Leninism vs. Marxism and Marxism vs. Anarchism

[TC]

There seems to be some confusion about what Leninism, Marxism and Anarchism actually mean. Namely, people are using the word 'Leninism' to describe Marxism, and 'Marxism' to describe Anarchism.


Some people seem to be under the impression that Marxists are simply Anarchists who believe in class-struggle, and Leninists are Marxists who believe in a centralized socialist state and a communist party to instigate a revolution.

This is really not true though. All Marxist Communists believe in a centralized workers state and economy after the initial revolution against capitalism, and want to instigate that revolution with organized communist partisans. These are not some 20th century ideas that Lenin came up with, these are Marx's positions that he wrote in the Communist Manifesto:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. "

Thus the notion of a Communist party as a vanguard of the proletariat is Marx's idea, not Lenin's.


"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. "

-Marx argues that the proletariat ought to organize itself as the ruling class of a centralized state with total control of the means of production...again this is a Marxist idea not a Leninist idea.

Marx writes:
"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

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.
"

The type of workers state he's describing is a highly centralized state. In fact it is more highly centralized than most real life socialist states. What he is arguing for is more centralized and heirarchical not less so, than Lenin. The phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is a term coined by Marx not Lenin.


As i hope you can see, Karl Marx was no anarchist. He was not sympathetic to Anarchists. He knew Michael Bakunin, they were not exactly best buddies.

The difference between anarchists and marxists is that anarchists reject the workers state and party. All Marxist Communists support a centralized workers state after the revolution, if you don't, you're not a marxist communist (you might still use marxian class analysis but you're not a marxist or a Communist).



What then is the real difference between 'leninism' and classic marxism? Leninism adds the theory of imperialism where instead of advanced capitalism driving its working class to the point of revolution at home, they will subsidize their own workers while expanding their economies overseas, so that the most exploited and therefore most revolutionary working class will in fact be in the colonies rather than the capital cities. So, while Marx would predict that revolutions would break out in the most advanced capitalist countries, Lenin would predict that revolutions would be most successful in the least advanced capitalist countries...i think history has proven Lenin correct. They did not however agree on either the role of the communist party or the workers state, Lenin simply adopted Marx's ideas.

[Morpheus]

Lenin's ideas on the party went beyond what Marx wrote. I don't know that they contradicted Marx, but Lenin went into more detail and was clearer. A non-leninist Marxist could have ideas about the party that are also consistent with Marx but clashes with Lenin's views. Because there are different ways to fill in the details, there is more than one version of the party that can be consistent with Marx; Lenin's is only one version (which you probably think is the best possible version).

[Storming Heaven]

You have an interesting interpretation of the Manifesto, Tragic Clown.


All Marxist Communists believe in a centralized workers state and economy after the initial revolution against capitalism, and want to instigate that revolution with organized communist partisans.

This is not true. Yes, all Marxists believe in a post-revolutionary worker's 'State', but I personally know many Marxists who are highly suspicious of centralization. I think centralization is incompatible with worker's power.


The type of workers state he's describing is a highly centralized state. In fact it is more highly centralized than most real life socialist states. What he is arguing for is more centralized and heirarchical not less so, than Lenin.

Not true. Re-examine the first part of your second quote from the Communist Manifesto:


The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, [i]i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

A 'Worker's State' would be no more centralized than the working class itself. It would necessarily be radically democratic - if it wasn't, a ruling class other than the proletariat would arise and it would no longer be a worker's 'State'!


The difference between anarchists and marxists is that anarchists reject the workers state and party. All Marxist Communists support a centralized workers state after the revolution, if you don't, you're not a marxist communist (you might still use marxian class analysis but you're not a marxist or a Communist).


Propunding such sectarian divisions isn't helpful. Marxism is a group of theories, not a religion. Like any theory, it has been argumented and added to by people other than the original theoritician (Lenin, Trotsky, Cliff etc.)

[Guest1]

I think the problem here is the very unclear usages of the term "centralization". Reading Marx's works on the revolutionary events in France and the Paris Commune shows, I think, the clearest explanation of Marx's ideas ont he dictatorship of the proletariat. Here it becomes obvious that radical democracy based on the working class is Marx's vision. Where centralization comes in is the application of the power of that working class.

Soviets, a natural extension of the Commune's example, showed where that centralization falls. The exclusive legitimacy and right to power of those Soviets, and the working class that moves them, is the centralization Marxists as well as Leninists refer to. The democratic centralization of economics in the hands of society as a whole, as opposed to competing collective factories, is another form of necessary centralization.

This is the alternative Marxism offers workers, one of a society whose social and technological potential is unleashed by unified, democratic and rationally planned production.

The "New Marxism" we see often on this site, devoid of real analysis and based on an emotional reaction to past Marxist experience, can provide no concrete substitute to that.

[redstar2000]

Historical context is everything when discussing "questions" like this.

The only thing that "unifies" anarchists, as far as I can tell, is opposition to a centralized state apparatus.

What "unifies" Leninists is the "leading role of the party".

What "unifies" Marxists is historical materialism.

You can, if you like, "trace a line" from portions of the Communist Manifesto to German Social Democracy to Lenin and his followers.

And "centralization" would be an important component of that line. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was widely believed that centralization = progress.

It was thought, for example, that the growth of trusts was a "stage" that was "on the way" to a nationalized monopoly. Common also was the opinion that the construction of larger and larger factories as time passed would make the "centralization of production" a de facto reality even before proletarian revolution.

There was nothing "sinister" in this view; it was based on the simple observation of what was happening then.

That such an outlook "seeped" into theory regarding the "communist party" was a "natural" occurrence.

Another factor (usually unacknowledged) that shaped Lenin's view of the party was the stunning success of the German General Staff in defeating France in 1870; the accomplishments of a military leadership trained to lead stunned all of Europe at the time and afterwards.

It's pretty clear that this is what Lenin thought was needed to "win the class struggle"...a cadre that would function as the "general staff" of the proletariat, guiding it along the "line of march" to "final victory".

Lenin's perspective departs sharply from Marx's conception of how the class struggle would be resolved. To Marx, it was the masses that made history. Communists, at best, could be but midwives, "easing the birth pangs" of the new society...not having the baby!

In other words, communism was not something to be imposed on history but rather something that came about as a natural consequence of history.

Marx and Engels wrote very little about how post-capitalist society "would operate"...from the sensible standpoint that until one knows the material conditions of that period, it's almost impossible to make realistic hypotheses about what's possible and what is not.

They knew what they wanted -- "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" -- but never attempted to "design" a method for making that "work". They assumed that useful methods would emerge at the appropriate time.


Originally posted by TragicClown
Leninism adds the theory of imperialism where instead of advanced capitalism driving its working class to the point of revolution at home, they will subsidize their own workers while expanding their economies overseas, so that the most exploited and therefore most revolutionary working class will in fact be in the colonies rather than the capital cities. So, while Marx would predict that revolutions would break out in the most advanced capitalist countries, Lenin would predict that revolutions would be most successful in the least advanced capitalist countries.

Aside from "the leading role of the party", I agree with TragicClown here that this is a major departure from Marx by Lenin and his subsequent followers.

Is it a "valid" departure? It "looked valid" throughout the 20th century, no question about that.

But what we have actually seen is that none of the "socialist revolutions" in backward countries actually put the working class "in command" and all of them have retreated to capitalism. The working class in those countries was too small, too weak, and too backward to have more than a passing influence on events there...if that. The Leninist countries all became variations on the despotism of Napoleon III...rapid economic development followed by modern capitalism.

You can, if you wish, consider them "benevolent" despotisms because of their extensive social welfare programs; certainly a vast improvement on the regimes that preceded them. Centralized economic planning "works better" (faster and more egalitarian) to develop a country than ordinary capitalism does.

But behind all the rhetoric and red flags looms material reality. A backward country ruled by a small elite (however well-intentioned) cannot "step over" the centuries required to develop the material basis for communism.

And worse, it's now pretty clear that setting up what the Leninists called "socialist states" in the last century leads inexorably to the corruption of the party itself!

When your social role is that of a boss, then you or your kids or your grandkids become bosses...that is, openly capitalist.

Each Leninist party says "they won't do that"...when in fact there's no possible way they could keep from doing that. It's not a matter of perfidy; it's a normal response to the situation in which they find themselves. This or that "revolutionary saint" may "resist temptation"...but in general, they must succumb.

"Virtue" is powerless in the face of material incentive.

Meanwhile, of course, we still await genuine proletarian revolutions in the countries where Marx and Engels thought they would happen first -- England, France, Germany, and the United States.

If Lenin has been refuted, Marx has yet to be confirmed.

Recent events in France are sort of encouraging...but I frankly don't expect to see "the real thing" before 2050 or so.

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

[Xanthus]

Nice post TragicClown, these concepts need to be better understood on this board.

As usual, redstar, your free time to post is remarkable, but your analysis anything but. Here's a few points, before I delve back into reality. It seems to be a requirement to have a redstaresque life in order to have enough time to carry on a debate here. I have been busy for several days organising a leading Venezuelan trade unionist's tour in North America, and I come back to find any topics with debates I had been taking part in long over.


What "unifies" Leninists is the "leading role of the party".

What "unifies" Marxists is historical materialism.

. . .

Lenin's perspective departs sharply from Marx's conception of how the class struggle would be resolved. To Marx, it was the masses that made history. Communists, at best, could be but midwives, "easing the birth pangs" of the new society...not having the baby!
How so? This seems a rediculous interpretation, one used by many sectarian groups, but by none who follow the true thread of Marxist thought.

What unifies Marxists is far more then historical materialism, but also dialectical materialism, Marxist economics, the conception of the communists as "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others", and countless other traditions.

There is no question that the party is necessary to organise and build that most advanced section, and to push forward all others. That is Lenin's conception of the party, which is exactly what Marx's was. In earlier times, it was best to form a group who worked within all areas of struggle of the working class. They could have no independant party, because there was no need to separate themselves from any given part of the working class movement. However, as what's now known as social-democracy grew in power, this changed. While Marxists in Russia did not posess an independant mass following, they worked within the movement in general. But, as revolution became more and more a clear possibility, and it became obvious that the social-democratic parties would act as a brake to the process (the tripping point for Lenin came in their support for WW1), Lenin had no choice but to create an independant Marxist party, free of opertunism and nationalism.

I'd argue that true Marxists follow this line even today, and it is consistant with Marx's view. Marxists work within the traditional organisations of class struggle, where the masses of the working-class movement exist. This is totally consistant with the manifesto ("In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.") Then, in the future, and only as dictated by events (by a new "stage"), they may be forced to make an independant turn, but that will only come as a result of a revolutionary situation building. Before that point, there is no chance for a Marxist tendancy to build a mass base of support, and after that point, the forces of social-democracy will be far too reactionary to be anything but counter-revolutionary. At this point, the forces of social-democracy are no longer part of the "movement as a whole" but represent the counter-movement. This is exactly the course Lenin took! And this is what so many so-called "Leninists" forget, as they fetishise the idea of an independant party. Those who rush to build an "independant party" of 10, 100, or even 1000 people may be Leninist in name, but they do not follow the genuine thread of Lenin's ideas.


In other words, communism was not something to be imposed on history but rather something that came about as a natural consequence of history.
To label it simply one or the other is to not take into account the whole picture. It certainly is natural that mass uprisings are a necessary result of capitalist decay. Also, it is a concequense of the general flow of history, and the forces at play, that the ultimate result of these uprisings could be a restructure of society along the lines of the workers taking control and creating a new society built along communist lines (as they are both the only capable revolutionary class and the majority). However, it is also entirely possible (according to both Marx and Lenin) that these revolutionary uprisings will ultimately fail, and the eventual result will be the destruction of the contending classes. In the view of both Marx and Lenin, it is the subjective factor which ultimately decides. Marxists are NOT historical determinists. So, yes, it is a natural concequense, but it is also necessary to organise, in order to prevent these movements from failing.


They knew what they wanted -- "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" -- but never attempted to "design" a method for making that "work". They assumed that useful methods would emerge at the appropriate time.
Exactly! And that's what "Leninism" represents. Useful methods for the Russian revolution emerging at the appropriate time. Are they all appropriate for every revolution? Of course not! That's why any Marxist worth the name will read all he can of them, and learn their lessons, but when organising in his own country, he will not use the same methods designed to work in Russia of 1917.


But what we have actually seen is that none of the "socialist revolutions" in backward countries actually put the working class "in command" and all of them have retreated to capitalism. The working class in those countries was too small, too weak, and too backward to have more than a passing influence on events there...if that. The Leninist countries all became variations on the despotism of Napoleon III...rapid economic development followed by modern capitalism.
Lenin never doubted that a revolution within an undeveloped country would either spread to more advanced countries, or ultimately fail. He merely predicted that the world revolution would most likely BEGIN in more undeveloped countries as a result of higher levels of discontent, and from there spread to more advanced ones. No true Marxist (including Lenin) has ever believed that a revolution confined to undeveloped countries would succeed without quickly spreading to the developed world.


And worse, it's now pretty clear that setting up what the Leninists called "socialist states" in the last century leads inexorably to the corruption of the party itself!
Various groups claiming to be "Leninist" may call these "socialist states", but Lenin, being himself a Marxist, would never do that. I would take some time to look up a couple of quotes by Lenin proving the absurdity of this notion, but I don't have the time to do so today. Lenin certainly never declared socialism to have been built in the USSR before his death!


Meanwhile, of course, we still await genuine proletarian revolutions in the countries where Marx and Engels thought they would happen first -- England, France, Germany, and the United States.
*sigh* So you'll ignore revolutions taking place today in search of the holy grail? It is only logical that these revolutions of today and of the near future will provoke that revolution in the developed world which you pessimistically refer to as being 50 years off. The workers in Venezuela (for example) and the United States have more in common then they have differences. There is no doubt that an isolated Venezuelan revolution will ultimately fail, and no Leninist or Marxist would ever deny that... but I fail to see how any Marxist could deny the possibility of that revolution spreading throughout Latin America and then emerging into the developed world.

[TC]

What "unifies" Marxists is historical materialism.


No, what unifies Marxists is both Marx's historical materialism and his political ideology as described in the Communist Manifesto and elsewhere. The term for someone who supports Marx's sociological and economic theory but not his political positions is Marxian rather than Marxist, distinguishing academic followers of Marx from political followers of Marx. Marx was both a political scientist and economist who examined class and society from a scientific, objective perspective, and a political activist who picked sides and had an agenda and strategy...someone who agrees with him on the first part but not the second part is marxian not marxist.

When economists or political science professors or sociologists make use of historical materalism, the labor theory of value, alienation of labor and class conflict, to interpret their fields, they are said to be Marxian or applying Marxian analysis. They're not 'Marxist' unless they also support a revolutionary Marxist Communist political agenda.

You can be a Marxian Anarchist but you can't be a Marxist Anarchist. The Neo-Conservative movement subscribes to historical materialism as well, that doesn't make them Marxists. Leo Strauss is a famous example of a marxian but anti-marxist rightwing political philosopher.

[Axel1917]

This is an intersting topic, but I am a bit busy right now, so I won't be able to post something at the current moment.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

As an Anarcho-Communist, I don't care to associate myself with Marxism. Both Marxism and Leninism are authoritarian, in my opinion, and I don't support such systems of government. Anarchism is the truest form of communism because it avoids the centralization of power, which is essential to achieving equality.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 23 2006, 01:20 PM
As an Anarcho-Communist, I don't care to associate myself with Marxism. Both Marxism and Leninism are authoritarian, in my opinion, and I don't support such systems of government. Anarchism is the truest form of communism because it avoids the centralization of power, which is essential to achieving equality.
Too bad Anarchism also avoids realism in favor of an ideological stubbornness.

The truth is that all Marxists as well as Anarchists hate the idea of centralization of power and seek to get rid of it as completely and as quickly as possible move to a stateless, classless society... however, some also have a prerequisite of doing what's needed to achieve that goal instead of, like lemmings, doing what sounds like a "nice idea" in an idealistic world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xanthus+--> (Xanthus)It seems to be a requirement to have a redstaresque life in order to have enough time to carry on a debate here. I have been busy for several days organising a leading Venezuelan trade unionist's tour in North America, and I come back to find any topics with debates I had been taking part in long over.[/b]

Reformism is time-consuming...so don't blame me or the board because you lack the time to repeat Trotskyist banalities.


What unifies Marxists is far more then historical materialism, but also dialectical materialism, Marxist economics, the conception of the communists as "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others", and countless other traditions.

"Dialectics" is bullshit. Marxist economics is part of historical materialism. And Marx's 1847 description of the role of conscious communists specifically excludes a separate party...much less one organized according to Lenin.

As it happens, I'm in favor of a conscious organized communist movement...but opposed to your obsolete "Vanguard Party".


There is no question that the party is necessary to organise and build that most advanced section, and to push forward all others.

Yes there is...and it's a huge question. All the variants of Leninism in the "west" haven't amounted to a puddle of warm spit.

Either what you're trying to do can't be done or you are one and all hopeless fuckups.

You choose. :lol:


That is Lenin's conception of the party, which is exactly what Marx's was.

You imagine that if you assert that nonsense often enough that people will believe it.

No, they won't. :)


But, as revolution became more and more a clear possibility, and it became obvious that the social-democratic parties would act as a brake to the process (the tripping point for Lenin came in their support for WW1), Lenin had no choice but to create an independent Marxist party, free of opportunism and nationalism.

Just as the apologists for superstition here rarely have a competent knowledge of their own religion, the same is usually true of modern Leninists as well. It was in 1912 that the Bolsheviks made their final split with the Menshevik social democrats (not 1914).


Marxists work within the traditional organisations of class struggle, where the masses of the working-class movement exist.

Trotskyist "Marxists" love "tradition" the way a hog loves slop. In fact, one wonders why they don't frame their appeals in terms of traditional Leninist values. :lol:

Truth is, most modern Leninists are probably to the right of German social democracy c.1891.


However, it is also entirely possible (according to both Marx and Lenin) that these revolutionary uprisings will ultimately fail, and the eventual result will be the destruction of the contending classes.

If so, then they must in the due course of time re-emerge, right?


In the view of both Marx and Lenin, it is the subjective factor which ultimately decides.

Rubbish! Conflates Lenin's idealism with Marx's materialism.

Haven't you heard? You can't get away with that political "spoon-bending" anymore!


It is only logical that these revolutions of today and of the near future will provoke that revolution in the developed world which you pessimistically refer to as being 50 years off.

What "revolutions of today" are you talking about? There is no proletariat in the world that has state power or anything even close to that!

I know...you see all those red flags in Caracas and "assume the best" -- not being a "pessimist" like me. :lol:

Your naked adulation of Chavez's very mild version of social democracy shows just how far behind you are of German social democracy in 1891.

Contemporary Trotskyists are "living fossils"...even more than the few remaining Maoists.

Oh...my estimate of 50 years for western Europe is optimistic. It may be that I should phrase that 50-100 years. Certainly 100 years looks a great deal more plausible for North America.


TragicClown
No, what unifies Marxists is both Marx's historical materialism and his political ideology as described in the Communist Manifesto and elsewhere. The term for someone who supports Marx's sociological and economic theory but not his political positions is Marxian rather than Marxist, distinguishing academic followers of Marx from political followers of Marx.

Well, that's an interesting distinction...and there's certainly some truth to it.

The difficulty is teasing out Marx's "political positions" from the era in which he lived. A "political position" that Marx might have held in 1870 or Engels in 1891 may be, by now, completely irrelevant.

Marxists are "for" communism in a sense that academics usually aren't...but the question of what it means to politically fight for communist revolution now is obviously far different than in Marx's time.

Or Lenin's, or Trotsky's, or Mao's. :lol:

What, for example, is the "communist role" in the current struggles in France? Obviously it should be "more" than just an endorsement of the popular demand for the government to back down on its new labor law.

But what would be a "communist demand" in those circumstances?

What does "communism" mean to the French working class at this point in history? Is it credible to speak of the "communist option" to them?

Or to the most intransigent of the young?

I'm not there and can't answer those questions. All I'm really sure of is that ancient Trotskyist banalities will naturally be ignored as irrelevant.


Leo Strauss is a famous example of a marxian but anti-marxist rightwing political philosopher.

Um...no.

Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%2C_Leo)

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

[anomaly]

Am I to assume that Xanthus would agree with TragicClown here?:

All Marxist Communists believe in a centralized workers state and economy after the initial revolution against capitalism

But then quoth Xanthus...:

The truth is that all Marxists as well as Anarchists hate the idea of centralization of power
So TragicClown's list of concepts needs to be 'better understood', even though, according to your own words, they are completely wrong? :huh:


Too bad Anarchism also avoids realism in favor of an ideological stubbornness.
Is it really anarchism that has the 'ideological stubbornness?'

After all, anarchists have moved on since Bakunin's time. But, if you agree with TragicClown (whether you do is most unclear), so-called 'Marxism' has not moved on from the old idea of a centralized worker's state. Indeed, TragicClown suggests that Marx wanted more centralization than even Lenin!


I'll throw in that according to TragicClown's definitions I am certainly not a Marxist, but rather a 'Marxian anarchist'.

[Xanthus]

Damn it redstar, will you ever get your head out of your ass for even a second??? I don't even know where to start...


Reformism is time-consuming...so don't blame me or the board because you lack the time to repeat Trotskyist banalities.
I'm not a reformist.
Unlike you, I am a practicing Marxist, working to try to bring the ideas of revolution to the people here. Do you think I helped bring a reformist from Venezuela? No! I helped bring a man who is leading the movement to fight for worker's control within the revolution.


"Dialectics" is bullshit. Marxist economics is part of historical materialism. And Marx's 1847 description of the role of conscious communists specifically excludes a separate party...much less one organized according to Lenin.
Dialectics is the root of all marxist analysis. If you don't agree with it, you aren't in any way shape or form a Marxist, which I could have told you just from your other points.


As it happens, I'm in favor of a conscious organized communist movement...but opposed to your obsolete "Vanguard Party".
Vangard Party? I don't think I've ever used that word. A united and organised movement is the idea, doesn't fucking matter what you call it.


Yes there is...and it's a huge question. All the variants of Leninism in the "west" haven't amounted to a puddle of warm spit.

Either what you're trying to do can't be done or you are one and all hopeless fuckups.
Hopeless fuckups? You fucking ass, you sit on your keyboard doing shit all and waiting your 50 years and you call those who are struggling "hopeless fuckups". I'm not saying that I agree with what 90% of the communist groups of the west have done, but that's simply because they've (like you) forgotten dialectics and other core methods of Marxism. Either way, the fact that they try to do something makes them 1000 times more respectable then you, waiting your 50 years, and accomplishing nothing.
Obviously a "communist party" is a rediculous idea in most areas today! But the point is, that organisation needs to exist for anything to be accomplished.


You imagine that if you assert that nonsense often enough that people will believe it.
I don't know what you hope to imagine with all your BS. Is it to cram your head even farther up your ass? Or is it to do the same with somebody else's head? You are rendering yourself and anyone else who decides to follow you completely useless.


Just as the apologists for superstition here rarely have a competent knowledge of their own religion, the same is usually true of modern Leninists as well. It was in 1912 that the Bolsheviks made their final split with the Menshevik social democrats (not 1914).
Yes, and I'm not talking about the formal date of split. It was over the war question that Lenin abandoned all hope of working with the "soft-left" of the workers' movement. Infact, that split, which formally occured in 1912 was over organisational questions dating back far earlier, but Lenin had not yet abandoned hope in working together with soft-left elements.


Trotskyist "Marxists" love "tradition" the way a hog loves slop. In fact, one wonders why they don't frame their appeals in terms of traditional Leninist values. laugh.gif

Truth is, most modern Leninists are probably to the right of German social democracy c.1891.
That depends on what you term "Leninist". If you term "Leninist" as someone who follows and continues the thread of Lenin's ideas, you are even more full of shit then usual on this point. If you mean, simply, ANY "Communist party", then, you completely forget that they've gone through not one (Stalinist) but in many cases two (reformist) reactionary periods, which have almost completely wiped clean the Marxist traditions from them.


If so, then they must in the due course of time re-emerge, right?
Yes, we cannot control in any way when a revolution occurs, but every person within a revolutionary period helps decide the success or failure of that revolution. The more capable Marxist cadres, the better.


Rubbish! Conflates Lenin's idealism with Marx's materialism.

Haven't you heard? You can't get away with that political "spoon-bending" anymore!
This argument you give is along the lines of the crude pre-Marx school of economic determinism, and bares nothing in common with Marxism. The fact that you show quite clearly that you have zero understanding of dialectics is obviously the reason you are so clueless here.


What "revolutions of today" are you talking about? There is no proletariat in the world that has state power or anything even close to that!

I know...you see all those red flags in Caracas and "assume the best" -- not being a "pessimist" like me. laugh.gif

Your naked adulation of Chavez's very mild version of social democracy shows just how far behind you are of German social democracy in 1891.

Contemporary Trotskyists are "living fossils"...even more than the few remaining Maoists.
A revolution has many stages and many forms, not all lead directly to socialism, and not all reach that phase at all. Obviously there is no proletariat in the world that has state power or anything close to it! Obviously there is no socialism in Venezuela. I've been there, and it remains (although people can now feed themselves, see doctors, and heat their houses) a capitalist hell-hole with one of the worst discrepencies between rich and poor in the world.

How the fuck do I "assume the best"??? I work to help build the best, along with my comrades down there who form the left of the movement and push Venezuela, and indeed all of Latin America, towards worker's control.

Naked adulation??? Damn, that head's getting farther and farther up your ass. I hold critical support for the process there, and complete support for the comrades of the CMI who are working, with some success, to push the process towards worker's control and a complete smashing and rebuilding of the state with a participatory democracy stemming from that worker's control.


Oh...my estimate of 50 years for western Europe is optimistic. It may be that I should phrase that 50-100 years. Certainly 100 years looks a great deal more plausible for North America.
You're doing a very good job of making absolutely sure you don't have to get off your lazy ass to accomplish anything, aren't you?

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:24 PM
Am I to assume that Xanthus would agree with TragicClown here?:

All Marxist Communists believe in a centralized workers state and economy after the initial revolution against capitalism

But then quoth Xanthus...:

The truth is that all Marxists as well as Anarchists hate the idea of centralization of power
So TragicClown's list of concepts needs to be 'better understood', even though, according to your own words, they are completely wrong? :huh:


Too bad Anarchism also avoids realism in favor of an ideological stubbornness.
Is it really anarchism that has the 'ideological stubbornness?'

After all, anarchists have moved on since Bakunin's time. But, if you agree with TragicClown (whether you do is most unclear), so-called 'Marxism' has not moved on from the old idea of a centralized worker's state. Indeed, TragicClown suggests that Marx wanted more centralization than even Lenin!


I'll throw in that according to TragicClown's definitions I am certainly not a Marxist, but rather a 'Marxian anarchist'.
Marxists see central power as a necessary evil, something which we'd love to avoid, but which is needed for the tranfer between a class society, and classless communism. Basically, without a method of control over this process, counter-revolution would be all but assured, and nothing would drastically change in organisation of production, allowing the same old capitalists (in a more repressive form, such as fascism), to take back what had been taken from them and continue on. The lack of fundamental change can be seen very clearly in how little problem Franco had in taking back power at the end of the Spanish civil war.

Basically, we ALL want a stateless, classless society. Anarchists will say, just smash the state and the rest will take care of it's self, whereas Marxists would say that you have to build the conditions such that a classless society would become possible.

The building of those conditions is a necessary evil.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Xanthus
Marxists see central power as a necessary evil, something which we'd love to avoid, but which is needed for the tranfer between a class society, and classless communism.
So, for you supposed Marxists, you have to centralize power, thus building up the state, in order to destroy it? :huh:

But now you've contradicted yourself. You just said

The truth is that all Marxists as well as Anarchists hate the idea of centralization of power
But you feel you 'have' to use it. If you want centralized power, you don't hate it. That's like me saying I hate racism and but I'm a Nazi.

In reality, you think all Marxists want centralized power. Because it's 'needed'. As there has never been a successful communist revolution, there is not a scrap of evidence to prove that it's 'needed'.

I think the proletariat, decentralized and without any 'central authority,' is quite sufficiently powerful to repel counterrevolutionaries. Remember, the proletariat will vastly outnumber the bourgeoisie.

Just noticed this:

pre-Marx school of economic determinism
Well, I'm sure redstar will tell you, but I'll say it also. Historical materialism is a quite 'deterministic' theory, and it is hardly 'pre-Marx' (it is Marx's theory!).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xanthus
Damn it redstar, will you ever get your head out of your ass for even a second??? I don't even know where to start...

Start with some personal abuse. It's a "Leninist traditional value".

Oh, you did. :lol:


Dialectics is the root of all marxist analysis. If you don't agree with it, you aren't in any way shape or form a Marxist, which I could have told you just from your other points.

No surprise to see that your devotion to Hegelian superstition far exceeds your interest in historical materialism.

How many "dialecticians" does it take to change a lightbulb?

None...lightbulbs, like everything else, change themselves. :lol:


A united and organised movement is the idea, doesn't fucking matter what you call it.

"United" how? "Organized" how? Leninists have specific answers to those questions.

Their answers are wrong.


You fucking ass, you sit on your keyboard doing shit all and waiting your 50 years and you call those who are struggling "hopeless fuckups".

I gave you a choice: the other option is whatever you are trying to do can't be done.

I'm rather inclined to that option myself...the idea of a small group of "professional revolutionaries" actually managing to "run a revolution" strikes me as exceedingly implausible, to put it charitably.

Would you like what I have to say better if I stood up at the keyboard? :lol:


Either way, the fact that they try to do something makes them 1000 times more respectable then you, waiting your 50 years, and accomplishing nothing.

I am not trying to be "respectable", of course. I leave that to the Trotskyists. :D


I don't know what you hope to imagine with all your BS. Is it to cram your head even farther up your ass? Or is it to do the same with somebody else's head? You are rendering yourself and anyone else who decides to follow you completely useless.

We know what you mean by "useless", don't we? Meaning they won't be foot soldiers in your latest reformist "struggle".

Horrors! :lol:


If you term "Leninist" as someone who follows and continues the thread of Lenin's ideas, you are even more full of shit then usual on this point.

What else is a reasonable definition?


Yes, we cannot control in any way when a revolution occurs, but every person within a revolutionary period helps decide the success or failure of that revolution.

A bit of truth slips into the discussion. Now if we can get you to admit that any particular individual helps or hurts in an amount too small to measure, then maybe we'll get somewhere.

But I suspect that's asking too much.


I hold critical support for the process there, and complete support for the comrades of the CMI who are working, with some success, to push the process towards worker's control and a complete smashing and rebuilding of the state with a participatory democracy stemming from that worker's control.

You're drunk on Trotskyist rhetoric, that's all. When you sober up, maybe then we'll have something to talk about.

Meanwhile...


You're doing a very good job of making absolutely sure you don't have to get off your lazy ass to accomplish anything, aren't you?

Social democracy in Venezuela is unworthy of my assistance.

On the other hand, yours... :lol:

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

[Social Greenman]

Anomoly wrote:


In reality, you think all Marxists want centralized power. Because it's 'needed'. As there has never been a successful communist revolution, there is not a scrap of evidence to prove that it's 'needed'.

I think the proletariat, decentralized and without any 'central authority,' is quite sufficiently powerful to repel counterrevolutionaries. Remember, the proletariat will vastly outnumber the bourgeoisie.

I for one agree that a centralized state would be counter-productive for workers. Basically the emancipation of workers would be done by the workers themselves and not by a political body who acts on behalf of them. Eventually the body politic would serve it's own interest as we've already seen in the former USSR.

Workers already are in control of the means of production. They work part of the day for their wages and creating surplus value (which in turn becomes profits) for the capitalist class. Nothing mystical about how that is done. Workers for the most part do not comprehend that their labor makes the boss rich. They think that value is added through the process apart from their labor. In other words, as explained to me by a co-worker, each department "buys" the product from another until it is finished and out the door. That's how the boss makes his money. :lol: I had to correct him though. ;)

So, what's so hard about workers running society themselves unless, of course, it is believed that they are as dumb as rocks. I have no doubt that one day the workers will organized along industrial lines and implement a new economic system. Of course my opinion comes from a non-dieletical point-of-view. :)

[Axel1917]

From redstar2000:


Start with some personal abuse. It's a "Leninist traditional value".

Oh, you did. :lol:

You placed Xanthus in a group of "useless fuckups," hypocrite. :rolleyes:




No surprise to see that your devotion to Hegelian superstition far exceeds your interest in historical materialism.

And of course, you have not bothered studying dialectics, now have you? When I put a link to Reason in Revolt, you said that you "Did not have time to read the Gospel according to Ted and Alan." But you do have all the time in the world to sit behind that computer and spend every moment when you are not working, eating, sleeping, etc. and post away at this site and your rant site, The redstar2000 papers. :rolleyes:


How many "dialecticians" does it take to change a lightbulb?

None...lightbulbs, like everything else, change themselves. :lol:


How much effort does it take to make a revolution happen?

Next to none, according to redstar2000, given that he thinks that it will come as he just sits around and rants on the Internet. Perhaps he should see a psychologist about this Internet addiction of his.



"United" how? "Organized" how? Leninists have specific answers to those questions.

Their answers are wrong.


Who are you to judge, given that you have never bothered reading or understanding what Lenin wrote?


I gave you a choice: the other option is whatever you are trying to do can't be done.

How would you know? You don't have any practical experience, not to mention theoretical. We have been having an impact out there. We have helped the earthquake victims of Pakistan, we are building up the cadres in the world, we have been the only organization to have correct understanding of the Bolivarian Revolution from the beginning, more people are reading our books and joining us, etc. We are growing in influence. What are you doing? Still sitting at that damn computer?


I'm rather inclined to that option myself...the idea of a small group of "professional revolutionaries" actually managing to "run a revolution" strikes me as exceedingly implausible, to put it charitably.

What would you know, given that you have never read what Lenin stated on the subject? Had you read what he said, you would know that the party depends on the masses, and through its fight agiainst opportunism, "Left-wing" communism, etc., the masses learn though their own experience that the party is correct.


Would you like what I have to say better if I stood up at the keyboard? :lol:

It would be better if you said that you got up, went out, and tried some practical things, in addition to actually reading and understanding things. If you were young, I would cut you some slack, given that the young are predisposed to certain nonsensical notions for some time. Given that you are probably old enough to be my father though, there is no excuse for what your nonsense. Some people are obviously not capable of learning.


I am not trying to be "respectable", of course. I leave that to the Trotskyists. :D

Your arrogant ways can only serve to repel most people from you.


We know what you mean by "useless", don't we? Meaning they won't be foot soldiers in your latest reformist "struggle".

You have no proof that we are reformists. That claim is baseless. Your anti-party and anti-organiztional stances are tantamount to advocating the theoretical, practical, and organizaitonal disarmament in the intrests of the reactionary Bourgeoisie. The Left has a good deal of enemies within it, of which must be consistently and mercilessly exposed by a party with an iron Bolshevik discipline.



[i]Horrors! :lol:

It is truly a horror to navigate through your nonsense!



What else is a reasonable definition?


Maybe if you actually bothered thinking for once in your life, perhaps you could figure that out. You have been lost in a wood of three trees for quite a number of years. What did Miles say? "You can take redstar out of the New Orleans Maoist Collective, but you can't take the New Orleans Maoist Collective out of redstar"! :lol:


A bit of truth slips into the discussion. Now if we can get you to admit that any particular individual helps or hurts in an amount too small to measure, then maybe we'll get somewhere.

But I suspect that's asking too much.

I think it is asking too much of you to attempt to understand the role of the individual in history in a consistently materialist manner!


You're drunk on Trotskyist rhetoric, that's all. When you sober up, maybe then we'll have something to talk about.

Meanwhile...

You are too drunk you your own, arrogant doctrinaire, sectarian, anti-Marxist nonsense. Who is it that really needs to sober up here?



Social democracy in Venezuela is unworthy of my assistance.

On the other hand, yours... :lol:''

Your sectarian, anti-Marxist at this board is unworthy of our assistance, but the reactionary Bourgeoisie find it quite useful!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Who are you to judge, given that you have never bothered reading or understanding what Lenin wrote?
Wait, wait, wait...redstar2000, didn't you spend years reading and studying nearly all works of Lenin?

[Xanthus]

Redstar, I'm sorry for being insulting, that's not usually my way, however, such profound ignorance maskarading as knowledge has the potential confuse and render impotent a large number of would-be revolutionaries. Such a waste makes me angry.

As for your confusion between Marx's determinism (that is, the idea that the forces of history form a current (to use an analogy) defined by material conditions, which dictates the general flow of history, such that a swimmer cannot swim against the current), and a strict dererminism, I have a quote from you. I seemed to remember something about this in Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, so I pulled a book containing those theses off my bookshelf, and sure enough, first point:

Originally posted by Karl Marx: Theses on Feuerbach
1.
The chief defect of all previous materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that things [Gegenstand], reality, sensuousness are conceived only in the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was set forth abstractly by idealism--which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from conceptual objects, but he does not concieve human activity itself as objective activity. In Das Wesen des Christenthums, he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearence. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary", of "practical-critical", activity.
I might attach a little note on that as to the translation of the word "sensuous". Within the context of this quote, it means basically something detected by your senses, such as something seen with one's own eyes. It is something objective, as opposed to an ideal. This is a little confusing when we're used to sensuousness being a sexual term.

Well, there you have it, you, like Feuerbach, (as well as other pre-Marxist materialists), you do not grasp the significance of "revolutionary" activity, and do not regard "human activity itself as objective activity". If you had called yourself a Feuerbachian, that would be fine. But you my friend, are no Marxist as it stands. Here is Marx, refuting you himself, almost word for word.

Of course, I understand that you are stubborn, and will probably not accept even Marx's words. I realise now I wasted my time in arguing with you in the first place.

As for the dialectic, it runs throughout Marx and Engles' works, and is the core philosophy behind even your much loved historical materialism. I'm refering not to Hegel's dialectic, which although it contained a sizable amount of truth, was rooted in idealism, but to the materialist dialectic first layed out by Feuerbach (in a flawed way), and then developed by Marx and Engels throughout their works. This should not even be an arguable point, and I see no reason to provide a quote for it as above. It is obvious to any Marxist, and I only hope that people with a new, keen interest in Marxism, don't listen to your ignorant posts.

As for your continual references to me as a reformist, I would think that I have disprooved that through word several times. I fight for revolution, not reform, and my hope for Venezuela lies not in what it presently is (a capitalist nation with many problems and a few valuable reforms simply allowing it's people to eat, read, and recieve cures for sickness), but what it may become thanks to the present and evolving mass-movement of the workers. The world is not black and white, but exists in ever-changing shades of grey. The fact that you stubbornly keep refering to me as a "reformist" despite this, prooves that you are too stuborn for me to waste my time chatting with you any further. Remember, as long as you remain so stuborn, you're losing what chances you have to rid yourself of your profound ignorance regarding Marxism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)We have helped the earthquake victims of Pakistan...[/b]

Aren't you sweet. Reformism is, at the bottom, reduced to charity.

Or are you telling people that earthquakes will be "abolished" under the rule of the Vanguard Party? :lol:


We are growing in influence.

Cue Theme: The future belongs to us.


The Left has a good deal of enemies within it, of which must be consistently and mercilessly exposed by a party with an iron Bolshevik discipline.

Ooooohhhh...kinky! :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Such a waste makes me angry.

And do you imagine that I am not angry to see kids who might someday make a contribution to proletarian revolution sidetracked into impotent reformism and ultimately turned into total cynics and even reactionaries?

What happens to those kids when Venezuela turns out not to be the "promised land" after all?

Given the material conditions in Venezuela, the most that you can hope for is "another Cuba"...less poor but otherwise about the same.

And ten years from now we'll have a bunch of threads on "what will happen when Chavez dies?". Probably around the time the Pope pays a visit to Caracas. :lol:

Same old song and dance.

But you pump people up with all sorts of illusions about the Venezuelan "revolution"...and don't give a shit when they become cynical and disillusioned afterwards.

You got some work out of them...and that's all that really counts.

Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html)


Marx
The chief defect of all previous materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that things [Gegenstand], reality, sensuousness are conceived only in the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was set forth abstractly by idealism--which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from conceptual objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. In Das Wesen des Christenthums, he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary", of "practical-critical", activity.

I have no problem with Marx's critique of Feuerbach in this passage.

Unless you interpret it in such a way as to elevate the subjective over the objective...which is exactly what I accuse the Leninist paradigm of doing.

We all act to "change the world"...but, if we are sensible, then we do so in accordance with the direction the world is predisposed to change with a minimum of effort.

One could labor strenuously to "restore feudalism"...but there are no remaining practical ways to do that.

If we labor to establish communism, then we have the objective "forces" of history "on our side"...in the long run.

It is those forces (which include our practical efforts) that determine the outcome.

Is it reasonable, for example, to anticipate a proletarian revolution in Venezuela -- a newly emerging capitalist country...no matter what conscious communists attempt to do.

What could their "best" efforts result in but a Leninist despotism that would clear away all the remnants of feudalism and imperialism and permit Venezuela to "take its place" as a modern capitalist country.

Do you imagine that "subjective will" can forcefully drag Venezuela into the 22nd or 23rd century?

That is, a period of time when communism will be objectively practical in Venezuela.


I fight for revolution, not reform...

No, you imagine that you "fight for revolution, not reform".

In objective reality, you simply assist the social-democratic modernization of Venezuelan capitalism.

That's "progressive", to be sure...it's what needs to happen in that country.

But the rhetoric of "socialism", "workers' control", etc., is not only completely without objective justification but is historically impossible (except for brief moments) at this time.

You may as well ask the Venezuelans to build a functional interstellar spacecraft!

To be sure, they could probably build a mock-up of one...and that's what Venezuelan "socialism" would be: red flags, plywood stands, a "stage setting" for "socialist rhetoric".

A generation or two later, you'd end up with modern capitalism anyway.

I do not deny the appeal of Leninism to the "impatient"...it takes Marx's critique of Feuerbach and says, in effect, we don't have to wait for the objective conditions for communism to mature; we'll just take over and make it happen!

At gunpoint. :lol:

That was attempted all through the last century.

Didn't work, did it?

Why should it work?

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

[Xanthus]

Redstar, I was right, you aren't even worth arguing with. I never once called Venezuela "the promised land", I believe my quote is "a capitalist hell-hole". However, I see events in process and the possibility of a socialist grow-over of the revolution in Venezuela stems from material reasons. To think that there is only one possible outcome in Venezuela (be it worker's control, or your prediction) would be narrow-minded. I also do not take the subjective factor over the objective, as witnessed by statements such as "we cannot control in any way when a revolution occurs, but every person within a revolutionary period helps decide the success or failure of that revolution". The key factor is that neither is truely above the other, the subjective is a part of the objective. No, the subjective is not decisive in determining the general trend of movement within society, but it can be decisive in determining the final outcome. I also am in no way a reformist, which you continue to state repeatedly for no reason, showing very clearly just how important your preconcieved notions are to you.

As for the camps in Pakistan, they were not simple charities, but also held revolutionary schools within the camps. These schools, and also the goodwill expressed by the Marxists, helped along what has become a general trend in Pakistan towards Marxism on a mass level, created by both the objective situation of living in Pakistan and the subjective factor of The Struggle's heroic work. This is not in the least similar to bourgeois or reformist charities. When the situation in Pakistan develops enough to force a mass uprising, now there will be thousands of Marxist cadres helping the situation to develop along Marxist lines. This represents a massive change in the objective situation when compared to the sitation which exists in many other countries, where mass uprisings serve only to place new reactionary elements in power. If you hope to have any understanding of Marxism, materialism, or the world situation, you must abandon your black and white outlook.

That quote from Marx was refuting the exact position you've expressed in this thread. You simply cannot see it because you're blinded by your stubborness and years of built-up misunderstandings.

You are obviously not interested in the truth of a matter and only in your own preconcieved notions. This is not materialism, but idealism, and it is nothing short of endlessly frustrating for a materialist to attempt to debate materialism with an idealist, even an idealist in materialist clothing. So I'll stop now, and not reply any more in this topic.

[Epoche]

Please gentlemen, will you quit sparring and get it together? Your knowledge of the subject content far exceeds my own, and I don't see myself learning much if I'm not sure who to believe.

Here I stand among my comrades as they beat the snot out of each other. I don't feel the love. If I could provide you with some Nazis or capitalists to practice on, I would. But I can't, so cut it out.

Now, which one of you is correct and where do I go to sign up? And no argumentum ad vericundiams either. I want absolute facts babe (the non-Wittgensteinean atomic kind), or nothing at all.

Don't make me bust out the Spinoza and blow us all away. I am not on a suicide mission here.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Epoche
I don't see myself learning much if I'm not sure who to believe.

Don't "believe" either one of us.

Inform yourself as best you can about Leninist practice in the 20th century. Read as much of Marx and Engels as you can.

And constantly ask yourself: does this make sense?

In the last century, the "mantra" of the left went something like this:

If Lenin said it, it must be true!

Or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao or Tito or Ho or Hoxha or the leadership of my Party.

The catastrophic consequences of that course have become obvious to all but the hopelessly superstitious.

To be a revolutionary in the communist sense of that word does not mean memorizing a set of formulas and maxims; there's no "12-step-plan" to breaking capitalist "addiction".

The naive sometimes think of a revolutionary as "some guy in the hills with a gun"...or, more realistically, some guy in the street carrying a sign or peddling a small tabloid. :lol:

Or some guy who's read some books and can stand up in the front of the room and talk about what he's read.

But it's really a lot more than that!

It's the habit of thinking critically about both ideas and events. So that when you go "into the hills" or "into the streets", you know what the fuck you're doing!

Leninists want to recruit "cadre" -- soldiers who will "carry out their orders" with "iron Bolshevik discipline". That's their "vision" of "how to win" the class struggle.

"Thinking" is "the Leadership's job".

Do you want to be a cog in their machine?

Or do you wish to be a real revolutionary who can rationally evaluate your class interests and act to promote them?

And unite with other revolutionaries as equals?

Choose carefully. :)

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

[Xanthus]

Yikes. I actually agree with absolutely everything redstar said in that post, except one thing, the definition of a cadre.

A Marxist cadre is someone who has read and experienced enough to understand the methods of Marxism, who is dedicated to the cause, and who is capable of being a self-thinking Marxist... in other words what redstar was suggesting in the rest of his post, but not in the section defining what a cadre is.

The lack of critical thought, and interpreting the writings of Marxists of the past in a formal manner are HUGE problems with 90% of so called "Marxists" out there. The one exception to this trend that I've found is the IMT, represented by www.marxist.com. That is the reason I am a member of that organisation.

For any TRUE Marxist organisation, thinking is EVERYONE's job.

It's too bad there are few true Marxist organasations around.

[anomaly]

Xanthus, I'm curious as to your response to my last post. Because you seem to want centralization and no centralization at the same time.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:06 PM
Xanthus, I'm curious as to your response to my last post. Because you seem to want centralization and no centralization at the same time.
Sure thing.

I can see why you'd be confused, because ultimately, I'd love to go straight for a stateless society. However, there is one major problem with this, it would not work.

Basically, it all comes down to conception of the role of the state. An anarchist generally (and not being an anarchist, I'll be general here) concieves of a state as being the cause of class society. The solution seems simple, smash the state, eliminate state power, and bingo, we have a class-less society.

However, I don't think it's nearly that simple. It is the class society, and more specifically the ruling class of a society which CREATES the state for means of extending it's rule. If we eliminate the state, we are still left with a whole bunch of people who are not equal in terms of resources, and not equal in terms of which class they feel a part of. There is still a class society. Also, not only is the starting resources of each person different, and the mentality of each person is different, but the means of fair distribution have yet to be perfected (and we'd have to be naieve to suggest this is an easy thing).

So, as we try to setup our immediate wonderful stateless, classless society, we run into tons of problems. The former capitalist wants to keep his economic conditions intact and still posesses the economic means to defend that aim (especially considering the assistance provided from the rest of the capitalist world). Meanwhile, production has taken a serious downturn, as revolutions are economically expensive, and there is no group with an immediate plan to improve production to turn the economy around. Thanks to this downturn, living standards of the better off sector of the workering class, and the petty-bourgeois see their living standards seriously degraded, leaving them to side with the former capitalists.

Meanwhile, the lower elements of the working class and the peasent classes are surprised to see that, thanks to the economic downturn, their living standards aren't quickly improving either, and there isn't enough to go around for everybody to have what they want. They start squabbling among themselves for who's life should improve or who's city is the most important to recieve food from the farms. They have a great deal of trouble coming up with a united plan for reorganising society, much less rebuilding and improving the productive elements.

So we have different elements of the revolutionary classes fighting with each other, and the only united class, a massive counter-revolutionary force of former capitalists and their allies. This will result in an inevitable counter-revolution. I don't see how any other result is possible.

So this is the end of our immediate classless society, as facism takes hold and all the revolutionaries are put up against the wall and shot.


The only other option is to maintain a state for a short period, in which the reorganising of society and defense against the counter-revolution can occur in an organized manner. A state is the means of the oppression of a class, and while the working class no longer is oppressed, the counter-revolutionary classes for a time must be themselves oppressed in order to allow the revolution to be maintained. As time goes on, the economic situation balences out, old class rivalries are forgotten, oppression is no longer needed in order to maintain the revolutionary order, and the state withers away creating a stateless, classless society.

And I just checked the time and must run out the door. I would have liked that last paragraph to be more detailed, and I won't be able to reach a computer for the next couple of days. Here's a link anyway, which has FAR more detail about what should be in that last paragraph: State and Revolution: Chapter 5 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)

[anomaly]

A few things here...


However, there is one major problem with this, it would not work.
This is our ultimate disagreement, isn't it? You feel that we 'just need' a Leninist party to 'lead' people, and a state to further direct them. However, since there has never been an actual proletarian revolution, you have no a scrap of evidence to posit such a hypothesis. However, I think anarchists do have some evidence for an anti-statist conclusion. When the Leninists got power in the USSR, what happened? People's rule? No. Party's rule. The only thing you could possibly say is either 'Stalin was bad' or 'we'll do things differently this time'. The former does not live up to any materialist views. If Trotsky, or anyone else, was awarded power, what would have happened? Perhaps some minor differences, but things probably would have been similar. After all, individuals do not affect the course of history. The latter guess, that 'you'll do things differently this time' is also completely unfounded. You say very clearly that you want a state. Power, however, is not something humans have shown to give up without a fight. So the concept that the state Leninists construct will just 'wither away' is also invalid, in my opinion.


An anarchist generally (and not being an anarchist, I'll be general here) concieves of a state as being the cause of class society. The solution seems simple, smash the state, eliminate state power, and bingo, we have a class-less society.
Actually, anarchists want to overthrow the bourgeoisie as well. But we also recognize that the state is 'a problem'. So long as we have hierarchy, we will have classes. And the state Leninists want is hierarchy. Thus, the ruling class will rule, and it will just become a 'new bourgeoisie', just as happened before with Leninist states. We cannot create a classless society by creating a new ruling class. That is another anarchist thought, one I, obviously, think is valid.

That should also cover most of that fourth paragraph. However, we also have this:

fair distribution
And what is fair distribution? Indeed, Marx asked this very question in his Critique of the Gotha Program. In it, he says something I very much agree with: distribution is determined by the relations to the means of production. Have not the bourgeoisie always asserted that distribution is fair? Certainly they have! So 'fair distribution' is just a bourgeois concept. What we want is for the people, the proletariat, to control the means of production communally.


So this is the end of our immediate classless society, as facism takes hold and all the revolutionaries are put up against the wall and shot.
I disagree. Call it 'faith', but I think people are sufficiently reasonable and able to keep a stateless society stateless and classless. We don't need a Party telling us what we should do.


A state is the means of the oppression of a class, and while the working class no longer is oppressed, the counter-revolutionary classes for a time must be themselves oppressed in order to allow the revolution to be maintained.
Interestingly enough, Lazar, LSD and I had a rather lengthy conversation on what constitutes a 'state'. Myself, I do not think simply the existence of 'class' constitutes a state. A state has always implied some form of centralized hierarchy, so when you say you support a 'state', you really support some form of centralized hierarchy. You must realize this.

I do not think any centralized hierarchy should exist after a revolution. Call me 'anti-Marxist', 'anti-DoP', whatever you want. Indeed, once the bourgeoisie loses their ownership of capital, they are no longer functionally bourgeoisie. The only functional class remaining would be the proletariat. There certainly will be counterrevolutionary activity, the scale of which is presently unknown, but we do not need any hierarchical state to suppress this.

I'll admit, I've read only parts of State and Revolution, however, I think it differs rather significantly from What Is To Be Done, of which I have also read parts. The despotism of which Lenin speaks in WITBD is obvious. And this is where the disagreement with Leninism comes.

For example, in State and Revolution, Lenin is constantly saying how democratic he wants everything to be. However, in What Is To Be Done, Lenin speaks of democracy as if it is childish and naive. He says the 'revolutionary organization' should be very secretive, and thus should only include 'professional revolutionaries.' Indeed, Lenin says that this 'secretive' organization is neccesary and that "there can be no question of replacing it by general democratic control." So, in Lenin's own words, the 'Vanguard' becomes nothing more than a minority of 'professional revolutionaries' which are to 'lead' the people to 'socialism'. Obviously, no DoP was actually realized in Russia (or China, or Vietnam, etc.), so why should we believe Leninism will work now?

Indeed, wasn't SaR basically a political tool to appease anarchist or anarchist-leaning factory workers? I may be mistaken, but I think this is accurate.

[Axel1917]

anomaly:

A state will be needed to suppress the Bourgeoisie when they are overthrown; they will enlist the strength of international capital to come to their aid. The Russian Bourgeoisie had gotten the help of over 20 foreign armies against the Bolsheviks. Soviet power could have not possibly lasted without a state of workers' democracy and an iron Bolshevik discipline.

"It is, I think, almost universally realised at present that the Bolsheviks could not have retained power for two and a half months, let alone two and a half years, without the most rigorous and truly iron discipline in our Party, or without the fullest and unreserved support from the entire mass of the working class, that is, from all thinking, honest, devoted and influential elements in it, capable of leading the backward strata or carrying the latter along with them.

The dictatorship of the proletariat means a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow (even if only in a single country), and whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production. Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. All these reasons make the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate life-and-death struggle which calls for tenacity, discipline, and a single and inflexible will.:

-Lenin, from "Left-Wing" Communism - An Infantile Disorder, section II

See also:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rk/equality.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/equality.htm)

“...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?..."

-Engels, quoted by Lenin in The Proletrian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

[anomaly]

This isn't 1917 anymore, first of all. So let's move on.

But it is good to see you finally admit that you are for a hierarchical, centralized apparatus.


Originally posted by Lenin
rigorous and truly iron discipline in our Party
Have fun with that again, Axel.


from all thinking, honest, devoted and influential elements in it, capable of leading the backward strata or carrying the latter along with them.
O Vladimir, what are we to do with those troublesome 'backward' workers? Again, Axel, it isn't 1917 anymore. And who would be these ones who are so 'honest' and 'devoted'? Would it be the Party leaders? Why yes, yes it would! :lol:


tenacity, discipline, and a single and inflexible will
Tenacity for whom but the Party? Discipline to whom but the Party? Singularity to whom but the Party? And what constitutes 'the Party'? Why, it is the leaders of the Party, since we've already established that this is what Axel wants: a hierarchical, centralized apparatus. Indeed, it was what Vladimir wanted...so how could it be wrong? :lol:

So, if you want to be a subject of a Lenin-like figure, a 'backward strata' among the 'thinking, honest, devoted, and influential' Vanguard, be my guest. But, that just doesn't sound very appealing to me.

[Epoche]

I have a question.

Are the different contentions of Communist theorists mainly based on the process of achieving a communist state, or are they based on the infrastructure of that communist state once it is established?

(and don't be an ass and say "read the fucking books, Epoche." I am and will...so give me time and help me out)

Do Lenin and Marx, for instance, disagree on how to do it, or on what will be done? My question is one of means and ends.

I imagine in my head a moment where power is finally held by the communists, or "centralized," and everyone is standing around asking "now what do we do?" Is this a likely question that will be asked, or do the "pieces fall into place" on their own. What procedures must happen in order to maintain government once the old is overthrown?

And thank you for your support and enthusiasm, redstar2000. I am learning much from reading your discussions.

[KC]

or are they based on the infrastructure of that communist state once it is established?

Bingo.



Do Lenin and Marx, for instance, disagree on how to do it, or on what will be done?

Many people would say that Lenin agrees with Marx. Others would say that the two theories are completely different.

[Epoche]

Redstar2000:


Leninists want to recruit "cadre" -- soldiers who will "carry out their orders" with "iron Bolshevik discipline". That's their "vision" of "how to win" the class struggle.

"Thinking" is "the Leadership's job".

Do you want to be a cog in their machine?

Or do you wish to be a real revolutionary who can rationally evaluate your class interests and act to promote them?

And unite with other revolutionaries as equals?

Choose carefully.

I understand your point, however I would believe that a temporary hierarchy would be necessary during the process of taking control. All military organizations must consist of ranks and orders, but I don't think Lenin's idea of the "cadre," as I understand it so far, is a malicious act that is not advantageous for the cause. Am I mistaken?

Consider the "cadre" as a means and not an end. No?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:08 AM


From anomaly:


This isn't 1917 anymore, first of all. So let's move on.

I am aware of that, and conditions still prove the need for a party. No party, no revolution.


But it is good to see you finally admit that you are for a hierarchical, centralized apparatus.


When Xanthus says the same thing, you are interested. When I say that same thing, it is "advocating totalitarianism." :rolleyes:



Have fun with that again, Axel.

Have fun supporting the Bourgeoisie. You will side with them if a revolution comes, for only a party can lead the masses to victory. With continual expousure of opportunists, ultra-lefts, the Bourgeoisie, etc., the masses, through their own experience, learn that the party is correct. You clearly have no idea how a party even functions. Strange how you prefer to take Stalin's word for things.



O Vladimir, what are we to do with those troublesome 'backward' workers? Again, Axel, it isn't 1917 anymore. And who would be these ones who are so 'honest' and 'devoted'? Would it be the Party leaders? Why yes, yes it would! :lol:

Again, the party is not totalitarian at all. You say that the Bolsheviks made a coup? Really? How is that so? There were about 8000 of them, or so, I think before the revolution. How could such a small group take down the will of the majority, of which had the entire state apparatus and the masses on their side? By your logic, Lenin and Trotsky had magic powers, of which enabled them to commit the Bolshevik "coup!" :lol: Who is the real idealist mystic here? :lol:



Tenacity for whom but the Party? Discipline to whom but the Party? Singularity to whom but the Party? And what constitutes 'the Party'? Why, it is the leaders of the Party, since we've already established that this is what Axel wants: a hierarchical, centralized apparatus. Indeed, it was what Vladimir wanted...so how could it be wrong? :lol:


Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you bother reading and understanding what Lenin wrote?


So, if you want to be a subject of a Lenin-like figure, a 'backward strata' among the 'thinking, honest, devoted, and influential' Vanguard, be my guest. But, that just doesn't sound very appealing to me.

Your unconscious support for the Bourgeoisie does not sound very appealing to me!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Epoche
Do Lenin and Marx, for instance, disagree on how to do it, or on what will be done?

Both, I think.

It's pretty clear that Marx imagined a more or less spontaneous mass uprising..."like" the Paris Commune.

Lenin thought a revolution should be "led" by a tested group of experienced "leaders".

After victory, Marx was in favor of the "Paris Commune state"...hyper-democratic without a professional military or bureaucracy. He did think that the Paris Commune should have been somewhat more centralized than it actually was...and is likewise on record as deploring the time spent holding elections.

Lenin clearly favored a despotism of the "Vanguard Party" and repeatedly argued in favor of that conception after 1918. At no time did he ever suggest that any substantive power be "devolved" back to the working class. The Leninist rhetoric about "proletarian democracy" was utter bollocks.

Leninist apologists "explain" this by conditions arising during the civil war and the foreign invasions. But the historical fact of the matter is that Lenin became more authoritarian after the civil war was won and the invasions defeated. In this he was joined, of course, by both Stalin and Trotsky.


Consider the "cadre" as a means and not an end. No?

Even skimming the posts of someone like Axel1917 reveals the problem with such "means"...the big head! Being trained in the conviction that "iron Bolshevik discipline" will not only be victorious but, in fact, will put them in positions of power leads to irreversible swelling of the ego.

They imagine themselves indispensable "architects of history" and woe to anyone who "gets in their way".

It's laughable when they don't have any power to enforce deference to their pretense...but terrifying when they do!

By and large, it was not ordinary working people who were "targeted" by Stalin or Mao; it was party members who never knew in the morning where they'd be by evening. :o

And, of course, those methods "trickled down" all through the party. Someone who "wanted your perks" could easily drop a few hints to the police about your "anti-party attitude".

You can readily imagine the nightmarish atmosphere of intrigue that prevailed...about as "proletarian" as the renaissance papacy. :angry:

In fact, revolutionary politics is impossible in such a climate...yet another explanation of why both Russia and China more or less steadily moved to the right as time passed.

What we have to avoid at all costs is the despotism of a "Vanguard Party".

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917
No party, no revolution.
And it is upon this dogma that all of Leninism is built!


When Xanthus says the same thing, you are interested. When I say that same thing, it is "advocating totalitarianism."
I think I gave equal criticism to Xanthus. But, just to clarify, both you, and Xanthus, and all other Leninists, are wrong. Better?


for only a party can lead the masses to victory.
More dogma. It is becoming apparent that Leninism is less a political ideology than a religion (love thy party). And I hate religion.


Strange how you prefer to take Stalin's word for things.
Actually, I was responding to Lenin's words. Not Stalin's. And Lenin advocated a small group, i.e. the Party, leading the proletariat to glory. And you support this. Get it?


Again, the party is not totalitarian at all.
All events concerning the party hitherto have only served to illustrate the totalitarian nature of the party. History is not on the Leninists' side.


You say that the Bolsheviks made a coup?
No, they didn't make one. But they led one. And they, not the proletariat, not the people, took power after the revolution.


Who is the real idealist mystic here?
You are. All your posts only serve to prove this.


Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you bother reading and understanding what Lenin wrote?
When Lenin says that 'professional revolutionaries' are to lead 'the backward masses', how should I interpret that other than that the 'professional revolutionaries' will be leaders while the people will be their subjects? Should I, rather, assume the benevolence of their tyranny, as you do? Well, I would, but history shows the opposite. So, I suggest you read some history.


Your unconscious support for the Bourgeoisie does not sound very appealing to me!
And so, comrades, we hear what the Leninist really thinks. If you are not for the leader, you are bourgeois. If you are not for the Party, you are bourgeois. If you are not for the Vanguard, you are bourgeois. If you agree with such horseshit, then you probably should join a Leninist Party. But if you think, like me, that the proletariat should not be led by the Party but rather should liberate themselves, join me in collectively telling the Leninists to go fuck themselves. Once we discredit these Leninist mystics, we can get on with more important things.

[Epoche]

Redstar2000:


At no time did he ever suggest that any substantive power be "devolved" back to the working class.

Then that settles it. Lenin is to be disregarded. As I suspected, the major disagreement between Lenin and Marx is in the maintenance of the communist state after it is achieved. It is reasonable to suggest that a group of specialized ranks should be the strong-arm in the operations neccesary to take control, but where those ranks continue to exist after force is no longer necessary...there happens a despotism.

However I don't see Marx's vision of a "sudden uprising" of the masses having any effect where that uprising is not precisely organized as a militaristic stratagem. This might be the origins of Lenin's "Vanguard," which is of course warranted.

I don't mean to simplify the matter by reducing it to a case of "means and ends," but I see no other conception of effective uprising and immediate reform that is possible without such castes as the Vanguard, if only temporarily, to take control with utmost efficiency. I certainly do think that the process of overthrowing the government will be violent, sudden and forceful.

If anything, what might happen is an internal conflict within the communist state once it is achieved, where those elite, who were responsible for taking control and forcing reform, will be distributed back into the masses. Of course if such parties refuse to "step down," then appropriate measures will be taken to "equalize" them.

Finally, if this entire argument revolves around the issue of "how it should be done," then I think it is quite obvious that no revolutionary action can be taken without military organization. I don't see a bunch of workers overthrowing the government with shovels and rakes in the twenty-first century.

p.s. Am I even close to understanding the contrast between Lenin's idea and Marx's idea, and do my sentiments seem unreasonable?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Epoche
I don't see a bunch of workers overthrowing the government with shovels and rakes in the twenty-first century.

Historically speaking, that is "what happens".

The best example was that of Petrograd in February 1917. There was no "vanguard party", no "established leaders", no "iron Bolshevik discipline", and certainly no "armed struggle" to speak of.

It was simply millions of people who had "had enough" of Czarism...and the walls came a-tumbling down! :lol: The military units stationed in Petrograd joined the revolution!

The Leninists do indeed have a "vision" based on the October 1917 coup...but that's not what real proletarian revolutions are "like".

A capitalist system that is no longer able to function and a proletariat armed with communist ideas will be sufficient...the "shovels and rakes" will be a bonus.

The bourgeois state apparatus -- that looks so "powerful" and "terrifying" -- will, in fact, mostly melt away. Its material base is gone and it will have lost its credibility.

It won't be "a walk in the park"...but it won't be very far short of that either.

Whenever the masses decide to move in their own interests, they sweep away all obstacles...in days!

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

[Ultra-Violence]

I havent seen 1 of u Guys mention about class concious I mean that there would show the claer diff* between Lenin and Marx

Marx: workers become class concious=over throw of the capitilist class

Lenin:Vanguard Leads working class= a big MESS

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 26 2006, 10:36 AM
I havent seen 1 of u Guys mention about class concious I mean that there would show the claer diff* between Lenin and Marx

Marx: workers become class concious=over throw of the capitilist class

Lenin:Vanguard Leads working class= a big MESS
I suppose there are just so many differences, we just have to go one at a time. :lol:

[Marc Gossett]

[In reply to first post,]

first of all, this isn't an appropriate reading-into of the Communist Manifesto. The author of the post is assigning values garnered from criticisms of the Soviet Union and from Stalinist proclamations to words and ideas which have little in common. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a "dictatorship" of a party or people. In the 19th century, for the most part, the word still was used mostly in its original context (which dates back to the Roman empire), "to spell out the law" like one would "dictate" a letter, for example. The negative connotations come much later. That is why Marx contrasts the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marx believes in the Commune- which is a council such as those in the Communist League- he believes in a robust participatory democracy of an organized proletariat which can "dictate" its will as law, as the Bourgeoisie have done from a minority position. Marx, Lenin and Trotsky have recognized that the state is a means to repress class antagonisms and an instrument of violence. The purpose of a proletarian state organ is in suppressing the bourgeoisie and establishing new property relations. Anarchists talk of "abolishing" money, private property and exploitation at the snap of the fingers without a state and without any transition or struggles. A state organ is a tool that is necessary when inequality and social antagonisms still exist. The Stalinist regimes used the state to suppress these antagonisms in their countries on behalf of the international bourgeoisie and the deformed worker's states, rather than being even "socialist," the lowest stage of post-capitalist society, remained backward, unequal, politically degenerated and most importantly, isolated from the rest of the world. After a world revolution and given the falling off of antagonisms across the world, the state will have less and less reason to exist and the interest of the world's people in maintaining a state will decline. The state will gradually cease to function as needs are met and inequality eases. Freed humanity does not need a state, but the proletariat, rising to the at first precarious position of ruling class needs a state as all ruling classes do, to manage the social antagonisms inherited from the past and emerging from struggle with the bourgeoisie. Inequality does not cease when the red flag is raised over the white house.
Only when the proletariat ceases to exist as a social category, when want, inequality and cultural impoverishment ceases to necessitate such definitions, humanity will stop needing a state to compel society forward. There does seems to be a belief here that the state is some magical entity which exists for itself. Again, It is only an instrument in the service of the ruling forces in society. Stalinism is completely inseparable from the ruling force before and after the failed 1917-1922 world revolution, the bourgeoisie. Stalinism was and is a wider manifestation of the relationship between employer and union-bureaucrat. Stalinism is not Marxism or Leninism, it is its gravedigger. For this purpose a massive despotic state is indispensable.