Council Communism vs. Leninism

[Rawthentic]

I have read alot on council communism and the ideas od the workers councils. I find this very much more "proletarian" in nature if you will than the Leninism that advocates "democratic centralism" that ultimately separates the masses from the Party and the Party becomes authoritarian. Thats pretty much what has happened with Leninism throughout history ( i.e. Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam). So what would you choose and why?

[piet11111]

workers councils all the way.

leninism is a set-up for dictatorship by design dont trust it.

[Enragé]

preferably council communism

though some centralisation might be necessary

[Rawthentic]

yeah, thats what i was leaning to. A comrade here on revleft gave me a book to read online titled Non-Leninist Marxism. Im not sure which comrade though. I think it was barista.marxista? :blush:

[The Grey Blur]

Council Communism; although in my opinion all Socialists have their part to play in the struggle, whether Leninist or Libertarian

[More Fire for the People]

I ‘side’ with Leninism because of the real world nature of Leninism, i.e. Lenin’s commitment to analyzing material conditions and acting upon such conditions in the most advantageous manner for the proletariat. The only aspect of democratic centralism I feel doubtful about is the restriction on inner-party opposition. I disagree with factionalism but I don’t believe censorship of the dissenters is the best solution in a party that operates under a democratic republic — though in Russia’s situation, a centralistic approach to dissent seemed the most viable.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 08:55 PM
I ‘side’ with Leninism because of the real world nature of Leninism, i.e. Lenin’s commitment to analyzing material conditions and acting upon such conditions in the most advantageous manner for the proletariat. The only aspect of democratic centralism I feel doubtful about is the restriction on inner-party opposition. I disagree with factionalism but I don’t believe censorship of the dissenters is the best solution in a party that operates under a democratic republic — though in Russia’s situation, a centralistic approach to dissent seemed the most viable.
well for the soviets dissent was usually dealt with by sending them to the gulag.
leninism does not leave any room for opposition.

so far it seems designed for setting up a dictatorship instead of communism.

[CCCPneubauten]

I choose, Troskyism. I dunno, seems a less hardcore Leninism. anarchsits never have order to them, thus their revolts and civil wars always fail. Leninism DOES things, but alas, it turns sour with 'socialism in one country'.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by piet11111+Apr 13 2006, 06:21 PM--> (piet11111 @ Apr 13 2006, 06:21 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 08:55 PM
I ‘side’ with Leninism because of the real world nature of Leninism, i.e. Lenin’s commitment to analyzing material conditions and acting upon such conditions in the most advantageous manner for the proletariat. The only aspect of democratic centralism I feel doubtful about is the restriction on inner-party opposition. I disagree with factionalism but I don’t believe censorship of the dissenters is the best solution in a party that operates under a democratic republic — though in Russia’s situation, a centralistic approach to dissent seemed the most viable.
well for the soviets dissent was usually dealt with by sending them to the gulag. [/b]
Really? I always thought that with roughly only 1.11% of the population in prison during the most barbarian methods of Stalinian repression the Soviet Union was doing quite well.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 12:55 PM
I ‘side’ with Leninism because of the real world nature of Leninism, i.e. Lenin’s commitment to analyzing material conditions and acting upon such conditions in the most advantageous manner for the proletariat. The only aspect of democratic centralism I feel doubtful about is the restriction on inner-party opposition. I disagree with factionalism but I don’t believe censorship of the dissenters is the best solution in a party that operates under a democratic republic — though in Russia’s situation, a centralistic approach to dissent seemed the most viable.
I really dont see the real world nature of Leninism. Maybe by "real world" it has failed and created a totalitarian government and state capitalism. They dont do things for the advantageous manner of the proletariat; they consider themselves the "professional" revolutionaries and assume that the masses are stupid and therefore have to be guided by a Party and must succumb to the dogmatic doctrine of that Party or else they are "wrong" or "counterrevolutionary." On the other hand, we have council communism and its workers councils. This puts the real power in the hands of the proletariat, the worlers form autonomous mini governments of you will that becomes aprt of a national or international framework nontheless. Leninism and the Party create a hierarchy that puts the power in the hands of the Party. "Democratic centralism" is a nice little term that signifies this. There hasnt been a real world order of council communism, like Leninism, but lets not forget how that turned out :rolleyes: Workers councils, the basis of council communism, have been successfully made, i.e Paris Commune, Hungarian uprising. The Paris Commune was made of autonomous worker's councils, the workers elected people with universal suffrage and they were always rotated so as to not create a hierarchy. This lasted until it was brutally suppressed by the reactionaries. Leninism or other forms of Leninism such as Maoism, Trotskyism, and Castroism, have resulted in dicatorships and have never achieved even real socialism in its sense. Also, Leninism shouldnt even be allowed to exist in advanced capitalist nations since they are already industrialized and able to support a socialist society. It should only be practiced in feudal or semi-feudal soceities as a form of national liberation.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

As I said in another post I would choose Luxemborgian-Council Communism, over Marxist-Leninism because it seems like it would be more likely to achieve the final goal of societal Anarchism, and that it puts more power into the hands of the people, and not in some "party," and I think that the vanguardism of Leninist Communism, would not be best suited, if the final goal was to have the state wither away.

[вор в законе]

There is no such thing as ''Leninism''.

These terms were coined by his dogmatic followers and his enemies which are engulfing the Communist Movement in general.


If you translate ''Council'' Communism into Russian you have ''Soviet'' Communism, that is what Vladimir Lenin advogated. Hence no, I don't want ''Council Communism'' and consequently ''centralised democracy'' in a Communist Society.

[piet11111]

lenin took away the power from the soviets and ordered them to be disbanded as his vanguard hijacked the russian revolution.

[More Fire for the People]

@hastalavictoria: I'll respond when you format your response into paragraphs.
@piet1111: I'll respond when you crack open a fucking history book.

[wet blanket]

If you translate ''Council'' Communism into Russian you have ''Soviet'' Communism, that is what Vladimir Lenin advogated. Hence no, I don't want ''Council Communism'' and consequently ''centralised democracy'' in a Communist Society
Lenin advocated autocracy(bolshevism). The workers' soviets served no real purpose shortly after the communist party took control of things. It's inaccurate to equate Leninism/Bolshevism to Council Communism.

[barista.marxista]

Yo. I am an autonomist, so, yeah, I side with the councilists. Hasta: yeah, I recommended that book. Have you gotten a chance to read it? It made me renounce Leninism after years of being a Trot. It's amazing.

To the Lennies who say "Look! State and Revolution was about soviets!": it's not important what you say, but what you do. The bolsheviks immediated subversed all power from the soviets into the Party. That's not democracy -- that's authoritarianism.

The Flank book has all this shit. Link is here (http://www.phillyrmc.net/nonlenin.html) again.

[Tickin' TimebOmb John]

Lenin acted in the way he did following the first revolution of 1917, because the Soviets were prepared originally to accept the newly established capitalist state. Because Lenin saw thru this, and saw the need for further revolution to bring the power into the hands of the Soviets, he led the bolshveik vangaurd party. by the time of the october revolution Lenin's ideas had majority support in the Soviets, and the vangaurd revolution which he led, altho not fought by the Soviets, was fought with their support, and with their interests at heart. Following the revolution the Soviets were not 'disbanded', and whilst their imputus in the running of the nation was not as central as it perhaps should have been, they still held power, and it was not till the times of Stalin that the power was seriously eroded. Therefore to be a lenninst is to advocate council or soviet communism.

[Enragé]

^^ exactly

the reason why the councils werent working properly?

look at the fucking state the country was in

[CCCPneubauten]

That's just it, all the 'anarchist' uprisings fail, they have no leadership. It is easy as 1 2 3 for any other group to steamroll over what gains they make.

Leninism sees that well, if the capitalists have a party then why can't we have one?

I like to have a tangable party, something I can see the membership, something that does something.

Marxism Leninism has a lot more supporters than...anarchism.

[More Fire for the People]

That's not democracy -- that's authoritarianism.
Perhaps in petty-bourgeois world everything is hunky-dory but we Marxists recognize otherwise. The republic of working people's is a dictatorship — it is authoritarianism against the bourgeoisie and bourgeois concepts but it is also democratic in that the masses participate in the adminstration of things via workers’ committees, directly elected recallable worker-representatives, and real freedom of speech, press, etc. for the proletariat.

[piet11111]

the masses participate in the adminstration of things via workers’ committees, directly elected recallable worker-representatives, and real freedom of speech, press, etc. for the proletariat.

history suggests otherwise but i wish you leninists all the luck in the world to try and accomplish it.
im going for a much more flexible aproach myself instead of a rigid party structure.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:25 AM

the masses participate in the adminstration of things via workers’ committees, directly elected recallable worker-representatives, and real freedom of speech, press, etc. for the proletariat.

history suggests otherwise but i wish you leninists all the luck in the world to try and accomplish it.
History does not live up to ideals sometimes. Trotsky once lamented on the fact that out of neccessity that the Soviet Union developed a terrible bureaucracy — one that could not be defeated by the Soviet system, i.e. the Soviet Union would require another revolution.


im going for a much more flexible aproach myself instead of a rigid party structure.
I have already addressed this:

...but I don’t believe censorship of the dissenters is the best solution in a party that operates under a democratic republic — though in Russia’s situation, a centralistic approach to dissent seemed the most viable.

But the "rigidity" of a party is self-created — the party openly discusses all issues but once decided upon them the party carries them out in a disciplined manner until such a time comes that a certain policy or programme may be questioned. This time may not be very often under despotic regimes, more often under democratic republics, and probably daily under a socialist state.

[barista.marxista]

Yes, we non-Leninists are all petty-bourgeois. :rolleyes: You know what's the funniest thing about Leninism? It took power, and it has failed every single time in history, without exception. C'mon guys! You claim to be Marxists: where's your historical materialism? :lol: :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

Firstly I don't know awht you eman by leninism because so many people are 'leninists' including myself. The 'inventer of council communism' Rosa Luxemburg retained most of the original ideas of leninism and was for the dictatorship of the protaletariat.

[KC]

Yes, we non-Leninists are all petty-bourgeois. :rolleyes: You know what's the funniest thing about Leninism? It took power, and it has failed every single time in history, without exception. C'mon guys! You claim to be Marxists: where's your historical materialism?

Every revolutionary leftist ideology has failed in its attempts.

[Cheung Mo]

Being a civil libertarian, I would choose ideologies like council communism and anarcho-syndicalism over the various flavour of Leninism and Mao Zedong "thought". The only good Maoist is a Nepali revolutionary.

[barista.marxista]

Rosa Luxemburg retained most of the original ideas of leninism and was for the dictatorship of the protaletariat.

DofP is a Marxist, not a Leninist, term.


Every revolutionary leftist ideology has failed in its attempts.

Yes, but when you control half the world, for about 75 years, that counts as a failure of an ideology in its entirety.

[bolshevik butcher]

Okay but Rosa Luxemburg believed in a revolutionary party, on a 'leninist' model. Anyway, dotp is rejected by anarchists who claim to be marixsts.

[вор в законе]

Yes, but when you control half the world, for about 75 years, that counts as a failure of an ideology in its entirety.

At least they did control half of the world. :P


Every revolutionary leftist ideology has failed in its attempts

Precisely.

[TC]

These conversations are impossible to have on this forum because people are so poorly educated about what Marxism-Leninism actually is, how the Soviet Union actually operated.


1. Political dissent wasn't repressed in the Soviet Union except by rogue elements of the interior ministry that were themselves repressed by the government when caught. The government arrested Nazis, Anti-state terrorists, White Army supporters, and so on. There were certaintly some excesses during by the Interior Ministry under Lavrenty Beria, but these were illigal, extra-judicial crimes that were dealt with as such and the guilty were held accountable by the democratically elected civilian Soviet government. Beria and his staff were arrested, put on trial and executed.


2. Democratic Centralism is only used before the revolution/civil-war and defensive wars. There is no dicipline of strict democratic centralism in the post-revolutionary ruling communist parties. Democratic Centralism is meant for professional revolutionary cadre parties of thousands, its not meant for ruling mass party of millions.

3. Rosa Luxemburg (and Karl Liebknecht, Clara Zetkin, et al.) was not an anti-Leninist. Of coures Luxemburg et a. disagreed with Lenin on some points especially tactical points (just as Trotsky disagreed with Lenin and Stalin disagreed with Lenin on some points) but they were under the same international Comintern and supported the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and its workers dictatorship was a model for the German 'council communist' type revolutionaries, their main difference with the Communists in the Soviet Union was that Lenin was telling them they were acting too aggressively too early (and uh, apparently he was right, cause they did try to take Berlin before they could hold it), not that Lenin was too 'authoritarian'. The entire concept of 'councils' comes from the russian 'soviets.'

4. Neither the Soviet Union nor People's Republic of China had well consolidated 'personal dictatorships', all government officials were elected, responsible to parliament, and there was always opposition factions. Leaders such as Mao and Khruschev were voted out of office whenever they made serious errors as a result of their loss of support, Stalin was in constant competition from political rivals within the democratic system before WWII (during WWII obviously people rallyed around him more). Moreover in both the Soviet and Chinese system (until very recently in China) power was typically divided with executive authority vested in not a single office as in a Western democracy but rather several offices all having some of but not all of the powers associated with a head of state, making personal dictatorship impossible, and in fact, french-style co-habitation between say, a PM of one faction and a General Secretary of another faction, very common. The western capitalist countries, since they tend to have a much more monarchical, command-style government system when compared to the Marxist-Leninist system, often personify socialist governments as if they have a single supreme leader, when the reality is very different (although, currently China does have a more western style system, but this is a recent occurance). In the DPRK for instance, its often claimed that Kim Jong Il is some sort of dictator, but in fact he is only one of three or four people who together have powers equal to a western prime minister or president, legally his powers are very very limited, so anything he accomplishes legally he has to get done indirectly by persuading people in other branchs of the government to agree with him...just like a private citizen would.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:49 PM

Yes, we non-Leninists are all petty-bourgeois. :rolleyes: You know what's the funniest thing about Leninism? It took power, and it has failed every single time in history, without exception. C'mon guys! You claim to be Marxists: where's your historical materialism?

Every revolutionary leftist ideology has failed in its attempts.
can you point out the true marxist revolution out there ?
especially the european marxist revolution that marx predicted i seem to have missed it.

[More Fire for the People]

can you point out the true marxist revolution out there ?
Define "Marxian revolution". The American Revolution and French Revolutions weren't Lockean / Smithian / etc.

[Djehuti]

I like Lenin better than leninism just as I like Marx better than marxism. But really, there is not just council communism and leninism, there is more marxist traditions than those two.

The left opposition to the bolsheviks did not only include the dutch and german council communists but also the left communists (strongest in Italy). I like Pannekoek. Mattick (and Luxemburg, if she counts as a council communists) very much, but I hope you'll not forget to read italian left communists such as Amadeo Bordiga, I like him even better than Mattick and Pannekoek.

And don't forget the Situationist the opraists and autonomists and the modern ultra-left, Gilles Dauvé et cetera.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

That's just it, all the 'anarchist' uprisings fail, they have no leadership. It is easy as 1 2 3 for any other group to steamroll over what gains they make.

Anarchism is a lot more than just uprising, and then no-government, and besides isn't that the end goal, for the Communists?


Leninism sees that well, if the capitalists have a party then why can't we have one?

Why should mimic the very people you are fighting against? Shouldn't you stand strong with the differences you have; just because established governments have parties, doesn't necessarily it would be the best for the revolution.


I like to have a tangable party, something I can see the membership, something that does something.

Why? Why is there a need for party? The problem with the whole party system is that in the beginning it may work well, but then over time it get s corrupt, and stagnant, regardless of political stance, and there become a divide between the reformers, and conservatives, and while there bickering it's the people that pay for it. Also in parties the are prone to a ranking system, then you have people fighting for ranks. Furthermore, the problem with people and their support of a certain party expecially when said part is only in theorectical terms is, the seem to think that they would make it into the party, who said you would even have a say in the party? And a lot of times, said party does not recognize the voice of the people, and says "we know what's best for the country," when the whole point of the party is to listen to the people.


Marxism Leninism has a lot more supporters than...anarchism.

Yea, I don't think you know us very well, :rolleyes: .

[ItalianCommie]

I do like Trotzkyism. I prefer council communism even more.

Bloody Hell,we need a fuckin' world revolution, comrades!

[Janus]

I would prefer worker's councils to a vanguard party anyday. The workers should take matters into their own hands and decide for themselves rather than be led by any vanguard party.

[Cheung Mo]

Another thing to consider: Lenin was deeply socially conservative and hated feminists, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals (although he was nowhere near as bad as USA-backed Stalinist Ceaucescu) whereas I'm a strong supporter of GLBT rights, sexual freedom, and gender equality: I guess that comes from being from a family where Pierre Trudeau is God and social liberalism was Gospel (I strongly disagree with the former...), from being a member of a party where homophobes and misogynists are buried in venom and ridicule (even if not always officially), and from identifying more strongly with Tommy Douglas, Agnes Macphail, and Jean Lesage than with Lenin, Stalin, or Mao...Maybe some of that will change in time...

[More Fire for the People]

Lenin was deeply socially conservative and hated feminists, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals.
Lenin was unneccesarily a prude in his sex life but that's about the extent of it. :lol: But the Soviet Union gave women the right to vote and to work and voided all sex laws thus "legalizing" homosexuality.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 11:26 PM

Lenin was deeply socially conservative and hated feminists, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals.
Lenin was unneccesarily a prude in his sex life but that's about the extent of it. :lol: But the Soviet Union gave women the right to vote and to work and voided all sex laws thus "legalizing" homosexuality.
Gays still got sent to gulags under Stalin.

[CCCPneubauten]

Note the name...Stalin.

But eh, I prefer Trotskyism, I dunno, brings the best of both worlds.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I would definately pick council communism. Personally, I find it frustrating that the mainstream left continues to associate itself with authoritarian doctrines like Leninism. Lenin was a brilliant man who contributed to communist philosophy. Marxist-Leninism is a philosophically flawed doctrine that rests on the idea that a vanguard party can overcome the corruptive influences of capitalism society to achieve communism. Communism claims that manipulative institutions and capitalism make people develop self-interest. Under Leninism, suddenly these God-like leaders overcome the greatest influences of capitalism and centralized power to step-down and create communism. Ludicrous.

There is no reason the proleteriat cannot defeat counterrevolutionaries through centralized action by individuals. No state is neccessary, and Marxists and Leninists who claim otherwise are disillusioned. Psychologically, the hostility towards leftists ideas may cause some modern communists to believe they are superior to others because they know the truth. From this concept of superiority, the idea of a vanguard party emerges. Who can lead the sheep who are too weak to overcome their oppressors? The vanguard party revolving around Plato's Republic? I think not.

[321zero]

Another thing to consider: Lenin was deeply socially conservative and hated feminists, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals

http://static.flickr.com/52/128667479_6b0b486fa8.jpg

"Born of aristocratic stock, the young Chicherin, anxious not to upset his religious mother, went to Berlin to see a doctor who claimed to be able to "cure" his "interesting condition" of homosexuality... The only result he got was to meet Lenin and to convert to Revolution.

Lenin put him in charge of Soviet foreign policy in its first phase. As Commissar for Foreign Affairs, from 1918 to 1922, he was quite a dialectical match for Lord Curzon at the Foreign Office."

From - Matt & Andrej Koymasky - Famous GLTB - Georgy Chicherin.

http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bioc3/chic3.html

[321zero]

Chicherin loved the Berlin nightlife. He often insisted diplomatic meetings occured on a timetable which suited him - that is he'd rise in the afternoon and do business in the evening in order to get on with his social life after midnight...

Lenin's government was the first to decriminalise homosexuality and Chicherin was 'out'.

[rebelworker]

Someone said that they thought trotsky was middle ground....

he lead the worst elements of the red armies crushing of decent.

You say anarchism failes because of chaos or lackof leaders but you give no examples.

Anarchism failed in a few places. In the Ukrain after fighting off both the monarchists and the invading german army the anarchist army was betrayed by trotsky(who they had been in a tactical alliance with) and were murdered by the red army.

In Spain the anarchists after effectively militarily competing with the facists for several years, lost doto lack of organisation, that is the fact that they were lacked the proper political direction to opose the centralisation of the state and the wholesale betrayal of the revolution by the communist party.

They were killedin the streets of barcelona with new guns while there were no guns at the front to fight the facists.

Bolshevik seizure of power was a victory only for the bolshevik party. The workers movement over the medium and long term lost.

Council communism, anarcho syndicalism and anarchist communism allow for the workers to fight for their freedom. I would rather die as a free worker than live as a slave to another class of bosses that will give my movment a bad name.

Give me criticisms of anarchism and council communism that anarchists and council communists havnt thought of themselves.

you lennies need to read more, not shit handed down from party beurocrat and apologist to the next, but workers accounts of the bodies we set up for our revolution.

No gods and No masters needs to be taken literaly by more people who consider themselves revolutionaries.

If revolution is a question of class then the party vanguard are the class enemies of the workers.

I know which side im on. Do you?

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Tickin' TimebOmb [email protected] 14 2006, 11:35 AM
by the time of the october revolution Lenin's ideas had majority support in the Soviets, and the vangaurd revolution which he led, altho not fought by the Soviets, was fought with their support, and with their interests at heart.
I'm sure the the Krondstadt sailors would have disagreed with that sentiment. :lol:

[Tickin' TimebOmb John]

QUOTE (Tickin' TimebOmb John @ Apr 14 2006, 11:35 AM)
by the time of the october revolution Lenin's ideas had majority support in the Soviets, and the vangaurd revolution which he led, altho not fought by the Soviets, was fought with their support, and with their interests at heart.


I'm sure the the Krondstadt sailors would have disagreed with that sentiment.

The Krondstadt sailors are one example, the majority of the Soviets had moved from backing the menshevik anti-revolutionaries, to backing lenin and the bolshevieks, and i believe that the Krondstadt sailors still backed the october revolution, it was wot preceeded that which they opposed, as they refused to recognize the need for authoritarianism and central power whilst the bolshevieks were involved in fighting counter-revolution.


In Spain the anarchists after effectively militarily competing with the facists for several years, lost doto lack of organisation, that is the fact that they were lacked the proper political direction to opose the centralisation of the state and the wholesale betrayal of the revolution by the communist party.

They were killedin the streets of barcelona with new guns while there were no guns at the front to fight the facists.

The entire left in the Spanish Civil War was under armed, not jus the anarchists, and the centralisation of the state kept the resistance alive, because like it or not the fascists, with german and italian backing would have won the war far more quickly if it hadnt been for Soviet intervention, and soviet intervention meant having to obey demands from them. had anarchists or poumistas succesfully opposed the commuinst centralisation of power the war still would have been lost, because the only thing keeping the republic alive, Soviet support, would have been taken away.


Bolshevik seizure of power was a victory only for the bolshevik party. The workers movement over the medium and long term lost.


Not because of the nature of the vangaurd party, but due to its potential to exploitation from individuals, like Stalin, who abused the structure which could have been maintained had such an individual not taken control, and then slowly 'withered away' as Lenin intended.

[bolshevik butcher]

How is it a choice betweem a vanguard party and workers concils? All power to the soviets ring any bells? To me a party leads the revolution itself but power should always be in a body of workers democracy.

[CCCPneubauten]

rebelworker, looks like I didn't need to give any examples, because you gave them all.

Anarchism doesn't last long at all. It makes for a romantic vision, but in real life, it is just foolish. You rely that humans are and always have been 100% good, due to the capitalist system this 100% has changed, we can't go straight to communism now, simple as that.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Council-Communism developed from the Spartakusbund in Germany, from people like Mattick and Pannekoek.

The Spartakusbund were in a sense an organization like the Bolsheviks, however they stressed that the workers organs should develop independently of the party, snd these organs should run the state. But ofcourse the Bolsheviks in 1917 had the same view that the Spartakusbund would have in 1918, however, the Bolsheviks changed their view in 1918 that the party should control the state, and that the workers organs should be subordinate to the party. The consolidation was in response to the failure of revolutions worldwide. Though, the bolsheviks didn't set up programs for the workers to hold the reins of power.

In response, the Spartakusbund tried to spread the revolution to Germany, to save the prospect of world-wide Communism from being undemocratic, and bureaucratic, and to implement democracy based at the factory floor, neighbourhoods, and regions. The Spartakusbund were a vanguard, but the character of it wasn't like the Bolsheviks.

Mattick in 1938 in "The Masses and the Vanguard" states:

The principle of the masses (not party or vanguard) retaining power must be emphasized. Communism cannot be introduced or realized by a party. Only the proletariat as a whole can do that.

Which is an idea developed from Luxemburg and Liebknecht; the central idea of the party in relation to the workers.

So what your arguing isn't about whether its a vanguard or its councils, but what the character of the party/vanguard should take up.

I'm with Mattick.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:49 AM

Yes, we non-Leninists are all petty-bourgeois. :rolleyes: You know what's the funniest thing about Leninism? It took power, and it has failed every single time in history, without exception. C'mon guys! You claim to be Marxists: where's your historical materialism?

Every revolutionary leftist ideology has failed in its attempts.
council communism has succeded to some degree.... Paris Coummune, while Leninism has succeeded... in taking power only, and has created a bureacratic state separated from the proletariat and has ultimately resulted in state capitalism

[CCCPneubauten]

I think it was F. Engels that once said 'An ounce in action is worth a ton in theory'

Leninism has, no doubt, provided more action than anarchism. Even though on paper anarchism looks quite nice it doesn't seem to last more than a few months.

[Orange Juche]

Council Communism all the friggen way!

Leninism in theory doesn't seem far too bad, but it seems to me to be too easily corruptable. Council communism just seems more logical, more democratic, and more in the interests of the proletariat.

[321zero]

Maybe better not to think of these as mutually exclusive alternatives, or as -isms. The Communards had certainly never heard of 'council communism' so to retroactively 'claim' the Commune is as dubious as feminists 'claiming' Rosa Luxemburg for feminism.

The Commune was drowned in blood - it would have been better, says Marx after the fact, if they'd rallied Red Paris and marched on Versailles - but they didn't. In other words they fucked up, they misread the situation, they failed as revolutionary strategists.

The Bolsheviks were keenly aware of the danger posed to the working class if the February revolution allowed power to fall to the bourgeois. The lessons of the Commune were foremost in their minds. They took drastic steps to avoid the fate of the Commune culminating in October and the subsequent civil war. Through this whole period they argued through the problems in the soviets and in the party. They debated each step they took. It's clear now that they also fucked up - yes they conquered power in Russia, anticipating revolution in Europe (again with the benifit of hindsight - 'hoping' might be the better word), but the October revolution was in fact eventually isolated, and suffered an alternative fate, also anticipated and debated by the Bolsheviks. Their balance of pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will was out of whack.

The German revolutions failed. The Spartacusbund "tried to take Berlin before they could hold it" - but then if Karl and Rosa had founded the party in 1914 instead of waiting for two years, and if they had perhaps emulated more closely the Bolshevik organisation, then maybe they could have held Berlin...

The same applies to Spain. Trotsky, drawing on the experience of the Provisional government and duel power in Russia, warned the Spanish revolutionaries of the danger of joining the bourgeosis Republican government. In retrospect he was right in this instance.

You have to be careful when indulging in counter-factuals, even though Marx hisself does it with regard to the Commune. Of course Marx was never in the posistion of being able to fuck up on the scale of the Communards, the Bolsheviks, the Spartacusbund, or the Spanish revolutionaries. It is easier to keep a clean sheet as a theorist...

What this is all building to is that we should critically embrace all the failed revolutionaries of the past, and that a lot of the to-and-fro between anarchists, anti- and pro-leninist communists on Rev-left tends towards sectarian rooting for one or another 'team'.

Only dogmatists would advocate repeating history, but anyone who suggests dogmatism is a disease suffered only by Leninists is kidding themselves. If we are to make a success out of the next revolutionary situation which comes our way (which will not come already 'branded' 'Leninist' or 'anarchist' or whatever), then we have to be able to march seperately and strike together.

Ouch&#33; <removes fencepost from arse>

[emokid08]

After an extended Spring Break on the island of Aruba, lots and lots of debate/discussion with my friends (most of whom are either marxists or anarchists), and me falling in love, I went through alot of books and soul searching and I "saw the light" (or w/e). I went from being a MList to a Council Communist.

(yay for me)

It was a big jump, but it was important in seeing the "errors in my ways". Or thoughts I should say.

But all that is beside the point. I have left Vanguardism & Democratic Centralism behind and have embraced Council Communism.

With all that,
I say:

COUNCIL COMMUNISM &#33;
:hammer:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What exactly is council communism??

[emokid08]

From the ICC:


* Since the First World War, capitalism has been a decadent social system. It has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. In the 1980s, it entered into the final phase of this decadence, the phase of decomposition. There is only one alternative offered by this irreversible historical decline: socialism or barbarism, world communist revolution or the destruction of humanity.

* The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first attempt by the proletariat to carry out this revolution, in a period when the conditions for it were not yet ripe. Once these conditions had been provided by the onset of capitalist decadence, the October revolution of 1917 in Russia was the first step toward of 1917 in Russia was the first step towards an authentic world communist revolution in an international revolutionary wave which put an end to the imperialist war and went on for several years after that. The failure of this revolutionary wave, particularly in Germany in 1919-23, condemned the revolution in Russia to isolation and to a rapid degeneration. Stalinism was not the product of the Russian revolution, but its gravedigger.

* The statified regimes which arose in the USSR, eastern Europe, China, Cuba etc and were called socialist or communist were just a particularly brutal form of the universal tendency towards state capitalism, itself a major characteristic of the period of decadence.

* Since the beginning of the 20th century, all wars are imperialist wars, part of the deadly struggle between states large and small to conquer or retain a place in the international arena. These wars bring nothing to humanity but death and destruction on an ever-increasing scale. The working class can only respond to them through its international solidarity and by struggling against the bourgeoisie in all countries.

* All the nationalist ideologies - national independence, the right of nations to self-determination etc - whatever their pretext, ethnic, historical or religious, are a real poison for the workers. By calling on them to take the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, they divide workers and lead them to massacre each other in tr in the interests and wars of their exploiters.

* In decadent capitalism, parliament and elections are nothing but a mascarade. Any call to participate in the parliamentary circus can only reinforce the lie that presents these elections as a real choice for the exploited. Democracy, a particularly hypocritical form of the domination of the bourgeoisie, does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship, such as Stalinism and fascism.

* All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called workers, Socialist and Communist parties (now ex-Communists), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalisms political apparatus. All the tactics of popular fronts, anti-fascist fronts and united fronts, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

* With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether official or rank and file, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.

* In order to advance its combat, the working class has to unify its struggles, taking charge of their extension and organisation through sovereign general assembliassemblies and committees of delegates elected and revocable at any time by these assemblies.

* Terrorism is in no way a method of struggle for the working class. The expression of social strata with no historic future and of the decomposition of the petty bourgeoisie, when its not the direct expression of the permanent war between capitalist states, terrorism has always been a fertile soil for manipulation by the bourgeoisie. Advocating secret action by small minorities, it is in complete opposition to class violence, which derives from conscious and organised mass action by the proletariat.

* The working class is the only class which can carry out the communist revolution. Its revolutionary struggle will inevitably lead the working class towards a confrontation with the capitalist state. In order to destroy capitalism, the working class will have to overthrow all existing states and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world scale: the international power of the workers councils, regrouping the entire proletariat.

* The communist transformation of society by the workers councils does not mean self-management or the nationalisation of the economy. Communism requires the conscious abolition by the working class of capitalist social relations: wage labour, commodity production, national frontiers. It means the creation of a world community in which all activity is oriented towards the full satisfactisfaction of human needs.

* The revolutionary political organisation constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalisation of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to organise the working class nor to take power in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariats combat.

OUR ACTIVITY
Political and theoretical clarification of the goals and methods of the proletarian struggle, of its historic and its immediate conditions.

Organised intervention, united and centralised on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat.

The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society.

OUR ORIGINS
The positions and activity of revolutionary organisations are the product of the past experiences of the working class and of the lessons that its political organisations have drawn throughout its history. The ICC thus traces its origins to the successive contributions of the Communist League of Marx and Engels (1847-52), the three Internationals (the International Workingmens Association, 1864-72, the Socialist International, 1889-1914, the Communist International, 1919-28), the left fractions which detached themselves from the degenerating Third International in the years 1920-30, in particular the German, Dutch and Italian Lefts.

Then there is this useful link:
Council Communism (http://ca.geocities.com/red_black_ca/council.htm)

[Nachie]

(yay for me)
Hell yeah emokid&#33; I remember when I went through that process... it was a little difficult at first but now it&#39;s like I have some big chain off of me.

I recommend to anyone down with some anti-Leninist communism, anarchism, or applied horizontal cooperation check out the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN). Leninism is in its death throes and it&#39;s time to get something new going.

LeftyHenry, council communism was one of the most immediate reactions to Leninism from within the Marxist tendency, check out Rosa Luxemburg (Leninist who changed over time) and Raya Dunayevskaya (Trotsky&#39;s ex-secretary, also changed her ways). The main idea is that the tendency in working class struggle is towards "councils" (or "soviets") that can coordinate the economy and general defense/offense of the revolution. This is much more decentralized than the Leninist vanguard party model.

Council communism is hardly a movement now, but it&#39;s a strong tradition that a lot of people still identify with. Its main adherents became Marxist Humanists and continue to do neat things to this day.

CLR James is also somebody to check out...

[emokid08]

Thank you very much Nachie. I&#39;ll check that site out. Apparently there are alot of Council Communists here on the board, the overwhelming majority of those responding here are for Council Communism, or at least against Leninism.

Unfortuantely, it&#39;s not much of a "movement" anymore. But there are plenty of supporters and advocates of it out there&#33;

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that these are not mutually exclusive at all. I am part of a Trotskyist tendancy that regularly talks about workers control and reguards a so called socialist society without it as not at all socialist.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2006, 01:17 AM
If you translate &#39;&#39;Council&#39;&#39; Communism into Russian you have &#39;&#39;Soviet&#39;&#39; Communism, that is what Vladimir Lenin advogated.

For about 50th time now: he might have spoken about "All power to the Soviets" (April Theses) or "Workers&#39; democracy" (State and Revolution), but this is precisely what they broke down and annihilated after they established power after October-November days.

Get it?

[bolshevik butcher]

You can agree or disagree over the bolsehviks actions. However we are discussing theory really here. So you neither is mutually exclusive.

[citizen_snips]

I&#39;m quite glad some people have mentioned here the idea of these things not being mutually exclusive. The way I see it, you can&#39;t have "democratic centralism" and have it properly democratic without the councils.

I also wish that it was possible amongst leftists to say that you liked "state and revolution" without someone accusing you of being personally responsible for killing people in Kronstadt...

[321zero]

Spare a thought for the 10 000. It was a fortress after all.

[Keyser]

I´d side with council communism all the way.

I suppose you could call me a non-leninist marxist or a libertarian communist.

I also identify with anarchism, in particular anarcho-communism.

Given that anarchism is communism, both are advocates of the abolition of nations, classes, money and the state and favour horizontal organisation and the abolition of any authority from above.

[rebelworker]

I think its clear to anyone that the anarchist attempts in the past have "failed" but in taking from that that the bolshevik model "succeded" is quite rediculous.

Again if you read my post you would notice that I spoke of the workers movement, not just one or another theory. The Bolsheviks seized power, The anarchists in spain did not.

In the short term you might call one a success and the other a failure.

But history has shown quite conclusively that the "success" of Bolshevism did far more damage to the workers movement, the force that will eventually create a communists society, than the anarchist failure did.

Saying that anarchism is romanitc and can last a few months at most is just an outright lie. The Makhnovists liberated an area of sever million people for three years before they were finally crushed by the red army. Similarly the areas under anarchist influence during the civli war in spain continued to carry out, in the millions, actions towards conplete workers controll of the economy far longer than any other areas.

The fact that the anarchists "lost" in the end was as you said enevitable. The Bolshevik model had seaced to be a revolutionary force at least a decade earlier so would not come to the aid of the revolution in any serrious way, and without more help the spanish workers on their own could not possibly defeat the joint forces of the Spanish, Italian and Nazi Armies.

There are some thinbgs the anarchists in spain could have done differnetly, anarchists communists aknowledge this, thus the platformist tendancey.

More importantly there are more things the international revolutionary anarchists needed to have done, also aknowledged by the platformist tendancy of anrchism.

More Bolshevik tyranny was not the answer.

As for council communism, great, NEFAC, and anarchist communists in general recognise that there will be no majority position of any one group in a revolutionary situation, the revolution will be made by the mass movements of the workers and our allies. The question is who will have influence, and under an anarchist model many groups will be allowed to debate, in the workplace and community councils, THE FOUNDATIONS OF REVOLUTIONARY TRANSFORMATION.

Council communism, anarcho syndicallism and platformism compliment each other.

This kind of revolutionary solidarity would not be alowed under Bolshevik rule, history has shown this and the current practice of authoritarian communist groups hints that nothing has changed.

You still seek to solve the problems of the monumental task of a revolution by subjegating the workers, we seek to build workers power.

Two different roads with very different outcomes. I would rather looses as a communist than win as a bolshevik. The workers movement has largely turned away from communism because of the failures/tyranny of Bolshevism.
This can not be said of the anarchists in spain.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 16 2006, 11:08 AM
I think that these are not mutually exclusive at all.
I agree.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 14 2006, 06:20 PM
The only good Maoist is a Nepali revolutionary.
Because you are an ultra-left opportunist.

Anyway, I love the way the posts made by Lazar, TragicClown and 321zero are treated here: the ultra-leftists collectively turn their heads, pretending that those posts do not deserve a rebuttal. They don&#39;t even acknowledge their existance. How cute.

I also appreciate emokid&#39;s post. Maybe it should go into our "confession archive" that redstar mentioned in another thread: "I converted to Council Communism to score with a chick&#33;" :lol:

[rebelworker]

OK, what specifically do you want me refute?

[вор в законе]

For about 50th time now: he might have spoken about "All power to the Soviets" (April Theses) or "Workers&#39; democracy" (State and Revolution), but this is precisely what they broke down and annihilated after they established power after October-November days.

Get it?

I will take the pain and explain to you that it was the effects of the civil war on the new soviet government that led to the decline of soviet democracy in Russia (due to the authority a state must take on in war time) and to the emergence of the bureaucratic structure that maintained much control throughout the history the Soviet Union.

There&#39;s no such thing as &#39;&#39;Leninism&#39;&#39; or &#39;&#39;Marxism&#39;&#39;, these terms were coined by dogmatic variants such as yourself, a natural result of the decay that exists in the communist movement. You are entitled to your opinion and only your opinion and so am I.

Now run along.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Why isn&#39;t this in the theory section?

[CCCPneubauten]

I am reminded by EL KABLAMO&#39;s quote how much I love Debs...I dunno what he would be considered (ML or Council COmmie) but I agree with Mr Debbs by far.

[rebelworker]

Debs as far as I remember was more of an electoral socialist...

Neither a ML or a council commie...

And again its been a few years since I read my history of the IWW and Socialist party but I think he got conservative(by leftist standards) later in life.

[bezdomni]

Debs liked Lenin, but I don&#39;t think he was a Leninist.

[1984]

We should simply learn from the mistakes of the "Communist" regimes and move on with our struggle. I suppose that Council Communism is something to work on. Anything we can as a link to join both anarchists and socialists under the same roof is real progress.

[Orange Juche]

Actually, in regards to Council Communism, myself and a friend of mine are attempting to form a local Marxist/Council Communist group. Although, considering that the "left" political activity around here which 99% (no exaggeration) consists of people over the age of 50 whom thinking voting for Hillary Clinton and writing letters to congress will change things, I&#39;m seeing it as a struggle to get really anyone interested in joining. But, I try.

We&#39;re actually coming out with a local zine as well, although it will probably be created only by me and two other people. Actually... if anyone on here wants to contribute an article, PM me. That would be hella great&#33;

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:22 PM
Debs as far as I remember was more of an electoral socialist...
Debs ran for presidential office as a way of propagandizing, and such a way of propagandizing was a new mode of agitation at that time for Sociaslists, and Communists.

It is easy to look at some of socialists who run for office now as reformists.
Socialism at that time in this country wasn&#39;t about pette-bourgoeis politics. and, Debs maintained that revolution was the solution, and reformism was the mask of Fraud. Nor was he someone trying to create a one party de facto state (and I know this wasn&#39;t Lenins orginal intentions).


Neither a ML or a council commie...
Council-Communism wasn&#39;t a concept at that time.

He helped launched the IWW, later Council-Communists like Mattick worked within in that organization. But I can&#39;t speak for Debs today. I draw much influence from him because alot of people in the USA are totally unaware of labours history in this country, and that it actually had some prominent leftists like Debs, DeLeon, and Goldman. People say we American are to superficial, and greedt to be Communists
and Socialists, they should read more.


And again its been a few years since I read my history of the IWW and Socialist party but I think he got conservative(by leftist standards) later in life.

Actually it was earlier in his life when he was more conserative, he was a city clerk, and later a state representative in Indiana for the Democratic Party.

He was radicalised when he was arrested for organizing, and partaking in the Pullman Strike; in jail he read some Marx.

You are in luck, I&#39;ve actually posted a report on these boards about his life before, though I didn&#39;t mention much about his work with the IWW, because the report was about anything that related to the American Government, and had to be about 10 or less pages. So if I had included the IWW, it would have been two reports.

Heres the link:
Eugene Debs (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42900)

[CCCPneubauten]

Wonderful essay EL KABLAMO, I am thinking about doing something similar for an end of the year project in my US History class.

It is sad that few know about Debs, as I find myself agreeing with his stance on things.

EL KABLAMO, what do you consider yourself?

Do you know if there is a &#39;Debism&#39;?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:33 PM
Debs liked Lenin, but I don&#39;t think he was a Leninist.
As I recall, Lenin liked Debs as well. He also liked DeLeon.

Things were very different back then.

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

[bezdomni]

Yep.

I didn&#39;t have any Leninist agenda in that statement or anything. I was just answering the guy&#39;s question.

[emokid08]

I also appreciate emokid&#39;s post. Maybe it should go into our "confession archive" that redstar mentioned in another thread: "I converted to Council Communism to score with a chick&#33;"

LOL I am gay, silly&#33; Girls are gross and have cooties. Just thought I would set the record "straight" LOL :D
:P

I am a (new) Council Communist because I like the "third way" it offers, so to speak. I am against the beauracratic totalitarianism of Leninism/Stalinism and I am against the sell out reformism petty lap doggedness of Social Democracy (that&#39;s what it&#39;s become at least, I know the origins, and I respect them). I believe in putting the power of the state and the control of the economy into the hands of the workers. Social Democracy is a reformist/revisonist sell out, we all know u can&#39;t make capitalism better. And Leninist Vanguardism steals the power away from the workers and creates a new oppressive ruling class.

I could go on all day. . . . . . . . . . .

I think that all power should be placed in workers&#39; councils practicing participatory economy.

To ironically quote Lenin:
"All power to the Soviets&#33;"

:hammer:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 11:55 PM
EL KABLAMO, what do you consider yourself?
Non-sectarian Marxist.



Do you know if there is a &#39;Debism&#39;?
Well there is a Debs Tendency off the Socialist Party. I don&#39;t know if anyone there considers themselves "Debsist".

[bayano]

i tend more towards council communism and syndicalism, but lenin (and marx and bakunin and lots of other revolutionaries) can be reconciled with the rest. i personally am a serious student of lenin, tho im not sure about the need for a leninist party, and tend to be something of a left communist

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2006, 01:23 AM
There is no such thing as &#39;&#39;Leninism&#39;&#39;.

These terms were coined by his dogmatic followers and his enemies which are engulfing the Communist Movement in general.


If you translate &#39;&#39;Council&#39;&#39; Communism into Russian you have &#39;&#39;Soviet&#39;&#39; Communism, that is what Vladimir Lenin advogated. Hence no, I don&#39;t want &#39;&#39;Council Communism&#39;&#39; and consequently &#39;&#39;centralised democracy&#39;&#39; in a Communist Society.
How do you think a communist society would be run, without councils or a party?

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Could it not also be said (I don&#39;t know if this point has been made yet), that Leninist Communism, could have only been truly effective to the people of Russia, in 1917, and that it might not be the best thing for this day and age? That is atleast how I see it, I think Leninism is only good for Russia in 1917.

Take note I am not condemning all of Lenin&#39;s ideas, but I still think Leninism is not suited for a modern revolution.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 22 2006, 04:10 PM
Could it not also be said (I don&#39;t know if this point has been made yet), that Leninist Communism, could have only been truly effective to the people of Russia, in 1917, and that it might not be the best thing for this day and age? That is atleast how I see it, I think Leninism is only good for Russia in 1917.

Take note I am not condemning all of Lenin&#39;s ideas, but I still think Leninism is not suited for a modern revolution.
Indeed. Nowhere does Lenin ever state that a vanguard party or a heavily centralised state are principles of Marxist organisation. They are tactical decisions; developed to fit specific conditions.

Marx famously wrote that "men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past."

If this were not true then the Bolsheviks could have maintained Soviet democracy and Lenin could have wished away the White opposition and the imperialist blockade of the country with the power of his intellect.

In reality, of course, the Bolsheviks had to make decisions on the basis of what was thrown at them. The only solution was to centralise power and militarise the proletariat. How else was the revolution to be saved from the vicious counter-revolutionary forces which were unleashed against the new Workers Democracy?

Comrades should read Lenin (and Trotsky) more closely to find the reservations that both men had about adopting such a policy - but ultimately both were convinced of the rightness of this tactical retreat from true Soviet power as the only chance of saving the revolution.

Ultimately, we might argue (as the Anarchists do) that the cost of saving the revolution was too great; that it extinguished the last flicker of an independent workers power and accelerated the development of undemocratic bureaucratic practices which provided the basis for Stalinist rule. We&#39;ll never know for certain as we can&#39;t replay the same events under the same conditions. But is seems to me to be a truism that revolutionaries rarely get the revolution they expect. Whilst the very nature of revolutions is that they plunge the actors into unknown and unpredictable territory where improvisation becomes as forceful a determinant of action as theory.

Comrades who find it difficult to reconcile Lenin&#39;s position in &#39;State and Revolution&#39; with his political practices once in power are failing to understand the relationship between strategy and tactics. The strategy is to smash capitalism and instigate a socialist reconstruction of society. The tactics are the shifting short term manouvres which help the working class and its political parties to achieve that. Quite often, this might mean a temporary retreat from some highly cherished ideals.

Equally, those comrades who want to present Leninism as some imutable principle of revolutionary organisation are guilty of idealism and reification and fail to understand the dialetic of theory and practice.

Also, I can&#39;t quite grasp the supposed conflict between the two positions of &#39;Council Communism&#39; and the revolutionary party. It&#39;s one thing to argue for the primacy of council communism as the best model for socialism from below, but one can&#39;t be a Council Communist to any practical degree in the absence of real existing workers councils. Neither can a party claim with any conviction to be the vanguard of the revolution in the absence of an actual revolution.

What is important, though, is that comrades obey the &#39;commandment&#39; to "Agitate&#33; Educate&#33; and Organise&#33;" by maintaining revolutionary organisations within the working class and keep the red flag flying and the debate of how to go forward flowing.

:)

[Dreckt]

Social Democracy is a reformist/revisonist sell out, we all know u can&#39;t make capitalism better.

As a side note, I disagree. Capitalism can be better, just like socialism can be both a very happy change, and a very sad one. It all depends on the conditions and of the general approval. Social democracy is a sell-out, yes, but it is by far better than lazies-faire (sp?) pure-capitalism, or the anarcho-capitalist idea.

Compared to how society was 100 or 150 years ago and how it is today, then our society is clearly much more preferable. It isn&#39;t perfect, but it is better.

[emokid08]

Capitalism can be better

No, it can&#39;t. The future under Capitalism is one full of destruction, death, misery, exploitation, domination, hierarchy, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, Fascism, and War Corporatism.

One cannot recieve a decent education, whether it be intellectual or vocational, under capitalism.

There will never ever be peace under capitalism, the thirst for new markets and new pockets to steal from will always drive capitalists (who no doubt control in some way, shape, or form, every government on Earth) to war with both capitalist and non capitalist nations alike.

Mankind is Born Free
If Mankind is Born Free, Slavery is Murder
As Slavery is Murder, so Property is Theft
If Property is Theft, Government is Tyranny
If Government is Tyranny, Anarchy is Liberty

(A)

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+Apr 14 2006, 01:10 AM--> (hastalavictoria @ Apr 14 2006, 01:10 AM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 12:55 PM
I ‘side’ with Leninism because of the real world nature of Leninism, i.e. Lenin’s commitment to analyzing material conditions and acting upon such conditions in the most advantageous manner for the proletariat. The only aspect of democratic centralism I feel doubtful about is the restriction on inner-party opposition. I disagree with factionalism but I don’t believe censorship of the dissenters is the best solution in a party that operates under a democratic republic — though in Russia’s situation, a centralistic approach to dissent seemed the most viable.
I really dont see the real world nature of Leninism. Maybe by "real world" it has failed and created a totalitarian government and state capitalism. They dont do things for the advantageous manner of the proletariat; they consider themselves the "professional" revolutionaries and assume that the masses are stupid and therefore have to be guided by a Party and must succumb to the dogmatic doctrine of that Party or else they are "wrong" or "counterrevolutionary." On the other hand, we have council communism and its workers councils. This puts the real power in the hands of the proletariat, the worlers form autonomous mini governments of you will that becomes aprt of a national or international framework nontheless. Leninism and the Party create a hierarchy that puts the power in the hands of the Party. "Democratic centralism" is a nice little term that signifies this. There hasnt been a real world order of council communism, like Leninism, but lets not forget how that turned out :rolleyes: Workers councils, the basis of council communism, have been successfully made, i.e Paris Commune, Hungarian uprising. The Paris Commune was made of autonomous worker&#39;s councils, the workers elected people with universal suffrage and they were always rotated so as to not create a hierarchy. This lasted until it was brutally suppressed by the reactionaries. Leninism or other forms of Leninism such as Maoism, Trotskyism, and Castroism, have resulted in dicatorships and have never achieved even real socialism in its sense. Also, Leninism shouldnt even be allowed to exist in advanced capitalist nations since they are already industrialized and able to support a socialist society. It should only be practiced in feudal or semi-feudal soceities as a form of national liberation. [/b]
I do not agree. I believe that to categorize in such absolutes Marxism-Leninism as authoritarian is not savvy.

Castro&#39;s Cuba is very democratic, as is Leninism. Workers ought to own the factories, yes, but Council Communism would create a nature of Councils such that we would have a Confederacy of Communities. Such seperations would inherently result in competition/prejudice/sabotage/envy. Thus, whereas Marxism-Leninism would lead quite possibly to a genuine Democratic society, Council Communism is little more than Feudalism under a different name. Council Communism would create rival hamlets and city states that will be so coordinated in favor of local interests that regionalism will arise, and goodbye civilization.

Thus, the Soviet Union and other such Socialist states were Technocratic, with planning and expertise allocating and designing pertinent projects and public works. These were centralized, however.

To assume that Marxism Leninism will inherently lead to dictatorship is folly, in my opinion. Like bourgeois democracy, which took many attempts to formulate a stable ethos, socialism will have its steps and collapses. However, Marxism-Leninism, like the Classical Values of Voltaire, Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, etc. will find its stability and proper execution. As well, Council Communism is by nature tending to become sectarian and Ultra-Leftist. It divides the movement. If it remains a part of the movement, as a vocal source of productive criticism, that&#39;s fine. However, if it becomes an Ultra-Leftist cult bent on overthrowing "revisionism" in a psychotic attempt at impetuous purism in the system, say goodbye.

[CubaSocialista]

As well, Council Communism would not likely be capable of holding together a Federated Republic or Assembly, nor order or suppression of bourgeois/reactionary elements properly. I find it foolish.

[Dreckt]

No, it can&#39;t. The future under Capitalism is one full of destruction, death, misery, exploitation, domination, hierarchy, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, Fascism, and War Corporatism.

Yes, but once again, compare to how it was 100 years ago and how it is today. For example, 100 years ago, people who were not white were "naturally" discriminated. Today, this is almost unthinkable. Capitalism can be reformed into "better capitalism" though it will be full of destruction, death and all the other things you mentioned.

[IronColumn]

Well, looking at the results of Leninism, and how every time (even under the leadership of Lenin) these states have been anti democratic police states, sign me up for anything that is not that.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:34 PM
Well, looking at the results of Leninism, and how every time (even under the leadership of Lenin) these states have been anti democratic police states, sign me up for anything that is not that.Platform of the Opposition (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1927/opposition/index.htm)
The Revolution Betrayed (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)
The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938-tp/index.htm)

[Nachie]

*ahem*

didn&#39;t they just ask for something that wasn&#39;t Leninist? :lol: