modern day revolutionaries would look on such a view with justifiable contempt and hostility.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Again, search his published writings for racist or degrading slurs.

Okay.....

(Marx "On the Jewish Question")Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.[/b][/quote]

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/).

In light of later events, such stereotyping of Jews is not acceptable. Indeed in his native Germany Marx may even face arrest if he made statements like that today. Times change and so does what is considered acceptable and what is considered revolutionary.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Out of curiosity, did you read Lenin’s major works before or after you read criticisms of him?

I've read a few of them, and I've read at least parts of nearly all of them. There are always parts that stick out and I've always loved this....

(V.I. Lenin Preface to "Imperialism @ the Highest Stage of Capitalism")The pamphlet here presented to the reader was written in the spring of 1916, in Zurich. In the conditions in which I was obliged to work there I naturally suffered somewhat from a shortage of French and English literature and from a serious dearth of Russian literature. However, I made use of the principal English work on imperialism, the book by J. A. Hobson, with all the care that, in my opinion, that work deserves.[/b][/quote]

As we know Marx always wrote about things on which there were abundances of available literature and statistics, especially when he wrote about Capitalism. Unfortunately Lenin wasn't given the same advantages, and that he managed to write the work in only six months, does raise some questions.

Paricuarly....


it is not clear that workers in the imperialist country directly share in repatriated profits from overseas dominions;

the actual amount of repatriated profit from overseas investments that could "trickle down" to the working class as salary income is not large enough to sustain a "labor aristocracy", if there is one.

(Copied and pasted from wikipedia.)

Lenin's "theory of imperialism" remains a hypothesis. Indeed I can only think of one group (MLM) that have done some calculations on the issue. Perhaps you know of some others?

And I suspect that you'll agree that their conclusions are somewhat "other worldly."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You don’t think the proletariat of today could successfully rule themselves? That’s where we differ.

I think they have either reached or are reaching the point. You on the other hand think that anyone anywhere can rule themselves.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’m surprised given their Marxist-Leninist past and current position as parliamentary opposition.

They weren't exclusively Leninist, there were Liberation Theologists and businessmen involved with them.


[email protected]
Chavez may drift further to the left with time but right now he can hardly be called communist.

I wasn't calling him a Communist, I was answering the question "And Leninism is tailor-made for revolution in these underdeveloped nations. In fact it’s the only socialist ideology that can even incite revolution in these conditions."

Aside from the principle that their revolutions are Socialist in words only. There are "Socialist" competitors to Leninism. Actually considering someones view on Maoism, it could be said that Maoism is actually better at third world revolutions.


ComradeOm
However in underdeveloped nations it is the only viable route to overthrowing capitalism.

How can the vanguard overthrow something that has not yet been established?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Whilst reading Francis Wheen's biography of Marx, I came across a very good quote that has particular relevance to this topic and the subject of historical materialism....


Originally posted by Karl Marx "The Poverty of Philosophy"
M. Proudhon the economists understands very well that men make cloth, linen, or silk materials in definite relations of production. But what he has not understood is that these definite social relations are just as much produced by men as linen, flax, etc. Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.

The same men who establish their social relations in conformity with the material productivity, produce also principles, ideas, and categories, in conformity with their social relations.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm#s2).

Consider for the moment the line "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist." This line undoubtedly leads us to ask the question.... what is Communisms "hand-mill"???

[anomaly]

"However in underdeveloped nations it is the only viable route to overthrowing capitalism. In these nations the proletariat can, in conjunction with the peasants, be mobilised to overthrow the capitalist state. The aim is to install a “despotism” of the proletariat. Oh I’m such a wit."

ComradeOm, Lenin has had quite an impact upon you, hasn't he? So much, in fact, that you suggest his way is the 'only way' in the third world! It is most unfortunate that such a 'vanguard' has, in the third world, always created a despotism of a party, not the proletariat. History does not suggest that your methods will ever produce a dictatorship of the proletariat. Rather, Leninist methods always create a rigid hierarchical society, in which 'The Party' takes the place of the overthrown bourgeoisie. It may be argued that Leninism 'carries' the host country to modern capitalism. This did happen in China, but I'd hardly call Russia a 'modern capitalist society'. I don't think we can even say Leninism always advances the country in which it takes root. In my opinion, Leninism has shown itself in the 20th century to be an utter waste of time.

"Or perhaps you have an alternative that no one has stumbled on before?"

Well, no. But ArmchairSocialism and I were discussing, just on another page of this thread, alternatives to Leninism. He suggested going a way the Sandinistas took, about which I would have few gripes. I strongly suggest something resembling what the Zapatistas did. something resembling autonomism. Especially among the peasants, I think this idea has some real potential.

[ComradeOm]

Well, not really.

There would have just been a revolution where the working class has just overthrown its rulers and the working class would be the only significant class around.

Sure there may be a few bourgeois saboteurs, but nothing massive. In effect the revolution will itself have destroyed classes as we know them.
You are talking about liquidating the bourgeoisie during the revolution? Not that I have any moral objections to that but it does seem impractical.


Well if someone spends their time "managing" people, factories, transport systems etc. Before long they will start to think like a manager, not a worker. Therefore in time they will start to consider themselves the new ruling class and go on to "abolish" the old system.
And when this manager is drawn from and elected by his peers? In the factories I expect that managers will be elected in any socialist, or perhaps even communist, society. If you talk about managing entire systems or infrastructure networks then I suspect that the need for centralised managers will persist until devolved structures are capable of “stepping into” the role. They will still be proletarians elected to the job on the basis of their abilities.

On the broader issue of the role of managers in society, you will always have, in the foreseeable future at least, someone whose job it is to coordinate the various production/manufacturing inputs and systems. This is unavoidable if you wish to maintain any modern manufacturing plant.


Russia is a great example of this. For over 80 years the workers had had no power and the party elite had acted as the bourgeois in waiting. Then finally in 91' (or 92') they formalised this position.
Russia was hardly a case of a first world proletariat seizing control. Though it does illustrate that the stronger the counterrevolutionary resistance, the stronger the state required to deal with it.


They're the group "Olgach's" involved with.
I don’t have any contact with them. This is partly due to circumstances, I’ve just never run into any of their lads in Dublin, and partly due to my suspicions of anything connected to the INLA. Though whatever about their youth branch I believe that the IRSP itself remains very much a Marxist body.


Which is precisely what most Anarchists are doing and yet you think Anarchist activism is silly.
On the contrary I see nothing with anarchist activism, though their ideology is another matter entirely. And I might as well state that all leftist activism is to be welcomed.

I simply find it difficult to understand the position of those libertarian Marxists who maintain that the revolution will come when its ready and yet despite this somehow believe that their actions will have an impact. To me the idea that we cannot have revolution and the desire to be active are diametrically opposed.

But we’ve been over that.



Also it would be interesting to see how your statement "We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means." Holds up to Lenin's description, particularly point 8.

How can a small group of "dedicated" men do this.... "State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political upheaval." If we use Lenin's framework then surely the only thing that your "dedicated" men will achieve is a change in the section of the ruling class that has most power, not actually a change of the class that rules itself.
I see little contradiction there. You seem to stick with this notion that the revolutionary group are bourgeois or capable of forming a class of their own. These men and women will be members of the proletariat who have achieved class consciousness.

That such a group can overthrow the capitalist state, when it has been weakened enough, is not in question, the only real concern is what happens next. In Russia the proletariat was not strong/large enough to assume power. That would not be a problem in the West, assuming a vanguard is needed of course.

And I might as well note that “small” is relative. The Bolsheviks had over 200,000 members in August 1917.


In particular the line "Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event." Is there not a serious contradiction between what Engels said there and what you assert?
Of course not. In this passage Engels is stating that no event occurs in isolation. I am not proposing that revolution will happen in the West tomorrow. Just because the material conditions can be changed doesn’t mean that we can ignore them. Things will get bad in the West before people feel the need to do something.


It certainly contradicts what Marx and Engels wrote on materialism, plus Lenin relies mainly on "economic determination" something you just criticised me for.
Lenin relies on economic determination? That’s news to me considering that if this was true we’d still be waiting for a Russian revolution.

But feel free to continue with just how imperialism and the labour aristocracy is idealist.



There is an element of truth in this statement, however all Leninists seem to think of revolution and post-revolutionary society as a "battle of ideas (or theory)." You offer no explanation of why the "good ideas" are mostly ignored and tend to come across as if you think that ideas fall out of the sky and that they have no link to material reality.
I’m sure not following. Is that another accusation that Leninist ideologies are idealist in nature? Marxism is an excellent idea with firm materialist roots and yet all attempts to implement have failed, is that because the underlying theory is flawed?

I’d be the last to defend the likes of Stalin and Mao against the charge of pulling theories out of their asses (an interesting phrase that. I’ve probably spent too much time on these forums) but Lenin’s theories were directly drawn from the material reality that he observed. For example, a good part of Imperialism is Lenin going through figures and data on the state of finance and colonisation in Africa.

I’d also note that Lenin was amongst the few Marxist theorists in 1917, and even today, how have observed and drawn conclusions from the proletariat in both developed and underdeveloped nations.


So in your book the riots in France would show the "revolutionary nature" of the French proletariat?
I assume this is Paris ’68? I wouldn’t compare one spring of discontent with the constant class tension and struggle that Europe witnessed throughout the 19th century.


For instance, no revolutionary (in the developed world) would now call for "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Or "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form."

Those things have been done (and are still done) and no longer constitute revolutionary goals.
Granted, the social democrats have co-opted some worker demands, which demonstrates that these were not particularly revolutionary demands. Now I know where you’re coming from and yes a few centuries ago free education for all would’ve been almost impossible to imagine; however it has been demonstrated that these demands can exist within capitalism and therefore they do not require revolutionary action.

Abolition of private property on the other hand is impossible while the bourgeoisie rule.


Well they didn't. A class that is ready to stand for itself starts to act in that way. The bourgeois towards the end of feudalism were confident, insightful and inventive. They were really smug bastards who knew they were the future.

The working class back then, and in some respects now, is still pretty weak and dependent on their rulers. Indeed even the times when the advanced working class has seemed revolutionary they still relied on bourgeois revolutionaries to lead the way.

When the working class does become "ready to rule." I expect them to act like it, we'll see the "working class outlook" and the emergence of the "working class critique" and other things. The working class will all start to become proletarian Communist, Anarchists etc.

People always write off the proletariat. They are the perpetual underdogs. I’m sure there were plenty in the Tsar’s court who believed that the workers were inferior or unfit to rule. The Petrograd proletariat proved them wrong. This is how it will always be. The proletariat may not feel ready or capable to destroy the bourgeoisie but they will and they will do so simply because they have no choice in the matter.

I agree that the proletariat of today is weak. It is scattered, un-unionised and unable to speak with one voice. That will change when things “turn bad” in the West and the capitalists can no longer afford the velvet glove. And that change may take a matter of months. The inherent skills or abilities of the proletariat have little to do with it.

After all, what is the proletariat? It is a collection of working individuals. When those individuals work for the good of the many, as they will be forced to, they will pool their skills and resources.


Yes, but the workers themselves still had to give religion the boot. Material conditions create the circumstances for things to happen, people still have to act.
Religion is a factor that influences the economic base. Its waning power has less to do with active resistance by the proletariat and more to do with the changing material conditions. Abolishing religion would be a worthy accomplishment but weakening it through indifference isn’t.

That's what all the theologians say about "holy books."

Take the goals of the "Communist Manifesto." What is the demand "Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form." If it is not "baggage?"
Oi. I didn’t claim that the works were canon or not in need of updating, just that whatever personal prejudices that Marx may have had do not come through in his works.


Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.[/b]
Highly ironic this considering his background. Still, I’m fairly sure I’ve read another piece from Marx on the Jews and usury where he wasn’t so stereotypical. Meh.

Funnily enough though, this does serve as a case study for Marx’s aforementioned scientific beliefs. Note that there are no racist slurs or insults, just a, in hindsight very stereotypical and mistaken, attempt to analyse Judaism based on economic relation. I doubt there is anyone stupid enough to take this on face value, especially considering the considerable Jewish input into Marxism throughout the years.


As we know Marx always wrote about things on which there were abundances of available literature and statistics, especially when he wrote about Capitalism. Unfortunately Lenin wasn't given the same advantages, and that he managed to write the work in only six months, does raise some questions.
Marx was breaking new ground with a thoroughly revolutionary ideology. People had been asking why the predicted revolutions had not occurred for years and, as previously noted, Lenin wasn’t the first to consider imperialism. I’ve actually read Hobson’s piece (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1902hobson.html) and its clear where Vlad got some of his inspiration from.


Lenin's "theory of imperialism" remains a hypothesis. Indeed I can only think of one group (MLM) that have done some calculations on the issue. Perhaps you know of some others?
As far as I’m aware nobody has yet proven that Marx’s view of history is correct but we know its true.

For those of us that do not accept that the proletariat of Marx’s day were a bunch of dolts, one question that most new to Marxism ask is “why do we still have capitalism?”. Using Marx’s work and economics, capitalism should have disappeared many years ago. You can be damn sure that communists were thinking that a hundred years ago. Some simply renounced Marx while others attempted to figure out what had changed. One glaring trend leaped out above all others - between 1880 and 1900 the size of the West’s colonial holdings had drastically multiplied. During the same period the “revolutionary zeal” of the Western worker had almost disappeared. It really didn’t take much to put two and two together.


I wasn't calling him a Communist, I was answering the question "And Leninism is tailor-made for revolution in these underdeveloped nations. In fact it’s the only socialist ideology that can even incite revolution in these conditions."

Aside from the principle that their revolutions are Socialist in words only. There are "Socialist" competitors to Leninism. Actually considering someones view on Maoism, it could be said that Maoism is actually better at third world revolutions.
And just why should I consider a social democratic movement a competitor to communist revolution? Chavez has not incited revolution and he has not even pretended to try and end wage slavery.


How can the vanguard overthrow something that has not yet been established?
Without capitalism there is no vanguard.


Consider for the moment the line "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist." This line undoubtedly leads us to ask the question.... what is Communisms "hand-mill"???
Communism does not need a “hand mill” to come into being. The proletariat is unique as it is the first class to have been directly created by another. It is the offshoot of capitalism, in fact you can claim that it is the proletariat that is the capitalists’ “hand mill”.


anomaly
ComradeOm, Lenin has had quite an impact upon you, hasn't he? So much, in fact, that you suggest his way is the 'only way' in the third world! It is most unfortunate that such a 'vanguard' has, in the third world, always created a despotism of a party, not the proletariat. History does not suggest that your methods will ever produce a dictatorship of the proletariat. Rather, Leninist methods always create a rigid hierarchical society, in which 'The Party' takes the place of the overthrown bourgeoisie. It may be argued that Leninism 'carries' the host country to modern capitalism. This did happen in China, but I'd hardly call Russia a 'modern capitalist society'. I don't think we can even say Leninism always advances the country in which it takes root. In my opinion, Leninism has shown itself in the 20th century to be an utter waste of time.
I fully agree with you. All Leninist revolutions in the 20th century have been failures. That does not mean however that they have been an “utter waste of time”. What can we learn from the experience? The first and foremost is the theoretical poverty of both Maoism and Marxist-Leninism neither of which have come close to creating a socialist nation. With the fall of the Iron Curtain it is my sincerest hope that fewer will look to either the USSR or China for inspiration.

But what can be salvaged from a century of trainwrecks? To me the underlying theory that Lenin put forward is sound. No doubt mistakes were made in 1917 but the overall aims and means of the Bolsheviks were both Marxist and effective. To my mind Russia 1917 was the only truly Leninist revolution in the past century.


Well, no. But ArmchairSocialism and I were discussing, just on another page of this thread, alternatives to Leninism. He suggested going a way the Sandinistas took, about which I would have few gripes. I strongly suggest something resembling what the Zapatistas did. something resembling autonomism. Especially among the peasants, I think this idea has some real potential.
Except that I can’t imagine why anyone would give power to either businessmen or peasants. That’s the biggest problem with third world revolutionaries, they either compromise their ideals or become despotisms.

[Ol' Dirty]

Personaly, I believe that Anarchism does not have an adequate method of preventing coercion. Say that a young woman is being raped in an anarchistic state... Who's to stop the rapist from doing it, or doing more acts of rape? The police (although I have mixed feelings about them, they are necessary). The only people who can stop them is one seeking revenge. If the rapist is killed, then someone else will kill the killer of the rapist! Then war erupts, and innocents die. Thats why a limited form of police is in order, one controled by the peopl of the nation.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:26 PM
Personaly, I believe that Anarchism does not have an adequate method of preventing coercion. Say that a young woman is being raped in an anarchistic state... Who's to stop the rapist from doing it, or doing more acts of rape? The police (although I have mixed feelings about them, they are necessary). The only people who can stop them is one seeking revenge. If the rapist is killed, then someone else will kill the killer of the rapist! Then war erupts, and innocents die. Thats why a limited form of police is in order, one controled by the peopl of the nation.
this is not true. an organization of rape crimes/prevention would be set up. this organization could/would have trained investigators to research claims of rape. the peoples in this organization have no right to arrest/detain people but instead obtain evidence. a trial would be called for the accused rapist and a safe place provided for this person if they feel their life is in danger of revenge. they will be summoned for trial and if they do not come they will be declared guilty. before the trial an alert would be placed in the neighborhood to be weary of this person.

[JC1]

Here are the fact's on Anarchism;

- It has lead to little beside's the creation of petty-capitalist agrarian society's (EG Chiapas, Spain, Ukrain, Cambodia) with de-articulated state's.

- The only signifigant expression's of anarchism in an urban enviroment was the Anarchist movement in Barcelona. Even according to Anarchist source's, this instance of practice led to reformism (Hence the "Freinds of Durrati", Agruably the only working class anarchist movement).

- In the west, Anarchism is insignifigant and what little Anarchist mov't there is is extremly petit-bourgoise and reform/lifestylist oriented.

[violencia.Proletariat]

It has lead to little beside's the creation of petty-capitalist agrarian society's (EG Chiapas, Spain, Ukrain, Cambodia) with de-articulated state's.

chiapas is not "anarchist". they dont claim to be either. i wasnt aware cambodia was anarchist either. if your referring to pol pot, since when are dictatorships anarchist?


The only signifigant expression's of anarchism in an urban enviroment was the Anarchist movement in Barcelona. Even according to Anarchist source's, this instance of practice led to reformism (Hence the "Freinds of Durrati", Agruably the only working class anarchist movement).

and the only example of "marxism" as marx proposed was the paris commune. so what?


In the west, Anarchism is insignifigant and what little Anarchist mov't there is is extremly petit-bourgoise and reform/lifestylist oriented.

i agree with you on this. and i continue along with others i know fight this. we wish to eliminate the petty-bourgeois lifestylist element from the anarchist movement.

[JC1]

chiapas is not "anarchist". they dont claim to be either. i wasnt aware cambodia was anarchist either.

Chiapas use's anarchist symbolism and method. And the reference to Pol Pot's Cambodia is that it isnt structuraly diffrent from Mahnkno's Ukraine and Darfur today.


if your referring to pol pot, since when are dictatorships anarchist?


Since Bukinin. Since Mahnko.


and the only example of "marxism" as marx proposed was the paris commune.

Actualy, there are numerous example's of Marx's idea. The 1905 and 1917 Reveloution's, The Winnipeg General Strike, The Cultural Reveloution, Vietnam in 1945 (The only Trotskyist Reveloution), et cet era.

Beside's, Marx didnt realy articulate his idea of a new society, mainly due to a lack of practical knowledge.


so what?

I tell you "what". The Communist's have made there idea "go" and the Anarchist's have failed to do that. Misrebly. One god damn experiment in 150 year's. And it got no where.


i agree with you on this. and i continue along with others i know fight this. we wish to eliminate the petty-bourgeois lifestylist element from the anarchist movement.


The only way to fight this is to abandon anarchism.

To be fair, Leninism has had trouble with the class enemy in our own rank's. But we have began to form worker's only orginization like the FPM and the Communist League.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:23 PM




Chiapas use's anarchist symbolism and method. And the reference to Pol Pot's Cambodia is that it isnt structuraly diffrent from Mahnkno's Ukraine and Darfur today.

that may be so. but when i speak of anarchism its a transition that would take place in an industrialized nation. not an agrarian one.


Actualy, there are numerous example's of Marx's idea. The 1905 and 1917 Reveloution's, The Winnipeg General Strike, The Cultural Reveloution, Vietnam in 1945 (The only Trotskyist Reveloution), et cet era.

if im not mistaken when marx spoke of proletarian revolution he was referring to industrialized nations.


I tell you "what". The Communist's have made there idea "go" and the Anarchist's have failed to do that. Misrebly. One god damn experiment in 150 year's. And it got no where.

marxists have not come close to achieving communism as anarchists havent either. however, i do not include your party dictatorships as "doing something" in a marxist sense. i agree they industrialize the country creating a proletariat, however they are behind advanced capitalist countries, therfore what they are doing is not able to become communism.


The only way to fight this is to abandon anarchism.

or to create organizations that define anarchism which has never really been tried, aside from friends of durruti, in the movement overall.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 1 2006, 10:53 PM--> (nate @ Jan 1 2006, 10:53 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 06:26 PM
Personaly, I believe that Anarchism does not have an adequate method of preventing coercion. Say that a young woman is being raped in an anarchistic state... Who's to stop the rapist from doing it, or doing more acts of rape? The police (although I have mixed feelings about them, they are necessary). The only people who can stop them is one seeking revenge. If the rapist is killed, then someone else will kill the killer of the rapist! Then war erupts, and innocents die. Thats why a limited form of police is in order, one controled by the peopl of the nation.
this is not true. an organization of rape crimes/prevention would be set up. this organization could/would have trained investigators to research claims of rape. the peoples in this organization have no right to arrest/detain people but instead obtain evidence. a trial would be called for the accused rapist and a safe place provided for this person if they feel their life is in danger of revenge. they will be summoned for trial and if they do not come they will be declared guilty. before the trial an alert would be placed in the neighborhood to be weary of this person.[/b]
Pardon me nate, you mentioned orginization three times in your refutation, and that contradicts the whole idea of Anarchism, where their is no orginized power structure. What you proposed is contradictory to Anarchism, not that I'm calling you a hyppocrit.

Also, to have Anarchism, you would need a very small group to function the government, and it would be hard to do with the worlds large poulation at the moment.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:02 PM



where their is no orginized power structure

There is nothing "powerful" about that structure. Are you trying to tell me anarchism means anti-organization :lol:


Also, to have Anarchism, you would need a very small group to function the government, and it would be hard to do with the worlds large poulation at the moment.

You obviously need to research anarchism a bit more.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 2 2006, 02:29 AM--> (nate @ Jan 2 2006, 02:29 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 09:02 PM



where their is no orginized power structure

There is nothing "powerful" about that structure. Are you trying to tell me anarchism means anti-organization :lol:


Also, to have Anarchism, you would need a very small group to function the government, and it would be hard to do with the worlds large poulation at the moment.

You obviously need to research anarchism a bit more.[/b]
"Thus anarchism, in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulers, hierarchal organization, and systems of coercion are unnecessary and should be abolished."

This is a quote from www.wikipedia.org. Simply enter anarchism when you get there, you can't miss it.

All that I'm saying is that you said that in an anarchic world, there would be an orginization that would detter crime ( :rolleyes: See my point?). Who would stop crime? The only way to do that is to kill them, or boot them out of the tribe.

And I never said it would be "powerful", but would distribute (hopefully) equal power among the members of the group.

Back to the small gorup thing, the only way things are decided upon is when the entire group decides upon something. How do you plan on getting millions of people to vote on one thing, and get a unanamous vote?

Maybe you need to do some more research.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:55 PM





hierarchal organization

Note HIERARCHAL. What i proposed is not hierarchal. Anarchists are not against organization. Try reading some basic Berkman.


All that I'm saying is that you said that in an anarchic world, there would be an orginization that would detter crime ( :rolleyes: See my point?). Who would stop crime? The only way to do that is to kill them, or boot them out of the tribe

What tribe? Anarchic world? Anarchism is a theory on how we obtain communism. Its not a system you live under.

There would be no police. We wouldnt need to deter crime like you would in capitalism because people no longer have class issues that create motives for crime.

You also realize there is no government in communism right?


And I never said it would be "powerful", but would distribute (hopefully) equal power among the members of the group.

Obviously it would.


Back to the small gorup thing, the only way things are decided upon is when the entire group decides upon something. How do you plan on getting millions of people to vote on one thing, and get a unanamous vote?

Why would you need to do that? Each commune would be autonomous but follow the constitution of the trade federation. Each commune, espeically with the technology today, would be devided into neighborhood councils where decisions would be made. Once each neighborhood votes on a certain city wide "issue" then they send a delegate to the meeting of the commune. Here that delegate votes the way the neighborhood wants.


Maybe you need to do some more research.

You cant take the phrase hierachal organizations, bold organization, and say anarchists are against organization. Try reading some Alexander Berkman or Peter Kropotkin..

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)You are talking about liquidating the bourgeoisie during the revolution?[/b]

No, no.

I suspect during a revolutionary period the bourgeois (once it's clear they have lost) will flee. The bodies of the bourgeois (police, armies etc.) well I think they may well offer up little resistance once their paymasters go.

However I wouldn't be surprised if a post-revolutionary society held massive trials. Sort of like Nuremberg mark 2. Major businessmen and politicians would be tried for various crimes and "the wall" would be their punishment.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)And when this manager is drawn from and elected by his peers?[/b]

Well we know that this didn't happen in any of the former "Socialist" countries. This is what the word "Socialism" used to mean, however now it means large scale nationalisations and State-Capitalism.

You see the meanings of words change (I recently heard someone say Socialism was democratic Communism, go figure). So when the meaning of words change, we have to find new words.

So now democratic workers control is called the "lower stage of Communism." Even though the word "Communism" itself has quite a stigma.

I suspect there will be a whole new vocabulary on the left soon. Perhaps with an emphasis on the words "worker" and "proletariat."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
If you talk about managing entire systems or infrastructure networks then I suspect that the need for centralised managers will persist until devolved structures are capable of “stepping into” the role.

Certain things (electricity grids, water pipes etc.) may not be de-centralised for some time yet. However I think it would be best to keep management at a minimum.

Even elected managers (will in time) start to think like managers and workers will start to think like workers again. Essentially you start to breed a new hierarchy which will in time devolve back to class society.

This is what I think is important when discussing when a Communist society would be able to function. Perhaps the most important technological advance needed would be to be able to virtually scrap all "management positions."

After all, we are what we do and if we spend our time "managing people" we'll start to think like managers. Not good if we are attempting to create a classless society.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
On the broader issue of the role of managers in society, you will always have, in the foreseeable future at least, someone whose job it is to coordinate the various production/manufacturing inputs and systems.

"Co-ordination" in and of itself isn't "management." A secretary "co-ordinates" without "managing" in the traditional sense.

However what is important to keep in mind is that in a Communist society work will only be done if people enjoy it. No more wage-slavery and therefore no more being told what to do by bosses.

For a Communist society to function, the people of that society must be able to do things themselves without having to rely on an "educated elite."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Russia was hardly a case of a first world proletariat seizing control.

Well for a short time at least the Russian proletariat did seize control. That they relied on the (bourgeois) Bolsheviks, suggests what Lenin said, that they just weren't ready as a class.

What is perhaps most interesting about the Russian revolution is that were the workers were most radical (Petrograd) the Anarchists had a lot of support. I don't think anyone could dispute that the Anarchist message (you can do it yourselves) had some impact on those workers.

In fact in nearly all the places where workers seized temporary control (Germany, Paris and Spain) the most popular groups were either (ultra-left) Marxist or Anarchist.

Even if the effect of the Anarchist and (ultra-left) Marxist message was "too small to measure." The seeming confidence of the working class must have been helped by that message. Don't you think?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Though it does illustrate that the stronger the counterrevolutionary resistance, the stronger the state required to deal with it.

Twaddle.

If Lenin had of understood the conditions properly (as most of the Menshiviks did) and introduced the NEP earlier, then the Civil War would have been completely avoided.

Plus it is important to note who was actually considered "counter-revolutionary." Namely Anarchists and non-Bolshevik Marxists.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Though whatever about their youth branch I believe that the IRSP itself remains very much a Marxist body.

I got the impression they were somewhat of a "mixed bag."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And I might as well state that all leftist activism is to be welcomed.

That is disputable. As I have said "Communist" activism which basically says to the working class "you're useless and can't run shit." Will, in my opinion, hinder the creation of a confident working class.

This hindrance may be "to small to measure" but it is still a factor. Just think, what might of happened had the (big) French "Communist" parties in 68' supported the strikers? ...."Communist" activism that promotes the same views that our class enemies promote, is not in my opinion, useful activism at all.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I simply find it difficult to understand the position of those libertarian Marxists who maintain that the revolution will come when its ready and yet despite this somehow believe that their actions will have an impact.

Well it's quite simple really. Say a million people promoting revolution is needed for a revolution, we can either be one of that million or not.

That's the "crude" way of putting it.

That you don't "understand" this, is beyond me. Do you really think that "great men" shape the world in their own image?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You seem to stick with this notion that the revolutionary group are bourgeois or capable of forming a class of their own. These men and women will be members of the proletariat who have achieved class consciousness.

It wouldn't particularly matter if they were bourgeois or proletarian, it matters that they hold a position that is distinctly bourgeois. If you are "CEO of Russia inc. or China and co." Then (eventually) you start to think like the Capitalist does.

Your "revolutionary class consciousness" will change completely and finally you drop the rhetoric of Marxism and become Capitalists (and most likely be proud of your achievements).

You can think this all you want, just stop calling it Marxism, it's not. After all, Marxism states "you are what you do." If you manage "proles" you become a proto-bourgeois at the very least. Leninism asserts that "you are what you want to be." Which is a fundamentally idealist viewpoint.

What surprises me, is that after around about ten "Communist" revolutions where a (small) vanguard seized power on behalf of the workers. The end result was that the CP either completely dissolved itself or became openly Capitalist.

Yet you (Leninists) still assert that your way works. Despite it never even producing Socialism. That you (Leninists) still consider yourselves "scientific socialists" is quite frankly laughable.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
That such a group can overthrow the capitalist state, when it has been weakened enough, is not in question,

Well it is in question. As of yet, no Capitalist state (never mind an advanced one) has been overthrown. Russia, China et all, were feudal societies, at best proto-Capitalist.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In Russia the proletariat was not strong/large enough to assume power.

Then what does that tell you about the possibilities of a (real) proletarian revolution?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
That would not be a problem in the West, assuming a vanguard is needed of course.

I suspect when the time comes when we see successful proletarian revolutions, the proletariat as a class will have complete and utter disgust for "revolutionary leaders" particularly bourgeois ones.

I wouldn't that surprised if they lynched a few, thinking of that happening to Bob Avakian can't help but bring a smile to anyones face.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And I might as well note that “small” is relative. The Bolsheviks had over 200,000 members in August 1917.

What was Russia's population at that time? ....I did a quick search and this is what I came up with....


Originally posted by On-line Lecture #3: The Russian Revolution (Emphasis added)
Most, however, stayed in the countryside, where, by the last decade of the century, their numbers were growing by as many as 800,000 a year. By 1905, the Russian population had exploded to approximately 105,000,000. Of these, about 100,000,000 were peasants, and 2.25 million were urban workers (Thompson 165-168). With this population boom, the peasants needed more land.

Source (http://www.stedwards.edu/newc/sanchez/ahist4353/onlinelecture_3.html).


Originally posted by Wikipedia: Imperial Russia (Emphasis added)
The capital city of the Russian Empire was Saint-Petersburg (after 1914 re-named Petrograd). At the end of the 19th century the size of the Empire was about 22,400,000 square kilometers (almost 1/6 of the Earth's landmass); its only rival in size was the British Empire at the time. According to the 1897 census its population was about 128,200,000 people, however, a majority of them (93.4 million) lived in European Russia. More than a 100 different ethnic groups lived in the Russian Empire (ethnic Russians were about 45% of the population). In addition to today's Russia prior to 1917 Russian Empire included territories of Finland (Grand Duchy of Finland), Estonia and Latvia (Baltic provinces), most of Lithuania, Belarus, most of Ukraine, a significant part of Poland (Kingdom of Poland), Moldova (Bessarabia), Caucasus, and most of Central Asia (Russian Turkestan).

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russia).

200,000 of 100 million is not a great deal. What would be more interesting would be a class analysis of the Bolshevik Party, particularly its upper circles.

As well, of the 2.25 million workers, it is my understanding that the Anarchists had a lot of support. Possibly more than the Bolshevik's did.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Of course not.

There is a huge contradiction.

You asserted that "We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means. In other words, no sitting around waiting for the material conditions to click, we recognise that they can be changed. It’d difficult, if not impossible, in the first world but there is plenty of scope for change in the third world."

Where as Engels said "Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event."

Is there not an obvious contradiction there?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Lenin relies on economic determination?

With regard the "theory of imperialism" yes. Is it not the case that whole theory is more or less based on the economic incentives that the proletariat receives through imperialist adventures.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But feel free to continue with just how imperialism and the labour aristocracy is idealist.

Well for a start the idea that there is a separate class called the "labour aristocracy." Is in my opinion outside Marxist explanation. Which is shown by how difficult it is to show just who constitutes a "labour aristocracy."

I suspect if would be far simpler to call these people what they actually are, the "left" bourgeois (and petty bourgeois). Which generally consists of "Union bigwigs" and reformist "Socialists" (often Trotskyist).

Then of course we have the objective truth that the most promising proletarian revolutions have happened in the advanced imperialist countries. Paris in 68', was perhaps the most promising of the lot, if Lenin was right this would be impossible.

Then there are the times when we have seen the most widespread "class consciousness." During the thirties and sixties in the imperialist countries. Another thing that shouldn't happen if Lenin was right.

Even the most radical event of the Russian revolution (Petrograd) was done by the most advanced (and likely most privileged) part of the Russian population. Indeed Petrograd in and of itself contradicts some of Lenin's assertions about Russia.

Plus ever since Lenin came up with the theory, Leninist parties have still operated in the places where revolution is supposedly impossible. After all, isn't your activism in Ireland useless if Lenin was right?

For me Lenin's theory (and the prevailing "left" views of that period) were distinctly bourgeois (and often anti-working class). You notice this occasionally in Engels work as well, it is the theorists past coming back to haunt them.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Marxism is an excellent idea with firm materialist roots and yet all attempts to implement have failed, is that because the underlying theory is flawed?

Well for a start Marxism cannot be "implemented." It is a theory of the way the world works and a hypothesis of what the proletariat may do. It can't be implemented.

Secondly, on the occasions where workers have seized power, none of these councils failed, they were all defeated by outside forces.

Thirdly, we have never seen what could be called a "(Marxist) wide scale proletarian revolution." Does that mean that Marx was wrong about the proletariat in the advanced Capitalist nations? .....or does it just mean that Marx's predictions of when it would happen were wrong?

After all, do you remember this famous prediction....


Originally posted by Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto (Emphasis added)
In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty-bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

Link (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#Position).

Even when Marx try to predict the future (with any accuracy) he ran into the same trouble that we all do. Precisely because predicting the future with any accuracy is virtually impossible.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
but Lenin’s theories were directly drawn from the material reality that he observed.

Yet Stalin's and Mao's theories did not reflect the material reality of those places? ....the argument could be made that Mao (and Trotsky) made more accurate observations of their situations. However their solutions were shitty.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
For example, a good part of Imperialism is Lenin going through figures and data on the state of finance and colonisation in Africa.

He may very well have done that. However the few months he spent writing the piece, is far too little time (in my opinion) to conduct a "proper" examination of imperialism.

Indeed I imagine in Lenin's time the data was quite scarce (particularly in Czarist Russia) and therefore big questions have to be asked about the research itself.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’d also note that Lenin was amongst the few Marxist theorists in 1917, and even today, how have observed and drawn conclusions from the proletariat in both developed and underdeveloped nations.

I'd imagine most Marxist "intellectuals" have spent some time and drawn some conclusions on both the proletariat in developed and under-developed places.

However these observations often can't compensate the fact that nearly all of these theorists are bourgeois and it shows.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I assume this is Paris ’68?

No, I was referring to the recent riots in France.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I wouldn’t compare one spring of discontent with the constant class tension and struggle that Europe witnessed throughout the 19th century.

Too "spontaneous" for you was it? ....after all, it was the first (and only) time when the proletariat (and French students) looked like a "class for themselves." They didn't (early on at least) look to anyone for "guidance." Indeed seeking "guidance" was their eventual downfall.

There have been plenty of class struggles in this century as well, most recently in Britain of course was the Miners Strike. That was the last (big) act of "class war" I can think of.

Paris of 68' and a few other places (Spain, Paris 1871 and Germany) are the only places however were we have seen glimpses of a proletarian revolution. Paris 68' beats the others completely in my opinion.

However what is important about all these proto-revolutions is that in every one of them the working class itself has been too dependent on its "masters." Not yet have we truly seen a bold, strong and confident proletariat (though parts of the Petrograd uprising were certainly interesting).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
however it has been demonstrated that these demands can exist within capitalism and therefore they do not require revolutionary action.

True.

However, back then "revolutionaries" would have probably thought that these reforms would have brought down the system. They were wrong, reformism doesn't work.

Indeed the point could be made that "free" education is one of the most important demands. An educated proletariat will be able to rule itself.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Abolition of private property on the other hand is impossible while the bourgeoisie rule.

Yet you still contest that Socialism can be achieved in the third world through a (bourgeois) Leninist vanguard. Go figure.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’m sure there were plenty in the Tsar’s court who believed that the workers were inferior or unfit to rule. The Petrograd proletariat proved them wrong.

And Lenin too. :lol:

However the Petrograd proletariat really didn't prove their "readiness" to rule. They still ended up submitting to (bourgeois) Bolshevik rule. A proletariat that could rule itself, would have to Lenin and co to "FUCK OFF!"

That's what revolutionary consciousness is.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The proletariat may not feel ready or capable to destroy the bourgeoisie but they will and they will do so simply because they have no choice in the matter.

There is an element of truth in this. However if material conditions are so bad that a revolution is necessary, then Communism will only be the result if the proletariat thinks it can rule itself. Otherwise they'll look to the bourgeois (probably the party) and rely on someone to do "the hard stuff."

The bourgeois spent centuries looking for "reforming" Kings. They didn't gain power until they realised that as a class they could rule. The same will likely be true of the proletarian revolutions.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is scattered, un-unionised and unable to speak with one voice.

I don't think promoting "re-unionisation" and "one voice" is really a preferable solution.

Unions, have for a long time, been useless (especially as they get bigger and more bloated) and the "one voice" thing is not a Communist standpoint. Indeed it sounds more like something that came from thirties Germany than anything on the left.

A successful movement needs internal and external debate (and controversy). Especially one that wishes to create an ultra-democratic society.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
and the capitalists can no longer afford the velvet glove.

I think it must be a requirement of Leninism to dislike all social reforms. It's even funnier when one considers that most of these Leninists enjoy these reforms and most of their claims to fame (and success) amount to saying "look how nice the welfare system was in Russia."

I really don't think many Leninists like the working class and certainly begrudge them anything above the standard of living of a Russian worker in 1917.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
When those individuals work for the good of the many, as they will be forced to, they will pool their skills and resources.

Well in a post-Capitalist society no-one will be "forced" to work. We will do what we find pleasurable.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Its waning power has less to do with active resistance by the proletariat and more to do with the changing material conditions.

Not "active resistance" no. More like passive indifference.

The material conditions of course helped tremendously, however those "proles" still had to do their bit, namely seeing through the shit.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Abolishing religion would be a worthy accomplishment but weakening it through indifference isn’t.

Why not? ....rejecting all forms of "superiority" will undoubtedly be a requirement for a classless society to function.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I doubt there is anyone stupid enough to take this on face value,

Well some reactionaries consider it the basis of "Mein Kampf." :o

However, it does show that (with hindsight) we can look at Marx's work through the viewpoint of the modern world and see which parts of it no longer apply.

Interestingly the Leninists have (mostly) relied on Lenin's interpretation of Russia 1917 and applied it everywhere. The Anarchists often resort to "devil theories" and "red bureaucracies" when criticising Marx (Chomsky being a prime example). Really the only people I have seen attempt a (serious) advancement of Marx's work have been Marxists (or ultra-lefties).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
People had been asking why the predicted revolutions had not occurred for years and, as previously noted, Lenin wasn’t the first to consider imperialism.

I love how it is asserted that Lenin was the "first to consider imperialism." Marx (and Engels) noted it, however they deemed it superfluous. They certainly didn't think it changed everything as Lenin did.

The reason for Marx predictions failing, is in my opinion, far simpler. Making predictions (especially if you try to be accurate) is virtually impossible. Indeed Lenin's own predictions about the upcoming revolution in Europe, turned out to be completely wrong.

Indeed Marx's whole hypothesis (proletarian revolution) remains un-proved until it actually occurs and works. However it will likely be that Marx was only out by a couple of centuries, not bad considering how many centuries there are of human history.

Indeed with all the indicators now, it looks like Marx was almost entirely correct on his predictions of Capitalist society. Only today there was a piece in the business section of the times saying that by 2015 there could be no corner shops left. That is the liquidation of the "petty-bourgeois."

Basically I think most people who search for answers to these questions, undoubtedly do so because of impatience. Human history requires patience and humans aren't patient.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As far as I’m aware nobody has yet proven that Marx’s view of history is correct but we know its true.

It does lack proof in the scientific sense (I suspect when it is proved it will be through mathematics). However that there are no other reputable theories competing with historical materialism, suggests it is as good as we can currently hope for.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Using Marx’s work and economics, capitalism should have disappeared many years ago.

Indeed. However as I have previously said, the process Marx predicted is happening, he just got the time-scale wrong. No "theory of imperialism" was needed, just patience.

I found what I thought was a most interesting quote in the Marx biography I'm reading....


Originally posted by Francis Wheen
A friend once suggested that she couldn't imagine Marx living contentedly in an egalitarian society. 'Neither can I,' he agreed. 'These times will come, but we must be away by then.'

Perhaps Marx himself saw the folly that would be "19th century (attempted) Communism."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
During the same period the “revolutionary zeal” of the Western worker had almost disappeared.

What utter bullshit.

How many times did the 19th century proletariat effectively launch a proto-revolution as happened in Paris in 68'?

Indeed the 20th century showed a marked tendency for for radical class consciousness to arise during economic crises (the 30's) and imperialist wars (the 60's). Just as Marx predicted.

Indeed it was often the (self-proclaimed) revolutionary leaders that threw spanners in the works during these events.

According to Lenin, none of this could happen. Indeed the "battle for the streets" in late twenties and early thirties Germany, should not have happened if Lenin was right. After all. how was the KPD able to rally "red" militants?

Was the Spanish (in particular Catalan) working class opposition to Franco an illusion? ....surely this "revolutionary zeal" should not have been possible?

From 1918 to around 1970 (with the exception of the 50's) was quite possibly the most "class conscious" period Capitalism has ever endured. There were times (particularly in the thirties) when the whole system really looked like it could fall.

All of these things happened in the imperialist countries, how is this possible?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And just why should I consider a social democratic movement a competitor to communist revolution?

Not a competitor to a Communist revolution, but certainly a competitor to a Socialist (read Capitalism without the Capitalists) movement.

After all, none of the "vanguard revolutions" even came close to Communism.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
and he has not even pretended to try and end wage slavery.

Lenin never pretended (or actually did) end wage-slavery. I don't think any Leninist could hold that against someone, because none of the "vanguard parties" ever attempted it either. Indeed most of them still support some kind of "market Socialism."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Without capitalism there is no vanguard.

Well how can there have been a vanguard in Russia and China? ....both feudal societies.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Communism does not need a “hand mill” to come into being.

So a society that requires "super-abundance" requires no technological advancements to make that possible? ....I personally think that with all the developments in A.I. (in Japan mainly). Robots could be doing "shit-work" by about 2050, which means a functioning Communist society could very much become a real possibility.

After all, who would really want to do "shit-work" all the time if there was no material incentive? ....limiting it would certainly be preferable.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
in fact you can claim that it is the proletariat that is the capitalists’ “hand mill”.

No.

The Capitalists "hand mill" was undoubtedly the industrial revolution. Modern industrial Capitalism would not have been possible without it.

After all, if a proletariat (wage-slaves) was all that was required, Capitalism could have happened 1000 (even 2000) years ago.


Originally posted by FluxOne13
Personaly, I believe that Anarchism does not have an adequate method of preventing coercion.

Try this -- Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html) -- go to section I.5.8 [i]"What about crime?" There should be an answer in there.


Originally posted by JC1

Originally posted by nate
and the only example of "marxism" as marx proposed was the paris commune.

Actualy, there are numerous example's of Marx's idea. The 1905 and 1917 Reveloution's, The Winnipeg General Strike, The Cultural Reveloution, Vietnam in 1945 (The only Trotskyist Reveloution), et cet era.

If you notice, nate asked for revolutions as Marx proposed. You know where the working class actually had power.

In all of the "revolutions" you listed, the working class (at best) seized power temporarily.


Originally posted by JCI
The Communist's have made there idea "go

None of the "glorious Socialist revolutions" even came close to abolishing wage-slavery and creating a democratic workers society. Communism hasn't "gone" very far, despite the rhetoric.


[email protected]
One god damn experiment in 150 year's. And it got no where.

I assume you're speaking of the Spanish Civil War? ....well it could be argued that the Spanish Civil War (as well as almost defeating Spanish fascism) came as close as any other revolution to abolishing wage-slavery.


nate
if im not mistaken when marx spoke of proletarian revolution he was referring to industrialized nations.

He was. Marx was a materialist and therefore realised that material conditions (namely super-abundance) were the most important factor in a functioning Communist society.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:22 AM





Anarchism is the belief that the state must be utterly abbolsihed, and that the oppresive class system must be destroyed. Although this is a valiant venture, it is, in my opinion, naive, and would cause too much violence. It even says in wikepedias' definition that coercion would be unnecasary.



"hierarchal organization"

"Note HIERARCHAL. What i proposed is not hierarchal. Anarchists are not against organization. Try reading some basic Berkman."

You see, this can be interperated in many forms. What I mean (which you seem not to understand) is that orginization is almost always somewhat heirarchical, or else it would be so slow that it would cease to function. I will read what you have requested, and I thank you for helping me achieve greater knoledge, but do not classify me as eligeble for "basic" material.

"All that I'm saying is that you said that in an anarchic world, there would be an orginization that would detter crime (See my point?). Who would stop crime? The only way to do that is to kill them, or boot them out of the tribe (group)."

This is a good point, but I will try not to make the same mistake in the future.

"What tribe? Anarchic world? Anarchism is a theory on how we obtain communism. Its not a system you live under."

Also, Communism has been stated to be a root to Anarchism, not vice versa. You see, it is the gradual depletion of governmental power.

"There would be no police. We wouldnt need to deter crime like you would in capitalism because people no longer have class issues that create motives for crime. "
Although that would be wonderful, a world where we need no police :lol:, I believe that a limited form of police, controled by the people, of coursem, is necessary to uphold the limited sanctity of the state, which exists only to protect it's civilians. Also, to say that eleminating class would eliminate crime is wrong, because no matter what, there is always someone who feels the need to violate the lives of other human beings to get what they want.

"
You also realize there is no government in communism right?"


That is plain ignorance! Here:

"Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society."

Again, www.wikipedia.org.

How do you propose that we implement and continue and Anarchist society, in all of its entirety, and in such a large world? :huh:

[Comrade-Z]

Although that would be wonderful, a world where we need no police , I believe that a limited form of police, controled by the people, of coursem, is necessary to uphold the limited sanctity of the state, which exists only to protect it's civilians. Also, to say that eleminating class would eliminate crime is wrong, because no matter what, there is always someone who feels the need to violate the lives of other human beings to get what they want.

Ummm, how can you call yourself a marxist or a communist with a statement like that? Sure, on a short term basis during the revolution we will probably need democratic working class (non-professional) "police forces" to defend the revolution. Many would describe this as the "lower stage of communism," "socialism," the "dictatorship of the proletariat," etc. But standard marxist theory says that afterwards we will reach a stateless, classless society that many people call "communism," "anarchy," etc.

And then you say it's "human nature" to act coercively towards others? Isn't that an argument that bourgeois economists make all the time to argue that "communism is impossible"?

Well, the material conditions of this stage of capitalism seem to indicate that. But will these same material conditions, and thus these same behaviors, always exist? If Marx was right, they won't. Technology will continue to advance, and thus material conditions will change, and thus social relations will change. Do you deny the argument that authoritarian class society is the engine that produces the crime that we see today? Do you deny that individuals in a society functioning according the principle "from each according to his work, to each according to his need" would not require the use of coercive behavior, and in fact would be disadvantaged by the use of coercive behavior? Or do people just incurably suffer from "original sin"?

Striving to create a society that maintains police and coercion excites me about as much as tuning in to listen to the "Great Leader" of North Korea boast about supernatural events taking place on his birthday. I want stateless, classless communism, nothing less. Furthermore, reformism and its sham parliamentary elections are quickly losing the interest of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries, and I suspect working people in those countries will increasingly share my "utopian" ambitions.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:46 PM
ComradeOm, please stop with the idealism here:

"We believe that revolution can be forced in less than ideal situations by a small group with sufficient dedication and means. In other words, no sitting around waiting for the material conditions to click, we recognise that they can be changed. It’d difficult, if not impossible, in the first world but there is plenty of scope for change in the third world." (emphasis added).

You simply ignore material reality, instead suggesting that a 'small group' can somehow have the 'means' and (I love this one) the 'dedication' ( :lol: ) to 'change' society. That may be true, but recognize this small group will change the society into a despotism (is this what you are suggesting?). Leninism will not create socialism in the first world, let alone in the third world. And the reason for the latter is simply material reality.

A very large group can change material conditions, but a small group cannot. This 'small group' will indeed 'lead' a 'revolution', and they will replace the former bourgeoisie, and, in doing so, take their place at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.

So, I have a question for you. Are you in favor of Leninist revolutions in the third world and the despotism that goes with them? Or are you simply an idealist who thinks that 'socialism' can be 'created' in the third world by a 'dedicated' small group of 'leaders'?
I think a small group has the potential to create a spark, that could ignite the seemingly dormant general public.

I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Before I begin flux, I have a question. Do you think communism is possible? Are you a socialist? Anarchist? Or do you settle for voting for the democratic party?



Although this is a valiant venture, it is, in my opinion, naive, and would cause too much violence.

Ohhh no! We cant be shooting the people who opress us, that would just be terrible :lol: :rolleyes: Im starting to see where you really fall, "Well it would be great if it could work, but it cant. So dont shoot those people they are probably good actually, somehow."

www.liberalpacifisttolerance.com


You see, this can be interperated in many forms.

It cant be interpreted as organization is bad. Or else it would just say against organization. We are against hierarchical organization, that is true. However I disagree that all organizations are hierarchical, such as the one I proposed to help make decisions in each commune.



All that I'm saying is that you said that in an anarchic world, there would be an orginization that would detter crime

I said absolutely nothing about deterring "crime". The only crime that would be around to try and prevent is murder or rape. Now you really cant prevent these, but since communities will have become so connected and well organized, people are watching eachothers backs. This could be called "prevention".


Who would stop crime? The only way to do that is to kill them

Yes we will shoot proven rapists and murderers. So what?


or boot them out of the tribe (group)

First of all, will you quit referring to the population of a commune as a tribe. This is not primitivist left. If you are trying to hint that anarchism is unrealistic by using that word im not really amused. Expulsion from the community could be a possibility but unlikely since it would be hard finding another commune that would accept them. Maybe a developing capitalist country would accept them :lol:


Also, to say that eleminating class would eliminate crime is wrong, because no matter what, there is always someone who feels the need to violate the lives of other human beings to get what they want.

I agree. There will still be crime such as rape and murder. But there would be no more stealing or roberry (maybe in small cases after the rev?). Most crime in America at least is drug related, and this would not be a crime in communism.


That is plain ignorance! Here:

"Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society."

Whats your point? A stateless classless society. I would also be careful about using open source sites for you information, its been known for false information.


How do you propose that we implement and continue and Anarchist society, in all of its entirety, and in such a large world? :huh:

There is no "anarchist society". How do i propose communism will work in such a large world? Looking at historical materialism it will be centuries before the whole world could be ready for communism. Whats in the possibility of our lifetime is Western Europe and other advanced capitalist countries having revolutions. But even these areas would not obtain communism for a while. However, it would function economically on a syndicalist system most likely. Consisting of a trade federation which each commune accepts the federations constitution. However each commune maintains its autonomy. Within each commune, the workplaces are controlled by a workers councils. The most I ever see with "hierarchy" is a democratically elected recallable representative. However I see these as uncessary at the moment, a delegate would be assigned but would not have any decision making power apart from what the group wants.

[Amusing Scrotum]

On the issue of Lenin's "theory of imperialism." I stumbled upon this piece by redstar2000 which does a better job than I could, of evaluating it through the "lens" of Marxist economics -- The "Labor Aristocracy", the "Middle Class", and Marxist Theory February 21, 2004 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083626854&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- it is one of the few critical pieces I've found on the internet. Indeed I haven't come across many pro-"theory of imperialism" pieces (MIM being the exception). It seems to be largely irrelevant to peoples thinking and that its "under discussed" does worry me somewhat.

[ComradeOm]

I'll try to have a look at that critique. But understand that for the considerable majority of Marxists, certainly those that I know, imperialism is accepted. Like historical materialism it makes sense. Its never been one of the great arguing points simply because most Marxists agree with it.

Unfortunately my workload is killing me and I no longer have time to craft the usual elegant, cutting ( ;) ) and, above all, time consuming arguments that this thread requires. Here's have a reponse to the last post for what its worth.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
I suspect during a revolutionary period the bourgeois (once it's clear they have lost) will flee. The bodies of the bourgeois (police, armies etc.) well I think they may well offer up little resistance once their paymasters go.
The problem with that scenario is that the fleeing capitalists will no doubt strengthen capitalism abroad before returning. See Cuba for an example. It’s very much a short term solution.


However I wouldn't be surprised if a post-revolutionary society held massive trials. Sort of like Nuremberg mark 2. Major businessmen and politicians would be tried for various crimes and "the wall" would be their punishment.
I’d like to see that. Not just the trial but a society where merely being a capitalist is a crime.


Well we know that this didn't happen in any of the former "Socialist" countries. This is what the word "Socialism" used to mean, however now it means large scale nationalisations and State-Capitalism.
We know what should have happened and we know what did happen. The challenge is to


You see the meanings of words change (I recently heard someone say Socialism was democratic Communism, go figure). So when the meaning of words change, we have to find new words.
What is socialism? It is the transition period between capitalism and communism. That is all the word has ever meant. We use it because the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “lower phase of communism” are simply too awkward for everyday use.

I understand fully what you mean - I’m not exactly happy that the most pervading image associated with the term “Leninism” is a hirsute Georgian – but people use the most convenient terms available. You should be aiming to change the meaning behind the words, not the other way around.


So now democratic workers control is called the "lower stage of Communism." Even though the word "Communism" itself has quite a stigma.

I suspect there will be a whole new vocabulary on the left soon. Perhaps with an emphasis on the words "worker" and "proletariat."
Let me know how that goes. Until then I’ll stick with the most efficient and understood terms.


However I think it would be best to keep management at a minimum.
And I fully agree with you. I’m not advocating the continued existence of the state out of preference here. I’d love to see society switch straight over to communism after the revolution but that ain’t going to happen. Both management and the state should of course be kept to a minimum, the only question is what level of control constitutes the minimum.


Even elected managers (will in time) start to think like managers and workers will start to think like workers again. Essentially you start to breed a new hierarchy which will in time devolve back to class society.
Just as the elected government today is an extension of the bourgeoisie, any governmental or management that arises after the revolution will be an extension of the proletariat. What power is there when a manager is beholden to the workers?


"Co-ordination" in and of itself isn't "management." A secretary "co-ordinates" without "managing" in the traditional sense.
Exactly. A secretary co-ordinates the administrative duties of a department, a manager’s role should simply be to co-ordinate the material/production/equipment/whatever requirements for the department.


However what is important to keep in mind is that in a Communist society work will only be done if people enjoy it. No more wage-slavery and therefore no more being told what to do by bosses.

For a Communist society to function, the people of that society must be able to do things themselves without having to rely on an "educated elite."
I’m not even going to try and guess what communist society will look like but I agree that this would be a requirement for a classless and bossless workplace.


Well for a short time at least the Russian proletariat did seize control. That they relied on the (bourgeois) Bolsheviks, suggests what Lenin said, that they just weren't ready as a class.
The proletariat in Russia were capable of destroying the state but were not ready to control it. Russia was undeveloped, I doubt anyone is disputing that.


What is perhaps most interesting about the Russian revolution is that were the workers were most radical (Petrograd) the Anarchists had a lot of support. I don't think anyone could dispute that the Anarchist message (you can do it yourselves) had some impact on those workers.
No doubt anarchists were present all throughout Russia though I fail to see any significance in this. There is no law that says that only one strand of revolutionary thought will emerge. Those were radical times.

Although whatever anarchist presence there was in Petrograd was dwarfed by that of the Bolsheviks in the city. The same applies throughout most of Russia.


In fact in nearly all the places where workers seized temporary control (Germany, Paris and Spain) the most popular groups were either (ultra-left) Marxist or Anarchist.

Even if the effect of the Anarchist and (ultra-left) Marxist message was "too small to measure." The seeming confidence of the working class must have been helped by that message. Don't you think?
In interesting times all sorts of interesting ideas arise. When the proletariat rises up it is usually under several banners. For example in Paris ’71 the Commune was led by both anarchists and Blanqists (who could be considered proto-Leninists).


If Lenin had of understood the conditions properly (as most of the Menshiviks did) and introduced the NEP earlier, then the Civil War would have been completely avoided.
Twaddle. An interesting word that.

If there had been no Bolshevik revolution then Russia would’ve been unlikely to survive WWI, never mind WWII. The Menshiviks were reformists plain and simple. They would have backed the complete collapse of the Russia simply because they were unable to open their eyes to the revolutiuonary conditions.

And make no mistake on this matter – the conditions of 1917 were revolutionary. The proletariat were ready and eager to act, indeed it was all the Bolshevik leadership could do to have them wait for the right time. Lenin and the Bolsheviks read the conditions like a book. If they’d misjudged them then we’d be discussing Petrograd in the same context as Paris and Spain.


Plus it is important to note who was actually considered "counter-revolutionary." Namely Anarchists and non-Bolshevik Marxists.
I was actually talking about a little force called the White Armies

Though its interesting to note that in 1917 there were few if any non-Bolshevik Marxists. Well that depends if you’d call the reformists Marxist?


That is disputable. As I have said "Communist" activism which basically says to the working class "you're useless and can't run shit." Will, in my opinion, hinder the creation of a confident working class.
I’d like a source for “you’re useless and can’t run shit” please.

Anything that gets the workers out on the streets and fighting for what is theirs is alright by me.

[rebelworker]

I think that the point armchair was trying to make about the advanced levekls of struggle and the presence of anarchist and non lenenist marxism is that(in my opinion) you cannot ignore questions of theory when analyzing political connsciousness.

Also culture dose affect the kinds of theory people are likely to gravitate towards and this wll have an effect on the way people choose to organize themselves and engage in struggle(autonomist nationalities in Spain and indigenous people in mexico are two examples given regarding the strenght of anarchism in some regions).

The bolsheviks may have been numerically supirior in petrograd, but they may not have been in the petrograd factories. The petty burgeoise and intelectual composition of the bolshevik party must be taken into consideration when reflecting on their real political impact on the revolutionary struggle. Just because a group of highly organized professionals and student with lots of free time and resources at there disposal where able to weasel their way into power over people dose not mean that they represented a highpoint or watershed inpolitical conciousness among the revolutionary workers.

Now as for The more interssting and relevant discussion on building towards a new unity of theory,and more importantly organization and practice, between class strugle anarchists and anti-authoritarian Marxists, One critique I have on marxists is the lack of emphasis on encouraging self activity. Its there in the analysis of historical events sometimes, but For me the only hope for communism is the self activity of the vast majority of the working class( no lennenist shortcuts will do).

This is often not reflected in maxist theory. I like to work horozontally(when I think) trying to match materialist historical lessons(and vague predictions) and current parctice into a praxis.

The anarchist focus on direct action and individual political development, strictly within the context of mass movement building, I think is a safer path to tread(also historically speaking) as a way of moving forward. Class struggle Anarchist organizations already exist, and I think it makes more sence to work good marxist ideas into them than to start from the mess that is the historicall baggage of marxism and try to create a new antiauthoritarian tendancy and then have the near immposible task of trying to convice the small but by now well established(in some countries atleast) Platformist(like friends of durutti group) anarchists to quit their organizations and legacy.

I think Platformist anarchism (starting with the Platform of the libertrian communists, a critique of anarchsm in the russian revolution, written by makhno and others), taken up by the friends of durutti group and brought back today almost simultaniously but somewhat indendantly in Latin America, Europe, Africa, North America and the middle East(In that order cronologically) represents a somewhat tried and tested(although small)revolutionary tendancy and history with no serrous blunders or autrocaties in its camp that has continued to evolve and take the best parts of revolutionary theary and practice intpo consideration.

For both educational and practical sake i am including links to both this tendancies (very new so give it time) international news service :

http://www.anarkismo.net

And some of the more active organizations in different regions:

Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
http://www.nodo50.org/fau/

Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm.html

Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation (South Africa)
http://www.zabalaza.net/

Federation of Northwest Anarchist Communists (United States, Canada)
http://nafederation.org/

Federação Anarquista Gaúcha (Brazil)
http://www.fag.rg3.net/

Alternative Libertaire (France)
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org

Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
http://www.fdca.it/

I know that this will parobably be seen by some as sectarian, My intention was just to spread some light on a little know but rapidly growing tendancy that borrows heavily from both the Class struggle anarchist and Marxist traditions.

In general we are working class centered(my organization, NEFAC, does not allow membership to people with the ability to hire, fire or discipline) and we organize as a revolutionary pole within mass movements.
We beleive in the need for ideological and theoreticl unity, and a strong revloutionary organization with its own propaghanda organs and structures for engaging in struggle( one example is our 'warchest', dues are collected to help cover legal costs or feeding families apon loss of job or imprisonment).
On the Flip side we do not see ourselves as a vanguard party and do not intend to seize state power(or takeover social organizations like unions, tenants groups or adhock coalitions).

I would love to hear questions or criticism from people, and im throwing this out there as an already established project for uniting strains of Anarchsim and Marxim(one of our collectives is made up largely of the remnants of a branch of a trotskyist group that went anti-authoritarian in the seventies)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:37 PM
No doubt anarchists were present all throughout Russia though I fail to see any significance in this.
The significance is that the Bolsheviks imprisoned and executed thousands of anarchists in Russia and stands as a testament to the repressive nature of the Soviet regime


There is no law that says that only one strand of revolutionary thought will emerge. Those were radical times.

There tends to be a law within Bolshevism that says only one strand of revolutionary though can exist in a revolutionary society at any one time, however.


Although whatever anarchist presence there was in Petrograd was dwarfed by that of the Bolsheviks in the city.

You mean liquidated.


The same applies throughout most of Russia.

Indeed it does.

[Hiero]

There tends to be a law within Bolshevism that says only one strand of revolutionary though can exist in a revolutionary society at any one time, however.

Why not?

There is only one strand of revolutionary thought, proletariat thought. Anyone who opposes socialism, anti-imperialism, proletariat control over the economic base and superstructure anyone who opposes what benifits the proletariat is counter revolutionary.

[rebelworker]

ohhhh good answer,

The idea that there is one true thought, should through just a little bit of reflexion, be obviously one of most dangerous ideas a so called revolutionary could hold, and i would never tryst anyone with my life and the hopes of a better society who feels this way.

We are all, as it has been discussed in this thread, suseptable to the prejudices of our background and the society at large, only through serriously engaging in open dialogue with other revolutionaries and constantly re examining the lessons of histrory can one hope to have any kind of usefull,but constantly changing, grasp of revolution and the monumental challenges that come with it. The amount of dogmatism show by some groups and ideologies astounds me. Your politics can only hope to survive by cutting itself of from both historical realities and tough questions posed by other tendacies of thought and building up an insular politic based on your parties evaluation of history and an ever changing web of lies to justify whatever mistakes(or I think in your case atrocities) your 'correct line' has been given from god, opps sorryu I mean Marx-Lennin-Stalin-Mao...

Give it a break, No militant working class will ever alow your ilk to set up another self serving totalitarian nightmare again.

Some of us are trying to go about the difficult task of getting over the horriffic errors of the past and make communism a serrious movement of the oppressed once again and all you can do is puke up such a simplistic and rediculous statement that helps noone to get on with the task of learning anything and moving forward...

Lets try this again...

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2006, 12:37 PM
The significance is that the Bolsheviks imprisoned and executed thousands of anarchists in Russia and stands as a testament to the repressive nature of the Soviet regime

...
All power to the Soviets mean anything to you?

In the end the situation in Russia 1917 was very simple - the Bolsheviks were the largest and most capable revolutionary group going. If it was otherwise then most people would never have heard of one VI Lenin.

I think that's what pisses off most critics of the 1917 revolution the most - that the Russian proletariat chose the Bolsheviks. It wasn't the "ultra-left" Marxists and it wasn't the anarchists who the proletariat put in power... the Russian workers went with the Communists.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'll make a longer reply (especially to the points rebelworker made) later. However, for the moment, I just had to reply to this....


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)All power to the Soviets mean anything to you?[/b]

Yes, it was a "Bolshevik slogan" wasn't it. However, did the Soviets actually get "all power" under Bolshevik rule? ....no they didn't, by 1918 they meant nothing.

Rhetoric (however radical it may be) does not tell us what actually happened. Is George Bush really bringing "democracy" to Iraq?


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)that the Russian proletariat chose the Bolsheviks.[/b]

No they didn't. The word "chose" implies that the Bolshevik's held a vote before the October coup and the working class voting in favour. They did no such thing of course, they just took power.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It wasn't the "ultra-left" Marxists and it wasn't the anarchists who the proletariat put in power...

Well, the proletariat didn't essentially put anyone "in power". However, there were some "Ultra-Leftists" within the Bolshevik Party, indeed from what I've read, Lenin was to the right of a lot of the party.


[email protected]
the Russian workers went with the Communists.

Marxists and Anarchists aren't Communists now?


Hiero
There is only one strand of revolutionary thought, proletariat thought. Anyone who opposes socialism, anti-imperialism, proletariat control over the economic base and superstructure anyone who opposes what benifits the proletariat is counter revolutionary.

And in Russia in 1917 "proletariat thought" was best conveyed by the Bolshevik's (who's membership was mainly, at least in the upper circles, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois)? ....pull the other one. :lol:

As we have already determined, the Russian proletariat (as small as it was) gave a considerable amount of support to the various Anarchist groups in Russian.

It seems the Russian proletariats "thought" was divided between (at least) two revolutionary theories (Bolshevism and Anarchism). Indeed it is rumoured that Lenin's "libertarian" works were written to appeal to the more revolutionary sections of the Russian working class, they didn't like his "other stuff" much.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:54 PM

There tends to be a law within Bolshevism that says only one strand of revolutionary though can exist in a revolutionary society at any one time, however.

Why not?
Well, the most obvious answer would be that bolshevism has practically failed every time it has been implemented. Leninism is theoretically and irreconcilably flawed.


There is only one strand of revolutionary thought, proletariat thought.

And by that I'm assuming you mean the overthrow of capitalism, the destruction of the state and the creation of a communist society?

I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with that. Certainly the Russian anarchist communist federations and Syndicalist unions didn't disagree in 1917.

Even when they were executed and interned into prison camps.


anyone who opposes what benifits the proletariat is counter revolutionary.

Marxism-Leninism has never benefited the proletariat so where does that leave bolshevism in terms of being counter revolutionary?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jan 7 2006, 06:09 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jan 7 2006, 06:09 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2006, 12:37 PM
The significance is that the Bolsheviks imprisoned and executed thousands of anarchists in Russia and stands as a testament to the repressive nature of the Soviet regime

...
All power to the Soviets mean anything to you? [/b]
Not really no.


In the end the situation in Russia 1917 was very simple - the Bolsheviks were the largest and most capable revolutionary group going. If it was otherwise then most people would never have heard of one VI Lenin.

That's historically untrue. I can agree that they were the loudest group in the Russian Parliament and active propagandists, but what about the Petrograd Anarchist Communist Federation which had lead strike after strike against the Tsarist regime and who fought for a communist society during the uprising?

The Bolsheviks were a "revolutionary" force in Russia, but they weren't the only group and they certainly weren't the only group that was actively resisting the Tsarist regime.


I think that's what pisses off most critics of the 1917 revolution the most - that the Russian proletariat chose the Bolsheviks.

What choice did they have? Especially when the Bolsheviks had secured control over the bourgeois state and started politically cleansing the left, because as sure as the sky is blue it was those on the "ultra-left" the Cheka came for first...


It wasn't the "ultra-left" Marxists and it wasn't the anarchists who the proletariat put in power... the Russian workers went with the Communists.

And to do otherwise would have meant death, or worse.

[YKTMX]

Yes, it was a "Bolshevik slogan" wasn't it. However, did the Soviets actually get "all power" under Bolshevik rule?

Yes - but how did they lose it, that is the question.

I'd argue they "lost" it because of historical circumstances (the ravages of the civil war, famine, the defeat of the world revolution).

I suppose your argument would amount to "the Bolsheviks planned to steal it all along", yes?


Rhetoric (however radical it may be) does not tell us what actually happened

Agreed, which is why we look at objective conditions and not some statements Lenin made in the middle of a Civil War for answers.


The word "chose" implies that the Bolshevik's held a vote before the October coup and the working class voting in favour.

It only implies that if you think in bourgeois\ultra leftist terms. For Marxists, the world 'chose' means that, as a class, the Russian workers turned to the Bolsheviks for leadership in a time of vacillation. They never "had a vote" on it - except, of course, they did, in the Soviets, which the Bolsheviks usually won at this time.

The fact that you use the term 'October coup' is also indicative. For decades, not the even the worst Anarchist would call October a 'coup' - they left that up to Robert Conquest et al. It justs shows how poorly informed you are on this subject.


However, there were some "Ultra-Leftists" within the Bolshevik Party, indeed from what I've read, Lenin was to the right of a lot of the party.


Lenin had a firm grasp on the actual conditions. That's the only position a Marxists can take. We don't proclaim that we can "change" history by our deeds alone.


Marxists and Anarchists aren't Communists now?


Anarchists are Anarchists, Marxists are Communists. And you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Leninist.


And in Russia in 1917 "proletariat thought" was best conveyed by the Bolshevik's (who's membership was mainly, at least in the upper circles, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois)?

The Bolshevik membership was made up of the best of Russian working class partisans. Tell me, who was the "bourgeois" in the Bolshevik party, I'd be interested to hear.


As we have already determined, the Russian proletariat (as small as it was) gave a considerable amount of support to the various Anarchist groups in Russian.


The Anarchists were good revolutionaries during the October "coup", as you call it, but as they tend to do, they decided to side with the White armies when it came to the crunch. Shame.


Indeed it is rumoured that Lenin's "libertarian" works were written to appeal to the more revolutionary sections of the Russian working class, they didn't like his "other stuff" much.


:lol: Redstar has tried to pass this one off as well.

Fantasy.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Anarchists are Anarchists, Marxists are Communists. And you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Leninist.

:lol: Are you feeling alright ?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Yes - but how did they lose it, that is the question.[/b]

No it really isn't "the question". The question, posed by ComradeOm was....


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)All power to the Soviets mean anything to you?[/b]

And my answer is, no, all power to the Soviets doesn't mean when talking about the actions of the Bolshevik Party, because under Bolshevik rule, all power didn't go to the Soviets.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I suppose your argument would amount to "the Bolsheviks planned to steal it all along", yes?

Well no political party operates without the intention of one day getting power, the Bolsheviks were no different in that sense.

Also, I have no way of knowing what the individual goals of each Bolshevik (mainly in the upper circles). Therefore it is impossible to tell whether this or that Bolshevik actually wanted state power. I suspect Lenin was one of the more sincere Bolshevik's, Trotsky on the other hand, strikes me as a more unsavoury character.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
They never "had a vote" on it - except, of course, they did, in the Soviets, which the Bolsheviks usually won at this time.

As I understand it, the vote to confirm Bolshevik rule happened after the "October Revolution". This suggests that Lenin and co. were not that sure of a majority in the Soviets and therefore the Bolshevik's may have thought State power was the only way to ensure this support.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The fact that you use the term 'October coup' is also indicative.

Indicative of what? ....that I wish to use the right terminology....


Originally posted by dictionary.com
coup d'etat.

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coup%20d%27etat).


Originally posted by dictionary.com
revolution.

2: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed

Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolution).

Even Lenin didn't initially call it a "revolution", he referred to it as "the October uprising" or the "Uprising of 25th".


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Lenin had a firm grasp on the actual conditions.

Well I think if anyone can claim credit for having "a firm grasp on the actual conditions." Then it would have to be some of the Left-Menshiviks. They actually turned out to be right, Lenin didn't.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
And you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Leninist.

So neither Marx or Engels were Marxists. :lol: :lol:


[email protected]
Tell me, who was the "bourgeois" in the Bolshevik party, I'd be interested to hear.

Lenin and Trotsky among others. Indeed the only member of the Central Committee that I can think of from a working class background was Kamenev the son of a railway worker (I think).


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
but as they tend to do, they decided to side with the White armies when it came to the crunch.

As I understand it, many of the Anarchists in Russia were "on holiday" in Siberia during the Civil War.

[ComradeOm]

I was going to add more but X sums it up pretty well.


No they didn't. The word "chose" implies that the Bolshevik's held a vote before the October coup and the working class voting in favour. They did no such thing of course, they just took power.
Yes of course… the Bolsheviks somehow magically occupied not just the Winter Palace but almost every position of power in the face of opposition from the proletariat :rolleyes:

Face historical fact – the proletariat renounced the Mensheviks and liberals and marched in the name of the Bolsheviks. You seem to persist with this notion that the vanguard was some tiny cadre of intellectuals when in reality the Bolsheviks had the full and active support of much of the Russian proletariat, particularly in Petrograd and Moscow.

TAT, I wouldn't try to deny that there were many anarchists active during the revolution. Some may well have fought for the Red Army, I don't know. However its obvious, simply from the fact that the Bolsheviks came out top, that they did could not muster the same level of support as the Communists.


Marxists and Anarchists aren't Communists now?
Note the capital ‘c’ as in member of the Communist Party. I’m fairly sure that you won’t find many anarchists there. Of course in 1917 it was virtually the one place where you could find a Marxist.


As I understand it, the vote to confirm Bolshevik rule happened after the "October Revolution". This suggests that Lenin and co. were not that sure of a majority in the Soviets and therefore the Bolshevik's may have thought State power was the only way to ensure this support.
The storming of the Winter Palace took place the same evening as the elections of the 2nd Congress. No doubt the attack did influence the vote… when it became clear that the Mensheviks had been left behind and the revolution was underway.

After all when the choice came down to a group of war supporting reformists and active revolutionaries… well the proletariat could only ever go one way.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Yes of course… the Bolsheviks somehow magically occupied not just the Winter Palace but almost every position of power in the face of opposition from the proletariat[/b]

Have I suggested that everyone opposed the Bolshevik's? ....no. However, you seem to take the extremes (as with the question of activism). Either everyone supported the Bolshevik's, or no one supported them. The "middle ground" seems to be lost on you.

From wikipedia....


Originally posted by October Revolution (emphasis added)+--> (October Revolution (emphasis added))The Second Congress of Soviets consisted of 649 elected delegates; 390 were Bolshevik and nearly a hundred were Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also supported the overthrow of the Kerensky Government. When the fall of the Winter Palace was announced, the Congress adopted a decree transferring power to the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, thus ratifying the Revolution. The transfer of power was not without disagreement. The center and Right wings of the Socialist Revolutionaries as well as the Mensheviks believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had illegally seized power and they walked out before the resolution was passed. As they exited they were taunted by Leon Trotsky who told them "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!" The following day, the Soviet elected a Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom) as the basis of a new Soviet Government, pending the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, and passed the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land.[/b]

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_revolution).

That's 259 elected delegates who weren't Bolshevik's. Plus I'm not sure whether the Anarchists were part of the delegates, they may not have been.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Face historical fact – the proletariat renounced the Mensheviks and liberals and marched in the name of the Bolsheviks.

The Bolshevik's renounced the Menshiviks and Liberals, and of course in "Leninland" that means the proletariat denounced them. From the passage above, it is clear that whilst the Bolshevik's had a majority (a pretty big one), the proletariat wasn't fully behind them.

Plus, the Bolshevik Party had factions. How much of the Bolshevik supporting proletariat supported Lenin (and the Bolshevik right) is disputable. I'll be kind and say Lenin and the Right-Bolshevik's had 300 elected delegates, that means the proletariat elected 349 delegates that didn't support Lenin and Right-Bolshevism.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
However its obvious, simply from the fact that the Bolsheviks came out top, that they did could not muster the same level of support as the Communists.

There is no denying the Bolshevik majority in 1917. However, that was the only time the "choice" was made. Post-1917 there were no longer any votes etc. and therefore we can't say that the Bolshevik's remained top dog.

Plus, Lenin did a good job of silencing any opposition. Anarchists, Socialists, Communists etc. who didn't support the "counter-revolution" were sent away on vacation just for being anti-Bolshevik.

The forming of Checka is very instructive in this sense. Oppressive regimes need oppressive secret services to "disappear" people. And for sure, such organisations never "represent" the proletariat, they oppress it.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Note the capital ‘c’ as in member of the Communist Party.

Well I'm a Grammar-Fascist. I hate it when people write "capitalism" or "communism". I like capitals.

Plus, this no longer applies because there are no Official (Russian backed) Communist parties left.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Of course in 1917 it was virtually the one place where you could find a Marxist.

No it wasn't. In 1917 there was no Official Communist Party in Russia, therefore there can't have been any Marxists there. :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The storming of the Winter Palace took place the same evening as the elections of the 2nd Congress.

Really? ....I can't find the date for the 2nd congress anywhere.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
when it became clear that the Mensheviks had been left behind and the revolution was underway.

Or as Trotsky said to Martov....


Leon [email protected]
You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!

Unluckily for Trotsky, Uncle Joe was to consign him to "dustbin of history" only a decade later. The horrors of public life.

Interestingly as well, Martov seems to have survived (although he remains relatively unknown) the test of history far better than Trotsky and in my opinion is perhaps the "most right" of all the Russian revolutionaries.


ComradeOm
After all when the choice came down to a group of war supporting reformists and active revolutionaries

If I'm not mistaken, a large portion of the Bolshevik Party (the Left Opposition?) supported carrying on the war and invading Germany. Including Bukharin, before he moved to the right.

[ComradeOm]

Have I suggested that everyone opposed the Bolshevik's? ....no. However, you seem to take the extremes (as with the question of activism). Either everyone supported the Bolshevik's, or no one supported them. The "middle ground" seems to be lost on you.
In times of revolution there are only extremes. You are either revolutionary or you are not. The Bolsheviks were, by some margin, the largest faction advocating revolution. Where they led the other revolutionary groups, and I have no doubt that there were a myriad of them, followed.


Plus, the Bolshevik Party had factions. How much of the Bolshevik supporting proletariat supported Lenin (and the Bolshevik right) is disputable. I'll be kind and say Lenin and the Right-Bolshevik's had 300 elected delegates, that means the proletariat elected 349 delegates that didn't support Lenin and Right-Bolshevism.
Get your lines straight. Either the Bolsheviks were a despotic party or a democratic one.

As it happens Lenin had to work to convince the Party leadership to back him on a number of occasions. Freedom in criticism, unity in action and all that. Unlike the Mensheviks they were no so hopelessly divided. But that is not an argument I’ve eager to leap into.


Plus, Lenin did a good job of silencing any opposition. Anarchists, Socialists, Communists etc. who didn't support the "counter-revolution" were sent away on vacation just for being anti-Bolshevik.

The forming of Checka is very instructive in this sense. Oppressive regimes need oppressive secret services to "disappear" people. And for sure, such organisations never "represent" the proletariat, they oppress it.
Given the circumstance you can hardly be surprised that such measures would be employed. When the country is in such turmoil it couldn’t have been difficult to assume that all those who opposed the Bolsheviks were counterrevolutionaries


Well I'm a Grammar-Fascist. I hate it when people write "capitalism" or "communism". I like capitals.

Plus, this no longer applies because there are no Official (Russian backed) Communist parties left.
I like capitalisation as much as the next man ( :lol: ) but I’m fairly sure that is capital for official party member and lower case for the broader ideology.

And, as this conversation clearly demonstrates, it is still a relevant issue ;)


No it wasn't. In 1917 there was no Official Communist Party in Russia, therefore there can't have been any Marxists there.
Wasn’t it 1917 that the Bolsheviks swapped names? A quick check reveals it was March 1918. My mistake.


Really? ....I can't find the date for the 2nd congress anywhere.
I’m fairly sure on this one – Nov 7. I remember from Eisenstein’s October 1917. Hardly gospel but I doubt they got this wrong.

However a quick wikipedia check on the October Revolution reveals that The insurrection was timed and organised by Leon Trotsky to hand state power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies which began on November 7.


Interestingly as well, Martov seems to have survived (although he remains relatively unknown) the test of history far better than Trotsky and in my opinion is perhaps the "most right" of all the Russian revolutionaries.
There’s actually a thread on him in the History forum. Its on its way to a discussion of censorship however.

Martov is the one Menshevik that I have any respect for. He was both anti-war and pro-revolution. Politically he was much closer to Lenin than many of his party comrades. Unfortunately he chose not to ditch the reformists. What a waste.


If I'm not mistaken, a large portion of the Bolshevik Party (the Left Opposition?) supported carrying on the war and invading Germany. Including Bukharin, before he moved to the right.
I highly doubt that. Perhaps in the later stages of the war when the White Armies had been crushed and thoughts turned to the German proletariat but not 1917.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Where they led the other revolutionary groups, and I have no doubt that there were a myriad of them, followed.[/b]

Well in Petrograd for instance, we know initially the Petrograd Bolshevik's didn't support the uprising. Something Lenin later scalded them for.

As a generalisation, the Left-Bolshevik's generally were the most revolutionary. However, I'd imagine some of the Anarchists and the independent ultra-lefties were far more revolutionary than the Right-Bolshevik's.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Get your lines straight. Either the Bolsheviks were a despotic party or a democratic one.[/b]

Depends on the specific period of time. Up until (around) 1918, the Bolshevik Party was (relatively) democratic. By around 1924 it was completely despotic.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As it happens Lenin had to work to convince the Party leadership to back him on a number of occasions.

Prior to 1918, Lenin lost a lot of internal votes in the Party and the Bolshevik Left was quite a force. By 1920-1924 it had either "converted" to the Right (Bukharin) or left the Party (and Russia).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Unlike the Mensheviks they were no so hopelessly divided.

That is what a Revolutionary Party should be like. Internal (and external) dispute is a requirement of an ultra-democratic Party.

However, the Menshivik's are hardly the best example. The Menshivik Right (in my opinion) should have been expelled or the Menshivik Left (Martov and co.) should have left the Party.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Given the circumstance you can hardly be surprised that such measures would be employed.

A Communist should never "excuse" despotism when it's directed at other revolutionaries (especially workers).

It's a "Communist ethic" if you like.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
When the country is in such turmoil it couldn’t have been difficult to assume that all those who opposed the Bolsheviks were counterrevolutionaries

Does that include the 259 non-Bolshevik delegates and the workers who elected them?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
A quick check reveals it was March 1918.

I thought it was around 1923?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
However a quick wikipedia check on the October Revolution reveals that The insurrection was timed and organised by Leon Trotsky to hand state power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies which began on November 7.

It would be useful to know when the Congress voted though.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There’s actually a thread on him in the History forum. Its on its way to a discussion of censorship however.

Yeah I saw it earlier, the "standard" didn't interest me. ;)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Politically he was much closer to Lenin than many of his party comrades.

I'm pretty sure personally (and maybe politically) they hated each other. The big split in the Russian Social Democratic Party was over the twos differing vies on Party organisation, a big part of Leninist theory.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Unfortunately he chose not to ditch the reformists. What a waste.

It would have been nice if the Left-Menshivik's and the Left-Bolshevik's had joined. Unfortunately they didn't, I suspect Bolshevism offered better job prospects for the Left-Bolshevik's and slight dimness on the part of the Left-Menshivik's stopped this.


[email protected]
I highly doubt that.

From wikipedia....


Nikolai Bukharin(emphasis added)
Bukharin led the opposition of the Left Communists to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, arguing instead for the Bolsheviks to continue the war effort and turn it into a world-wide push for proletarian revolution. In 1921, he changed his position and accepted Lenin's policies, encouraging the development of the New Economic Policy. Some believe that this drastic change of position suggests that Lenin was correct when he remarked in his will that Bukharin had never fully understood Marxism and dialectics. After Lenin's death, Bukharin became a full member of the Politburo in 1924, and the president of the Communist International (Comintern) in 1926.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukharin).

In all fairness, Lenin was right on this one (ending the war), but Bukharin subsequent shift to the Bolshevik Right (further right than even Stain) was a shame. That's what power does to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:28 PM
However its obvious, simply from the fact that the Bolsheviks came out top, that they did could not muster the same level of support as the Communists.
You're missing my point entirely. Read!

Groups of people who wealed state power usually have the monopoly on what is and what isn't allowed to be supported.

The bolsheviks murdered and imprisoned any oppositional group. There was nothing, other than the bolsheviks, left to support.

[ComradeOm]

As a generalisation, the Left-Bolshevik's generally were the most revolutionary. However, I'd imagine some of the Anarchists and the independent ultra-lefties were far more revolutionary than the Right-Bolshevik's.
I’m sure there were plenty of revolutionary groups. But all the Bolsheviks were united in fighting for Revolution - whether they were on the left or right of the party.


That is what a Revolutionary Party should be like. Internal (and external) dispute is a requirement of an ultra-democratic Party.
To the point where it is incapable of revolutionary action?


However, the Menshivik's are hardly the best example. The Menshivik Right (in my opinion) should have been expelled or the Menshivik Left (Martov and co.) should have left the Party.
The Mensheviks were a bunch of reformists with the left of the party always being a minority. It’s a pity that Martov did not see fit to leave those fools behind.


Does that include the 259 non-Bolshevik delegates and the workers who elected them?
Of course not. Simply those who supported the Provisional government. Amongst the non-Bolshevik delegates this included the Right-SR’s and the Mensheviks.


I thought it was around 1923?
Not according to Wikipedia


It would be useful to know when the Congress voted though.
There’s a summary of the proceedings at http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm


Yeah I saw it earlier, the "standard" didn't interest me.
Too difficult to break down sentence by sentence? :lol:


I'm pretty sure personally (and maybe politically) they hated each other. The big split in the Russian Social Democratic Party was over the twos differing vies on Party organisation, a big part of Leninist theory.
The split was over whether the socialists should take part in government or not. Martov tried, and I believe briefly succeeded, in uniting the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Politically Lenin and Martov were quite close. I’ve heard rumours that Lenin even sponsored Martov in exile.

On Bukharin, that character was always a difficult one to figure out. An excellent theorist to be sure, easily one of the best of his time, but one who bounced from one extreme to the other.


Originally posted by TAT
Groups of people who wealed state power usually have the monopoly on what is and what isn't allowed to be supported.

The bolsheviks murdered and imprisoned any oppositional group. There was nothing, other than the bolsheviks, left to support.
I’m talking about the months and years before the revolution. Who put the Bolsheviks in a position of power? The proletariat did. Had the proletariat supported the anarchists to the same degree in the months leading up to November then it would have been an anarchist revolution.

I'm in no way disputing that the Bolsheviks came down hard on the anarchists. I wouldn't be all that surprised at this however considering their opposite views on Russia's future.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:04 PM
I’m talking about the months and years before the revolution. Who put the Bolsheviks in a position of power? The proletariat did. Had the proletariat supported the anarchists to the same degree in the months leading up to November then it would have been an anarchist revolution..
You seem to be implying that the Russian revolution was some romantic victory where Lenin led the working class on a white horse brandishing the sword of proletarian honour. That's simply not the case.

The Bolsheviks used state power and political intrigue to take control of the political institutions of Russia. It could be argued they only got lucky because the Tsar attempted to dissolve the Russian parliament.

The October revolution was an inevitability, regardless of the Bolsheviks.

[YKTMX]

And my answer is, no, all power to the Soviets doesn't mean when talking about the actions of the Bolshevik Party, because under Bolshevik rule, all power didn't go to the Soviets.


The first few months of the revolution was complete workers' democracy - most historical records show and prove this. The question therefore must be how did they lose it?


Therefore it is impossible to tell whether this or that Bolshevik actually wanted state power. I suspect Lenin was one of the more sincere Bolshevik's, Trotsky on the other hand, strikes me as a more unsavoury character.


Sorry, am I not understanding you properly or are you suggesting that the goal of State Power is inherently undesirable? As I've said before, it's un-Marxist and faintly ridicilous to see historical progress as the outcome of whether certain individuals are "sincere" or not. The idea that only if Lenin and Trotsky had been a bit "nicer" then the Russian Revolution wouldn't have turned out as it did is stupid.


This suggests that Lenin and co. were not that sure of a majority in the Soviets and therefore the Bolshevik's may have thought State power was the only way to ensure this support.


Absolutely, now you're getting it! The reason the Bolsheviks didn't take control in the July days (when they probably could have) was precisely because they didn't have a majority in the Soviets. The reason they took control in October was because they did have those majorities.


Indicative of what? ....that I wish to use the right terminology....


That your dead behind the eyes.


The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Well, certainly the act of insurrection was done by a "small group" - as dictated by physics (how many people can you squeeze into the Palace?). But the Bolsheviks represented, and were directly linked to, a mass movement of workers and peasants, particuarly, obviously, the Soviets.


Even Lenin didn't initially call it a "revolution", he referred to it as "the October uprising" or the "Uprising of 25th".

Please.


The Provisional Government has been deposed. State power has passed into the hands of the organ of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies--the Revolutionary Military Committee, which heads the Petrograd proletariat and the garrison.

The cause for which the people have fought, namely, the immediate offer of a democratic peace, the abolition of landed proprietorship, workers'control over production, and the establishment of Soviet power—this cause has been secured.

Long live the revolution of workers, soldiers and peasants!



Lenin brings good news! :D

Look at this:


To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.



Then it would have to be some of the Left-Menshiviks. They actually turned out to be right, Lenin didn't.


About what?


So neither Marx or Engels were Marxists

They were dead...


Lenin and Trotsky among others

Lenin and Trotsky were from petty bourgeois backgrounds - not bourgeois i.e. they weren't the sons of factory or large land owners.


I understand it, many of the Anarchists in Russia were "on holiday" in Siberia during the Civil War.



Best place for them.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)To the point where it is incapable of revolutionary action?[/b]

If that happens, then so be it. A revolution is a big event (especially a Communist revolution) and therefore before it can happen, people (lots of them) have to want it to happen.

You view a revolution as a war, the leaders order it and the troops do it. Revolutions have been far more spontaneous than that and one would imagine that a Communist revolution would be even more spontaneous and democratic.

What do you think would be the result of a Communist revolution that operated on a military basis? ....do you think the workers could truly achieve liberation if they still were obedient to a bourgeois general?


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Not according to Wikipedia[/b]

From wikipedia....


Originally posted by Bolshevik
Shortly after seizing power, the party changed their name to the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1918 and were generally known as the Communist Party after that point. However, it was not until 1952 that the party formally dropped the word "Bolshevik" from its name. (See Congress of the CPSU article for the timeline of name changes.)

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik).

I always thought it was later.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There’s a summary of the proceedings at http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm

What's interesting is that the major decrees, all seem to have been voted on after a lot of people walked out.

However, if the decrees were decided the night of the "October Revolution", then that means the Soviets must have approved them after the Bolshevik's had seized state power.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Politically Lenin and Martov were quite close. I’ve heard rumours that Lenin even sponsored Martov in exile.

I don't know how close Martov and Lenin were politically. From what I've read of Martov's work, he doesn't hold the Bolshevik's in the highest esteem.

Plus, the sponsorship thing is a "wikipedia rumour"....


Originally posted by Julius Martov
In 1923 Martov was forced into exile and he died in Schömberg, Germany in that year. Before dying, however, he was able to launch the newspaper Socialist Messenger which remained the publication of the Mensheviks in exile in Berlin, Paris and eventually in New York when the last of them passed. It is alleged that Lenin provided funds for this last venture of Martov.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Martov).

I don't know why Lenin would fund someone he exiled. Guilt perhaps?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
On Bukharin, that character was always a difficult one to figure out. An excellent theorist to be sure, easily one of the best of his time, but one who bounced from one extreme to the other.

From what I've read, he seems like a bit of a fruitcake.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The first few months of the revolution was complete workers' democracy - most historical records show and prove this. The question therefore must be how did they lose it?

Yes, there was complete democracy from February to October, however by 1918 that power was gone. There's an event that happened during that period, 5 points if you guess what it was. :)


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Sorry, am I not understanding you properly or are you suggesting that the goal of State Power is inherently undesirable?

Not for the working class (as a whole) no. For a political party, that at best represented half of the working class, to take state power and use it against the working class and the representatives of the working class, is very undesirable.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
As I've said before, it's un-Marxist and faintly ridicilous to see historical progress as the outcome of whether certain individuals are "sincere" or not. The idea that only if Lenin and Trotsky had been a bit "nicer" then the Russian Revolution wouldn't have turned out as it did is stupid.

I wasn't suggesting that the progress of history was decided by the personalities of individuals. I'm not a Trot. :lol:

What I was doing, was responding to the question....


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I suppose your argument would amount to "the Bolsheviks planned to steal it all along", yes?

As I said, I have no idea (bar certain writings on the subject) what individual Bolshevik's thought about the issue.

My impression (from what I've read on and by them) is that Lenin actually thought a Bolshevik seizure of power would lead to the proletariat gaining power, whilst Trotsky's motives seem more dubious.

However, what is obvious is that after the Bolshevik's seized power and before, during and after the Civil War, the Russian working class did not have any power over their lives.

There are a number of reasons for this, and none of them are that Lenin and co. were "nasty bastards".


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The reason they took control in October was because they did have those majorities.

It was a slim majority and all it really suggests is that they felt there would be no repercussions to them seizing power from within the working class. They were wrong about that.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
But the Bolsheviks represented, and were directly linked to, a mass movement of workers and peasants, particuarly, obviously, the Soviets.

So they held a mass vote before they seized the Palace? ....Tony Blair would contest that a huge majority in Parliament is a mandate from the people to go to war with Iraq.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX quoting Lenin?
The cause for which the people have fought, namely, the immediate offer of a democratic peace, the abolition of landed proprietorship, workers'control over production, and the establishment of Soviet power—this cause has been secured.

That cause had been secured my arse.

Tell me, does Trotsky's later actions towards various Unions and strikers suggest that the workers controlled the means of production?


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX quoting Lenin?
Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people.

The "people" did no such thing in October. Lenin and the upper circle of the Bolshevik Party ordered the other Bolshevik's to storm the Winter Palace. That's not a "revolutionary upsurge", in any sense of the word.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX quoting Lenin?
And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.

Yes they do perhaps distinguish Marxism from Blanquism, and anyone asking those questions about the "October Revolution" would get a pretty clear idea of what it was (Blanquism) and what it wasn't (Marxism).


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
About what?

Among other things, Socialism being impossible in Russia at that time.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
They were dead...

That doesn't answer the question. How can Marx and Engels be Marxists if they weren't Leninists? ....it's your assertion, remember....


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
And you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Leninist.

What do you say to people who say you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Maoist?


[email protected]
Lenin and Trotsky were from petty bourgeois backgrounds

Yes, the petty-bourgeois, perhaps the most reactionary of all classes. :o

Indeed most of the "top" Bolshevik's early gripes about Stalin was that he seemed to have "peasant manners". He offended their "middle class" sensibilities.


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Best place for them.

So let me get this right, in your eyes it's wrong to execute murderers and rapists, but right to execute Anarchists that taken part in a revolutionary struggle?

[YKTMX]

Yes, there was complete democracy from February to October, however by 1918 that power was gone. There's an event that happened during that period, 5 points if you guess what it was.

You're defending the despicable, capitalist Kerensky government?

Are there any depths you won't plough?


For a political party, that at best represented half of the working class, to take state power and use it against the working class and the representatives of the working class, is very undesirable.


Agreed. It's good, then, that this is not what happened in Russia.


I wasn't suggesting that the progress of history was decided by the personalities of individuals. I'm not a Trot.

No "Trot" I know claims that. Things would have progressed definetly if the Left Opposition had, somehow, won. It would still have been impossible to build a functioning socialist society in Russia alone.


However, what is obvious is that after the Bolshevik's seized power and before, during and after the Civil War, the Russian working class did not have any power over their lives.


Socialist democracy is not possible in a society in which the working class is dead, moving away from the towns and fighting a civil war. The Russian working class didn't have enough to eat, so the question of whether they had "control over their own lives" is stupid.


It was a slim majority and all it really suggests is that they felt there would be no repercussions to them seizing power from within the working class. They were wrong about that.


The Russian working class were totally behind the October revolution. Whether this fits your vision of a "coup" is not important.


So they held a mass vote before they seized the Palace?

This is where your argument falls into a quite childish tone.

Why the fuck would you "hold a vote" before a revolution?

Taking state power is a matter of insurrection, and you don't usually broadcast insurrection before you do it - for reasons that will, hopefully, be obvious.

Your fetish about voting is also quite disturbing. There are other ways to prove you have mass support than simply "winning" votes. You might be obcessed with this bourgeois electoral form, the Russian working class wasn't.


Tony Blair would contest that a huge majority in Parliament is a mandate from the people to go to war with Iraq.


Your comparing the Soviets to the British parliament.

Pitiful.


Tell me, does Trotsky's later actions towards various Unions and strikers suggest that the workers controlled the means of production?


I don't know, what "actions" are you referring to in particular. Am I supposed to guess? I don't know anarchist, petty bourgeois thinking about Trotsky works, so you're going to have to help me out...


That's not a "revolutionary upsurge", in any sense of the word.


Tell me, if all a revolution requires is the Bolsheviks to order it to happen, then why October?


Among other things, Socialism being impossible in Russia at that time.


You say that as if it's some sort of profound insight. Lenin and Trotsky had been saying it for decades.


How can Marx and Engels be Marxists if they weren't Leninists? ....it's your assertion, remember....


Please, don't lie.

I never asserted any such nonsense. I said, today, you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Leninist.

Obviously Marx wasn't a "Leninist", he also, according to his own words, wasn't a "Marxist".

I'm saying that if you don't accept the theories of imperialism, permanent revolution, the vanguard, revolutionary activity and the democratic dictatorship then you haven't understood what Marx was talking about.


What do you say to people who say you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Maoist?


Prove it.


Yes, the petty-bourgeois, perhaps the most reactionary of all classes.

Marx was also petty bourgeois, so was Che, so was Fidel, so was Bakunin (in fact, his family was aristocratic).

This stuff about people's class background is complete nonsense.


So let me get this right, in your eyes it's wrong to execute murderers and rapists, but right to execute Anarchists that taken part in a revolutionary struggle?


Anyone who lines up against Socialism and, objectively, in favour of military fascism (like the Greens, Makhnovists) deserves execution.

As it happens, when the Red Army decided to bring an end to Makhno's sabotage and brutality, most of his militia were given an amnesty.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)You're defending the despicable, capitalist Kerensky government?[/b]

Nope.

The Kerensky Government, with all likelihood, would have fallen anyway. I had little power, and what it did have it was gradually frittering away.

However, despite its incompetency, if the Russian workers (and peasants) had really wanted rid of the Government, they would have done it themselves.

What actually happened, was the Bolshevik Party seized state power for itself. It's what Parties do.

Plus, your answer in no way answers my original question. How did the Russian Soviets go from being organs of working class rule in 1917, to, well, nothing.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)It's good, then, that this is not what happened in Russia.[/b]

What was the NEP if not a direct act by the Russian State against the Russian working class?


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
No "Trot" I know claims that.

Wasn't that Trotsky himself's "major claim"? ....Stalin stole my power and ruined the revolution.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The Russian working class didn't have enough to eat, so the question of whether they had "control over their own lives" is stupid.

No, your rhetorical point is what is "stupid", though not surprising. Only a Leninist would possibly answer the question of the working class being in a dreadful situation by suggesting that if they took power themselves was "stupid".

"All Power to the Soviets" -- except when it comes to the question of deciding how best to feed yourself.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The Russian working class were totally behind the October revolution.

Well we have no way of objectively measuring that now, do we? ....that the working class failed to at least offer some form of spontaneous uprising and revolt, does suggest that (at best) they were rather indifferent to the whole matter.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Why the fuck would you "hold a vote" before a revolution?

Well, it wasn't a revolution in the dictionary sense of the word. It was an orchestrated attack on a few specific places. A ballot, of some form, at least within the lower ranks of the Bolshevik Party was not "impossible". I'm unaware of such an event.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Your fetish about voting is also quite disturbing.

Your aversion to working class power is more disturbing.

Do you have a (real) objection to voting on events? ....or is it a requirement that you deem such things superfluous so that things can appear "rosier".


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I don't know, what "actions" are you referring to in particular.

Forcing striking workers back to work by threating to draft them, (the proposed) militarisation of labour, Kronsdadt, support for Lenin's model of "The Party", support for the Checka, supported the rendering of the Soviets obsolete, etc. etc.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Tell me, if all a revolution requires is the Bolsheviks to order it to happen, then why October?

Huh? :huh:


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Lenin and Trotsky had been saying it for decades.

Really? ....they always seemed rather contradictory on the issue to me. Didn't Trotsky for instance, still proclaim Russia a "Workers State"? ....all be it a "degenerated" one.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I said, today, you can't be a Marxist if you're not a Leninist.

No, scroll up, you left out the word "today".


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I'm saying that if you don't accept the theories of imperialism, permanent revolution, the vanguard, revolutionary activity and the democratic dictatorship then you haven't understood what Marx was talking about.

It's quite amusing, that if one rejects "theories of imperialism, permanent revolution, [and] the vanguard". Theories of Lenin and Trotsky. Then one is no longer a Marxist. Especially when even the Leninists (the sane ones that is) admit (like they couldn't) that one, if not all of those theories fundamentally contradict Marxist theory.

Marx spent many a hour writing polemics against "crackpot" theories that directly contradicted material reality. Yet you assert the magnificent duo (Lenin and Trotsky) and their theories, somehow manage to sneak into Marxism despite their shoddy (at best) materialism.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Prove it.

Well, despite the fact they seem to have done (relatively) better than Trotskyism everywhere. Why shouldn't this be request be turned upon you and your assertions, prove that your theories fit under the Marxist "worldview". Perhaps you could start a thread on the issue?


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Marx was also petty bourgeois

And it times it showed, graphically.


[email protected]
This stuff about people's class background is complete nonsense.

So much for Trotskyism having any relationship to Marxism. You've just completely rejected Marxist theory of class. Dear me.


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Anyone who lines up against Socialism and, objectively, in favour of military fascism (like the Greens, Makhnovists) deserves execution.

What of the Anarchists that didn't do that, but still got executed?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)You view a revolution as a war, the leaders order it and the troops do it. Revolutions have been far more spontaneous than that and one would imagine that a Communist revolution would be even more spontaneous and democratic.[/b]
Hopefully you’re right. However I tend to view this as a best case scenario. It is impossible to predict the specifics of any revolution or future event. We know what will happen in the end but there’s a countless number of factors that will no doubt come into play.


What's interesting is that the major decrees, all seem to have been voted on after a lot of people walked out.
Well what can you do in that case? Politely ask them to come back and vote? Those who walked out chose to throw away their voices and votes. Nobody was forced to leave.


However, if the decrees were decided the night of the "October Revolution", then that means the Soviets must have approved them after the Bolshevik's had seized state power.
I believe the congress was held during the “coup”. No doubt this influenced many delegates – here were the Bolsheviks actually doing something while the reformists talked.


I don't know how close Martov and Lenin were politically. From what I've read of Martov's work, he doesn't hold the Bolshevik's in the highest esteem.
They were political opponents fighting for the same supporters. I’d be surprised if Martov had talked about the Bolsheviks in glowing terms. However he was always a supporter of reunifying party. Its also useful to note that Martov and many of his left-Mensheviks escaped with exile.


TAT
You seem to be implying that the Russian revolution was some romantic victory where Lenin led the working class on a white horse brandishing the sword of proletarian honour. That's simply not the case.
And you think its possible that the Bolsheviks rose to power without mass support? You’re perfectly correct to say that revolution would’ve come with or without the Bolsheviks. However the fact that it did happen when it did and that it put the Bolsheviks in power suggests that the proletariat backed Lenin and co.


The Bolsheviks used state power and political intrigue to take control of the political institutions of Russia. It could be argued they only got lucky because the Tsar attempted to dissolve the Russian parliament.
I’d put it more down to two decades of building support within Russia and the resultant mass support.

[YKTMX]

How did the Russian Soviets go from being organs of working class rule in 1917, to, well, nothing.


I have answered it repeatedly. The Russian working class was liquadated as a class by a serious of events, particuarly the civil war, resultant famine and collapse of Russian industry.

Summing it up, Bukharin said, "We have the dictatorship of the proletariat, alas, we do not have the proletariat".

The position of the anarchists is that a working class which no longer lived in the cities, no longer worked in the factories, many of them dead, millions more on the brink of starvation could "run" a country through democratic organs.

It's fantasy.


What was the NEP if not a direct act by the Russian State against the Russian working class?


What was it? It was a retreat, and Lenin recognised it as such. It was designed so ease the famine, because lots of people were, you know, starving and that.


Wasn't that Trotsky himself's "major claim"? ....Stalin stole my power and ruined the revolution

No.


Well we have no way of objectively measuring that now, do we?

Yes. We have lots and lots of ways. We have the results in the Soviets, we have the votes in the Constituent assembly, we have the accounts of people around at the time, we have popular shows of support.

The fact that you don't like that fact that the Russian workers fought for their liberation doesn't mean it didn't happen.


does suggest that (at best) they were rather indifferent to the whole matter.


:rolleyes:


was an orchestrated attack on a few specific places.

I can see you're not understanding this thing at all. Of course a revoluton involves taking over a few stratgic buildings and centres, of course it does. If we had the revolution in Britain, what would we do? We'd take control over stratgically important buildings (army bases, political centres of power, intelligence centres etc). This act would, by the laws of physics, have to be carried out by a few people with knowledge on what to do.

Now, me and a few buddies could try and storm parliament tomorrow, but would it work? No, of course not. What's the diffirence then?

Firstly, a weak government and state apparatus. Secondly, a mass movement from below which offers the chance of an alternative centre of power (the Soviet).


Your aversion to working class power is more disturbing.


My aversion? The cheek!


Do you have a (real) objection to voting on events?

No, but I don't have bourgeois fantasies about taking a vote being the only democratic method.


Forcing striking workers back to work by threating to draft them, (the proposed) militarisation of labour, Kronsdadt, support for Lenin's model of "The Party", support for the Checka, supported the rendering of the Soviets obsolete, etc. etc.


I support all those measures. :)


Huh?

Well, you're argument seems to be that the revolution happened not because it represented the mass uprising of the workers and the peasants, but because Lenin "ordered" it to happen ( :lol: ).

My question to you is why did Lenin order ( :lol: ) the revolution in October and not July (when power was also attainable).

Perhaps he wanted to get his summer holidays out the way first before revolution?


Didn't Trotsky for instance, still proclaim Russia a "Workers State"? ....all be it a "degenerated" one.


Yes, but he didn't say it was socialist. As a matter of fact, I disagree with the Trotskyists who say the Soviet Union (and Cuba, China etc) were some kind of "workers states".


No, scroll up, you left out the word "today".


Anyone who's serious would have realised what I mean.

Your "point" was petty.

"Marx died before Lenin was even born, tee hee"

Genuis.



Well, despite the fact they seem to have done (relatively) better than Trotskyism everywhere.

How are you judging it?


So much for Trotskyism having any relationship to Marxism. You've just completely rejected Marxist theory of class.

Oh, this again. I've written about this several times. If being always determines consciousness totally then Marx was a reactionary bastard and Engels was worse and everyhing they ever wrote was wrong and designed to strenghten the position of the world ruling class.

Marx meant that the "social being" of the vast masses of a class determines what the interests of that class are, and, crucially, how they think, act etc.

He never said, anywhere, that it was impossible from someone from a non-proletarian background to be a true revolutionary socialist.


What of the Anarchists that didn't do that, but still got executed?

That's a real shame. What about the Reds and workers Makhno and the Greens killed?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:53 PM

How did the Russian Soviets go from being organs of working class rule in 1917, to, well, nothing.


I have answered it repeatedly. The Russian working class was liquadated as a class by a serious of events, particuarly the civil war, resultant famine and collapse of Russian industry.

It's true that the population of the cities decreased during the civil war, but that doesn't mean there was no proletariat. There were still workers living in cities, working in factories and other workplaces even if there numbers were smaller. Not only were they present, they even went on strike. During the civil war there were sporadic strikes, but soon after it ended there was a major strike movement in all major Russian cities against the Bolsheviks. See Workers Against Lenin by Jonathan Aves. Clearly, if there are enough workers to go on strike a working class still exists. The Bolsheviks used brutal force against the strikers, eventually suceeding in suppressing them. The notion of the Russian working class "disappearing" or being "liquidated" was invented to rationalize Bolshevik repression of the working class.

The Soviets were not limited to workers. There were also peasant soviets and soldier soviets, so even if the working class had been liquidated that doesn't explain why all three types should become subordinated to the party. The destruction of soviet democracy actually happened long before the alleged "liquidation" of the working class and even before the start of the civil war in May 1918. In the Spring of 1918 the bolsheviks lost soviet elections one by one, with Mensheviks and/or Right SRs winning most of them. The response of the party and the incipient bureaucracy was to disband, by force if necessary, all soviets where the Bolsheviks had lost and later impose new bogus "soviets" with artificial Bolshevik majorities and rigged elections to legitimize them. See http://www.angelfire.com/nb/revhist17/brovkin1.pdf That's how Soviet Democracy was destroyed, by the bolsheviks disbanding soviets when they lost the elections. We can debate why that happened, but the civil war isn't a very good scapegoat because soviet democracy was destroyed before the civil war.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jan 11 2006, 08:04 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jan 11 2006, 08:04 PM)
TAT
You seem to be implying that the Russian revolution was some romantic victory where Lenin led the working class on a white horse brandishing the sword of proletarian honour. That's simply not the case.
And you think its possible that the Bolsheviks rose to power without mass support? [/b]
Well it was possible. That's what happened. The bolsheviks only got there support after they took power.


However the fact that it did happen when it did and that it put the Bolsheviks in power suggests that the proletariat backed Lenin and co.

Groups come to power without the support of the proletariat all the time.

Whether it "suggests" it or not is of little consequence. The fact is that the bolsheviks didn't need the support of the proletariat in February 1917 in order to take control of state power.

And once they had done that, they were able to systematically destroy any opposition. It was only until after October 1917 that the bolshviks had the support you're talking about.

Not that the proletariat had much choice in the matter. The Bolsheviks we'ren't democratically elected after all. They took power from the Duma and would have done so regardless of any support.



The Bolsheviks used state power and political intrigue to take control of the political institutions of Russia. It could be argued they only got lucky because the Tsar attempted to dissolve the Russian parliament.
I’d put it more down to two decades of building support within Russia and the resultant mass support.

Well then you'd be wrong. The bolsheviks were an illegal organisation that operated outside of Russia.

There main jobs were having meetings, falling out and publishing a newspaper

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 12:24 PM
Well it was possible. That's what happened. The bolsheviks only got there support after they took power.
So what happened? A handful of hirsute intellectuals walked into the Winter Palace and kindly asked for Russia? Kerensky’s regime was in a bad way… but not that bad.

It took massive popular support for the revolutionaries throughout Russia to secure the new regime. I’m not suggesting that the entire proletariat supported the Bolsheviks, clearly they did not, but the considerable majority did.


Whether it "suggests" it or not is of little consequence. The fact is that the bolsheviks didn't need the support of the proletariat in February 1917 in order to take control of state power.

And once they had done that, they were able to systematically destroy any opposition. It was only until after October 1917 that the bolshviks had the support you're talking about.
I assume that February 1917 is a typo? The Bolsheviks, unlike the Mensheviks, were never part of the Provisional Government.

From February to October there was a steady increase in Bolshevik party membership as the situation in Russia continued to polarise. Like it or not, the Bolsheviks had a sizeable backing by Nov 7. This was particularly true in cities such as Petrograd and Moscow.

Is it too hard to understand that the only real opposition to the reformist Mensheviks would become more popular as the political situation worsened? This reached its peak after the Revolution began and there was no further need for reformist collaborators.


Well then you'd be wrong. The bolsheviks were an illegal organisation that operated outside of Russia.

There main jobs were having meetings, falling out and publishing a newspaper
And why were they illegal? Because they were the only real threat to the bourgeoisie government. Or would you think better of them if the Tsar had approved?

As for operating outside Russia, many amongst the leadership were forced into exile in the years before the war. The party however continued to agitate and operate within Russia. This much at least is obvious.

And they were good at agitating. Say what you like about the vanguard – it worked in Russia. Pravda was being printed at a rate of a hundred thousand copies a day in the weeks leading up to the October Revolution. You seem to continue with this idea that the Bolsheviks could simply explode out of nowhere and seize power – it took over a decade of preparation.

[YKTMX]

There were still workers living in cities, working in factories and other workplaces even if there numbers were smaller.

It wasn't just that they were "smaller" - they were virtually extinguished.

For instance, Petrograd had the biggest factory in the world at the time, the Putilov steel works. It had 40 thousands workers.

By the end of the civil war it was closed.


There were also peasant soviets and soldier soviets, so even if the working class had been liquidated that doesn't explain why all three types should become subordinated to the party.

You can't build Communism on the backs of the peasantry.


We can debate why that happened, but the civil war isn't a very good scapegoat because soviet democracy was destroyed before the civil war.


Well, I don't accept that.

[angus_mor]

I am a Council Communist, so i guess you could say I'm on the fence. While it has shown that great things can be done with anarchist collectives, as seen in the Spanish Revolution, at the same time, as Engels outlines in the Principles of Communism; #19, the revolution is something which can not be done independently of other countries, as the world market has brought countries into such close relation with one another. So, as in the same example, the collectives were easily crushed by the Fascists and "Communists". I must admit that the Spanish Revolution is a poor example, as there were many factors that could be argued as the reason for the end of the collectives, and I can not readily produce another example. Though it is clear from other Vanguardist attempts that this holds true. It is clear that the achievement of Scientific Socialism requires a great level of organisation, though this does not mean creating an "intellectual" hierarchial bureaucracy, which ultimately leads to what Marx identified as Bourgeois Socialism, or as we call it today, Fascism, and reverred by others as Stalinism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)I have answered it repeatedly.[/b]

Morpheus answered this point better than I could.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)What was it? It was a retreat, and Lenin recognised it as such.[/b]

Yes it was a retreat, in all likelihood a necessary retreat. However, it was a retreat that the Russian working class had no say about.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
No.

Well what did Trotsky think would have happened had he taken the "throne".


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Yes. We have lots and lots of ways. We have the results in the Soviets, we have the votes in the Constituent assembly, we have the accounts of people around at the time, we have popular shows of support.

Things which happened after October when the Bolshevik's had state power (and a habit of using it).


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The fact that you don't like that fact that the Russian workers fought for their liberation doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Their "liberation"??? ....pull the other one.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
We'd take control over stratgically important buildings (army bases, political centres of power, intelligence centres etc).

And if this was all we did, then it would be a coup. A revolution is where millions of people cause havoc (like Febuary). A coup is when a small group of people take control of the state apparatus (like October).


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Now, me and a few buddies could try and storm parliament tomorrow, but would it work? No, of course not. What's the diffirence then?

It has worked in the past and in those situations it is called a coup.

Note, a successful coup is usually carried out by a group which has the backing of (at least a substantial part) of the army, something the Bolsheviks had.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
No, but I don't have bourgeois fantasies about taking a vote being the only democratic method.

It remains the best method of determining what popular will is. Certainly better than mere speculation.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I support all those measures. :)

Dear me, you'd make Uncle Joe blush. :lol:


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
but because Lenin "ordered" it to happen

So the Bolshevik leadership didn't order October? ....of course they did.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Perhaps he wanted to get his summer holidays out the way first before revolution?

Maybe. :)

I would imagine the only way we could actually find out why October was chosen is through careful examination of the records of Bolshevik meetings. Unfortunately, I haven't the time nor resources to undertake such a task.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Yes, but he didn't say it was socialist.

What is a "workers state" if its not a Socialist state? ....a state where workers live?


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
As a matter of fact, I disagree with the Trotskyists who say the Soviet Union (and Cuba, China etc) were some kind of "workers states".

So do I. :)


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
How are you judging it?

Well they've done considerably better in making bourgeois revolutions in the third world than Trotskyism has, plus they seem to have in the first world (at least in some places) bigger parties.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
He never said, anywhere, that it was impossible from someone from a non-proletarian background to be a true revolutionary socialist.

No he didn't, but neither did he say that it was all "complete nonsense". Indeed a look at Marx's political activities, show that not only did he (and Engels especially) dislike being "leaders" of the "movement", but they disliked bourgeois members of the "movement" (frequently accusing them of "philistinism").

Indeed one of the main reasons Marx joined the International Working Men's Association was because it lacked bourgeois Socialists.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is impossible to predict the specifics of any revolution or future event.

However, I think it's pretty clear that for something to be a revolution it must be X, for it to be a war it must be Y.

The drawbacks of a revolutionary situation (especially a Communist one) becoming a war, should be clear.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Well what can you do in that case?

Nothing. I just thought it was interesting, that's all.


[email protected]
No doubt this influenced many delegates

Yes, state power in the hands of a group would certainly influence how I thought and more importantly, acted publicly.


ComradeOm
And why were they illegal? Because they were the only real threat to the bourgeoisie government.

Weren't the Menshiviks, Anarchists, SR's and many others illegal as well?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2006, 08:14 PM
However, I think it's pretty clear that for something to be a revolution it must be X, for it to be a war it must be Y.

While it would no doubt makes things a lot easier for us if that were the case, history is rarely so willing to oblige. In this particular case revolution and war are often linked as unpopular wars tend to greatly weaken the ruling class.

You need only look at that textbook example of revolution – France 1789. No sooner had the French finished trying out this fantastic new guillotine then they marched off to meet the invading Austrian armies. That little excursion didn’t come to an end until they ran into Wellington at Waterloo.



Yes, state power in the hands of a group would certainly influence how I thought and more importantly, acted publicly.
Except that the Bolsheviks did not yet control the Petrograd or the winter Palace, never mind Russia. What swung the delegates at the Second Congress behind the Bolsheviks was that the storming give the impression that here was a genuine, bona fide, revolutionary party who were actually doing something for the proletariat.


Weren't the Menshiviks, Anarchists, SR's and many others illegal as well?
The Mensheviks and Right SRs sided with the Provisional Government and later the Whites. The Left SRs refused to recognize the Congress of Soviets after their motion to void the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was defeated. They walked out and tried to restart the war on their own.

As for the anarchists, well they were opposed to both parties – they didn’t want a socialist or capitalist state.

....

As a note on why the date was chosen, I believe that it was Trotsky that argued that the Bolsheviks should be able to present Russia to the Congress.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)In this particular case revolution and war are often linked as unpopular wars tend to greatly weaken the ruling class.[/b]

You've misunderstood me.

If country X is at war and the people of that country revolt and overthrow the Government, country X will have had a revolution. If a group of citizens (and usually wealthy people) in country X decide to form an army to overthrow the Government, that will be a war (or depending on the size, a popular coup).


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)No sooner had the French finished trying out this fantastic new guillotine then they marched off to meet the invading Austrian armies.[/b]

Well, they turned the revolution into a war (all be it a defencive one).

The same applies to the Paris Commune (1871). If the Communards had "marched" on Versailles, they would have been conducting a (proto) war, not a revolution.

The effects this would have had on the Versailles population, would have been in all likelihood, extremely negative.

An invasion (at best) merely clears the way for a popular insurrection (and possibly revolution). It can't do any more.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Except that the Bolsheviks did not yet control the Petrograd or the winter Palace, never mind Russia.

Maybe not at the Second Congress, but every vote after that? ....state power, would have had some impact would it not?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
What swung the delegates at the Second Congress behind the Bolsheviks was that the storming give the impression that here was a genuine, bona fide, revolutionary party who were actually doing something for the proletariat.

Of course that is an "impression" that could have been held by most Russian's, but we don't know.

Literary accounts from ordinary Russian's is sadly lacking (most Russian's couldn't read or write). Therefore we have to speculate as to what "impression" event X had on the Russian working class.

Depending on someones political outlook, the different the "impression". I'm wiling to accept that the Russian working class would be split between support, indifference and fear.


[email protected]
The Mensheviks and Right SRs sided with the Provisional Government and later the Whites.

I was talking about before Febuary 1917. Weren't most parties banned?


ComradeOm
As a note on why the date was chosen, I believe that it was Trotsky that argued that the Bolsheviks should be able to present Russia to the Congress.

You don't happen to know of a text (by Trotsky) on this?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:00 PM
It wasn't just that they were "smaller" - they were virtually extinguished.

For instance, Petrograd had the biggest factory in the world at the time, the Putilov steel works. It had 40 thousands workers.

By the end of the civil war it was closed.
No it wasn't. The Putilov works were part of the same strike in Petrograd that spurred the Kronstadt sailors to revolt. Even ignoring that, the working class cannot have been "virtually extinguished" because they were active and even went on strike against the bolsheviks. If workers can go on strike, then clearly a working class exists. I cited a source on this previously; if you don't believe me go read it.


You can't build Communism on the backs of the peasantry.

That completely evades the point. Your theory of the working class ceasing to exist at most explains why the workers soviets ceased to be democratic institutions. Even if true it does not explain why the soldiers or peasants soviets ceased to be democratic. If the situation started out as worker & peasant rule then you would expect the elimination of the working class to result in peasant rule, not party rule. Even if this can't evolve into communism (and youv'e presented no reason why it can't) youv'e given no reason why it should cause Russia to become a one-party state. Merely regurgitating dogmatic statements as your'e doing doesn't explain why Russian ended up under party rule instead of soviet democracy.




We can debate why that happened, but the civil war isn't a very good scapegoat because soviet democracy was destroyed before the civil war.


Well, I don't accept that.

Creationists don't accept evolution either, that doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the Bolsheviks disbanded and suppressed the soviets in the spring of 1918 (before the start of the civil war) after losing elections, thereby ending soviet democracy and inagurating the one-party state. The civil war cann't be fingered as the cause of party rule in Russia because party rule began before the civil war. Unlike your claims, I've provided a source for this and can provide many more sources if needed. There are ample primary & secondary sources supporting this fact; you can stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept it but it's still the truth.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2006, 10:14 PM
Of course that is an "impression" that could have been held by most Russian's, but we don't know.

Literary accounts from ordinary Russian's is sadly lacking (most Russian's couldn't read or write). Therefore we have to speculate as to what "impression" event X had on the Russian working class.

Depending on someones political outlook, the different the "impression". I'm wiling to accept that the Russian working class would be split between support, indifference and fear.

According to Orlando Figes, a pro-capitalist anti-communist historian who considers October a coup, most workers, peasants & soldiers supported the overthrow of the provisional government. The Kornilov affair in August had the effect of radicalizing many people, bringing them into the revolutionary camp that wanted to overthrow the provisional government. It sparked a genuine social movement, ultimately leading to October. We know the masses wanted revolution because they voted in favor of it in their committees, assemblies & soviets. It wasn't just the bolsheviks who benefitted from this - the Left SRs, Anarchists & Maximalists all saw their support rise significantly during the period. The overthrow of the provisional government was a coalition effort by those four groups and was not solely a bolshevik affair (althoug they obviously played a major role). Factory takeovers and land expropriation by workers & peasants increased shortly before October and drastically accelerated once the provisional government was out of the way - which makes October not only a political revolution but also a socio-economic revolution. Since the people who overthrew the provisional government were not in positions of authority within the old state it can't really be called a coup because people in authority toppling the government is what a coup is all about. The fact that October was the result of a social movement, had the support of most workers & peasants, was carried out by a coalition and not a single party, and involved the masses themselves directly transforming the economic system makes it a revolution, not a coup. The democratic and socialist aspects of the revolution were destroyed in less than six months, but a revolution doesn't have to result in socialism or democracy to be a revolution.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
If country X is at war and the people of that country revolt and overthrow the Government, country X will have had a revolution. If a group of citizens (and usually wealthy people) in country X decide to form an army to overthrow the Government, that will be a war (or depending on the size, a popular coup).
So the formation of militias would, by your criteria, turn a revolution into a war?

Revolutions are rarely a simple matter of the people simply rising up in one big crowd. One reason for this is that past governments have had few qualms about simply mowing down the workers. A successful revolution requires arms.


The same applies to the Paris Commune (1871). If the Communards had "marched" on Versailles, they would have been conducting a (proto) war, not a revolution.

The effects this would have had on the Versailles population, would have been in all likelihood, extremely negative.
The “Versailles population” meaning the King? ;)

But I agree with your wider point. All an invading army can do is weaken or destroy the existing state. Its up to the native population to rise up and revolt.


Maybe not at the Second Congress, but every vote after that? ....state power, would have had some impact would it not?
Of course. We saw how the Bolsheviks used it. But it was the Second Congress, of Nov 7/Oct 25, that elected Council of People's Commissars. Lenin did not simply install himself in power and nor were the Bolsheviks the only party to take part in the new governing body.


Of course that is an "impression" that could have been held by most Russian's, but we don't know.

Literary accounts from ordinary Russian's is sadly lacking (most Russian's couldn't read or write). Therefore we have to speculate as to what "impression" event X had on the Russian working class.

Depending on someones political outlook, the different the "impression". I'm wiling to accept that the Russian working class would be split between support, indifference and fear.
Morpheus explains this much better than I could. This branding of the Revolution as a coup ignores historical fact. The proletariat was ready, and eager, for revolution. From February to October there were constant agitation and propaganda from the socialists. Just look at the July Days when the workers in Petrograd marched and were shot down.


I was talking about before Febuary 1917. Weren't most parties banned?
Most likely. The Tsar’s reactionary nature reasserted itself as the lessons of 1905 were forgotten.


You don't happen to know of a text (by Trotsky) on this?
Its almost certainly recorded in Trotsky’s history of the revolution though I lack both the time and motivation to go hunting for it. However its safe to say that Trotsky was the one who decided the date of the revolution, as he did all other aspects of it, and I doubt it’s a coincidence that the insurrection and Congress happened to be held on the same day.

[Led Zeppelin]

However its safe to say that Trotsky was the one who decided the date of the revolution, as he did all other aspects of it

How can anyone take you seriously after that?

Oh, and "Armchair Socialism" (fitting name!) is utterly wrong, he is so wrong that I don't even feel the need to even try to correct him.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 13 2006, 03:20 PM
How can anyone take you seriously after that?
Enlighten me then. Who did plan and coordinate the October Revolution if not the chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee?

All records that I have read on those October days are in agreement that it was Trotsky that had responsiblity for planning and executing the seizure of power - the "hands on" aspect so to speak. As head of the Petrograd Soviet Trotsky played a major role in the organisation of the proletariat against the threat of Kornilov and was entrusted by Lenin with planning the revolution in Petrograd. His influence was also important in securing support from the military in the city. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s ask an old friend -

"All practical work in connection with the organisation of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military Revolutionary Committee was organised."
Stalin - The October Revolution

[Led Zeppelin]

I thought you were talking about the revolution in general, which is why I was surprised when you said "Trotsky was the one who decided the date of the revolution", since revolutions cannot be decided by a single person, no matter how influential.

I see now that you were referring to the date of the overthrowing of the current regime at the time, but it is a historical error to refer to that as "the revolution", it was merely a part of it, a quite small part.

The creation of the Soviets was the more important part of the revolution, since it provided the Bolsheviks with a new system which could replace the old.

[YKTMX]

Putilov works were part of the same strike in Petrograd that spurred the Kronstadt sailors to revolt.

Excuse me. It was closed in 1918, it had opened back up by the end of the War, thought at a lower level, and obviously it was filled by new workers, not the Putilovski (militant Bolsheviks) of 1917 - like most Russian factories.

Which presumably explains their supposed support for the mutiny by the Friends of Kornilov at Kronstadt.


Even ignoring that, the working class cannot have been "virtually extinguished" because they were active and even went on strike against the bolsheviks.

Well, if we look at most indicators, levels of industrial production in particular, then the Russian proletariat as a functioning class was completely decimated.

As I've said earlier, most of the workers at this time were "new workers". The best Bolshevik workers had died in the Civil War defeating your friends Wrangel and Denikin, while many more had gone to the country.

So, let's be clear, the vast majority of the workers who had made the October Revolution had dissapeared.


If the situation started out as worker & peasant rule then you would expect the elimination of the working class to result in peasant rule, not party rule.

Not at all. The peasantry is not a class that can build a collectivist society, because collectivism is completely opposite to their class interests. The interests of the peasantry lies in small holdings of land i.e private property.

The Russian Revolution was an "alliance" between two classes which have conflicting interests. Thus, the Bolsheviks increasingly had to appease the peasantry through petty bourgeois measures, particuarly and most obviously with the NEP, especially as the working class became more and more weak.


Merely regurgitating dogmatic statements as your'e doing doesn't explain why Russian ended up under party rule instead of soviet democracy.


Why is it dogma?

I've heard all your arguments before, there's nothing new or particuarly revealing in them.


The facts are that the Bolsheviks disbanded and suppressed the soviets in the spring of 1918 (before the start of the civil war) after losing elections, thereby ending soviet democracy and inagurating the one-party state.

That's not a fact. It's an old Menshevik assertion, regurgiated rather crudely by you on a message board.

It's nothing approaching a fact.


The civil war cann't be fingered as the cause of party rule in Russia because party rule began before the civil war.

I never claimed the civil war was the "only" cause of the degeneration, obviously there was a whole variety of factors (the isolation, the failure of the world revolution, the contradiction between the town and countryside, the collapse of heavy industry etc). There's a whole host of reasons.


There are ample primary & secondary sources supporting this fact; you can stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept it but it's still the truth.

There are "ample" sources proving you're talking bollocks - so, what's the truth?

If you want to "stick your head in the sand" then you can spend all day on flag.blackened, reading Anarchist tracts defending the Friends of Wrangel and blatant distortions.

Or you can read serious Marxist analyses based on the theory of historical materialism.

You see, for Marxists, the question of Russia is of course an important one, one we struggle with. For the Anarchists, it's merely a stick to beat people over the head with (here's what happens if the workers organise themselves, so don't bother).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)So the formation of militias would, by your criteria, turn a revolution into a war?[/b]

Militias, especially civilian ones, are a defencive measure. They're not an army. Indeed I recall (vaguely) you arguing that they couldn't work as they had no capacity to launch offensives.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)A successful revolution requires arms.[/b]

Yes, but not an army. :)

There is (as I'm sure you recognise) a massive difference between a group of workers taking up arms and shooting some of the ruling class, and a group of workers being organised into a hierarchical army structure and marching on (and invading) a place.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The “Versailles population” meaning the King?

Indeed.

The King was by then the problem of the people of Versailles, not Paris. Marching on Versailles, would have probably aroused city rivalries (think Manchester and Liverpool x10 :o ) and the Versailles public may have rallied around the King.

Occupied people, do strange things.


[email protected]
Morpheus explains this much better than I could.

He does, but I don't accept his version of events.

Call it a popular coup if you wish, but that there was virtually no serious uprising by the working class itself (there were a few street fights) means that it wasn't a revolution.


Marxism-Leninism
"Armchair Socialism" (fitting name!)

Your post count is almost as high as mine. So I suggest you stop babbling on about "fitting name[s]" and concentrate on growing that piece of bum-fluff on your chin. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

Your post count is almost as high as mine.

How typical of petty-bourgeois "Socialists", they think that sitting on their asses and posting on internet forums makes them "active".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 13 2006, 07:24 PM

Your post count is almost as high as mine.

How typical of petty-bourgeois "Socialists", they think that sitting on their asses and posting on internet forums makes them "active".

What are you blurting on about? ....for a start you have no idea what my class (or class background) is, so quite how you've come to the conclusion I am petty-bourgeois is beyond me.

Secondly, you mentioned that my ironic username was "fitting". I was merely pointing out "that people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones!!"

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Militias, especially civilian ones, are a defencive measure. They're not an army. Indeed I recall (vaguely) you arguing that they couldn't work as they had no capacity to launch offensives.
So those militias are acceptable when they’re sitting back and protecting the workers but when they go on the offensive (say storming government buildings) they are no longer revolutionary?

There is no historical law that says that war and revolution are mutually exclusive. Indeed they do tend to run together at times. It depends solely on local circumstances and events.

And yes, I’ve always held that militias would be of little use in a war with a professional army.


The King was by then the problem of the people of Versailles, not Paris. Marching on Versailles, would have probably aroused city rivalries (think Manchester and Liverpool x10 ) and the Versailles public may have rallied around the King.

Occupied people, do strange things.
Personally I’d have loved it if the Communards had marched on Versailles and razed it to the ground. It was within their grasp to decapitate the entire French state and yet they hesitated.


He does, but I don't accept his version of events.

Call it a popular coup if you wish, but that there was virtually no serious uprising by the working class itself (there were a few street fights) means that it wasn't a revolution.
You know you’re denying historical fact when even an anarchist accepts that it was a popular uprising ;)

I have yet to see a record of events that contradicts the accepted accounts of the day. There’s little more that I can do here to convince you that this is not a matter of perception or opinion but simply fact. It was the proletariat who put the Soviets, and therefore the Bolsheviks, in power.

My question now is whether you refuse to accept this because of your idea that the proletariat of a century ago were too backwards to ever stage a revolution?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)but when they go on the offensive (say storming government buildings) they are no longer revolutionary?[/b]

Well, there are a lot of variables to take into account here. If there was a civilian militia here in Swansea and they decided to march on London and storm the Houses of Parliament, the Welsh Office etc. Then with all probability they would have to launch a quasi-military operation.

The same could be applied if a conscious decision was made to storm Government Offices in Swansea (not that there are any of note). If they did this they would be conducting a quasi-military operation.

The question then becomes, is this the right choice? ....marching on London would likely provoke anger from Londoners ("what right do these bastards have to come here etc. etc.").

Storming Government buildings in Swansea would likely be a good choice. The population is already revolutionary and smashing the state apparatus would be a progressive action.

Now if the Swansea militia merely stormed and took over during either one of these operations. Their operation would change from a quasi-military operation, to a coup d'état (of sorts).

Would this lead to a liberation from wage slavery? ....or would the more likely outcome be that this small militia (now with state power) becomes a new ruling class within a short space of time?


Originally posted by [email protected]
It was within their grasp to decapitate the entire French state and yet they hesitated.

I doubt it. If they had "decapitate[d] the entire French state" (which I doubt they could have) then I think it's pretty likely the Prussian Army would have invaded and defeated them.

It would probably be more interesting to read what Engels (the "General") wrote on this than Marx. However I've never seen anything (in depth) by Engels on the subject.


ComradeOm
My question now is whether you refuse to accept this because of your idea that the proletariat of a century ago were too backwards to ever stage a revolution?

What a remarkably silly question.

I "refuse to accept" that October was a revolution (like Lenin initially did) because there was a considerable lack of popular uprising. February on the other hand, was a revolution. The events of Petrograd were revolutionary, as were the events up and down Russia.

They weren't Proletarian revolutions, but that's another matter.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 01:45 PM
The question then becomes, is this the right choice? ....marching on London would likely provoke anger from Londoners ("what right do these bastards have to come here etc. etc.").

Storming Government buildings in Swansea would likely be a good choice. The population is already revolutionary and smashing the state apparatus would be a progressive action.

...

What if, taking your example, the militias took over before handing power to a democratically elected worker’s body?

Of course there’s always the possibility that a revolutionary group will be forced into war. Again taking your example what if, for whatever reason, the people of Swansea were the first in Britain to successfully revolt. Assume that uprisings had been put down in London, Liverpool et al. Would the workers be right to march on London?


I doubt it. If they had "decapitate[d] the entire French state" (which I doubt they could have) then I think it's pretty likely the Prussian Army would have invaded and defeated them.
Why do you assume that? Paris had held out against the Prussians for six months. Admittedly it’s a big “what if” but I can’t but fail to see the arrest of the entire French government and court as a good thing. At the very least it would’ve prevented the Commune’s fall.


It would probably be more interesting to read what Engels (the "General") wrote on this than Marx. However I've never seen anything (in depth) by Engels on the subject.
I think its safe to say that Engels had a considerable input into the Civil War in France. Marx tended to rely on him for such political and military analyses.


What a remarkably silly question.

I "refuse to accept" that October was a revolution (like Lenin initially did) because there was a considerable lack of popular uprising. February on the other hand, was a revolution. The events of Petrograd were revolutionary, as were the events up and down Russia.

They weren't Proletarian revolutions, but that's another matter.
To be honest I’m having trouble figuring out just why you insist on clinging to this notion that a small groups of Bolsheviks usurped power without any measure of popular support. This idea has no origin in fact and is directly contradicted by every account of those electric months in 1917 that I have read. Do you have an alternate source or report? Otherwise you are simply denying fact.

But I’ve had this problem with you before on the revolutionary nature of the Western proletariat in the second half of the 19th century. So quick answer time – do you believe that the Russian proletariat of late 1917 was revolutionary?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)What if, taking your example, the militias took over before handing power to a democratically elected worker’s body?[/b]

Then it would be a "rather nice" quasi-military operation. It would still be a military operation all the same.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Of course there’s always the possibility that a revolutionary group will be forced into war.[/b]

Yes there is, and you'll notice the common term people use for this is Civil War.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Assume that uprisings had been put down in London, Liverpool et al. Would the workers be right to march on London?

It depends.

A good sign that it was a good choice would be if the people of London and Liverpool asked them to do it. Of course another factor would be whether it was possible to march on London.

However, it would still be a military operation, if the events escalated then perhaps it would be called a Civil War. The Swansea workers would be an invading army and may even commit the atrocities that most invading forces do (rape, random murder etc.).

Admittedly, in some cases the lines may be blurred between whether event X was a revolution or a military operation, but 99.9% of invading forces would be considered just that, invading forces.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Why do you assume that?

Just my opinion I suppose. I don't really think the logistical capacity was there for the Communards to march on Versailles. Indeed that they were terrified of attacking the banks, suggests they felt they weren't adequately equipped to launch offencive measures.

Plus, they were completely destroyed later on. Which doesn't give me the impression that they were capable of marching on Versailles.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I think its safe to say that Engels had a considerable input into the Civil War in France.

From what I've read, he had little to no input.

The Civil War in France was finished a few days after the Commune fell because Marx had liver trouble (I think) for a few weeks. Marx also relied heavily from reports from friends in Paris.

Indeed if Engels (who was far more punctual except when he met a new lady) had ghost written part or all of it. I'd imagine it would have been finished on time. I think the correspondence between the two would settle this, however I'm pretty sure The Civil War in France was all Marx's work.


[email protected]
To be honest I’m having trouble figuring out just why you insist on clinging to this notion that a small groups of Bolsheviks usurped power without any measure of popular support.

You're misunderstanding me.

It doesn't matter whether they had "popular support" or not. The actual actions the "October Revolution" show that there was no (big) popular uprising. Meaning it wasn't a revolution.

Call it a popular coup if you wish, but it wasn't a revolution. Which doesn't (incidentally) automatically make it a good or bad thing.


ComradeOm
So quick answer time – do you believe that the Russian proletariat of late 1917 was revolutionary?

The Russian proletariat (and peasantry) was revolutionary in the sense the French peasantry was revolutionary in 1789. They were ready (and willing) to destroy feudal tyranny and replace it with a (progressive) bourgeois tyranny.

Lenin was (if you wish) the Russian Robespierre. Indeed it seems to be that lawyers have a great tendency to "lead" bourgeois revolutions, Castro, Lenin, Robespierre and most of the other French revolutionaries were lawyers. It seems to be a career path particularly suited for becoming a bourgeois politician (Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Micheal Howard were lawyers before they became politicians).

I'd imagine they're popular during bourgeois revolutions because in the past they've fought against feudal tyranny in the "public domain". Robespierre won a huge case for the scientists of that time, which no doubt gave him popular appeal.

[ComradeOm]

Definitions, definitions. Let’s try this –

Would I be right to say that you view revolution are purely a mass uprising? Or can we broaden the definition to seismic social change that may incorporate mass uprisings, military action and even civil war?

As for invading London (I love even the thought :lol: ) that’s just one case where a “pure” revolution may get messy. I think its fairly safe to say that realistically any revolution is unlikely to be as simple as taking to the streets.


Just my opinion I suppose. I don't really think the logistical capacity was there for the Communards to march on Versailles. Indeed that they were terrified of attacking the banks, suggests they felt they weren't adequately equipped to launch offencive measures.

Plus, they were completely destroyed later on. Which doesn't give me the impression that they were capable of marching on Versailles.
The hesitation to take the banks was purely self imposed. At any moment during those months the Communards could have taken possession of the bank and its vaults. By the same token the revolutionaries were fairly well armed with both muskets and cannon, not to mention the fact that many of them were mutinying soldiers. I’d go so far as to say that in the immediate weeks after March 18 the Commune was in decidedly better shape than the government army.

Meh. We’ll never know for sure.


From what I've read, he had little to no input.
Really? Well this is news to me. I’d always assumed that, as with most of Marx’s works, Engels had been heavily involved.


You're misunderstanding me.

It doesn't matter whether they had "popular support" or not. The actual actions the "October Revolution" show that there was no (big) popular uprising. Meaning it wasn't a revolution.

Call it a popular coup if you wish, but it wasn't a revolution. Which doesn't (incidentally) automatically make it a good or bad thing.
This is you and your “pure” revolutions again, isn’t it? You do know what Lenin said about them? ;)

Did every last worker arise across Russia? I don’t know. Did large crowds come out in support of the revolution once it had begun? Yes. The actions of Nov7/Oct25 were simply the start of the revolution. The Petrograd proletariat fired the first shots and the rest of the country followed suit in rising up. If it was otherwise then the Bolsheviks would not have succeeded.

You can argue that it wasn’t a revolution because it did not result in the workers taking possession of the means of production. Well no one here is claiming that it was a successful socialist revolution. But it clearly succeeded in completely transforming Russian society in what can only be described as a revolution.


The Russian proletariat (and peasantry) was revolutionary in the sense the French peasantry was revolutionary in 1789. They were ready (and willing) to destroy feudal tyranny and replace it with a (progressive) bourgeois tyranny.
Except that you’re ignoring one vital fact – the proletariat of 1917 fought for socialism. They weren’t demanding an end to the monarchy or a more “humane” capitalism - they wanted to rip down the whole capitalist structure. Russia 1917 was the first large-scale Marxist revolution. If it was otherwise they would’ve sided with the Mensheviks.

Robespierre was adamant in his pursuit of a liberal Republic. Lenin was equally determined to create a socialist state.

The problem was that the peasants were, as you state, looking for a more comfortable bourgeois state. Ultimately that divergence in interests proved fatal for the revolution.

[Morpheus]

Excuse me. It was closed in 1918, it had opened back up by the end of the War, thought at a lower level, and obviously it was filled by new workers, not the Putilovski (militant Bolsheviks) of 1917 - like most Russian factories.

Which presumably explains their supposed support for the mutiny by the Friends of Kornilov at Kronstadt.

How do you know Putilov was temporarily closed during the civil war? On what dates was it opened and closed? How do you know it was filled with "new workers"? Just because you claim something is true doesn't mean it is true.

In any case, the temporary closing of a single factory, even an extremely large factory, hardly shows that the Russian working class had, as you put it, "virtually extinguished." Nor does a lower level of industrial production show that the working class was "virtually extinguished." Just because that class is smaller doesn't mean its "virtually extinguished". The Russian working class repeated went on strike against the Bolsheviks. Clearly, if there are enough workers to go on strike then a working class clearly exists, and is not "virtually extinghuished." Party rule could not have come about as a result of a inactive nor nonexistant working class, because that class was active and opposing the bolsheviks. Simply repeating your claim that the working class no longer existed doesn't make it true.

Nor were the Krondstadt sailors "friends of Kornilov." Even Leninist accounts of Krondstadt state it was a bastion of revolutionary activism in 1917, including during Kornilov's coup which they actively opposed. Your claim is nothing more than slander. The same is true of your claim that "Wrangel and Denikin" were my "friends." I oppose the Whites, as do all anarchists. Your'e like George Bush - slandering anyone who opposes you by accusing them of supporting the official enemy. "If your'e not with us your'e with the terrorists." Just substitute "Whites" for Terrorists and it's the same as your slander that I or the Kronstadt sailors supported the Whites.

What evidence do you have that most workers at the end of the civil war were "new workers"? Just because you say something is true doesn't mean it is true. Simple logic would indicate the opposite is more likely. The #1 cause of the decrease of urban population was people leaving the cities due to problems with finances and/or obtaining food. It's easier for someone who only recently left the village to move to the city to do this, because s/he will still have ties will their old village. That makes it easier and more attractive to leave the city because they have friends/family in the village, are more likely to be welcomed back and are more familiar with the village and how it works. Workers who were born in the city, with families that have been there longer, should be less likely to leave the city to return to the village because they have fewer ties to it. They're less likely to be welcomed, their friends/family are in the cities and the cities are more familiar to them. So those remaining in the cities should be the most proletarian of all, while the "new workers" should be the most likely to go back to the countryside.


Why is it dogma?

A dogma is a belief or doctrine that's proclaimed as true without proof. For example, your claim "You can't build Communism on the backs of the peasantry" is dogma because your'e proclaiming it to be true without any evidence that it is true. When I challenged this statement you just made another dogmatic statement, "The peasantry is not a class that can build a collectivist society, because collectivism is completely opposite to their class interests. The interests of the peasantry lies in small holdings of land i.e private property." That is essentially the same as the original statement, just a little more detailed. Youv'e still provided no real evidence to support it, though, so it's still dogma. It also evades the central point, which is that your theory fails to explain why "why the soldiers or peasants soviets ceased to be democratic. If the situation started out as worker & peasant rule then you would expect the elimination of the working class to result in peasant rule, not party rule. Even if this can't evolve into communism (and youv'e presented no reason why it can't) youv'e given no reason why it should cause Russia to become a one-party state." Just because the party occassionally tried to appease the peasants doesn't mean the peasants ruled. It was the party that ruled, not the peasants. If the working class was "virtually extinguished" as you claimed, then why would that cause the peasant soviets to cease being democratic?

You may have "heard all [my] arguements before" but your'e clearly not willing to consider any facts that contradict your faith, hence the dogma comment. Your earlier response "I don't accept that" is a perfect example - no response to the facts, just a refusal to accept anything that goes against your faith. That's dogmatic not, in marxist terminology, scientific. The same is true of your attempt to dismiss the fact that the bolsheviks lost soviet elections in spring 1918 as an "old Menshevik assertion." You provide no evidence to support your claims, but the article I cited earlier uses primary sources to support its claims, so its not merely a "Menshevik assertion" - it's supported by substantial evidence. Writings from that time period and even soviet records show it to be true.


There are "ample" sources proving you're talking bollocks

Then it'd be nice if you'd cite them, instead of expecting me to take all your claims on faith. None of the sources I've cited were written by anarchists. They were written by professional historians who based their work on research in primary sources. I've read plenty of "serious Marxist analyses based on the theory of historical materialism". If you check the bibliography at the end of my essay on the Russian Revolution at http://question-everything.mahost.org/Hist...Revolution.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/Russian_Revolution.html) you'll note that I've read a considerable number of works on the revolution from every perspective under the sun, including Leninist views, so your advice to read Marxist accounts has long since been done.

Speaking of blatant distortions, you might want to avoid your own blatant distortions:


If you want to "stick your head in the sand" then you can spend all day on flag.blackened, reading Anarchist tracts defending the Friends of Wrangel and blatant distortions.


You see, for Marxists, the question of Russia is of course an important one, one we struggle with. For the Anarchists, it's merely a stick to beat people over the head with (here's what happens if the workers organise themselves, so don't bother).

These kinds of statements, along with "I refuse to accept that," are dogmatic temper tantrums, not at all scientific.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Would I be right to say that you view revolution are purely a mass uprising?[/b]

Well, that is a "thorny" one. How about we start with the dictionary definition....


Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)2: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed[/b]

Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolution).

There we have a basis ("the overthrow of a government by those who are governed").

Now if we expand on that we can say revolutionary acts happen during the period where the people have "risen up". These acts may be a quasi-military operation, but if they happen during the "rising up", it is probably best to lump them in as part of the revolution. The planned execution of King X was part of the revolution etc. etc.

The mass uprising (as far as I know) more or less ended by late February. The Russian people despite being excited, confident etc. had settled down, the Tsar was defeated etc. etc.

This means the "October Revolution" happened after the "revolutionary period". Russia may have still be an exciting place (post revolutionary countries generally are), but the revolution (mass popular uprising) had ended.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Or can we broaden the definition to seismic social change that may incorporate mass uprisings, military action and even civil war?

Firstly, a revolution is "mass uprisings". I ain't a revolution without them.

A "military action", is well.... just that, a military action. No one in their right mind would say the Iraq War was a revolution, because it was a military action.

A "civil war" is again just that, a Civil War. There wasn't a revolution in Spain (there were a few uprisings here and there but nothing substantial). There was a war, between two national forces (the Republicans and the Nationalists).

Even this definition could come under dispute, the International Brigades were made up of well.... internationals and Russian support, and Franco's "coalition" included Germany and Italy. Meaning Spain could be described as a "small war" (indeed a few historians have pointed out it was a "practise ground" for Hitler).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I think its fairly safe to say that realistically any revolution is unlikely to be as simple as taking to the streets.

You're quite right. However the revolutionary period has to end (you wouldn't say America's invasion of Iraq was part of the American Revolution now would you?).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Meh. We’ll never know for sure.

Yep. :)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Really?

It's in Francis Wheen's biography of Marx (I'm not quoting the passage it'll take ages to type out). I'd check the letters archive, but again I can't be bothered. ;)

I'm pretty sure however that the correspondence would show little between Marx and Engels and a lot between Marx and a few of his French friends. As I understand it, a lot of the book is derived from newspaper clippings etc. sent to Marx from France (and perhaps Germany).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You do know what Lenin said about them?

I also remember what he said about "Proletarian Communists", it didn't make me any more fond of old Vlad. :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The actions of Nov7/Oct25 were simply the start of the revolution.

Huh? :huh:

What about all the stuff that happened before October 25th? ....October 25th could perhaps be called the end of the revolution. The point where the young and vigorous bourgeois "took the King's throne" for themselves.

It could also be described as the start of the Civil War between the new bourgeois (the emerging bourgeois have often hated each other, the French revolutionaries killed more fellow revolutionaries during the "Terror" than Aristocrats).

Either way, it wasn't the start of the revolution.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You can argue that it wasn’t a revolution because it did not result in the workers taking possession of the means of production.

That would be a silly argument. Revolutions don't need to result in Socialism for them to be revolutions, they do however require popular uprising. Something that didn't happen (on a large scale) during the "October Revolution".

There was (massive) popular uprising in February, there wasn't in October.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Except that you’re ignoring one vital fact – the proletariat of 1917 fought for socialism.

Stop babbling. :)

The Russian working class and peasantry (bar a few advanced workers) fought to get rid of the Tsar. They still needed (or at least felt they needed) rulers. Lenin and the Bolshevik's promised the "best deal".

The idea of self rule probably terrified most Russian workers (it certainly terrified Lenin) for good reason, they weren't ready (as a class) to rule. All they could imagine were "better" rulers (especially within the peasantry who, if memory serves me correctly, affectionately called Lenin the "little Tsar" or some other mindless babble).

The Russian working class after the revolution just followed. Indeed there's probably a comparison that could be drawn with the way the British working class followed the Labour Party for the best part of the last century.

A truly revolutionary working class would have had a massive amount of contempt for Lenin and Trotsky. Can you imagine the post revolution French bourgeois accepting advice from the old feudal lords? ....better still, can you imagine them accepting the French feudal lords back as rulers?

Plus, even if the Russian working class had fought for Socialism, they were to small (as a class) to ever succeed in their efforts.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
They weren’t demanding an end to the monarchy or a more “humane” capitalism

For a start, they couldn't have demanded a "more "humane" capitalism" because there was virtually no Capitalism in Russia.

Secondly, there seems to be a strange phenomena of pre-revolutionary publics, they don't even want a change in class society (the French King received 25,000 letters of "consultation" and not one called for him to be removed).

A society just before revolution still thinks (mainly) within the limits of what already exists now, when the reforms they want can't be met by that form of society, they (eventually) conclude that society must go.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Russia 1917 was the first large-scale Marxist revolution.

If by that you mean the revolutionaries were Marxists, then yes it was a "Marxist revolution". It wasn't however, a proletarian revolution.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
If it was otherwise they would’ve sided with the Mensheviks.

They likely didn't side with the Menshivik's (though a large portion did) because the Menshivik's offered a "worse deal".

Plus, the Bolshevik's "Socialist message" was really basic, and isn't a whole lot different from the message the emerging bourgeois in other countries "broadcast".

There wasn't (by and large) a proletarian message, something which you would think would be a requirement of a proletarian revolution.


[email protected]
Robespierre was adamant in his pursuit of a liberal Republic. Lenin was equally determined to create a socialist state.

They both failed, material reality prevailed, that's what we should be interested in.

"The present and not the wrapping paper, is what's important...." -- Karl Marx. :lol:


ComradeOm
Ultimately that divergence in interests proved fatal for the revolution.

Not really. Ask yourself this, if the Russian proletariat had been "a class for themselves" (as you suggest) shouldn't we have seen (at some point) massive battles between the proletariat and the other classes who were destroying their society.

I don't think there has ever been a class in power which has let its power drift away without a huge battle. Is Russia an exception?

[YKTMX]

How do you know Putilov was temporarily closed during the civil war? On what dates was it opened and closed? How do you know it was filled with "new workers"?

Unfortunately, I can't find any tables online showing the activity in the works. If you listen here (http://www.linksruck.de/ueberuns/artikel/TonyCliff-StateCapitalism-Part1.mp3), Cliff mentions the fact that in 1920 there were only 1 million workers in Russia, half of whom were "new workers". He also states that Putilov was closed in 1918 due to lack of iron and coal.

Also, I found this account by Emma Goldman, someone I'm sure you admire:

The first works to be visited were the Putilov, the largest and most important engine and car manufacturing establishment. Forty thousand workers had been employed there before the war. Now I was informed that only 7,000 were at work. I had heard much of the Putilovsti: they had played a heroic part in the revolutionary days and in the defence of Petrograd against Yudenitch...
There were 7,000 productively employed in the works, he assured me. I learned, however, that the real figure was less than 5,000 and of these only about 2,000 were actual workers. The others were Government officials and clerks.



Nor does a lower level of industrial production show that the working class was "virtually extinguished."

What does it show then? The working was healthy and vibrant?


Even Leninist accounts of Krondstadt state it was a bastion of revolutionary activism in 1917, including during Kornilov's coup which they actively opposed.

Yes, but it has been shown time and time again that these Kronstadt sailors in '21 were simply not the same people. The great Anarchist myth is that the people who made the revolution in '17 rose up against the Bolshevik "usurping" of the revolution in '21. It's not true, I don't think.

Read here (http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm) for more on the White Rebellion at Kronstadt.


Your'e like George Bush - slandering anyone who opposes you by accusing them of supporting the official enemy.

Yes. There are only two sides in the class war, in the Russian Civil war even more so.


That is essentially the same as the original statement, just a little more detailed. Youv'e still provided no real evidence to support it, though, so it's still dogma.

The "evidence" for my assertion that the Peasantry can't build Communism is derived from two extensive sources.

1) The Marxist theory of history
2) Actual history

If you would like to investigate either of these things, contact me and I'll reccomend you some reading.


primary sources to support its claims, so its not merely a "Menshevik assertion"

:lol: The source you provided was the account of a Menshevik in 1918. That's the problem with primary sources.

I'm not going to get involved in a debate over what is and what isn't "dogmatic". Let's just say, I've come to a reasoned opinion on the revolution through reading about it in books and articles, and hearing many, many talks on the subject since I was in my early teens.

My "opinion" that the degeneration of the revolution was caused by historical factors independent of the actions of various Bolshevik leaders is a sincerly held one.

Were mistakes made? Of course there were. Not even the most ardent Bolshevik would deny that there were mistakes made and that some of the responses were excessive. The question is not whether Lenin and Trotsky, or "Bolshevism", are perfect, the question is in what historical context do these forces operate. And how do these contexes constrict and constrain the actions. Radical subjectivity will never be able to defeat the Goliath of History.

I think the Russian Revolution proved that.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Now if we expand on that we can say revolutionary acts happen during the period where the people have "risen up". These acts may be a quasi-military operation, but if they happen during the "rising up", it is probably best to lump them in as part of the revolution. The planned execution of King X was part of the revolution etc. etc.

The mass uprising (as far as I know) more or less ended by late February. The Russian people despite being excited, confident etc. had settled down, the Tsar was defeated etc. etc.
Whoah… let me stop you there. That is not historical reality. There may have been a “lull” period after the overthrow of the Tsar but, as almost every account of the summer of 1917 shows, it was quickly replaced by increasing disillusionment on the behalf of the proletariat. Russia in 1917 was more than “exciting” – the entire country was like a pressure cooker as the tension slowly increased. This manifested itself in the growing power of the Soviets and the premature July Days rising.

This is not the first time I’ve stated this but you do seem reluctant to accept it. Do you have some differing version of events?

In this context the “revolutionary period” can be seen to last from February to either October or 1922-24.


You're quite right. However the revolutionary period has to end (you wouldn't say America's invasion of Iraq was part of the American Revolution now would you?).
Agreed. The revolution ends, we arrive at socialism and everybody’s happy. Except the capis of course. But again you run into that little problem of reality rarely being so accommodating. In particular I’m reminded of the Cubans who claim that Cuba is still undergoing its revolution.


I also remember what he said about "Proletarian Communists", it didn't make me any more fond of old Vlad.
I was referring to Whoever expects a "pure" revolution will never live to see it ;)


What about all the stuff that happened before October 25th? ....October 25th could perhaps be called the end of the revolution. The point where the young and vigorous bourgeois "took the King's throne" for themselves.

It could also be described as the start of the Civil War between the new bourgeois (the emerging bourgeois have often hated each other, the French revolutionaries killed more fellow revolutionaries during the "Terror" than Aristocrats).

Either way, it wasn't the start of the revolution.
October was the start of the socialist revolution. Now you could argue that February was the start of the “revolutionary period” but for simple ease I’ll stick with February = bourgeois, October = Bolshevik.

There’s not much I can do if you want to insist that the Bolsheviks were bourgeois. Seeing as you’ve already rejected the notion that they were popularly supported, and backed, by the proletariat that would be the logical assumption. It also flies in the fact of historical fact but don’t let that stop you.

The analogy with France is very much flawed though. The imprisonment and execution of the Mensheviks, anarchists et al… that’s a logical comparison. But the Bolsheviks in 1917 were communist. The party may have “evolved” into a new ruling class but before 1924 or so they were easily the most revolutionary communist group in Russia.


Stop babbling.
I admit that I have a fondness for the rhetoric. Obviously it shines through in my writings every so often :P


The Russian working class and peasantry (bar a few advanced workers) fought to get rid of the Tsar. They still needed (or at least felt they needed) rulers. Lenin and the Bolshevik's promised the "best deal".

The idea of self rule probably terrified most Russian workers (it certainly terrified Lenin) for good reason, they weren't ready (as a class) to rule. All they could imagine were "better" rulers (especially within the peasantry who, if memory serves me correctly, affectionately called Lenin the "little Tsar" or some other mindless babble).
I hate having to listen to this condescending tripe. Especially from someone who accuses Leninists of talking down to the workers.

There was nothing about the proletariat of 1917 that rendered it incapable of ruling itself. It had overthrown the Tsar, it had overthrown the bourgeoisie and it had proved its capability to rule through the Soviets. And, despite your protests to the contrary, the workers of Petrograd had marched under the Red Banner for socialism. There can be no confusion on this point – by October 1917 the Russian proletariat were fed up with capitalism that had not delivered on its promises. The proletariat’s only problem was that it made up a minority of the population. Indeed that comment about the “little Tsar” perfectly illustrates the ignorance of the peasantry.


A truly revolutionary working class would have had a massive amount of contempt for Lenin and Trotsky. Can you imagine the post revolution French bourgeois accepting advice from the old feudal lords? ....better still, can you imagine them accepting the French feudal lords back as rulers?
The same way that the working class has always had utter contempt for that other old bourgeois fart - Marx? Try and divorce the term intellectual from that of bourgeois.


Plus, even if the Russian working class had fought for Socialism, they were to small (as a class) to ever succeed in their efforts.
Does that mean that they should not have tried? You would have preferred if they had watched Russia collapse around them?


For a start, they couldn't have demanded a "more "humane" capitalism" because there was virtually no Capitalism in Russia.
My mistake, I must have just imagined the Russian proletariat. While the considerable majority of the population were peasants, there were a number of areas (notably around Petrograd, Moscow and Novograd) that had been quite industrialised by foreign capitalists.


Secondly, there seems to be a strange phenomena of pre-revolutionary publics, they don't even want a change in class society (the French King received 25,000 letters of "consultation" and not one called for him to be removed).

A society just before revolution still thinks (mainly) within the limits of what already exists now, when the reforms they want can't be met by that form of society, they (eventually) conclude that society must go.
I fail to see your point. Perhaps if the bourgeoisie had kept their word and delivered after February the proletariat would’ve been happy. As it was they did not enact the desired reforms and so the proletariat lost patience. It was at that point that the calls for revolution change grew louder.


Plus, the Bolshevik's "Socialist message" was really basic, and isn't a whole lot different from the message the emerging bourgeois in other countries "broadcast".
When you come down to it revolutionary messages are by nature simplistic. They promise one thing – radical change.


There wasn't (by and large) a proletarian message, something which you would think would be a requirement of a proletarian revolution.
And by “proletarian message” you mean…? On the face of it the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the appropriation of the means of production by the workers, government by the Soviets and an end to imperialist wars are all pretty proletarian.

And of course its very doubtful that the Bolsheviks would’ve drawn the support they did without a message that appealed to the proletariat.

[RadicalLeft62]

is anybody here familiar with the Progressive Labor Party? They believe that the socialist transition is why the movement in general failed in the 20th century, because it created wages and failed to address the wants of the entire working class. They say fight directly for communism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)There may have been a “lull” period after the overthrow of the Tsar[/b]

The "lull" period meaning the end.

Basically the "October Revolution" wouldn't be called the second Russian Revolution (or "second stage" of the Russian Revolution) had the first revolution not come to an end.

Revolutions (in general) tend to be (relatively) short affairs, however the by-products of a revolution can last decades. Pre revolution "battles" can go on for over a hundred years, and the post revolution society can be effected by the revolution for a long time too.

However these are all by-products of the revolution, not part of the revolution itself.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)the entire country was like a pressure cooker as the tension slowly increased.[/b]

That's a bit of an over exaggeration now isn't it? ....Russia in 1917 was an excitable place, little bits of "class war" carried on publicly post revolution, but Russia was nowhere near "boiling point" (at least not in the way you suggest).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Do you have some differing version of events?

Well, I suppose I do, consider this....


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In this context the “revolutionary period” can be seen to last from February to either October or 1922-24.

Here you are lumping in a Civil War....


Originally posted by dictionary.com
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20war).

With a revolution....


Originally posted by dictionary.com
2. the overthrow of a government by those who are governed

Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolution).

Can you not see the difference between the uprising of a countries populace against that countries rulers and an organised military operation?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But again you run into that little problem of reality rarely being so accommodating.

Well no you don't, unless of course what you think is reality is skewed.

The revolution does not "arrive" at anything, it simply removes one class. The "arrival" (at a new form of society) happens post revolution. The building of a new society is not part of the revolutionary process. (Note: from time to time structures will "spring up" during the revolutionary period that will be used post revolution, however these structure are usually drastically modified post revolution.)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In particular I’m reminded of the Cubans who claim that Cuba is still undergoing its revolution.

Sort of like how Ukraine had an "Orange Revolution" and Hitler claimed the Nazi's came to power through a "revolution". It is "gobbledygook".

The Cubans had their revolution over 40 years ago, that the Cuban Government says it is still having a "revolution" and that it names things accordingly (Ministry for Protection of the Revolution or something like that, etc. etc.) is silly, and also not true.

Just because someone says its so, doesn't make it so.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I was referring to Whoever expects a "pure" revolution will never live to see it

Yes I was aware what you were referring too (you've directed it at me before) and I must admit that that little phrase doesn't impress me.

It seems a rather abstract and philosophical phrase (something that pompous sods would talk over for endless periods of time). I mean what is a "pure revolution"? ....is it something like wanting the working class as a class to take power for themselves. No doubt in Lenin's opinion such a "revolution" would be "pure" (and silly, impossible and "Ultra Left"). You should know by now what I think of that. :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
October was the start of the socialist revolution.

It was???

Okay, lets take that statement at "face value", October was a "socialist revolution" (by this I imagine you mean a working class revolution?).

Now October was successful, meaning the working class took power through a revolution. How then did the Russian working class end up with less power post revolution? ....if this happened it would be (perhaps) the only time in recorded history where the successful revolutionary class actually ended up with less power.

Is it possible for a class to win through revolution and then lose that power before any outside factors (the Civil War) came into play? ....was it perhaps the biggest act of stupidity in the whole history of "class war"? ....because that is the only explanation I can find for how the winning class would end up with less power.

Or of course, we could explore the possibility that it wasn't a "socialist revolution" at all. Surely this explanation makes more sense than the explanations we have if what happened was a "socialist revolution"?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There’s not much I can do if you want to insist that the Bolsheviks were bourgeois. Seeing as you’ve already rejected the notion that they were popularly supported, and backed, by the proletariat that would be the logical assumption.

You're muddling the question.

The Bolshevik's were bourgeois revolutionaries, because of what they achieved (modern Capitalism). Not because of how much support they had.

Whether they knew it or not, the Bolshevik's were doomed by material reality to be bourgeois revolutionaries. That was all they could be.

However, your logic is rather strange. If for instance you decide the Bolshevik's were "Proletarian Revolutionaries" because of the support they had from within the working class. What is to stop someone from saying Tony Blair represents the vanguard of the British working class? ....after all, they support him, surely them this means Tony Blair is representing the working classes interests (after all, his actions don't matter in your opinion because he is "supported" by the working class)?

Or take Robespierre for example (again). He was widely supported by the proto working class and loved by the French peasantry. Is Robespierre no longer a bourgeois revolutionary because of this support? ....was 1879 a "proletarian revolution"? ....using your logic it must be because Robespierre and the others were supported by the French poor.

Or is it rather the case that what they actually do dictates what they actually are (this of course being dictated by the material conditions of their time)?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The analogy with France is very much flawed though.

This is a debate for the History forum, but anyway there are a lot of comparisons that can be made between the Russian Revolution and the French Revolution (namely the "Bonaparte role" played by the Bolshevik's).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
but before 1924 or so they were easily the most revolutionary communist group in Russia.

Does that matter? ....no.

It is not what they said, rather what they did, and achieved.

It is not Lenin's "fault" he was a bourgeois revolutionary, the same way it's not Robespierre's "fault". Their circumstances were dictated by the material conditions of their time.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Especially from someone who accuses Leninists of talking down to the workers.

Leninists have always "talked down to the workers", including Lenin himself. However in Lenin's situation it was a requirement, the Russian workers really had to be "talked down to". For sure this may break the "Communist code of ethics", but that was the result of the material conditions of that time.

However post Lenin Leninists, have based their views on the working class on what Lenin perceived (correctly or close to correctly) as the conditions of the Russian working class.

Now as I said, not only does this go against what some may call "Communist ethics", but also since 1917 the working class has changed (especially in advanced countries).

Leninists in the first world who still say the workers need to be "talked down to" (and led). Are not only ignoring objective reality, but they are also postponing (in a tiny way) the emergence of real proletarian class consciousness.

As I said (I think in this thread earlier), the role of Communists (in advanced countries) should be that of cheerleaders. We should keep banging away that the working class can rule itself, that it can end wage slavery etc. etc.

That is all we should do.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There was nothing about the proletariat of 1917 that rendered it incapable of ruling itself.

This is perhaps the most startling of all your theoretical points, that as soon as there is a proletariat, this proletariat can rule itself.

Of course in countries where there is a large (and advanced) proletariat, you say they haven't created self rule because of the "Theory of Imperialism" (they're "bought off"). And in countries where there is a minority proletariat, you say they can't rule because they are hampered by the constraints of the other classes.

So let me try this one....

Russia today has a large proletariat. According to MIM (whom you sort of agree with) and MIM's "calculations", the Russian proletariat is still exploited (they produce surplus value) despite Russia being an Imperialist country. I suspect this applies to China too.

Therefore why (in your opinion) hasn't the Russian proletariat (which isn't "bought off") been capable of self rule despite a few opportunities? ....why in fact does the Russian proletariat of today look like it is quite a while off the possibility of self rule?

I know what my answer is and how I came about it, but I'd be interested to hear your answer as Russia (if you were right) would be "ripe" for proletarian revolution.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
and it had proved its capability to rule through the Soviets.

By electing educated delegates?


Originally posted by ComardeOm
the workers of Petrograd had marched under the Red Banner for socialism.

I found this comment most amusing. Especially from someone who dismisses Paris of 68' as a "change in Imperialism".

How is it that when workers occupied factories (spontaneously) that is a "change in Imperialism", but when workers march under a "Red Banner for socialism" ("Land, Peace and Bread") they are a class ready to rule itself?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Indeed that comment about the “little Tsar” perfectly illustrates the ignorance of the peasantry.

The peasantry was "ignorant", but a semi-literate (at best) working class was ready to rule society?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The same way that the working class has always had utter contempt for that other old bourgeois fart - Marx?

No the working class of Marx's day (the radical ones who Marx met) dolted on him (Marx's actions at the First International kinda prove this). Therefore showing the working class of Marx's day (even the most radical ones) were not ready for self rule, they were still rely on a part of the bourgeois for guidance (though interestingly Marx and some of the workers considered Marx a "head worker", quite amusing given his lifestyle).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Does that mean that they should not have tried?

That's a "what if?" question, which quite frankly doesn't matter.

They "tried", they failed. What's important is why they failed (not that I think they even conducted what I would consider a "try"). Material reality quite simply got in the way.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You would have preferred if they had watched Russia collapse around them?

You mean Russia creating modern Capitalism. :lol:

It's quite funny that earlier in this thread YouKnowTheyMurderedX said something less than nice about the Kerensky Government ("Capitalist Pigs" or something similar), but the NEP was a "necessary reverse".

You see the Russia bourgeois who wanted to create modern Capitalism were "nasty bastards", the Bolshevik's who did create modern Capitalism were I guess.... unlucky. :lol:

Quite frankly, it is unlikely a Menshivik (for instance) Government would have "watched Russia collapse around them", they were intelligent bourgeois revolutionaries. The Anarchists if they had got power, would have in all likelihood done something similar to the NEP and we would have seen a Anarchist Stalin. :o

I don't think Lenin saved Russia from collapse (actually if it hadn't been for Stalin reversing some of Lenin's policies, I think Russia may have collapsed because of Lenin). Rather I think a bourgeois revolution in a country like Russia (with its vast resources and land) would have done well had a semi competent bourgeois come to power in 1917.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
My mistake, I must have just imagined the Russian proletariat.

Well they made up only around 2% of the population, you may well have had to "imagine them". :lol:

Of course there were "pockets of Capitalism", but Russia was still overwhelmingly a feudal nation.A bourgeois revolution was all that could happen.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I fail to see your point.

You suggested the message of the Russian populace was explicitly revolutionary. I merely pointed out that early on the message of a pre revolutionary populace is rarely revolutionary, they still think within the limits of what already exists.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
When you come down to it revolutionary messages are by nature simplistic. They promise one thing – radical change.

Well no, not really.

The revolutionary message of the bourgeois was incredibly complicated. It mixed in all kinds of new methods of innovation and that call was not "radical change" for "radical change[s]" sake, rather "radical change" because without it human society wouldn't be able to advance.

Do you think the revolutionary message of the proletariat will be any less complicated? ....or rather do you think the proletarian message will be "Land, Peace and Bread"?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And by “proletarian message” you mean…?

Well more complex than you suggest, but lets look at your examples....


Originally posted by ComradeOm
the overthrow of the bourgeoisie

More like the overthrow of the Tsar and the landed aristocracy. By all accounts the bourgeois were probably reasonably liked, without them the Russian workers would still be enduring the miseries of peasant life.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
the appropriation of the means of production by the workers

Which part of "Land, Peace and Bread" was that? ....certainly the smashing up of landed estates was a "big thing", but if the revolutionary message was really for democratic control over the means of production, there would have been uproar (possibly even pitched battles) when the mass nationalisations took place. However, they were seen as a good thing (mostly).

Indeed the Russian working class even surrendered its Unions, why would such a revolutionary class do that?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
government by the Soviets

That's bordering on revolutionary (Communist revolutionary), but the Soviets were still representative, not direct. Indeed they sort of resemble all the "Municipal" stuff with local councils in Britain during the 19th century.


[email protected]
an end to imperialist wars

Well that was (mainly) a Peasant message, the Peasantry was the main source of conscripts.

However, an end to a war is not a revolutionary message. The people who marched on London to try and stop the Iraq War were not ready to pull down the state.


ComradeOm
And of course its very doubtful that the Bolsheviks would’ve drawn the support they did without a message that appealed to the proletariat.

Tony Blair "appeals" to the working class. It doesn't mean he represents a "proletarian message".

Really, as I said earlier, you shouldn't confuse support for something by the working class as it being something essentially working class.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:09 AM
is anybody here familiar with the Progressive Labor Party? They believe that the socialist transition is why the movement in general failed in the 20th century, because it created wages and failed to address the wants of the entire working class. They say fight directly for communism.

Are they the American based group?

Anyway, it would be interesting to read more about them, could you link their site?

Cheers. :)

[RadicalLeft62]

id be happy to armchair

it is a world revolution group in its theories, but are based in the US.
plp.org

[RadicalLeft62]

and i urge everyone to become a part of it, especially people who believe the CPUSA is a revisionist heap of crap, and the RCP lacks principle and initiative.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by RadicalLeft62+Jan 18 2006, 02:38 AM--> (RadicalLeft62 @ Jan 18 2006, 02:38 AM) it is a world revolution group in its theories, but are based in the US.
plp.org [/b]

Not what I expected....


Originally posted by Progressive Labor [email protected]
Your presence shows the ruling classes cannot stop the growing unity of the international working class. You are part of the international vanguard of the working class. It proves that Marxism-Leninism can never be defeated . Marxism-Leninism has been pronounced dead by the bosses. The revisionists, from Beijing to Moscow, say that Marxism-Leninism is outdated. Marxism-Leninism can never die! It conforms to the interests of the working class. The capitalists and the revisionists believed they left Marxism-Leninism for dead. However, it is alive and well in the body of PLP, and in its line of Road to Revolution IV

Link (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/one_class.html).

Or....


Progressive Labor Party
Communism means abolishing nation states, which are an expression of capitalism. One working class, one party, one world.

Link (http://plp.org/2cdfight.html#WHAT%20WE%20FIGHT%20FOR).

:o

I'll be tactful and say that I don't think the Progressive Labor Party is my "cup of tea". Thanks for providing the link though.

[Floyce White]

RadicalLeft62: "Is anybody here familiar with the Progressive Labor Party? They believe that the socialist transition is why the movement in general failed in the 20th century, because it created wages and failed to address the wants of the entire working class. They say fight directly for communism."

Yes. I ran across their newspaper in '92. That's how I was won to the idea of communist revolution as opposed to socialist revolution. But I recall that by early '97, I had some conversations with other local activists about communes instead of the USSR's statist methods (that the PLP defended as "mistakes" and "failed experiments"). It didn't take long for me to grasp the implications of their 1971 document Road to Revoluion 3 (http://www.plp.org/rr3/rr3.html).

Why can't they get it? PLP seems to be in full-flight denial of the anti-DOPE (Dictatorship Of the ProlEtariat) and anti-LOCO (Lower Order of COmmunism) conclusions of the theory. PLP adores Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and their history of China starts with Mao's Long March--as if the 1920s workers' uprising and the Shanghai Commune never happened. I can't explain why they never advanced their theory. It's possible that their experienced and thoughtful writers got old and died, or quit or became inactive, and RR3 just got chanted and "updated" by the young SDS college-student "cadre" as if another line of Maoist dogma.

Armchair Socialism: "As I've said I don't think there is much of a disagreement left on these issues [hierarchy and the nature of the state] and any difference there is, I expect to grow smaller over the coming years. With the Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories, even if they choose not to admit it."

Nonsense! It is highly uninformed and completely wishful thinking for anarchists to pat themselves on the back and say that any anti-state theory is due to the influence of anarchism. None of it is. In over two decades of activism, I helped with thousands of events. Then as now, I hardly ever ran across anyone who called himself or herself an "anarchist." None of them were activists--unlike the hundreds of selfless and dedicated socialists and radical liberals I knew. I ran across only a few of those weird sex-and-drugs "underground" countercultural newspapers that called themselves "anarchist"--mostly in drug-business centers such as Los Angeles. What classic anarchist writings I had read--I thought were dopey. A fire-breathing working-class activist in the '80s didn't want to read a Reaganesque tirade about the importance of "freedom" and "liberty." It's easy to forget that Libertarian Party organizers were passing themselves off as "anarchists" during the '80 election campaign, but as "new conservatives" in '84. It's easy for today's anarchists to look at their own Web sites and dream up a past influence that never was.

When I was young, less experienced, and less knowledgeable, I was a socialist and I referred to myself as a "socialist" and a "Marxist." My anti-state opinions were absolutely separate from any history or tradition of anarchism. In my many thousands of discussions, I very rarely encountered anyone who picked up anti-state opinions that way. "Anarchism" was just a word to toss around like "sports" or "health food," without any deeper theoretical implications. Many Baby Boom activists were thoroughly impressed by the overthrow of the governments in Cuba, South Vietnam, and Nicaragua. This was the overwhelming influence on a generation of anti-government ideas.

Armchair Socialism, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor: "Is socialism, as Marx defined it, necessary to reach an ideal society? If not, what solutions do anarchists offer to supress capitalism?"

False dilemma: the socialist form of capitalism or the anarchist form of capitalism. You might as well have thrown in the radical-liberal form of capitalism as a third choice. Communism is not a form of capitalism.

[Floyce White]

I made some mistakes that I want to correct. Today I remembered some facts.

First, there has been anarchist, overtly-political activism in Europe and Latin America--even when there was none in the US. I have long been aware of the fact of its existence, but not of any of its slogans or arguments. That kind of in-depth material might have been found at a few libraries or a few big leftist bookstores in cosmopolitan centers. I usually wasn't in those cities, and almost always couldn't afford to buy books--much less delve into random topics. Many other worker-activists didn't either.

Second, since shortly after I got involved in politics, I have been aware that anarchist organization and activism did occur in the US before my time. I had read a little of Emma Goldmann's impressions of conditions in post-revolution Russia. At the time, I believe I thought it was no different from the many socialist criticisms, such as those of John Reed.

Third, today I recalled that in 1987, at an anti-CIA protest in Virginia, I encountered a small group of anarchists who participated in the rally and in civil disobedience. I recall that I talked to them for quite a while--probably because it was the first time I'd seen anarchists do anything besides countercultural anti-activism. I do not recall seeing or hearing about anarchist activism again until the late '90s.

Nobody is twisting my arm to say this. I want to be completely honest here. In my experience, anarchism did not exist as an activist movement in the US until just recently. Today, it is still far smaller than the scattered "Marxist-Leninist" socialist movement--and far less experienced. Anarchism has had no impact on either "Marxism" as a dogma, or on non-"Marxist" discussion of theories of revolution and the post-revolutionary period.

Armchair Socialism, my Antiproperty essays are an example of how an American worker can produce anti-state theory through participation in the "Marxist-Leninist" movement, and through its critical interpretation and rejection.

Whatever "Marxists" you believe have adapted to anarchist theories--why not provide some links to the "before" and "after" writings, and to the analyses where some say they have adapted? It wouldn't surprise me if some dogmatists switched their brand.

Until you can show some evidence beyond Redstar2000's or maybe Ben Seattle's informal Internet chats, I'm not going to believe that any "Marxist" dogmatist would switch to Chomsky as somehow a better authority figure to fawn over.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 19 2006, 03:03 AM
Nonsense! It is highly uninformed and completely wishful thinking for anarchists to pat themselves on the back and say that any anti-state theory is due to the influence of anarchism.
I find this sentence highly peculiar.

If, as you contest, you are so experienced in activism and knowledgeable on the subject of revolutionary leftwing political theory, how have you missed out the 150 years of anarchist thinkers and their ideas?

There have been countless books, analysis and practice, dating right back to Proudhan to Bakunin to Malatesta, to Kropotkin to Goldman and Berkman, to Dolgoff and Guerin, even Chomsky to some degree and going back to people like Makhano and Rocker; all of which have criticised Marxism from an anti-statist position and furthered the idea of anti-statism from the time of the First International.

Anti-state is the fundamental influence anarchism has had on contemporary politics. That's where it's basis began!


None of it is. In over two decades of activism, I helped with thousands of events. Then as now, I hardly ever ran across anyone who called himself or herself an "anarchist."

I find that hard to believe, and even if it were true, so what? Maybe you should broaden your sphere of activism?


None of them were activists--unlike the hundreds of selfless and dedicated socialists and radical liberals I knew

The activist world is a very big one, and maybe it's possible that anarchists didn't want to work with these apparent selfless and dedicated socialists. I mean, I for one certainly wouldn't care for working with radical liberals. In my experience "radical" liberals tend to be the worst kind of activists.


My anti-state opinions were absolutely separate from any history or tradition of anarchism.

It's quite arrogant to assume that you personal experience is a conclusion of fact on the history or tradition of anarchism?

You're a single human being in the great expanse of humanity.


Armchair Socialism, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

On the contrary.

[Marxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:46 AM

we are all communists here whether we believe in anarchism or socialism.


That´s right! We must stay united or we will be destroyed. :hammer:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Although TAT has answered most of these points, I feel I should address some of the points you made towards me....


Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)It's easy for today's anarchists to look at their own Web sites and dream up a past influence that never was.[/b]

I'm not any kind of an "expert" on the history of Anarchism. However I'm pretty sure that Anarchism (as a proto-theory) arose in the seventeenth century in opposition to complete Monarchy.

They launched quite a few attacks (mainly assassination attempts) and were no doubt reasonably influential.

That's a "past influence" that beats Marxism now doesn't it?


Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Armchair Socialism, you simply don't know what you're talking about.[/b]

Well been as you later corrected yourself, I guess we're in the "same boat" amigo. :lol:


Originally posted by Floyce White
even when there was none in the US.

I could be wrong, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that the first "radicals" in the American workers movement were Anarchists.

Plus, from what I've read about the political scene in America, the only group of radicals that seem to be doing anything are the various Anarchist groups.


Originally posted by Floyce White
, it is still far smaller than the scattered "Marxist-Leninist" socialist movement--and far less experienced.

Well even if your statement was accurate, the size and experience of a movement doesn't really matter. It's what they do.

Those "scattered" Socialist groups you mentioned, are mostly either organising support for bourgeois liberals or standing for elections themselves. Hardly "radical".


Floyce [email protected]
Anarchism has had no impact on either "Marxism" as a dogma, or on non-"Marxist" discussion of theories of revolution and the post-revolutionary period.

That is a very bold statement, and one we could not possibly measure for "truth". How would we measure this "impact"? ....well I suppose we could start by looking at Marx and Marxism and seeing if either were influenced by Anarchism.

In this respect a piece called "The Poverty of Philosophy" springs to mind, perhaps Anarchism has had some "impact"?


Floyce White
why not provide some links to the "before" and "after" writings, and to the analyses where some say they have adapted?

Well perhaps the most interesting thing I have seen in a while was a site which I linked in this thread. That site (I believe the link was called "A contribution to the critique of Marx" or something) was being moved to the "Anarchist Federation" website.

There you have a group of Left-Communists and Anarchists "merging" their work. Is that good enough for you?

[ComradeOm]

Why do these threads tend to spiral out of control? Anyways enjoy.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
That's a bit of an over exaggeration now isn't it? ....Russia in 1917 was an excitable place, little bits of "class war" carried on publicly post revolution, but Russia was nowhere near "boiling point" (at least not in the way you suggest).
Have you actually read any of the history on this?

We know that Russia “boiled over” because that’s exactly what it did. It’s a tautology. You continue to cling to the idea that a small cadre of intellectuals simply overthrew the entire Russian state. It requires a cursory glance at the history to know that this is false.

If nothing else surely the mere fact that the Bolsheviks, and other radical groups, enjoyed such support proves that the proletariat of 1917 desired change?

Revolution – proletarian revolution - would’ve almost certainly arrived in Russia before the end of 1917. The organisation of the Bolsheviks just ensured that they were at the forefront.


Can you not see the difference between the uprising of a countries populace against that countries rulers and an organised military operation?
What I cannot see is why you insist that every revolution will consist of the people rising up, staging a nice picturesque protest and then strolling into the government buildings. The Russians did not have it that easy – they had to fight the remnants of the old state. Call it a revolutionary war.

Revolution is the transition phase between two epochs. It may encompass a simply uprising, it may require a war. As I said before, it depends on the circumstances of the time.


Yes I was aware what you were referring too (you've directed it at me before) and I must admit that that little phrase doesn't impress me.

It seems a rather abstract and philosophical phrase (something that pompous sods would talk over for endless periods of time). I mean what is a "pure revolution"? ....is it something like wanting the working class as a class to take power for themselves. No doubt in Lenin's opinion such a "revolution" would be "pure" (and silly, impossible and "Ultra Left"). You should know by now what I think of that.
If you think that that is “abstract and philosophical” then you must have really struggled with Marx ;)

A “pure” revolution is the one that you seem to expect. The proletariat will do as their told and wait until you give the signal, then everyone rushes the capitalists and you’re drinking sherbet in Westminister by the evening. Perhaps the spirit of Marx could also appear to lend you legitimacy?

It is foolish to try and predict exactly when or what form a revolution will take. I believe the quote (I have yet to find a source) comes from commentary on the participation of Connolly and the Citizen’s Army in the nationalist uprising in Ireland.


Okay, lets take that statement at "face value", October was a "socialist revolution" (by this I imagine you mean a working class revolution?).
By this I mean that it was a worker’s revolution that aimed to abolish capitalism and create the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Now October was successful, meaning the working class took power through a revolution. How then did the Russian working class end up with less power post revolution? ....if this happened it would be (perhaps) the only time in recorded history where the successful revolutionary class actually ended up with less power.

Is it possible for a class to win through revolution and then lose that power before any outside factors (the Civil War) came into play? ....was it perhaps the biggest act of stupidity in the whole history of "class war"? ....because that is the only explanation I can find for how the winning class would end up with less power.

Or of course, we could explore the possibility that it wasn't a "socialist revolution" at all. Surely this explanation makes more sense than the explanations we have if what happened was a "socialist revolution"?
You’ll be hard pressed to find many who claim that the October Revolution was a success. Obviously it was not.

As to why it failed… have I mentioned that the peasants made up the vast bulk of the population? It must have come up at least once.


The Bolshevik's were bourgeois revolutionaries, because of what they achieved (modern Capitalism). Not because of how much support they had.

Whether they knew it or not, the Bolshevik's were doomed by material reality to be bourgeois revolutionaries. That was all they could be.
This is hardly a cause and effect relationship. It is preposterous to claim that because the USSR was state capitalist the Bolsheviks were bourgeois. Its clear that somewhere along the line the revolution was perverted but you’re denying all reality if you can look at the words and deeds of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and deduce that they were capitalist.

What did the proletariat look for? Was it a restoration of the monarchy? Was the revolution in support of capitalism? Of course not. The workers of Russia were looking for an end to wage slavery. Contrast with the revolutionaries of France who were calling for a liberal Republic.


Russia today has a large proletariat. According to MIM (whom you sort of agree with) and MIM's "calculations", the Russian proletariat is still exploited (they produce surplus value) despite Russia being an Imperialist country. I suspect this applies to China too.

Therefore why (in your opinion) hasn't the Russian proletariat (which isn't "bought off") been capable of self rule despite a few opportunities? ....why in fact does the Russian proletariat of today look like it is quite a while off the possibility of self rule?

I know what my answer is and how I came about it, but I'd be interested to hear your answer as Russia (if you were right) would be "ripe" for proletarian revolution.
I suspect that proletariat of Russia today is somewhat closer to revolution than that in the West. The miserable living conditions dictate that this must be the case. Russia has essentially, despite what you may think about the USSR creating modern capitalism, been thrown back to gangster capitalism – a stage where class antagonisms are much clearer.

Unfortunately the legacy of Soviet rule will take a few decades to wash away. As long as the workers associate communism with Marxist-Leninism it will be difficult to see real progress in that regard.

But the real crux of the matter is that Russia today is an imperialist country. There’s no getting away from that. Russia is not China – it is not a source of cheap labour and its workers are not being exploited by Western firms, certainly not on the same scale as the Asian nations.


By electing educated delegates?
Unless you have a detailed class breakdown of the makeup of the Soviets that doesn’t hold much weight. The Soviets were the representatives of the worker committees – short of getting every worker in the country to visit Petrograd and vote they represented the will of the workers.


I found this comment most amusing. Especially from someone who dismisses Paris of 68' as a "change in Imperialism".

How is it that when workers occupied factories (spontaneously) that is a "change in Imperialism", but when workers march under a "Red Banner for socialism" ("Land, Peace and Bread") they are a class ready to rule itself?
Did I really use the term “change in Imperialism”? That doesn't sound like me... or make a huge amount of sense. That's the problem with these threads - your thoughts get scattered over a dozen small points :huh:

Paris ’68 was a flash in the pan. The proletariat of the day were perfectly capable of ruling but they chose not to.

The proletariat in Russia had effectively being governing themselves for months before October through the Soviets.


The peasantry was "ignorant", but a semi-literate (at best) working class was ready to rule society?
They were capable of ruling themselves. In that task they should be measured up against the rulers of the time. Were the workers of Russia capable of ruling themselves better than the Tsars or Provisional Government? Considering the rank incompetence of those “superior classes” the answer can only be yes.


You mean Russia creating modern Capitalism.
Without the mass industrialisation of the five year plans? They might have reached the level of Mexico by now.


Quite frankly, it is unlikely a Menshivik (for instance) Government would have "watched Russia collapse around them", they were intelligent bourgeois revolutionaries. The Anarchists if they had got power, would have in all likelihood done something similar to the NEP and we would have seen a Anarchist Stalin.
Intelligent Mensheviks saving Russia from collapse? These were the fools who had led it there in the first place! Or at least held the door open for the bourgeoisie.

Regardless of the Bolsheviks, the government was going to fall. The only question was to whom.


Rather I think a bourgeois revolution in a country like Russia (with its vast resources and land) would have done well had a semi competent bourgeois come to power in 1917.
Possibly. But the sheer stupidity of the bourgeoisie that they did get leads me to doubt this.


Of course there were "pockets of Capitalism", but Russia was still overwhelmingly a feudal nation. A bourgeois revolution was all that could happen.
And within two decades the peasantry had almost disappeared. The workers were present, they had reached the required levels of class consciousness and organisation, the ruling classes were greatly weakened… all the required conditions for revolution. As Lenin and co found out however appeasing the peasants proved to be too difficult a task for Soviet Democracy.


You suggested the message of the Russian populace was explicitly revolutionary. I merely pointed out that early on the message of a pre revolutionary populace is rarely revolutionary, they still think within the limits of what already exists.
A desire for revolutionary change starts out as general discontent with the material conditions and a wish to change this situation using the available structures and ideals. However for revolution to occur there must be a pretty good idea amongst the proletariat about what post-revolutionary society will look like. No body likes jumping into the unknown. In France they argued for decades before 1789 about what life after the King would be life. It is only when people are convinced that this new society is better than their current lot that revolution can occur. Naturally this becomes easier as the current situation deteriorates.

Over time the perceptions of society and where its going will change. How many of those French thinkers could have foreseen what modern capitalism?


The revolutionary message of the bourgeois was incredibly complicated. It mixed in all kinds of new methods of innovation and that call was not "radical change" for "radical change[s]" sake, rather "radical change" because without it human society wouldn't be able to advance.

Do you think the revolutionary message of the proletariat will be any less complicated? ....or rather do you think the proletarian message will be "Land, Peace and Bread"?
Come revolution the messages are very simple. In France it was to simply do away with the King. No doubt the intellectuals had plenty of grand phrases but in the end you are either with the old regime or the new one. Very simple and it fits on a banner.

Lenin and the other leading theorists of his day wrote extensively on what post-Tsarist Russia would look like. None of those works serve as particularly “catchy” chants or slogans however.


More like the overthrow of the Tsar and the landed aristocracy. By all accounts the bourgeois were probably reasonably liked, without them the Russian workers would still be enduring the miseries of peasant life.
Are these the same accounts that tell you that the proletariat of Petrograd were sitting around twiddling their thumbs in October?


Which part of "Land, Peace and Bread" was that? ....certainly the smashing up of landed estates was a "big thing", but if the revolutionary message was really for democratic control over the means of production, there would have been uproar (possibly even pitched battles) when the mass nationalisations took place. However, they were seen as a good thing (mostly).
I suggest you actually read some of Lenin’s works published prior to the revolution rather than relying on slogans.


Indeed the Russian working class even surrendered its Unions, why would such a revolutionary class do that?
I believe that the standard line in the Soviet Union was that the workers had no need for unions – they already owned everything ;)

But unions are organisations that grow out of conflict with the capitalists. I don’t see a need for them in socialism, which was obviously what the Russia proletariat expected to get. After all, why give up the unions if you expect to see just another form of capitalism?


That's bordering on revolutionary (Communist revolutionary), but the Soviets were still representative, not direct. Indeed they sort of resemble all the "Municipal" stuff with local councils in Britain during the 19th century.
You’re extremely hard to please you know :rolleyes:

Its impossible to build socialist structures within capitalism, hence the need for revolution. Didn’t you say something along those lines yourself in this thread – that most structures will be decided post revolution? The Soviets were as democratic a structure as the conditions in pre-Revolution Russia allowed.


Well that was (mainly) a Peasant message, the Peasantry was the main source of conscripts.

However, an end to a war is not a revolutionary message. The people who marched on London to try and stop the Iraq War were not ready to pull down the state.
On its own, not particularly. Though I suspect that railing, and agitating, against nationalist wars was far more revolutionary a century ago when those actions usually got you shot.

It is however a prerequisite for communists and it was not made in isolation. There was always “peace and bread” as well ;)

-----

I couldn’t help but notice a point or two raised in the discussion with Floyce White…


I'm not any kind of an "expert" on the history of Anarchism. However I'm pretty sure that Anarchism (as a proto-theory) arose in the seventeenth century in opposition to complete Monarchy.

They launched quite a few attacks (mainly assassination attempts) and were no doubt reasonably influential.
Try disastrous. The concept of propaganda by the deed is one of the stupidest strategies ever employed by a revolutionary group. Anarchism still hasn’t fully recovered from it. It’s the primary reason the most prevalent mainstream image of an anarchist is a bomb throwing maniac.


Plus, from what I've read about the political scene in America, the only group of radicals that seem to be doing anything are the various Anarchist groups.
Don’t forget Chairman Bob :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Alas Dear Sir, we have once again stumbled into a debate of great magnitude....


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Have you actually read any of the history on this?[/b]

I have a passing acquaintance with the history, and as ever, I learn as I go along. :)


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)You continue to cling to the idea that a small cadre of intellectuals simply overthrew the entire Russian state.[/b]

I don't think I have ever said "a small cadre of intellectuals simply overthrew the entire Russian state" (though it could be argued that that is what some post-Lenin Leninists suggest should happen).

What I have said is that a (relatively) small, well organised and well equipped group seized control of the Russian State. It is perhaps the model of all non-Communist revolutions. First the people overthrow the tyrants, then some other people come along and install themselves as new tyrants.

It is (probably) all that is allowed by material reality in these cases. A great shame, no doubt, unstoppable? ....probably yes.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
If nothing else surely the mere fact that the Bolsheviks, and other radical groups, enjoyed such support proves that the proletariat of 1917 desired change?

Well all the "radical" groups were making brilliant promises. It's not hard to see why they had "support".

However I am inclined to remind you that how much (or little) "support" a group has, means little when describing what they actually did.

Of course history is subjective, therefore the terms we use to describe historical events usually depict how successful they were. Churchill's pact with Hitler is viewed as a "mistake", Stalin's as a vindication of his "devilry".

Personally I'm inclined to view each pact as the respective ruling classes attempting to maintain their national interest.

Therefore, as I said earlier the "October Revolution" can be described as a popular coup if you wish, though it was a coup all the same.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Revolution – proletarian revolution - would’ve almost certainly arrived in Russia before the end of 1917.

The "crystal ball" seems to be working well today. However those of us constrained by historical materialism are inclined to look at things more objectively.

Quite simply (despite your ramblings) proletarian revolution (in any meaningful sense) was impossible in Russia in 1917. To assert otherwise (especially with the benefit of hindsight) is idealist drivel.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
What I cannot see is why you insist that every revolution will consist of the people rising up, staging a nice picturesque protest and then strolling into the government buildings.

That, as you well know, is not what I have said.

If you wish to erect scaffolds out of twigs and then proceed to knock them down, I'm not going to attempt to stop you. I'll just decline from replying.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The proletariat will do as their told and wait until you give the signal, then everyone rushes the capitalists and you’re drinking sherbet in Westminister by the evening.

Here comes that almighty scaffold of twigs again.

How exactly have you managed to present this observation from the paragraphs you quoted? ....indeed it is often a criticism of the "Ultra-Left" that they decline from wanting to order and direct the working class. Indeed I believe MIM asks the question....

"What revolutions have they [the "Ultra-Left"] led???"

To which I would happily reply none.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is foolish to try and predict exactly when or what form a revolution will take.

The exact details, yes.... but what about the "big picture"? ....should we not set certain standards before we start calling something a (proletarian) revolution? ....shouldn't one of those "standards" be that the proletariat rises up and at least attempts to take power for itself?

Of course we could decline in trying to label any social phenomena and just accept everything at "face value". Perhaps Post-Modernism would appeal to you? :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
By this I mean that it was a worker’s revolution that aimed to abolish capitalism and create the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You say things like this, and yet you accuse me of ignoring history. :o


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You’ll be hard pressed to find many who claim that the October Revolution was a success.

There's a couple in this thread.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As to why it failed… have I mentioned that the peasants made up the vast bulk of the population?

Not an adequate answer in my opinion.

The workers in the cities could have sustained themselves for a while. Therefore I'd appreciate it if you addressed my questions again, particularly how did the workers (who were successful) ended up with less power post revolution?

Another question that what brought up by someone else earlier is that if a "Workers, Peasants (and toiling artists?)" democracy had formed. Why didn't we see the influence of the Peasant class more?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is preposterous to claim that because the USSR was state capitalist the Bolsheviks were bourgeois.

"Ground control to Major Marx!" :lol:

If you have Capitalism, you have a bourgeois. Or did Marx get that one wrong???


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Its clear that somewhere along the line the revolution was perverted

I don't know when I'll get through to you on this one. The revolution was not "perverted" or any other twaddle. It was actually rather successful in doing what it was supposed to do.

A soldier who rapes and kills has not been "perverted", he is doing what is expected of him as a professional killer.

You are what you do and "what you [can] do" is dictated by material reality.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
but you’re denying all reality if you can look at the words and deeds of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and deduce that they were capitalist.

Well the "words" mean little (rhetoric is rhetoric). The "deeds" however are obvious pointers as to what the Bolshevik's were....

What type of people suppress Unions?
What type of people beg for foreign capital to sure up their economy?
What type of people positively dislike the idea of workers control of industry?

You should know what I am referring too and what type of people do these things.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
What did the proletariat look for?

Well this is essentially an unknowable question. However what one wants, actually has little impact on what one gets.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The workers of Russia were looking for an end to wage slavery.

Again I don't know what to make of this. The evidence (the Russian proletariat accepting wage slavery) would suggest your assertion is not correct.

However you seem happy to decide your opinions on history based on the whims and wants of people, not what actually happened. What's worse is that you call this interpretation "Marxism". :o


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I suspect that proletariat of Russia today is somewhat closer to revolution than that in the West.

Well we'll have to wait and see on that one, but there doesn't seem to be anything more happening in Russia that's not happening in the West. Indeed the most militant working classes seem to be residing in France and South Korea.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But the real crux of the matter is that Russia today is an imperialist country.

Yes I thought you'd invoke your "get out clause".

However as I pointed out even MIM acknowledge that the Russian working class still produces surplus value, in other words they're not "bought off" by Imperialism and therefore the Imperialism excuse is not valid.

So either you are to the right of MIM (and think Russian workers are "parasitic") or you have to think of another reason. Which is it?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Russia is not China

Obviously.

However Russia is still a cesspit of human misery (the cold there is killing tens of people) and therefore (if your views of proletarian revolution are correct) it should be nearing the point of proletarian revolution.

Also I should ask why China isn't close to proletarian revolution? ....there is a huge proletariat in China, they aren't "bought off" according to MIM (I think) and therefore they too should be close to revolution. Why aren't they?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Unless you have a detailed class breakdown of the makeup of the Soviets that doesn’t hold much weight.

Doesn't (really) matter. You are what you do, therefore if you are a "manager", you act like one, despite which class you're from.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Did I really use the term “change in Imperialism”?

I'm sure you said it somewhere, here's what I did find....


Originally posted by ComradeOm+ Nov 9 2005, 12:41 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Nov 9 2005, 12:41 PM)I’ve always seen Paris ’68 as more of a symptom of that decades swing against the establishment. It was a brief and glorious stand against the state but I don’t think there was any real possibility of a socialist state forming.[/b]

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42349&st=50&hl=paris).


ComradeOm
The proletariat of the day were perfectly capable of ruling but they chose not to.

If you hadn't emphasised "chose", then I would have. I think it really underlines the way you look at history, for history (in your eyes) is a matter of "choices" it seems and therefore history can be broken down into "good" and "bad" choices.

Lenin "chose" to take power.... good choice.
The Party "chose" Stalin.... bad choice.
The proletariat of Paris "chose" not to rule.... bad choice.

It no doubt goes on.... and on. Objective material conditions seem to have no role in your conclusions, though the ignorance of the peasantry is sometimes brought up.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Were the workers of Russia capable of ruling themselves better than the Tsars or Provisional Government?

I think that their ruling was limited in the first place. However such a judgement would be difficult to make.

The Tsar was obviously incapable of ruling any more, but the working class only "ruled" for a short period of time (as did the Provisional Government). Based on this drawing definite conclusions would be virtually impossible, though looking at other countries suggests that the Provisional Government would have been capable rulers.

Another question you should ask yourself is that if the Russian working class were such competent rulers, why did they let all power slip away so quickly?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Considering the rank incompetence of those “superior classes” the answer can only be yes.

Okay that's your answer, so why didn't it happen?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Without the mass industrialisation of the five year plans? They might have reached the level of Mexico by now.

So what? ....the Bolshevik's were competent rulers (plus they had a lot of resources to play with).

Stalin's "5 year plans" were a success in many ways, they undid some of Lenin's damage for a start. However I see no reason to "hail" primitive capital accumulation as anything other than what it was.... the beginning of Capitalism.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Intelligent Mensheviks saving Russia from collapse? These were the fools who had led it there in the first place! Or at least held the door open for the bourgeoisie.

For a start, the Menshivik's (like the Bolshevik's) were the bourgeois. Had they got into power they would have become a bold ruling class, not the "sideline" bourgeois they turned out to be.

Secondly, it is rather amusing that the Menshink's who wanted to start creating modern Capitalism in 1917 are "fools". Where as Lenin who only caught on in 1923 was a great theoretician.

As I said, history is very subjective.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But the sheer stupidity of the bourgeoisie that they did get leads me to doubt this.

Well Lenin was part of that bourgeois. Was he "stupid" too? :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
all the required conditions for revolution.

Your requirements for revolution seem fairly simplistic....

No "bastard" peasants.... tick.
Lots of proletarians.... tick.
Support for someone claiming to be Communists from the proletariat.... tick.

Revolution! :lol:

My "tick list" is a lot longer.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Very simple and it fits on a banner.

Yes it is, if you want people to follow.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Lenin and the other leading theorists of his day wrote extensively on what post-Tsarist Russia would look like. None of those works serve as particularly “catchy” chants or slogans however.

You see Lenin was writing for his audience (the emerging bourgeois). The same way the French revolutionaries wrote for their audience.

However, when the real proletarian revolutions happen, there will be writing by proletarians for proletarians. It won't be a matter of simple chants and phrases, most proletarians will have a certain degree of theoretical and philosophical insight into what they are doing.

When the proletariat starts doing what the emerging bourgeois did (and there are signs of this starting to happen) then we will know that revolution is around the corner.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I suggest you actually read some of Lenin’s works published prior to the revolution rather than relying on slogans.

I have read some of Lenin's works both pre and post revolution. None of them really impress me.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I believe that the standard line in the Soviet Union was that the workers had no need for unions – they already owned everything

Yes, well we know how "reliable" "standard lines" are. :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
After all, why give up the unions if you expect to see just another form of capitalism?

Well there was some resistance to the Bolshevik's policy of destroying the Unions. However there wasn't nearly enough.

However this again begs a question of some importance. If the Russian working class was a revolutionary and conscious as you assert, why did they give up their Unions so easily? ....were they "duped" or what?

Plus, if they were "duped" how does this "sit" with your suggestion that the Russian working class was ready for self rule. They can't have been that ready, ay?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You’re extremely hard to please you know

I know. I am a Communist, therefore I want Communism. Anything less would be a failure.


[email protected]
Didn’t you say something along those lines yourself in this thread – that most structures will be decided post revolution?

Yes I did. Some structures could arise during the revolutions, but most will be built afterwards.


ComradeOm
The concept of propaganda by the deed is one of the stupidest strategies ever employed by a revolutionary group.

Well as I said, I'm no "expert" on the history of Anarchism. However "Propaganda by the deed" (I didn't know it was called that) seems a reasonable strategy depending on the deed.

The KPD's "deeds" were incredibly good propaganda in my opinion. I actually wish they'd carried out more "deeds". Direct action (often very militant) appeals to me as an effective and useful strategy.

[Floyce White]

The Anarchist Tension: "If, as you contest, you are so experienced in activism and knowledgeable on the subject of revolutionary leftwing political theory, how have you missed out the 150 years of anarchist thinkers and their ideas?"

You seem to forget that the Internet didn't exist until the late '90s. Except for a few classics that can be found in most big libraries, I read this material afterwards. I "missed out" because activists weren't reading or discussing this material.

The Anarchist Tension: "I find that hard to believe, and even if it were true, so what? Maybe you should broaden your sphere of activism?

"The activist world is a very big one, and maybe it's possible that anarchists didn't want to work with these apparent selfless and dedicated socialists."

I had already helped build over a thousand events of many different types before you were ever born. If there had been anarchist activism, I would have seen it. "No it's not" and "so what?" are uncomradely, sophomoric responses.

The Anarchist Tension: "You're a single human being in the great expanse of humanity."

"The great expanse of humanity" didn't attend events and get called on phone lists, weren't the new faces at protests that I made a point of meeting and talking to, weren't remembered by me as a person I handed a leaflet to and then attended an event, didn't run across me at parties or concerts, etc. Only a non-activist or barely-active newbie would make such a remark.

Political work is a form of work that can be learned and mastered. One part of political work is becoming knowledgeable of the activist base in the metropolitan area, of their views and memberships, and of the local activist history. This process can be done completely and methodically when you work with others. Apparently, you don't know this.

Armchair Socialism: "They launched quite a few attacks (mainly assassination attempts) and were no doubt reasonably influential.

"That's a "past influence" that beats Marxism now doesn't it?"

It is non-sequitor to say that I must have been familiar with the theoretical writings of anarchist authority figures--and that these writings must have been of significant influence to me--merely because I knew that Lenin's brother was executed for participating in an anarchist plot to kill the Czar, or because I knew that a vulgar definition of "anarchism" is "bomb throwers."

Do you understand what "non-sequitor" means? It means that your conclusion does not follow from the argument you make. Do you understand that you're wasting others' reading time when you post illogical remarks? Same with your extremely verbose posts. People won't take you seriously and will stop reading your posts if you continue this way.

Armchair Socialism: "Well even if your statement was accurate, the size and experience of a movement doesn't really matter. It's what they do.

"Those 'scattered' Socialist groups you mentioned, are mostly either organising support for bourgeois liberals or standing for elections themselves."

First, very few socialist groups have the ability to get on the ballot for many elections in the US. There are requirements for candidates that never got more than 5% or 7% or so of the vote to gather large numbers of signatures of registered voters within a few weeks. Those that do, are sometimes arbitrarily ruled ineligible to be on the ballot due to legal challenges to the quality of their petitions. Didn't you know that? American socialists are somewhat more activist-oriented and less election-oriented than socialists in other countries, in part because of these severe ballot restrictions. The ISO, counterpart to the British SWP, was widely criticized as opportunist for its participation in the Green Party Ralph Nader presidential campaign. It split afterwards.

Second, are you aware that the whole civil-disobedience thing was done to death in the '70s anti-nuclear movement, and that today's anti-globalization activists are being deliberately herded down a dead end that is already well known to the "leaders?" Yes? It is truly "radical" to never care or even think to find out if this activity has been tried in the past, isn't it? "Experience...doesn't matter?" Hah! Today's anarchist activism is no different from what some impatient radical-liberals and socialists did way back when. With no difference in "what they do," it comes back to: "were there actually any of them around" and "how much experience did they have--if any?"

Armchair Socialism: "In this respect a piece called 'The Poverty of Philosophy' springs to mind, perhaps Anarchism has had some 'impact'?"

That is an extremely dishonest remark. Marx wrote that as a scorching criticism of The Philosophy of Poverty--not because he was won over to it.

Armchair Socialism: "There you have a group of Left-Communists and Anarchists 'merging' their work. Is that good enough for you?"

Do you know that Left Communism ended as a movement in the 1940s in Italy? Do you know that there are only about 10 persons who label themselves as "left communists" today in Southern California (population 30 million)? That all of them do so because of current Internet contacts and not because of any history of Left Communism here? More people live in my apartments than are on the entire mailing list of the biggest of these groups.

No matter. The article you site (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/marx_critique.htm) is from a link on John Gray Web Site (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/index.html) to the now-defunct Subversion (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/) site. It is a document by John Crump, August 27, 1975, and the comment of Mike Ballard, with some socialist critiques of Marx and Lenin. Nowhere in the document is there any reference to anarchism or anarchists--much less any suggestion that anarchist theory might have been influential in defining their anti-state ideas. The ideas it contains seem to be simple rewordings from old Left Communist writings, and of critiques of Marx as being a bourgeois revolutionary.

So this is the best piece of proof you have of "Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories?" Did Crump ever later say that he was influenced by anarchism when he wrote it? Was this document widely circulated in the US? How was it supposed to have been a factor in the "Marxism" of tens of thousands of American activists such as myself a few years later?

You are really grasping at straws. Why not just admit that you are mistaken?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2006, 08:39 PM
I have a passing acquaintance with the history, and as ever, I learn as I go along. :)
Yes, these discussions are useful in picking up new facts and doing research. But what I want to know is where you are getting this idea that the Bolsheviks acted independently of the proletariat. It would have been impossible for them to succeed with the immediate support of both the Soviets and the proletariat of Russia’s major cities. This is accepted history.


I don't think I have ever said "a small cadre of intellectuals simply overthrew the entire Russian state" (though it could be argued that that is what some post-Lenin Leninists suggest should happen).

What I have said is that a (relatively) small, well organised and well equipped group seized control of the Russian State. It is perhaps the model of all non-Communist revolutions. First the people overthrow the tyrants, then some other people come along and install themselves as new tyrants.
And this emerging class of people were…? Historical materialism does not deal in groups or people, it details the actions of classes. The Bolsheviks either drew support from the proletariat or the bourgeoisie.

Now we both know that the leadership would later divorce themselves from the proletariat when they came into possession of the means of production, but in October the Bolsheviks and the proletariat acted were indivisible.


Well all the "radical" groups were making brilliant promises. It's not hard to see why they had "support".
And what if I were to walk onto the street right now and proclaim that I advocated the overthrow of the state and the installation of a worker government? Promises and rhetoric mean little. The proletariat of 1917 were open and receptive to the Bolsheviks’ “treacherous” talk.


The "crystal ball" seems to be working well today. However those of us constrained by historical materialism are inclined to look at things more objectively.
Its easy to see if you’d simply look through your preconceptions and actually examine the facts. The Germans were en route to the capital, the Imperial Army was virtually non-functioning, a right wing coup attempt had just been beaten back by the people of Petrograd, nationalist sentiment was rapidly rising and the state apparatus was simply rotting away. And that’s without even mentioning the Soviets and revolutionary proletariat, whom you deny existed. Now think for a minute – what are the odds that revolution wouldn’t occur? Either it was revolution or Russia would’ve simply collapsed.


Quite simply (despite your ramblings) proletarian revolution (in any meaningful sense) was impossible in Russia in 1917. To assert otherwise (especially with the benefit of hindsight) is idealist drivel.
You’ll have to excuse the drivel. You see I’m terribly confused about this – here I was thinking that the proletarian revolution actually did occur.


That, as you well know, is not what I have said.

If you wish to erect scaffolds out of twigs and then proceed to knock them down, I'm not going to attempt to stop you. I'll just decline from replying.
Your idea of revolution doesn’t involve a coup, not even a popular one, and it doesn’t involve military action. I somehow get the feeling that you’ve been watching too much footage of those “Colour Revolutions”


The exact details, yes.... but what about the "big picture"? ....should we not set certain standards before we start calling something a (proletarian) revolution? ....shouldn't one of those "standards" be that the proletariat rises up and at least attempts to take power for itself?
Naturally there are minimum standards. Well two really. The revolution must be carried out by a class conscious proletariat. The proletariat must aim for socialism.


You say things like this, and yet you accuse me of ignoring history
You’re telling me that the Russian proletariat didn’t set out to abolish wage slavery?


The workers in the cities could have sustained themselves for a while. Therefore I'd appreciate it if you addressed my questions again, particularly how did the workers (who were successful) ended up with less power post revolution?
Its difficult to work without food you know.

The immediate actions of the Soviet leadership post 1917 were concerned with appeasing the peasants who made up the vast bulk of the population. This was both unavoidable and to the detriment of the workers and progress. Unlike the previous governments, the Soviets were unable to ignore or repress the peasantry, not then at least, for fear of revolution. Ironic.

We all know that peasants have no room in socialism. So without Western revolution and support to compensate Russia was unable to make the transition. This necessitated the destruction of the peasantry, a task that successive governments set about with gusto.


Another question that what brought up by someone else earlier is that if a "Workers, Peasants (and toiling artists?)" democracy had formed. Why didn't we see the influence of the Peasant class more?
Tied in with above. The peasants actually did gain significantly in power, certainly enough to challenge the Soviet leadership on a number of occasions. However the Party leadership was always clear that Russia was to be a Workers State.


If you have Capitalism, you have a bourgeois. Or did Marx get that one wrong???
My mistake. I was differentiating between the Bolsheviks and subsequent rulers of the USSR.


I don't know when I'll get through to you on this one. The revolution was not "perverted" or any other twaddle. It was actually rather successful in doing what it was supposed to do.
Meh. I’ll give you credit for effort at least.


But tell me this. Had the material conditions been hostile to revolution… how did one occur?

What type of people suppress Unions?
What type of people beg for foreign capital to sure up their economy?
What type of people positively dislike the idea of workers control of industry?
Rapid fire answer round.

People who are in the middle of a bloody war.
People who observe historical materialism and are well aware that Russia was backwards.
People who don’t have time to allow the workers to learn through screwing up.


Well this is essentially an unknowable question. However what one wants, actually has little impact on what one gets.
However what one wants is usually what one sets out to get. Unless all those workers were hanging around the streets of Petrograd the morning of Nov 7 for the good of their health?


However you seem happy to decide your opinions on history based on the whims and wants of people, not what actually happened. What's worse is that you call this interpretation "Marxism".
Let me get this straight. You have examined the events of 1917 and deduced that since the result was state capitalism, that was what the proletariat wanted? In the process you ignored all the evidence, all the common sense, that suggests that the Russian proletariat were actually able to think for themselves.


However as I pointed out even MIM acknowledge that the Russian working class still produces surplus value, in other words they're not "bought off" by Imperialism and therefore the Imperialism excuse is not valid.

So either you are to the right of MIM (and think Russian workers are "parasitic") or you have to think of another reason. Which is it?
An excuse being anything other than claiming that the proletariat are too stupid to revolt?

Since when exactly did I care about MIM and their calculations? Russia does not fit easily into any real model but I think its safe to say that Russia is much more like a Western nation then a underdeveloped one. The most obvious indicator being that the jobs are flowing out of the country instead of in.

But if you want a single reason why the Russians don’t revolt then I can’t give it to you and I wouldn’t trust anyone who could. There are a myriad number of factors that come into play.


Also I should ask why China isn't close to proletarian revolution? ....there is a huge proletariat in China, they aren't "bought off" according to MIM (I think) and therefore they too should be close to revolution. Why aren't they?
Another big question with no single answer. The most obvious reason though is that China’s labour pool is still nowhere near exhausted. As there is no shortage of labour the power lies entirely with the capitalist. In a scenario like that it is next to impossible to unionise.


Doesn't (really) matter. You are what you do, therefore if you are a "manager", you act like one, despite which class you're from.
So suddenly everyone who is elected suddenly bourgeois?

I assume that you have an alternative to marching every single worker in Russia up to Petrograd and have them vote on an issue? Soviet Democracy is one you might consider.


If you hadn't emphasised "chose", then I would have. I think it really underlines the way you look at history, for history (in your eyes) is a matter of "choices" it seems and therefore history can be broken down into "good" and "bad" choices.
The proletariat of today could overthrow the capitalists in an instant. So why don’t they? Is it because they are too stupid or because they have decided, on an individual basis, that this capitalism is quite okay thank you very much? A revolution will take place when the material conditions ensure that there is no choice. That’s historical materialism.

In Paris ’68, the workers decided that they did not want this socialism business, just a tweak to capitalism.


looking at other countries suggests that the Provisional Government would have been capable rulers.
They would if they had been the bourgeois of other nations. The Russian bourgeois however were remarkably inefficient. Indeed you could make the case that their rule was even more disastrous than that of the Tsar!


Another question you should ask yourself is that if the Russian working class were such competent rulers, why did they let all power slip away so quickly?
Unfortunately the proletariat of 1917 did not have the wealth of information that we do. They were not to know that relaxing their demands, despite a worker government, was a bad move. Remember that this proletariat was breaking new ground. They were unable to examine and draw conclusions from past revolutions. Indeed both France ’89 and Paris ’71 highlighted the need for a strong revolutionary government!

Well Lenin was part of that bourgeois. Was he "stupid" too?
Remind me again – how many factories did Lenin own :S


Well there was some resistance to the Bolshevik's policy of destroying the Unions. However there wasn't nearly enough.

However this again begs a question of some importance. If the Russian working class was a revolutionary and conscious as you assert, why did they give up their Unions so easily? ....were they "duped" or what?
They Bolsheviks did not “destroy” the unions. The proletariat gave them up, most likely because they believed that these unions were unnecessary. After all, weren’t they in control now? Like I said, hindsight is very useful.


Well as I said, I'm no "expert" on the history of Anarchism. However "Propaganda by the deed" (I didn't know it was called that) seems a reasonable strategy depending on the deed.
“Depending on the deed” is exactly right. Activitism is welcome, assassinating everyone you can get your hands on is madness. I shudder to think that intelligent people once believed that killing a national leader would spark a revolution. Those screwballs gave anarchism a bad name from which it has yet to recover, a remarkable feat in itself. The entire concept lacks even the vaguest comprehension of class struggle or the nature of the state.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Do you understand what "non-sequitor" means?[/b]

No I don't know what "non-sequitor" means, I do know what "non sequitur" means though. :)


Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Same with your extremely verbose posts.[/b]

I'd say if anyone was going to win awards for "extremely verbose" posts, you'd be in the running. You certainly seem to be a very long-winded speaker.


Originally posted by Floyce White
People won't take you seriously and will stop reading your posts if you continue this way.

Well that is their choice. Should people feel my posts a sufficiently useless, they will ignore them (probably without taking any notice of your advice). I'd suspect they may also ask for my restriction or banning. If that's what happens, then that's what happens.

However, it is slightly amusing that you (despite obviously feeling my posts are of little interest) have taken the time to reply to them. Why? :huh:


Originally posted by Floyce White
Didn't you know that?

I'll happily admit that what you have just said came as a (pleasant) surprise. The impression I got about American Socialist groups (mainly from members of those groups on this board) is that either standing in elections themselves, or supporting liberals, is the main focus of their activity.

Being "the other side of the pond" means that I have to work on "impressions". You've just given me a different "impression" about the American activist scene. Therefore when I (occasionally) mention it from now on, I'll be sure to remember what you've said.


Originally posted by Floyce White
....are you aware that the whole civil-disobedience thing was done to death in the '70s anti-nuclear movement

Well I wasn't alive in the 70's, so I can't speak from first hand experience. However the Greenham Common events were (from what I've been told and read) reasonably effective and the CND ("Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament") was also reasonably influential.

I must admit though, I didn't know that these were Anarchist movements as such. I was under the impression that the women of Greenham Common was strongly inspired by the 70's feminist movement and the CND had close ties with the British Labour Party (I think Micheal Foot was a member).


Originally posted by Floyce White
....and that today's anti-globalization activists are being deliberately herded down a dead end that is already well known to the "leaders?"

Is that an objective fact? ....or just your opinion?


Originally posted by Floyce White
It is truly "radical" to never care or even think to find out if this activity has been tried in the past, isn't it?

Well you know people have tried to end wage slavery in the past and failed. Perhaps we should learn from their mistakes and give up all this silly "Ultra-Left" shit? :lol:


Originally posted by Floyce White
Today's anarchist activism is no different from what some impatient radical-liberals and socialists did way back when.

To think you accused me of having "extremely verbose posts". :lol:

I get the impression (from the use of the word "impatient" in your post) that you have a dislike for "Ultra-Lefty's". Plus from your (constant) mentioning of your "experience" within activism, I assume you fancy yourself as a bit of a "big-wig"?

Well, that may endear you to some of the "Bolshevik wannabes", but us "Ultra-Lefty's" aren't really impressed by voices of "experience" telling us what to do.


Originally posted by Floyce White
That is an extremely dishonest remark. Marx wrote that as a scorching criticism of The Philosophy of Poverty--not because he was won over to it.

There's nothing "dishonest" about that remark. I know full well why The Poverty of Philosophy was written and was merely pointing it out as an example of Anarchism having an "impact" (you didn't specify whether that "impact" needed to be positive or negative) on Marxism.


Originally posted by Floyce White
Do you know that Left Communism ended as a movement in the 1940s in Italy?

What about Paris of 68'?


Originally posted by Floyce White
Do you know that there are only about 10 persons who label themselves as "left communists" today in Southern California (population 30 million)?

Wow!

Someones actually polled all of Southern California to find out how many "Left-Communists" lived there. I'm astonished.


Originally posted by Floyce White
Nowhere in the document is there any reference to anarchism or anarchists....

I didn't say there was. What interested me (and I would of thought you) about that site, was this....


Originally posted by Subversion
Some members of Subversion are still politically active. We have joined the Anarchist Federation and are slowly moving the contents of this site over to the Anarchist Federation, Manchester web site. All new texts will be added to this site.

Link (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/index.html).

Which I thought (kinda') backed up this....


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+ Dec 22 2005, 12:49 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 22 2005, 12:49 PM)As I've said I don't think there is much of a disagreement left on these issues and any difference there is, I expect to grow smaller over the coming years. With the Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories, even if they choose not to admit it.[/b]

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44191&st=25).

Especially the last sentence.


ComradeOm
But what I want to know is where you are getting this idea that the Bolsheviks acted independently of the proletariat.

I haven't said (I don't think I have, feel free to correct me) that the Bolshevik's acted "independently" of the Proletariat (or for that matter the Peasantry). What I have said is that the Bolshevik's didn't represent the class interests of the Proletariat.

Again it's useful to talk of 1789. The French Revolutionaries were "supported" by the Peasantry (they didn't act "independently"). However they didn't represent the class interests of the French Peasantry.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And this emerging class of people were…?

The bourgeois.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Bolsheviks either drew support from the proletariat or the bourgeoisie.

They could (and probably did) draw "support" from both. The problem you have is that you confuse "support" with actually representing certain class interests.

Tony Blair is "supported" by both the working class and the bourgeois. He represents the class interests of only one of these classes. Can yu' guess which?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....but in October the Bolsheviks and the proletariat acted were indivisible.

That sounds remarkably similar to the idea of the "Proletariat Ideology" that the Maoists talk about. As in the "Party" says this and the "good proles" think it, otherwise they're not revolutionary.

Anyway whilst looking over the "Subversion" site, I found this and read it again -- The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin. (http://www.af-north.org/Barrot.htm) -- I think it's an interesting look at the effects Kautsky (and Kautskyism) had on Lenin's theoretical contributions. Particularly this....

(The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.)It is also necessary to bring about what Kautsky calls the union of the working class movement and socialism. Now:" Socialist consciousness today (?!) can only arise on the basis of deep scientific knowledge... But, the bearer of science is not the proletariat but the bourgeois intellectuals...so then socialist consciousness is something brought into the class struggle of the proletariat from outside and not something that arises spontaneously within it." These words of Kautsky's are according to Lenin "profoundly true."[/b][/quote]

And....

(The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.)The intellectual, the revolutionary theorist doesn't have to worry about linking up with the masses because if their theory is revolutionary they are already linked to the masses. They don't have to "chose the camp of the proletariat" (it is not Sartre using these terms, it is Lenin) because, properly speaking, they do not have the choice.[/b][/quote]

The first quote is more relevant, but the second one (in my opinion) is really good for two reasons....

1) It outlines a really un-Marxist (and arrogant) view towards class struggle. It doesn't seem to matter (to Lenin) that someone comes from a class that opposes the Proletariat, as long as they have some revolutionary rhetoric ("if their theory is revolutionary they are already linked to the masses") then they are revolutionaries.

Lenin (and Marx too to a lesser extent) seems rather oblivious to the detrimental consequences of accepting the class enemy into "camp of the proletariat".

The reason Lenin does this, is in my opinion to try and justify his own involvement in the working class movement. Nothing wrong with that, but that's how we should view it (from the position of its class interests).

2) I think the quote sort of shows the bourgeois "nature" of the Russian Revolution. During bourgeois revolutions the masses (the Peasantry in particular) need "outside" help.

Again reflecting the material reality of what was happening in Russia in 1917.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Promises and rhetoric mean little.

Not on their own obviously, the material conditions that make the rhetoric "acceptable" (i.e. times of "turbulence") must be there.

However as I've said, the Bolshevik's "treacherous" talk was (in my opinion) not especially "treacherous" (when compared with todays standards) and a lot of it "hinted" at what was actually happening, a bourgeois revolution.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Either it was revolution or Russia would’ve simply collapsed.

Pure speculation.

A second bourgeois revolution could have taken place under those circumstances, however I think a Bonaparte coup (which was in essence what happened) was far more likely.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....here I was thinking that the proletarian revolution actually did occur.

Okay, lets take that statement at "face value". In October a "proletarian revolution [....] did occur".

How did this revolution then fail so quietly? ....answer these questions....

1) When did the revolution fail?
2) How did it fail?
3) Why wasn't there any (significant) uprising from the proletariat against this failure?

Question 3 is the most important, but the answers to questions 1 and 2 are important before we can begin to look into question 3.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Your idea of revolution doesn’t involve a coup, not even a popular one, and it doesn’t involve military action. I somehow get the feeling that you’ve been watching too much footage of those “Colour Revolutions”

My idea of proletarian revolution, in its simplest form, is that the working class (as a class) rises up and (violently) overthrows the bourgeois and then sets up organs of self control.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Naturally there are minimum standards. Well two really.

Well lets have a look at those "minimum standards"....


Originally posted by Standard 1
The revolution must be carried out by a class conscious proletariat.

Was the "October Revolution" carried out by a "class conscious proletariat"? ....or by members of the Bolshevik Party under the command of the upper circles?


Originally posted by Standard 2
The proletariat must aim for socialism.

What does "aim for socialism" entail? ....does it mean simply "supporting" a Party that calls itself Socialist? ....or actually not settling for anything less than Socialism?

Also, if the Russian working class was "aim[ing] for socialism" (and not just better rulers) why did they (collectively) settle for such a poor substitute?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You’re telling me that the Russian proletariat didn’t set out to abolish wage slavery?

Well they accepted wage slavery rather happily now didn't they?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The immediate actions of the Soviet leadership post 1917 were concerned with appeasing the peasants who made up the vast bulk of the population.

Okay, but why did the proletariat (which if there was a proletarian revolution was now the ruling class) do this "appeasing" by giving away its own control? ....they could have "appeased" the Peasantry and set up organs of worker control.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Unlike the previous governments, the Soviets were unable to ignore or repress the peasantry....

Well they could and they did "repress" the Peasantry.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
So without Western revolution and support to compensate Russia was unable to make the transition.

The Revolution failing because there wasn't "Western support", is (in my opinion) a baseless assumption.

Europe had just gone through a World War, meaning they wouldn't have been able to give "support" and even if they had been able, Russia still would have had to go through the Capitalist epochs of production which create a bourgeois.

The most notable epoch being "Primitive Capital Accumulation", which I seriously doubt could ever be done "democratically".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The peasants actually did gain significantly in power....

Huh? :huh:

By 1930 they were being actively "liquidated" as a class. If they'd had any power they would have really opposed this, and in all likelihood Russia would have become some king of strange Peasant State.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
However the Party leadership was always clear that Russia was to be a Workers State.

Yes, but by the time of the NEP, the nail had been firmly put in the coffin on that one.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I was differentiating between the Bolsheviks and subsequent rulers of the USSR.

Well the name Bolshevik wasn't removed until 1953 (I think). So who were the (real) Bolshevik's? ....and why weren't the rest Bolshevik's?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’ll give you credit for effort at least.

:)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Rapid fire answer round.

Okay....

Q: [i]What type of people suppress Unions?
A: People who are in the middle of a bloody war.

Yet, what is the point of winning a war if you destroy (yourself) what you are fighting to save?

Q: What type of people beg for foreign capital to sure up their economy?
A: People who observe historical materialism and are well aware that Russia was backwards.

You don't necessarily need to "observe historical materialism", just notice that material reality makes it impossible to create a Socialist society.

Q: What type of people positively dislike the idea of workers control of industry?
A: People who don’t have time to allow the workers to learn through screwing up.

Yet, how is it that a revolutionary and class conscious working class (as you contest) was so incompetent? ....a revolutionary class knows how to rule society.
_____

However, you didn't answer what type of people (what class of people) do these things? ....begins with a "b" and ends with an "e".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
However what one wants is usually what one sets out to get.

Probably true.

However, if the Russian working class "want[ed]" Socialism, why did they settle (so happily) for the shitty deal they actually "got"?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You have examined the events of 1917 and deduced that since the result was state capitalism, that was what the proletariat wanted?

Not on that alone.

I have based my conclusion on the fact that the Russian working class accepted State Capitalism (and new rulers) so happily. If I (or you) fought in a revolution to overthrow Capitalism and then got State Capitalism, don't you think we'd object? ....violently.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Since when exactly did I care about MIM and their calculations?

Well you agree (mostly) with their conclusions.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Russia does not fit easily into any real model but I think its safe to say that Russia is much more like a Western nation then a underdeveloped one.

People can't even afford heating (and food) in Russia. It is a cesspit of human misery....


Originally posted by BBC News
More than 50 people have died in Russia since Arctic cold swept across the country last week.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4643718.stm).

That (generally) doesn't happen in the advanced Capitalist nations.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But if you want a single reason why the Russians don’t revolt then I can’t give it to you....

Yet the "Theory of Imperialism" is a good enough theory to explain why other countries haven't revolted?

By the way, did you see the thread on Hilferding? ....I think Lenin was influenced way too much by the Social Democrats. Shame. :(


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As there is no shortage of labour the power lies entirely with the capitalist.

You mean there's a "vast army of the unemployed"?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
So suddenly everyone who is elected suddenly bourgeois?

Elected for what? ....if they "elected to manage", then they become "managers". You are what you do.

I've always liked this.... The Socialist ABC (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/int/abc.htm)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I assume that you have an alternative to marching every single worker in Russia up to Petrograd and have them vote on an issue?

Well for todays world I do.... the Internet.

However that wasn't around back then, so it couldn't be done. You know there's definitely something to that whole "epochs of production" thing. :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
A revolution will take place when the material conditions ensure that there is no choice. That’s historical materialism.

More specifically when Capitalism has been exhausted and therefore a revolution is required for humanity to progress.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In Paris ’68, the workers decided that they did not want this socialism business, just a tweak to capitalism.

Alright if that's your answer, explain this....

How is it possible (within the historical materialist paradigm) for a working class in a country where the forces of production are far nearer being "exhausted" to just want a "tweak to capitalism".

Yet a working class in another country where those same forces of production have only just come into existence, be genuinely revolutionary?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Russian bourgeois however were remarkably inefficient.

So were the French bourgeois and they had to rely on a "strong man". The case could be made that it was the same with Russia.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
They were not to know that relaxing their demands, despite a worker government, was a bad move.

They should have put up one hell of a fight once they realised they fucked up though. Why didn't they?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Remind me again – how many factories did Lenin own

Remind me again - what was Lenin's profession?


[email protected]
The proletariat gave them up, most likely because they believed that these unions were unnecessary. After all, weren’t they in control now?

That's a strange version of class struggle.

Anyway, we know the proletariat weren't in control. So why did they give them up?


ComradeOm
I shudder to think that intelligent people once believed that killing a national leader would spark a revolution.

It can "spark" a war.

[Floyce White]

Armchair Socialism: "What interested me (and I would of thought you) about that site, was this....

Armchair Socialism (quoting Subversion): "Some members of Subversion are still politically active. We have joined the Anarchist Federation and are slowly moving the contents of this site over to the Anarchist Federation, Manchester web site. All new texts will be added to this site."

Then your argument is that this dying-out rivulet of the New Left amid the vast sectarianism of the British left was an admixture of various anarchists, "Marxists," and other leftists, and of their sometimes divergent, sometimes convergent, often-changing views. A few of its "Marxist" members may have been influenced in vague and unspecified ways by anarchists, who themselves may have previously been influenced by the mass of European "Marxists." Together, they had a tiny influence on a few thousand others through their publications.

Pretty scanty evidence for your sweeping generalization that "Marxists" are influenced by anarchism--much less any reason to smear fellow activists as being so dishonest that "they choose not to admit." All the worse that you have no firsthand experience to discuss, but disparage mine.

Your nickname fits perfectly.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Together, they had a tiny influence on a few thousand others through their publications.[/b]

I'm pretty sure that the "Anarchist Federation" is one of (if not the) largest Anarchist groups in Britain. So they have some influence.

Plus I suspect that they'll become more influential over the coming years as the working class becomes more revolutionary and more militant.


Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Pretty scanty evidence for your sweeping generalization that "Marxists" are influenced by anarchism....[/b]

Well I said they "come to accept" Anarchist theories on the state, in particular a highly centralised state.

This of course, doesn't mean that they will have been "influenced" by Anarchism. Just that they will arrive at a point where a decentralised state (if it could be called a state at all) will be seen as both practical and preferable.


Floyce [email protected]
All the worse that you have no firsthand experience to discuss, but disparage mine.

Well I'm not aware of any posts I've made on here where I've talked about what I do in the "real world". So your assumption is baseless.

However, I am (most likely) considerably younger than yourself and therefore I don't think it would shock anyone that I have less "firsthand experience".

Though what I suspect (and mentioned in my last post) is that you're annoyed that I'm not "in awe" of your "experience".

Well thats not going to change, I don't bow down to anyone, especially not grumpy old farts. :)


Floyce White
Your nickname fits perfectly.

Yes it has been mentioned before that I don't exactly possess the "zeal of Guevara". :lol:

[Floyce White]

Armchair Socialism: "I'm pretty sure that the 'Anarchist Federation' is one of (if not the) largest Anarchist groups in Britain. So they have some influence."

You posted a link to a 1975 document from the now-defunct group Subversion, linked from the never-updated, now-defunct John Gray Web Site. I said "dying-out rivulet of the New Left." How could you have mistaken this remark to have been about anything other than "some members of Subversion" over the years? Are you really being honest by suggesting that the Anarchist Federation in 2006 was the "Marxists" that we were discussing all along?

Armchair Socialism: "...you fancy yourself as a bit of a 'big-wig'...grumpy old farts."

I point out mistakes in your argument, you use name-calling. Are you really being honest by trying to distract from the issue?

Armchair Socialism: "Though what I suspect (and mentioned in my last post) is that you're annoyed that I'm not 'in awe' of your 'experience.'"

You repeated a myth that is widely asserted by anarchists: that any anti-state theory is "acceptance of the anarchist theories." Since I am not a history or social science professor, I can show credibility for my opinion to the contrary only by showing that I have actually been an activist for long enough to know what I'm talking about. I admitted the limitations of my experience.

Anybody could make any assertion about "what Marxism is" or "what Marxists think." You did. You have not backed up your assertion with any theoretical arguments or with any practical experiences of your own. Are you really being honest by whining about what you HAVE NOT posted?

You have failed to support your assertions of "Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories" and that "they choose not to admit it." These assertions remain false.

You have not yet admitted making a mistake. You have not yet corrected your error. You have not yet criticized yourself for using dishonest methods to avoid admitting a mistake. You have not yet checked up on your other writing to see if you made the same mistake before, and corrected the conclusions drawn from that mistaken premise. And you have not yet apologized for making uncomradely remarks. A communist would do those things. What will you do?

[rebelworker]

Just a few random thoughts on North America...

Firstly, sadly there is no real anarchist infastructure in North America that dates back from before the 80's.

There are imporatant reasons for that, firstly I think its important to say that at the turn of the last century(not six years ago) Anarchism was a much larger political tendacy than marxism( this was an international reality). This changed drastically after the Russian revolution. Most anarchist groups litterally emptied out into newly forming communist parties (also true in most regions internationally with the exception of most of the spanish speaking world).

This happend due to major organisational problems in the existing anarchist movment and the apperant "sucess" of the Bolshevik model.

Most honest working class revolutionaries will now agree that the bolshevik model was not in fact a "sucess", at least in relation to the liberation of the working class.

I beleive that Nestor Mahkno and other exiles in france got the ball rolling for a critique of the organisational failures of anarchism(lets totaly write off the assasination crowd) but this has really only affected North American anarchism in the last 10 years(as opposed to spain in the late 30's, too late for it to do any good, and in latin america in the 60's and 70's, which leaves Uraguay and Brasil with some of the largest and well organised anarchist currents active today).

In the US, anarchism never recovered from its numerical losses during the important period of radicalisation that took place in the 60's(although SDS and SNCC were originally structured on a more democratic model loser to anarchism than lenenism).

It would follow than just by weight of existing organisations, tradition and infastructure, most militants born of this period would be drawn to marxism(also anti imperialist movements of the time were influenced by Leninism, for the same reasons internationally as I have mentioned in the USA). Also what little anarchist practice was active in this period was very sad and totaly counter cultural(the diggers and the Up against the wall mothefuckers/black mask group represented the most influencial/working class strands of this), not very usefull to social movment activists/organisers.

What is intersting to state, is that Anarchism began to re emerge somwhat organically at the end of the sixties due to many peoples negative experiences with authoritarian Marxism.

Outside of the conversion of much of the SWP youth wing to anarchism in the mid 70's(some memebrs are still active in the anarchist movement today; outside of a few Spanish Vets, they represent "anarchist tradition" today) the other major area of anarchist conversion has been former Black Panthers, almost all of whom were converted in prison(In the 80's anarchists serriously began doing prisoner support work which has now grown into the Anarchist Black Cross) This has led to some small "people of color" only groups and the Anarchist People of Color web Page/Network. http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/

Anarchism is now starting to be relevant again(after a short 70 year break) but the infastructure and organisations have still not caught up to the marxist who have a serrious head start. Many of us who are now active building these groups were originally in marxist groups. I think in the next few years we will see anarchist groups large enough to be first points of contact within social movements that will allow anarchism to once again be the dominant ideology of struggle.

Again a major factor for this has been the "platformist" tradition, started by the publishing of "the organisational platform of the libertarian communists" as a critique of the failures of the anarchist movement during the russian revolution, in building a pro political organisational tradition within anarchism(known as especifismo in latin america). http://nefac.net/node/544

All in all, class struggle anarchism is really only well established in the north east of the US and Quebec(where it is by far the largest revolutionary current, not coincidentally the region with the highest union density, militancy, and largest radical social movements) but is rapidly growing all over.

I guess what im tryng to say is that what marxism exist today is largely due to established organsations and tradition, while Class struggle anarchsim, I beleive, represents the future direction of radical politics.


As to the comment about the "not having time to let the working class make mistakes" lenenist model. Communism WILL ONLY HAPPEN if the working class learns to givern. There can be no shortcut to this. No self proclaimed vanguard has the right to get in the way of this process. We need to try things and learn.
This is why revolution is so important in political change because it is a period of history where the working class has the oppertunity to try things and learn. This is how you learn, sometimes you make mistakes, this is an intregal part of learning.
To think that anyone could ever learn anything without seeing mistakes to counterpose what you need to do, is crazy.

Revolution is part of historical develoment of the working classes ability to rule, not a side note to be palyed about with by petty burgeoise intelectual "professional revolutionaries". Organisation is nessesary but no vanguard will ever lead us to victory.

https://www.nefac.net/
https://www.anarkismo.net/

[Floyce White]

rebelworker: "...the conversion of much of the SWP youth wing to anarchism in the mid 70's (some members are still active in the anarchist movement today..."

Which SWP?

[Technocrates]

Anarchism did exist in North America at some time among the natives, however it was wiped out by the bourgeoise Europeans. Now, I am no anarchist, but that is just how it went. Still, we need to unite the whole left against reactionary rightism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Are you really being honest by suggesting that the Anarchist Federation in 2006 was the "Marxists" that we were discussing all along?[/b]

Well I don't know, because I don't know these people personally.

However, the chances are that that website has been set up within the last five years, therefore within that time period the Marxists who initially set up that website have joined the Anarchist Federation.

So there you have a small example of Anarchist and Marxists combining. Something which I suggested should happen in the future.


Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)You repeated a myth that is widely asserted by anarchists....[/b]

Is it a "myth" that is "widely asserted" by Anarchists? ....I have certainly never seen an Anarchist assert this.


Floyce [email protected]
You have failed to support your assertions of "Marxists accepting the Anarchist theories" and that "they choose not to admit it."

Well I was talking about the future, and based on "tit bits" that I've seen, I'd say it is starting to happen.


Technocrates
Anarchism did exist in North America at some time among the natives....

Do be silly.

What existed was a Tribal structure of society and even in the more egalitarian Tribes, there was still a definite hierarchy.

[rebelworker]

I was refering to the SWP in the US, thought My memory might be failing me here.

It was defenitly the youth wing of a major trotskyist org and the name was something like the Socialist Youth league or something like that. I have friends in New York who were part of it and are now members of NEFAC, Ill have to ask them about it.
I got my info from a very interesting web page that I can no longer find called redencyclopedia. It was originaly run by a marxist then abandoned and hosted by some anarchists for a while.

Anyway that was a small side note in a larger point i was trying to make...

As for more on anarchism in america, Anarchist ideology defenitly survive the 1910's(when it was probably at its peak). The IWW stayed somewhat active untill the 70's with many anarchist militants involved(They have since been reborn, dominated by anarchists, and are doing some serrious labour organisaing like strabucks in new york and truckers in stockton).

Also there was the Anarchist Communist federation in the early 80's(mostly in the North East) and the Love and Rage, revolutionary anarchist federation did a ten year run starting in 86 from canada to mexico(they disbanded in factionalism, with half more influenced by maoism/vanguardism going on to form the Bring The Rukus group, mostly active in the southwest, and the other, more mass bassed Anarchist communists, disolved with some who went on to be involved in NEFAC).

There is also the Workers Solidarity Alliance, an anarchosyndicalist propaghanda group that has been active since the 80's(decent number of experienced millitants but quite spread thin geogaphically).

Anarchists were also central in the formation of Anti Racist Action chapters, and continue to be movers and shakers in the North American anti facist movement.

[ComradeOm]

Apologies for the delay, busy week and all that.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
I haven't said (I don't think I have, feel free to correct me) that the Bolshevik's acted "independently" of the Proletariat (or for that matter the Peasantry). What I have said is that the Bolshevik's didn't represent the class interests of the Proletariat.
Then whose interests did they represent? The bourgeoisie that they replaced?

So if the Bolsheviks had the support of the proletariat and they were the far left of the Russian political spectrum… how did they not represent the class interests of the proletariat? Or is this another case where the proletariat were too stupid?


They could (and probably did) draw "support" from both. The problem you have is that you confuse "support" with actually representing certain class interests.
Let me get this straight – the Bolsheviks, an illegal communist organisation in direct opposition to the Provisional Government drew support from the bourgeoisie? Now you’re into the realms of complete fantasy.


Tony Blair is "supported" by both the working class and the bourgeois. He represents the class interests of only one of these classes. Can yu' guess which?
As comparisons go that one is just farcical. Britain today is a completely different country to Russia 1917. It is possible today to be the representative of the ruling class without automatically alienating the proletariat. In revolutionary times that is not feasible.


That sounds remarkably similar to the idea of the "Proletariat Ideology" that the Maoists talk about. As in the "Party" says this and the "good proles" think it, otherwise they're not revolutionary.
When in reality it’s the reverse. A revolutionary proletariat gives birth to a revolutionary party. The Bolsheviks didn’t spring out of thin air


1) It outlines a really un-Marxist (and arrogant) view towards class struggle. It doesn't seem to matter (to Lenin) that someone comes from a class that opposes the Proletariat, as long as they have some revolutionary rhetoric ("if their theory is revolutionary they are already linked to the masses") then they are revolutionaries.

Lenin (and Marx too to a lesser extent) seems rather oblivious to the detrimental consequences of accepting the class enemy into "camp of the proletariat".

The reason Lenin does this, is in my opinion to try and justify his own involvement in the working class movement. Nothing wrong with that, but that's how we should view it (from the position of its class interests).
I’ve actually been meaning to read what Gramsci wrote on the issue of intellectuals for a while now. I understand its quite interesting.

Remember that Marxism would have been unlikely to have evolved, certainly not in the complete form that it did take, with the education provided to Marx in his youth. He was one of the “cool kids” that used to hang around wine bars discussing philosophy… hardly proletarian behaviour.

The habit of talking down to the proletariat has existed right from the start of the Marxist movement. It’s unfortunate and an undesirable habit that’s grown out of the simple fact Marxism and its theories are easier to understand with an academic/intellectual background.

Should we simply exclude these intellectuals from the proletarian movement, assuming its possible? I don’t think so. Whatever someone’s background they have come into contact with the proletariat, seen their misery and decided that something must be done.


Pure speculation.

A second bourgeois revolution could have taken place under those circumstances, however I think a Bonaparte coup (which was in essence what happened) was far more likely.
I prefer to think of it as an informed estimate based on history. Remember that events were far more pressing than in France. In particular all attempts to halt the German Army had ended in absolute failure.

But let’s examine the options. The aristocracy were unlikely to revolt after the failure of the reactionary Kornilov while the relatively young bourgeoisie had no major influence outside of the Provisional government. Meanwhile the proletariat was becoming increasingly polarised, particularly after the Kornilov affair, and support for the revolutionary parties was on the rise. It doesn’t take a degree in either Russian or historical materialism history to predict that revolution was inevitable. If not the Bolsheviks then another group with similar ideals would have arisen.


1) When did the revolution fail?
2) How did it fail?
3) Why wasn't there any (significant) uprising from the proletariat against this failure?
Since you could write a book on all the causes and failures of the revolution I’ll be brief with my theories.

1 I can’t put a precise date on when the Russian revolution failed though I’m sure that there are plenty of others on the site who would oblige. In any case I doubt you could isolate one single event. If pressed I would have to say sometime between 1924 and 1930. The former date marked the end of the civil war while by the latter date we should have seen some concrete progress.

2 Trotsky went on at length about the waning revolutionary tendencies amongst the proletariat. I suspect that he was right to a degree but the real reason for the failure was inability of the Bolsheviks to broaden the democratic credentials of the party immediately following the civil war. While the state of the country and population would’ve prevented socialism proper, it is inexcusable that Trotsky and Stalin were left to squabble over the country.

3 The proletariat thought they’d won. As I mentioned, they did not have the benefit of hindsight. As far as they, or anyone else, knew this was what the road to socialism would look like. Sure they didn’t have all of what they wanted but no doubt the Bolsheviks would continue to deliver the goods… wouldn’t they?


My idea of proletarian revolution, in its simplest form, is that the working class (as a class) rises up and (violently) overthrows the bourgeois and then sets up organs of self control.
That’s the abstract view, it doesn’t deal with specific events or tactics. For example, I could easily use that phrase to describe the Russian Revolution.


Was the "October Revolution" carried out by a "class conscious proletariat"? ....or by members of the Bolshevik Party under the command of the upper circles?
As I’ve made perfectly clear numerous times already in this thread it was the former.


What does "aim[ing] for socialism" entail? ....does it mean simply "supporting" a Party that calls itself Socialist? ....or actually not settling for anything less than Socialism?
I added this one to distinguish between those class conscious workers who have occasionally marched on the behalf of the bourgeoisie. A proletarian revolution must be carried out with the aim of creating a socialist state. “Aiming for socialism” is an awkward phrase but inspiration had abandoned me at this point.


Well they accepted wage slavery rather happily now didn't they?
Because they were not to know that they’d be subjected to it for another century. That and that socialism was then, as it is now, unknown territory.


Okay, but why did the proletariat (which if there was a proletarian revolution was now the ruling class) do this "appeasing" by giving away its own control? ....they could have "appeased" the Peasantry and set up organs of worker control.
And effectively make the peasants second class citizens? I’d have no problem with that but I suspect that the peasants would not be pleased to be unable to match the workers’ advancements. What would happen if the peasants demanded complete control over the agricultural means of production?


Well they could and they did "repress" the Peasantry.
Only they beat them down with the carrot instead of the stick. Hence the NEP. It wasn’t until Russia had recovered somewhat that a stronger and harsher line was taken with the peasantry.


The Revolution failing because there wasn't "Western support", is (in my opinion) a baseless assumption.

Europe had just gone through a World War, meaning they wouldn't have been able to give "support" and even if they had been able, Russia still would have had to go through the Capitalist epochs of production which create a bourgeois.
Can you imagine for a second what would have happened if the revolution in Germany had succeeded? Whatever aid the Germans could’ve given would have counted. You forget just how shit poor Russia was at the time.


By 1930 they were being actively "liquidated" as a class. If they'd had any power they would have really opposed this, and in all likelihood Russia would have become some king of strange Peasant State.
I’d say 1940, 1945 to be sure. But that’s beside the point.

In the immediate aftermath of the civil war the peasants demanded, and received, concessions. The most obvious being the NEP. This was a reflection of the weakness of the new regime and the size, and more importantly the brief revolutionary spirit, of the peasantry. Ten years later the Communists were in a far stronger position relative to the peasants.


Well the name Bolshevik wasn't removed until 1953 (I think). So who were the (real) Bolshevik's? ....and why weren't the rest Bolshevik's?
You might as well about the difference between the original Social Democrats and subsequent members. The originals were revolutionary, the latter generations… weren’t.


Yet the "Theory of Imperialism" is a good enough theory to explain why other countries haven't revolted?
Yes. Superprofit is an influence, much like religion, on the economic base. It’s a major one, but not the only one. In the case of Russia the legacy of the USSR and the hopes of Western riches still play a role. If, within say twenty years or so, there has been no real change then people will get disillusioned with capitalism… much like they did in 1917.


By the way, did you see the thread on Hilferding? ....I think Lenin was influenced way too much by the Social Democrats. Shame.
What forum is it in? I’ve been busy the past week so haven’t around much.

But remember that Lenin was a Social Democrat. In his time that was nothing to be ashamed of – the SDs were almost unique in Europe in that they were both revolutionary and Marxist. This charade lasted until the Great War.


You mean there's a "vast army of the unemployed"?
Nope. There’s a vast army of peasants who can be “converted” to proles.


Elected for what? ....if they "elected to manage", then they become "managers". You are what you do.

And if you are elected to help manage the capitalists’ operations then that is exactly what you’ll do. By the same token if you are elected to serve the proletariat then that it what you do.



Alright if that's your answer, explain this....

How is it possible (within the historical materialist paradigm) for a working class in a country where the forces of production are far nearer being "exhausted" to just want a "tweak to capitalism".

Yet a working class in another country where those same forces of production have only just come into existence, be genuinely revolutionary?
“Nearer [to] being exhausted” means matured in this case. Capitalism in France in 1968 was well established and the bourgeoisie were in total control of the means of production. There was never any chance of revolution.

Revolution is Russia was possible precisely because capitalism was so young. The capitalists had only just assumed state power and were under enormous pressure from competing nations for resources. It took all this and more to weaken the state to the point where it could longer even pretend to be progressive, no mean feat considering the one that it had replaced.


So were the French bourgeois and they had to rely on a "strong man". The case could be made that it was the same with Russia.
I’ve always considered the French revolutionaries to be remarkable efficient. They wasted no time at all in chopping off heads and eradicating the aristocracy. Certainly when compared to the Russian bourgeoisie.


It can "spark" a war.
Not according to class struggle theory. WWI was not due to that idiot Princip.

I have a feeling that you’re just disagreeing with me here out of principle as I find it hard to believe that anyone could condone such an ineffective tactic, never mind someone who reportedly rejects the “great man” theory.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)The bourgeoisie that they replaced?[/b]

Well yes.

Whether they knew it or not, the Bolshevik's came to power and enforced the policies that you would of expected from a "normal" bourgeois.

There's no "shame" in that, it is what they had to do.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)....how did they not represent the class interests of the proletariat?[/b]

Well aside from the (strange) idea that a (relatively) small group can represent the interests of a (relatively) large class. They didn't' represent the "class interests of the proletariat" because of what they did.

Reducing the Soviets to "ceremonial bodies", introducing the NEP, setting up a large secret service, stopping the economic organisation of the working class (Unions), persecuting working class militants (mainly Anarchists), crushing uprisings by the working class.... need I go on?

None of the things listed up are in the "class interests of the proletariat", indeed they are actually directly opposed to the "class interests of the proletariat".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....the Bolsheviks, an illegal communist organisation in direct opposition to the Provisional Government drew support from the bourgeoisie?

Was Lenin not part of the "radical bourgeois"???

As well as drawing support from the Russian working class and the Russian Peasantry, the Bolshevik's drew support (and members) from some of the most radical sections of the Russian bourgeois -- mainly the "exile community".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It is possible today to be the representative of the ruling class without automatically alienating the proletariat. In revolutionary times that is not feasible.

It is possible and it happens.

It happened in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917. True the most radical (class conscious) elements of the working class may oppose you (this happened a bit in Russia), but generally the working class (and peasantry) in times of bourgeois revolution will grudgingly accept you, sometimes they'll love you.

You see the problem you have here is that you are (I suspect) just using the phrase "revolutionary times" to describe any revolution. There are fundamental differences between what can happen during a bourgeois "revolutionary time" and a proletarian "revolutionary time".

If you wish to delude yourself by asserting that the Russian Revolution was not a bourgeois revolution, then there's really not much I can do.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
A revolutionary proletariat gives birth to a revolutionary party.

Lenin's crusty old formula's rise from the grave once again. :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Bolsheviks didn’t spring out of thin air

No they didn't. They "sprang out of" groups of radical Russian exiles who despised the Tsar. They didn't "spring out of" the Russian working class, they "sprung out of" educated and "Westernised" Russians who wanted Russia to resemble Europe.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The habit of talking down to the proletariat has existed right from the start of the Marxist movement.

Well actually it hasn't. Both Marx and Engels were tremendously respectful towards working class militants, which often meant that they put up with some really shitty theorists (Weitling comes to mind).

Marx even spent time teaching workers about philosophy, political economy etc.

This is perhaps one of the biggest differences between the characters that were Marx and Lenin. Marx saw a backward working class and did his best to educate and emancipate them. Lenin saw a backward working class and decided to "rule on their behalf". This view is summed reasonably well in a paragraph I found by Lenin a few days ago....


Originally posted by Lenin
The immediate objective of the class-conscious vanguard of the international working-class movement, i.e., the Communist parties, groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to lead, not only their own party but also these masses in their advance and transition to the new position. While the first historical objective (that of winning over the class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class) could not have been reached without a complete ideological and political victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, the second and immediate objective, which consists in being able to lead the masses to a new position ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, cannot be reached without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, and without a full elimination of its errors.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch10.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch10.htm)

Marx in many ways, managed to rid himself of his class prejudices a lot better than Lenin did, though (in my opinion) even Marx fell short by quite a distance.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Should we simply exclude these intellectuals from the proletarian movement, assuming its possible?

Yes! :o

The working class, as a class, must emancipate itself if it is ever to become a class that is ready to rule.

That being said, if an "intellectual" comes up with something useful, we can use it, so long as we don't start fawning over the brilliance of said individual.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Whatever someone’s background they have come into contact with the proletariat, seen their misery and decided that something must be done.

Well there's a problem with this view. Communism is not charity, and by extension the working class is not a charity case.

Communism is the abolition of wage slavery and the emancipation of the working class. And only the working class can do that.

At best, I suspect the most revolutionary a bourgeois "Communist" can become is the equivalent of a Mirabeau or Lafayette.... moderates.

Unfortunately there is in my opinion, a strong current of bourgeois liberalism that has run through the Communist movement for a long time. And the way to get rid of it, is to abolish its material base. In this case its material base is bourgeois "Communists".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
If not the Bolsheviks then another group with similar ideals would have arisen.

Quite possible.

However, you are still confusing "ideals" (rhetoric) with what they actually would have done.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
If pressed I would have to say sometime between 1924 and 1930.

I go slightly earlier and say the "final nail" in the coffin of the working class was around 1921 when all the Soviets were rendered useless.

However as I'm sure you know, I suspect whatever would have happened the revolution would have failed (in the sense of a working class revolution). However, ultimately, the (bourgeois) revolution succeeded and in the words of an old fart....


Originally posted by Engels
We are no friends of the bourgeoisie. That is common knowledge. But this time we do not grudge the bourgeoisie their triumph. We can chuckle over the haughty looks which the bourgeois deign to bestow (especially in Germany) upon the apparently tiny band of democrats and Communists. We have no objection if everywhere they force through their purposes.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/23.htm

For what they actually did (conduct a bourgeois revolution) I applaud Lenin and co. For everything else, well they can expect my most viscous scorn. :)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Trotsky went on at length about the waning revolutionary tendencies amongst the proletariat.

Yes Trotsky was an arse.

I've only just noticed the parallel between Mr. Trotsky and modern day politicians. Both piss and moan about voter "apathy", without realising people only become apathetic when their vote means shit.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....it is inexcusable that Trotsky and Stalin were left to squabble over the country.

Well the whole idea of "Communist leadership" is, in my opinion, fucking "inexcusable". Reducing Communists to the levels of "supporters" of one politician or another, really degrades the whole Communist project.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
3 The proletariat thought they’d won. As I mentioned, they did not have the benefit of hindsight. As far as they, or anyone else, knew this was what the road to socialism would look like. Sure they didn’t have all of what they wanted but no doubt the Bolsheviks would continue to deliver the goods… wouldn’t they?

This is a really strange answer.

The "proletariat thought they'd won"? ....huh? ....didn't they notice that they had no real power?

If they "thought they'd won" and they thought what they got was a "victory". Doesn't this contradict your claim that the Russian working class fought for Socialism? ....because if that's what they thought Socialism was, then what they fought for, was (at best) a warped version of Socialism.

Another comment I'd like to focus in on....


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Sure they didn’t have all of what they wanted but no doubt the Bolsheviks would continue to deliver the goods… wouldn’t they?

Despite all your words about the Russian working class being revolutionary (in a proletarian revolutionary way). You've just admitted that they were way off.

Socialism (the Communist project) is not about getting more "competent" rulers. In fact, the whole idea of "better rulers" should be met with total and utter contempt from working class Communists.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
That’s the abstract view....

Well I did say "[m]y idea of proletarian revolution, in its simplest form...."


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As I’ve made perfectly clear numerous times already in this thread it was the former.

So Lenin and the other leading Bolshevik's didn't order the storming of the Winter Palace? ....it happened spontaneously???


Originally posted by ComradeOm
A proletarian revolution must be carried out with the aim of creating a socialist state.

Well as you admitted that the aim (which was happily settled for) was "better rulers". Are you now of the opinion that the Russian working class wasn't "aim[ing] for socialism"? ....or at least that the Socialism they "aim[ed] for" was a really weird version?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Because they were not to know that they’d be subjected to it for another century.

Well at some point, surely this revolutionary working class must have woken up and realised that they'd been "duped"? ....or perhaps they just weren't as revolutionary as you assert?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And effectively make the peasants second class citizens?

Well regardless of whether the Peasantry would have revolted. If the working class had been in power, I would have fully expected them to relegate class enemies to "second class citizens".

The Peasantry (probably) would have revolted, but if the working class was the ruling class, you'd expect them to at least try to confront those with opposing class interests.

Actually I don't think it is that far fetched to say that you'd expect there to be some (violent) confrontation between elements of the working class and the Peasantry.

They certainly wouldn't have compromised as easily as Lenin and co. did.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Only they beat them down with the carrot instead of the stick. Hence the NEP.

They didn't "beat them down" at all. The NEP was a "sop" to the Peasantry. Basically it was the Peasants (temporarily) winning at "class war".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Can you imagine for a second what would have happened if the revolution in Germany had succeeded?

Well it requires a lot of "imagining" (it wasn't even a real revolution, more like a small uprising).

However, I suspect a strong state apparatus would have been set up, which would have developed Germany rapidly and then fallen apart.

Hitler remember, was the German bourgeois' Bonaparte (in a way). The German bourgeois wasn't yet ready to rule ("competently") in 1933, I doubt the German working class was.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Whatever aid the Germans could’ve given would have counted.

Yes, Russia would have developed more quickly. However Russian would still have had to pass through the "Capitalist epochs of production" and therefore would still have created a bourgeois.

Maybe this bourgeois would have emerged by 1950 instead of 1991. Still the result would have been the same.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In the immediate aftermath of the civil war the peasants demanded, and received, concessions.

You've confused me now. You say this, but above you said this....


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Only they beat them down with the carrot instead of the stick.

So the Peasants were simultaneously being "beat down" and winning at "class war"?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You might as well about the difference between the original Social Democrats and subsequent members. The originals were revolutionary, the latter generations… weren’t.

Alright, but why weren't they revolutionary? ....why did Stalin act like a thuggish CEO? ....what caused this?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In the case of Russia the legacy of the USSR and the hopes of Western riches still play a role. If, within say twenty years or so, there has been no real change then people will get disillusioned with capitalism… much like they did in 1917.

Right so we have a prediction we can measure here. If Russia stays a shithole you predict that "within say twenty years or so" there will be a proletarian revolution and a Paris Commune style Socialism?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
What forum is it in?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292008326 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45360&view=findpost&p=1292008326) :)


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But remember that Lenin was a Social Democrat. In his time that was nothing to be ashamed of – the SDs were almost unique in Europe in that they were both revolutionary and Marxist. This charade lasted until the Great War.

Well Social Democracy was a "charade". I agree.

However it is not that easy to just drop all your previous politics and get new ones. We still keep some of the baggage of the past. Lenin was no different.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There’s a vast army of peasants who can be “converted” to proles.

Actually I was under the impression that even the most backward parts of China are becoming industrial. Apparently there has been a lot of Peasant unrest directed against this "proletarianisation".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
By the same token if you are elected to serve the proletariat then that it what you do.

Well as I said earlier, the Bolshevik's didn't "serve the proletariat".

Anyway, this is kinda' naive. I doesn't matter if you initially are elected "to serve the proletariat", after a short while of "managing" (that's what representatives do), you begin to develop a "manager mentality".

You are what you do.

I would have thought the whole "charade" of Social Democracy would have shown you what happens to revolutionaries who "serve".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Revolution is Russia was possible precisely because capitalism was so young.

No. That's "precisely" why it was not "possible".

Class societies only fall apart when they can no longer function, Capitalism as we have seen, still had a lot to do in Russia.

Are you seriously saying that all the development that Russia undertook during the last century was something other than Capitalism acting in a progressive way?

If Capitalism was no longer progressive in Russia, the last centuries Capitalist progression wouldn't have happened.


[email protected]
I’ve always considered the French revolutionaries to be remarkable efficient.

They were alright. Marat was was a kind of proto-Lenin, certainly some of what Marat talked about could be mistaken for Lenin's work -- "liberty, egality and fraternity" -- and all that.

Plus they were much harsher on superstition than Lenin and co. Now that's a disgrace. Communists out of principle, should be the most militant atheists around.


ComradeOm
WWI was not due to that idiot Princip.

Of course not, but the assassination was "the straw that broke the Camels back". If it hadn't of been the assassination, it would have been something else.

Sometimes a small event can "spark" a big event, providing the tension is already there.

I mean, Paris of 68' started because a University was about to close (or something like that) which was essentially an insignificant event. However, this brought to the fore a load of underlying class tensions.

[Floyce White]

rebelworker: "I was refering to the SWP in the US, though. My memory might be failing me here."

Your memory is failing you.

rebelworker: "I have friends in New York who were part of [Socialist Youth League] and are now members of NEFAC; I'll have to ask them about it.

"I got my info from a very interesting Web page that I can no longer find..."

I want to make a suggestion here that may be of help to you in your future conversations with working-class people.

Check your facts. Then speak.

[La Comédie Noire]

I would Say "no" a socialist transition is not needed to complete the reveloution Infact I think a socialist period would be dangerous. Think about It centralizing the means of production and putting It in the hands of a centralized state? that is just asking for trouble, double that If a dictator is brought to power. It would be Italy during the 1920's all over again a seemingly Socialist force throwing out the powers of old than becoming a facist dictatorship. I maybe wrong but looking at history I just do not trust sitting with Socialism for to long.

But thats just one person's opinion. :rolleyes:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 18 2006, 08:06 PM
RadicalLeft62: "Is anybody here familiar with the Progressive Labor Party? They believe that the socialist transition is why the movement in general failed in the 20th century, because it created wages and failed to address the wants of the entire working class. They say fight directly for communism."

Yes. I ran across their newspaper in '92. That's how I was won to the idea of communist revolution as opposed to socialist revolution. But I recall that by early '97, I had some conversations with other local activists about communes instead of the USSR's statist methods (that the PLP defended as "mistakes" and "failed experiments"). It didn't take long for me to grasp the implications of their 1971 document Road to Revoluion 3 (http://www.plp.org/rr3/rr3.html).

Why can't they get it? PLP seems to be in full-flight denial of the anti-DOPE (Dictatorship Of the ProlEtariat) and anti-LOCO (Lower Order of COmmunism) conclusions of the theory. PLP adores Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and their history of China starts with Mao's Long March--as if the 1920s workers' uprising and the Shanghai Commune never happened. I can't explain why they never advanced their theory. It's possible that their experienced and thoughtful writers got old and died, or quit or became inactive, and RR3 just got chanted and "updated" by the young SDS college-student "cadre" as if another line of Maoist dogma.
Actually, I think Progressive Labor's a lot more consistent on the implication of this straight-to-communism idea than you are. (And it's not surprising that everyone who advocates it seems to have gotten it from them.) The question should be, why don't you get it?

It's basically a utopian idea: you decide what course of history would be desirable, then think you can impose that desire on history. To actually implement a utopia, of any sort, requires a utopian sect which somehow (due to exceptional circumstances) acquires the power to forcibly cram its blueprint or doctrine down everyone else's throat.

There is, after all, a historical example of a political movement which attempted to go straight to communism, and which did immediately abolish all private property as you advocate on your website.

That didn't work out so well, as far as freedom or anything else.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 03:50 AM
I would Say "no" a socialist transition is not needed to complete the reveloution Infact I think a socialist period would be dangerous. Think about It centralizing the means of production and putting It in the hands of a centralized state? that is just asking for trouble, double that If a dictator is brought to power. It would be Italy during the 1920's all over again a seemingly Socialist force throwing out the powers of old than becoming a facist dictatorship. I maybe wrong but looking at history I just do not trust sitting with Socialism for to long.

But thats just one person's opinion. :rolleyes:
A weak "socialist" state is crushed by a fascist counterrevolution, so the answer is to have no state.

I don't follow your logic.

The answer in Italy was a working class revolution led by a Marxist vanguard. Instead, they got cowardly "conciliators".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)It's basically a utopian idea: you decide what course of history would be desirable, then think you can impose that desire on history.[/b]

So deciding that a Vanguard and a "strong" Socialist State will be required is not utopian, nor is it trying to impose a "desire on history"???

Everyone who puts forward an idea is stating what they would find "desirable". So you really can't accuse Floyce White of "utopian ramblings" because every time you comment on what you think is "desirable", you will be doing the same thing! :o


Severian
There is, after all, a historical example of a political movement which attempted to go straight to communism, and which did immediately abolish all private property as you advocate on your website.

That didn't work out so well, as far as freedom or anything else.

You are no doubt referring to the Khmer Rouge here? ....it is a rather silly "bogeyman". For a start, America and Britain are not Cambodia.

Secondly, a straight to Communism "line", would try for just that. Not the rule of a paranoid fool.

Thirdly, we have a century of Socialist examples, and guess what? ....they were complete failures too.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They were complete failures? I beg to differ.

Housing and feeding millions, liberating women, ending institutionalized racism, extending free quality education and health care to millions, industrializing backwards nations, etc. etc. are not failures to me.

Were there problems? Of course! Do we need to do better? Once again, of course.

Keep in mind that the countries in which socialism was put into practice, there was absolutely no time when they were allowed to develop freely. They were (and are in the case of Cuba) constantly under attack -- whether openly, covertly, economically, militarily or otherwise!

You should check out the talk by Michael Parenti, 'Reflections on the overthrow of communism' (http://indypeer.org/show_file_page.php?file_id=72)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Feb 1 2006, 02:13 PM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Feb 1 2006, 02:13 PM) They were complete failures? [/b]

They didn't end wage slavery or democratic control of the means of production.

So from the standpoint of whether they were successful at establishing a Communist society, they were failures.

After all, a Communist society was their ultimate goal, was it not? ....all the other stuff were secondary goals.


CompaneroDeLibertad
You should check out the talk by Michael Parenti, 'Reflections On The Overthrow Of Communism' (http://indypeer.org/show_file_page.php?file_id=72)

What do I need to do to listen to it? ....I can't find a "listen to" button.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Take it easy on the bold comrade, you're starting to look like redstar and LSD.. :lol:


They didn't end wage slavery or democratic control of the means of production.

From Wikipedia (not the best source by any means, but it will do for this):

"To Marx, wage slavery was a class condition, not an individual situation. This class situation rested on

1. the concentration of ownership in few hands;
2. the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods; and
3. the existence of the reserve army of unemployed workers.

Furthermore, in Marx's view, this situation was ultimately due to the existence of private property and the state."

Was the ownership of the means of production in socialist societies concentrated in a few hands, or was it public property, used to meet the needs of society?

Did the workers have direct access to the means of production and consumption of goods?

Was there a reserve army of unemployed workers?

Did private property exist?

Was the state yet abolished?


So from the standpoint of whether they were successful at establishing a Communist society, they were failures.

After all, a Communist society was their ultimate goal, was it not? ....all the other stuff were secondary goals.

Yes it was, and is, the ultimate goal of communists; but ultimate is the key word there.

We can't will communism into being (no matter how hard we try), we can only work with the material conditions at hand.

Major progress was made towards that goal, but major mistakes and betrayals also took place. Also, as I said above, socialism was a victim of outside attack much more than it was of internal contradictions. Socialism was overthrown (which is why I pointed you to the talk by Perenti).

As I have said before though, even if socialism (as it exists in Cuba for example) were the farthest we could get, and the best we could hope for was an end to starvation, illiteracy, unemployment, homelessness, institutionalized racism, & the oppression of women, I'd still put my life on the line to fight for that.


What do I need to do to listen to it? ....I can't find a "listen to" button.

Sorry, that's the only link I could find. I think you need eDonkey or eMule to download it..

Here, I'll link you to a version a comrade uploaded for me:

Part 1 (http://www.fpm-mgl.org/part1.mp3)
Part 2 (http://www.fpm-mgl.org/part2.mp3)

It's a great talk, I really think you should check it out.

Let me know when you get it so I can have the files deleted.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Feb 1 2006, 04:34 PM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Feb 1 2006, 04:34 PM)Take it easy on the bold comrade, you're starting to look like redstar and LSD.. :lol:[/b]

Personally, I quite like their style of writing and find it both attractive and more readable. :P


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+--> (CompaneroDeLibertad)Was the ownership of the means of production in socialist societies concentrated in a few hands, or was it public property, used to meet the needs of society?[/b]

Well that's a tricky one.

The case could be made that a significant portion of the profit from the Nationalised companies went towards meeting the needs of society as a whole. However, it wasn't the public who decided where the money should be directed.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that the Russian public would agree to spending public money on building 5000+ nukes or invading Afghanistan. Don't you?

I'd say the last time the general public managed to force their will upon the Russian State, was probably during the time of the NEP when the overwhelming majority of the Peasantry forced the Bolshevik's to pass measures they (probably) didn't want to pass.

After that, I can't really think of an occasion when the Russian masses really dictated how Russian money should be spent.


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
Did the workers have direct access to the means of production and consumption of goods?

Nope.


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
Was there a reserve army of unemployed workers?

Nope.


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
Did private property exist?

Yep.


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
Was the state yet abolished?

Nope.
_____

Although these may be valid reasons as to why wage slavery continued, they really don't explain why the Bolshevik's never even attempted to end it.


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
....we can only work with the material conditions at hand.

Very true.

I actually had a quick search of the Marxists Archive to try and find what Marx said on wage slavery, and I stumbled upon this....


The Late Trial at [email protected]
The practical revolutionary experience of 1848-1849 confirmed the reasonings of theory, which led to the conclusion that the Democracy of the petty traders must first have its turn, before the Communist working class could hope to permanently establish itself in power and destroy that system of wage-slavery which keeps it under the yoke of the bourgeoisie.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ermany/ch20.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch20.htm)

I found it a rather interesting statement myself.


CompaneroDeLibertad
Let me know when you get it so I can have the files deleted.

I've just finished downloading it. I'll listen to the speeches in a little while and then (perhaps) start a new thread on the subject?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by "Armchair Socialism"
Whether they knew it or not, the Bolshevik's came to power and enforced the policies that you would of expected from a "normal" bourgeois.

There's no "shame" in that, it is what they had to do.
Including the destruction of the existing bourgeoisie?

Few would argue that the Soviet leadership would become bourgeois but I can’t see the sense in any argument that states that the Bolsheviks themselves were bourgeois. If only because it begs the simple question of why revolt in the first place. Surely Lenin the bourgeois would have had far more in common with the Mensheviks and liberals?


Was Lenin not part of the "radical bourgeois"???

As well as drawing support from the Russian working class and the Russian Peasantry, the Bolshevik's drew support (and members) from some of the most radical sections of the Russian bourgeois -- mainly the "exile community".
This feeds into above. If Lenin was a radical bourgeois then he would have sought the overthrow of the Tsar and the implementation of liberal democracy. He certainly would not have “wasted” so much of his time studying and writing on Marx!


It happened in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917. True the most radical (class conscious) elements of the working class may oppose you (this happened a bit in Russia), but generally the working class (and peasantry) in times of bourgeois revolution will grudgingly accept you, sometimes they'll love you.
Generally correct with one important addition – the proletariat and peasantry will accept you as long as you’re progressive. That’s the difference between France and Russia.

In France 1789 the French proletariat fully endorsed the progressive bourgeoisie. There were no voices calling for the abolition of wage slavery. As far as the French workers were concerned the abdication of the monarchy was enough.

In 1917 the Russian proletariat initially fell into the same pattern. After February the bourgeoisie took control and everything was en route to a rerun of France. However this set of bourgeois revolutionaries lost their “revolutionary wars”, so to speak, and so the proletariat lost patience with them. By October there was little to distinguish Kerensky with the Tsar.


You see the problem you have here is that you are (I suspect) just using the phrase "revolutionary times" to describe any revolution. There are fundamental differences between what can happen during a bourgeois "revolutionary time" and a proletarian "revolutionary time".
To my mind the nature of revolutions is fundamentally the same. Of course each individual revolution is a combination of different factors and no two are alike. At the same time the term “revolutionary times” captures, to me at least, the uncertainty and tension that are inherent in any revolution or radical change of the political superstructure.


If you wish to delude yourself by asserting that the Russian Revolution was not a bourgeois revolution, then there's really not much I can do.
The facts are there, its just a matter of how you perceive them.


Lenin's crusty old formula's rise from the grave once again.
I’m convinced that you just disagree with me on principle. Tell me, what is wrong with the statement that “A revolutionary proletariat gives birth to a revolutionary party.”? Is it not just common sense?


they "sprung out of" educated and "Westernised" Russians who wanted Russia to resemble Europe.
Unlikely that state capitalism proved to be the alternate model to Western capitalism for most of the century. I think you’ll find that the Westernised Russians were in the Provisional Government… you know, the ones who received Western support.

Well the whole idea of "Communist leadership" is, in my opinion, fucking "inexcusable". Reducing Communists to the levels of "supporters" of one politician or another, really degrades the whole Communist project.
Freedom in criticism, unity in action? :lol:

The arguments of that decade were inevitable, under whatever political model or material conditions. The core debate was which simply route does the country take now? In Russia there were two major camps, with each position headed by a capable “champion” and party members gravitating to those opposing poles.

I expect something similar come “the real thing”. Unless you expect everyone to simply sit down and agree on all the issues. Getting rid of the capitalists will no doubt be the easy part.


This is a really strange answer.

The "proletariat thought they'd won"? ....huh? ....didn't they notice that they had no real power?

If they "thought they'd won" and they thought what they got was a "victory". Doesn't this contradict your claim that the Russian working class fought for Socialism? ....because if that's what they thought Socialism was, then what they fought for, was (at best) a warped version of Socialism.
Meh. I’m a really strange person. And busy, you’re not getting vintage Om here.

I said the Russian proletariat was revolutionary, not perfect. They did not have the hindsight of today’s workers and they were worn for a bitter four year war. As far as they knew, hells as far as everyone at the time knew, they were en route to socialism.


Despite all your words about the Russian working class being revolutionary (in a proletarian revolutionary way). You've just admitted that they were way off.

Socialism (the Communist project) is not about getting more "competent" rulers. In fact, the whole idea of "better rulers" should be met with total and utter contempt from working class Communists.
Let’s examine what the Soviets had delivered – Housing and feeding millions, liberating women, ending institutionalized racism, extending free quality education and health care to millions (merci to CDL). These were extremely progressive, can you say revolutionary, measures in 1917 Russia. They’d have been revolutionary in any country at the time. Without being capable of gazing into the future the logical assumption in Russia at the time would’ve been that this progress would continue and socialism was around the corner.


So Lenin and the other leading Bolshevik's didn't order the storming of the Winter Palace? ....it happened spontaneously???
The Bolsheviks fired the first shots and the proletariat did the rest. I’m not sure if the Aurora sailors were Bolshevik members or not :S


Well as you admitted that the aim (which was happily settled for) was "better rulers". Are you now of the opinion that the Russian working class wasn't "aim[ing] for socialism"? ....or at least that the Socialism they "aim[ed] for" was a really weird version?
I admitted that they were looking for “better rulers”?

I was wondering when your penchant for equating state for dictatorship would crop up again. The notion of a socialist state is hardly a “really weird” notion. Indeed its arguing for a stateless socialism that is “really weird”


Well at some point, surely this revolutionary working class must have woken up and realised that they'd been "duped"? ....or perhaps they just weren't as revolutionary as you assert?
Revolutionary in 1917 does not equate to revolutionary 20 years later. Material conditions change.


Well regardless of whether the Peasantry would have revolted. If the working class had been in power, I would have fully expected them to relegate class enemies to "second class citizens".

The Peasantry (probably) would have revolted, but if the working class was the ruling class, you'd expect them to at least try to confront those with opposing class interests.

Actually I don't think it is that far fetched to say that you'd expect there to be some (violent) confrontation between elements of the working class and the Peasantry.

They certainly wouldn't have compromised as easily as Lenin and co. did.
What was that figure you quoted? The proletariat made up 2% of the population?

The proletariat could have cut their own throats by immediately confronting the peasantry or they could have decided to wait until their ranks had grown and position strengthened.


Well it requires a lot of "imagining" (it wasn't even a real revolution, more like a small uprising).
That small uprising is the closest that the German proletariat, consistently amongst the most advanced in the world, has come to revolution. Just thought I’d mention that.


However, I suspect a strong state apparatus would have been set up, which would have developed Germany rapidly and then fallen apart.
Germany at the time was probably the most industralised nation in Europe. Its hard to see how it could have rapidly developed further.


So the Peasants were simultaneously being "beat down" and winning at "class war"?
Beat down with the carrot. Fine, I’ll stick to tried and tested phrases. The peasantry was repressed as before but in a far more humane manner than the Tsars’ had employed. Instead of violent repression the Bolsheviks caved in to the peasants on a number of issues. The peasants got their land while the Bolsheviks got time in which to implement their plans, one of which was the elimination of the peasantry via employment in the cities.


Alright, but why weren't they revolutionary? ....why did Stalin act like a thuggish CEO? ....what caused this?
The most obvious answer is simply because they could. In creating a political superstructure strong enough to survive both the civil war and the peasants (strong enough to survive Russia), the Bolsheviks overcompensated. It is unacceptable that one man, no matter how much he reflected the condition of the time or regardless of his policies, could navigate himself into a position of total power over all state apparatus.


Right so we have a prediction we can measure here. If Russia stays a shithole you predict that "within say twenty years or so" there will be a proletarian revolution and a Paris Commune style Socialism?
My crystal ball isn’t that good ;)

However on the basis of current trends I give the bourgeoisie twenty years, perhaps less considering that they’ve already had a decade, to create a stable capitalist society. If they are incapable then we will see revolution from more progressive forces. Its impossible to say what form of revolution but it will occur.

On Hilferding, I barely have time to reply to this thread so its not likely that I’ll get the chance to delve deep into a tome on Marxian economics. You need a clear head and a notepad ready before going through that stuff :)


However it is not that easy to just drop all your previous politics and get new ones. We still keep some of the baggage of the past. Lenin was no different.
I don’t doubt that for a second and I’ve never denied that Kautsky influenced Lenin just as he influenced almost every other Marxist of that time. As far as I’m aware Connolly is the only major Marxist thinker who rose to prominence during the early 1900s not connected or influenced in some way with the SD clique.

The question is whether that is necessarily a bad thing. Lenin, Luxemburg and co were defined, in part, by their rejection of reformist politics. They salvaged what they could from the corpse of social democracy, not everything that earlier generation had developed was worthless, and returned to Marx’s revolutionary framework. I see it as a natural progression.

There is a tendency, and that thread does highlight it to a degree, to treat Kautsky as if every word he wrote was rubbish. Apart from the obvious need to criticise everything on its merits, this ignores the fact that the man was not a fool and a good friend of Engels.


Actually I was under the impression that even the most backward parts of China are becoming industrial. Apparently there has been a lot of Peasant unrest directed against this "proletarianisation".
Apparently there’s a massive East/West divide in the country with almost all of the investment going to the Eastern seaboard. In the past few years there’s been a big drive to attract/locate industry into the less prosperous regions. I actually read a report on the BBC the other day that the vast majority of factory workers on the Eastern seaboard are migrants who stay in the city for a few years before returning home.

AFAIK the peasant unrest is devoted not towards the “city folk” but rather centres on the only issue that really stirs up the peasants – land. Details are obviously sketchy about just what’s going on in China but from what I’ve heard most major trouble has centred either on corrupt officials appropriating land for themselves or the government nationalizing land for industrial development. The CPC has apparently moved entire cities to benefit industrial programs. Once the peasants have been appeased - and if that doesn’t work, shot – the problems are resolved. Again you can be sure that the Party is keeping a very close eye on the situation.


Anyway, this is kinda' naive. I doesn't matter if you initially are elected "to serve the proletariat", after a short while of "managing" (that's what representatives do), you begin to develop a "manager mentality".

You are what you do.
I can accept that if your job involves sitting in the Kremlin snorting caviar while the country at large starves. I don’t accept it if you’ve been elected to fulfil the planning functions of a small factory.


I would have thought the whole "charade" of Social Democracy would have shown you what happens to revolutionaries who "serve".
Election under a socialist system, whatever that may be, and election within the bourgeois state are obvious different matters. Let’s not get those mixed up.


No. That's "precisely" why it was not "possible".

Class societies only fall apart when they can no longer function, Capitalism as we have seen, still had a lot to do in Russia.

Are you seriously saying that all the development that Russia undertook during the last century was something other than Capitalism acting in a progressive way?

If Capitalism was no longer progressive in Russia, the last centuries Capitalist progression wouldn't have happened.
My mistake I should have differentiated between liberal capitalism and state capitalism. Obviously Russia’s progress through the past century has been due to the latter. Although, as I note above, the Provisional Government in 1917 was no longer progressive.


Plus they were much harsher on superstition than Lenin and co. Now that's a disgrace. Communists out of principle, should be the most militant atheists around.
The peasants again. Personally I tend towards the “Redstar position” on religious (in)tolerance but the Bolsheviks didn’t do all that bad. Instead of openly attacking the church they set about changing the material conditions from which the church drew its support. One yardstick by which you can measure the progress of the Bolsheviks is that almost all sources agree that there was a significant drop in religious influence and a corresponding rise in atheism in Russia both during and after the civil war. Even after the rapport with Stalin church numbers remained very low in the USSR.


Sometimes a small event can "spark" a big event, providing the tension is already there.

I mean, Paris of 68' started because a University was about to close (or something like that) which was essentially an insignificant event. However, this brought to the fore a load of underlying class tensions.
You’ll find no disagreement here, who knows what might spark a situation off. However propaganda of the deed did not take class analysis into account. The idea was that an assassination might “spark” an inactive populace into revolutionary fervour – pure nonsense. The anarchist movement had largely abandoned it by the time that Princip got to take his shot. The strategy was, by any measure, a complete and unqualified failure.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Few would argue that the Soviet leadership would become bourgeois but I can’t see the sense in any argument that states that the Bolsheviks themselves were bourgeois.[/b]

Well, if we are to stick within the realms of Marxist economics, then you could hardly argue that some of the Bolshevik's came from bourgeois backgrounds and also had "bourgeois careers".

However, that is not the basis of the argument. Rather the argument says that the Bolshevik's were bourgeois because upon gaining power, they did what a revolutionary bourgeois do.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)If only because it begs the simple question of why revolt in the first place.[/b]

Well as you no doubt know, the bourgeois class is not "one happy family". They are quite prepared to kill each other if it means they;ll increase their "market share".

Do you think it is that surprising that the Bolshevik's sought power for themselves, rather than wanting to share it with others?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
If Lenin was a radical bourgeois then he would have sought the overthrow of the Tsar and the implementation of liberal democracy.

Well he was more "radical" than the rest of the Russian bourgeois and the rest of the Russian bourgeois wanted "liberal democracy".

I think Lenin saw himself as the "radical King". Who would betray his class roots and create a new society by arousing the dormant masses who couldn't create that society for themselves.

In many ways, Lenin was a "Marxist Weitling". :o


Originally posted by ComradeOm
He certainly would not have “wasted” so much of his time studying and writing on Marx!

Certain parts of academia have always had a (grudging) respect for Marx.

They probably think Marx was right about a lot of things and therefore try to learn from him?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In France 1789 the French proletariat fully endorsed the progressive bourgeoisie. There were no voices calling for the abolition of wage slavery. As far as the French workers were concerned the abdication of the monarchy was enough.

Ok fair enough.

The Russian working class supported the element of the bourgeois that had the most "appealing" message. Just like a lot of the proto-proletariat in France supported Marat and his "radical" message.

You see what's important here, is that the working class as a class supported an element of the bourgeois (just like today they vote Labour or Conservative). What they didn't do is act as a class for themselves.

If they had, the Leninist concept of "scientists of class struggle" injecting the working class with "revolutionary spirit", would have fallen flat on its face!


Originally posted by ComradeOm
To my mind the nature of revolutions is fundamentally the same.

So there is no difference between a bourgeois revolution where a small elite take power from another small elite and a proletarian revolution where the overwhelming majority of society takes power from small elite?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’m convinced that you just disagree with me on principle. Tell me, what is wrong with the statement that “A revolutionary proletariat gives birth to a revolutionary party.”? Is it not just common sense?

No it's not "common sense".

For a start, every time we've seen a "revolutionary proletariat" they have not "give[n] birth to a revolutionary party."

In Paris in 1871 and 1968, there was no "revolutionary party", nor was there a "revolutionary party" during the German uprising, the events at Petrograd, during the Spanish Civil War.

At none of these times did the "proletariat give birth to a revolutionary party." Indeed if this was the case, then the Russian working class (especially those in Petrograd) would have set up a Party in opposition to the Bolshevik's.

Lenin's theory was invalidated during his own lifetime!

Secondly, a "Party" is a bourgeois invention. It was therefore created for things completely opposed to proletarian revolution and not only that, one would expect the proletariat to come up with its own forms of organisation.

Lenin's theory (like his views on sex), have not stood the test of time. :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I think you’ll find that the Westernised Russians were in the Provisional Government....

So Lenin wasn't a "Westernised Russian"???


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I expect something similar come “the real thing”. Unless you expect everyone to simply sit down and agree on all the issues. Getting rid of the capitalists will no doubt be the easy part.

I must admit, this paragraph confuses me.

Under the guidance of a "Great Leader" people do "agree on all the issues" or they get shot! :o

A proletarian revolution, and the events afterwards, will be extremely disorganised. And a Communist society would be full of heated debate. Humans don't agree unless they are forced too, and a proletarian revolution will create a society "free from force".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
They did not have the hindsight of today’s workers and they were worn for a bitter four year war. As far as they knew, hells as far as everyone at the time knew, they were en route to socialism.

And yet you assert that they were ready for self rule. :o


Originally posted by ComradeOm
These were extremely progressive, can you say revolutionary, measures in 1917 Russia.

Yes, they were revolutionary in a 1789 sense.

However, I must admit that something has amused me here. The measures you listed are considered by you to be "revolutionary", but not the measures of the Chartists. Why?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Without being capable of gazing into the future the logical assumption in Russia at the time would’ve been that this progress would continue and socialism was around the corner.

Martov, as you know, had a different "logical assumption" and his "assumption" turned out to be right.

Actually, Marx had a different "logical assumption" some 50 years earlier about what would happen in Russia.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Bolsheviks fired the first shots and the proletariat did the rest.

Well actually the "Red Guards" did most of the work. From wikipedia....


Originally posted by Red Guards
In the context of the history of Russia and Soviet Union, Red Guards (Russian: "Красная Гвардия") were armed groups of workers formed in the time frame of the Russian Revolution. They were the main strike force of the bolsheviks. They were created in March 1917, under the control of bolsheviks at industrial enterprises by Factory and Plant Committees and by Bolshevik party cells. A number of other militarized formations created during the February Revolution, such as "people's militia" (народная милиция), created by the Russian Provisional Government, "groups of self-defence" (отряды самообороны), "committees of public security" (комитеты общественной безопасности), "workers' squads" (рабочие дружины) were gradually unified into the Red Guards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_%28Russia%29

They were the "foot soldiers" of the Bolshevik Party and soldiers don't act spontaneously, they take orders.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I admitted that they were looking for “better rulers”?

Yes....


Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:41 PM
3 The proletariat thought they’d won. As I mentioned, they did not have the benefit of hindsight. As far as they, or anyone else, knew this was what the road to socialism would look like. Sure they didn’t have all of what they wanted but no doubt the Bolsheviks would continue to deliver the goods… wouldn’t they?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292011708 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44191&view=findpost&p=1292011708)

The Russian proletariat, by your own admission, was counting on the Bolshevik Party (not themselves) to "deliver the goods".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Indeed its arguing for a stateless socialism that is “really weird”

What can I say, I am an Internationalist! :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Revolutionary in 1917 does not equate to revolutionary 20 years later. Material conditions change.

You still don't "get it".

At some point when their power was completely taken away, the Russian working class would have reacted if they had had any real power. They wouldn't have just let it slip away, that would be class suicide.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The proletariat could have cut their own throats by immediately confronting the peasantry or they could have decided to wait until their ranks had grown and position strengthened.

Not really. Class society has a long history of minority classes suppressing majority classes with little or no repercussions.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
That small uprising is the closest that the German proletariat, consistently amongst the most advanced in the world, has come to revolution.

I'd say the German proletariat was "more revolutionary" during the late 20's and early 30's.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Germany at the time was probably the most industralised nation in Europe. Its hard to see how it could have rapidly developed further.

It wasn't the "most industrialised nation in Europe" (it had just lost a war remember) and therefore there were still things that needed doing.

Anyway, throughout the last century Germany has been passing through "Capitalist epochs" and therefore there was obviously room for development.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Instead of violent repression the Bolsheviks caved in to the peasants on a number of issues.

:lol:

That's like saying "I won the fight by letting the other guy brake my nose". :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....(strong enough to survive Russia)....

Which means the material conditions for Socialism weren't there!


Originally posted by ComradeOm
You need a clear head and a notepad ready before going through that stuff

And a knife on stand-by so that you can slit your wrists. I hate economics.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....and returned to Marx’s revolutionary framework.

Huh?

The stuff about intellectuals, Vanguards, iron discipline etc.

How does that fit into "Marx's revolutionary framework" that the working class must emancipate itself?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I see it as a natural progression.

I'd call it a regression!


[email protected]
I don’t accept it if you’ve been elected to fulfil the planning functions of a small factory.

Factory Managers have a tendency to vote fascist. :o


ComradeOm
Election under a socialist system, whatever that may be, and election within the bourgeois state are obvious different matters.

Well it depends.

Elections under some proposed forms of Socialism would be virtually the same.

[La Comédie Noire]

"A weak "socialist" state is crushed by a fascist counterrevolution, so the answer is to have no state.

I don't follow your logic.

The answer in Italy was a working class revolution led by a Marxist vanguard. Instead, they got cowardly "conciliators"."

I am actually afraid of quite the opposite a "powerful State" which loses Intrests In a reveloution due to it being the norm after awhile.

As for your comments on a Facist counter reveloution. Well It's quite hard to take over a State when it is dissolved, by having no goverment and decentralized Communes society in a whole would do better at stopping Tyrants and counter reveloutions. Say for Instance someone assumes leadership In Commune A and begins to rapidly change the way of life with in that commune, well communes B,C,D, and E could help Smoosh the asshole Dictator In Commune A.

That about sums up my argument against a State, althou I am going to read more into it due to the fact you sparked my Interest.

Peace,
Comrade

[Floyce White]

Severian: "..."

Don't you dare respond to my post you taint. Go to the other thread and explain yourself.

[rebelworker]

(Floyce White)
rebelworker: "I was refering to the SWP in the US, though. My memory might be failing me here."

Your memory is failing you.

rebelworker: "I have friends in New York who were part of [Socialist Youth League] and are now members of NEFAC; I'll have to ask them about it.

"I got my info from a very interesting Web page that I can no longer find..."

I want to make a suggestion here that may be of help to you in your future conversations with working-class people.

Check your facts. Then speak.

Easy big gunner!!!!, again as I said before it was a second thought to another point I was trying to make, do you have any problems with what I was actually getting at or just nitpicking...?

to the subject I wonder the logic of arguing that because workers arnt ready to rule that the revolutionary priority should be to take power away from them and build a specialist class that will eliminate any posibility for working class self activity and the learning process required for self rule...

But then again mabey I just need a collage degree and a library of bigger books written by dead guys...

[Floyce White]

rebelworker: "Easy big gunner!!!!, again as I said before it was a second thought to another point I was trying to make, do you have any problems with what I was actually getting at or just nitpicking...?"

Ha ha! Yes, but we must take each other seriously, and not treat each other as the petty-bourgeois chatters treat us.

rebelworker: "to the subject I wonder the logic of arguing that because workers arnt ready to rule that the revolutionary priority should be to take power away from them and build a specialist class that will eliminate any posibility for working class self activity and the learning process required for self rule"

I agree, and already said the same thing in my articles. You can read it for yourself by clicking on the WEBSITE>> link on the bottom of my posts.

[rebelworker]

I read your articles, some of it I find very interesting,some of it I find problematic specifically your negation of the importance of femenism and anti racism within the class struggle.

I also hav a real problem with your anarchist "straw man", anarchism is not petty capitalism, some anarchists, who I oppose, negate the importance of class struggle in revolutionary change. But Anarchist communism has a long and distinguished history and many anarchists have class struggle built into our organisations.

NEFAC has a position that noone whith the ability to hire, fire or discipline may have membership.

I meet more and more Marxists from an older generation who want to sidestep the contradictions of past marxist movements withoput aknowledging that anarchists called them out 100 years ago, and have been working towards what they now hold on to for a very long time.

I do not think that historically anarchists have been without falt, specifically those who have negated class struggle and the need for organisation. But the fact is that our critique of power has been correct all along and many marxists are just now starting to see that.

[ComradeOm]

Okay. Let's do this very quickly.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
However, that is not the basis of the argument. Rather the argument says that the Bolshevik's were bourgeois because upon gaining power, they did what a revolutionary bourgeois do.
If that were true then we would have seen the emergence of a liberal bourgeois state. Instead we got “something else”. From 1917-1922/24 the Bolsheviks did what all revolutionaries do – survive. Like the French before them, this required an unexpected departure from the predicted course.


Well as you no doubt know, the bourgeois class is not "one happy family". They are quite prepared to kill each other if it means they;ll increase their "market share".
Again we’re coming to the point that the Bolsheviks simply did not represent bourgeois interests. There was no backing for Lenin from the rich or powerful. The factory owners were heavily and entirely, to the point of taking up arms, supportive of the Provisional Government.


I think Lenin saw himself as the "radical King". Who would betray his class roots and create a new society by arousing the dormant masses who couldn't create that society for themselves.
This is despite the fact that neither Lenin’s words nor actions support this thesis? Lenin was not Stalin or Mao, there was no personality cult during his lifetime, no excess or attempts to concentrate power in the hands of one man.


Certain parts of academia have always had a (grudging) respect for Marx.

They probably think Marx was right about a lot of things and therefore try to learn from him?
To the point where they would use his name and theories in revolutionary action? Lenin studied and drew on Marx extensively – is it more likely that he was actually a Marxist of a wannabe king being played by the bourgeoisie?


You see what's important here, is that the working class as a class supported an element of the bourgeois (just like today they vote Labour or Conservative). What they didn't do is act as a class for themselves.
Need I really point out that there’s a vast difference between overthrowing a bourgeois regime and voting in an election.


So there is no difference between a bourgeois revolution where a small elite take power from another small elite and a proletarian revolution where the overwhelming majority of society takes power from small elite?
One class replaces another. I did say fundamentally ;)


For a start, every time we've seen a "revolutionary proletariat" they have not "give[n] birth to a revolutionary party."

In Paris in 1871 and 1968, there was no "revolutionary party", nor was there a "revolutionary party" during the German uprising, the events at Petrograd, during the Spanish Civil War.
Let’s examine these one by one. In Paris ’71 there was no democratic structure within the Second Empire to allow for parties. No democracy, no parties. Paris ’68, as I’ve mentioned numerous times already, was hardly a revolutionary situation.

In Germany we had the Spartacists, aka the Communist Party (KPD), while there were around half a dozen parties in Spain during the Civil War. As for Petrograd – I’m sure you’ve heard of a little group called the Bolsheviks?

So, as this very cursory glance through history illustrates, revolutionary parties have indeed come to the forefront during times of revolution and open class conflict. Its only to be expected as worker organisation increases beyond that of unions.


Secondly, a "Party" is a bourgeois invention. It was therefore created for things completely opposed to proletarian revolution and not only that, one would expect the proletariat to come up with its own forms of organisation.
And if a completely new proletarian organisation comes along then I’ll be happy to endorse it. As it is the highest form of worker organisation is the party.


So Lenin wasn't a "Westernised Russian"???
Obviously not. If we simply use your criteria of measuring what he accomplished then Lenin helped construct the only viable alternative to liberal democracy.


Under the guidance of a "Great Leader" people do "agree on all the issues" or they get shot!
:roll:


A proletarian revolution, and the events afterwards, will be extremely disorganised. And a Communist society would be full of heated debate. Humans don't agree unless they are forced too, and a proletarian revolution will create a society "free from force".
Agreement is not the same as complete obedience to some all powerful politburo. What it does mean is that there is a broad accord on the future path of society. Otherwise we will be confronted by anarchy, and I use that term with all its negative connotations. And let’s not delude ourselves that the capitalists will have just disappeared.


However, I must admit that something has amused me here. The measures you listed are considered by you to be "revolutionary", but not the measures of the Chartists. Why?
Because they were enacted by a revolutionary government :roll:


They were the "foot soldiers" of the Bolshevik Party and soldiers don't act spontaneously, they take orders.
The Red Guards were a party militia. The workers of Petrograd, and the rest of Russia, who immediately came out in support to the revolution were not.


The Russian proletariat, by your own admission, was counting on the Bolshevik Party (not themselves) to "deliver the goods".
They accepted the Bolsheviks after four years of war.


Not really. Class society has a long history of minority classes suppressing majority classes with little or no repercussions.
And we all know how those end up. The workers had had a first hand view of what happens to regimes that piss off the peasants.


And a knife on stand-by so that you can slit your wrists. I hate economics.
Same here. Unfortunately an understanding of economics is, unlike philosophy, necessary for an understanding of Marxism.


The stuff about intellectuals, Vanguards, iron discipline etc.

How does that fit into "Marx's revolutionary framework" that the working class must emancipate itself?
As in they endorsed revolution as opposed to bourgeois politics.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by rebelworker+--> (rebelworker)NEFAC has a position that noone whith the ability to hire, fire or discipline may have membership.[/b]

I like that policy. :)

However, I must ask, why not just say only working class members allowed? ....surely that's what such a policy means and therefore why not be a bit more "confrontational" about it? ....saying we (NEFAC) will not accept class enemies.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)If that were true then we would have seen the emergence of a liberal bourgeois state.[/b]

Uh, no.

The "liberal bourgeois state" is a pretty modern thing. In America it only came about after the Civil Rights movement, In Britain after women got the right to vote, etc. etc.

All early bourgeois states that I know of, limited what is today called "democracy" to those with land and power. The exception being France, but even there they kept laws against allowing black people (and mixed race people) to "vote".

All early bourgeois states that I know of, have been despotisms from the start, or turned into them relatively quickly. Only after Capitalism is "fully established" do the "trimmings" ("liberal democracy") come.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Instead we got “something else”.

Not really, they did what a revolutionary bourgeois should do. In some respects they were "better" than the average bourgeois, but they still carried out the tasks of the bourgeois.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Again we’re coming to the point that the Bolsheviks simply did not represent bourgeois interests. There was no backing for Lenin from the rich or powerful.

Indeed, they thought that Lenin and the Bolshevik's were going to "create" a Communist society. However, they were wrong and by about 1930 I think everyone in the ruling class had realised what Russia had become and was becoming.

The "Cold War" was not about opposing workers democracy, rather it was about opposing an Empire which was threating the American Empires existence.

What's really important here, is not to look at who supported a group when deciding what class they represented, rather to look at what said group did when it was in power.

Did the Bolshevik's carry out the "tasks" of a revolutionary bourgeois or not?


Originally posted by CormadeOm
This is despite the fact that neither Lenin’s words nor actions support this thesis?

Did Lenin not consider himself one of "Kautsky's class struggle scientists" who would "inject" the science of class struggle into the working class?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Lenin studied and drew on Marx extensively....

Probably true, but he was certainly heavily influenced by a lot of other thinkers who today, we (rightly) consider as being "wrong".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Need I really point out that there’s a vast difference between overthrowing a bourgeois regime and voting in an election.

Yes there is, but Lenin and co. represented another "bourgeois regime".

Are you really disputing that the Bolshevik's performed the tasks of a revolutionary bourgeois?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Let’s examine these one by one.

Okay....


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In Paris ’71 there was no democratic structure within the Second Empire to allow for parties. No democracy, no parties.

Yet after the Commune had been set up, the "revolutionary proletariat" didn't "give birth to a revolutionary party".

Sure they voted for people with "ideological alliances"....the Proudhonists', the Blanquists', etc. etc.

However, at no point did they (the working class) form one "revolutionary party" to represent their interests.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Paris ’68, as I’ve mentioned numerous times already, was hardly a revolutionary situation.

I have no idea why you dismiss Paris of 68'.

It remains perhaps the closest we've ever come to a real proletarian revolution. The working class rose up spontaneously and for a short time, acted as a class for itself.

Perhaps you dismiss it because the Leninists of the day dismissed it?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In Germany we had the Spartacists, aka the Communist Party (KPD)....

Yet the workers councils formed "outside" of this.

The Spartacists (they became the KPD in the twenties) were (mainly) a group of disillusioned Social Democrats who supported the workers councils, but the councils didn't "give birth" to them.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....while there were around half a dozen parties in Spain during the Civil War.

Yes, the "Communist" Party was busy forming alliances with other bourgeois parties whilst in the most "radical" areas, the working class acted independently....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292007574 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45320&view=findpost&p=1292007574)

The parts of the Spanish working class that could be considered "revolutionary" acted independently of a "Party" (certainly the type Lenin approved of). They set up workers councils and acted on their own democratically decided measures.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As for Petrograd – I’m sure you’ve heard of a little group called the Bolsheviks?

They had nothing to do with Petrograd. Indeed if I'm not mistaken, Trotsky ("the Bolshevik in Petrograd") initially didn't support the Petrograd uprising, something Lenin criticised him for later on.

In Petrograd, the working class acted independently of any party and certainly didn't "give birth to a revolutionary party".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
So, as this very cursory glance through history illustrates, revolutionary parties have indeed come to the forefront during times of revolution and open class conflict.

No they haven't.

They've "grabbed the headlines" in the bourgeois media and made all kind of claims about how "brilliant" they are, but never have the working class in a revolutionary situation "give[n] birth to a revolutionary party". Certainly not a vanguard party as Lenin envisaged.

The working class in revolutionary situations have taken part in militant Unions and set up workers councils. In some of these workers councils "factions" have formed, but never has the working class (as a class) "give[n] birth" to one "revolutionary party" formed along the lines of the model Lenin set out (at the 10th congress?).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As it is the highest form of worker organisation is the party.

Hogwash!

The "highest form of worker organisation" has been the workers council. Workers have set up these bodies and then begun to control the means of production through democratic measures.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Obviously not. If we simply use your criteria of measuring what he accomplished then Lenin helped construct the only viable alternative to liberal democracy.

Have you forgotten what "liberal democracy" looked like in Europe in 1900?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Agreement is not the same as complete obedience to some all powerful politburo. What it does mean is that there is a broad accord on the future path of society.

Yes, but to get an "Agreement" of any worth, you must first have a debate, often heated.

Someone proposes a measure, it gets debated, people get angry and start sulking, then people vote on whether to adopt the measure.

At no time in a Communist society should an "elevated figure" propose something and then everyone else blindly follows and there should definitely be any body which forces the working class to follow such a measure.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Otherwise we will be confronted by anarchy, and I use that term with all its negative connotations.

Real democracy is "anarchy". That's what I love about the whole idea.

However, I must point out that humans are a "rational species" and we're getting more "rational". I suspect that we will still be able to succeed whilst keeping our "fundamental principles".

At the very least, we should start out with that aim and then if things prove too difficult, change our aim. Surely it makes no sense to start out from the position of abandoning our principles (as Communists) because we think there may be problems. Don't you think?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And let’s not delude ourselves that the capitalists will have just disappeared.

Of course, but lets not also "delude ourselves" that we can't get rid of the Capitalists ourselves.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Because they were enacted by a revolutionary government

So Marx was not proposing revolutionary measures during his lifetime???


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The Red Guards were a party militia. The workers of Petrograd, and the rest of Russia, who immediately came out in support to the revolution were not.

Okay, but you stated....


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:30 PM
The Bolsheviks fired the first shots and the proletariat did the rest.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292013321 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44191&view=findpost&p=1292013321)

Do you now retract that remark been as I've shown to you that it was the "Red Guard" that carried out all the major tasks of the "October Revolution"? ....and that they did this independently of the Russian working class?


[email protected]
And we all know how those end up. The workers had had a first hand view of what happens to regimes that piss off the peasants.

Indeed, but it took the Peasants centuries before they even thought about "rising up".


ComradeOm
As in they endorsed revolution as opposed to bourgeois politics.

Whilst operating in the same manner as bourgeois politicians? ....in another thread you asked if Marx ever wrote anything in favour of Anarchism, I'm not aware of such a document.

However, ask yourself why Marx disliked the Anarchists of his time? ....mainly because they proposed that they could act independently of the working class in small elite conspiratorial groups. Something Marx found idiotic.

[rebelworker]

I like that policy. smile.gif

However, I must ask, why not just say only working class members allowed? ....surely that's what such a policy means and therefore why not be a bit more "confrontational" about it? ....saying we (NEFAC) will not accept class enemies.

Well i guess for us it was more about practical influencs within the org at the time, working class memebers wanted this in there, and it got put in the constitution, at the time a few memebrs who didnt agree or where part of this defenition left.

It became a bit of a delema for memebrs who Union staff. I personally dodnt want too much influence from mainstream unions and community groups in the org, we have a two teared memebrship, memebers who get to vote, and supporters who just pay dues and do work. I wouldnt mind high-up Unions staffers(with hiring firing or disciplining power) to have desciscionmaking power in the org, but if they want to sypport us, thats cool. We also included Capitalists who "have as the primary source of income other peoples labour". This came up when one member(retired teacher) who owned a house rented out the basement to a friends kid. Was he a landlord, did we have to kick him out?

I didnt think so, others might disagree...


No they haven't.

They've "grabbed the headlines" in the bourgeois media and made all kind of claims about how "brilliant" they are, but never have the working class in a revolutionary situation "give[n] birth to a revolutionary party". Certainly not a vanguard party as Lenin envisaged.

The working class in revolutionary situations have taken part in militant Unions and set up workers councils. In some of these workers councils "factions" have formed, but never has the working class (as a class) "give[n] birth" to one "revolutionary party" formed along the lines of the model Lenin set out (at the 10th congress?).

(from NEFAC's position Paper on The Question of the revolutionary organisation)

We reject the vision of the 'political-party-guide-of-the-masses', a vision which reduces the idea of revolution to the authoritarian seizure of power by a centralized party believing to be acting in the name of the masses. We know that this vision has led to bloody dictatorships and has nothing to do with socialism. It's goal not being the seizure of power, the anarchist organization is neither a party, nor a self-proclaimed vanguard, but an active minority in the working class. The anarchist organization is one of the moment within the social struggle; it's an assembly of like-minded activists, a place of confrontation and debate, a place of synthesis of ideas, social and political experiences.

The Working Class in Practice must decide its fate and build a future communist society. Only the process of revolution(the transformation of society by the majority) will alow for the existance of a functioning, classless civilisation.


However, ask yourself why Marx disliked the Anarchists of his time? ....mainly because they proposed that they could act independently of the working class in small elite conspiratorial groups. Something Marx found idiotic.

Well said, that Is why i have recently come to identify with anarchsim, it is more of a process of developing politics(and abandoning the failed theories of the past) instead of "Marxism" based on the doctrinal adherance to past "great thinkers and leaders".

I come from the marxist tradition, and rely heavily on Marxist thought, but I wont get hamstrung by it. I identify with communism and the battle against opression, these are what bring me into the camp of Anarchist communism.

It was along time before I actually read any serrious anarchsit theoraticians, i just like the positions anarchists took in pratice(both in more recent history and in the area i was politically active, Quebec).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by rebelworker+--> (rebelworker)I personally dodnt want too much influence from mainstream unions and community groups in the org....[/b]

I think that's the sensible position.

I personally don't think Communists (or Anarchists) should be trying to get involved with every working class body. Rather I think we should stay independent and support those groups when we agree with them.

Getting involved in every body possible, seems to have done a lot of damage to the Communist movement especially over the last century. The most damaging of course being supporting or running candidates in bourgeois elections.


Originally posted by [email protected]
....we have a two teared memebrship, memebers who get to vote, and supporters who just pay dues and do work.

That sounds a bit shitty for the "supporters".


rebelworker
....that Is why i have recently come to identify with anarchsim, it is more of a process of developing politics(and abandoning the failed theories of the past)....

Anarchism, certainly from my perspective, certainly seems more "flexible". Something which can work both as a positive and a negative I suppose, but it certainly means Anarchism remains "new".

[rebelworker]

QUOTE (rebelworker)

....we have a two teared memebrship, memebers who get to vote, and supporters who just pay dues and do work.


That sounds a bit shitty for the "supporters".


Well for starters you have to be a supporter for a short while before being granted full membership. This helps mantain the political integrity and direction of the fed.

Secondly Supporters are required to ldo ess work and pay less dues than full members, so itcan also be a voluntary thing if you are buisy or just looking to check out the group.

[Ol' Dirty]

Before I begin flux, I have a question. Do you think communism is possible? Are you a socialist? Anarchist? Or do you settle for voting for the democratic party?

I consider myself a Communalist; it's the governmental philosophy that emphasizes community over the individual. It's similar to Anarchism, only the needs of the individual are less important than everybodies needs. Every individual is a part of the larger wholle. It can be compared to a salad (sorry for the strange similie :lol: ); while there are different ingredients in the salad, there is one dressing pulling all of the ingredients together.


Although this is a valiant venture, it is, in my opinion, naive, and would cause too much violence.


Ohhh no! We cant be shooting the people who opress us, that would just be terrible :lol: :rolleyes:

Oppresors need to be stopped, but killing them is only a temporary solution. There will alawys be oppresion, whether we kill the oppressor or not. No one has the right or privilage to take anothers life.


Im starting to see where you really fall, "Well it would be great if it could work, but it cant. So dont shoot those people they are probably good actually, somehow."

You're a really awful typist.

Anyway...

Did I say anything about anybody being "good" or "bad"? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that oppresors are suffering like the rest of us; every century, every decade, every year, every month, every day, every hour, every minute... every second. Killing out of anger only creates more anger. I hope you remember that. Don't let the children tommorow be as hateful as we are today.


You see, this can be interperated in many forms.


It cant be interpreted as organization is bad. Or else it would just say against organization. We are against hierarchical organization, that is true. However I disagree that all organizations are hierarchical, such as the one I proposed to help make decisions in each commune.

I now understand what you mean, and I agree with this point.



All that I'm saying is that you said that in an anarchic world, there would be an orginization that would detter crime


I said absolutely nothing about deterring "crime". The only crime that would be around to try and prevent is murder or rape.

You have now.


Now you really cant prevent these, but since communities will have become so connected and well organized, people are watching eachothers backs. This could be called "prevention".

So no one person would become greedy and steal anothers food becasue the victim did not give thew person acsess to the food? A society without greed? How do you plan to get rid of peoples desires?


Who would stop crime? The only way to do that is to kill them


Yes we will shoot proven rapists and murderers. So what?

It will start out with rapsits and murdurers, but who else will be a victim of this violence?


or boot them out of the tribe (group)


First of all, will you quit referring to the population of a commune as a tribe. This is not primitivist left. If you are trying to hint that anarchism is unrealistic by using that word im not really amused.

Some of the most Anarchistic societies were tribes in Africa. There are many groups that may use Anarchistic traits, I just used tribe as an example. Also, here's part of a definition of a tribe from www.wikipedia.org:

"...a tribe consists of a social formation existing before the development of, or outside of, states."

Isn't that what Anarchism is about?


How do you propose that we implement and continue and Anarchist society, in all of its entirety, and in such a large world? :huh:


There is no "anarchist society".

"A society is a self-perpetuating grouping of individuals occupying a particular territory, which may have its own distinctive culture and institutions." (wikipedia)

:huh:


How do i propose communism will work in such a large world? Looking at historical materialism it will be centuries before the whole world could be ready for communism. Whats in the possibility of our lifetime is Western Europe and other advanced capitalist countries having revolutions. But even these areas would not obtain communism for a while. However, it would function economically on a syndicalist system most likely. Consisting of a trade federation which each commune accepts the federations constitution. However each commune maintains its autonomy. Within each commune, the workplaces are controlled by a workers councils. The most I ever see with "hierarchy" is a democratically elected recallable representative. However I see these as uncessary at the moment, a delegate would be assigned but would not have any decision making power apart from what the group wants.

Cool.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:40 AM


QUOTE (rebelworker)

....we have a two teared memebrship, memebers who get to vote, and supporters who just pay dues and do work.


That sounds a bit shitty for the "supporters".


Well for starters you have to be a supporter for a short while before being granted full membership. This helps mantain the political integrity and direction of the fed.

Secondly Supporters are required to ldo ess work and pay less dues than full members, so itcan also be a voluntary thing if you are buisy or just looking to check out the group.

Okay, that seems reasonable (although I'd have doubts about such a system myself). Your original post just surprised me and without the further elaboration you provided here, I would have been disappointed with NEFAC as an Anarchist group.

So cheers for clearing that up. :)

[Floyce White]

rebelworker: "I also have a real problem with your anarchist 'straw man'..."

To say I use the straw man fallacy is to accuse me of deliberate lying.

I waited until I was 40 years old to start writing essays. I put my real name on my writings. I am a poor person who must work to live, yet I was willing to sacrifice my ability to get hired just because I wanted all writers to be held accountable for what they say. Why would I bother lying?

You, on the other hand, made a false assertion about the US SWP, and even before I could respond, admitted that you might be wrong.

As I said before, get your facts straight, then post.

[rebelworker]

I never said you were deliberatly lying, what I do think is that in your article you give a pretty weak assesment on anarchism, This may be based on your experience with anarchists in your area, Most of California anarchists are not known to be to theoretically strong. This seems like the work of the new Southern California Anarchist Federation, and the people working around the old Furious Five collective are doing well to start changing this.

But Queting Prudhomme, I mean serriously, I have never met an anarchist who is at all influenced by Prudhomme. Madey In France there are some Individualists in the Anarchsit Federation There, but There are two other perfectly good anarchists federations in that country, with solid politics who are as big as any rev org in North America.

Your problem may be that you are reading about anarchism more than you have encountered actual class struggle anarchists. This is a regional problem, but I assure you this dose not reflect the best that anarchism has to offer in most of the world.

As for My SWP mistake, it was only a minor side note, with no real theoretical importance, in a larger argument that was not at all affected by the error, and I stated at the time that I wss not sure of the name of the group, and have since admited my mistake.

I sent an email to my friend and when hear back from him(he is taking longer than usual as I havnt talked to him in months) I will set the record strait.

I dont see the point of your continued pushing of the SWP post, I assume you must have been a member at one point...

Again I never implied that you lied, I said i found much of your theory interesting/ in line with what i think.

My main oposition to your thoughts on anarchism I have stated, and I also dont ascribe to your econimic determinism at the expense of Femenist and anti racst struggle.

In Solidarity,
Reblworker

[ComradeOm]

Again, sorry for the delay. I'm sure you've been waiting with bated breath


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
The "liberal bourgeois state" is a pretty modern thing. In America it only came about after the Civil Rights movement, In Britain after women got the right to vote, etc. etc.
British women got the vote a full decade before the first five year plan ;)


All early bourgeois states that I know of, limited what is today called "democracy" to those with land and power. The exception being France, but even there they kept laws against allowing black people (and mixed race people) to "vote".

All early bourgeois states that I know of, have been despotisms from the start, or turned into them relatively quickly. Only after Capitalism is "fully established" do the "trimmings" ("liberal democracy") come.
Almost all bourgeoisie states, with the exception of those “communist states” run under centralised planning, have emphasised individual rights and a relatively liberal agenda from their conception. Certainly with regards economic measures. This is because all bourgeois revolutions have been driven by the need of that class for freedom, similar to all revolutions.

Had Lenin represented the same bourgeois interests as we saw emerge elsewhere then we would have seen a similar state emerge. As it was the existing bourgeoisie was eliminated and a new system, one that did not stress the freedom of individual capitalists and was very much different to existing capitalist economies, arose.


Indeed, they thought that Lenin and the Bolshevik's were going to "create" a Communist society. However, they were wrong and by about 1930 I think everyone in the ruling class had realised what Russia had become and was becoming.
Let me get this straight – Lenin did not represent the bourgeoisie, he did not belong to the bourgeoisie and he in fact eliminated the entire class of the bourgeoisie… but he can still be considered bourgeois because of what Russia became?


Probably true, but he was certainly heavily influenced by a lot of other thinkers who today, we (rightly) consider as being "wrong".
Its hard to imagine anyone influencing Lenin more than Marx. As for the other thinkers in Europe at the time, Kautsky is the most figure but they did disagree on a number of issues – the most obvious being reformism.


Yet after the Commune had been set up, the "revolutionary proletariat" didn't "give birth to a revolutionary party".

Sure they voted for people with "ideological alliances"....the Proudhonists', the Blanquists', etc. etc.

However, at no point did they (the working class) form one "revolutionary party" to represent their interests
Parties don’t spring out of thin air, they are formed to forward the proletariat’s agenda under capitalism. They have no use in socialism. As I said there was no democratic structure pre-rising from which they could be formed... I’m not sure that the concept of the “party” had even caught on in bourgeois circles.


I have no idea why you dismiss Paris of 68'.

It remains perhaps the closest we've ever come to a real proletarian revolution. The working class rose up spontaneously and for a short time, acted as a class for itself.

Perhaps you dismiss it because the Leninists of the day dismissed it?
Ironies of ironies… I dismiss it for the exact same reason that you dismiss the Bolsheviks… it achieved nothing

Had the proletariat of ’68 been revolutionary then they would have done more than protest for a month before going home and voting De Gaulle. Perhaps the Leninist parties had actually analysed the material conditions of the day and decided, correctly as it turned out, that revolution was not on the cards.

Of course its more likely that Moscow just didn’t want to rock the boat but meh.


Yet the workers councils formed "outside" of this.

The Spartacists (they became the KPD in the twenties) were (mainly) a group of disillusioned Social Democrats who supported the workers councils, but the councils didn't "give birth" to them.
So your theory is that the most revolutionary communist party in Germany at the time had no membership amongst the worker councils – the most revolutionary workers at the time?


Yes, the "Communist" Party was busy forming alliances with other bourgeois parties whilst in the most "radical" areas, the working class acted independently....
There is no shame in cooperating with the bourgeois to achieve the immediate aims of the proletariat. In this case the bourgeois were in the odd position of being substantially more progressive than the most dominant class of the day – the reactionary petit bourgeois who supported Franco.

I’ll note though that the Communists were never lapdogs to the degree of the Mensheviks. Indeed the Communists were never lapdogs at all, or rather they served Moscow first.


They had nothing to do with Petrograd. Indeed if I'm not mistaken, Trotsky ("the Bolshevik in Petrograd") initially didn't support the Petrograd uprising, something Lenin criticised him for later on.

In Petrograd, the working class acted independently of any party and certainly didn't "give birth to a revolutionary party".
It appears that we have a mix up here. You mean Petrograd 1917 - the very event that you accused the Bolsheviks of carrying out single handily?


The "highest form of worker organisation" has been the workers council. Workers have set up these bodies and then begun to control the means of production through democratic measures.
The difference being that the Party is devoted to overthrowing the bourgeois state. That’s its only aim. As such it’s the perfect vehicle for forwarding revolution. That’s not to belittle the worker councils but they don’t have the same focus.


Yes, but to get an "Agreement" of any worth, you must first have a debate, often heated.

Someone proposes a measure, it gets debated, people get angry and start sulking, then people vote on whether to adopt the measure.
Oh I fully agree. Debate is always welcome… once a consensus is reached in the end. Ironically the Bolshevik Party pre-1917 was one of the most energetic debating circles around. Yet they never fractured. Democratic centralism actually worked back then.


At the very least, we should start out with that aim and then if things prove too difficult, change our aim. Surely it makes no sense to start out from the position of abandoning our principles (as Communists) because we think there may be problems. Don't you think?
We never change our aims… just our means ;)

Again applying this to 1917, I’m sure that Lenin, while knowing that the process of achieving anything with Russia would be difficult, never thought that the likes of the NEP would prove necessary. Events often interfere.


Do you now retract that remark been as I've shown to you that it was the "Red Guard" that carried out all the major tasks of the "October Revolution"? ....and that they did this independently of the Russian working class?
The Bolsheviks masterminded the storming of the Winter Palace and other major sites but it was simply impossible for them to have assumed control of Russia without the immediate support of the proletariat. Over the course of the civil war these impromptu militias were centralised and brought under the control of the Bolsheviks.


Indeed, but it took the Peasants centuries before they even thought about "rising up".
Meaning that it should have taken centuries before they thought about revolting again? Oh if only it was that simple.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)British women got the vote a full decade before the first five year plan ;) [/b]

Yeah, but back then the communication systems aren't what they are now. It took 15 years to send a message 1000 miles! :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Almost all bourgeoisie states, with the exception of those “communist states” run under centralised planning, have emphasised individual rights and a relatively liberal agenda from their conception.[/b]

Well the Bolshevik's policies towards Marriage, Sex, Personal Rights etc. are as "liberal" as anything in those "early bourgeois states".

Plus, what greater "individual right" is there than being the "rulers of society" which is what the Bolshevik's told the workers they were - rather similar again to the notions of "One France" that appeared in 1789.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
This is because all bourgeois revolutions have been driven by the need of that class for freedom, similar to all revolutions.

Not just "that class", but every class. Do you imagine the French Peasants were totally fed up with the King by the time they "lopped his head off"?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Had Lenin represented the same bourgeois interests as we saw emerge elsewhere then we would have seen a similar state emerge.

Nonsense!

Hitler didn't represent the interests of all (or even most) of the German bourgeois. However, it is clear Nazi Germany was a "bourgeois state" - in this case a particularly nasty version.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As it was the existing bourgeoisie was eliminated and a new system, one that did not stress the freedom of individual capitalists and was very much different to existing capitalist economies, arose.

Indeed.

However, Capitalism has many forms - "free market" and "State-Capitalist are just two of those forms.

What is clear, is that "20th century" emerging Capitalism was a very different "beast" to the earlier forms. I suspect careful examination would lead us to the conclusion that it was (virtually) impossible for the "emerging bourgeois" to "emerge" in the same way that they did in the 19th century.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Let me get this straight – Lenin did not represent the bourgeoisie, he did not belong to the bourgeoisie and he in fact eliminated the entire class of the bourgeoisie… but he can still be considered bourgeois because of what Russia became?

Well yes.

The bourgeois - like every other class - perceive what's in its interests. Their record is very good, but they have made mistakes....

In the 1930's part of the German Capitalist Class thought Hitler would "serve them well" - they were wrong.

Most Capitalists thought the "New Deal" was disastrous and some even planned a "coup" - a fascist one by the way. They too were wrong.

The Capitalist Class has a good record, but they are not "all seeing" and they do make tremendous mistakes - think Iraq!


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Its hard to imagine anyone influencing Lenin more than Marx.

Well Lenin adhered to Kautsky's theories on class struggle (the "class struggle scientists" and all that) and he formed his ideas on party structure from a Prussian General, after he realised that the structure of "German Social Democracy" couldn't be replicated in Russia.

As you have noted yourself, his theories on Imperialism stem from Social Democratic roots as well - Hilferding etc. And his views on sex, from the Vatican. :P

Really how much influence Marx had on Lenin, is highly debatable. Especially when one considers that quite a few of Marx's "best works" weren't available back then.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
As for the other thinkers in Europe at the time, Kautsky is the most figure but they did disagree on a number of issues – the most obvious being reformism.

Only after 1914 and remember this disagreement was not about Kautsky's theories - Lenin also agreed with Kautsky on Religion, just remembered that - but about the First World War.

Whatever Lenin's verbal disagreements with Kautsky's theories post 1914, he still agreed and expanded on them.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Parties don’t spring out of thin air, they are formed to forward the proletariat’s agenda under capitalism.

No they don't "spring out of thin air", but I've already answered this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44191&view=findpost&p=1292011810) with regards the Bolshevik to whom I think you are referring.

As for other "Workers Parties", most "Communist Parties" were formed with Russian assistance in non-revolutionary times, the British Labour Party was formed by the leadership of various Unions - not a "revolutionary working class". German Social Democracy was founded by Ferdinand Lassalle - a pompous bourgeois twit if there ever was one.

Generally, "Workers Parties" have been formed by sections of the left-bourgeois who want to "fight for" the working class. Given their history, I'd say it was a really perceptive thing by those "bourgeois democrats" because it enabled them gain great prestige within the working class themselves whilst getting their fat arse in Parliament - with the generous pay-cheque!

Plus, the "proletariat's agenda" has always been forced by the proletariat itself by "raising hell".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’m not sure that the concept of the “party” had even caught on in bourgeois circles.

Huh? :huh:

The concept of a "Political Party" is almost as old as the bourgeois itself.

What do you think the Whig's, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party were?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....it achieved nothing

Not in the "long term" sense, no, but it does show that spontaneous revolution is "the way to go" and in that process there is about as much room for "Disciplined Vanguard Parties" as there is for atheism within the Vatican!


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Of course its more likely that Moscow just didn’t want to rock the boat but meh.

I'd say that's a plausible explanation. Plus, who'd want to give up a seat in Parliament? :lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
So your theory is that the most revolutionary communist party in Germany at the time had no membership amongst the worker councils – the most revolutionary workers at the time?

Well....


Originally posted by wikipedia.org
The uprising began in Kiel from 29 October - 3 November 1918, when forty thousand sailors and marines took over the port in protest at a proposed engagement with the Royal Navy by German Naval Command, seeing as they considered the attack "suicidal". By 8 November, Workers' and Soldiers' Councils had seized most of Western Germany, laying the foundations for the so-called Räterepublik ("Council Republic"). Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate on 9 November, ending the German monarchy, although monarchial support continued to run strong, especially in the middle- and upper-classes. The SPD were catapulted into power as rulers of the new republic alongside their more radical counterparts, the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD).

However, the united front disintegrated in late December 1918 as the USPD left the coalition in protest at perceived SPD compromises with the (capitalist) status quo. Furthermore, a second revolutionary wave swept Germany in January 1919, led by the communist revolutionary Spartacist League. In response, Social-Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert employed nationalist militia, the Freikorps, to suppress the uprising. The two most famous victims of this counter-revolutionary operation were the Spartacist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who were killed on 15 January 1919. By May 1919, the revolutionary Left were routed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution

I don't think the "Spartacist League" would have had much of a following within the Army and the Navy which had just been taking part in a massive war, do you?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
There is no shame in cooperating with the bourgeois to achieve the immediate aims of the proletariat.

Horseshit!

The "aims of the proletariat" are always in direct contrast with those of the bourgeois (post bourgeois revolution that is).


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Indeed the Communists were never lapdogs at all, or rather they served Moscow first.

Class Solidarity doesn't just happen within the working class! :o


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It appears that we have a mix up here. You mean Petrograd 1917 - the very event that you accused the Bolsheviks of carrying out single handily?

We are "mix[ed] up". I'm referring to the Petrograd uprising in February 1917 (I think) and your thinking of the "October Revolution" in well....October.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The difference being that the Party is devoted to overthrowing the bourgeois state. That’s its only aim.

History does not validate your assertion.

There have only been two "Leninist Parties" that have kept that aim - Lenin's Bolshevik's and the KDP - and even that can be hotly disputed.

The Bolshevik's "overthrew the bourgeois state" and then proceeded to set up another one, and the KDP lost loads of money running in elections. That's hardly concentrating on their "only aim".

Indeed the last century shows that "Leninist Parties" have found the State rather appealing, particularly its Parliamentary bodies. And before you start about "Stalinist perversion", they were doing this before Lenin's death.

Indeed Lenin's polemic - Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder - was partly aimed at some of the anti-Parliamentary members of the CPGB (to think they called it Great Britain).


[email protected]
Yet they never fractured.

Yes they did, remember the RSDLP?

Plus, the "Workers Opposition" was effectively removed from all decision making by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.


ComradeOm
The Bolsheviks fired the first shots and the proletariat did the rest.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292013321 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44191&view=findpost&p=1292013321)

....and the ones like it in this thread?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by "Armchair Socialism"
Well the Bolshevik's policies towards Marriage, Sex, Personal Rights etc. are as "liberal" as anything in those "early bourgeois states".
I’m talking about economic measures here. Even the most authoritarian capitalists have always emphasised the right of X to sell his labour to Y. The moral issues, such as today’s issues like gay marriage, are frankly irrelevant. In Soviet Russia you did not have the freedom to sell your labour freely – you were told to whom you would be selling it.


Nonsense!

Hitler didn't represent the interests of all (or even most) of the German bourgeois. However, it is clear Nazi Germany was a "bourgeois state" - in this case a particularly nasty version.
Fascism is a difficult case in which there are some fundamental difference between it and bourgeois, or liberal, capitalism. Personally I’ve always viewed it as a regressive step back to pre-feudal ideals. But that is neither here nor there.

You’re actually analogy is deeply flawed. The German bourgeoisie was convinced that Hitler would save them from the “Red hordes”. I highly doubt that there was even a single Russian capitalist that felt the same way towards Lenin.

Indeed if we’re judging Lenin by his actions – the Bolsheviks were responsible for the complete annihilation of the Russian bourgeoisie. And yet you still contend that the Bolsheviks were always bourgeois?


However, Capitalism has many forms - "free market" and "State-Capitalist are just two of those forms.

What is clear, is that "20th century" emerging Capitalism was a very different "beast" to the earlier forms. I suspect careful examination would lead us to the conclusion that it was (virtually) impossible for the "emerging bourgeois" to "emerge" in the same way that they did in the 19th century.
Well that’s a difficult assertion to test considering that the 20th century saw remarkably few capitalist regimes establish themselves compared to the previous century. The gulf between West and East is larger then ever.

Those countries that have made some progress towards modern capitalism have appeared to do so by “traditional” means. Certainly South America went through a prolonged authoritarian capitalist phase, comparably to late Prussian government, but again each of these tinpot dictatorships were economically liberal, as their paymasters in the US required them to be.


Well Lenin adhered to Kautsky's theories on class struggle (the "class struggle scientists" and all that) and he formed his ideas on party structure from a Prussian General, after he realised that the structure of "German Social Democracy" couldn't be replicated in Russia.

As you have noted yourself, his theories on Imperialism stem from Social Democratic roots as well - Hilferding etc. And his views on sex, from the Vatican.

Really how much influence Marx had on Lenin, is highly debatable. Especially when one considers that quite a few of Marx's "best works" weren't available back then.
Remember that Social Democracy as a movement was not entirely concerned with reformism. The term is applied to virtually the entire Marxist movement from Marx’s death to 1917. I suspect that it was impossible for any prominent Marxist that was not self-thought (ie Connolly) of those years to have not been influenced by SD. To simply discount every Marxist who had any contact with them is foolish.

But it really is quite absurd to have read Lenin’s works and then argue that they were not influence by Marx. I know you like to contend otherwise but Lenin was a Marxist by any method of measure.


As for other "Workers Parties", most "Communist Parties" were formed with Russian assistance in non-revolutionary times, the British Labour Party was formed by the leadership of various Unions - not a "revolutionary working class". German Social Democracy was founded by Ferdinand Lassalle - a pompous bourgeois twit if there ever was one.

Generally, "Workers Parties" have been formed by sections of the left-bourgeois who want to "fight for" the working class. Given their history, I'd say it was a really perceptive thing by those "bourgeois democrats" because it enabled them gain great prestige within the working class themselves whilst getting their fat arse in Parliament - with the generous pay-cheque!
I don’t deny any of that. None of the above parties have been in any way revolutionary.


The concept of a "Political Party" is almost as old as the bourgeois itself.

What do you think the Whig's, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party were?
Party politics, as we know it, only became the norm after the American revolution and the rise of the likes of Pitt the Younger. Prior to that the Whigs and Tories were merely loose gatherings of like minded politicians. There was no real purpose or ideology that united them. Certainly in France during the revolution, and 1871, most politicians simply tended to gather around one charismatic figure.


Not in the "long term" sense, no, but it does show that spontaneous revolution is "the way to go" and in that process there is about as much room for "Disciplined Vanguard Parties" as there is for atheism within the Vatican!
The way to go? The French May did not pose a serious threat to the bourgeois state and it did not have any lasting effects. This “spontaneous revolution” consisted of milling around and coming up with inventive graffiti slogans. In the “long term” it is completely and utterly irrelevant.

It boggles the mind how you can discard the Russian Revolution, which went far further than any other revolution is attempting to implement Marxism, and write it off as a failure while upholding Paris ’68 as anything meaningful.


I don't think the "Spartacist League" would have had much of a following within the Army and the Navy which had just been taking part in a massive war, do you?
Considering that the Army and Navy had comprised some of the most radical elements in Russia… its perfectly possible. Remember that these were conscript armies made up of ordinary workers who were pressed into a brutal war. There is a vast difference between them and the professional outfits of today.


Horseshit!

The "aims of the proletariat" are always in direct contrast with those of the bourgeois (post bourgeois revolution that is).
So you would consider those Marxists who fought alongside the bourgeoisie in Spain to be “class traitors”? Despite the fact that the alternative was fascism?


We are "mix[ed] up". I'm referring to the Petrograd uprising in February 1917 (I think) and your thinking of the "October Revolution" in well....October.
Well that’s an even better example. What was the first thing that the workers of Petrograd did following the February Revolution – they elected a new Soviet with the Mensheviks taking most seats.


History does not validate your assertion.

There have only been two "Leninist Parties" that have kept that aim - Lenin's Bolshevik's and the KDP - and even that can be hotly disputed.
Those are the only two that could be said to form from revolutionary circumstances. The latter not so much. I have little time for the “official” Communist Parties that did nothing except follow orders from either Moscow or Beijing.


Yes they did, remember the RSDLP?
I’m pretty sure I said Bolsheviks. I would not regard the Mensheviks, or any party that included them ie the RSDLP, as revolutionary.


"Support" doesn't matter, what the working class as a class actually does, does matter.
By “support” I do not mean voted for or waved little red flags. Support in 1917 involved getting out on the streets and fighting the remnants of the Provisional or Tsarist regimes. Following the attack on the Winter Palace most local towns/cities formed worker militias to ensure that power was handed over to the Soviets. Over the course of the war these groups were integrated into the Red Guards and Army, ie brought under Bolshevik control.

That has always been my position because that is what happened. The initial events in Petrograd (the “first shots”) were carried out by Bolshevik cadres after being planned by the Military Revolutionary Committee headed by Trotsky.

[VukBZ2005]

*shakes head*
Oi...


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Had the proletariat of ’68 been revolutionary then they would have done more than protest for a month before going home and voting De Gaulle. Perhaps the Leninist parties had actually analysed the material conditions of the day and decided, correctly as it turned out, that revolution was not on the cards.

One, the leninist parties are half the reason why it failed...Along with a unstable class consciousness. It was the PFC and the General Confederation of Labor which cooperated with De Gaulle and the French Bourgeoisie and since that class consciousness was already in a unstable state, the CGT and it's controller, the PFC, ordered the workers' back to work - which was helped by the instruments of capitalist class rule and a weakened but strong media apparatus.

Two, how could the leninist parties analyze material conditions during that period when the tools they had for analyzing those conditions were not useful to begin with?

What are you trying to say about this event?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 16 2006, 06:25 PM
One, the leninist parties are half the reason why it failed...Along with a unstable class consciousness. It was the PFC and the General Confederation of Labor which cooperated with De Gaulle and the French Bourgeoisie and since that class consciousness was already in a unstable state, the CGT and it's controller, the PFC, ordered the workers' back to work - which was helped by the instruments of capitalist class rule and a weakened but strong media apparatus.
These are the same Leninist parties that are often berated for being insignificant? :rolleyes:

Had the proletariat in France ’68 been truly revolutionary then they would have ignored the media, the government and the Marxist-Leninists. If they could be so easily swayed then they had clearly not developed anything approaching the required degree of class consciousness for revolution.


Two, how could the leninist parties analyze material conditions during that period when the tools they had for analyzing those conditions were not useful to begin with?
And what tools are these? The only ones needed were eyes and ears. We have the advantage of hindsight but I would not be surprised if a few Stalinists looked beyond the headlines to note that France was nowhere near ready for revolution. They were right.


What are you trying to say about this event?
I think I’ve been quite clear on that – the French May was by no means a revolutionary situation and is in fact a largely insignificant event. Not only did revolution never appear likely that but there were almost no long term consequences or results from the affair.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)In Soviet Russia you did not have the freedom to sell your labour freely – you were told to whom you would be selling it.[/b]

Well you're getting bogged down in bourgeois words and not "real world" deeds.

I may be told I have the "freedom" to sell my labour to anyone I please, but in reality there are strict limits as to who, where and when I can sell my labour and these limits are nearly always dictated by the bourgeois.

Plus, it was not until Stalin's mass industrialisation that petty-Capitalists and the beneficiaries of the NEP really "felt the pinch" on their "freedom" to hire wage-labour.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)You’re actually analogy is deeply flawed. The German bourgeoisie was convinced that Hitler would save them from the “Red hordes”.[/b]

They weren't "convinced" at all. They actually rather feared that Hitler coming to power would result in a Civil War and they were rather hesitant in their support.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I highly doubt that there was even a single Russian capitalist that felt the same way towards Lenin.

Bar of course the petty-Capitalists operating in the rural muck.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
And yet you still contend that the Bolsheviks were always bourgeois?

No.

I have said that the Bolshevik's due to historic circumstances "played the role" of the revolutionary bourgeois. They took State power, smashed feudal structures and then went on to develop a vibrant Capitalist economy.

Before they took State power, it can certainly be argued that they acted as "genuine" Communists to a certain degree and that sections of the Bolshevik Party actually represented the Russian working class.

However during the course of the Russian Revolution - and after they took State power - it is pretty clear that their "social being" had bit them on their ass and their "consciousness" had changed quite a bit.

Indeed by the time of the defeat and subsequent "outlawing" of the "Workers Opposition" in 1921, it was pretty clear that a majority of the Bolshevik Party - including Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin - had developed the "consciousness" of a ruling class.

You are what you do.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Well that’s a difficult assertion to test considering that the 20th century saw remarkably few capitalist regimes establish themselves compared to the previous century.

China, Russia, India, Japan, Canada, Australia, Spain and perhaps Germany - were just a few of the "biggies" that rose to prominence as effective Capitalist despotisms in the 20th century.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Remember that Social Democracy as a movement was not entirely concerned with reformism.

Nah, they liked a good old War too. :lol:

It is pretty clear that the majority of Social-Democracy was radical in words only and the left-Social Democrats - actual revolutionaries - were "remarkably few".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
To simply discount every Marxist who had any contact with them is foolish.

Indeed it would be "foolish".

However, given that most of what they said was deeply flawed, to a Communist they are pretty useless and really most of what they said is of historical note alone.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But it really is quite absurd to have read Lenin’s works and then argue that they were not influence by Marx. I know you like to contend otherwise but Lenin was a Marxist by any method of measure.

I wouldn't dispute that Lenin was a "Marxist". I just think "Lenin's Marxism" has its roots in German Social Democracy rather than Karl Marx himself.

Sure they used "Marxist rhetoric" and talked a good fight, but mostly the central message of Marxism was not understood by many of them - not least because of their class roots.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Party politics, as we know it, only became the norm after the American revolution and the rise of the likes of Pitt the Younger.

And of course the "American Revolution" was a proletarian revolution! :lol:

As I said, Political Parties are an invention of the bourgeois and are nearly as old as the bourgeois themselves.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Certainly in France during the revolution, and 1871, most politicians simply tended to gather around one charismatic figure.

Not really.

People formed "Clubs" and these "Clubs" had Constitutions and stated principles and in many ways were almost identical to the modern Political Party.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It boggles the mind how you can discard the Russian Revolution, which went far further than any other revolution is attempting to implement Marxism, and write it off as a failure while upholding Paris ’68 as anything meaningful.

I "discard" the Russian Revolution because it was a bourgeois revolution and any attempts to "implement Marxism" - peculiar phrase - ended in 1921 when the Russian revolutionaries - the Bolshevik's - all banded together to defeat the "Workers Opposition".

Marxism is a theory about social relations and not a policy which can be attempted. Indeed a Marxist would tell you that a politician - bourgeois swine - who attempted to "implement Marxism" would because of his class position "implement" something completely different.

As for Paris of 68', that event briefly confirmed part of the Marxist hypothesis that the working class - as a class - under the conditions of Capitalism would rise up. What it didn't confirm was that the working class would overthrow the bourgeois and establish a functioning Communist society.

Indeed what's so interesting about Paris of 68' is that the working class "rose up" without being forced - as was the case in Spain.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Considering that the Army and Navy had comprised some of the most radical elements in Russia....

Yeah, the Kronstadt Sailors were pretty radical. :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Remember that these were conscript armies made up of ordinary workers who were pressed into a brutal war.

And if they had been Communists they wouldn't have gone of to War at all.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
So you would consider those Marxists who fought alongside the bourgeoisie in Spain to be “class traitors”?

Well they - unlike the Anarchists - spent most of their time defending the bourgeois state. That doesn't get you a "gold star" in my book.

Only the Syndicalists and the POUM can really be called revolutionaries in the context of the Spanish Civil War. Everyone else was just anti-fascist. Not a "bad thing", just not "good" enough for me.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Despite the fact that the alternative was fascism?

Not really. There were three alternatives in Spain - fascism, Capitalism and Communism. The revolutionaries fought for Communism and the anti-fascists fought for Capitalism and the bourgeois state.

Rather similar to what happened in Germany - the SDP when it bothered to fight at all, fought to keep the status quo. Where as the KDP not only fought to stop Hitler, but also to take power.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Well that’s an even better example. What was the first thing that the workers of Petrograd did following the February Revolution – they elected a new Soviet with the Mensheviks taking most seats.

Well it's not a "better example" for any of your arguments.

For a start, the Petrograd uprising was the most revolutionary act by the working class in Russia and yet due to the historical and material limits, all that was possible was for them to shove a section of the bourgeois into power.

Secondly, at this the most revolutionary of moments, the workers did not "give birth" to a "revolutionary party", they merely sided with the emerging bourgeois and their party.

If Lenin's hypothesis was correct, then the Petrograd workers would have formed an Independent Party and if your assertions about the revolutionary nature of the Russian working class were correct, then they certainly won't have supported the Menshiviks would they?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Those are the only two that could be said to form from revolutionary circumstances.

Quite what you consider "revolutionary circumstances" is beyond me. The Bolsheviks were formed in Europe from a bunch of Russian exiles and the KDP was formed in the aftermath of the First World War and only gained substantial support in the late twenties - with the Russian Gold helping a lot.

Neither formed in "revolutionary circumstances".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The latter not so much.

How so? ....the KDP's "record" is much better than the Bolsheviks "record".


Originally posted by ComradeOm
I would not regard the Mensheviks, or any party that included them ie the RSDLP, as revolutionary.

Well back then no one knew the Menshiviks would be "traitors" and the split was about Party formation, with the Bolshevik faction wanting a smaller more disciplined membership which was "means tested".

Personally, I think the Menshivik position - of a Party which was more like a broad organisation of revolutionaries - was the more "revolutionary" position.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Support in 1917 involved getting out on the streets and fighting the remnants of the Provisional or Tsarist regimes.

The "fighting in the streets" wasn't really all that much.

There were a few pitched battles between the Bolsheviks and other groups, but really there was no "mass action".


[email protected]
Had the proletariat in France ’68 been truly revolutionary then they would have ignored the media, the government and the Marxist-Leninists. If they could be so easily swayed then they had clearly not developed anything approaching the required degree of class consciousness for revolution.

Yet the Russian working class that happily accepted a Bolshevik despotism were truly revolutionary in your eyes.

The mind boggles.


ComradeOm
We have the advantage of hindsight but I would not be surprised if a few Stalinists looked beyond the headlines to note that France was nowhere near ready for revolution.

They were "right" in a sense.

However, I rather doubt that the "Stalinists" actually left their seats in Parliament and conducted a material analysis of France.

That kind of stuff would have required leaving the office. :lol: