The Proletarian Vanguard [Archive]

Entrails Konfetti

18th April 2006, 22:29

Originally posted by Opposition to The Vanguards+--> (Opposition to The Vanguards)Such anarchist organizations would not be “parties,” because they would not aim at achieving power for themselves. They would seek to lead by ideas and by example, not by taking over and ruling the popular organizations, let alone by taking state power.[/b]

That was the original concept of the vanguard before 1918.

Originally posted by [email protected]
The revolution should be led by the masses and the people need to laern the valuable lessons of autonomy, self government, and self management.

Here from your own propaganda network:

Opposition to The Vanguards
Many anarchists seem to think that the day will come when most people will see the worthlessness of authoritarian society. All together, like one person, at one moment, they will open their eyes to their alienation, stand up, and take back their society. This view is sometimes called “spontaneism.” Unfortunately things do not work that way. In general, over the long haul, people become radicalized heterogeneously. In conservative times, people become revolutionary by ones and twos. As things become more radicalized, by groups and clusters. Then, as things move into a period of radicalization, layers become revolutionary.

Now, if you're talking about "spontaneism" why are you even sending us propaganda?

Though, If your not, your talking about the original concept of the vanguard.

As I've said its pointless in changing in the word.

emokid08

18th April 2006, 22:36

I agree with spontaneism I think it's true, but the revolution will not happen until those layers organize and work coopertively. They don't need a Red Fascist Vanguard Party, they can, and when the time is right, will revolt!

Scars

18th April 2006, 22:38

I support a mass organisation as opposed to an elitist 'vanguard'. There is no need for a vanguard if the people as a whole fight. The workers don't need a vanguard to fight on their behalf, they're perfectly capiable of doing so all on their own.

In addition, vanguards tend to simply set themselves up as an all new, all better, ruling class. Rearranging capitalism is not getting rid of it.

OneBrickOneVoice

18th April 2006, 22:48

Entrails Konfetti

18th April 2006, 22:49

Wow people don't listen. :rolleyes:

Ol' Dirty

18th April 2006, 23:20

The "revolutionary" vanguard is anything but. It's counter-revolutionary, if you ask me. In fact, Leninism as a whole (along with Stalinism and Maoism) has unfortunately turned into a pathetic excuse for a few opportunistic elitists to grap power, or, quite possibly, always was. Really, just look at the Leninist nations throughout history, ande you'll see a deffinate trend: dictatorship, totalitarianism, and, most ironically of all, class division

That's why I consider myself an Orthodox Communist. ;)

Besides, the last thing the movement needs is a group of self proclaimed "intellectuals" telling us what to think. I am my own ruler. I have no slave master.

For better or worse, the word has "baggage"...and comes suitably enclosed in trash bags.

In the last century, the "Vanguard Party" was understood, in practical terms, to be the organ of despotism...so that people who use the word now are usually assumed to be aspiring despots, even if that's not "what they really mean".

The obvious solution is to trash the word altogether...just dump it and pick some new words to describe what you really want.
There's no reason to hold ourselves hostage to a discredited model of post-revolutionary society.

Au contraire, red; I think it would be best if we kept the word as it is, clearly define it as it was meant, and expose it for what it is: an authoritarian sham. Changing the word wouldn't change its core meaning, the thing that really counts. It would be like changing the name Communist because the US"S"R and "P"RC
gave it a bad rap. Why lie to the people we're trying to help (esspecialy when it's such an awful one)? Why sugarcoat it? So they'll like it more :huh:?

emokid08

18th April 2006, 23:25

Ol' Dirty

18th April 2006, 23:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:40 PM

The "revolutionary" vanguard is anything but. It's counter-revolutionary, if you ask me. In fact, Leninism as a whole (along with Stalinism and Maoism) has unfortunately turned into a pathetic excuse for a few opportunistic elitists to grap power, or, quite possibly, always was. Really, just look at the Leninist nations throughout history, ande you'll see a deffinate trend: dictatorship, totalitarianism, and, most ironically of all, class division

:D

You took the words right out of my mouth Wonton. ^_^
Just like I take hearts from the ladies. :D

anomaly

19th April 2006, 00:20

Originally posted by E K
Wow people don't listen.
I think the general feeling is that the 'vanguard' is exactly what YKTMX says it is: an organization to lead (as in, have power over) the masses.

So if you don't support this, then why hold on to the 'vanguard' label at all?

Ultra-democracy is a very precise definition. Any bourgeois person could see what we mean. Why not use this word?

redstar2000

19th April 2006, 00:39

Originally posted by Wonton_Soldier
Au contraire, red; I think it would be best if we kept the word as it is, clearly define it as it was meant, and expose it for what it is: an authoritarian sham.

This advice is superfluous; those who still do imagine themselves in the corner office of the 50th floor of the Ministry of Proletarian Security will keep the word "vanguard" and vehemently insist on its "historical necessity". :lol:

I'm thinking of people who "want to get away from that" without trashing the obvious fact that there will be divisions in the working class at the time of the revolution and likely for some time afterwards.

We anticipate that for the most part, the working class will be revolutionary and pro-communist; but there will be some "less revolutionary" elements and even some outright reactionary elements. They may be a minority and even a small minority, but they will certainly exist.

Therefore, you will find people arguing "for a vanguard" even when they don't mean it in the sense that the word was used in the last century.

It's to them that my advice is offered; get rid of that word and pick some new ones that describe what you really want.

For example, they might say that they want an organization of conscious communists to "represent the future" in the present struggle...representation does not imply the power of command. It's a voice...not an order.

What I think we really have to be alert to is any hint of ambition...the people who "imply" that their "understanding" conveys a "right to leadership" and, of necessity, a "right to command".

People can do that without ever mentioning the word "vanguard"...and almost certainly will try.

Watch for it! :o

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

black magick hustla

19th April 2006, 00:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:20 PM

You see, this is the problem. If anarchists want to debate the issue, they have to stop habitually lying and trying to slay strawmen.

Be careful when Leninists argue that they have established revolutionary situatuns

They try to differentiate their revolution from a bourgeois one, by telling us anarchists how we have failed and how they have had success. However, they didn't do anything remarkable in that sense, considering there has been many succesful bourgeois revolutions.

So if anything, leninism has been proven a failure in its relation to socialism. However it has been a success in establishing capitalism.

There is nothing revolutionary leninism has established at all.

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 00:54

firstly what most of you fail to recognize is that Lenin realized that capitalism must come first, he just wanted to get through it as fast as he could and bring about communism, with the majority of the revolutionary forces coming from the peasantry no wonder, things didnt get into communism duh people duh. He realized that capitalism HAS to be achieved before socialism, hence such things as the NEP and so forth, workers councils were set up, reactionaries knocked em down. I disagree with many of what lenin said, but on this point, he followed the "orthodox" marxist line, must have capitalism first, and especially in such a regressive and oppressive society such as russia at that time, authority to that degree was needed to bring about capitalism, who knows without that they could still be more feudal than today, look into things before you talk.

and talking of spontaineous uprising of the workers is a moot point, the workers as a majority of them will not rise up on their own, they in some cases need to be opened up to the idea of their situation. This is done by communists, in fact by the mere position of us being communists, we tell people about communism, thats bringing people of their situation without you even knowing it. so unless emokid you have never tried to get a worker or a fellow youth to recognize his position in society, as well as how society functions you do not advocate spontainety. some workers will come to the movement, on their own (unlikely albeit) but many need to be opened up away from the bourgeois media that controls all aspects of their lives.

having a revolution without organization leads to failure, there needs to be some kind of organization, as well as some kind of "authority" as if there isnt we would have some crap like RAAN, a "network" where no one knows what the hell to do, as no one is "in charge"

YKTMX

19th April 2006, 01:01

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 18 2006, 11:35 PM--> (anomaly @ Apr 18 2006, 11:35 PM)
E K
Wow people don't listen.
I think the general feeling is that the 'vanguard' is exactly what YKTMX says it is: an organization to lead (as in, have power over) the masses.

So if you don't support this, then why hold on to the 'vanguard' label at all?

Ultra-democracy is a very precise definition. Any bourgeois person could see what we mean. Why not use this word? [/b]
Another fucking liar.

I never said anything like that.

I said the vanguard leads class struggle in a Marxist direction.

To which you've added, completely of your own volition, "having power over the masses".

Fistful of Steel

19th April 2006, 01:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:20 PM

And for every revolutionary situation initiated by said vanguard, there have been revolutionary situations initiated by general popular uprisings, and by the working class itself.

I never said the vanguard "initiates" uprisings, in fact I said quite plainly that they didn't. I said that "revolutionary situations" don't lead to revolution without a class conscious vanguard.

For instance, in post-war Germany, France 68 and Portuguese revolution.

You see, this is the problem. If anarchists want to debate the issue, they have to stop habitually lying and trying to slay strawmen.
Excuse my wording then, general and spontaneous uprising have managed to overthrow the old regime and attempt at a new system. Those are some examples that failed, sure, and I can list some examples of instances where revolutionary vanguards failed to procure any sort of revolution. That's besides the point, which is that whether there is such a vanguard or not, it's necessary for the masses to step up themselves. If they don't really want any revolution, it's largely pointless for any vanguard, which seemingly wants to be the spark that ignites the revolution, which is an amiable goal, but retaining any control or influence once a revolution has started is hollow. I'm not "habitually lying", misinterpreting something is just that, a mistake, and isn't contorting words to fit my own agenda.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 01:11

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)I said the vanguard leads class struggle in a Marxist direction.[/b]
So your 'vanguard' will have no real power over the proletariat?

And to be fair, it wasn't me that actually added 'having power over the masses'. The Leninist vanguards of the past added this. Your's is ultimately an ahistorical assertion that 'things will be better this time'.

LoneRed
as well as some kind of "authority" as if there isnt we would have some crap like RAAN, a "network" where no one knows what the hell to do, as no one is "in charge"
Well, yes, you as a Leninist assert the need for authority.

We just can't do it without our benevolent leaders!

Well, that is bullshit. We can have organization without this 'authority' or 'rule'. This can either take the form of a network like RAAN or an ultra-democratic organization, or perhaps an organization which uses demarchy.

In any of those cases, there is no real authority. True enough, a lot of people will be suggesting a lot of things. But none of them will actually have the power of command of the people.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 01:13

Just like Demarchy implies multiple, seperated in process, unaccountable, mini-bureacracies ay RSTK?

Its more like a burearchy.

Though demarchy seems attactive at first because it speaks of the abolishment of elections, and a certain degree of autonomy.

Autonomy is an attractive word, yes :cool: .
But this autonomy is according those who are drawn out of the computer system.
(Which can easily be rigged). Never the less the "autonomous" bodies make decisions separate from eachother to the point that it can't be taken into account what decissions affect the other bodies; the elements of the environment aren't
separate from eachother, however this process tries to assure this separation. Though these bodies have term limits, you just replace
one group of despots for another, only more frequently :D !
On top of that theres a great wall dividing those affected by the decisions, and those who make them!

I know, I know... but it's got an "archy"!

How about Democracy, in the USA we live in a Democracy :lol: :lol: :lol: !

It doesn't matter what word(s) you decide to use, you'll have to define them precisely within the context of things.

Ol' Dirty

19th April 2006, 01:15

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 18 2006, 06:54 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 18 2006, 06:54 PM)
Wonton_Soldier
Au contraire, red; I think it would be best if we kept the word as it is, clearly define it as it was meant, and expose it for what it is: an authoritarian sham.

This advice is superfluous; those who still do imagine themselves in the corner office of the 50th floor of the Ministry of Proletarian Security will keep the word "vanguard" and vehemently insist on its "historical necessity". :lol:

I'm thinking of people who "want to get away from that" without trashing the obvious fact that there will be divisions in the working class at the time of the revolution and likely for some time afterwards.

We anticipate that for the most part, the working class will be revolutionary and pro-communist; but there will be some "less revolutionary" elements and even some outright reactionary elements. They may be a minority and even a small minority, but they will certainly exist.

Therefore, you will find people arguing "for a vanguard" even when they don't mean it in the sense that the word was used in the last century.

It's to them that my advice is offered; get rid of that word and pick some new ones that describe what you really want.

For example, they might say that they want an organization of conscious communists to "represent the future" in the present struggle...representation does not imply the power of command. It's a voice...not an order.

What I think we really have to be alert to is any hint of ambition...the people who "imply" that their "understanding" conveys a "right to leadership" and, of necessity, a "right to command".

People can do that without ever mentioning the word "vanguard"...and almost certainly will try.

Watch for it! :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Oops. Sorry, I misread your post. :blush: My apologies. :lol:

emokid08

19th April 2006, 01:16

and talking of spontaineous uprising of the workers is a moot point, the workers as a majority of them will not rise up on their own, they in some cases need to be opened up to the idea of their situation. This is done by communists, in fact by the mere position of us being communists, we tell people about communism, thats bringing people of their situation without you even knowing it. so unless emokid you have never tried to get a worker or a fellow youth to recognize his position in society, as well as how society functions you do not advocate spontainety. some workers will come to the movement, on their own (unlikely albeit) but many need to be opened up away from the bourgeois media that controls all aspects of their lives.

having a revolution without organization leads to failure, there needs to be some kind of organization, as well as some kind of "authority" as if there isnt we would have some crap like RAAN, a "network" where no one knows what the hell to do, as no one is "in charge"

I believe that I have stated before that I am in favor of organization, networking, education, etc. But these organizations don't need leadership or an "Inner Party". Everyone will draw on each other, lead and learn from each other.

If there is authority, then most likely that authority will want to maintain it's position over it's followers after the revolution.

The workers will achieve revolution through SELF LIBERATION acted out COLLECTIVELY. The liberation that takes place has to be SELF LIBERATION, or it's not really liberation,then, is it?

The Revolution cannot be created by some vanguard seizing power, but rather only by the self-liberation of the oppressed and exploited.

Direct action (acted out by the organized and networked/educated masses) and self liberation will spawn the revolution and free all of society.

YKTMX

19th April 2006, 01:18

and I can list some examples of instances where revolutionary vanguards failed to procure any sort of revolution.

Go for it.

If they don't really want any revolution, it's largely pointless for any vanguard, which seemingly wants to be the spark that ignites the revolution, which is an amiable goal, but retaining any control or influence once a revolution has started is hollow.

Sorry, but you still seem to be failing to understand the argument.

No one is saying the "vanguard" can create revolutionary situations out of thin air. The aim of the vanguard is to lead the revolutionary struggles in revolutionary socialist directions. The problem with revolutionary situations that have arose since the Bolshevik revolution is that there has either been no class conscious vanguard, or there has been, but they've placed greater importance on the foreign policy needs of the Soviet Union than on their own class struggles.

The problem therefore for socialism in the 20th century was a lack of vanguard parties, not too many.

YKTMX

19th April 2006, 01:20

And to be fair, it wasn't me that actually added 'having power over the masses'. The Leninist vanguards of the past added this. Your's is ultimately an ahistorical assertion that 'things will be better this time'.

Common assertion.

Umm, 2 examples, perhaps?

One will be fine, though.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 01:20

Originally posted by E K+--> (E K)Just like Demarchy implies multiple, seperated in process, unaccountable, mini-bureacracies ay RSTK?[/b]
I don't think this is accurate. Demarchy is where we have specific organizational jobs done by randomly selected people. There really is no 'bureacracy'.

Never the less the "autonomous" bodies make decissions separate from eachother to the point that it can't be taken into account what decissions affect these bodies; the elements of the environment aren't
separate from eachother. Though these bodies have term limits, you just replace
one group of despots for another, only more frequently !
On top of that theres a great wall deviding those affected by the decisions, and those who make them!
This isn't autonomism at all. Autonomism is simply decentralization. Networks are autonomous by their very nature, for example. There is no 'central command', but rather a bunch of small groups. So what we have is a large number of groups with similar principles and goals fighting autonomously for what they want.

How about Democracy, in the USA we live in a Democracy
This is another inaccuracy. The US is a so-called democratic republic.

Democracy is rule by the people.

YKTMX
Umm, 2 examples, perhaps?
Russia? China? And every other 'Marxist-Leninist' state of the 20th century.

These despotisms didn't just 'happen'. They were a result of the authoritarianism of the vanguard. The vanguard, and Lenin wrote as much, served as the 'head' of the movement. It was the 'most advanced'; in other words, it was the 'best'. The power each vanguard attained flowed naturally from this.

Why didn't you bother answering my first question?

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 01:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:26 AM
We just can't do it without our benevolent leaders!

Well, that is bullshit. We can have organization without this 'authority' or 'rule'. This can either take the form of a network like RAAN or an ultra-democratic organization, or perhaps an organization which uses demarchy.

In any of those cases, there is no real authority. True enough, a lot of people will be suggesting a lot of things. But none of them will actually have the power of command of the people.
did i use the word leader once? umm no i dont think so, try again. your enveloped by the stigma that ALL types of authority are bad, listen nothing will get accomplished without organization, and by the very nature of organization implies some kind of authority. i doubt when the time comes every single worker will join it, yet many many will. even if it is a majority they are exhibiting some kind of authority over the current govt and state structures. they are imposing the will of the people on the govt, Revolutions are authoritarian for that reason. I am no leninist, i will not fall into your clap trap about victimizing leninists and pushing them in a corner and discrediting all what they say, anarchists love to do that, but sorry i wont fall for it. I have said nothing leninist, ive said that i disagree with much of what lenin says, but one must not discredit what he did. as Kuhn said, you have to analyze the events in their proper contexts, of course it is easy for you to judge it, from your pedastool, but the real world thinks otherwise. so basically for your revolution to be completely anti-rule or authoritarian, every single person on earth must comply, as if even one does not support you, you are exhibiting your ideas over his, in terms of imposing the system of anarchism, whatever the fuck that means. Oh your successful RAAN or Ultra-democratic organizations how foolish of me, what great organizations.

oh bringing up demarchy, that doesnt even ilicit a response, everybody put your name in the hat now, 5th grade anyone?

like i said above unless every person joins the revolution, the revolutionaries will have power of command over those that dont agree, or who are fighting against you. its just that simple anomaly.

emokid08

19th April 2006, 01:24

How about Democracy, in the USA we live in a Democracy !

HA! Are you serious? You GOT to be kidding me!

anomaly

19th April 2006, 01:32

Originally posted by LoneRed
and by the very nature of organization implies some kind of authority.
No it doesn't. And this was my point in bringing up networks and ultra-democratic organizations. The latter type does not exist yet, so far as I know. However, several networks exist, without any authority in the organization.

But, I see you, like a lot of anti-anarchists, like to play the definition game. "I didn't really mean that!"

Well, alright. Do you want (official) hierarchy within the organization?

That is a better question, I think.

so basically for your revolution to be completely anti-rule or authoritarian, every single person on earth must comply, as if even one does not support you, you are exhibiting your ideas over his, in terms of imposing the system of anarchism, whatever the fuck that means.
You are probably right that revolution is an authoritarian act. We (we as in the proletariat) are, after all, imposing our will.

However, we were talking about authoritarianism within the organization. Not during the revolution.

oh bringing up demarchy, that doesnt even ilicit a response, everybody put your name in the hat now, 5th grade anyone?
Well, that is demarchy. No 'professional leaders', just regular people. That's the point of random selection.

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 01:35

oh and democracy is

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

In america we have a capitalist democracy, i.e. indirect democracy within a capitalist paradigm

what your supposedly advocating is direct democracy, we have a democracy in the US, just a really fucked up one, democracys arent always laddy da shit.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 01:37

:lol: Do you miss the bowl when you piss?

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly) I don't think this is accurate. Demarchy is where we have specific organizational jobs done by randomly selected people. There really is no 'bureacracy'. [/b]

Its not only talked about within just left organizations, but to be implemented into society.

I acknowledged they were randomly selected...

me
But this autonomy is according those who are drawn out of the computer system.

Certain groups groups are selected for certain jobs in society, but if your not in those bodies you can't disagree with those people in them. Repression!

There is no 'central command', but rather a bunch of small groups

Yes and those groups are in themselves, individually central commands, and one group isn't in check by other groups, because you have put them under a division of labour and process.

This is another inaccuracy. The US is a so-called democratic republic.

Oh but most citizens say they enjoy the process of democracy :o !

anomaly

19th April 2006, 01:38

Originally posted by LoneRed
what your supposedly advocating is direct democracy, we have a democracy in the US, just a really fucked up one, democracys arent always laddy da shit.
The founders of the United States specifically avoided 'direct democracy' when writing the constitution. And for good reason, form their perspective! (the founders were all upper class...direct democracy means no power for them)

Direct democracy is what I was talking about, yes. We want to make it distinct from the 'democracy' existing in various nation states all over the world, so we say 'ultra-democracy'.

YKTMX

19th April 2006, 01:39

Russia? China? And every other 'Marxist-Leninist' state of the 20th century.

China was never Marxist-Leninist in anything but a formal, legal sense.

Russia is more complicated. I'd say it ceased to be Marxist-Leninist when its leader butchered all the Leninists, though others put a "different date" on it.

These despotisms didn't just 'happen'. They were a result of the authoritarianism of the vanguard.

History doesn't work like that. It doesn't conform to the will of "ideas" or "structures of organizations". It conforms to the rise and fall of social forces, the struggle between classes, the development of material forces.

It was the 'most advanced'; in other words, it was the 'best'.

No, "best" is, once again, just something you've dreamt up in that fervent imagination of yours, I'm afraid.

Most advanced means what it says. A strata of the proletarians who have "advanced" beyond reformist or petty bourgeois consciousness and have instead gained a revolutionary socialist consciousness, which is "ahead" of their brothers. The job of the workers who have broken with the ruling ideas is to influence the thoughts and actions of those who haven't (to win them to socialism).

Somewhere in the anarchist dreamworld, this explains the Gulag.

It's perverse.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 01:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:39 AM
HA! Are you serious? You GOT to be kidding me!
Did you not see my three laughing faces in my post; signifying some sort of sarcasm?

Think people!

So you can imagine building a vehicle in your head, well imagine it in motion.
Do the parts work? Should you replace another part? Ect...

anomaly

19th April 2006, 01:42

Originally posted by E K
Certain groups groups are selected for certain jobs in society, but if your not in those bodies you can't disagree with those people in them. Repression!
Maybe some 'demarchic' groups advocate this, but not the revolutionary ones. Any representatives would be completely recallable by a simple majority at any time. Think Paris Commune.

Yes and those groups are in themselves, individually central commands, and one group isn't in check by other groups, because you have put them under a division of labour and process.
Again, I think this is an inaccurate view. The individual branches of autonomous groups aren't inherently centralized within themselves.

For example, RAAN 'action groups' don't have a 'central command' within the small, autonomous group. NEFAC is also pretty autonomous, but in each 'collective', no 'central command' exists.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 01:51

Originally posted by YKTMX
Russia is more complicated. I'd say it ceased to be Marxist-Leninist when its leader butchered all the Leninists, though others put a "different date" on it.
I think it is rather obvious that Lenin became much more authoritarian after the revolution. In any case, it was clear in Russia that the vanguard had power over the 'backward masses', as good ol' Vlad called them. This worked in Russia because Russia was a country of peasants. The move to capitalism was inevitable, and the vanguard paved the way for the bourgeoisie.

However, to repeat this, or even to want to repeat this, in advanced capitalist nations today just doesn't make any sense.

History doesn't work like that. It doesn't conform to the will of "ideas" or "structures of organizations". It conforms to the rise and fall of social forces, the struggle between classes, the development of material forces.
Obviously. I think Leninism 'works' in thrid world countries because of those objective material conditions. There really are backward masses there (the peasantry). However, in the advanced capitalist nations, the Leninist method is simply illogical. Due to the material conditions present (or, in the case of the US, those that will come), people become revolutionary. We don't need some vanguard to command us.

A strata of the proletarians who have "advanced" beyond reformist or petty bourgeois consciousness and have instead gained a revolutionary socialist consciousness, which is "ahead" of their brothers. The job of the workers who have broken with the ruling ideas is to influence the thoughts and actions of those who haven't (to win them to socialism).
Funny you leave out here that the 'vanguard' has the power of command over their 'brothers'. And that's the whole problem.

It is obvious that people will try to convince others of revolutionary ideas. It happens every day, even on this site.

However, I think it is a huge stretch to call that 'the vanguard'. The vanguard was sufficiently defined in the twentieth century through Leninist actions. If you don't want to repeat that, then don't say you want a vanguard.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 01:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:57 AM
Maybe some 'demarchic' groups advocate this, but not the revolutionary ones. Any representatives would be completely recallable by a simple majority at any time. Think Paris Commune.
Oh not the revolutionary ones! Well La tee dah!

The process of demarchy is pointless in this sense, and it makes it difficult to co-ordinate things because the branches are separated from eachother.

It just tangles up the whole process of federations and delegates.
Oh and demarchy wasn't used in the Paris Commune, federations and delegates were, or workers-councils.

Plus you don't get to vote.

One of the main points of Demarchy is that it was supposed to rid special interest groups by not having elections. When all you have to do really is make the delegate accountable and revokable.

Its too fishy having a computer vote for me, especially when some people won't be familiar with program that runs the process.

OneBrickOneVoice

19th April 2006, 02:00

Wow people don't listen. :rolleyes:

I was implying that you need a strong leader during the revolution or else it won't succeed. Once the revolution is over, democratic elections must be held.

YKTMX

19th April 2006, 02:04

Due to the material conditions present (or, in the case of the US, those that will come), people become revolutionary

OK, one last time, 'cos even I get bored repeating myself to people who aren't listening.

The masses become revolutionary because of events largely out of the control of any group/person.

The masses becoming revolutionary does not neccasarily lead to socialism/communism, in fact it usually doesn't. - as Germany, France, Portugal etc, etc shows. In the one instance where a conscious Marxist vanguard existed in the workers' movement, in Russia in 1917, the first socialist revolution in history took place.

The job, therefore, of the vanguard is to take "revolutionary situations" and turn them into victories for revolutionary socialism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Funny you leave out here that the 'vanguard' has the power of command over their 'brothers'. And that's the whole problem.

I left it out because it's not true. It's yet another invention.

If the vanguard's had "power of command" over the workers then surely they would call for a revolution tomorrow.

I have laid out quite clearly and in simple language what the notion of a proletarian vanguard means, but you seem determined to ignore what I'm saying and stick to, rather blandly, parroting things you've read on Infoshop and fabricating quotes.

I doubt there's much point in this discussion.

emokid08

19th April 2006, 02:05

I cannot believe that some here are actually defending the system of 'democracy' we have in the US. That's a laugh. :D :lol:
People say that we have "freedom" here in the US. I disagree.Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.

Ask yourself, what does the US gov't do?

Authority is hierarchy, and I believe that people should have control over themselves and thier lives, and have equal say in group descisons. Society should be based upon free agreement rather than authoritarian coercion. I believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

It is possible to coordinate activities without hierarchy. Any group of people can get together and hold a general assembly where they can divvy up the tasks they need to do and decide who will do what. If needed they can assign one or more people to act as coordinators. Such coordinators would simply implement the plans developed by the general assembly and would have no authority themselves. In the Ukrainian and Spanish Revolutions when workers took over factories the worker assemblies often created factory committees that performed administrative and coordination tasks. Decision making power stayed with the worker assemblies, the factory committees simply implemented what the workers decided in their assemblies. Coordination between multiple assemblies can be done through the council system.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 02:16

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)The job, therefore, of the vanguard is to take "revolutionary situations" and turn them into victories for revolutionary socialism. Nothing more, nothing less.[/b]
The people can do this themselves. In fact, that is pretty much what happened in 1871 to form the Paris Commune.

If the vanguard's had "power of command" over the workers then surely they would call for a revolution tomorrow.
This is exactly what the RCP does.

And to say that the Russian vanguard didn't have the power of command over the people is simply not true. They clearly did. And I've told you several times, if that's not the 'vanguard' you want to use, then say so. You didn't say so.

I have laid out quite clearly and in simple language what the notion of a proletarian vanguard means
You can say all the pretty things you like. The idea has been tried. And it created a despotic regime. The only assertion you can make is that things will be 'different' this time. Well, I don't think so.

Basically, you're repeating all the assertions Leninists always make. This discussion is pointless.

E K
It just tangles up the whole process of federations and delegates.
Oh and demarchy wasn't used in the Paris Commune, federations and delegates were, or workers-councils.
The branches would be 'separate' (as in, the individual jobs--like secretary, PR, etc.), but they can still coordinate. It doesn't tangle anything up.

And I realize demarchy wasn't used in the Paris Commune. Recallable elections were. That's what I said.

Plus you don't get to vote.
One of the problems of 'professional politics' is the emergence of very charismatic leaders with really shitty ideas. You know, the ones who can't say a sentence without adding 'vote for me'. These are the 'alpha males' of the group who think they are just born to lead. And demarchy is a very effective check upon these types of people, in my opinion.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 03:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:31 AM
The people can do this themselves. In fact, that is pretty much what happened in 1871 to form the Paris Commune.

You make this sound like communist ideas radiated mythically into the Communards heads from the cosmos.

At the time there were several revolutionary socialist trends going on in Paris. Working people were becoming more open to revolutionary ideas.

Its totally not like it is now.

The branches would be 'separate' (as in, the individual jobs--like secretary, PR, etc.), but they can still coordinate. It doesn't tangle anything up.

Your definition is clearly different from others on demarchy--well from what I've heard.

Hopefully now you see it's pointless to get a different word placed upon your definition.No matter what you do people will say what they want on your new word, and how its exactly the same as the old word, and so on. So you'll end up having to explain yourself anyways.

Nothing is ever so simple.

And I realize demarchy wasn't used in the Paris Commune. Recallable elections were. That's what I said.

Not every definition of demarchy entails recallable elections.

One of the problems of 'professional politics' is the emergence of very charismatic leaders with really shitty ideas. You know, the ones who can't say a sentence without adding 'vote for me'. These are the 'alpha males' of the group who think they are just born to lead. And demarchy is a very effective check upon these types of people, in my opinion.

Your characterizing elections under bourgoeis society, under the new society the elections would be clean because there would be a limit on spending, the time limit campaigning would be closer to the voting day--so there isn't an over abundance of propaganda, and everyone would have the same priviledges in propagandising in their campaigns. Also there wouldn't be political parties, so your not getting someone from two parties or less whose "the best they could come up with"; you'd have a broader selection.

However, under demarchy by chance an undesirable candidate could pop up.
And there wouldn't be a filtration system i.e concerned people, preventing these crap candidates from getting into office-- well at first.

Rawthentic

19th April 2006, 03:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:20 PM

And for every revolutionary situation initiated by said vanguard, there have been revolutionary situations initiated by general popular uprisings, and by the working class itself.

I never said the vanguard "initiates" uprisings, in fact I said quite plainly that they didn't. I said that "revolutionary situations" don't lead to revolution without a class conscious vanguard.

For instance, in post-war Germany, France 68 and Portuguese revolution.

You see, this is the problem. If anarchists want to debate the issue, they have to stop habitually lying and trying to slay strawmen.
most of us are not "anarchists", we are council communists with a far greater vision of freedom and democracy for the people. Look what has happened with vanguard parties in the past. It creates hierarchy adn distances itself form the masses. Proletarian autonomy and power all the way.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 03:41

Originally posted by E K
At the time there were several revolutionary socialist trends going on in Paris. Working people were becoming more open to revolutionary ideas.
My point is simply that there was no vanguard like the one YKTMX is talking about.

And yes, you will probably find some glaring differences between the 'demarchy' I'm talking about and other 'demarchy'.

So rather than go on and on about the subject, I'll just post redstar2000's 'paper' about it. I basically steal everything I'm talking about from him. :P

Demarchy (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There is that link, and then within that page there is another which may be of interest to you.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 04:45

Originally posted by anomaly
So rather than go on and on about the subject, I'll just post redstar2000's 'paper' about it. I basically steal everything I'm talking about from him.
Yeah I've read both of his things on Demarchy before, and the article by Brian Martin.

They both suggest policy groups for particular areas, not particular jobs.

Only those who are interested in particular areas would volunteer for those positions in the policy groups, and those who don't get chosen are advisors. Neither of them suggested accountablity and revocability, so if you suddenly learn more about certain area or become more interested you can't express your opinion.
All RSTK had to say about this is that they who are in the groups should or could pay attention to the ethos of the public.

Those who are interested, and are volunteers in a certain area might not be concerned enough to care about how their descisions affects the other policy-groups.

In short it reduces the body of policy into competing apendages.

Thats why I concluded it as a burearchy: multiple decentralized bureaucracies.

If you are to say my definition of vanguard is wrong, I can say the same for you on demarchy.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 05:40

Neither of them suggested accountablity and revocability
Redstar mentioned this.

Your criticisms of demarchy may be valid. We really don't know yet. However, one thing you seem to forget again and again is that demarchic 'representatives' are subordinate to the people, not the other way around.

If you are to say my definition of vanguard is wrong, I can say the same for you on demarchy.
You can do this, but there is a key difference. My criticism is based on the history of the 20th century. Your criticism is based on your speculations of an idea that exists currently only on paper.

I really am baffled as to why you insist on using the term 'vanguard' when the 'vanguard' you claim to want apparently looks nothing like the 'vanguards' of old. Why are you so against a new word, and one that would probably describe your goals better and more clearly? :huh:

19th April 2006, 05:54

Originally posted by Loyal Subject

I really am baffled as to why you insist on using the term 'vanguard' when the 'vanguard' you claim to want apparently looks nothing like the 'vanguards' of old.

You are continuing to equate the vanguard with different forms of organization. The vanguard isn't any form of organization; it is a classification of people (I would use the word "group" but that would imply some sort of connection or organization between the members of the vanguard, which isn't necessarily true).

Vanguards have existed within all movements, regardless of whether they were proletarian movements or not. The vanguard is simply the most knowledgable and most active people within that movement. This is why vanguards have existed within all movements and why they will continue to do so (even in proletarian movements!!! :o ). It is inevitable because there will always be people that are most knowledgable and most active within that movement.

Again, since the vanguard is a classification of people, it isn't elitist at all. All one has to do to become classified as part of the vanguard would be to become very knowledgable or very active within the movement.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 05:59

Originally posted by Lazar
You are continuing to equate the vanguard with different forms of organization. The vanguard isn't any form of organization; it is a classification of people
But this again ignores the historical usage of the word.

And anyway, with what you describe, just calling them 'communists' or 'activists' is far clearer.

Unless you mean for the vanguard to have the power of command over the proletariat (that is, an organized hierarchy), using the word 'vanguard' only creates confusion and tension.

If you just want communists to educate and agitate the proletariat, then why not just say so?

19th April 2006, 06:07

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
But this again ignores the historical usage of the word.
[/b]

This ignores the historical bastardization of the word by people that don't know what it means, yes.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
And anyway, with what you describe, just calling them 'communists' or 'activists' is far clearer.
[/b]

It doesn't matter. This is what vanguard means. This is what people mean when they say the word vanguard. This is what Marxist-Leninists mean when they say the word.

Loyal [email protected]

Unless you mean for the vanguard to have the power of command over the proletariat (that is, an organized hierarchy), using the word 'vanguard' only creates confusion and tension.

Only because people are uneducated about it and because people that don't know what it means constantly misuse it (you, for example). You might as well suggest renaming communism.

Loyal Subject

If you just want communists to educate and agitate the proletariat, then why not just say so?

Why don't you use the proper meaning of the word vanguard instead of twisting it to mean some "evil thing"?

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 06:12

Redstar mentioned this.

Well I'll have to look again when I'm not on my way to bed.

You can do this, but there is a key difference. My criticism is based on the history of the 20th century.

I dunno if there was much of this in the 20th century, all I can recall is that RSTK considered some of the "Influential Millitants" to use demarchic ideas, a few sections of bourgoeis governments used this process, and this was used in some science project at the Jefferson Centre, however not being used n it entirety.
Much like ethonal, might work, might not, but has been used on a very small basis.

I really am baffled as to why you insist on using the term 'vanguard' when the 'vanguard' you claim to want apparently looks nothing like the 'vanguards' of old.

Why Rosa Luxemburg was in a vanguard, ofourse :) .

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 07:34

emokid apparently you dont have a grasp of what most of us call... sarcasm, and you can all talk all you want about the success of Networks, but the fact is, once the revolution comes, those networks will be squandered and smashed in your very eyes by the organized state power

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 14:32

I doubt that there would be any anarchist network smashing once the revolution comes, because with the way the left is going these days were just going to end with anarchists saying they're living in anarchism, while we'll say socialism.

I think it would be foolish for the anarchist networks to disband after winning the civil war against the bourgeois. You gotta make sure labour can hold "power"--as it were, before you walk out the door. But luckily it should be easy these days with the higher litteracy rate, communication, and the internet.

Theres going to be alot of making over society.

Ol' Dirty

19th April 2006, 15:36

Originally posted by Loyal Subject
(?)
I really am baffled as to why you insist on using the term 'vanguard' when the 'vanguard' you claim to want apparently looks nothing like the 'vanguards' of old.

You are continuing to equate the vanguard with different forms of organization. The vanguard isn't any form of organization; it is a classification of people (I would use the word "group" but that would imply some sort of connection or organization between the members of the vanguard, which isn't necessarily true).

Vanguards have existed within all movements, regardless of whether they were proletarian movements or not. The vanguard is simply the most knowledgable and most active people within that movement. This is why vanguards have existed within all movements and why they will continue to do so (even in proletarian movements!!! :o ). It is inevitable because there will always be people that are most knowledgable and most active within that movement.

Again, since the vanguard is a classification of people, it isn't elitist at all. All one has to do to become classified as part of the vanguard would be to become very knowledgable or very active within the movement.

:lol:

Leninism is one of the greatest hypocrisies of the Commenist movement. Leninists speak of a classless society, much like the rest of us, yet they fail to see that by creating a vanguard, a group that throughout history has recieved special treatment, and even reverence, creates a new class system. Again, look at the USSR: a brutal, totalitarian "workers state" ( :lol: ), completely controlled by the vanguard.

That's why Leninists are hypocrites. :)

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 17:10

hey wonton soldier, classification does not mean class. he used that word to differentiate between those who know about communism/marxism, and those who dont. hes not talking about them becoming a new class. thought that was obvious but guess not.

19th April 2006, 17:13

yet they fail to see that by creating a vanguard

Nobody creates a vanguard. It is formed spontaneously by material conditions.

a group that throughout history has recieved special treatment, and even reverence, creates a new class system.

Again, you are equating the vanguard with a bunch of other nonsense that it isn't.

Again, look at the USSR: a brutal, totalitarian "workers state" ( laugh.gif ), completely controlled by the vanguard.

Again, you are failing to understand what the vanguard is. If you knew what the vanguard was, you would realize that not all members of the vanguard were members of the Bolshevik party. So your conclusion is debunked by that fact alone. Did you even read my post?

That's why Leninists are hypocrites.

Good thing I'm not a Leninist.

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 19:57

Anomoly and others are quick to point the finger at leninists, by denouncing them as hypocrites, "red fascists" or whatever else have you, but the point is, there will be NO successful organization without organization, if people wish to call the organization a vanguard, then so be it, its just the words negative connotation which have been construed by the bourgeois to throw all successful attempts at taking state power as mere childplay. Obviously those who are so aptly defending the idea of the "vanguard" do not see it as how some see the russian revolution and aftermath. I particulary dont like using the word vanguard to represent class conscious workers, but if others do, so be it.

also E.K

I was stating that without organization of some kind of "authority" within the party, than the massive state apparatus will surely crush the movement. A network of loosely connected individuals, such as those in the RAAN has NO chance fighting against the bourgeoisie without some sense of direction, or planning. ya you can say, oh we can still plan without having an authority, but who would make the decisions? consensus? people disagree, in order to successfully fight of the bourgeoisie attacks against the socialist revolution, some kind of authority of centralization of organization needs to take place

and before you go on all calling me a leninist, take out a history book and realize why ive said what ive said

anomaly

19th April 2006, 20:57

Lazar is merely pulling stuff out his ass, as usual.

History apparently does not matter to him. An unfortunate thing.

I think Wonton soldier successfully lays out the obvious implications of using the term 'vanguard'.

But if you 'Leaguers' want to call it a 'vanguard', be my guest. I'm telling you that it definitely will create unneeded confusion and tension. Apparently you 'Leaguers' really don't care.

But aside from these silly semantics, of which I have grown tired, here was an interesting comment:

Originally posted by E K
with the way the left is going these days were just going to end with anarchists saying they're living in anarchism, while we'll say socialism.
Perhaps. It would be interesting if this did happen, proving without a doubt that all of our disagreements really were 'just semantics'.

However, throughout my lengthy conversations with the Mighty One, it seems painfully apparent that his brand of socialism is not compatible with anarchism (indeed, he has recently become more explicitly anti-anarchist than any other CLer). Where anarchism says destroy the state, the socialists say seize the state. The libertarian Marxists are a more difficult matter to 'classify'. I think they'd be happy with a 'Paris Commune' type 'state' (as would I so long as this new 'Commune' has some minor changes from the old), but they'd also be just as happy to see the state destroyed. They simply want communism without all of the Leninist horseshit. :)

The one thing that is consistent amongst Leaguers is that they all wish to preserve the state. This is clearly at odds with anarchism. That is simple fact.

Entrails Konfetti

19th April 2006, 21:24

That really depends on the definition of the state.

Here we go another debate :blink: .

Hold the phone I don't have time today.

19th April 2006, 21:39

So, again, Loyal Subject, why not rename communism as well? Hmm? After all, with all those negative connotations of the word, we should change it, right? Maybe we should change all of these Marxist words because everyone associates them with "communism" and we just cant have that, now can we?:lol:

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
However, throughout my lengthy conversations with the Mighty One, it seems painfully apparent that his brand of socialism is not compatible with anarchism (indeed, he has recently become more explicitly anti-anarchist than any other CLer). Where anarchism says destroy the state, the socialists say seize the state. The libertarian Marxists are a more difficult matter to 'classify'. I think they'd be happy with a 'Paris Commune' type 'state' (as would I so long as this new 'Commune' has some minor changes from the old), but they'd also be just as happy to see the state destroyed. They simply want communism without all of the Leninist horseshit.[/b]

You have also failed to understand what the word "state" means after repeated explanations.

As for my position on socialism, you didn't understand that either when I told you about it.

Loyal Subject

The one thing that is consistent amongst Leaguers is that they all wish to preserve the state. This is clearly at odds with anarchism. That is simple fact.

You don't even know what the state is.

LoneRed

19th April 2006, 21:56

I wish to preserve this capitalist state, yet am fighting to overthrow it... oh well it makes sense to me. I bet lazar, E.K., and CL also want to uphold the grand capitalist state. oh almighty state, how can we better overthrow you?

anomaly

19th April 2006, 22:48

Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)You have also failed to understand what the word "state" means after repeated explanations.[/b]
Maybe in your twisted world, Mighty One.

The state is a result of class society. So, essentially, you want to have two functional classes in post-revolutionary society.

I don't want two functional classes. I thus do not want a state.

You're probably hung up on your own arrogance, Mighty One. Not surprising.

Originally posted by E [email protected]
That really depends on the definition of the state.
Organized hierarchy. Class society. Lazar wants a state with two functional classes.

If you don't have classes, you don't have a state.

LoneRed
I bet lazar, E.K., and CL also want to uphold the grand capitalist state.
No, they want a new state. Well, Lazar does. I don't know about E K.

I think that with this revolution, we have to destroy class society. With that goes the state itself. We cannot simply build a new hierarchy, a new class system, a new state.

But this is an old debate. You can't convince statists of anything.

19th April 2006, 23:12

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)The state is a result of class society. So, essentially, you want to have two functional classes in post-revolutionary society.[/b]

Actually, the state exists as a result of class antagonisms. Let me again quote Lenin:

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable."
-V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution

As long as the bourgeois class exists, class antagonisms are going to exist. As a result of the preceding, a state is required in order to maintain proletarian power against those antagonisms.

Here is the definition of state again:

"The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."
-marxists.org

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)Lazar wants a state with two functional classes. [/b]

Please, show me where I said this. I would love it if you did.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject

If you don't have classes, you don't have a state.

If you don't have class antagonisms you don't have a state.

Loyal [email protected]
No, they want a new state.

Yes. A proletarian state, which will combat these class antagonisms and maintain proletarian power.

Loyal Subject

I think that with this revolution, we have to destroy class society.

Class society is international. In order to destroy class society in the manner that you wish, we would have to have a worldwide revolution at the same time. This is obviously impossible and goes against historical materialism, as well as common sense. It is impossible to go from capitalism to communism.

Since revolution won't happen in all nations at the same time, there has to be a transition period between the two. This transition period is when the proletariat has control of the country. The proletariat can't have control of the country without having a state. And if you're freaking out right now about the word state, I suggest that you read the definition again, earlier in this post.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 23:21

Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.[/b]
Emphasis mine.

Class antagonism logically do not exist without class.

This implies class within society. And a class functions as such. So you want two functional classes in society.

marxists.org
The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule
If we have a ruling class, we must have a ruled class.

Again, this shows that you want two functional classes.

It is impossible to go from capitalism to communism.
Perhaps. However, it is not impossible to destroy the state in the process of revolution. Collectivism does this rather well.

As long as the bourgeois class exists
This is the source of your problems. A class is based upon its relation to the means of production. Once the bourgeoisie cease to control the means of production, they have three choices: assimilate, leave, or die.

Now, in order to do the third, some ex-bourgeoisie will fight. But these are not a functioning class in society.

Thus, no state is needed. What the ex-bourgeoisie who fight become is criminals. And if you think we need a state to fight criminals, you may as well give up on communism now.

If you really want to continue this debate, go right ahead. I'll certainly respond. However, we've had it once before. The simple fact is that you want (or at least think) that post-revolutionary society will have two functional classes. This is the source of this conflict.

19th April 2006, 23:30

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
Class antagonism logically do not exist without class. [/b]

And two classes obviously exist presently.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)This implies class within society. And a class functions as such. So you want two functional classes in society. [/b]

This implies class within society? There are already two classes within society. Within the proletarian state, there will exist class antagonisms as a result of class society throughout the rest of the world.

I don't "want" two functional classes in society. I recognize that there are two functional classes in society and realize the fact that these class antagonisms will not be destroyed until after class society is destroyed. Since class society can't be destroyed in one fell swoop, there will need to be a way for the proletariat to maintain power over these antagonisms until class society is destroyed. This is what the proletarian state is.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject
If we have a ruling class, we must have a ruled class.

Actually it will be class antagonisms that are ruled over.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject
However, it is not impossible to destroy the state in the process of revolution.

You don't even know what the state is.

Loyal [email protected]

This is the source of your problems. A class is based upon its relation to the means of production. Once the bourgeoisie cease to control the means of production, they have three choices: assimilate, leave, or die.

Yes, I've heard all of this tripe before, but what you fail to realize is that the bourgeoisie exists worldwide, and we are talking about the control of a nation. So if you want to, you can assume that I said "As long as the bourgeois class exists anywhere on earth..." I thought that was rather obvious but I guess you didn't pick up on it.

Loyal Subject
The simple fact is that you want (or at least think) that post-revolutionary society will have two functional classes.

Your definition of post-revolutionary is fucked up. This is the source of the conflict.

anomaly

19th April 2006, 23:34

True or false, Mighty One: the 'state' you want will have within it two functional classes.

If you say false, then all this bullshit is semantics.

However, your arrogance is rather amusing. Keep it up! :lol:

Also, I notice your terminology is again different. I think we can attain a classless 'area' (that may be clearer for you) after revolution. For example, I think revolution will happen first in Europe. So Europe will then become functionally classless.

Ol' Dirty

20th April 2006, 02:11

hey wonton soldier, classification does not mean class.

Hey, LoneRed: class is the heirarchical result of overt classification, meaning that they're the same thing, only at different sides of the spectrum. Also, class is the root word for classification, in case you didn't know.

Why are we arguing symantics?

he used that word to differentiate between those who know about communism/marxism, and those who don't.

If so, all communists are the vanguard of the movemant, making the whole point of a vanguard obselete. :)

yet they fail to see that by creating a vanguard

Nobody creates a vanguard. It is formed spontaneously by material conditions.

Although this is partially true, I still disagree. In reality, yes, there are those who are more skilled, talented, or learned, but this does not mean that these indivduals should be classified differently; they merely have more to give to the movement. We're all communists; we merely have different things to give. The more we give, the more others benefit, and, in turn, the more we all benefit.

anomaly

20th April 2006, 02:15

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier
If so, all communists are the vanguard of the movemant, making the whole point of a vanguard obselete.
Yea, this is the part that confuses me. If the vanguard is every single communist, anarchist, or socialist, then why even say vanguard?

It seems to just be 'the fashion'. :lol:

321zero

20th April 2006, 02:31

Anomaly's problem is that he conceives of a test-tube revolution, uncontaminated by real-world messiness. Objective conditions shake the tube and after the dust has settled class antagonisms and the state have vanished. Of course the world is not a laboratory and no benevolent incarnation of history in a white coat is going to deliver such a dreamy revolution.

Anomaly’s resistance to the idea of a proletarian vanguard is also a symptom - it's a plainly observable fact that the proletariat is stratified, as plain as the Revleft webpage you're looking at. It's not 'Leninist' to make this observation, it's 'Leninist' to want to organise class conscious proletarians in anticipation of the revolutionary upheavals to come.

He looks to the general immiseration of the proletariat to be the homogenising agent which will generate communist consciousness everywhere simultaneously, but this has never happened in the past and it will not happen in the future. He has too much faith in Marx's theoretical generalisations and not enough of Marx's rigorous attention to history. It's a case of 'optimism of the intellect and pessimism of the will.'

321zero

20th April 2006, 02:38

It seems to just be 'the fashion'. :lol:

Nah, it's 'the fashion' to take the terminology of the C19th and C20th Marxists, which can be made to sound a little quaint and out-moded, and make a polemic around that terminology instead of addressing the concepts.

anomaly

20th April 2006, 02:43

The Leninists seem to be grasping at straws here.

Originally posted by 321zero
Anomaly's problem is that he conceives of a test-tube revolution, uncontaminated by real-world messiness.
How so? Just because I oppose the creation of any 'state'? Just because I'm not a Leninist?

I've already said that the revolution will be violent, that the bourgeoisie will be overthrown. It will probably be a rocky start. But creating hierarchy will not help any of this. Your concept of 'realism' seems a bit biased.

'Leninist' to want to organise class conscious proletarians in anticipation of the revolutionary upheavals to come
Leninists also want to create a hierarchical state and have a vanguard as the 'head' of the revolution. In short, official hierarchy within organization. If this is your concept of 'realism', than I'm proud to be utopian. :lol:

He looks to the general immiseration of the proletariat to be the homogenising agent which will generate communist consciousness everywhere simultaneously
Well, I'm a materialist, and this contrasts sharply with materialism. It is rather obvious that objective material conditions will create a 'revolutionary conscious', one might say. Those material conditions will be the homogenizing agent. Not any authoritarian vanguard.

But I've never said this will happen simultaneously. I don't think we can expect all of the proletariat to become revolutionaries. Sure, a large majority probably will, but there will of course be exceptions. And the proletariat will become communist in proportion to the material conditions around them. Things won't get shitty all at once. It is a gradual process.

addressing the concepts
What concepts? That people who are communists should educate and agitate the proletariat? Well, I fully agree with that. I just don't know why they insist on using the word vanguard. I don't really care, I'm just pointing out that it will obviously cause some tension the Leaguers don't really want.

Ol' Dirty

20th April 2006, 03:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:46 PM

Anomaly's problem is that he conceives of a test-tube revolution, uncontaminated by real-world messiness. Objective conditions shake the tube and after the dust has settled class antagonisms and the state have vanished. Of course the world is not a laboratory and no benevolent incarnation of history in a white coat is going to deliver such a dreamy revolution.

I seriously doubt he believes in such a thing; personally, I know I don't. We simply don't believe in adopting a state-society (a tool of the enemy), partially because of its historical weakness (e.g. the US"S"R, the "P"RC, Cuba), partially because of the great problem of hypocrisy, and of the danger of a one-step-forward-two-steps-back situation.

Anomaly’s resistance to the idea of a proletarian vanguard is also a symptom - it's a plainly observable fact that the proletariat is stratified, as plain as the Revleft webpage you're looking at. It's not 'Leninist' to make this observation, it's 'Leninist' to want to organise class conscious proletarians in anticipation of the revolutionary upheavals to come.

You know, we can do all that without a vanguard, or a state. :rolleyes:

He looks to the general immiseration of the proletariat to be the homogenising agent which will generate communist consciousness everywhere simultaneously, but this has never happened in the past and it will not happen in the future. He has too much faith in Marx's theoretical generalisations and not enough of Marx's rigorous attention to history. It's a case of 'optimism of the intellect and pessimism of the will.'

Do you have to speak for him? No. ;)

We are fully aware that the state isn't going to crumble by itself, we merely think that the movement should grow the proleteriats knowledge of the movement done... oh... I don't know... collectively? :D

G'night, y'all. I'm off to bedy-bye.

Peace.

Nicky Scarfo

20th April 2006, 03:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:32 PM
For better or worse, the word has "baggage"...and comes suitably enclosed in trash bags.

In the last century, the "Vanguard Party" was understood, in practical terms, to be the organ of despotism...so that people who use the word now are usually assumed to be aspiring despots, even if that's not "what they really mean".

The obvious solution is to trash the word altogether...just dump it and pick some new words to describe what you really want.

There's no reason to hold ourselves hostage to a discredited model of post-revolutionary society.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Could always use the literal definition of "vanguard"-- the front line or the front rank. There ya go, meaning in tact, baggage of word gone.

Front Line Party
Front Line Organization

Sounds good too! :)

321zero

20th April 2006, 03:14

Leninists also want to create a hierarchical state and have a vanguard as the 'head' of the revolution..

It's not a question of 'wanting to', it's a question of actually trying to think smart about how revolutions happen and what your "rocky start" might actually involve.

No one wants to build a new class society, which is the only context in which 'hierarchy' is meaningful; only to ensure proletarian power gets the job done.

You make assertions about what lennies want, based on a mistaken belief that they want a replay of the Russian revolution and it's degeneration. This is convenient for you as straw-lennies are all you can handle.

I just don't know why they insist on using the word vanguard. I don't really care, I'm just pointing out that it will obviously cause some tension the Leaguers don't really want.

Sometimes a little 'tension' can be useful. I've had people object the the phrase 'class war' becuase 'war' is bad, m'kay? Doesn't mean I'm going to indulge their squemishness, which seeing as you don't really care is about all your objections amount to.

Oh, and you will be accepted, if the lennies are right and if you realise it. No point in holding a grudge.

321zero

20th April 2006, 03:32

Do you have to speak for him? No. ;)

Fair enough, although I think what you quoted was a fair summation, maybe bending the stick a little far with "everywhere, simultaneously".

The rest ("he has too much faith") was my characterisation of Anomaly, not me speaking for him.

Also Anomaly is definitely guilty of 'speaking for' as well - "Lennies want..."

I don't think it's worth getting too precious about this technique tho; it's probably inevitable to an extent, as try to understand each other and fail. It can be abused, but hey, on a message board it shouldn't be too much of a problem unless it's deliberately disingenuous.

anomaly

20th April 2006, 03:44

Originally posted by 321zero
No one wants to build a new class society, which is the only context in which 'hierarchy' is meaningful; only to ensure proletarian power gets the job done.
I think it's a bit premature to talk about 'what gets the job done'. I happen to think that an anarchist-ic type revolution would work. Smash the state, abolish capitalism!

None of those ancient vanguardist tones. :)

You make assertions about what lennies want, based on a mistaken belief that they want a replay of the Russian revolution and it's degeneration.
I think it's fairly clear what Lennies want. One need only open up What Is To Be Done. The despotism Lenin advocated is all too apparent in that work.

you don't really care is about all your objections amount to.
I've suggested to some of them not to use it. However, I can't stop them. If they want to use the word, then go right ahead. All I know is I won't be using it.

redstar2000

20th April 2006, 05:48

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
Could always use the literal definition of "vanguard"-- the front line or the front rank. There ya go, meaning in tact, baggage of word gone.

Front Line Party
Front Line Organization

Possible.

And certainly preferable to "vanguard".

But, you know, this problem really goes all the way back to when "Leninists" didn't amount to 100 people.

It's the idea that "class war" is somehow "like" a war between nation-states.

Politicians & Soldiers; Social Democracy and Leninism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082733763&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Marx occasionally used "military metaphors" and Engels was very fond of them. But they are fundamentally misleading...revolutions are "not like" wars at all -- though, of course, if they end up as civil wars or wars against foreign invaders, then the "military metaphors" start to make sense.

If your premise is that proletarian revolution will inevitably result in civil war and/or foreign invasion, then Leninism starts to "seem plausible" as a response to such objective conditions.

But there's no sense in which a revolution can be "conducted" like a traditional "military campaign"...the best you can do with those techniques is mount a coup which is what the Bolsheviks did, of course.

Thus there is a "deeper" sense in which the word "vanguard" arouses hostility...the suggestion that we should be the footsoldiers of some elite -- no matter what their class origins might have been -- is not a welcome one.

People with a mind-set to be soldiers may just as well join an existing bourgeois army -- the pay and benefits are better.

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

Entrails Konfetti

20th April 2006, 06:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:03 AM
...the best you can do with those techniques is mount a coup which is what the Bolsheviks did, of course.
You always say that about the Bolsheviks, and never go farther into it, nor have any sources backing it up.

LoneRed

20th April 2006, 08:30

he can also go on calling us all leninists, without backing it up, anarchists are great at pointing the "blame"

YKTMX

20th April 2006, 13:36

Most Leninist parties tend not to use the word "vanguard" now, because it seems rather dated than anything.

But the organizational preferences that the words speaks to remain crucial.

Jesus Christ!

20th April 2006, 15:03

I think the idea of a new word is becoming over whelmingly obvious. One person argued we don't need it because cappies will throw dirt on any word.. yes true but look at the countless number of posts in this topic alone that have attacked the russian vanguard without reading what people who feel the need for a vanguard truely think a vanguard is. We don't need a new word to confuse cappies we need a new word to establish a difference in it for leftists that refuse to read or listen.

Ol' Dirty

20th April 2006, 16:20

I never assumed any of you were Leninists... the thing is, the things you say are so similar to what Leninists say, its hard to tell where you all begin, and where Leninists end, or vice-versa... seen?

ComradeOm

20th April 2006, 17:21

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 20 2006, 05:03 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 20 2006, 05:03 AM) If your premise is that proletarian revolution will inevitably result in civil war and/or foreign invasion, then Leninism starts to "seem plausible" as a response to such objective conditions. [/b]
Without getting into this discussion, this seems a reasonable enough assumption. How many revolutions have occured without war, be it civil or foreign?

EL KABLAMO
You always say that about the Bolsheviks, and never go farther into it, nor have any sources backing it up.
Because it fits into Redstar's ideal version of history no sources are needed ;)

20th April 2006, 18:24

Without getting into this discussion, this seems a reasonable enough assumption. How many revolutions have occured without war, be it civil or foreign?

Every proletarian insurrection has resulted in a response by the bourgeoisie - whether it be military invasions, assassins, supporting the opposition, etc... - which can be deemed as a "foreign invasion". So I don't know why Redstar would think that any proletarian revolutions in the future won't result with this bourgeois response.

Entrails Konfetti

20th April 2006, 18:40

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@Apr 20 2006, 02:18 PM
One person argued we don't need it because cappies will throw dirt on any word.. yes true but look at the countless number of posts in this topic alone that have attacked the russian vanguard without reading what people who feel the need for a vanguard truely think a vanguard is.
There hasn't been countless posts, only 92, and most of those are written by anomaly whom has too much time on his hands.

I've already stated that it wouldn't matter if you changed the word; when the word is changed, it will be freaking obvious, and anyone could throw mud on it.
Quite like how the word Communism gets mud thrown on it.

We don't need a new word to confuse cappies we need a new word to establish a difference in it for leftists that refuse to read or listen.

If they won't read (or only read redstars papers), and can't figure out that every vanguard historically has had different characteristics--that's their problem.
Leftists will throw mud on the word too when it used by other leftists (Anarchists on MLists). So it doesn't matter, the only thing that can be done is how you describe the character of the vanguard.

вор в законе

20th April 2006, 18:56

Regarding the ''Proletarian Vanguard.''

Different methods can be applied to different places under different circumstances.
There is no ''ready-made'' formula. One thing is certain though.

We must :

1)Know what we want.
2)Know how we will achieve it.
3)Know when we will achieve it.

In order to realise the above we need a revolutionary program and a revolutionary organization.

Anything else is pure idealism and the communists must not lose their time with utopian-communists and the rest of the pipe dreamers.

Ol' Dirty

20th April 2006, 20:58

Without getting into this discussion, this seems a reasonable enough assumptiosn. How many revolutions have occured without war, be it civil or foreign?

Every proletarian insurrection has resulted in a response by the bourgeoisie - whether it be military invasions, assassins, supporting the opposition, etc... - which can be deemed as a "foreign invasion". So I don't know why Redstar would think that any proletarian revolutions in the future won't result with this bourgeois response.

:huh:

Can you read?

He did not say once that a proletarian revolution wold not involve bourgoise response; he's probably expecting it! So, really, what you're saying is redundant, maybe even superfluous . :rolleyes:

The main point that I'd like to state is this: if a proleterian revolution comes, there is going to be a bourgoise backlash. However, to combat this, we do not need overt classification, hierarchy and outright statism, but a united proletarian front with a common goal to fight against the bourgoise and their pawns.

Entrails Konfetti

20th April 2006, 21:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:13 PM
but a united proletarian front with a common goal to fight against the bourgoise and their pawns.
Which would have to start from an organization in a pre-revolutionary period.

anomaly

20th April 2006, 21:09

Lazar, a crucial question that you didn't answer:

True or false: the 'state' you want will have within it two functional classes.

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier
However, to combat this, we do not need overt classification, hierarchy and outright statism, but a united proletarian front with a common goal to fight against the bourgoise and their pawns.
The crucial thing is that this united front will not be composed of a leading party, or a single organization, nor will it be forced upon the proletariat by any (organizational) vanguard.

I expect the revolution to be very pluralistic as to its organizational makeup. Autonomism, essentially. And any united front formed will be the result of the material conditions.

Entrails Konfetti

20th April 2006, 21:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:24 PM
True or false: the 'state' you want will have within it two functional classes.
Theres not a black and white answer to that question.

Even if you declare theres "no state", that depends on whether if you can implement a gift economy, and if the objective circumstance of your area has it possible for the upper-classes to get aid from other countries to realize a coup.

If you're going into an LTV economy, its is currency and is a remenant of the older society. It may take time to abolish currency all together. No one wants the upperclasses to be functional, even if you were to call them "ex-bourgeoisie" there is still a reactionary element that wishes to fight.

When the upperclasses accept that now everyones rights are equal, and theirs aren't more valuable than others, as which was the case in capitalism, and when theres is a super abundance of wealth then there isn't a state.

The question is if we want to abolish classes or not, and the answer is that we do.

anomaly

20th April 2006, 21:38

No one wants the upperclasses to be functional, even if you were to call them "ex-bourgeoisie" there is still a reactionary element that wishes to fight.
Well, this is exactly my point. Any ex-bourgeoisie who do not assimilate into society are obviously not functioning within it. Thus, the society is functionally classless.

Ol' Dirty

20th April 2006, 22:28

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Apr 20 2006, 03:23 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Apr 20 2006, 03:23 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 08:13 PM
but a united proletarian front with a common goal to fight against the bourgoise and their pawns.
Which would have to start from an organization in a pre-revolutionary period. [/b]
Yup... but no vanguard. :)

redstar2000

20th April 2006, 22:52

Originally posted by ComradeOm
How many revolutions have occurred without war, be it civil or foreign?

How many revolutions have occurred in modern capitalist countries?

In other words, the Leninist "model" of revolution is based on backward countries...and doesn't tell us anything about what it will be like in Europe or North America.

They simply assume it will be "the same".

Because it fits into Redstar's ideal version of history no sources are needed

Good grief!

October 1917 -- Revolution or Coup? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109888439&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

321zero

20th April 2006, 23:01

redstar2000 Posted on Apr 20 2006, 10:07 PM

In other words, the Leninist "model" of revolution is based on backward countries...and doesn't tell us anything about what it will be like in Europe or North America.

They simply assume it will be "the same".

321zero Posted: Apr 20 2006, 02:29 AM

You make assertions about what lennies want, based on a mistaken belief that they want a replay of the Russian revolution and it's degeneration. This is convenient for you as straw-lennies are all you can handle.

321zero

20th April 2006, 23:17

Redstar

How many revolutions have occurred in modern capitalist countries?

The German revolutions could be said to have occured in an 'advanced' capitalist country - that is "modern" at the time :) - in any case Germany was lacking feudal remnants which characterised Russia. You might respond that these revolutions failed, you might even make an argument that these failures were due to a mechanical application of 'leninism' - impossible to prove of course, and the opposite has been argued also - but an argument worth having.

Of course there are differences between post-WW1 Germany and present day advanced captitalist countries, for one the bourgeois are a hell of a lot more sophisticated and technically\proagandistically adept. Perhaps this is what is 'different' for you?

redstar2000

20th April 2006, 23:24

Originally posted by 321zero
You make assertions about what lennies want, based on a mistaken belief that they want a replay of the Russian revolution and it's degeneration. This is convenient for you as straw-lennies are all you can handle.

What arguments do you consistently use?

We have to "do this" because that's what Lenin did and we have to "not do that" because Lenin was against that.

Add relevant quotes from Stalin or Trotsky or Mao as appropriate...and there you have it.

Far from being "straw-lennies", it's what you say you are for!

Except, I guess, when it gets embarrassing. :lol:

Which, of course, it increasingly is. :)

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

321zero

20th April 2006, 23:45

What arguments do you consistently use?

We have to "do this" because that's what Lenin did and we have to "not do that" because Lenin was against that.

You gonna quote these arguments or is 'you' the lennie doll you've clothed in an old shirt and sat in the chair opposite?

When he was alive Lenin was smart enough to know that Russia was different from other places. What is clear is that the SPD model, which minus the electoralism, resemble some of your recommendations (parallel social institutions, maturing objective conditions will homogenise a class conscious proletariat) also failed.

Please correct me if this is a mis-characterisation, coz I think you've also argued that nothing is particularly useful (can make any difference) before Lady History comes to our rescue..?

Except, I guess, when it gets embarrassing.

Which, of course, it increasingly is.

Ha ha, well being immune to embarrassment is one of the perks of age, I guess. Eh? Eh? Just teasing. ;)

redstar2000

21st April 2006, 02:09

Originally posted by 321zero
You gonna quote these arguments or is 'you' the lennie doll you've clothed in an old shirt and sat in the chair opposite?

I have done so in hundreds of threads...hell, maybe thousands! :lol:

Since you are a Trotskyist, you may appreciate this one...

Dancing with Trotskyists (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083177745&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Enjoy. :D

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

21st April 2006, 02:38

Yup... but no vanguard.

Who makes up this organization?

(Hint: Members of the vanguard)

Ol' Dirty

21st April 2006, 04:40

You really sound like a Leninist, man. :rolleyes:

anomaly

21st April 2006, 04:57

Don't bother with that. The Mighty Lazar is beyond all. :lol:

Anyway, Wonton, are you an anarchist? Autonomist?

Ol' Dirty

21st April 2006, 05:18

I consider myself a communist, plain and simple. A persons name and an ism doesn't really describe what I am.

Entrails Konfetti

21st April 2006, 05:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:53 PM
Well, this is exactly my point. Any ex-bourgeoisie who do not assimilate into society are obviously not functioning within it. Thus, the society is functionally classless.
No they are functioning against society, to retract to what society was formally.

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 05:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:43 PM
Yup... but no vanguard. :)
Comrade, the vanguard exists, whether we like it or not. It is the critically-thinking and self-acting section of the class fighting for fundamental change. Communists are a part of it (if they are workers, that is), but so are non-communists.

Marx defined the vanguard as that section of the class that advocated "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." I might choose a broader definition today, but this one will suffice. Any working person who agrees with these three points can be considered a part of the vanguard.

I imagine you can see what I'm getting at here.

Miles

anomaly

21st April 2006, 05:26

Yes. But this makes them simply criminals. And if we need a state to deal with criminals, then forget about communism.

There will be no underclass, no ruling class, no class.

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 05:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:41 PM
Yes. But this makes them simply criminals. And if we need a state to deal with criminals, then forget about communism.

Hence the need for a transition to communism.

Miles

anomaly

21st April 2006, 05:32

I think you missed my point. Or interpreted it to suit your own interests.

Entrails Konfetti

21st April 2006, 05:34

Haha anomaly's part of the vanguard!

You totalitarian :lol: !

LoneRed

21st April 2006, 05:35

it is more like a argument of semantics, we are talking about a vanguard as all the communists/socialists, not the lenin variety that you see, not a small group of communists leading it.

:unsure:

anomaly

21st April 2006, 05:38

This discussion has grown pointless. Semantics seem to be the main difference when discussing any 'vanguard'.

Obviously we disagree when it comes to 'the state', but I think this is not completely due to semantics.

However, you all understand that those on this thread (including myself) who say they don't want a vanguard actually agree with you on the issue of a vanguard, using your definition of one, right? (just because, using your definition, every communist is part of 'the vanguard')

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 05:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:47 PM
I think you missed my point. Or interpreted it to suit your own interests.
Wonton_Soldier's concept of a "united proletarian front" is no different from the system of working people's committees, councils and assemblies that compose the working people's republic. If there is to be armed resistance against a working people's republic -- the "united proletarian front" -- there will need to be armed defense: organized volunteers to combat the attempt to restore capitalism by force.

These elements are not outside of society at all. They would be seeking to overthrow the working people's republic from inside of this society -- just as we are seeking to overthrow capitalism from inside of this society -- through internal revolution, not external invasion. Their "function" at this point is to disrupt, destabilize and otherwise derail the progress of the revolution -- i.e., they function as a cancer does on the body.

And, yes, they are acting as criminals. "Hence the need for a transition to communism."

You follow?

Miles

P.S.: Proving once again that irony is the heaviest element on the periodic table, the formulation of such a system being "the highest form of the united proletarian front" goes to the Communist International ... after it had sorted itself out from the ultralefts. Go figure.

Entrails Konfetti

21st April 2006, 05:49

Well ofcourse the vanguard would be multiple workers, and organizations who've studied Communist theory for years. And if thats truely the character of the vanguard it would be impossible for it to rule over the workers.

We should have made the statement that the vanguard has that character. I thought people would have figured that out since those of us here who are in organizations have the duty to spread awareness to the public.

Originally posted by anomaly
However, you all understand that those on this thread (including myself) who say they don't want a vanguard actually agree with you on the issue of a vanguard, using your definition of one, right?

What was that?

Anomaly the stubborn warrior, disarmed? :huh:

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 05:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:53 PM
However, you all understand that those on this thread (including myself) who say they don't want a vanguard actually agree with you on the issue of a vanguard, using your definition of one, right? (just because, using your definition, every communist is part of 'the vanguard')
If this is true, then how does this make us a bunch of "Lennies"?

Miles

Ol' Dirty

21st April 2006, 05:54

We're all communists; that's all that matters. Names are names.

anomaly

21st April 2006, 05:57

Originally posted by Miles+--> (Miles)Hence the need for a transition to communism[/b]
But we don't need a state. As for transition, collectivism sounds interesting.

If this is true, then how does this make us a bunch of "Lennies"?
I never called you this. I actually made a point of saying that CL is not currently a Leninist organization. That might have been a different thread, though.

However, CL is not exactly anti-Leninist either. But it does seem to be rather anti-anarchist.

E K
Anomaly the stubborn warrior, disarmed?
Haha. Well, I really hate arguing semantics with all of you. It feels too much like arguing with The Mighty One. That is, confusion and incoherency. :lol:

However, I will tell you all that your advocacy of this now controversial term will prove a source of unwanted conflict. But I don't really care--you in the CL should care.

Don't worry, E K. I'm sure I'll disagree with you on something...tomorrow. :P

Entrails Konfetti

21st April 2006, 06:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:12 AM
But it does seem to be rather anti-anarchist.
I'm not personally, I just hate being persecuted for something I didn't do.

I don't think were anti-anarchist, we just don't really use your language, or some of your tactics.

Martin Blank

21st April 2006, 06:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:12 AM
However, CL is not exactly anti-Leninist either. But it does seem to be rather anti-anarchist.
If we seem anti-anarchist here, it can rightly be said that it is the product of provocation.

Miles

LoneRed

21st April 2006, 06:12

:cool:

21st April 2006, 06:13

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
Obviously we disagree when it comes to 'the state', but I think this is not completely due to semantics.
[/b]

Yes it is.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
However, you all understand that those on this thread (including myself) who say they don't want a vanguard actually agree with you on the issue of a vanguard, using your definition of one, right? (just because, using your definition, every communist is part of 'the vanguard')[/b]

If you agree with the idea of a vanguard, then why are you always railing against "the vanguardists"? :huh:

Now, since you finally understand what the vanguard is, maybe you will now understand why the proletarian vanguard will naturally lead the entire proletarian class towards communism (or do I need to post the definition of "leader" again?).

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier
We're all communists; that's all that matters. Names are names.

We're all people; that's all that matters. Everything's composed of cells; that's all that matters. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Loyal Subject

But we don't need a state. As for transition, collectivism sounds interesting.

How isn't collectivism a form of a state?

Loyal [email protected]

Haha. Well, I really hate arguing semantics with all of you. It feels too much like arguing with The Mighty One. That is, confusion and incoherency.

That is because you need some lessons in reading comprehension.

Loyal Subject

However, I will tell you all that your advocacy of this now controversial term will prove a source of unwanted conflict. But I don't really care--you in the CL should care.

It's only (supposedly) "controversial" because people like you misuse it. Again, why are you using the words "communism" and "anarchism" still, and all of the terms that go along with them? Aren't they a source of unwanted conflict when dealing with the general public? Maybe you should change those words! :lol:

anomaly

21st April 2006, 06:26

Originally posted by Lazar
If you agree with the idea of a vanguard, then why are you always railing against "the vanguardists"?
Because this is recognized by most everyone to be the Leninists.

How isn't collectivism a form of a state?
No class antagonisms, as you might say, within the 'collective' (that is, the actual area which is collectivist).

But, essentially, no hierarchy.

As always, the arrogance is amusing. :lol:

21st April 2006, 06:33

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
Because this is recognized by most everyone to be the Leninists.
[/b]

Well it is obviously untrue as you yourself are acknowledging the vanguard, yet you're an anarchist.

Loyal Subject

No class antagonisms, as you might say, within the 'collective' (that is, the actual area which is collectivist).

Of course there will be class antagonisms. There will be class antagonisms until the bourgeoisie is destroyed worldwide. Why is this? These class antagonisms aren't confined to merely bourgeois presence but also includes bourgeois influence, bourgeois sentiments, bourgeois thought, bourgeois consciousness, etc... Not to mention the direct class antagonisms of the "foreign" bourgeoisie with the "collective state".

anomaly

21st April 2006, 06:38

Well it is obviously untrue as you yourself are acknowledging the vanguard, yet you're an anarchist.
If you'll actually read rather than spending so much time patting yourself on the back, I said that using your definitions, every single communist is 'the vanguard'. I think the term thus becomes obsolete. You can use it if you wish.

But most people on this site know immediately of whom I speak when I say vanguardists. You're just lagging behind. :lol:

There will be class antagonisms until the bourgeoisie is destroyed worldwide.
Within an area, however, these antagonisms can be eliminated. The area will be functionally classless, as I've said to you many, many times.

There is no arguing with the dogmatist. :lol:

21st April 2006, 06:44

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
If you'll actually read rather than spending so much time patting yourself on the back, I said that using your definitions, every single communist is 'the vanguard'. I think the term thus becomes obsolete. You can use it if you wish. [/b]

Let's look at what you said earlier...

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)However, you all understand that those on this thread (including myself) who say they don't want a vanguard actually agree with you on the issue of a vanguard, using your definition of one, right?[/b]

Emphasis mine. You agreed with us "on the issue of a vanguard".

Loyal [email protected]

But most people on this site know immediately of whom I speak when I say vanguardists. You're just lagging behind.

And you're just misusing a word to define a group of people that you could actually use the right word for instead (i.e. Leninists). Why you're doing that is beyond me.

Loyal Subject

Within an area, however, these antagonisms can be eliminated.

No they can't. How can they? Are you going to isolate everyone within that area from the rest of the world? How authoritarian.

anomaly

21st April 2006, 06:48

Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)No they can't. How can they? Are you going to isolate everyone within that area from the rest of the world?[/b]
Why can't they? You act as if the bourgeoisie are omnipotent, ever far reaching, so we cannot escape them.

By your logic, all capitalist areas of the world should 'not really be able to create a capitalist society', because they are 'held back' by the feudal states of the world! :lol:

me
using your definition of one
You missed a part, buddy.

21st April 2006, 06:54

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
Why can't they? You act as if the bourgeoisie are omnipotent, ever far reaching, so we cannot escape them.
[/b]

That's the whole point. You can't escape bourgeois influence. That is why this struggle is international. That is why communism in its highest form in one state is impossible.

Originally posted by Loyal [email protected]

By your logic, all capitalist areas of the world should 'not really be able to create a capitalist society', because they are 'held back' by the feudal states of the world!

The two are hardly comparable as capitalism is much more global than feudalism was. Also, your conception of feudalism is horribly flawed, as you claimed that Venezuela was feudalist and is just moving out of feudalism right now.

Loyal Subject

You missed a part, buddy.

Our definition of the vanguard is the definition of vanguard. We're not using "weird definitions" here or anything like that. We are using the only definition of the word, and you agreed. Therefore, you are a vanguardist.

Ol' Dirty

21st April 2006, 06:54

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier+--> (Wonton Soldier)We're all communists; that's all that matters. Names are names.[/b]

We're all people; that's all that matters. Everything's composed of cells; that's all that matters. :rolleyes:

Are you going to respond to what I said, or bring it to a point of extremecy and rundancy?

Anomaly

But we don't need a state. As for transition, collectivism sounds interesting.

How isn't collectivism a form of a state?

A state is a separate group, made mostly of the ruling class, that claims supreme sovereignty over "its" people. A collective has no rulilng class, or any class at all. The people are given control over them selvs, and no one else.

Our definition of the vanguard is the definition of vanguard.

Yup. You're right, and were wrong. :rolleyes:

You sound like a fascist. <_<

21st April 2006, 06:59

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier+--> (Wonton Soldier)
Are you going to respond to what I said, or bring it to a point of extremecy and rundancy?
[/b]

What did you say?

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier+--> (Wonton Soldier)
A state is a separate group, made mostly of the ruling class, that claims supreme sovereignty over "its" people.[/b]

Here we go again...

Let me provide you with the definition of state:

[email protected]
The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule.
-Source (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#state)

Who is the ruling class? The proletariat. What is this class ruling over? The bourgeoisie (which includes bourgeois influence).

Wonton Soldier
A collective has no rulilng class, or any class at all.

Yes it does. The proletariat.

anomaly

21st April 2006, 07:02

Originally posted by Lazar
That's the whole point. You can't escape bourgeois influence. That is why this struggle is international.
It is international, yes.

But what your saying--that the existence of capitalism will halt progress everywhere else--is rather illogical. The collective (for sake of simplicity, I'll call it that) will be functionally classless. It won't be a free-access economy, however. That's what 'high' communism will have.

your conception of feudalism is horribly flawed
What would you call Venezuela? Advanced capitalist? Socialist? :lol:

21st April 2006, 07:07

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
But what your saying--that the existence of capitalism will halt progress everywhere else--is rather illogical.[/b]

It doesn't "halt" progress. As long as the bourgeois society exists, bourgeois influences will create class antagonisms within your collective. In order to combat these antagonisms, organization is needed by the ruling class (the proletariat) to maintain the conditions of its rule (which is your collective). Hence, a state. And don't forget about direct bourgeois influence.

Originally posted by Loyal [email protected]
The collective (for sake of simplicity, I'll call it that) will be functionally classless.

Those that form the collective will be proletarian. Why? Because that is what they have developed as. Hence, they will be proletarian even after they cease to sell their labour-power. People don't lose their class consciousness once they are removed from the conditions required to create that consciousness.

Loyal Subject

What would you call Venezuela? Advanced capitalist? Socialist?

It was obviously capitalist before the revolution. Right now it is a participatory democracy. I wouldn't call it socialist; it depends on what happens within the next couple of years and what happens after Chavez's term runs up.

anomaly

21st April 2006, 07:13

Originally posted by Lazar
It doesn't "halt" progress. As long as the bourgeois society exists, bourgeois influences will create class antagonisms within your collective.
The bourgeoisie as the ruling class are overthrown in the course of revolution. And you don't quite seem to grasp that it will be functionally classless. No class, no class antagonisms.

Because that is what they have developed as.
Class is defined by one's relation to the means of production. Once everyone's relation is the same (that is, the abolishment of private property), class ceases to exist.

Lenin blows.

21st April 2006, 07:18

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
The bourgeoisie as the ruling class are overthrown in the course of revolution. And you don't quite seem to grasp that it will be functionally classless. No class, no class antagonisms.
[/b]

There will still be influence by foreign bourgeoisie. This is what you fail to realize. This is common sense. The only way to prevent this from happening is by completely isolating your "collective" from the rest of the world. Which is horribly authoritarian and along the lines of Juche.

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
Class is defined by one's relation to the means of production. Once everyone's relation is the same (that is, the abolishment of private property), class ceases to exist. [/b]

What you fail to realize also is that people that develop a consciousness that is proletarian will keep that throughout their entire life (it could change, but it takes a long time). Being determines consciousness. But what does this statement mean? Does this statement mean that right when proletarians take control of society, that their proletarian outlook on life will immediately disappear? Of course not. That's common sense.

Loyal [email protected]
Once everyone's relation is the same (that is, the abolishment of private property)

Yes, everyone; i.e. everyone worldwide.

Loyal Subject

Lenin blows.

Lenin rulez!

Ol' Dirty

21st April 2006, 07:24

Originally posted by Lazar+Apr 21 2006, 01:14 AM--> (Lazar @ Apr 21 2006, 01:14 AM)
[/b]

Originally posted by Wonton [email protected]

Are you going to respond to what I said, or bring it to a point of extremecy and rundancy?

What did you say?

It's right here :rolleyes: :

I:

We're all communists; that's all that matters. Names are names.

You:

We're all people; that's all that matters. Everything's composed of cells; that's all that matters.

Wonton Soldier
A collective has no rulilng class, or any class at all.

Yes it does. The proletariat.

After capitalism is defeated, and class is marginalzed, the proletatiat/bourgoise effect will be rendered useless.

21st April 2006, 07:27

Originally posted by Wonton Soldier+--> (Wonton Soldier)It's right here [/b]

My point was that classification isn't inherently a bad thing and your claim that it is is wrong. I represented this through sarcasm.

Wonton Soldier

After capitalism is defeated, and class is marginalzed, the proletatiat/bourgoise effect will be rendered useless.

After capitalism is defeated, yes, but we are talking about a specific area of the globe, not the entire globe.

Janus

21st April 2006, 21:49

We are using the only definition of the word, and you agreed.
If I remember correctly, Lazar, anomaly agreed with the concept of a "vanguard" as a guiding force rather than a leading force. Therefore, there really isn't only one defintion.

Also, pertaining to the arguement over a state. All I have to say is that it all depends on how strict one's defintion of a state really is. If you consider it to be a centrally organized establishment, then a collective really isn't that. However, if you define it in more general terms such as a politically organized body of people, then I suppose that it could count as one.

anomaly

21st April 2006, 21:50

Originally posted by Mighty One
After capitalism is defeated, yes, but we are talking about a specific area of the globe, not the entire globe.
Our friend Engels defines the state as well: a mechanism for the ruling classes to oppress and, essentially, rule over a lower class.

So essentially, the question I asked you so long ago is finally answered: you do want a state with two functional classes after revolution.

I don't think that is likely, nor is it good for eventually reaching communism.

LoneRed

21st April 2006, 23:19

the proletariat must take hold of the state machinery in order to propel the attacks by the agents of capitalism You CANT just smash the state once and for all as the capitalists will easily send you on your way

ComradeOm

21st April 2006, 23:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:07 PM
How many revolutions have occurred in modern capitalist countries?
By the same token we can assume that since no revolutions have yet taken place in advanced capitalist countries... none are going to! Almost nothing can be learned from such a narrow view of history.

Every revolution to date (certainly those that I can think of) has resulted in war. Either the old guard are able to muster enough strength to take to vigorously resist change or their allies abroad have intervened. Now why should a socialist revolution be different?

Good grief!

October 1917 -- Revolution or Coup? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109888439&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
You're referencing yourself now? ;)

You're piece is correct though when it says that the Bolsheviks comprised the bulk of the initial uprising... the many thousands of them <_<

redstar2000

22nd April 2006, 04:48

Originally posted by ComradeOm
Now why should a socialist revolution be different?

Both the sheer numbers involved and the political sophistication of the proletariat should be far in advance of previous revolutions...giving the domestic bourgeoisie little choice but to flee and generating considerable uncertainty on the part of their foreign supporters.

Consider Iraq...a small country torn by ethnic/cultural rivalries and religious differences. It could be invaded and a quisling regime imposed on it...now what?

The quisling regime's authority hardly extends beyond the front gate of the "Green Zone"...or wherever U.S. troops happen to be standing at the moment.

Want to imagine the consequences of a counter-revolutionary invasion of France or Germany or Italy?

My guess is that the international bourgeoisie of that era will be too demoralized to contemplate seriously an invasion; they'll place their hopes on "what happened in Russia and China" will happen there too.

If we blunder and let a "revolutionary elite" get its hooks into us, then it will turn out the same way. :o

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

ComradeOm

22nd April 2006, 10:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 04:03 AM
Both the sheer numbers involved and the political sophistication of the proletariat should be far in advance of previous revolutions...giving the domestic bourgeoisie little choice but to flee and generating considerable uncertainty on the part of their foreign supporters.
And the French revolutionaries were far more advanced then those of past ages… and they still had a decade of war. By definition the revolutionary forces will be more advanced than the old order but historically that has never translated into a “cakewalk”. At best your assertion is hopelessly optimistic, at worst its simply dangerous.

Consider also that the bourgeoisie has come on a great deal in the past century. In particular the turning of the army into a professional outfit, complete with political indoctrination, is an obvious strength that they lacked before. Should revolution break out in France tomorrow, who cannot see the US and EU sending “peacekeeping” forces?

And that hasn’t even touched on revolutionary wars incited by the newly socialist nation.

redstar2000

22nd April 2006, 11:22

Originally posted by ComradeOm
By definition the revolutionary forces will be more advanced than the old order but historically that has never translated into a “cakewalk”.

When I said "advanced", I meant advanced in comparison with revolutionaries of the past.

The working class of 2050 or 2100 will be far different from the working class of 1936 or 1917 or 1871...much less the sans-culottes of 1789.

And, as I previously noted, far more numerous!

In particular the turning of the army into a professional outfit, complete with political indoctrination, is an obvious strength that they lacked before.

Yes, I read the article in the latest Harper's Magazine about modern infantry training...very scary! They really "brainwash" the hell out of those kids.

But what can an army of two or three million do against a revolutionary class of hundreds of millions?

Not much.

Should revolution break out in France tomorrow, who cannot see the US and EU sending “peacekeeping” forces?

It's not going to happen "tomorrow".

But keep in mind that the EU was unwilling to intervene in the Balkan wars until the U.S. provided direct support.

Also worth remembering: chances are there will be a number of unsuccessful imperial adventures by U.S. forces over the coming decades...even the most "professional" army gets tired of losing. Faced with the prospect of invading and occupying one or more advanced countries, how reliable would the "peacekeepers" be?

And that hasn’t even touched on revolutionary wars incited by the newly socialist nation.

Well, that wouldn't be a real smart thing to do, would it?

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

ComradeOm

24th April 2006, 14:07

The point that I was trying to make was that the French liberals were far more “advanced” than the bourgeoisie of say the Early Middle Ages. Advanced is a relative term after all.

You might think that the revolution will not face such challenges or foreign interference and... well who am I to argue otherwise? It’s a hypothetical question. I think you’re being too optimistic but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Besides I'd prefer it if you were right. What I am saying is that there is no historical basis for that assertion.

Well, that wouldn't be a real smart thing to do, would it?
I’d imagine that the second objective of a post-revolution society (the first being survival) would be to export the revolution to as many neighbours as possible. After all we all know that socialism is not possible in one nation ;)

redstar2000

24th April 2006, 16:18

Originally posted by ComradeOm
I’d imagine that the second objective of a post-revolution society (the first being survival) would be to export the revolution to as many neighbours as possible. After all we all know that socialism is not possible in one nation.

Well, I'm thinking communism, not "socialism". :)

Aside from that, I think the only sensible basis for invading a neighboring country would be if an enormous working class insurrection was already taking place there.

Otherwise, we would not be perceived as "liberators" but rather as "foreign oppressors".

NOT a situation that we should want to be in. :o

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

Nicky Scarfo

27th April 2006, 04:14

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 20 2006, 05:03 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 20 2006, 05:03 AM)
Nicky Scarfo
Could always use the literal definition of "vanguard"-- the front line or the front rank. There ya go, meaning in tact, baggage of word gone.

Front Line Party
Front Line Organization

Possible.

And certainly preferable to "vanguard".

But, you know, this problem really goes all the way back to when "Leninists" didn't amount to 100 people.

It's the idea that "class war" is somehow "like" a war between nation-states.

Politicians & Soldiers; Social Democracy and Leninism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082733763&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Marx occasionally used "military metaphors" and Engels was very fond of them. But they are fundamentally misleading...revolutions are "not like" wars at all -- though, of course, if they end up as civil wars or wars against foreign invaders, then the "military metaphors" start to make sense.

If your premise is that proletarian revolution will inevitably result in civil war and/or foreign invasion, then Leninism starts to "seem plausible" as a response to such objective conditions.

But there's no sense in which a revolution can be "conducted" like a traditional "military campaign"...the best you can do with those techniques is mount a coup which is what the Bolsheviks did, of course.

Thus there is a "deeper" sense in which the word "vanguard" arouses hostility...the suggestion that we should be the footsoldiers of some elite -- no matter what their class origins might have been -- is not a welcome one.

People with a mind-set to be soldiers may just as well join an existing bourgeois army -- the pay and benefits are better.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Actually, class conflict is very much like war, and this is one of the few points of agreement I can find with Lenin. Even the mundane, what you would call "reformist", trade union activity is imbued with military tradtion. "Strike", "picket line", "picket captain", are all terms with military origins. During the 1934 General Strike in Minneapolis, WWI vets helped organize the strikers along military lines, and used battlefield tactics. The result? An employer militia, the police and even the National Guard were unable to break the strike. The IWW first created "flying squadrons", later utilized with much effectiveness by the Teamsters in '34 and by other unions during the labor struggles of the 1930s.

Look, man, I've heard you say before you want "proletarian revolution". Well, when that day comes you goddamned skippy that "class war"is gonna look like regular war. Every bit of historical evidence and institutional analysis points to that-- whether it be total revolution, part revolution, near revolution, or "reformism"-- any class struggle will involve very martial elements to it. Is that the totality of a social revolution? Fuck no, but it is a big part of it, and we better be prepared with the kind of organizational discipline necessary to win.

the suggestion that we should be the footsoldiers of some elite -- no matter what their class origins might have been -- is not a welcome one.

People with a mind-set to be soldiers may just as well join an existing bourgeois army -- the pay and benefits are better.

I think the Spanish Anarchist militias or the early Soldier's Soviets provide a good model. Organizational discipline and structural democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts in my opinion.

Nicky Scarfo

27th April 2006, 04:21

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 24 2006, 03:33 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 24 2006, 03:33 PM)
ComradeOm
I’d imagine that the second objective of a post-revolution society (the first being survival) would be to export the revolution to as many neighbours as possible. After all we all know that socialism is not possible in one nation.

Well, I'm thinking communism, not "socialism". :)

Aside from that, I think the only sensible basis for invading a neighboring country would be if an enormous working class insurrection was already taking place there.

Otherwise, we would not be perceived as "liberators" but rather as "foreign oppressors".

NOT a situation that we should want to be in. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Riddle me this then...Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: justified or not?

Bonus question...Union occupation of South: justified or not?

redstar2000

27th April 2006, 07:20

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
Actually, class conflict is very much like war, and this is one of the few points of agreement I can find with Lenin.

If so, then I think you would find yourself most comfortable with the Communist Party U.S.A. -- they combine "iron Bolshevik discipline" with moderately reformist demands that you should have no "problems" with. In fact, you might well find yourself in the "left wing" of that particular formation.

Enjoy. :D

... and we better be prepared with the kind of organizational discipline necessary to win.

Numbers trump "discipline"...always!

I think the Spanish Anarchist militias or the early Soldier's Soviets provide a good model. Organizational discipline and structural democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts in my opinion.

Yes, we'll probably have something of that sort...but the real strength of proletarian revolution is in the armed masses. In fact, without that, you don't really have anything at all...that can't be easily taken away.

Riddle me this then...Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: justified or not?

Stupid! :o

The same thing applies, of course, to the American occupation of Afghanistan...the U.S. controls the ground it stands on.

Just like the Russians did.

Bonus question...Union occupation of South: justified or not?

Ineffectual and half-hearted. The bourgeoisie, even when "young" and energetic, is sometimes surprisingly inadequate in the "crunch". The "Radical Republicans" had the right idea...but were not able to overcome the New York financial interests that wanted the cotton trade restored "no matter what".

The former confederacy progressed from slavery to serfdom as a consequence.

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

Nicky Scarfo

27th April 2006, 14:23

If so, then I think you would find yourself most comfortable with the Communist Party U.S.A. -- they combine "iron Bolshevik discipline" with moderately reformist demands that you should have no "problems" with.

The CPUSA sucks and I'm insulted you even made the suggestion. In fact, I do have problems with their platform-- namely their unabashed support for the Democratic Party (which makes the Popular Front look revolutionary by comparison) and their support for Liberal gun control groups.

Numbers trump "discipline"...always!

No, not always.

redstar2000

28th April 2006, 02:43

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
The CPUSA sucks and I'm insulted you even made the suggestion.

It was not intended to be "insulting"...you yourself said that you were in favor of "discipline" as a concept. Moreover, my recollection of your other posts suggests that you are strongly biased in favor of "immediate reforms"...which ties into the perspective of the CPUSA.

And you don't seem to even be interested in the political necrophilia that preoccupies the Trotskyists and Maoists.

So what's left?

Certainly not any revolutionary perspective. I can't see you telling people that they should rebel against the "norms" of bourgeois "legality".

Am I wrong about that?

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

Nicky Scarfo

28th April 2006, 03:29

you are strongly biased in favor of "immediate reforms"...

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You can't be a revolutionary if you argue for immediate reform? I suppose that disqualifies everybody who's ever gone on strike for better pay, benefits and working conditions from their employer. So I suppose the only legitimate revolutionaries are the ones who sit around talking about some revolution in the distant future?

I can't see you telling people that they should rebel against the "norms" of bourgeois "legality".

Am I wrong about that?

Um, yes. What's legal and what's illegal only plays into my thinking in terms of a cost-benefit analysis of commiting an illegal act. Laws are set up to benefit the ruling class. That's a no brainer. History shows that sometimes it is more beneficial to break the law than to abide by it...indeed it is often the case that abiding by the law is detrimental to the interests of the oppressed. Do you take me for a fuckin idiot? Even Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized that and he was certainly no revolutionary.

But if you mean am I going to encourage people to start hurling Molotovs and shooting cops for the fuck of it, then no, I would not encourage some sort of half-cocked rebellion in the current objective condtions (meaning 2006 America)...it would be counterproductive and would likely lead to the repressive reaction Brazil experienced when impatient revolutionaries thought they could prematurely spark a mass revolt.

If, however, the situation was the militant defense of a picket line, I'd say fuck yeah, strikers have a right to defend themselves and need to engage in whatever action is necessary to win a strike.

To sum up...I'm not a pacifist, nor some sort of weenie Liberal, but nor am I some impatient adventurist confusing the fetishization of violence with effective action, nor am I an armchair revolutionary, attacking "reformists" while sitting on my ass doin jack shit but talkin revolutionary theory.

I yam what I yam. I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.

redstar2000

28th April 2006, 13:55

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
You can't be a revolutionary if you argue for immediate reform?

Not without sending out "mixed signals", you can't.

Of course, this sort of confusion is "what we're used to"...but its ineffectiveness was pretty clearly demonstrated in the last century.

If you tell people that "immediate reform is possible" and they think you're worth listening to, then your "revolutionary" rhetoric is just "background noise"...like "political muzak".

So I suppose the only legitimate revolutionaries are the ones who sit around talking about some revolution in the distant future?

Whether they "sit" or "stand" is irrelevant. The only legitimate revolutionaries are, at a minimum, the people who talk about revolution.

The people who talk about and/or struggle for "immediate reforms" don't qualify.

...nor am I an armchair revolutionary, attacking "reformists" while sitting on my ass doin jack shit but talkin revolutionary theory.

The "jack shit" that you are "doing" is focused on "immediate reforms", right?

Whatever your "rhetoric", that makes you a reformist.

We are what we do.

If "all" someone ever does is sit in that "infamous armchair" and talk about revolution, even that is (or might be) a positive contribution -- however minimal -- to the revolution itself. At least such an individual is not actively contributing to reformist illusions.

In fact, it is better to be silent and do nothing...than it is to talk a lot and be very active on behalf of a wrong perspective.

I've heard plenty of people say it: Well, at least they're doing something!

Yeah...doing something fucked up that can only delay the revolution.

Revolutionaries are not "opposed" to "doing things"...what we're opposed to is doing fucked up things in the name of "action".

"Action" is not a "holy principle" that conquers all criticism. When we "do things", we should do things that advance the revolutionary perspective...not retard it.

Otherwise, we might just as well be social workers...or missionaries. :o

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

Janus

28th April 2006, 22:21

OneBrickOneVoice

28th April 2006, 22:35

It seems that whenever the word vanguard is brought up, people immediately think of a centralized, elite Leninist organization. But I think differently, I see "leaders" as guides who are open to instant recall. Even if you establish a proletarian vanguard, the workers aren't free from greed and corruption, so that's not a guaranteed success.

I've noticed alot about what people who are anti-Leninist say comes out of fear that another USSR will occur. I fear it as much as anyone but I think that the vanguard or a council would be the only way to run a successful revolution. Our enemies are oranized and large and it the revolution may never happen if we wait until we have 80-90% support. They have advanced technology and perhaps superior training (Marines, Army, Airforce, Tanks). Someone or some people who are experienced at warfare will have to command. I do think however that they need to be checked. The People should vote periodically whether to keep him or not.

anomaly

29th April 2006, 02:40

Originally posted by LeftHenry
I fear it as much as anyone but I think that the vanguard or a council would be the only way to run a successful revolution.
Why? Why would we need that kind of 'leadership'? And why in the hell would we need to 'run' a revolution? I'll tell what should happen instead, and what will happen if the revolution is to be a communist one. It should be decentralized, with no 'high command', no official 'leaders', just the masses themselves.

Someone or some people who are experienced at warfare will have to command.
Precisely what we should avoid. Let a group 'command' the revolution and they will command post-revolutionary society.

redstar2000

29th April 2006, 04:26

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
...the revolution may never happen if we wait until we have 80-90% support.

If we do not have enormous popular support and participation, then the "revolution" will be useless...result in the replacement of the existing despotism by a new one.

If a Leninist coup were possible in an "old" capitalist country, it might even give capitalism a "new lease on life". Brief as such a "new life" might be, it would probably be pretty horrendous! :o

We need that "80-90%"...otherwise, nothing much of any value is likely to happen.

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

OneBrickOneVoice

29th April 2006, 18:16

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 29 2006, 03:41 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 29 2006, 03:41 AM)
LeftyHenry
...the revolution may never happen if we wait until we have 80-90% support.

If we do not have enormous popular support and participation, then the "revolution" will be useless...result in the replacement of the existing despotism by a new one.

If a Leninist coup were possible in an "old" capitalist country, it might even give capitalism a "new lease on life". Brief as such a "new life" might be, it would probably be pretty horrendous! :o

We need that "80-90%"...otherwise, nothing much of any value is likely to happen.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]

So then it may never happen. It is unrealistic to think such a thing would happen. 90-80% of the people will be an impossible amount of people to get on our side. It's just unrealistic!

anomaly

29th April 2006, 18:22

Janus

30th April 2006, 03:20

Precisely what we should avoid. Let a group 'command' the revolution and they will command post-revolutionary society.
Agreed. An advisor will do fine, we don't need someone actually calling the shots. We've seen what happens when military commands get a little out of hand.

Anyways, the revolution would have to be a mass movement or else it won't be very successful at all; that means mass support and participation. If this doesn't occur, then it will simply be a change of guard as redstar said.

It's just unrealistic!
It may seem unrealistic right now, but public mood can change and will change as history has shown us.

30th April 2006, 05:20

In the French revolution of 1789, some 95% of the people were in the third estate. And guess who the effective revolutionaries were? That's right, the third estate.

The entire Third Estate wasn't revolutionary. Many supported the ancien regime.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th April 2006, 18:21

In the French revolution of 1789, some 95% of the people were in the third estate. And guess who the effective revolutionaries were? That's right, the third estate.

The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Now, why couldn't a similar thing happen for a communist revolution?

Because the Cappies are more experienced now. They know how to control the masses. Communism has been scared for life by the USSR and cold war. I guess you could be right, it's just that France had a monarchy for hundreds and hundreds of years. Does that mean we'll have to wait hundreds and hundreds of years for a communistic revolution? Will there eve be one?

Red Axis

30th April 2006, 18:56

Fear not Lefty Henry, when the economy collapses under the capitalists, the people will accept anything.

Fistful of Steel

30th April 2006, 19:03

In the French revolution of 1789, some 95% of the people were in the third estate. And guess who the effective revolutionaries were? That's right, the third estate.

The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Now, why couldn't a similar thing happen for a communist revolution?

To my understanding as Marx theorized it was always a lower class trying to displace the upper class, in this case the bourgeoise trying to overthrow the aristocracy. This pretty much falls in line with that reasoning. What's needed is an awakening of all classes to realize their common ground and mutual interest, to halt the ever present reality of revolution that results in the same thing under a different name since. That sort of "change" has been going on since the time of the Roman Empire.

redstar2000

1st May 2006, 01:12

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
Does that mean we'll have to wait hundreds and hundreds of years for a communistic revolution? Will there ever be one?

No one knows.

There are people who say they "know"...but, alas, there is no reliable way to predict the future in useful detail.

The "pace" of history seems to have "picked up" a good deal during the bourgeois epoch. A constant revolution in the means of production results in an ever-increasing strain on the relations of production.

Hundreds of years?

How does before the end of this century sound to you?

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

chuq

1st May 2006, 18:21

I apologize if I missed something, but to carry out a revolution, shots will be fired, unless you believe that the caps will go done quietly. Never happen! So if you have ever been in a war, leaders will be needed. Whether or not they assume power after the fact is not that revelent. What is, is the fact seasoned military leaders will be needed. If you give the average Amerikan a gun he will probably blow off his toe before he fires a shot for the revolution.

As far as the Vanguard goes, yes with no checks they will assume control and then you are back to looking for away out of the nighrtmare, again.

In Amerika, the revolution will be a long time coming. Why? The adaptibility of capitalism and the total lack of socialist leadership, not necessarily a person but leadership. All the socialist organizations spend time defending Stalin or Lenin or Trotsky or Mao, or whoever and opportunities slip by time and again. It is more important to rout out trots than to jump on a situation and try to use it to further the cause of socialism. This is why most "parties" are slipping into ninsignificance.

anomaly

1st May 2006, 22:20

Originally posted by chug
So if you have ever been in a war, leaders will be needed.
Perhaps in a conventional war, yes. But when the masses rise, and we have some 90% of the population overthrowing 10%, not only is leadership detrimental to the cause but it is just about logistically impossible.

Whether or not they assume power after the fact is not that revelent.
Yes it is. It is entirely relevant. This is exactly why we don't need one.

What is, is the fact seasoned military leaders will be needed.
Why? Again, this will be no war fought by professional armies, it will be a revolution. When you start throwing in military leaders or 'red armies', you can say good bye to any possibility of communism.

This is why most "parties" are slipping into ninsignificance.
I don't think so. Most leftist parties are fading into insignificance because that method is a failed one. Participating in bourgeois elections is a worthless cause (unless it's a reformist group...then they can shoot for...reformism!), and the old Leninist-style Vanguard Party is now ancient history. And for good reason.

Martin Blank

2nd May 2006, 10:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:41 PM

What is, is the fact seasoned military leaders will be needed.
Why? Again, this will be no war fought by professional armies, it will be a revolution. When you start throwing in military leaders or 'red armies', you can say good bye to any possibility of communism.
http://www.communistleague.org/members/public_html/yabbfiles/Smilies/crack.gif http://www.communistleague.org/members/public_html/yabbfiles/Smilies/drool.gif http://www.communistleague.org/members/public_html/yabbfiles/Smilies/melting.gif

Miles

anomaly

2nd May 2006, 21:27

I'm quite sure what to make of that, Miles.

Does that you mean you do suggest we use hierarchy in revolution? That we have definite 'leaders' and 'rulers'?

Nachie

2nd May 2006, 22:09

Don't put words in his mouth, I think he was just trying to say that smoking rock is totally awesome

Martin Blank

3rd May 2006, 03:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:48 PM
I'm quite sure what to make of that, Miles.

Does that you mean you do suggest we use hierarchy in revolution? That we have definite 'leaders' and 'rulers'?
No, I'm suggesting that if you think you can fight a war without people who know military tactics and are elected combat commanders, you must be smoking crack.

Miles

anomaly

3rd May 2006, 04:27

In a communist revolution, there would be no need for 'combat commanders'.

That's why I differentiated between such a revolution and conventional warfare.

When 80-90% of the population rises against their oppressors, no army is strong enough to stop them.

Violence will not be 'organized' except by autonomous organizations themselves. That pathetic Vanguard will never see the light of day again. And any 'commanders' have no place in such a revolution.

LoneRed

3rd May 2006, 05:43

have fun with your failed attempts.

so no unity in action i take it, regardless of how many people there are, its bound to fail

which leads me to you thinking that that percentage of workers with just spring forth on their own and spontaneously find these ideas?

Janus

3rd May 2006, 22:18

When 80-90% of the population rises against their oppressors, no army is strong enough to stop them.
Yes, that is what we would hope for but what if the entire populace doesn't revolt at once. What if certain regions revolt? If this occurs then their needs to be people with military expertise helping out and keeping the revolution from being quashed. Now they definitely need to be observed and limited off course but you see what I'm getting at.

3rd May 2006, 23:27

Yes, that is what we would hope for but what if the entire populace doesn't revolt at once. What if certain regions revolt?

Then they say "material conditions aren't right". :lol:

For some reason people here think that material conditions are completely isolated from human intervention. :rolleyes:

RebelDog

4th May 2006, 00:02

I think when the time comes it shall be the establishment who will worry about army support, not us. When the time is fruitful for the revolution the soldiers will know what is happening. With the master's house burning they will turn their rifles and point them at the crumbling enemy.

anomaly

4th May 2006, 03:52

Originally posted by Closet Lennie+--> (Closet Lennie)which leads me to you thinking that that percentage of workers with just spring forth on their own and spontaneously find these ideas?[/b]
Certainly not. However, every flame starts with a spark. And revolution will be no different.

Janus
What if certain regions revolt?
Hopefully this would be the spark that will start revolution. And hopefully we'll have people with military knowledge on our side.

However, commanders should be avoided. Anyone with expertise should put forth their ideas along with everyone else. And then the people, those who are revolting, will decide which plan is best.

LoneRed

4th May 2006, 06:42

every flame may start with a spark, but not necessarily a spark we want to see, they may rise up and revolt, but not necessarily one towards communism, or a better society.

Martin Blank

4th May 2006, 11:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:48 PM
In a communist revolution, there would be no need for 'combat commanders'.

That's why I differentiated between such a revolution and conventional warfare.

When 80-90% of the population rises against their oppressors, no army is strong enough to stop them.

Violence will not be 'organized' except by autonomous organizations themselves. That pathetic Vanguard will never see the light of day again. And any 'commanders' have no place in such a revolution.
OK, so what are you going to do when (not if, when) the capitalists, the dispossessed petty bourgeoisie, the fascist gangs and loyal military-police forces organize to violently overthrow your "revolution"?

In this country, 10 percent is still 30 million people, and they don't even need an army that big to do the job. Moreover, they will have the trained military personnel (the officer corps) who can run the machines that can grind you and your "revolution" into a fine red and black mist.

What are you going to do? Woo them with empty phrases about how "no army is strong enough" to stop you? They'll get a chuckle out of that while they're crushing your skull under the treads of an M1A2 tank -- if they don't shove a cruise missile down your throat first.

How are you going to give those "autonomous organizations" the training they need to disable a Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle? Osmosis? More importantly, how are you going to protect all those people who supported your "revolution" from air sorties, helicopter gunships and missile strikes?

Like I said, if you think you can secure your revolution -- i.e., fight a war -- without people who know what they're doing, elected to do the job in combat situations, you must be smoking crack.

Miles

Janus

4th May 2006, 20:36

However, commanders should be avoided. Anyone with expertise should put forth their ideas along with everyone else. And then the people, those who are revolting, will decide which plan is best.
Of course, any "leader" or advisor would always be subordinate to the will of the general people or perhaps a council of some sort.

anomaly

4th May 2006, 21:41

Miles assumes first of all that the entire bourgeoisie, the entire petty-bourgeois, and the entire military will oppose the revolution. This is unlikely.

Especially in those last two categories I think we'll find reasonable support.

However, I think you do overestimate the willingness of counterrevolutionary forces to destroy--literally--90% of the population, and their capacity to do so. As I previously stated, in the face of some 200 million angry revolutionaries, an army numbering a million has no chance. I don't care what weapons this army has.

Besides, if we are speaking tactically, guerrilla warfare has proven successful in the past against modern advanced armies.

Hell, just look at Iraq. Nowhere near 90% of the population is actively fighting the imperialists, but the imperialists still can't win.

But you honestly believe that, though the small numbers in Iraq have been able to hold their own against the United States military, if 90% of the people rise, we'll fail, at least with out your precious hierarchy.

What you seem to be arguing for is a centralized, hierarchical 'army' of sorts to fight the revolution. Well, that just isn't likely. The revolutionary left is splintered into many different factions already. It isn't likely to unite into a giant organization. Rather, is is far more probable that many different autonomous revolutionary groups will actively participate--each with its own militia, probably.

Also, I already said that we probably will have some people with military experience on our side. And they'll throw their ideas in. However, never will the people be forced to listen. It is a people's revolution, not a commanders.

Martin Blank

4th May 2006, 22:30

Originally posted by anomaly+May 4 2006, 04:02 PM--> (anomaly @ May 4 2006, 04:02 PM)Miles assumes first of all that the entire bourgeoisie, the entire petty-bourgeois, and the entire military will oppose the revolution. This is unlikely.

Especially in those last two categories I think we'll find reasonable support.[/b]

Actually, I assume nothing. Moreover, even if it seems like I'm assuming something, it's not what you write. I do not expect that "the entire military will oppose the revolution". I do expect that the overwhelming majority of the officer corps and elite units will remain loyal to the bourgeoisie. That is not an assumption; that is a historical reality.

As for the petty bourgeoisie, there may be individuals who are willing to go along with the ride. But if you think that there will be whole sections of that class willing to commit social suicide, well,...

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:02 PM
However, I think you do overestimate the willingness of counterrevolutionary forces to destroy--literally--90% of the population, and their capacity to do so. As I previously stated, in the face of some 200 million angry revolutionaries, an army numbering a million has no chance. I don't care what weapons this army has.

Personally, given a choice, I'd rather overestimate my enemy than underestimate them, which is what you're doing. They don't have to destroy 90 percent of the population to do what they need to do. If they can destroy 10 of that 90 percent and demoralize the other 80, then they've done their job.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:02 PM
Besides, if we are speaking tactically, guerrilla warfare has proven successful in the past against modern advanced armies.

Hell, just look at Iraq. Nowhere near 90% of the population is actively fighting the imperialists, but the imperialists still can't win.

Yes, let's look at Iraq. The reason why the guerrillas have had the success they've had is because they include trained soldiers and combat commanders -- people who know what to do and how to do it. They have a system more hierarchical than even I would propose (permanent, unelected commanders appointed from above, as opposed to elected commanders who serve ad hoc).

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:02 PM
But you honestly believe that, though the small numbers in Iraq have been able to hold their own against the United States military, if 90% of the people rise, we'll fail, at least with out your precious hierarchy.

It's not "hierarchy" that we're debating here, contrary to your fuckwitted "analysis". What we're debating here is technical proficiency and command under fire. You will need people to train other people. You will need people who know and understand combat tactics. And you will need people who can apply that knowledge on the field of battle. You seem to think that the Combat Faerie will descend from Neverland and use their magic wand to give people with the knowledge and skills needed to take on an organized professional army.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:02 PM
What you seem to be arguing for is a centralized, hierarchical 'army' of sorts to fight the revolution. Well, that just isn't likely. The revolutionary left is splintered into many different factions already. It isn't likely to unite into a giant organization. Rather, is is far more probable that many different autonomous revolutionary groups will actively participate--each with its own militia, probably.

I do advocate a united armed force of working people to fight against the united armed forces of the capitalists. "Hierarchical"? If ad hoc, elected combat commanders make it hierarchical in your mind, there's nothing I can do about that. That's your stupidity, not mine. As for the "left", my guess is that most of them will probably end up either sitting out any real revolution that comes along, or working against it, so I'm not so concerned about them. (Besides, judging by the caliber of leftists nowadays, most of them are too chickenshit to even bother with such things.)

Will there be militia forces that are organized by political groups to fight? Certainly. I welcome them, and I would advocate creating a coordination between them, as part of that "united armed force".

[email protected] 4 2006, 04:02 PM
Also, I already said that we probably will have some people with military experience on our side. And they'll throw their ideas in. However, never will the people be forced to listen. It is a people's revolution, not a commanders.

"Never will the people be forced to listen". Well then, their blood will be on your hands.

Miles

anomaly

5th May 2006, 00:51

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Personally, given a choice, I'd rather overestimate my enemy than underestimate them, which is what you're doing.
Perhaps. But creating another 'red army', which appears to be what you propose, is not the answer. Rather, I think guerrilla warfare and autonomous militias will likely be used.

And of course there will be coordination between them. However, I do think that your suggestion of 'generals' and 'commanders' is way over the top. We don't need them.

You seem to think that revolution will be exactly like conventional warfare. This is quite a mistake.

They have a system more hierarchical than even I would propose
Much of the 'insurgency' in Iraq is made up of individuals or small groups of men. There is no united force in Iraq. Neither is there any leader(s) with complete control over the 'guerrillas'.

You will need people to train other people. You will need people who know and understand combat tactics.
Have you been reading my posts, Miles? I have already stated that we will have such things. However, to give a person complete control over a militia or an army is a huge mistake. War is not an exact science. The 'commanders' don't always know what they're doing. But training will be helpful, and anyone with military 'experience' will be welcome to share their ideas.

Besides, judging by the caliber of leftists nowadays, most of them are too chickenshit to even bother with such things.
I assume this doesn't include you and the rest of the Communist League, does it? :lol:

"Never will the people be forced to listen". Well then, their blood will be on your hands.
Why should they be forced into subordination, as you clearly wish? Should rely on the might of our masters to carry us through the 'war effort'? Your faith in 'commanders' is a bit odd, especially for a self-proclaimed '21st century communist'.

And any blood won't be on my hands. Stop putting revolution at an individualist level. Rather than any 'persons', revolution will be done by the people collectively. And the best way to wage any revolution is not by a modern army.

5th May 2006, 01:23

When there is a revolution, the entire world will be against you. I don't think Miles is overestimating anything.

anomaly

5th May 2006, 01:32

I think that the remaining capitalist nations will be far more worried about maintaining control over their own populations. A ripple-effect is almost a sure thing (think 1848...).

However, the entire point of this conversation is that revolution is winnable. And it is winnable without the 'commanders' and 'generals' that Miles wants. Such a hierarchical system will not help us. Tactically, guerrilla warfare works better when the armed force is decentralized.

But this will be a new type of warfare. We will be a huge majority, and when other nations see this, I do not think they will want to risk their military and economy on suppressing this. They may send some aid, but I don't think we have so much to fear as KC and Miles suggest.

However, I think this conversation may be a bit premature. We'll have to devise tactics based upon the conditions we are presented with.

Ol' Dirty

5th May 2006, 02:05

Originally posted by anomaly+May 4 2006, 04:02 PM--> (anomaly @ May 4 2006, 04:02 PM)However, I think you do overestimate the willingness of counterrevolutionary forces to destroy--literally--90% of the population, and their capacity to do so. As I previously stated, in the face of some 200 million angry revolutionaries, an army numbering a million has no chance. I don't care what weapons this army has. [/b]

Personally, given a choice, I'd rather overestimate my enemy than underestimate them, which is what you're doing. They don't have to destroy 90 percent of the population to do what they need to do. If they can destroy 10 of that 90 percent and demoralize the other 80, then they've done their job.

In a future revolution, I believe that unless things became truly awful, la substantial ammount of the population would be against us. Although this is practically inevitable until things reach what I like to call 'critical mass', we need to create a completely militant proletariat, all working towards defeating the bourgoise.

[email protected] 4 2006, 04:02 PM
Besides, if we are speaking tactically, guerrilla warfare has proven successful in the past against modern advanced armies.

Hell, just look at Iraq. Nowhere near 90% of the population is actively fighting the imperialists, but the imperialists still can't win.

Yes, let's look at Iraq. The reason why the guerrillas have had the success they've had is because they include trained soldiers and combat commanders -- people who know what to do and how to do it. They have a system more hierarchical than even I would propose (permanent, unelected commanders appointed from above, as opposed to elected commanders who serve ad hoc).

In an effective millitary force, there are always those that are be to be ordered and those who must obey. After the war is over this supreme hierarchy shall be abolished in all buyt the peoples militia.

Sorry, anomaly; that's how wars are fought. :(

LoneRed

5th May 2006, 02:24

the one thing you fail to take into account anomoly is that guerilla warfare is used with small,tiny groups of people that can sneak around, be secrative, not get caught etc.. having an armed mass of proletarians, one could not have guerilla warfare, at least not as we know it.

they may have communication but without some direction,organization nothing will get accomplished, the revolutionary army needs to coordinate whose doing what and when,where etc...

anomaly

5th May 2006, 03:03

My entire point is that revolution will not be a war like those we know today. It will not just be a coup.

When the masses rise, all these ideas about 'commanders' and 'generals' will become meaningless.

Also, as far as direction goes, I've already said that militray 'experts' will be free to lend their input. If their ideas are good, the people will listen.

Martin Blank

5th May 2006, 18:31

Originally posted by anomaly+May 4 2006, 07:12 PM--> (anomaly @ May 4 2006, 07:12 PM)Perhaps. But creating another 'red army', which appears to be what you propose, is not the answer. Rather, I think guerrilla warfare and autonomous militias will likely be used.[/b]

Guerrilla units and autonomous militia will certainly play a large role, especially in the cities. But, to win this war, you need to control more than the cities. This is not Europe. There are large swaths of land where set-piece warfare will be necessary. For that, you need something like a Red Army.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
And of course there will be coordination between them. However, I do think that your suggestion of 'generals' and 'commanders' is way over the top. We don't need them.

First, I never proposed general officers ... or any officers. I advocated elected combat commanders, people whose task is to assess which strategies and tactics are best to employ in a combat situation. These are task-oriented positions, not a permanent caste, and hold no weight outside of combat conditions.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
You seem to think that revolution will be exactly like conventional warfare. This is quite a mistake.

And you learned the military arts from where, exactly?

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
There is no united force in Iraq. Neither is there any leader(s) with complete control over the 'guerrillas'.

Actually, yes, there is a united command structure for each of the two main guerrilla forces in Iraq, and there are people who have that "complete control".

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
Have you been reading my posts, Miles? I have already stated that we will have such things. However, to give a person complete control over a militia or an army is a huge mistake. War is not an exact science. The 'commanders' don't always know what they're doing. But training will be helpful, and anyone with military 'experience' will be welcome to share their ideas.

I have been reading your posts. It's just that I find your solution -- and your attempts to argue against my position -- to be a steaming pile of shite. War is an art and a science, and you do need people who know what tactics to use at the right time, and in the right place, if you want to survive. There will be times when it will not be possible for everyone to sit in a circle and "share their ideas". If they do that, they will be dead. They may as well put the bullets in their brains themselves.

A commander may not always know what they're doing; in that instance, they should be replaced by the soldiers themselves (hence elected combat commanders). However, in most cases, it may not always be immediately apparent to those on the line of battle. Zeal in times of combat is always a concern. There will be times when the average soldier wants to fight on, but the trained eye can see it would lead to their slaughter. What then? Under your situation, they would "share their ideas" ... and then march off to die.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
I assume this doesn't include you and the rest of the Communist League, does it? :lol:

If you only knew, my child.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
Why should they be forced into subordination, as you clearly wish? Should rely on the might of our masters to carry us through the 'war effort'? Your faith in 'commanders' is a bit odd, especially for a self-proclaimed '21st century communist'.

Combat is a unique situation, where there is often little time for everyone to break down into affinity groups and reach consensus. There needs to be a point where, in such a unique situation, you place your trust in someone who has the training needed to make sure you come out of that combat situation alive and in one piece. Accountable? Absolutely. Recallable? Definitely.

Engels said it best: a revolution is the most authoritarian act human beings can undertake. It is the forcible overthrow of one group of people in favor of another group of people. The overall revolution, including the political, economic, social and cultural transformations, may all be acts of extreme democracy (that is, democracy as a daily practice, not merely a form of governance). However, in the military arena, that authoritarian character remains prominent, due to the fact that you're dealing with the most basic of questions: life or death.

[email protected] 4 2006, 07:12 PM
And any blood won't be on my hands. Stop putting revolution at an individualist level. Rather than any 'persons', revolution will be done by the people collectively. And the best way to wage any revolution is not by a modern army.

You are arguing here for a definite method of carrying out an armed revolution. You have no choice but to assume a level of individual responsibility for the decisions you make. In this case, there is a measure of "putting [the] revolution at an individualist level", because you are making a decision about other people's lives.

That seems to be something you (and the rest of the anarkiddies) fail to understand: there will, hopefully, come a point in our lives where these seemingly sterile debates will actually mean something -- where they will be decisions that affect real-world events. You better expend an adequate amount of brain cells thinking these things through, or else you are only doing a disservice to everything you stand for.

And, yes, under these conditions, your disservice will cost people their lives.

Miles

redstar2000

5th May 2006, 19:01

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
But, to win this war, you need to control more than the cities. This is not Europe. There are large swaths of land where set-piece warfare will be necessary.

Unlikely, I think...and not a situation where civilians are likely to fight particularly well in any event.

Moreover, considering that the remnants of the old bourgeois army will be mercenaries, why should they continue to fight when no one is there to pay them?

Even if someone was willing to pay them, where would they spend their pay? The "fleshpots" of Boise?

Are the Russian bourgeoisie going to airlift supplies to a counter-revolutionary army in the hills of Idaho? Or invade Alaska and march on Seattle?

I don't see why we just wouldn't nuke the bastards...why dick around with set-piece battles?

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

Entrails Konfetti

5th May 2006, 19:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:22 PM
I don't see why we just wouldn't nuke the bastards...why dick around with set-piece battles?

that depends on getting such artillery, and besides we all know how stupid those smart bombs are :lol: ! So we'd be more likely to kill more of our own people than theirs, seeing as how we're the majority.

Fistful of Steel

5th May 2006, 20:06

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 12:44 AM
When there is a revolution, the entire world will be against you. I don't think Miles is overestimating anything.
No. The real revolution will be the revolution of the working class, the majority of the world, wrestling power from the hands of the bourgeoise. I don't think it would succeed otherwise.

Martin Blank

5th May 2006, 20:14

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 5 2006, 01:22 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 5 2006, 01:22 PM)Unlikely, I think...and not a situation where civilians are likely to fight particularly well in any event.[/b]

Hence the need for training, and people who know military strategy and tactics.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:22 PM
Moreover, considering that the remnants of the old bourgeois army will be mercenaries, why should they continue to fight when no one is there to pay them?

Again, this is an underestimation. The U.S. Army is not a conscript army, it is a professional force that is quite loyal. There will be splits and divisions, but I wouldn't hold my breath expecting whole corps to come over to the side of revolution.

As for payment, the bourgeoisie could very well make the same deal that many imperial masters make with their armed forces: land for loyalty.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:22 PM
Even if someone was willing to pay them, where would they spend their pay? The "fleshpots" of Boise?

First of all, someone would be willing to pay them. In a situation like this, you can expect the bourgeoisie to come up off of some of their wealth to pay for their survival. All those off-shore accounts will really pay off (so to speak) in a situation like this.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:22 PM
Are the Russian bourgeoisie going to airlift supplies to a counter-revolutionary army in the hills of Idaho? Or invade Alaska and march on Seattle?

The Russian bourgeoisie? No. The Canadian bourgeoisie -- especially the western/prairie provinces bourgeoisie? Absolutely. And they'd have help from the British and, most likely, the other NATO partners, as well as Japan and the remaining G8 states -- and probably China, too.

[email protected] 5 2006, 01:22 PM
I don't see why we just wouldn't nuke the bastards...why dick around with set-piece battles?

Because I am not going to take responsibility for "nuking" anyone. Period. Besides, it is most likely that these bastards will use other U.S. citizens as human shields, and I am not going to append my name to a decision that would condemn the innocent along with the guilty to death or a fate worse than.

Miles

anomaly

5th May 2006, 22:12

Originally posted by Miles
And they'd have help from the British and, most likely, the other NATO partners, as well as Japan and the remaining G8 states -- and probably China, too.
Well, this assumes that revolution will happen in the US before it happens in Europe--not too likely, in my opinion.

Also, I think other nations will probably be more concerned with suppressing their own populations than helping the United States. Either way, the bourgeoisie cannot win. The numbers are against them.

redstar2000

6th May 2006, 01:10

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Again, this is an underestimation.

Well, we can trade speculations endlessly, can we not?

The heart of your speculations is that proletarian revolution is going to be "really hard" and even "touch and go".

The heart of my speculations is that overthrowing and dispersing the old ruling class will be "easy"...and the "hard part" will be getting a working communist society "up and running".

Your recommendations make perfect sense in light of your speculations about the "likely scenario".

Until we get "pretty close" to revolution, I don't know that there's much to be gained by trading speculations.

Because I am not going to take responsibility for "nuking" anyone. Period.

If the U.S. (or the Russians) had had the capability of nuking Berlin in 1944, would you have opposed the move?

It would have saved many lives...most of the top German officers in the field would probably have quickly surrendered. They knew they were losing anyway.

I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons against a concentrated counter-revolutionary army is quite justified, myself. Especially when compared to sending large numbers of militia against them in "set-piece battles" (in the plains of Alberta?).

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

Martin Blank

6th May 2006, 01:12

Originally posted by anomaly+May 5 2006, 04:33 PM--> (anomaly @ May 5 2006, 04:33 PM)
Miles
And they'd have help from the British and, most likely, the other NATO partners, as well as Japan and the remaining G8 states -- and probably China, too.
Well, this assumes that revolution will happen in the US before it happens in Europe--not too likely, in my opinion.

Also, I think other nations will probably be more concerned with suppressing their own populations than helping the United States. Either way, the bourgeoisie cannot win. The numbers are against them. [/b]
"Well, this assumes that revolution will happen in Russia before it happens in Europe -- not too likely, in my opinion.

"Also, I think other nations will probably be more concerned with suppressing their own populations than helping Russia. Either way, the bourgeoisie cannot win. The numbers are against them."

-- Anonymous Social Democrat, 1916

Martin Blank

6th May 2006, 01:22

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 5 2006, 07:31 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 5 2006, 07:31 PM)The heart of your speculations is that proletarian revolution is going to be "really hard" and even "touch and go".[/b]

All revolutions are, in the final analysis, "really hard" and "touch and go". It would be nice to think that it will be all roses and kisses, but that's not how it goes.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
If the U.S. (or the Russians) had had the capability of nuking Berlin in 1944, would you have opposed the move?

Yes.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
It would have saved many lives...most of the top German officers in the field would probably have quickly surrendered. They knew they were losing anyway.

So, I guess the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all A-OK in your book.

Yes, the German generals knew they were losing, that's why they plotted to assassinate Hitler and sue for peace with the United Nations ... in 1944. If you wanted to bring the war in Europe to an end sooner, helping the generals with this act would have been the best, most efficient way to do it.

[email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons against a concentrated counter-revolutionary army is quite justified, myself. Especially when compared to sending large numbers of militia against them in "set-piece battles" (in the plains of Alberta?).

This is one of the many reasons why I question you calling yourself a "communist".

Miles

anomaly

6th May 2006, 02:17

Miles, this isn't Russia. The general preoccupation with ancient history, which of course involved actual material conditions no longer relevant today, is a bit strange.

This one won't be like Russia. And that's a good thing.

LoneRed

6th May 2006, 04:02

he was merely pointing out that your point is nearly the same thing someone said back in 1916, and look how things went then. there was no spark of revolutions. no world revolution. That is the whole point anomoly a "network" of individuals and groups of individuals cannot successfully fight a revolution and win without some kind of direction,organization. if it could we wouldnt be arguing against it. No matter if you have a shit ton of people the bourgeois has the weapons of the state to use against the army..

redstar2000

6th May 2006, 06:27

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
So, I guess the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all A-OK in your book.

Actually, those bombings were militarily unnecessary; in fact, urban bombings had little effect on the outcome of World War II.

The Third Reich was already shattered when Dresden was firebombed.

Japan was on the edge of surrender when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked.

The reason I singled out Berlin for a nuclear strike is due to the historical specificity of the Nazi war machine. The Nazi "High Command" took its orders directly from Hitler or, as he was called somewhat sarcastically, the Grofaz.

Without Hitler on their asses, I think the German generals in the field would have surrendered.

This is one of the many reasons why I question you calling yourself a "communist".

As you wish. :)

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

JC1

6th May 2006, 06:43

Actually, those bombings were militarily unnecessary; in fact, urban bombings had little effect on the outcome of World War II.

STOP THE PRESSES!

The reason I singled out Berlin for a nuclear strike is due to the historical specificity of the Nazi war machine. The Nazi "High Command" took its orders directly from Hitler or, as he was called somewhat sarcastically, the Grofaz.

Without Hitler on their asses, I think the German generals in the field would have surrendered.

Are you fucking nuts ?!?

Obliterating a city with nuclear weapon's !?!

To kill a single man no less !

6th May 2006, 07:23

No. The real revolution will be the revolution of the working class, the majority of the world, wrestling power from the hands of the bourgeoise. I don't think it would succeed otherwise.

The idea that the entire proletariat worldwide would rise up in a single mass is completely utopian, unmarxist, and easily proven wrong by common sense. All nations are in different stages of the development of capitalism, and the material conditions in every country are different. To say that, despite these glaring distinctions, that they will one day magically rise up and "save the world" (not as a result of the development of capitalism, but just randomly) is completely contradictory to historical materialism.

Martin Blank

6th May 2006, 07:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:38 PM
Miles, this isn't Russia. The general preoccupation with ancient history, which of course involved actual material conditions no longer relevant today, is a bit strange.

This one won't be like Russia. And that's a good thing.
Being lectured on "ancient history" by anomaly would be laughable if it were not so sad. Oh well. It could be worse. I could be getting lectured by this loser.

[Edit: photo deleted.]

Incidentally, anomaly, "ancient history" is Greece and Rome, the Phoenicians, Mele and Songay. The October Revolution, a 20th century event, is recent history.

Miles

LoneRed

6th May 2006, 07:33

damn, who is that kid, id definitely not want to be lectured by him..

It seems like an ebaums pic, but it isnt, interesting...

redstar2000

6th May 2006, 16:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:04 AM

The reason I singled out Berlin for a nuclear strike is due to the historical specificity of the Nazi war machine. The Nazi "High Command" took its orders directly from Hitler or, as he was called somewhat sarcastically, the Grofaz.

Without Hitler on their asses, I think the German generals in the field would have surrendered.

Are you fucking nuts ?!?

Obliterating a city with nuclear weapon's !?!

To kill a single man no less !
Many thousands of teenagers died or were crippled in the final days of the Third Reich...fighting the Russian Army in a last desperate attempt to "protect their Führer" and "save Berlin".

Not to mention, of course, all the lives that might have been saved throughout Europe had the war ended six or more months earlier than it did.

I am not "nuts"...in this case, it would have been "worth it".

As would a tactical nuclear strike on an invading counter-revolutionary army.

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

anomaly

6th May 2006, 17:02

That's me. :blush: (however, I don't think pics are supposed to be posted here...should that be deleted?)

Go to my myspace if you really want to see it (as Miles has done).

Miles, the point is that this isn't Russia. We are no longer dealing with a nation of peasants. Times change. But I have yet to see any evidence of the Communist League changing with them.

EDIT: Thanks redstar. That wasn't exactly a lovely pic of me... :lol:

redstar2000

6th May 2006, 17:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:23 AM
That's me. :blush: (however, I don't think pics are supposed to be posted here...should that be deleted?)
The photo has been deleted.

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

LoneRed

6th May 2006, 19:18

hilarious anomoly,

would you like to expand on where you said the league hasnt expanded?

please.. do tell..

anomaly

6th May 2006, 20:54

The League 'expanding'?

It appears to me that the League often thinks too much in the last century, and not enough in this century. The bitterly anti-anarchist stance of the CL is evidence of this, as if the defense of Lenin and Leninism by many Leaguers.

I think a lot of people see it this way. However, I'll just watch the League and see where it goes. I've already said--repeatedly, in fact--that as of yet it would not be fair to call the League 'Leninist'. We'll just see where it goes--if it goes anywhere.

Back to the discussion, however, Miles's obsession with commanders within the revolution is a bit odd. I've already said that anyone with military experience is welcome to help--Miles objects. I've said that if their ideas are good, then great, we'll use them--Miles objects. I've said, however, that they should be given no special status of official commanding role, where what they say always goes--Miles objects.

Strange.

JC1

6th May 2006, 23:15

Many thousands of teenagers died or were crippled in the final days of the Third Reich...fighting the Russian Army in a last desperate attempt to "protect their Führer" and "save Berlin".

And if you dropped a nuke on the city, all the youth in the city would be olbiterated anyway's.

Nuclear weapon's are not effecitive for a assination.

Not to mention, of course, all the lives that might have been saved throughout Europe had the war ended six or more months earlier than it did.

If you dropped a nuke on birlin 6 month's early it would mean that the city would have yet to be evacuated in preperation for the russian advance.

That means that the civilian losses would have easily matched the number of lives lost in the wars last 6 month's.

As would a tactical nuclear strike on an invading counter-revolutionary army.

How would you orginize this ? You reject a centrel goverment in any form, including a federation like the Congress of Soviet's, or a army in any form for that matter.

Would you let the "Nuclear Weapon's Commune" take responceiblity for it ?

redstar2000

7th May 2006, 00:44

Originally posted by JC1
How would you organize this ? You reject a central goverment in any form, including a federation like the Congress of Soviets, or an army in any form for that matter.

Would you let the "Nuclear Weapons Commune" take responsiiblity for it?

Actually, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there would be a "nuclear weapons commune" or a "Soviet of Atomic Workers". Someone would have to look over the de-commissioning and safe disposal of those weapons. As well as getting the existing nuclear plants back in operation.

The process of "arming" a nuclear weapon is, as I understand it, fairly complex...you can't just take it up in a plane and drop it.

Your preoccupation (and that of most Leninists) seems to be "how best" to "re-fight" the Russian Civil War.

I cannot offer you much advice on that subject...mostly because I'm fairly certain that modern proletarian revolutions in this century are not going to be anything like Russia 1917-21.

I am speculating, of course, but so are you.

You imagine that "Lenin's way" is the "only way".

Or Trotsky or Mao or whoever.

What you can't seem to grasp is that NO ONE WANTS your centralized despotism...except YOU!

So your popular support is never going to amount to anything significant.

In the "west", your era is over. :D

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

JC1

7th May 2006, 01:21

Actually, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there would be a "nuclear weapons commune" or a "Soviet of Atomic Workers". Someone would have to look over the de-commissioning and safe disposal of those weapons. As well as getting the existing nuclear plants back in operation.

The process of "arming" a nuclear weapon is, as I understand it, fairly complex...you can't just take it up in a plane and drop it.

And how are you going to keep this group accountable to the masses ?

Your preoccupation (and that of most Leninists) seems to be "how best" to "re-fight" the Russian Civil War.

No one is pre-occupied with refighting the Russian Civil War.

But the fact is, the bourgoise is not going to give up peacefully. You seem to think that when my class rises, the enemy will just give up. That they'll just say "Hey, we may have spent the last 200 + years represing you guy's, but hey, let's just call it a day".

And you call us Reformist's !

LoneRed

7th May 2006, 02:30

how are we in the last century? you still havent explained that, The league Does NOT has an anti-anarchist stance, we dont say anything about anarchists. we just realize some of the bogus things, self-proclaimed anarchists have said and counteract them. youve said yourself it is a leninist organization, a good time to take that back eh>?

Actually the majority of us arent leninists, we see many potential flaws in the doctrine of leninism, which also varies, but if lenin was attacked on a point that we think isnt valid we will fight back against that

Also if someone criticized Stalin on some point where he didnt deserve it, we argue thusly.

Just because we defend some parts of leninism from baseless attacks does NOT make us leninist.

Miles doesnt have an obsession with commanders but realizes that without some kind of unity of thought and action the socialist revolution will squander into "anarchy"

Martin Blank

7th May 2006, 05:53

Originally posted by anomaly+May 6 2006, 03:15 PM--> (anomaly @ May 6 2006, 03:15 PM)It appears to me that the League often thinks too much in the last century, and not enough in this century. The bitterly anti-anarchist stance of the CL is evidence of this, as if the defense of Lenin and Leninism by many Leaguers.[/b]

We bitterly oppose an unserious, unthinking approach to the world. We bitterly oppose doctrines that designate sections of the left as greater enemies than the capitalists. We bitterly oppose moralistic subjectivism. We bitterly oppose reactionary bourgeois ideology dressed up in "r-r-r-revolutionary" rhetoric. If these are the essence of anarchism, then we are anti-anarchist. Take it as you will.

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:15 PM
I think a lot of people see it this way. However, I'll just watch the League and see where it goes. I've already said--repeatedly, in fact--that as of yet it would not be fair to call the League 'Leninist'. We'll just see where it goes--if it goes anywhere.

If that's your view, then I recommend that you stay out of our way.

[email protected] 6 2006, 03:15 PM
Back to the discussion, however, Miles's obsession with commanders within the revolution is a bit odd. I've already said that anyone with military experience is welcome to help--Miles objects. I've said that if their ideas are good, then great, we'll use them--Miles objects. I've said, however, that they should be given no special status of official commanding role, where what they say always goes--Miles objects.

It's not an obsession, it's recognition of historical reality. And you misrepresentation of what I said is typical of the unseriousness that has led to the aforementioned bitter opposition.

I'm not necessarily anti-anarchist. I am definitely anti-idiot. Hence our dispute.

Miles

Amusing Scrotum

7th May 2006, 12:43

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 7 2006, 12:05 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 7 2006, 12:05 AM) Or Trotsky.... [/b]

Can't speak for Lenin or Mao, but Trotsky's analysis of whether a "communist America" would have to fear invasion from other modern-capitalist countries, seems pretty good to me....

Trotsky
You can do this safely, for you will not need to fear foreign interventions. Japan, Great Britain and the other capitalistic countries that intervened in Russia couldn't do anything but take American communism lying down. As a matter of fact, the victory of communism in America—the stronghold of capitalism—will cause communism to spread to other countries. Japan will probably have joined the communistic ranks even before the establishment of the American soviets. The same is true of Great Britain.

In any case, it would be a crazy idea to send His Britannic Majesty's fleet against Soviet America, even as a raid against the southern and more conservative half of your continent. It would be hopeless and would never get any farther than a second-rate military escapade.

If America Should Go Communist (1935) (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-ame.htm)

Not a "fantastic" piece by any stretch of the imagination; but I think his analysis of whether a "communist America" would have to fear Imperial invasion, is pretty decent.

That being said, if there was a communist revolution in America and that revolution was isolated and the remaining modern-capitalist countries, which, obviously, wouldn't be facing an economic crises of their own, decided to invade....granted, that's a low probability scenario, but even if that happened, I still don't think there'd be a lot to worry about.

You mentioned nuclear weapons, and in my opinion, all the American workers would need to do is acquire about 10 of said weapons and point 5 at Canada and 5 at Mexico.

This would likely remove the possibility of other countries using Canada and/or Mexico to launch an invasion; and therefore, force any potential invading countries to attack from the sea.

Now, I'm not a "military expert" in any sense of the word, but the probability of China, Britain, France or whoever, launching a successful landing and invasion of America from the sea and not the land, seems pretty fucking low to me.

After all, if the English Channel was able to hold off the Nazi War Machine, then I'm sure the fucking huge Ocean that separates Europe from America will serve as an adequate line of defence.

Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, I think that the European powers, at least, have significantly reduced the size of their Navy's over the last few decades....Warships drastically underperformed in WWII, and therefore, as I said, I think they've been "going out of fashion".

Additionally, I think, instead of having "set piece battles", it would be more sensible to just cut the Southern and Central States adrift.

If a revolution happened in the U.K. tomorrow, I'd certainly favour cutting North and Central Wales adrift....these places are full of reactionaries; so instead of trying to impose "Socialism at Gunpoint", I think it would be better to grant these places their independence....the "North Walians" would certainly be over the moon if that happened! :lol:

Fuck, even if you did want to invade somewhere, Southern Canada seems a better choice to me than fucking Texas! <_<

Fistful of Steel

7th May 2006, 15:42

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 7 2006, 12:04 PM
Fuck, even if you did want to invade somewhere, Southern Canada seems a better choice to me than fucking Texas! <_<
Yeah, I always figured if America was to turn (even more, hard to imagine I know)blood-thirsty us Canadians might want to look out. We've got a healthy supply of natural resources including a large chunk of the world's fresh water supply, and a great deal of inhabitable land.

redstar2000

7th May 2006, 17:14

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
We bitterly oppose an unserious, unthinking approach to the world. We bitterly oppose doctrines that designate sections of the left as greater enemies than the capitalists. We bitterly oppose moralistic subjectivism. We bitterly oppose reactionary bourgeois ideology dressed up in "r-r-r-revolutionary" rhetoric.

There are some who would turn all those objections back on you...and could "document" that if they wanted to go to the trouble.

But what really seems to "stick out" in the posts of people friendly to the League on this board is the attitude of personal hostility towards anyone who argues a position with which they disagree.

It's one thing to trash what you perceive as a bad idea; it's another thing to trash anyone who might happen to have that idea...even when they are still young and relatively inexperienced.

One gets the impression that within your "milieu", raising a substantive question is a distinctly "risky proposition".

It seems to me that the League needs to "work on this". Not everyone who disagrees with you about something is an "enemy" to be "anihilated".

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

LoneRed

7th May 2006, 20:52

it is not us saying that people are enemies to be annihilated, we just take a hard stance against such groups that do advocate that.errr..raan...

anomaly

7th May 2006, 21:01

Miles, your argument seems to have lost any validity. You've resorted to simple flaming. And when someone resorts to flaming, it's almost a sure bet that he/she is a member of the Communist League.

I have repatedly said that anyone with military 'knowledge' can help the cause. But should they have ultimate power over whole sections of the revolutionary proletariat? You say yes; I say know. That, not anyone's 'idiocy' is the cause of this dispute.

LoneRed

7th May 2006, 21:04

anyone with military knowledge, and how are the workers to know they have this knowledge, it could turn out to be a class traitor or something o the sort, and if they just have the knowledge and no "say" in the things, the proletariat wont have to listen to them, as well as the whole position being useless, might as well not have that person with "knowledge" as the second he comes into play hes useless

anomaly

7th May 2006, 21:11

Usually, I don't really give a shit about poor grammar and/or spelling, but LR, your's was such that I have trouble deciphering much meaning out of that...

I think you are saying that if we do not have such commanders, then they won't have any influence over the proletariat, their ideas won't be listened to.

Well, why wouldn't they? If their ideas make sense, they will certainly be used.

But you are right, the proletariat doesn't have to listen. And that's the point. They should only listen to ideas that make sense at the time.

JC1

7th May 2006, 21:42

Stop putting up strawmen. No CL member/suppourter and/or leninist in this thread has advocated a millitary dictatorship over the working class.

What they have been saying is that reveloutionary combat is going to require elected millitary leaders, that will probobly be forced into make decision's in the heat of battle. I Imagine most of these commander's will be worker's themselves.

You put up strawmen by saying elected millitary leaders = evil despotic junta.

Morpheus

7th May 2006, 22:27

No Leninist state has had elected military leaders, except the early soviet state which did away with them as soon as the civil war began. Leninist states have always had traditional military hierarchies, whereas anarchists have traditionally advocated military democracy.

anomaly

7th May 2006, 22:41

Originally posted by JC1
You put up strawmen by saying elected millitary leaders = evil despotic junta.
I say that may happen, yes.

But also I've pointed out that 'commanders' often fuck things up. So I don't think they should be given absolute power over anyone. Rather, they should present their ideas, and if these ideas are good ones, they will be implemented. (it may simply prove natural that persons with military knowledge will have their ideas looked at more highly than others)

Martin Blank

8th May 2006, 00:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:35 AM
There are some who would turn all those objections back on you...and could "document" that if they wanted to go to the trouble.

But what really seems to "stick out" in the posts of people friendly to the League on this board is the attitude of personal hostility towards anyone who argues a position with which they disagree.

It's one thing to trash what you perceive as a bad idea; it's another thing to trash anyone who might happen to have that idea...even when they are still young and relatively inexperienced.

One gets the impression that within your "milieu", raising a substantive question is a distinctly "risky proposition".

It seems to me that the League needs to "work on this". Not everyone who disagrees with you about something is an "enemy" to be "anihilated".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Speaking for myself, there is no "personal hostility". Yes, I am very sharp when I argue politics with certain types of people, and I do employ a double-standard in terms of how I approach different groups of people. But that does not mean any of it is personal.

Anomaly is an adult and should be able to handle himself accordingly. He doesn't need mollycoddling or "protection" from you or anyone else. Let him stand on his own two feet and defend his positions. Don't try to shield him from criticism because he happens to agree with you (which, by the way, is a very disagreeable habit you have -- protecting "your own", that is). Bear in mind that many of the League members who are also involved in this conversation are not too far from anomaly's age, either. If they can hold their own without the protection of an admin, so can he.

The fight for communism is not a game. The unserious and unthinking need not apply. How many times do I have to say this before you understand? Anomaly's comments on the military aspects of a revolution reflect an unseriousness and lack of forethought that will get people killed, if it were ever to be put into practice. He better begin to understand that now. We don't need people on the side of the revolution who are as flippant and unconcerned about the arithmetic of war as we see in the Bush regime. Their "good intentions" notwithstanding.

Finally, one thing I've noticed about when League members raise an objection or a criticism, it is usually done with a good measure of thought to it. They bring their critiques forward having thought about them and what they mean. I can only welcome that, and we have very positive discussions about them as a result. It sounds to me like what you want us to "work on" is dumbing down our membership and patronizing our younger members. Sorry, RedStar, that's not going to happen.

Miles

Martin Blank

8th May 2006, 00:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:48 PM
No Leninist state has had elected military leaders, except the early soviet state which did away with them as soon as the civil war began. Leninist states have always had traditional military hierarchies, whereas anarchists have traditionally advocated military democracy.
And this is the hillarious irony of this whole thing. The League advocates elected military commanders -- a position that has also been a tradition of anarchist military policy -- and we are attacked by a so-called "anarchist" for advocating "hierarchy". Go figure.

Miles

ComradeOm

8th May 2006, 00:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:02 PM
But also I've pointed out that 'commanders' often fuck things up. So I don't think they should be given absolute power over anyone. Rather, they should present their ideas, and if these ideas are good ones, they will be implemented. (it may simply prove natural that persons with military knowledge will have their ideas looked at more highly than others)
The problem with such democratic military organisations is that when tried they have failed they simply didn't work. The Bolsheviks didn't suddenly decide that a military hierarchy was desirable; instead they found out the hard way that democratic military structures and war do not mix well. And the new Red Army performed considerably better than the one it replaced.

Battle is one field where doing things by committee doesn't work and that gets people killed. Screw up too often and its all over.

LoneRed

8th May 2006, 00:42

I think a huge problem with this discussion is that people forget to take into consideration the historical context and the material forces at work in Russia at that time. Would it be possible to have a successful revolution without some sort of leadership? No, taking into consideration that education was a privilege, much of the country was rural, a lot less access to this education, as well the biases of the Tsar and iron fist that they had to struggle against. No, if what anomoly proposes happened in Russia in the early 20th century there would have been NO overthrow of the existing order.

It is also a cop out for redstar to try to blame the league for being "hostile" towards others. Im sorry, you know we are talking about a future society, and all seriousness is attributed to it, its not a country fair or anything, this is a very serious question of the movement, and when those have ideas that would lead to the onslaught of the working class, I as well as others are going to have our say.

The anarchists focus way to much on the issue of the "evils" of any form of command or leadership. Im sorry, we are in the real world, where the people wont just all come together and know exactly what tactics or plans to carry out with success, not even the slight majority of those in the revolution will have in depth knowledge of combat situations, this is not saying they have to be lead, but when someone or a group of people know what they are talking about and have the best ideas and strategies for working triumph they should have a large say in what happens.

Now whether these people are truly acting in defense of the proletariat, or whether their ideas are really all that good is a moot point, as thats a risk in every situation of this sort.

8th May 2006, 01:38

There are some who would turn all those objections back on you...and could "document" that if they wanted to go to the trouble.

But what really seems to "stick out" in the posts of people friendly to the League on this board is the attitude of personal hostility towards anyone who argues a position with which they disagree.

It's one thing to trash what you perceive as a bad idea; it's another thing to trash anyone who might happen to have that idea...even when they are still young and relatively inexperienced.

One gets the impression that within your "milieu", raising a substantive question is a distinctly "risky proposition".

It seems to me that the League needs to "work on this". Not everyone who disagrees with you about something is an "enemy" to be "anihilated".

I can speak for myself on this, I guess. I'm an asshole to idiots. When someone says that they agree with the idea of the vanguard in one post, and then posts somewhere else on the board that the vanguard is an "Evil Leninist dictatorship" I am obviously going to be an ass to this person for being so hypocritical and/or not using their brain.

When someone fails to properly debate, and resorts to ad hominems to prop up his arguments, I'm going to be an ass to that person. Why shouldn't I? They're not offering any contributions to the discussion, so why should I?

If anyone wants me to stop being an ass to you then stop being an idiot.

anomaly

8th May 2006, 02:04

Originally posted by Miles
Anomaly's comments on the military aspects of a revolution reflect an unseriousness and lack of forethought that will get people killed, if it were ever to be put into practice.
No it doesn't.

No one person is 'perfect' at waging war. So if the person with military knowledge is fucking up in some way, somebody should speak up. We should not idly sit back and obey someone just because of the label of commander.

Usually military objectives are pretty obvious, but when there is a decision that must be made, should we talk about it (or at least say something about it), or should we obey some commander? You say the latter, I say the former.

I suppose I'd be 'ok' with military 'commanders' if their decisions can be argued by people who disagree.

Would you agree with this, St. Miles? Or do you want to give commanders supreme authority?

Either way, I think this entire discussion is pointless. When the revolution occurs, it won't matter what any of us thinks. :)

8th May 2006, 03:04

Usually military objectives are pretty obvious, but when there is a decision that must be made, should we talk about it (or at least say something about it), or should we obey some commander? You say the latter, I say the former.

What about when there isn't enough time to call a group discussion? Sometimes there isn't time for discussions; if action isn't taken right away people die.

anomaly

8th May 2006, 03:23

In such situations, KC, it is simple: if they shoot, you shoot back. ;)

But I'm talking more for offensive maneuvers..."we should ambush here." "But I think we should ambush here." ...

Wouldn't you say that some type of discussion should take place in situations that allow?

8th May 2006, 04:07

In such situations, KC, it is simple: if they shoot, you shoot back.

It's that easy, right, Anomaly? As long as we shoot back, we'll win, right? :rolleyes: No use of tactics is needed, apparently! :lol: You've got to be fucking kidding me that you think war is really this easy. I don't think I've ever met anyone so naive.

But I'm talking more for offensive maneuvers..."we should ambush here." "But I think we should ambush here." ...

Wouldn't you say that some type of discussion should take place in situations that allow?

If there is time and it is an issue that can be discussed then of course. But what about issues that must be kept secret (an ambush, for example)? Do you think that this maneuver should actually be brought to the public's attention? Do you know the implications of that choice?

anomaly

8th May 2006, 04:23

Originally posted by KC
It's that easy, right, Anomaly? As long as we shoot back, we'll win, right?
I was joking. God damn, get a sense of humor. :lol: (didn't you notice the ;) )

I really don't know when discussion will be applicable and when it will not. Some military decisions are plainly obvious.

The decision of an ambush could certainly be discussed by those who are doing the ambush. Your fantasy of the entire revolutionary force knowing about such a thing is just that--fantasy.

The question at hand is should we obey the 'commander's' every word, or should some decisions be discussed.

Your post, as usual, dodges this central issue. You have quite a knack for doing that. :lol:

LoneRed

8th May 2006, 04:56

Anom, if this will all be rendered useless come the revolution, then having this forum is useless and discussing any theory or tactics is useless as well, whats the point when the revolution comes right?, well i for one, believe that you need a coherent theory behind action, i guess not.

anomaly

8th May 2006, 05:06

This specific question is pretty useless, IMO, especially since we do not know exactly what the revolution will look like.

Nice try, though.

Can we all agree, though, that if we have 'commanders', they are elected and we can criticize them and we can argue for a different method?

And yes, I'm compromising.

Martin Blank

8th May 2006, 08:30

Originally posted by anomaly+May 7 2006, 08:25 PM--> (anomaly @ May 7 2006, 08:25 PM)
Miles
Anomaly's comments on the military aspects of a revolution reflect an unseriousness and lack of forethought that will get people killed, if it were ever to be put into practice.
No it doesn't.

No one person is 'perfect' at waging war. So if the person with military knowledge is fucking up in some way, somebody should speak up. We should not idly sit back and obey someone just because of the label of commander.

Usually military objectives are pretty obvious, but when there is a decision that must be made, should we talk about it (or at least say something about it), or should we obey some commander? You say the latter, I say the former.

I suppose I'd be 'ok' with military 'commanders' if their decisions can be argued by people who disagree.

Would you agree with this, St. Miles? Or do you want to give commanders supreme authority?

Either way, I think this entire discussion is pointless. When the revolution occurs, it won't matter what any of us thinks. :) [/b]
This response is precisely what I meant by "unseriousness and a lack of forethought". The fact that anomaly can be so dismissive in his response is what leads to the sharpness of my comments.

"Usually military objectives are pretty obvious", he writes. Forgive me for delving once again into "ancient history", but I can hear the ghosts of every military leader from Alexander the Great on forward laughing uncontrollably at this comment. No, not all military objectives are "pretty obvious". Some require a series of secondary or tertiary objectives to be fulfilled for the main goal to come into focus. But even if we are talking about the most basic of military objectives, knowing it is one thing and achieving it is another. That is, it is also important to know what kind of tactics are the best to achieve these objectives. This is where the role of a combat commander comes in.

An combat commander's role is deciding what tactics are best to be used to achieve military objectives. They are elected to make those tactical decisions by the unit (company, regiment, battalion, etc.), and, by doing so, the unit agrees to accept those decisions (to "obey", to use anomaly's term) while in combat. When the unit is no longer in a combat situation, they have the right to replace the commander with someone they think will do a better job. But in times of a shooting situation, the commanders have to be allowed to implement their tactical plans, even over any objections raised at that time. This is the only way to know if those raising the objections were right or wrong.

"When the revolution occurs, it won't matter what any of us thinks." This may indeed be the case for you, anomaly, and perhaps it is best that you keep thinking this way ... and following the logical conclusions. It may end up saving lives.

Miles

Martin Blank

8th May 2006, 08:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:27 PM
Can we all agree, though, that if we have 'commanders', they are elected and we can criticize them and we can argue for a different method?

And yes, I'm compromising.
We've been agreeing with that from the beginning, anomaly. The only reason you're "compromising" now is because both the communists and the anarchists (at least, the anarchists who know what they're talking about) have shown how stupid your positions are.

Miles

Morpheus

9th May 2006, 04:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:36 PM
The problem with such democratic military organisations is that when tried they have failed they simply didn't work. The Bolsheviks didn't suddenly decide that a military hierarchy was desirable; instead they found out the hard way that democratic military structures and war do not mix well. And the new Red Army performed considerably better than the one it replaced.
According to Trotsky, effectivness wasn't the main issue. Their objections were much deeper.

"So long as power was in the hands of the enemy class and the commanders were an instrument in the hands of that class, we had to endeavour, by means of the principle of election, to break the class resistance of the commanding personnel. But now political power is in the hands of that same working class from whose ranks the Army is recruited.

Given the present regime in the Army—I say this here quite openly -- the principle of election is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree.[14]

I ask you: has the principle of election been introduced everywhere among you, in the trade unions or in the co-operatives? No. Do you elect your officials, book-keepers, shop-assistants, and cashiers, do you elect those of your employees who have a strictly defined trade? No. You choose the administration of a trade union from among its most worthy and reliable activists, and to them you entrust the appointment of all the necessary employees and technical specialists. It should be the same in the Army. Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is, a system under which the government is headed by persons who have been directly elected by the Soviets of Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, there can be no antagonism between the government and the mass of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between the administration of the union and the general assembly of its members, and, therefore, there cannot be any grounds for fearing the appointment of members of the commanding staff by the organs of the Soviet power. The true solution of the problem of commanders lies in setting up courses of instruction for advanced soldiers and workers, and in this way gradually educating a new body of commanders in conformity with the spirit of the Soviet regime." - Leon Trotsky http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...18-mil/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1918-mil/ch05.htm)