I Change My Mind

[Comrade Corinna]

For a long time I have been a convinced Leninst, but now I am leaning much toward anarcho-communism. I really think the absolute best society would be total equality with total freedom and no government. I'm just trying to believe that it could some day work

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Hammer_sickle_clean.png/180px-Hammer_sickle_clean.png

+

http://www.infocusheritage.ca/metascrawl/links/images/anarchy.gif

=

http://www.purplemoon.com/Stickers/patches/P-peace-bluered.jpg

[More Fire for the People]

I use to think Leninism (Trotskyism) was the "bomb-diggity". Then Luxemburgism. Then Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism). Then I woke up one day and realized that none of these people were right (except for perhaps Rosa Luxemburg) because their governments never succeeded. So now I say what I think rather than obey a label (though I don't hate labels).

[Comrade Corinna]

How is Stalinism Marxism-Leninism?

Stalin was a totalitarian dictator murdering bastard!

[More Fire for the People]

I disagree. After reading brief excerpts on Soviet history, the works of Stalin, and an essay based off Zhukov's Stalin I have concluded that Stalin was certainly not totalitarian, he was for the enfranchisement of a million disenfranchized and was working towards contested elections. However, Stalin became utterly powerless against the Central Committee and thus could not change the state.

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 31 2005, 09:15 PM
I disagree. After reading brief excerpts on Soviet history, the works of Stalin, and an essay based off Zhukov's Stalin I have concluded that Stalin was certainly not totalitarian, he was for the enfranchisement of a million disenfranchized and was working towards contested elections. However, Stalin became utterly powerless against the Central Committee and thus could not change the state.
I dont want to make this a debate about Stalin, but the truth is that under Stalin's regime, millions died. Communism is not supposed to be about starvation and death, but freedom and equality.

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:23 PM


But on that switch from ML to anarcho-communism.. I find it interesting. What made you 'switch'?


Because once true communism is achieved there is no need for a government! Once all are free and equal, and without private ownership of property and without religion, what is the need? There would be very little crime because nearly all motives for crime are eliminated. And why should one person or one group of people, even if democratically elected, have any power or status higher than everyone else? That defeats the whole notion of equality.


I still greatly admire Lenin, because he was a revolutionary who led the working class to something that was a hell of a lot better than what they used to have, even when Stalin fucked up everything.
I disagree with Lenin on the issue of the state, but I still like the guy.

[Goatse]

Things might have been better if Stalin hadn't come to power, but improvements were made. People today in Russia remember him and prefer him to the capitalist hellhole they live in today.

[CCCPneubauten]

I struggle daily...I have yet to pick socialism, anarcho-communism, or libertarian socialism...

I really try to think REAL world, and not idealist...so most of the time I seem to go with socialism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2005, 09:33 PM
Because once true communism is achieved there is no need for a government! Once all are free and equal, and without private ownership of property and without religion, what is the need? There would be very little crime because nearly all motives for crime are eliminated. And why should one person or one group of people, even if democratically elected, have any power or status higher than everyone else? That defeats the whole notion of equality.
Well... duh. In communism there is no state. That is the one point that all communists, from Maoists to anarchists, agree on. The differences in ideology occur are down to how we arrive at this stateless society. Marxists, including Leninists, think that the state will not disappear overnight but instead must be used by the proletariat, ie socialism, while anarchists consider the state to be part of the problem not the solution.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2005, 12:40 PM
For a long time I have been a convinced Leninst, but now I am leaning much toward anarcho-communism. I really think the absolute best society would be total equality with total freedom and no government. I'm just trying to believe that it could some day work

Congratulations.

I too made the switch from authoritarianism to libertarianism, and I have no regrets; I dropped it like a bad habit.

[CCCPneubauten]

Somes times I can't help but think how well Lenin worked and how bad the anarchism of Spain was.

I love anarcho-communism, but must say that your USSR "communism" worked well!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:24 AM
Somes times I can't help but think how well Lenin worked and how bad the anarchism of Spain was.

I love anarcho-communism, but must say that your USSR "communism" worked well!
what are you talking about? "socialism" as the leninists would call it in the ussr industrialized the country. that was about the only thing it was good for. there was nothing wrong with anarchism in spain except for the fact that the proletariat in catalonia and aragon DIDNT GO FAR ENOUGH. you cant compare the ussr with spain. the ussr was created out of a semi-fedual age while spain had a revolution while it was industrialized.

[Zingu]

I dropped it all and became what I'm called a "Orthodox" Marxist.

[Hiero]

I went from an anarchist type to a Marxist-Leninist. I was an Anarchist while i didn't read much, and that was the phase when i just wanted what i thought was good, my politics was based on desire. Then when i started reading i learned the science and went to a Marxist-Leninist.

I actually can't see how anyone who is averaged read in Marxist-Leninist works go from a Marixist-Leninist to a Anarchist.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:23 AM
I actually can't see how anyone who is averaged read in Marxist-Leninist works go from a Marixist-Leninist to a Anarchist.
Who says she was?

[Fidel Follower]

Okay i know Russia wasnt a perfect communist country, BUT what has changed since it went "Back" to capitalism. I have been to Russia, i went to St.Petersburg, its a wonderful place, but it is still poor, theres blind people begging at street corners, police men beating up shop owners to get money off them.
And i think these acts were still going on under stalin..So whats changed?
:castro:

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 1 2006, 01:45 PM
Okay i know Russia wasnt a perfect communist country, BUT what has changed since it went "Back" to capitalism. I have been to Russia, i went to St.Petersburg, its a wonderful place, but it is still poor, theres blind people begging at street corners, police men beating up shop owners to get money off them.
And i think these acts were still going on under stalin..So whats changed?
:castro:
wow... you just proved to know nothing of Russian history, congrats!

[Fidel Follower]

Yeah well being 14 is real hard! Ahh and when you cant get desent commies to talk to you about Russian history, yeah thanks comrade :angry:

Okay Any one else want to talk about it? Other than Zeruzo

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 1 2006, 01:45 PM



And i [/B]Think[B] these acts were still going on under stalin..So whats changed?



Read some books. Age isn't an excuse for ignorance.

[CCCPneubauten]

IS there such a thing as libertarian socialism?

If so, can anyone show me some links?

[Goatse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 1 2006, 01:45 PM
Okay i know Russia wasnt a perfect communist country, BUT what has changed since it went "Back" to capitalism. I have been to Russia, i went to St.Petersburg, its a wonderful place, but it is still poor, theres blind people begging at street corners, police men beating up shop owners to get money off them.
And i think these acts were still going on under stalin..So whats changed?
The big difference is that the economy is run more by corporations than by the state today (although there are still some state owned industries IIRC). Under Stalin it was all controlled by the state. After Stalin died many of the bad things that occured under his reign decreased. There were fewer purges & political repression, less poverty, living standards rose and a large aristocracy of labor with relatively comfortable lives evolved. This was done mainly under Kruschev, the leader of the USSR after Stalin died, who Stalinists hate for a number of reasons. The privatizations and neoliberal reforms that swept the former USSR after the collapse of the empire did away with all this, gutting social programs while enriching a small oligarchy at the expense of the working class. It was better to live under Kruschev than under Putin, but anarcho-communism would be better than both of them.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2005, 08:40 PM
For a long time I have been a convinced Leninst, but now I am leaning much toward anarcho-communism. I really think the absolute best society would be total equality with total freedom and no government. I'm just trying to believe that it could some day work

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Hammer_sickle_clean.png/180px-Hammer_sickle_clean.png

+

http://www.infocusheritage.ca/metascrawl/links/images/anarchy.gif

=

http://www.purplemoon.com/Stickers/patches/P-peace-bluered.jpg
i can couple trotskism very well with the anarcho-communist tendencies i have inherently to my person, the way i am.

Trotskism basicly IS anarcho-communism, but with realist ideas of how to get there. You can go from capitalism to communism like *poof!*...there will be struggles, we will need some form of a state, a state however controlled by the people at any time.
The state must be the tool of the people, not that what opresses them.

Furthermore, the transition to communism is the most important task of the state, and should be done as quickly as possible.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:50 PM


Trotskism basicly IS anarcho-communism, but with realist ideas of how to get there. You can go from capitalism to communism like *poof!*...there will be struggles, we will need some form of a state, a state however controlled by the people at any time.
The state must be the tool of the people, not that what opresses them.

Furthermore, the transition to communism is the most important task of the state, and should be done as quickly as possible.
idk what is up with you and mixing idealogies. trotskyism is NOT anarchism. nor is it "close". the state is a defining factor of anarchism. since trotskyism like other forms of leninism call for a state, THEY ARENT SIMILAR.

[Paradox]

When I first got into Leftist philosophy it was through reading about people like Che and things like the Cuban Revolution, so I was more militant then than now and advocated guerrilla warfare. Now, if I was to be specific about it, I'd consider myself a Luxemburgist. However, I now prefer to just say I'm communist (that covers Marxism and Luxemburgism -as Luxemburgism is a form of Marxism- anyway). Now I advocate a mass movement and workers' militias for its defense, rather than a vanguardist type guerrilla war. So I suppose you could say I went from a sort of Castroist type view to a view more true to Marx and also to Luxemburg.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 1 2006, 09:56 PM--> (nate @ Jan 1 2006, 09:56 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 05:50 PM


Trotskism basicly IS anarcho-communism, but with realist ideas of how to get there. You can go from capitalism to communism like *poof!*...there will be struggles, we will need some form of a state, a state however controlled by the people at any time.
The state must be the tool of the people, not that what opresses them.

Furthermore, the transition to communism is the most important task of the state, and should be done as quickly as possible.
idk what is up with you and mixing idealogies. trotskyism is NOT anarchism. nor is it "close". the state is a defining factor of anarchism. since trotskyism like other forms of leninism call for a state, THEY ARENT SIMILAR. [/b]
what i meant was its generally the same, as in the same goal, and partly the same means (revolution).

I dont even bother arguing with anarchists over the need of a state, that'll become apparent after the revolution, and if it does not...well then fuck the state.

If we need a state, we'll have a state, if we dont, we wont...simple

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Diego Arman[email protected] 31 2005, 09:15 PM
I disagree. After reading brief excerpts on Soviet history, the works of Stalin, and an essay based off Zhukov's Stalin I have concluded that Stalin was certainly not totalitarian, he was for the enfranchisement of a million disenfranchized and was working towards contested elections. However, Stalin became utterly powerless against the Central Committee and thus could not change the state.
Actually, Stalin killed more people than Hitler! I know, It suprised me too!

I think that Stalin was the worst soviet leader, and should have been removed. "But..." you say. "He did put Russia through the industrial revolution!" But he did that on on the backs of millions of poor peasants.

See my point?

Peace.

[violencia.Proletariat]

what i meant was its generally the same, as in the same goal, and partly the same means (revolution).

well the obviously have the same goal, communism. a leninist and anarchist revolution have two different objectives. leninists seize state power, anarchist destroy the state.


I dont even bother arguing with anarchists over the need of a state, that'll become apparent after the revolution, and if it does not...well then fuck the state.

fair enough.


If we need a state, we'll have a state, if we dont, we wont...simple

agreed.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by FluxOne13+Jan 1 2006, 07:31 PM--> (FluxOne13 @ Jan 1 2006, 07:31 PM)
Diego [email protected] 31 2005, 09:15 PM
I disagree. After reading brief excerpts on Soviet history, the works of Stalin, and an essay based off Zhukov's Stalin I have concluded that Stalin was certainly not totalitarian, he was for the enfranchisement of a million disenfranchized and was working towards contested elections. However, Stalin became utterly powerless against the Central Committee and thus could not change the state.
Actually, Stalin killed more people than Hitler! I know, It suprised me too!

I think that Stalin was the worst soviet leader, and should have been removed. "But..." you say. "He did put Russia through the industrial revolution!" But he did that on on the backs of millions of poor peasants.

See my point?

Peace. [/b]
Stalin himself probably killed less than a hundred people. Otherwise, he couldn’t have killed anyone else because he wasn’t a leader of the army. Hitler and his forces murdered 11 million, in the Ukranian famine an estimated four million died. This famine is attributed solely to the Soviet state by bourgeois historians. However, if one looks at facts rather than listen to the opinions of the bourgeoisie the famine had several contributing factors.

1. There was already a minor famine;
2. There was a civil war before the Ukranian famine;
3. The kulaks were actively destroying farmland and equipment;
4. Soviet technology was no where near Western standards at the time;

This famine was in part natural and in part man made but it cannot be attributed to Stalin because Stalin didn't become Premier until 1941, eight years after the famine. Now as to those who died in labour camps, the figure is estimated by 1-3 million but often bourgeois historians quote the total deaths in the Soviet Union (old age, other natural causes, executions, suicides, other) as deaths in prison — this even includes the number of Soviet peoples executed by nazis!

There was also a unique characteristic about the Soviet Union, their were industrial and agricultural labourers who didn't have much a difference. The proletariat and the peasant were united as one group of laborers. Industrialisation was made on the backs of the capitalists, landlords, and kulaks.

[CCCPneubauten]

Come on now...how the fuck will this ever work...(anrcho-communism, anarcho-communism) if given total freedom don't you think people will revert to capitalism?

[against all authority]

what worries me is although leftists have a common eventual aim, in my opinion there are way to many different theories about how the revolution would take place. would that not just lead to different groups forming therefore creating another divide hindering unity?

i believe the difference of opinions is a major factor which is postponing revolution.

[KickMcCann]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:57 AM
Come on now...how the fuck will this ever work...(anrcho-communism, anarcho-communism) if given total freedom don't you think people will revert to capitalism?
Only if their material conditions and quality of life were to improve under capitalism. But if you are an anarchist/socialist/communist, then you probably believe that material conditions and the general quality of life will be vastly improved and more enjoyable under a successful anarchist/socialist/communist system, so what's to worry about?
Why would anyone want to revert back to a system thats worse than their current condition? Just as there are no serious movements to reinstate feudalism in the capitalist world, there should be no serious movements for a return to capitalism from a communalist system. Sure a few odd balls might advocate it, but if things are going great, no one will listen to them.

[Fidel Follower]

Thank you Morpheus, you have answerd my question :D
Cheers Comrade

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 1 2006, 03:53 PM
Read some books. Age isn't an excuse for ignorance.
So where was i being Ignorant ?

[Led Zeppelin]

I really think the absolute best society would be total equality with total freedom and no government.

Strange that you still hold that Leninist view.

Leninism does not mean "Socialism forever!", we believe in a stateless, classless society, we are Communists.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 2 2006, 05:47 AM

I really think the absolute best society would be total equality with total freedom and no government.

Strange that you still hold that Leninist view.

Leninism does not mean "Socialism forever!", we believe in a stateless, classless society, we are Communists.
Not in the original Marxist sense.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:41 PM
Not in the original Marxist sense.
Meaning that Marx did not want a classless society? He was not a communist?

Like it or not we all want the same thing here. We just have different ways of going about getting it.

[JKP]

To quote Engels:

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

It is also worth mentioning that Marx explicitly rejected top down emancipation; that can only be done by the working class itself.

Additionally Leninism argues that will power can change objective conditions; this just spits in the face of historical materialism.

[ComradeOm]

Have we not done this before? Regardless let's stick to the topic on hand. Leninists want the exact same communism as Marx or even anarchists do. Or do you dispute that?

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:23 AM
I went from an anarchist type to a Marxist-Leninist. I was an Anarchist while i didn't read much, and that was the phase when i just wanted what i thought was good, my politics was based on desire. Then when i started reading i learned the science and went to a Marxist-Leninist.

I actually can't see how anyone who is averaged read in Marxist-Leninist works go from a Marixist-Leninist to a Anarchist.
Good!

Anarchism = Utopia :angry:

There will not be state at the time of communism, but not at this time. If anyone intend to abolish it this time, he is just like Don Quixote!

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:39 AM
To quote Engels:

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

It is also worth mentioning that Marx explicitly rejected top down emancipation; that can only be done by the working class itself.


Exactly this is just what Engels says about the a period of transition: socialism, but not communism.

Read the following by Engels:

"But if, upon this showing, division into classes has a certain historical justification, it has this only for a given period, only under given social conditions. It was based upon the insufficiency of production. It will be swept away by the complete development of modern productive forces. And, in fact, the abolition of classes in society presupposes a degree of historical evolution at which the existence, not simply of this or that particular ruling class, but of any ruling class at all, and, therefore, the existence of class distinction itself has become an obsolete anachronism. It presupposes, therefore, the development of production carried out to a degree at which appropriation of the means of production and of the products, and, with this, of political domination, of the monopoly of culture, and of intellectual leadership by a particular class of society, has become not only superfluous but economically, politically, intellectually a hindrance to development"

"When at last it [state] becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency [117]; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand"

Additionally Leninism argues that will power can change objective conditions; this just spits in the face of historical materialism.
From what resources did you read? It's so ridiculous!

[JKP]

Did you you know that vanguardism and the Paris Commune are two completely different things? The Engels quote you posted is not a support of vanguardism.


From what resources did you read? It's so ridiculous!


You don't need to ask me about it; just look at what Lenin himself did.

He believed that you can skip stages of history and build communism, while the material conditions in Russia left no recourse but for a bourgeoisie revolution. Marx said that Russia would have it's own 1789 "soon". Lenin proved him right.

[CCCPneubauten]

How do you expect the state to "die out" when it is so built up?

Don't throw that Lenin quote at me...I want facts.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by JKP+Jan 4 2006, 04:07 AM--> (JKP @ Jan 4 2006, 04:07 AM)Did you you know that vanguardism and the Paris Commune are two completely different things? The Engels quote you posted is not a support of vanguardism.
[/b]
It's too dogmatic!

Why do you insist that if we build socialism in a country, it'll have to be a "new Paris Commune"? The social history is so flexible. Every countries have to build socialism under its own characteristics. In future, humanbeings will witness a lot of different models of socialism, I believe so.

I didn't mention vanguardism. I quoted Engels because you rejected Marxism-Leninism's post:

Originally posted by "JKP"@

"Marxism-Leninism"

Strange that you still hold that Leninist view.

Leninism does not mean "Socialism forever!", we believe in a stateless, classless society, we are Communists.


Not in the original Marxist sense.

You don't need to ask me about it; just look at what Lenin himself did.
What Lenin himself did I see are the success of The October Revolutionary, the establishment of The USSR and the emancipations of colonial countries following Leninism. :)

He believed that you can skip stages of history and build communism, while the material conditions in Russia left no recourse but for a bourgeoisie revolution. Marx said that Russia would have it's own 1789 "soon". Lenin proved him right.
Troskyist!

[Led Zeppelin]

He believed that you can skip stages of history and build communism

Stop being such an idealist:

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

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:08 PM
Anarchism = Utopia :angry:

What a ridiculous statement.

Good on whoever made this thread, I personally can't see how anyone with half a brain would become a Leninist ;)

[Livetrueordie]

How is Stalinism Marxism-Leninism?
Stalinist and Maoists will almost always refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninist. If you hear someone say there Stalinist they probably don't know what they're talking about, and if you hear someone say their Marxist-Leninist you'll probably hear them throw around the names Mao and Avakian. Actually they would probably say "Chairman" Mao

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:55 AM

How is Stalinism Marxism-Leninism?
Stalinist and Maoists will almost always refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninist. If you hear someone say there Stalinist they probably don't know what they're talking about, and if you hear someone say their Marxist-Leninist you'll probably hear them throw around the names Mao and Avakian. Actually they would probably say "Chairman" Mao
this is very true. and actually kinda sad.

[1984]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 5 2006, 03:40 PM

He believed that you can skip stages of history and build communism

Stop being such an idealist:

"It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated “stages” which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope. The same is demanded of revolutionary policy at critical moments. It may be said that the first distinction between a revolutionist and a vulgar evolutionist lies in the capacity to recognize and exploit such moments." Trotsky
In fact, every socialist country history's known so far passed through revolutions that did skip stages, for instance, Russia and China were still bound in a practically feudal society.

A society that did passed through industrial revolution, saw the rise and fall of capitalism and evolved to a socialist one, like Marx predicted... this never happened.

Call me an evolutionist if you want, but I wonder if this was a crucial factor why the socialist block didn't "make it", or why a wordwide revolution hasn't taken place.

[JKP]

"Communism is only possible when the productive capabilities of capitalism are exhausted." -Marx