Anarchism and Leninism

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:43 PM
its not so much purely anti leninist as it is bent on destroying any unity remaining on the left which is why it very well might be founded by such organisations to UNDERMINE the left.
What do you mean remaining...? There is and hasn't been any unity since the Russian revolution.

Anarchists and Leninists are fundamentally opposed to each other. There is no way that they can be reconcilled...ever!

Anarchism opposes Leninism and likewise.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 21 2006, 03:44 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 21 2006, 03:44 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:43 PM
its not so much purely anti leninist as it is bent on destroying any unity remaining on the left which is why it very well might be founded by such organisations to UNDERMINE the left.
What do you mean remaining...? There is and hasn't been any unity since the Russian revolution.

Anarchists and Leninists are fundamentally opposed to each other. There is no way that they can be reconcilled...ever!

Anarchism opposes Leninism and likewise. [/b]
:o

for fuck sake we have the SAME GOAL

COMMUNISM

Its just on getting there that we differ in any way.

And there has been some unity, anarchists and trots organising marches together, talks to go together to Genova that sadly broke down, but still.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:47 PM
for fuck sake we have the SAME GOAL

COMMUNISM
Do we? Anarchism means allot more than creating communism.


Its just on getting there that we differ in any way.

Those differences are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed. Any belief to the opposite is naive at best.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 21 2006, 03:53 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 21 2006, 03:53 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:47 PM
for fuck sake we have the SAME GOAL

COMMUNISM
Do we? Anarchism means allot more than creating communism.
[/b]
I was talking about the ultimate goal; free, stateless, classless society

aka communism


Those differences are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed. Any belief to the opposite is naive at best.

that what is seen as the biggest difference, the "vanguard", is that in anarchist groups the vanguard isnt official, just people with the loudest voice, and in trot groups its an elected council, recallable at any time

so there.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:01 PM

I was talking about the ultimate goal; free, stateless, classless society

aka communism
Yes, but there are other anarchist goals that anarchists want to achieve. Goals which leninists oppose.


that what is seen as the biggest difference, the "vanguard", is that in anarchist groups the vanguard isnt official, just people with the loudest voice, and in trot groups its an elected council, recallable at any time

The question of the state, of authority, of hierarchy, of the organisation of democracy are all issues which anarchists and leninists disagree on. It's not simply the vanguard which is the cause of contention.

[Enragé]

Yes, but there are other anarchist goals that anarchists want to achieve. Goals which leninists oppose.

such as?



The question of the state, of authority, of hierarchy, of the organisation of democracy are all issues which anarchists and leninists disagree on. It's not simply the vanguard which is the cause of contention.

The whole state thing is just if a state is necessary after the revolution; if its not, well then fuck it, any serious leninist would agree on that. The problem is that Leninists DO see it necessary and anarchists dont.
as for me? Dont know

authority is only accepted in (true) leninist circles if its based on a fully open democratic process

same goes for hierarchy

and the organisation of democracy is centralised because leninists feel that it is necessary to combat the forces of capitalism, and frankly, they've got a point.
Which is why i'll be joining a trot organisation, though i have no animosity to anarchists nor to their ideas.
Wanna see my blood splattered out on the pavement now?

bloody fucking hope not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:14 PM

Yes, but there are other anarchist goals that anarchists want to achieve. Goals which leninists oppose.

such as?
Structure and form.


The whole state thing is just if a state is necessary after the revolution; if its not, well then fuck it, any serious leninist would agree on that. The problem is that Leninists DO see it necessary and anarchists dont.

The aim of leninism is to maintain the state. This is not a negotiable area for them.


authority is only accepted in (true) leninist circles if its based on a fully open democratic process

same goes for hierarchy

And anarchists oppose authority and hierarchy full stop.


and the organisation of democracy is centralised because leninists feel that it is necessary to combat the forces of capitalism, and frankly, they've got a point.

Which is a fundamental point of disagreement right there. Centralised control is not democracy.

You cannot expect anarchists to accept this. We clearly will never do that.

[Enragé]

Structure and form.

Of the movement yes, not of the endgoal.

Which is without hierarchy, class, state etc for both leninism as well as anarchism


The aim of leninism is to maintain the state. This is not a negotiable area for them.

No its not

The aim of leninism is communism, and to defend the revolution a period of workersstate-ism (socialism).


And anarchists oppose authority and hierarchy full stop.

Which is what i'd be inclined to do as well

however, it sometimes is necessary during times in which we cannot just call a meeting and discuss it in full

"hey cops, hold on a second before smashing in our skulls, we have to discuss first what we're gonna do"
regardless
this is not what this discussion is about


Which is a fundamental point of disagreement right there. Centralised control is not democracy.

well maybe it isnt, try to convince leninists of that.

Point is, it might be necessary.
If you dont think it is, try to convince people that it isnt, instead of declaring war on your fellow comrades.


You cannot expect anarchists to accept this. We clearly will never do that.

Im not asking that they do
Im asking that they will co-operate with leninists towards their common goal, and discuss their differences, and not smash their heads in, or vice versa.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:30 PM

Structure and form.

Of the movement yes, not of the endgoal.

Which is without hierarchy, class, state etc for both leninism as well as anarchism
Leninists do not reject hierarchy or authority in a communist society.



The aim of leninism is to maintain the state. This is not a negotiable area for them.

No its not

The aim of leninism is communism, and to defend the revolution a period of workersstate-ism (socialism).

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It is an aim of leninism to establish and maintain a state. I'm not lieing to you.



And anarchists oppose authority and hierarchy full stop.

Which is what i'd be inclined to do as well

however, it sometimes is necessary during times in which we cannot just call a meeting and discuss it in full

And here lies the fundamental argument.

Authority is never necessary.


Im not asking that they do
Im asking that they will co-operate with leninists towards their common goal, and discuss their differences, and not smash their heads in, or vice versa.

What you fail to understand is that these differences can never be discussed and anarchists and leninists will never co-operate with each other. I'm sorry.

In my 10 year experience within the revolutionary left and with my understanding of history and theory I, like many others, accept that there is no theoretical, practical or tactical way we can ever co-operate.

[Enragé]

Leninists do not reject hierarchy or authority in a communist society.

Leninists i've been talking do, do so (trots).




You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It is an aim of leninism to establish and maintain a state. I'm not lieing to you.

Again, leninists (trots) i've been talking to, do not.


And here lies the fundamental argument.

Authority is never necessary.

What is wrong with electing a co-ordinator who makes swift decisions during protests so that shit doenst (or, in fact, does) get out of control?

You CANNOT have a meeting to discuss what to do when there is riot police storming at you.


What you fail to understand is that these differences can never be discussed and anarchists and leninists will never co-operate with each other. I'm sorry.

WHY?


In my 10 year experience within the revolutionary left and with my understanding of history and theory I, like many others, accept that there is no theoretical, practical or tactical way we can ever co-operate.

im sorry
but it appears to me
you're wrong

the fight for a better world (a better world on which we all agree, COMMUNISM) involves all those willing to fight for it.

If anything; not all leninists apparently are the way you think. So indiscriminately fighting them is wrong, or at the very least damn counterproductive.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:40 PM

Leninists do not reject hierarchy or authority in a communist society.

Leninists i've been talking do, do so (trots).


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It is an aim of leninism to establish and maintain a state. I'm not lieing to you.

Again, leninists (trots) i've been talking to, do not.


And here lies the fundamental argument.

Authority is never necessary.

What is wrong with electing a co-ordinator who makes swift decisions during protests so that shit doenst (or, in fact, does) get out of control?

You CANNOT have a meeting to discuss what to do when there is riot police storming at you.


What you fail to understand is that these differences can never be discussed and anarchists and leninists will never co-operate with each other. I'm sorry.

WHY?


In my 10 year experience within the revolutionary left and with my understanding of history and theory I, like many others, accept that there is no theoretical, practical or tactical way we can ever co-operate.

im sorry
but it appears to me
you're wrong

the fight for a better world (a better world on which we all agree, COMMUNISM) involves all those willing to fight for it.

If anything; not all leninists apparently are the way you think. So indiscriminately fighting them is wrong, or at the very least damn counterproductive.
This entire post precisely highlights my entire point about how Leninism and anarchism are irreconcilable.

Thank you.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 22 2006, 10:59 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 22 2006, 10:59 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 09:40 PM

Leninists do not reject hierarchy or authority in a communist society.

Leninists i've been talking do, do so (trots).


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It is an aim of leninism to establish and maintain a state. I'm not lieing to you.

Again, leninists (trots) i've been talking to, do not.


And here lies the fundamental argument.

Authority is never necessary.

What is wrong with electing a co-ordinator who makes swift decisions during protests so that shit doenst (or, in fact, does) get out of control?

You CANNOT have a meeting to discuss what to do when there is riot police storming at you.


What you fail to understand is that these differences can never be discussed and anarchists and leninists will never co-operate with each other. I'm sorry.

WHY?


In my 10 year experience within the revolutionary left and with my understanding of history and theory I, like many others, accept that there is no theoretical, practical or tactical way we can ever co-operate.

im sorry
but it appears to me
you're wrong

the fight for a better world (a better world on which we all agree, COMMUNISM) involves all those willing to fight for it.

If anything; not all leninists apparently are the way you think. So indiscriminately fighting them is wrong, or at the very least damn counterproductive.
This entire post precisely highlights my entire point about how Leninism and anarchism are irreconcilable.

Thank you. [/b]
then it leaves me no option but to conclude what most people tell me; anarchism is an immature, irrealist ideology for teenagers who want to be "cool"

you (as in singular) dont see basic realist necessities in order to survive

believe me
if the anarchist way is possible
sign me up

i just dont think it is, and you seem to offer no arguments to show that it is.

seeing as this topic isnt really about this, feel free to pm me if you have any arguments

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:14 PM
then it leaves me no option but to conclude what most people tell me; anarchism is an immature, irrealist ideology for teenagers who want to be "cool"
That of course is your perogative.


you (as in singular) dont see basic realist necessities in order to survive

What does that mean?


believe me
if the anarchist way is possible
sign me up

i just dont think it is, and you seem to offer no arguments to show that it is.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to my 7000 posts then.



seeing as this topic isnt really about this, feel free to pm me if you have any arguments

I don't really know what I'm supposed to be argueing about? But you're more than welcome to read my posts or any books by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman et al.

[Enragé]

What does that mean?

that you apparently dont see that you cant have a meeting when riot police is smashing your skulls in, someone (elected) who co-ordinates action at that point in time is necessary to make sure we survive




Obviously you haven't been paying attention to my 7000 posts then.

oh gosh sorry i didnt read them all


I don't really know what I'm supposed to be argueing about? But you're more than welcome to read my posts or any books by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman et al.

THat you cant discuss everything in full when riot police is smashing our skulls in, when czarists march down the street etc
and therefore in those times of crises need elected leaders/co-ordinators

[The Feral Underclass]

It usually helps to have co-ordinated actions before you get to a point where riot police are smashing your skull in.

I would hope that what ever action I am going on was planned down to the last detail and everyone knew what they were doing before I went out there. This would include detailed plans of what to do if things went wrong.

[Enragé]

true, but you cannot plan for everything nor can you in wartime expect what your enemy is going to do

I hate leaders too
and if they're not necessary
we should stay clear of them

but we should not be afraid to have some (elected, recallable), if they are necessary, if they can mean the perpetuation of the revolution, where in a situation without leaders, would mean our deahts


look, i consider myself trotskist most of the time
but i think you and I can agree on a lot, certainly in practice
so if we can, why not anarchists and leninists?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:43 PM
true, but you cannot plan for everything nor can you in wartime expect what your enemy is going to do

Well, I think you can: They're going to try and kill you. The objective of war is to kill people and take land.

In a battle situation it may be necessary to listen to someone with experience, but generally plans would have already been agreed on. If, for some reason those plans have to change that decision can be made collectively and at any time when that's not possible will be a time when the only thing that matters is stoppign yourself from being killed and killing your enemy.

For your information, during the Evian riots, it was organised so that a group of people would hang at the back of the demonstrations and act as a spoke council for the numerous groups there. If a decision had to be made, this spokes council would make it on behalf of their group. It worked well.


but we should not be afraid to have some (elected, recallable), if they are necessary, if they can mean the perpetuation of the revolution, where in a situation without leaders, would mean our deahts

Once you have elected leaders the revolution is over.



look, i consider myself trotskist most of the time
but i think you and I can agree on a lot, certainly in practice
so if we can, why not anarchists and leninists?

Because like I have already said, Leninism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed.

[Enragé]

In a battle situation it may be necessary to listen to someone with experience, but generally plans would have already been agreed on. If, for some reason those plans have to change that decision can be made collectively and at any time when that's not possible will be a time when the only thing that matters is stoppign yourself from being killed and killing your enemy.

This is so in small groups, in small to medium-sized area

If you're talking anything more than citywide
you're going to have problems getting everyone together to decide on strategic plans, it'll take time, and the time it takes could mean your death...cuz face it; the enemy with one leader is way more effective.

Im not saying effective = good, it doesnt, it can be murderous; but thats what war is about; being murderous



For your information, during the Evian riots, it was organised so that a group of people would hang at the back of the demonstrations and act as a spoke council for the numerous groups there. If a decision had to be made, this spokes council would make it on behalf of their group. It worked well.
[emphasis added]

Err yes and that group of people was elected i hope.
And they made the decisions.

thats all im saying is necessary


Once you have elected leaders the revolution is over.

You just did during the evan riots

look lets not call them leaders, i despise that word myself
representatives/co-ordinators


Because like I have already said, Leninism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed.


During the Evan riots
apparently not

thank you for giving that example





just read LSD's post
dont know if this includes what i said
anyway pm me if you want to respond

[Nachie]

oooo looks like somebody stirred up a hornet's nest on the CC! :lol:

[anomaly]

Ah, hellz yea, Nachie!

This pretty much sums up the entire point of this now split thread:

Originally posted by TAT
Because like I have already said, Leninism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed.
Leninists want hierarchy, anarchists don't.

Check and mate, lads.

[More Fire for the People]

Leninists want hierarchy, anarchists don't.
*Leninists want revolution, anarchists don't. I doubt whether anarchists and Marxists could work togethor in the long term. Perhaps in a mass demonstration, like that of the CPE riots, we could work togethor but the fundamental contradiction between Leninism and anarchism, i.e. historical materialism, leaves the anarchits in historical dust. In every instance anarchists 'revolutions' have failed within a few days, and in combined revolutions the masses inevitably side with the Marxists.

[Nachie]

I call bullshit.

In revolutions the masses don't "side" with the anarchists OR the Marxists - they side with their own damn selves and push forward the communist tendency in whatever direction and at whatever pace works for them at the individual, regional, and rank-and-file level, using their own vocabularies along the way. The main thrust of Leninism is to formalize and absorb this beautiful and spontaneous rupture into a standardized, authorized and controlable vertical structure simply for the sake of being able to "declare" socialism as a point in time.

And that is quite literally all I have to say on this matter. I am a member of RAAN because I don't care what Leninists have to say and it is only through organizing ourselves to their utmost exclusion that we can get along with our work in peace.

FUCK THE LENINISTS and if I get banned or restricted for saying that, it'll be by a bunch of irrelevant Lennies and I'll be happier anyway.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Nachie
I am a member of RAAN because I don't care what Leninists have to say and it is only through organizing ourselves to their utmost exclusion that we can get along with our work in peace.

Ah shameless self-promotion.

You kids shouldn't play so rough.

[Nachie]

Ah shameless self-promotion.
And why not? I fuckin' represent my crew.

Besides, it's no big secret that on at least 4 public threads and 2 splits from CC, revlefters are now embroiled in a serious debate on the very nature of Leninism. I haven't been on this site long enough to know if this is regular fare, but I'm guessing it's not and I'm further guessing that RAAN was the immediate cause, meaning we're way past the point of needing self-promotion.


You kids shouldn't play so rough.
Sorry, I forgot that the only acceptable tactics were behind-the-scenes intrigues via the CC.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:03 PM
And why not? I fuckin' represent my crew.


Yo home dog, orange slice. Kick dee can to dee kurb.


Besides, it's no big secret that on at least 4 public threads and 2 splits from CC, revlefters are now embroiled in a serious debate on the very nature of Leninism. I haven't been on this site long enough to know if this is regular fare, but I'm guessing it's not and I'm further guessing that RAAN was the immediate cause, meaning we're way past the point of needing self-promotion.

RAAN has brough the revelation in anti-Leninism, oh how the light of truth glows effervescenlty!

A bit egocentric aren't ya there. Not is there even a mention of RAAN in this thread, but if you look on page 2 on this board you'll probably see some anti-Leninist topics.


Sorry, I forgot that the only acceptable tactics were behind-the-scenes intrigues via the CC.

With your tactics we could have a circus clown act tinged with terrorism.

Now about Leninism, I think any strict "ism" after Marxism or Communism is a bit too rigid when it comes into reality with the masses, or its just either a tactic.

I doubt having a one-party defacto state that never changes is a goal of the Leninists.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:28 PM
I am a member of RAAN because I don't care what Leninists have to say and it is only through organizing ourselves to their utmost exclusion that we can get along with our work in peace.
Seeing as the RAAN apparently advocates(unless anomaly's sig actually isn't from their website) the foul murder of Leninists through "hunting [us] at [our] conferences", the outsider might be inclined to think that you care "quite" a bit more than you'd like to admit.

Edit: replaced "them" and "theirs" with "us" and "ours". I guess that makes me a marked man. :ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nachie
FUCK THE LENINISTS

And how many times have I seen that on indymedia sites? :lol:

But it doesn't help much in an environment like this board. The idea here is not to see who can be "the most hostile" but rather who can be the most rational and clear-headed.

Who can, for example, take apart a Leninist position and show why it's idealist, a-historical, or just plain wrong.

Admittedly, I can't see why any anarchist with a memory would want to "work with" any professed Leninist group...it's a little too much to expect from people to give their potential executioners "a helping hand". :lol:

Some Leninist groups have, from time to time, been "willing to work with" anarchists, at least temporarily.

This has nothing to do with "not being sectarian". :lol:

My impression is that this is because Leninists think they are "a lot smarter" than anarchists and can "use them" as "useful idiots"...until such time as they are no longer useful, of course.

There will be times, I expect, when Leninists and anarchists will find themselves in the same room...that's full of people who are not committed to either perspective.

The Leninists will be trying very hard to get the people in that room to "put them in charge"...and anarchists must be prepared not only to block that maneuver but to explain why "putting someone in charge" is not a "real good idea".

It won't be enough to yell "FUCK THE LENINISTS"...in fact, that will likely be counter-productive.

It may "be fun" but it will probably lose the vote.

Instead, anarchists in this context must be prepared to be "the voice of reason"...explaining to people the underlying appeal of "putting someone in charge" -- it's an idea that accords with the expectations of class society.

There've been many posts on this board over the years that "we need a charismatic leader"...because many people can't imagine what a revolutionary alternative would really look like.

Anarchists need to "paint that picture"...a more compelling vision of the future than just swapping bosses.

And, to be sure, not easily done.

There are some tactical measures that can be taken.

1. Make sure that "leading positions" in a group are limited to specific functions...no "grand leader of everything" kind of position should be established if you can block that.

2. Ask every candidate for any kind of leading position if they are a member of some vanguard party or "pre-party formation"...and vote as a block for people who are not. If you catch someone lying, flail them mercilessly.

What strikes me when reading histories of the Russian Revolution written from an anarchist perspective is how naive the Russian anarchists were in their dealings with the Bolsheviks. They frequently accepted Bolshevik promises "at face value"...without ever really questioning what those guys were really up to until it was too late. :o

That's a mistake that can be corrected.

Now, the question has come up about anarchists engaging in "pre-emptive" physical violence against Leninists.

Like all kinds of violence outside of immediate self-defense, you have to ask yourselves the question: what message are you sending?

For example, if you break the windows of a major corporation, you are sending a message that a huge number of people are sympathetic to...in the U.S., possibly nearly 80% of the adult population. :D

When some anarchists surrounded some right-wing "counter-demonstrators" at an anti-war march in Washington, D.C., and kicked their asses...the bourgeois liberals squawked but I'm not aware than anyone else did. :)

What of the Leninists? Suppose anarchists "packed" a public meeting called by a Leninist group and heckled their featured speakers off the platform?

I can't see anything wrong with that.

People who "believe" in the mystical concept of "free speech" will be very upset; but it wouldn't bother me.

What of actual physical violence? Would it be "ok" for anarchists to plot and execute a scheme to ambush and beat up "some fucking Leninists"?

I would suggest that this idea be kept "on the back burner" until such time as you could make a convincing case for justified retaliation.

If you are perceived as "striking the first blow", then you will be perceived as "thugs" and even "terrorists".

No one is likely to accept the "excuse" that you are "making up" for Kronstadt or Barcelona. You need a "smoking gun"...an actual violent attack on anarchists by a Leninist group yesterday.

Remember that for almost everyone, the "left" is just one big "blob"...so when you want people to learn to make meaningful distinctions, then you want to be sure to look like "the good guys" and not "the bad guys".

The Bolsheviks in Russia managed to make themselves "look like the good guys"...so it's important not to let them pull that off again.

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Matthijs+--> (Matthijs)Seeing as the RAAN apparently advocates(unless anomaly's sig actually isn't from their website) the foul murder of Leninists through "hunting [us] at [our] conferences", the outsider might be inclined to think that you care "quite" a bit more than you'd like to admit.[/b]
:lol:

Well, that's certainly an interesting interpretation.

But I think 'hunting them at their conferences' means closer to what RS2K described: going there and booing the great leaders off the floor, or discrediting them and/or otherise disturbing the nice Lennie sit-down.

However, I encourage you to keep dreaming. :lol:


NewKindOfSoldier
anarchism is an immature, irrealist ideology for teenagers who want to be "cool"
It is worth noting that I hear this from capitalists all the time.

Of course, coming from them I consider it a compliment. No sense in taking it any different when it comes from a Lennie. :D

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Apr 22 2006, 08:17 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Apr 22 2006, 08:17 PM)
Leninists want hierarchy, anarchists don't.
*Leninists want revolution, anarchists don't. I doubt whether anarchists and Marxists could work togethor in the long term. Perhaps in a mass demonstration, like that of the CPE riots, we could work togethor but the fundamental contradiction between Leninism and anarchism, i.e. historical materialism, leaves the anarchits in historical dust. In every instance anarchists 'revolutions' have failed within a few days, and in combined revolutions the masses inevitably side with the Marxists. [/b]
Anarchists don't want revolution? What shit are you smokin'. If any ideology is completely in a state of revolt against authority, it's anarchism. That Leninists want authority and hierarchy are just examples of natural class struggle, with lower classes wanting to replace the upper echelon no matter how they justify it. Any hierarchy is bound to lead to subversion, it's the very nature of it.


[email protected] Apr 22 2006, 01:14 PM
then it leaves me no option but to conclude what most people tell me; anarchism is an immature, irrealist ideology for teenagers who want to be "cool"
I'll tell you straight off that I'm a teenager but I find in anarchism more philosophical backing and spirit than the watered down bureaucracy of Leninism, not because I think grafitting circled A's is "cool". And of course fighting for an ideal society is "immature", and that we bother to hope that such a society is possible makes us "irrealists".

[Jesus Christ!]

Redstar, I always got the feeling that you were a lenninist yourself from your defense of Stalin and Bolveiks.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:47 PM
But I think 'hunting them at their conferences' means closer to what RS2K described: going there and booing the great leaders off the floor, or discrediting them and/or otherise disturbing the nice Lennie sit-down.

However, I encourage you to keep dreaming. :lol:

oh changing what it explicity states, so you can keep on board here?

it says what it says, dont go off pulling that hidden meaning card, or that it was an exaggeration to get the point across. what was said was said. you can either back up what it states and be a RAANer or dont.


hunting them at their conferences is quite heated language, either rethink it, or get the hell outta here


as blunt as that sounds, we dont need any more sectarian reactionaries running around

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LoneRed
as blunt as that sounds, we dont need any more sectarian reactionaries running around
What is the definition of irony?

I interpret the quote as going and fucking up their conferences. If you choose to interpret as 'murder all Leninists', then I think I know of a good therapist for you.

[LoneRed]

can what i have in my sig be any more clear? NO! beating them in the streets?

its quite obvious where you stand

[kurt]

Originally posted by "M-L"
That's right, Lenin wasn't a horny adolescent moron, he didn't advocate physical violence against other people who were fighting to overthrow the state, because it's fucking moronic. Instead he used you to achieve his aims.

Ok, that might be "cold", that might be "treacherous", but it sure as hell is smart and logical. That's what real anarchists do too, they use other leftist revolutionaries to create and play an active part in the revolution, and then when they have enough mass support they will get rid of us. Too bad that we always had mass support instead of you.

That's basically what this all comes down too, the anarchist movement is becoming more and more authoritarian, they are radicalizing because they've been on a losing streak for the past few centuries.

Go ahead, you'll just end up being used again. No wonder Lenin referred to you as petty-bourgeois individualists turned inside out.
-emphasis mine

How can you honestly have the fortitude to ***** and moan about anarchists taking a militant stand against leninists when you spew this shit? You just want to "use" anarchists like you did in the Russian revolution, then when you're done with them, off to the gulags no doubt!


The masses, the workers, the proletariat will be the judge of who will lead the revolution post-revolution, and it just so happens to be that it were mostly Leninists, deal with it!
Why don't they lead themselves? Isn't in the plan?


he fundamental contradiction between Leninism and anarchism, i.e. historical materialism, leaves the anarchits in historical dust. In every instance anarchists 'revolutions' have failed within a few days, and in combined revolutions the masses inevitably side with the Marxists.
How's Russia doing these days?

[More Fire for the People]

How's Russia doing these days?
It used to be better, as all deformed workers' states use to be better.

[вор в законе]

Ah the usual squabble between the Communists and the Anarchists.

The vendetta between Marx and Bakunin is still haunting us.

[LoneRed]

"How can you honestly have the fortitude to ***** and moan"

uh oh, somebody call the anarchists... so they can whine even more

[kurt]

That was.. constructive.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@Apr 22 2006, 05:11 PM
Redstar, I always got the feeling that you were a Leninist yourself from your defense of Stalin and Bolsheviks.
I had a good excuse. :P

Back in the 60s it was widely agreed that some form of Leninism was the serious revolutionary option...one had only to "look around" and it looked like the Leninists were right.

One could "see" the "socialist transition" with one's own eyes; not only did I go to Cuba myself but I met people who'd not only spent substantial time in eastern Europe but had even been to China and North Vietnam.

It was the "crack-up" of SDS in 1969 that provoked me to begin to question the Leninist paradigm. To try to figure out what went wrong, I ordered and read all of Lenin's Collected Works written after 1917.

I discovered Lenin the Autocrat...quite a shocking disparity with Lenin "the revolutionary". The more I read, the worse it got. By 1922, Lenin sounds like a bourgeois politician hustling for bribes ("foreign direct investment")...except when he was talking to communists in other countries -- when he condemns them for chronic "ultra-leftism".

Then you had things like the Mao-Nixon talks...which were sort of like as if Stalin had signed a treaty with Hitler in 1942! How did the "great revolutionary dream" turn to shit?

Unlike many of my generation, who decided that capitalism "wasn't so bad after all" (:angry:), I started looking around for "something real" in the way of revolutionary theory. Since there was no really coherent opposition to Leninism visible, I "cherry-picked" from whatever critiques I could locate...for example, a very obscure book entitled Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky penned by some "malcontent" back in 1939 that I discovered in a used book store. :lol:

I had a "gut feeling" that there would come a time when it would be possible to develop a revolutionary theory in opposition to the Leninist paradigm. In those pre-internet days (seems almost medieval to think about them), I was totally unaware of autonomist movements on Italy and other European countries. I did read some stuff from the Situationists (which didn't start appearing in English until the early 70s) and some stuff from the Socialism or Barbarism group in France.

You can find traces of this and other sources on my site; I just "put stuff together" on the grounds of whether or not it made sense.

I became, in the eyes of my critics, a "vulgar American pragmatist"...testing every hypothesis (as much as I could) by whether or not it "worked".

And I likewise became skeptical of all the old "traditional labels"...none of them really "fitted" my own views. I got a letter once from a council communist denouncing my "shameless eclecticism". :lol:

Even now, whenever I see Stalin and the Bolsheviks accused unjustly, I will rise to their defense...though I'm not very enthusiastic about the task.

History is not determined by "great villains" but by much more important material causes.

Indeed, much of the "debate" among Leninists themselves consists of "whose fault was it" that everything turned to shit. It reflects their fundamental idealism that comes from Lenin himself. There are "good subjective forces" and "bad subjective forces" and history is "determined" by the outcome of their struggle.

Utter nonsense!

I hope that clarifies matters. :P

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

[KC]

If you really want to prove that Lenin wasn't a Marxist then what you would do would be to write a well-researched, well-sourced research paper on the subject instead of pasting your rants onto a website.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:00 AM
If you really want to prove that Lenin wasn't a Marxist then what you would do would be to write a well-researched, well-sourced research paper on the subject instead of pasting your rants onto a website.
If he wanted to get his message out to stuffy academics, that's a good idea. If he wants to reach the rank-and-file then this is probably a better forum (teehe) for his rants.

[KC]

If he wanted to get his message out to stuffy academics, that's a good idea. If he wants to reach the rank-and-file then this is probably a better forum (teehe) for his rants.


Ranting without substantially backing up your claims is hardly "reach[ing] the rank-and-file".

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:00 AM
If you really want to prove that Lenin wasn't a Marxist then what you would do would be to write a well-researched, well-sourced research paper on the subject instead of pasting your rants onto a website.
And who would read this. I would be much less likely to read his work if it was a research paper. I'm sure he could site plenty of sources if pressed but just chooses not to put a biblography at the end of everyone of his posts.

Redstar.. feel free to not answer but how old are you?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:00 AM
If you really want to prove that Lenin wasn't a Marxist then what you would do would be to write a well-researched, well-sourced research paper on the subject instead of pasting your rants onto a website.
What would that accomplish?

It's not going to get me awarded an "honorary Ph.D." from some prestigious university, is it? :lol:

And it wouldn't convince Chairman Bob or Chairman Ted, right? :lol:

So what would be the point?

I think you do me considerable injustice to characterize my posts as "rants"...I have frequently quoted Lenin himself as well as most if not all of his most prominent disciples at one time or another.

And I offer what I think are logical and coherent arguments for the positions I take.

Granted, you may not appreciate my approach to political questions: to write about them in "ordinary" language that most people can understand.

Scholars will doubtless find much to criticize and I don't ever expect to appear in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" professional academic journal.

The thing about the internet is that it's "a whole new ballgame"...where ordinary people "take the field" and interactively learn stuff that was once confined to an "educated elite".

Remember Lenin's "educated representatives of the propertied classes"?

That's obsolete! ;)


Redstar.. feel free to not answer but how old are you?

64. :(

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

[KC]

Originally posted by Redstar2000

What would that accomplish?


It would accomplish potentially winning more people to "your side".



I think you do me considerable injustice to characterize my posts as "rants"...

Good.



Granted, you may not appreciate my approach to political questions: to write about them in "ordinary" language that most people can understand.

Most of your rants are ad hominems, careful evasions of the actual topic at hand or ranting. When I quoted McLellan, what did you do? Ad hominem. Was anything that I quoted false? No. Yet for reasons beyond me you chose to attack McLellan's person instead of what he said. When Axel posted a quote from one of Ted Grant's books that was an actual contribution to the discussion at hand, what did you do? You attacked Grant's person. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even read what Axel quoted. What the hell is that supposed to accomplish?

[redstar2000]

McLellan thinks highly of "spirituality". Grant thinks highly of...um, Grant, I guess.

Do you expect me to be "impressed" with the "quality" of these "authorities"?

If you (or others) choose to argue "from authority", why then should you be "outraged" that I attack the "prestige" of your "authorities"?

I really don't care if you think that's ad hominem...since it was you that brought them forward in the first place.

If you or someone else is unable to argue for your position, well, that's not my fault. But when you start pulling in guys "off the street" to support you, well, what do you expect?

That we should all just "flop on our bellies"? :o

If Professor McLellan or Chairman Ted want to register as members of this board and "refute me", well, fine. I'll be happy to "accommodate" them.

Otherwise, I'm not really interested in what people like that have to say. I have no reason to regard their opinions as worth listening to.

Life is short and opinions are many...it is in our own self-interest to concentrate on the opinions that we find interesting.

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

[KC]

So I guess from now on people should post quotes without who said them so then you are forced to actually look at what they're presenting. I'll have to remember that for future posts! :lol:



If you (or others) choose to argue "from authority", why then should you be "outraged" that I attack the "prestige" of your "authorities"?


It's not "arguing from authority" genius, it's providing facts and sourcing them; something you don't have much experience with.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:47 PM
:lol:

Well, that's certainly an interesting interpretation.

But I think 'hunting them at their conferences' means closer to what RS2K described: going there and booing the great leaders off the floor, or discrediting them and/or otherise disturbing the nice Lennie sit-down.

However, I encourage you to keep dreaming. :lol:
It is indeed open to interpretation. You choose to make it look as friendly as possible: "We'll just boo you off the stage." However, one could certainly think of "hunt" as in "witch hunt" or "manhunt" or whatever you like. The actual meaning of "hunt" in this context isn't clear, but rather the idea of "hunting Leninists" like animals pre-emptively is not exactly constructive. But whatever you're going to try to do, no matter if you're going to merely heckle our conferences or butcher us like beasts, you certainly won't get away with it. :lol:


can what i have in my sig be any more clear? NO! beating them in the streets?

its quite obvious where you stand
Indeed. Again, interpretation isn't even the point. In the end, RAAN simply ends up advocating the hunting of Leninists at their conferences. Nuff said.


Redstar, I always got the feeling that you were a lenninist yourself from your defense of Stalin and Bolveiks.
Because he, at least, has some sort of integrity on these matters. Unlike many "anti-authoritarians" here, he doesn't fall for exactly the same kind of historical idealism that you guys accuse us of.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 22 2006, 09:47 PM--> (anomaly @ Apr 22 2006, 09:47 PM)


NewKindOfSoldier
anarchism is an immature, irrealist ideology for teenagers who want to be "cool"
It is worth noting that I hear this from capitalists all the time.

Of course, coming from them I consider it a compliment. No sense in taking it any different when it comes from a Lennie. :D [/b]
I said people fucking tell me that, not that i agreed.
But without any real arguments coming from anarchists i see no reason to believe that isnt true

Look i hate leaders too, but electing representatives, recallable at any time, is sometimes necessary, to make things go more smoothly

And im not a leninist, not in the way you mean it.
I am not authoritarian, i despise leaders, i would rather have no socialist period etc


I'll tell you straight off that I'm a teenager but I find in anarchism more philosophical backing and spirit than the watered down bureaucracy of Leninism, not because I think grafitting circled A's is "cool". And of course fighting for an ideal society is "immature", and that we bother to hope that such a society is possible makes us "irrealists".

Dude im all for it, lets fight together for it. Fuck bureaucracy

but dont throw a fit when somebody comes up with the idea to elect some sort of representative, or in times of crises a group of co-ordinators, which can be recalled.

Ok
thats what i meant by irrealist, sometimes thats necessary, and that doesnt bloody equate dictatorship; why would it?
The moment it would degenerate into dictatorship you can count on me to help you fucking wiping them all out
(oh and im a teenager too)


FUCK THE LENINISTS

oh real good
great criticism
constructive too

immature fuck

there's alot to be said why leninism is wrong and anarchism is right (regardless if its true or not)

that wasnt it

Leninism has its problems, a shitload, authoritarian tendencies are rampant
Anarchism is too dogmatic in its refusal to any representation, any limited hierarchy, even when that hierarchy can be undone in the blink of an eye.

You cannot have hundreds of thousands, or millions, gathering, and making decisions without empowering a group of people to deliver the will of that section of the people they are representing.

Apparently anarchist did this too; at the Evan riots.

Also
if you dont elect, controll, any kind of representation you have you run the risk of getting an unofficial, and thus uncontrolled leadership of simply those who shout the loudest


hunting them at their conferences is quite heated language, either rethink it, or get the hell outta here

as blunt as that sounds, we dont need any more sectarian reactionaries running around

Exactly
this weakens the movement as a whole



How can you honestly have the fortitude to ***** and moan about anarchists taking a militant stand against leninists when you spew this shit? You just want to "use" anarchists like you did in the Russian revolution, then when you're done with them, off to the gulags no doubt!

I dont

Would anyone try to send anarchists, whom i consider comrades, to the gulags i'd bloody side with the anarchists and shoot the bastard.


Why don't they lead themselves? Isn't in the plan?


I agree

people who claim this is not so are stalinist/maoist fucks


Ah the usual squabble between the Communists and the Anarchists.

The vendetta between Marx and Bakunin is still haunting us.

sadly yes


64.

really? :o

i always guessed around 45

anyway good to see not all less-young ( ;) ) people sold out


lets unite

[anomaly]

Originally posted by matthijs+--> (matthijs)But whatever you're going to try to do, no matter if you're going to merely heckle our conferences or butcher us like beasts, you certainly won't get away with it.[/b]
Perhaps it would be easier to say that Leninism is already a dying ideology. Anarchists merely want to help it along. :D


NewKindOfSoldier
But without any real arguments coming from anarchists i see no reason to believe that isnt true
TAT recently got the same criticism. His reply? "Read my 7000 posts". Now, I don't have as many posts as he does, but even still, I have been arguing for anarchism for some time now.


Look i hate leaders too, but electing representatives, recallable at any time, is sometimes necessary, to make things go more smoothly
I've often spoken in approval of demarchy--a representative system, but with no voting. It seems fairer than the popularity contest which involves 'professional politicians'. RS2K has an article about it on his site, if you're interested.

Demarchy, I think, assures that any 'representatives' are subordinate to the people.

So it's a possibility. Myself, I much prefer direct democracy. :)

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:41 PM

I'll tell you straight off that I'm a teenager but I find in anarchism more philosophical backing and spirit than the watered down bureaucracy of Leninism, not because I think grafitting circled A's is "cool". And of course fighting for an ideal society is "immature", and that we bother to hope that such a society is possible makes us "irrealists".

Dude im all for it, lets fight together for it. Fuck bureaucracy

but dont throw a fit when somebody comes up with the idea to elect some sort of representative, or in times of crises a group of co-ordinators, which can be recalled.

Ok
thats what i meant by irrealist, sometimes thats necessary, and that doesnt bloody equate dictatorship; why would it?
The moment it would degenerate into dictatorship you can count on me to help you fucking wiping them all out
(oh and im a teenager too)
I'm happy with representitives being chosen directly by democracy, if people say you can represent me then who's to say they can't say that? I don't believe in authoritarian rule but I can find much common ground with what you mean.

[Enragé]

I've often spoken in approval of demarchy--a representative system, but with no voting

how would that work


RS2K has an article about it on his site, if you're interested.

I am :)
where is it



So it's a possibility. Myself, I much prefer direct democracy.

So do I, so does any serious revolutionary leftist
its just that that isnt always possible ;)


I'm happy with representitives being chosen directly by democracy

which is trotskism where i come from :)


I don't believe in authoritarian rule

neither do i, neither do i

i despise it

I once asked a trot (and ex-anarchist) what if their elected representatives would start telling them to do things they dont want (the trot in question is a member of an organisation with a whole council of sorts in charge of day to day affairs)
he responded
"we wont do it, we wont let them, we didnt become revolutionaries to get bossed around"

[anomaly]

where is it
It says demarchy and a new communist movement or some shit. Over on the right side.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:50 PM

where is it
It says demarchy and a new communist movement or some shit. Over on the right side.
hmm i like it

still want to hunt me at my conferences and burn my newspapers?

[anomaly]

Ha. Well, I'm not so sure you're actually a Leninist. I haven't heard much about the Vanguard Party to lead the proletariat from you.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:12 PM
Ha. Well, I'm not so sure you're actually a Leninist. I haven't heard much about the Vanguard Party to lead the proletariat from you.
well about the vanguard

the vanguard is a natural thing; there are always those who see sooner that (revolutionary) change is necessary, those one step in front of the crowd, those who are the front line in the fight.
That vanguard is me, you, and any other true revolutionary leftie
naturally this vanguard organises, and attempts to convince the masses that change is necessary (which is what happens when we spread newspapers, go to marches, distribute pamphlets)

The problem only arises when this vanguard begins to lead the masses in any way more than just "lighting the way", that is to say, that they begin to command the masses. This should never happen, and would be the death of the movement.


Most of the times when i think about it i end up with trotskism, but i lean towards anarchosyndicalism as well. Just not dogmatic about it; we have to keep focused on our common goal; freedom, justice, equality. And we have to get there in any way possible without fucking over these ideals

Electing people to control the day to day stuff of an organisation which not all members have the time for, i see nothing wrong with that. As long as those people are recallable, thus preventing them from taking over the organisation.

Good things can be said about democratic centralism, and it might be necessary since our enemy, the state, has a ruthless efficiency, which we do not possess.
However i realise democratic centralism can get out of hand, and democratic should therefore always remain the keyword, not centralism

[LoneRed]

yep your definitley going to get accused of being a leninist now

[anomaly]

Quite the contrary. NewKindOfSoldier has shown himself to be very open about smashing the state. Essentially, if it can be done, he said he supports it.

In my view, he is an anarchist in Leninist clothing. :lol:

Perhaps that is why his member title is 'Leninist anarchist'. ;)

[LoneRed]

wow leninist anarchist, im literally speechless, direct contradiction of viewpoints, how great...

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:09 AM
Quite the contrary. NewKindOfSoldier has shown himself to be very open about smashing the state. Essentially, if it can be done, he said he supports it.

In my view, he is an anarchist in Leninist clothing. :lol:

Perhaps that is why his member title is 'Leninist anarchist'. ;)
:lol:

you're actually the first to get it :)



wow leninist anarchist, im literally speechless, direct contradiction of viewpoints, how great...

Dude, our goal is stateless; so smashing the state once and for all the first instant it is truly possible, is one step closer to that goal

I just dont know exactly if its going to be possible, probably not i think but who am i, i cant see the future

We'll see, and i know that might sound weak, but we should all be open to both options, and most interested in the "anarchist option" if this is in any way possible since it gets us to our goal the fastest.

[KC]

Dude, our goal is stateless; so smashing the state...

How are you "Leninist" at all? You're anarchist and nothing more.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:10 PM


Dude, our goal is stateless; so smashing the state...

How are you "Leninist" at all? You're anarchist and nothing more.
i think democratic centralism is necessary in order to maintain unity within the movement

unity in action

also
i have nothing against a workersstate if it keeps us alive

[anomaly]

Well, we disagree about democratic centralism. But, that's expected.

Oh, and don't mind the closet Leninist up there.

[Janus]

Dude, our goal is stateless; so smashing the state once and for all the first instant it is truly possible, is one step closer to that goal
That generally is the goal among communists though "smashing the state" is mainly preferred by the anarchists and I can definitely see where they're coming from. History has shown us what has developed due to centralization and we would be stupid to ignore the mistakes of the past.

[DarkTravesty]

Anarchists and Leninists are fundamentally opposed to each other. There is no way that they can be reconcilled...ever!

Statements like this sadden me... Though I have ideological differences with anarchists, I treat them as comrades whenever I can. I know this sounds very preachy/idealist, but we need to stick together. We can work out our differences later, let us concentrate on progress now.

Btw, I am a Leninist-Trotskyist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
I think democratic centralism is necessary in order to maintain unity within the movement.

Whips & Chains; the Meaning of "Democratic" Centralism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083204465&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:29 AM

Anarchists and Leninists are fundamentally opposed to each other. There is no way that they can be reconcilled...ever!

Statements like this sadden me...
You'll just have to get over it I'm afraid.


Though I have ideological differences with anarchists, I treat them as comrades whenever I can.

That maybe the case, but your leadership have very different ideas and after all, it's those guyes that really count.


I know this sounds very preachy/idealist, but we need to stick together. We can work out our differences later

It's very common for people to say, especially people new to the left, that we should "stick together" and "work things out" as if this was a new and untested formula.

Anarchists did stick by Leninists in 1917 and we did try and "work things out". The results were the systematic imprisonment and subsequent execution of anarchists and the destruction of the anarchist movement. Again in 1949, 1956, 1959 and it's happening right now in Venezuela.

Regardless of those historical nasties, the fact remains that if you seriously analyse and compare the theories of anarchism and Leninism you will see that there literally is no way that we can "work things out" even if we wanted to.

It would require massive compromise by one side on fundamentally key ideas and that is never going to happen.

Like it or not, it's simply reality.


let us concentrate on progress now.

Progress requires moving on, not reusing the past. Leninism doesn't work.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:30 AM

Dude, our goal is stateless; so smashing the state once and for all the first instant it is truly possible, is one step closer to that goal
That generally is the goal among communists though "smashing the state" is mainly preferred by the anarchists and I can definitely see where they're coming from. History has shown us what has developed due to centralization and we would be stupid to ignore the mistakes of the past.
Even Lenin ironically said: "When there is a state there is no freedom, when there is freedom there is not state."

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by TAT
Progress requires moving on, not reusing the past. Leninism doesn't work.

By the same logic neither does anarchism.

First of all it's intellectually lazy to claim a certain theory is a "dead-end" if that theory hasn't been put to practice more than once (and the one time that it was put to practice it was put into practice in a degenerated form).

Wether you like it or not, Leninism was only put to practice once, and it was done by Lenin himself. It actually was working while it was put to practice by Lenin himself, and even a few years after he passed away it was still working...but then it degenerated. Only utter fools can claim with a straight face that "Stalinist USSR" was the same as "Lenin's USSR". And only utter fools can claim that the one is inevitably linked to the other.

Marxists, the intellectually not lazy, do no such thing. They see the differences between the two, they analyze the differences, and they come to logical conclusions from that analysis. The logical conclusion is that Lenin was right, but also wrong at the same time. His type of state degenerated, which means that he basically was wrong. But when you read his earlier works, you see that he supported other types of states as well, that he actually advocated a completely other type of state in 1917...but he made the wrong decision in the end.

Criticize him for it, read his earlier works on the state, and come to logical conclusions from it, don't be a defeatist like mister anarchist over there.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:24 PM
Well, we disagree about democratic centralism. But, that's expected.


yea ;)

i get the whole opposition of people against it, but as long as its democratic i dont see too much wrong with it.

As the CL puts it;
Once a full democratic discussion has taken place and a vote has been taken, it is time for the party to act. Unity, specifically the power of a united party in action, is the necessary compliment to democratic discussion. Unity in action allows for the party membership as a whole to test the validity of the decisions it has made. This works to the advantage of both sides in a dispute. It allows both the majority and the minority in any dispute to be proven correct, without any equivocation that can be raised due to partial or inadequate participation. Minorities seek to become majorities, and have the unalienable right to do so. Unity in action allows those minorities the opportunity to say, based on the experience of actually carrying out the above stated decision, that they were correct or incorrect.


Whips & Chains; the Meaning of "Democratic" Centralism


The purpose of criticism of the party line, of the leadership, etc. is to effect a change. How does this take place?

By gaining a majority for that change through discussion, and then voting to change it.

pretty obvious really.


If you really want to be a part of the excitement of "democratic centralism", you have to do what my example did: write up a really thoughtful critique of the party's line and circulate it to the membership (or as many as you can reach). Do this a couple of months before the party congress. Include a draft resolution to change the party's line.

And then enjoy the fireworks.

If there are any "fireworks" then its not DEMOCRATIC centralism, then its just centralism, authoritarianism and should be fought to the death.

What happened to the workers opposition in the bolshevik party; insane.
and not what democratic centralism is about.


But what if the "commander-in-chief" blunders? Or worse, what if he's a fuck-up?

You recall him, you depose him. Also i would be against one commander in chief, a group is better, and even then i wouldnt call them commanders, they'd be more like representatives/co-ordinators (yes you can say those are euphemisms, but you used the term commander to generate the in your eyes necessary effect too).


Also
in my opinion
democratic centralism is to be abolished as soon as possible, same goes for the state and other remotely hierarchic entity


That maybe the case, but your leadership have very different ideas and after all, it's those guyes that really count.

A leadership means shit without their followers actually following them.

I would never advocate talking to shits like avakian, or working together with him, you wont accomplish shit; RCP members however..maybe for some there is "hope". Even if you want to stay so vehemently anti-leninist, at least realise that most members arent authoritarian as you might consider their "leaders" to be.

Any serious leninist party/organisation btw has no one leader, nor a set group of people who always "lead". It differs from time to time, everybody can get in it, and those people can be recalled at any time.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by M-L+--> (M-L)Criticize him for it, read his earlier works on the state, and come to logical conclusions from it, don't be a defeatist like mister anarchist over there.[/b]
After reading What Is To Be Done, any sane anarchist will oppose Lenin and thus Lenin-ism.

Lenin speaks of "centralisation" of all "secret functions" of the Party. Such an authoritative position will only be held by "gifted" "professional revolutionaries" who will be hierarchically above the "rank and file".


Originally posted by WITBD+--> (WITBD)...and the rank and file will "think," not only of amateurish methods, but also of such training.[/b]
The training referred to is training to become a 'professional revolutionary'.


Originally posted by WITBD
...an organization which of neccesity is centralized...
Emphasis mine.

I hope the stark contrast between Leninist thinking and anarchist thinking is becoming clear.

Now, Lenin says again and again that the German Social Democratic Party has more democratic priniciples than the Russian, but that this is due to the 'autocracy' present in Russia. Well, on this point, Lenin may well have been right. But this shows the terrible error of attempting to use Leninist strategies in our situation today in the advanced capitalist nations of the world.

Stranger still is the Leninist superstition that the kind of organization described will result in a 'democratic state', as Lenin claims in State and Revolution.

Also in that work (S & R), Lenin claims that he indeed wants classes to remain, but the suppression to reverse. And this suppression will be done by a state apparatus.

On the surface, many will agree with that. However, simply reversing class roles, rather than eliminating those class roles altogether, is a very dangerous thing. A new overclass appears which naturally wants to dominate the new underclass. And why, then, would this dominating class wish to lose their domination?

For this very reason, anarchists want the state and class divisions to be smashed. This means that the access to the means of production must be the same for all, and there can be no designated group which is to be suppressed.

Of course, this does not mean that counter-revolutionaries will not be suppressed. They will be. But this does not neccesitate classes, and, indeed, it implies a functionally classless society. (we call it collectivism)


S & [email protected]
It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie!
Is TAT really just being a 'defeatist anarchist', as our Leninist friend claims? Or is he making a very rational decision based upon Lenin's very words? The answer is obvious.


S & R
All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of a single nationwide state "syndicate."
Emphasis Lenin's.

Does the above sound familiar to anyone? Lenin wants everyone to become hired employees of the state. He wants not to diminish the role of the state, but to create a hyper-state.

So is it all just 'defeatist' anarchism? Is it just irrationality confronting a grand plan? Or is there something fundamentally flawed with Vladimir's goals? I'll let the reader decide.

But I do hope Lennies begin acknowledging that it is not because of flawed jugment that anarchists oppose Leninism, but rather because of a conflict of goals. Again, authoritarianism versus anti-authoritarianism, to put it bluntly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Apr 25 2006, 03:29 PM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Apr 25 2006, 03:29 PM)
TAT
Progress requires moving on, not reusing the past. Leninism doesn't work.

By the same logic neither does anarchism. [/b]
Anarchism as a theory has been tested and vindicated, where as Leninism as a theory has been tested and has failed every time.


First of all it's intellectually lazy to claim a certain theory is a "dead-end" if that theory hasn't been put to practice more than once (and the one time that it was put to practice it was put into practice in a degenerated form).

When I say Leninism I refer to Democratic centralism, vanguard and the dictatorship of the proletariat in practice.

This model has been attempted in Cuba, China, and Vietnam not to mention African examples.


Wether you like it or not, Leninism was only put to practice once, and it was done by Lenin himself.

That's Historically inaccurate.


It actually was working while it was put to practice by Lenin himself, and even a few years after he passed away it was still working...but then it degenerated

First of all there is absolutely no reason to believe or any logical argument to refute that what Stalin did was not what Lenin would have done.

Secondly, even if Stalin did do something different the practical application of Leninism led to the creation of Stalin. As for the state, it will degenerate into its specific role regardless of what it's called or who controls it. So it's really of little consequence whether Stalin "got it wrong": The formula was flawed to begin with.


Only utter fools can claim with a straight face that "Stalinist USSR" was the same as "Lenin's USSR". And only utter fools can claim that the one is inevitably linked to the other.

Well, they were linked to each other because Stalin's Russia came directly from Lenin's Russia. As Bakunin predicted 70 years before, the Workers state would lead to a Red bureaucracy, which is precisely what it led to.

Even if Lenin was on the right track to begin with, which granted they always are, the conclusions are always the same. The creation of a strong centralised state and a dictatorial bureaucracy.

These are the consequences of Leninism and as history shows are invariable.


His type of state degenerated, which means that he basically was wrong. But when you read his earlier works, you see that he supported other types of states as well, that he actually advocated a completely other type of state in 1917...but he made the wrong decision in the end.

There is one type of state, there are only variations in name.


Criticize him for it, read his earlier works on the state, and come to logical conclusions from it, don't be a defeatist like mister anarchist over there.

I have: My logical conclusion is that it can never work in practice.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2006, 01:10 PM
Anarchism as a theory has been tested and vindicated, where as Leninism as a theory has been tested and has failed every time.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Where exactly has anarchism been "vindicated"? Bear in mind that this is an ideology that has failed to inspire a single revolution.

The typical anarchist line consists of attacking the Bolsheviks for the failure of Russia. That's acceptable and valid criticism. But let's not for a moment pretend that anarchism has somehow succeeded where Marxism has failed.

[Macchendra]

Let's get to the heart of the matter quickly:

Would a Leninist please explain to the Anarchists:

"Precisely when does society* have the right to impose their will with violence or the threat of violence?"


*The hypocrisy of not calling it a state aside.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:37 PM
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Where exactly has anarchism been "vindicated"? Bear in mind that this is an ideology that has failed to inspire a single revolution.
The theory of anarchism was implemented in Spain and was, as I have already stated and provided evidence for in many different threads, a massive success in terms of its application and practical consequences.


Bear in mind that this is an ideology that has failed to inspire a single revolution.

The Spanish revolution and the revolution in Mexico were sepecifically libertarian.


The typical anarchist line consists of attacking the Bolsheviks for the failure of Russia.

..and China, and Vietnam and Cuba and Laos and Angola and Tanzania and Moambique...


But let's not for a moment pretend that anarchism has somehow succeeded where Marxism has failed.

Well Marxism and anarchism are two different ideologies so you'er right, it hasn't, but anarchism has certainly succeeded in its own right.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:29 PM
Let's get to the heart of the matter quickly:

Would a Leninist please explain to the Anarchists:

"Precisely when does society* have the right to impose their will with violence or the threat of violence?"


*The hypocrisy of not calling it a state aside.
to defend the revolution, to make sure the rights of the many are not diminished by the acts of the few

Freedom is complete, except when the use of said freedom infringes the freedom of others.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:46 PM
Any serious leninist party/organisation btw has no one leader, nor a set group of people who always "lead".
I don't mean to patronise, but you seem to be extremely naive on how Leninist organisations work.

To put what I'm telling you into perspective, I was a member of the Socialist Workers Part for 7 years and in the last year of my membership I was a District Organiser. I was a paid member of the vanguard so my experience with Leninism and with Leninist parties is, to put it fairly, extensive.

Although Leninist parties have Central Committee's there is always a leader who retains chairmanship or General-Secretaryship over the organisation. During my time in the SWP it was Tony Cliff and now as far as I'm aware it's John Reese.


It differs from time to time, everybody can get in it, and those people can be recalled at any time.

The last time a branch of the SWP attempted to recall the Central Committee and impose some Luxembourgist changes and perspective within the organisation, they were expelled.

[Enragé]

Although Leninist parties have Central Committee's there is always a leader who retains chairmanship or General-Secretaryship over the organisation. During my time in the SWP it was Tony Cliff and now as far as I'm aware it's John Reese.

Then there is something seriously wrong with the SWP


The last time a branch of the SWP attempted to recall the Central Committee and impose some Luxembourgist changes and perspective within the organisation, they were expelled.

source?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:47 PM
Then there is something seriously wrong with the SWP
Yeah I think it has something to do with their Leninist tendencies :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:47 PM

Although Leninist parties have Central Committee's there is always a leader who retains chairmanship or General-Secretaryship over the organisation. During my time in the SWP it was Tony Cliff and now as far as I'm aware it's John Reese.

Then there is something seriously wrong with the SWP
Yes, it's Leninist! :rolleyes:



The last time a branch of the SWP attempted to recall the Central Committee and impose some Luxembourgist changes and perspective within the organisation, they were expelled.

source?

I don't have a source for that specifically because it's not as if SWP conference minutes are put out for everyone to read. You'll just have to take my word for it.

There is, however, this: http://struggle.ws/once/sfb_swp.html

[Enragé]

Yes, it's Leninist!

As said earlier, leninism is democratic. So its not leninism whats wrong with it


There is, however, this: http://struggle.ws/once/sfb_swp.html

thank you comrade

i'll get back to you on this, going to contact a dutch member of an org linked to the SWP and see what he has to say

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:59 PM

Yes, it's Leninist!

As said earlier, leninism is democratic. So its not leninism whats wrong with it
Oh dear god...! :blink:

*BANGS PRETTY HEAD AGAINST WALL*

[Enragé]

It (the "leadership") differs from time to time, everybody can get in it, and those people can be recalled at any time.

=

Leninism

One leader stays for almost all the time, CC is made up of almost the same people

=/= Leninism

if the article is correct therefore
SWP =/= Leninist

<_<

*so that made you an anarchist? loss of braincells?*

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:43 PM
Freedom is complete, except when the use of said freedom infringes the freedom of others.
This is the argument against anarchism in general.
Every anarchist hears it 1000 times.

Referring back to the original purpose of the debate started by "The Anarchist Tension":
"Is Leninism and Anarchism irreconcilable?"

It seems you (NewKindOfSoldier) think they are...

Which is OK. I think this thread can safely be concluded.

[Enragé]

look you cannot allow one to force someone else to do something.
Forcing that forcing-someone to stop forcing the forced-someone to stop forcing..
*god what a sentence*
whats wrong with that?

edit:

would you say, in the name of freedom, that its ok for the bourgeois to exploit, because if we were to stop him we would infringe his freedom?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2006, 03:35 PM
The theory of anarchism was implemented in Spain and was, as I have already stated and provided evidence for in many different threads, a massive success in terms of its application and practical consequences.
I&#39;ve heard otherwise. But in either case a brief and very localised flirtation does not a successful revolution make.


The Spanish revolution and the revolution in Mexico were specifically libertarian.
Spain experienced a civil war, not a revolution. Again you are suggesting that the brief existence of a few communes in Catalonia somehow equates to a mass revolution. Mexico was a peasant driven revolution that was hardly anarchist in nature.

Marxism has failed in a number of countries, that cannot be denied. But equally it is clear that anarchism has been attempted in even less. Ironic considering that it is the former that places the emphasis on an advanced proletariat.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Apr 26 2006, 05:06 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Apr 26 2006, 05:06 PM) I&#39;ve heard otherwise. [/b]
You&#39;ve heard otherwise have you? I see. I have a novel idea for you, why don&#39;t you read the extensive works on it rather than accepting hearsay.


But in either case a brief and very localised flirtation does not a successful revolution make.

It wasn&#39;t localised. Anarchist industry and economics spread across the entirety of Republican Spain.


Spain experienced a civil war, not a revolution.

I have always been under the impression that revolutions generally are civil wars? Regardless I would consider 5 million people either fighting for or making work the creation of a classless and stateless society a revolution.


Again you are suggesting that the brief existence of a few communes in Catalonia somehow equates to a mass revolution.

A few?

You&#39;re clearly just talking bullcrap aren&#39;t you. I mean, you just have absolutely no idea what you&#39;re typing?

The anarchists organised massive industries, entire cities and gigantic areas of land that produced goods to support the entire Republic.

From Eddie Conlon&#39;s book &#39;Anarchism in Action: The Spanish Civil War&#39; (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_intro.html)


Originally posted by Eddie [email protected]
Collectivisation of the land was extensive. Close on two thirds of all land in the Republican zone (that area controlled by the anti-fascist forces) was taken over. In all between five and seven million peasants were involved. The major areas were Aragon where there were 450 collectives, the Levant (the area around Valencia) with 900 collectives and Castille (the area surrounding Madrid) with 300 collectives. Not only was the land collectivised but in the villages workshops were set up where the local tradespeople could produce tools, furniture, etc. Bakers, butchers, barbers and so on also decided to collectivise


Eddie Conlon
Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country".

You can also read Anthony Beavers (a liberal) account of the Spanish Civil war where the collectives are discussed indepth or any of Jose Perites [a Spanish anarchist in spain during the civil war] books on the subject; including &#39;Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War&#39; (http://websell.pipex.com/beta-cgi/abooks/90225.html) . If that doesn&#39;t satsify your ignorance, read &#39;Lessons of the Spanish revolution&#39; (http://websell.pipex.com/beta-cgi/abooks/90258.html) by Vernon Richards.


But equally it is clear that anarchism has been attempted in even less.

How is it clear to you? Are you telling me that you have researched the period and come to these conclusions, if so what are your sources?

It&#39;s not about how often it&#39;s been attempted but the results of the attempts.

[Macchendra]

The debate that started out as "do they have the same aim?" has predictably morphed into "which is superior?".

To worsen the situation, the argument is being based on "who has the empirical evidence of popularity?"

I guess we know the answer to the first debate.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:14 PM
The debate that started out as "do they have the same aim?" has predictably morphed into "which is superior?".
This was the inevitable result of discovering that the answer to the first question was NO&#33;

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Nachie+Apr 26 2006, 04:20 PM--> (Nachie @ Apr 26 2006, 04:20 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 04:14 PM
The debate that started out as "do they have the same aim?" has predictably morphed into "which is superior?".
This was the inevitable result of discovering that the answer to the first question was NO&#33; [/b]
stop spamming you&#39;re not adding anything to the discussion

and btw

i still think its yes.

[Nachie]

I&#39;m sorry, not everyone can be counted on to perpetually unearth theoretical goldmines like "As said earlier, leninism is democratic. So its not leninism whats wrong with it"

[The Feral Underclass]

Ok you two, enough please.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:24 PM
stop spamming you&#39;re not adding anything to the discussion
And you know what they do to spammers... best not to speak up.

Some people would be police or military in any society...

[LoneRed]

all attempts at anarchism failed.

and in spain if it wasnt for the help of all the anti-fascists, no progress wouldva been made

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:41 PM
all attempts at anarchism failed.
What a mighty and dare I say original argument&#33;

For a second there I actually thought that Lenin himself had risen from his icy tomb and formulated this penetratingly intellectual refutation, I see before me.

So calculating in its intention, so perspicacious in its structure, so meticulous in its logicality.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:41 PM
all attempts at anarchism failed.
Are we back to the off-topic "Which is better?" At least our failed attempts don&#39;t kill people.

Is there a law of anarchy that can be imposed by violence or the threat of violence upon a person?

A chaotic coercion of another is still a hierarchy no matter what the scale.

Is this how things are "attempted"?

Maybe it is the Anarchist&#39;s lack of belief in the utopian application of police and military, that makes you think they are not attempting anything.

Leninism and Anarchism seem utterly irreconcilable.

Peace&#33;

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2006, 03:52 PM
http://struggle.ws/once/sfb_swp.html
i promised you i got back on it

well here&#39;s what the guy said

Those events are from about 10 years ago and are from a relatively short period (1991-1994). Thats not really a good way to judge a party which has been in existence sinc e &#39;77, and traces back to a group back in the 50&#39;s. If the SWP really is such a terrible group of people, wouldnt we see some more evidence, from more periods?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:03 PM
If the SWP really is such a terrible group of people, wouldnt we see some more evidence, from more periods?
Happy to oblige&#33;

Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist Adventures at Marxism 2001 (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/2001.html)

Marxism 2004: The Beginning of the End for the SWP? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/left/swp/marxism2004.html)

"In 1981-82 a number of working class members of the SWP left, or were expelled, to set up a new group, Red Action. The pamphlet they produced explaining why they left and what the new group would be is an important one in the relationship of the Left to the working class. It documents clearly the failings of the SWP, especially how it alienates the majority of working class people who come into its orbit. Red Action portrays itself (very convincingly) as being a non-sectarian, non-dogmatic organisation well aware of the failings of the authoritarian left.
However, Red Action has also proved itself to be very much a bastard child of the SWP when it comes to how it relates to other left groups." - Read More&#33; (http://www.redaction.org/archives/something.html)

But wait, it&#39;s not done yet&#33;

A Communist Turned Comedian? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/harman.html)

And for more ideological hoo-ha with a smattering of anti-SWP, check out Socialism from Below (http://struggle.ws/once/sfb_intro.html)

And, just for fun, the Dead Dogma Sketch (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/parrot.html)


Revolutionary: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this ideology what I embraced not half an hour ago at this very conference.

SWP: Oh yes, the, uh, the Russian Bolshevik... What&#39;s, uh... wrong with it?

R: I&#39;ll tell you what&#39;s wrong with it, my lad. Its dead, that&#39;s what&#39;s wrong with it&#33;

SWP: No, no, its, uh, . . . its resting.

[repeater138]

You all truly are on the same side. Underneath all the rhetoric and egoistic banter is a commonality of method, stand and worldview. Your methods and viewpoints are those of solipsism, and in Redstar&#39;s case obscurantism. The irony being that Redstar&#39;s approach is the most religious and deterministic despite his absolute disgust with the religious subject.

If one reads State and Revolution you find Lenin&#39;s actual position with regards to the State, anarchism and opportunism.

What one finds is that Lenin&#39;s position is that the State must be destroyed immediately, not through the process of socialism. But Lenin asks us to take a look at the actual qualities of the State to be destroyed, i.e. the Feudal or Bourgeois State. This apparatus must be smashed for a revolution to occur. He gives various reasons for this, but the ultimate reason is the same reason the Romanov&#39;s had to die. Because you have to put an end to the old regime in the most final way possible. This is where Lenin differs with liberals and opportunist "communists", who see the question of the state as how can we take it over. Theoretically opportunists do not want the destruction of the State they want to take it over. This is where Leninists and anarchists have much in common, and Lenin says as much in State and Revolution. Where Lenin departs from anarchists is in the recognition that to sustain the revolution, to continue the rupture with bourgoeis society and bourgoeis right, a new State must be built with the goal of organizing a new society and transitioning through stages of revolution to the complete ending of the State. This understanding is based upon the real revolutionary experience of not only Russia, but many of the other movements preceding the revolution including prominently the Paris Commune.

If you want to get into the history of the Russian Revolution and discuss who sold it out or fucked it over you need to look at February 1917 not October. The Socialist Revolutionaries (Anarchists) and the Mensheviks (Opportunists) went into government together to defend the interests of the bourgoeisie. Kerensky, an SR, was the head of the Provisional Government. There were no Anarchist voices at that time that recognized that they were not only being sold out, but that they were the ones doing it. The Bolsheviks were almost entirely alone on this subject, well not really because the vast majority of the Russian people also saw it and were in the mood for a real revolution. Furthermore Lenin himself was, at the decisive moment, virtually all alone in his understanding of the situation. If Anarchists want to whine and reinterpret history, they should in all honesty explain to us how such great Anarchists as Kropotkin could sell out at the first sight of a revolution. Why is it that the main organizations that anarchists were organized in joined together with liberals and opportunists to run a State and continue the War against the Germans?

Now that we&#39;ve shown the differences and similarities between Leninism, anarchism and opportunism, or liberalism, we should interrogate the similarities between opportunism and anarchism. The overiding similarity is that both are based in liberalism, but with regards to the State let us put it this way: The opportunists don&#39;t want to destroy the State and the anarchists can&#39;t destroy the State. Objectively they&#39;re on the same side with regards to the State. With either ideology the State remains, it is never destroyed to begin with let alone a new state built. For all protestation the anarchists simply have no way of destroying the State. They&#39;re often frustrated if you bring this up, but not only have they never done it, but with their ideology it can&#39;t be done. Moreover in those rare events when the State simply collapses what gets put in its place?

Lets look at Afghanistan, Somalia, and various other places which at one time or another lacked anything which could be called a State. Where were all the anarchists building their Brave New World? They didn&#39;t exist, or at least they didn&#39;t feel any responsibility to go to these places and teach them how they could continue to exist without a State. Of course they would have been laughed out of the place given the realities of the situation, but more importantly there has never been any indication that in the absence of a State another one won&#39;t arise, at least under current conditions. So how do you direct that reality towards a situation where we can get rid of classes?

The anarchist answer is to change the definitions of revolution by suggesting that we can build locally autonomist struggles that exist outside the State and then when we have enough of these the whole thing is eaten up (one could just see the bourgoeisie licking their chops thinking "the better to eat YOU with" as these are in turn incorporated into capitalism). This approach goes hand in hand with their second answer that is to co-opt every struggle in the world, especially spontaneous struggles, to their cause. The Zapatista struggle and model being the most obvious example. But do the Zapatistas really exist outside the State? Hell no&#33; They don&#39;t even contest it anymore, at least not in any radical sense. They&#39;ve become poetic Trotskyists and now aim to take over (or worse "influence") the State through elections, not destroy it. This is because they&#39;ve learned that they can&#39;t exist outside the Mexican State in Chiapas, to say nothing about the extent to which they attempted to build their own State because reality demanded it. There really is no strategic vision here, no long-term view, and inept handling of the short-term. It is never explained where hierarchy comes from or how you&#39;re going to end it. There is no recognition of its role in reality or of the simple fact of uneven development of all things, including all people. Basically they aren&#39;t dealing with the real issues, they are defining themselves against the bourgoeis myths of communism. The very myths that were created to ensure that no-one could rise above the logic of the system, to propagate the idea that this is the best we got and if you try to change it you&#39;ll get atrocities. Instead of dealing with the concrete they are dealing purely in discourse, a discourse already created and outlined by the very system they claim to be ending.

Needless to say if there is anyone who is the enemy of the revolution it is first, the reactionaries, and second the sellouts and misleaders. Anarchists and Trotskyists have a pretty prominent ranking in the second list, behind only the out and out Liberals. This is not to say all Anarchists and Trotskyists are such scum. I do divide Trotsky off from most Trotskyists.

The other overriding similarity, which is much evidenced in this thread is an over evaluation and uncritical acceptance of bourgeois right as the limits of liberation, i.e. equality, democracy, freedom of this and that. First off democracy doesn&#39;t exist outside of class relations. Because of this democracy will always exist hand in hand with dictatorship. Just as equality is mutually constituted with inequality. Just as freedom is mutually constituted with necessity. Communism isn&#39;t about simply getting more democracy, or freedom, or equality, because the equation will always be balanced by its opposite when viewed in these terms. Communism is about fundamentally and radically transcending these concepts and their material basis. This vision of bourgeois right of total equality and democracy is indistinguishable from the boundaries of liberalism.

To make the democracy instance more concrete simply think of our own society today. There is in fact democracy for the few, for the ruling class. On the other hand there is dictatorship for everyone else. And this is not some simplistic dictatorship understood as totalitarianism and the rule of one oversized personality (a reality which simply has never existed) this is a real dictatorship of one class over another which operates in and over the totalitarian system of capitalism. Capitalism being totalitarian in the sense that it controls and twists everything. You cannot escape it, any more than you can escape the air.

There will always be a system in which people organize themselves, it is a necessity with regards to our existance. The question is whether we can make a system which trancsends equality/inequality and how we do it.

I&#39;ll cut it short to keep from going into things that are just opinions and not the truth.

My last suggestion would be that the people on this board need to get serious. If you want to play games about killing all Leninists or who lost the Spanish Civil War then you need to recognize that you&#39;re not dealing with the desperate needs of today. If you want to continue arguing on a personal basis you need to recognize that you&#39;re only defining yourself. Most of the posters at this site are completely obsessed with their own identities and only use these politics in the most childish way like accesories that they bought at the mall to define themselves against some "other". This behavior is the oldest game in the book in terms of how people are socialized in the U.S. Many people are working to create a scene and not a revolution.

For real though, we need serious revolutionaries. We need people to read all these things out there with regards to how to do this and not people who&#39;s political position can be summed up like a christian fascist bumper sticker: "God said it, I believe it, end of story." That&#39;s a fucked up attitude if you&#39;re really interested in understanding the world and changing it.

As Lenin said the goal is not to be "radical" in some abstract sense, but "to be as radical as reality". No more, no less.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:14 PM
The debate that started out as "do they have the same aim?"
It is not as much a matter of having &#39;&#39;better aims&#39;&#39;, as much if you can actually realise your aims.

Quite frankly neither the anarchists or the communists have realised squats.



To worsen the situation, the argument is being based on "who has the empirical evidence of popularity?"


Well in terms of popularity, the majority of the proletariat in the first world, believes that the communists are bloodthirsty murderers or pipedreamers while the anarchists are seen as mere tramps who are destroying public property or pipedreamers.

This &#39;&#39;who is more failure than who&#39;&#39; wont get us anywhere I think. :)

[вор в законе]

You all truly are on the same side. Underneath all the rhetoric and egoistic banter is a commonality of method, stand and worldview.

I feel all this whining between them is about whose ideas are going to dominate the left.

[repeater138]

The whining is a cause of why there is no radical left, as a movement, in the U.S. It is exactly why when the masses move, like the immigrants have, 99% of your local "radical" activists have their heads firmly lodged up their asses. And who ends up leading this and diverting it? Why of course the most powerful force on the field, the fucking liberals. The level of discussion on this thread does a profound disservice to the masses both in the U.S. and around the world.

I would just add as a part of my history of the Russian Revolution, that while a large number of Anarchists did support the Kerensky government, those that were actually revolutionary in any sense, i.e. not Kropotkin, either split from the SRs and made an alliance with the Bolsheviks or straight up joined the Bolsheviks. It&#39;s not that there aren&#39;t good people involved in all these ideologies. But fundamentally it isn&#39;t about your subjective interest or motivation, but rather objectively what your actions, informed by theory and ideology, lead to. Furthermore it shows that Anarchism and Anarchists are not irreconcilable to Bolshevism and Bolsheviks. Last thought: I would say that Bolshevism is pretty crude compared to what we can put together today.

[Fistful of Steel]

I&#39;d offer a play by play criticism of repeater138&#39;s understanding of things but it&#39;s far too long winded. I&#39;d try and divulge some basic argument from his post but it seems to amount to "anarchists are sell outs". Basing this on the examples including the Socialist-Revolutionary Party selling out by forming a coalition government with liberals and continuing World War I. This fails to take into account that the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was in no way anarchist, but more along the lines of democratic socialism, and failed to reject the state at all. Followed by Kropotkin, a single person who because he becomes more conservative in his old age suddenly undermines all of anarchism, despite not representing all of anarchism in any way. And the main anarchists were organized in supported the War? Which would that be? :blink: Never mind the fact that even if all these instances of "selling out" the revolution are true, the anarchist movement has more than proved itself worthy well past the early 20th century.

[repeater138]

That is by far the least important point that I made in my post. The necessity for brevity among the posters here is pathetic. People just throw around names and books. There&#39;s no willingness to synthesize the information, to deal with the theory, and to get into the actual realities. Of course that takes a little longer, but frankly it&#39;s not only worth it, but it actually gets you up to the level of dealing with truth instead of opinion. Perhaps if people investigated a little more and attempted to actually understand what they&#39;re talking about they&#39;d have more to say. Instead many want to sling shit and call it "polemics". They want to make wild claims and say simply to others, "Hey, if you don&#39;t get it, not my problem. Look it up." Is the point of the discussion to learn something? Or is the point of the discussion to score points?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:53 PM
That is by far the least important point that I made in my post. The necessity for brevity among the posters here is pathetic. People just throw around names and books. There&#39;s no willingness to synthesize the information, to deal with the theory, and to get into the actual realities. Of course that takes a little longer, but frankly it&#39;s not only worth it, but it actually gets you up to the level of dealing with truth instead of opinion. Perhaps if people investigated a little more and attempted to actually understand what they&#39;re talking about they&#39;d have more to say. Instead many want to sling shit and call it "polemics". They want to make wild claims and say simply to others, "Hey, if you don&#39;t get it, not my problem. Look it up." Is the point of the discussion to learn something? Or is the point of the discussion to score points?
I don&#39;t find it necessary to be brief, rather I think if I can boil a point down to a quick sentence and get to the genuine concern of it, then all the fancy words are rendered redundant. That and I don&#39;t have hours to spend analyzing something, and making a reply to it. And there is no difference between "truth" and "opinion". Truth is at best opinion that&#39;s been accepted by a large enough proportion of people, like that the sun revolved around the Earth was "true". This is a nice argument on the validity of posters and all but has nothing to do with the topic at hand, other than my justification as to why I didn&#39;t respond with a massive post.

[repeater138]

Well let me boil down your previous comment then:

Although I am undeniably right about what I claimed in relation to the actual events of the Russian Revolution, you don&#39;t deny it, it doesn&#39;t matter because you have another opinion and since more people share your opinion it&#39;s true.

Profound.

Let me ask you this: If you&#39;re so good about summarising what you read why is it you only find one point in my post? There are several points that I&#39;m making in that post.

There is a point about the actual history of the Russian Revolution.

There is a point about what the Leninist position actually is, as opposed to all the characterizations.

There is the point about the similarity between anarchism and opportunism, which I back up with evidence.

There is the point that ultimately Anarchists and opportunists (including Trotskyists) are basically two sides of the same liberal coin.

There is the point about bourgoeis right (and if you want a primary, essential point in what I was saying this is it).

And there is the point about how worthless this discussion is given the methods being used.

So there are at least 6 points in what I wrote. You deal in the most superficial way with one aspect. Nice summation :rolleyes:

Let me suggest that if you "don&#39;t have the time" to do something right, then don&#39;t do it.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by repeater138
What one finds is that Lenin&#39;s position is that the State must be destroyed immediately, not through the process of socialism.
This is completely inaccurate. Lenin specifically says that all are to be employees of the state. Never does he say he wants to destroy the state; rather it is painfully evident that Lenin wants the state.


Where Lenin departs from anarchists is in the recognition that to sustain the revolution, to continue the rupture with bourgoeis society and bourgoeis right, a new State must be built with the goal of organizing a new society and transitioning through stages of revolution to the complete ending of the State.
This is an utter contradiction to your suggestion that Lenin wanted to destroy the state immediately. Lenin wanted to take over the state, or, to speak Lennie, &#39;build a new state&#39;. One has only to read What Is To Be Done or State & Revolution, and one will find the same thing: do not destroy the state, but use the state.


This understanding is based upon the real revolutionary experience of not only Russia, but many of the other movements preceding the revolution including prominently the Paris Commune.
No, this is based entirely upon Lenin&#39;s experiences in Russia. In WITBD, Lenin mentions again and again that his goals are specifically based upon the material conditions in Russia, that is, as Vlad says, the &#39;autocracy&#39;.

There is absolutely no evidence that similar methods, nor similar goals (building a &#39;new State&#39;) will work in the modern situation. In fact, if one looks at modern Leninist, Trotskyist, and &#39;socialist&#39; parties, one would say just the opposite.


Why is it that the main organizations that anarchists were organized in joined together with liberals and opportunists to run a State and continue the War against the Germans?
I&#39;m really not sure if what you say is truly factual (perhaps TAT or somebody else could help here), but in any case, it&#39;s ancient history. The situation has changed. This isn&#39;t 1917.


The opportunists don&#39;t want to destroy the State and the anarchists can&#39;t destroy the State.
Why? This is simply an assertion based on your (a Lennie&#39;s) self interest. Of course, you do not want to destroy the state, but rather you agree whole-heartedly with Vladimir.

Besides, when looking at Spain, it would appear that everything there was created without any state. Well, it&#39;s been 70 years. Your saying &#39;we can&#39;t do it&#39; is a blind assertion.


Moreover in those rare events when the State simply collapses what gets put in its place?
Collectivism is an interesting idea. Perhaps you&#39;ve heard of it?


Lets look at Afghanistan, Somalia, and various other places which at one time or another lacked anything which could be called a State. Where were all the anarchists building their Brave New World?
Damn, are you even a Marxist? There&#39;s a little idea Marx had--historical materialism. Well, it was a good one. It will explain this little riddle of yours.


we can build locally autonomist struggles that exist outside the State...The Zapatista struggle and model being the most obvious example
Again, historical materialism. History is defined by stages of production capabilities which are characterized by certain classes developing, and history advances because of material conditions i.e. technology and the like. This solves this second riddle of yours.

True, not all anarchists accept HM, but I&#39;ll leave them to speak for themselves. A lot of anarchists do accept HM, and for us, your criticisms are invalid.


Anarchists and Trotskyists have a pretty prominent ranking in the second list, behind only the out and out Liberals.
Anarchists have nothing to do with Trotskyism or liberalism. Step out of your fairy tale world.


First off democracy doesn&#39;t exist outside of class relations. Because of this democracy will always exist hand in hand with dictatorship.
Even St. Vladimir disagrees. He says true democracy, democracy for all, can only exist when classes are abolished. Dictatorship, whether by a class or by a person, eliminates democracy as a real possibility.


Communism is about fundamentally and radically transcending these concepts and their material basis.
And in order to do this, you wish to build another state, which one day must be destroyed. States are authoritative and hierarchical by their very nature, and their only material reason for existence is for suppression of one class by another.


There will always be a system in which people organize themselves, it is a necessity with regards to our existance. The question is whether we can make a system which trancsends equality/inequality and how we do it.
Yes. But you do not answer this question. You say we need a state, a hierarchical tool of class suppression in order to create classlessness. Need I point out the logical inconsistencies?


I&#39;ll cut it short to keep from going into things that are just opinions and not the truth
If this was your aim, perhaps you shouldn&#39;t have written the post. :lol:


"God said it, I believe it, end of story." That&#39;s a fucked up attitude if you&#39;re really interested in understanding the world and changing it.
"Lenin said it, I believe it, end of story."

What&#39;s the difference? :lol:

Other than that, perhaps you could lose your arrogant tone. Get off your high-horse, buddy.

[repeater138]

Let us take the next, more mature, work by Kautsky, which was also largely devoted to a refutation of opportunist errors. It is his pamphlet, The Social Revolution. In this pamphlet, the author chose as his special theme the question of "the proletarian revolution" and "the proletarian regime". He gave much that was exceedingly valuable, but he avoided the question of the state. Throughout the pamphlet the author speaks of the winning of state power--and no more; that is, he has chosen a formula which makes a concession to the opportunists, inasmuch as it admits the possibility of seizing power without destroying the state machine. The very thing which Marx in 1872 declared to be “obsolete” in the programme of the Communist Manifesto, is revived by Kautsky in 1902.


Clearly you have misunderstood Lenin&#39;s position. It&#39;s funny how you could read State and Revolution and miss this point, it&#39;s everywhere.

If you look at the actual situation of the Russian Revolution it is in fact the case that the State was destroyed. The Army, the Executive, all the organs of coercive power were dissolved and at least for a time the Soviets were put in their place. To suggest that this was not a destruction of the State begs the question of what is?

You say that he wanted to use the State? Of course he did, I haven&#39;t claimed anything otherwise, but which State? The existing Bourgeois State? The one which he said had to be destroyed and was, or the new Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

Anomoly said:


No, this is based entirely upon Lenin&#39;s experiences in Russia. In WITBD, Lenin mentions again and again that his goals are specifically based upon the material conditions in Russia, that is, as Vlad says, the &#39;autocracy&#39;.

WITBD was written in 1904. State and Revolution was written in 1917. State and Revolution&#39;s position was crucially building off the experience of the Paris Commune as well as the experience of the Russian Revolution from the 1890&#39;s to 1917.


The anarchists had tried to claim the Paris Commune as their “own”, so to say, as a collaboration of their doctrine; and they completely misunderstood its lessons and Marx&#39;s analysis of these lessons. Anarchism has given nothing even approximating true answers to the concrete political questions: Must the old state machine be smashed? And what should be put in its place?

Nobody who is a revolutionary communist these days can treat the Russian experience or any experience since like a Bible or dogma. Those that do aren&#39;t Leninists in the first place, they simply appropriate his program and try to apply it now. But the essence of Lenin is not the program, but the process.

anomoly said:

Even St. Vladimir disagrees. He says true democracy, democracy for all, can only exist when classes are abolished. Dictatorship, whether by a class or by a person, eliminates democracy as a real possibility.

If that&#39;s what Lenin said, then he was wrong. Where did he say this?


Yes. But you do not answer this question. You say we need a state, a hierarchical tool of class suppression in order to create classlessness. Need I point out the logical inconsistencies?

And what do you do the day after the revolution? What do you do with all these classes that are left over? Does class struggle suddenly end? Do classes suddenly cease to exist? No, you need an aparatus which suppresses the counter-revolutionary classes this is by definition a State. Sorry to say, but to the extent that the Anarchists in Catalunya had institutions of coercion, an army, militia, police, courts, in any sense, is the extent to which they had a State.

Sorry if reality isn&#39;t "logically consistent" and is more complicated than simply A=A. This is why the categorical thinking that you guys put forward is so useless. You can&#39;t deal with contradiction, which is the overriding reality that we live in. For instance what is the most important thing to have in a car if you&#39;ve got to get somewhere fast? Is it good tires or a powerful engine? No its the brakes. Because you&#39;re going to have to stop once you go. Another contradiction is that if you&#39;re attacked you must fight back to defend yourself. It is a fact that violence can end violence, I&#39;ve seen it happen many times. Just as it is necessary to have a revolution and fight a war in the course of that revolution to ever have a chance of ending the impetus built into capitalism to create wars.

anomoly said:


Again, historical materialism. History is defined by stages of production capabilities which are characterized by certain classes developing, and history advances because of material conditions i.e. technology and the like. This solves this second riddle of yours.

True, not all anarchists accept HM, but I&#39;ll leave them to speak for themselves. A lot of anarchists do accept HM, and for us, your criticisms are invalid

History advances on the basis of a contradiction, not because of technology. It is the class struggle, uneven development, and the contradiction between socialized production and private accumulation that causes "history to advance". Not that we need to keep talking about this stuff in teleological and deterministic ways, in fact we should drop all that crap.

Further my position can&#39;t be invalid. It&#39;s perfectly valid. What I think you meant to say is that it isn&#39;t true. Well, why not? Because HM says so? Not that HM means much without Dialectics, but how does HM, in your understanding, actually match up with reality?



"Lenin said it, I believe it, end of story."

That&#39;s funny, but it&#39;s not my position. The question is not who said it, but whether it&#39;s true. Just because Lenin got alot of things right doesn&#39;t mean he got it all right, far from it. But again I evaluate Lenin based upon whether he is correct and I define this based upon my own experience with material reality, and more broadly a synthesis of history and theory which has been handed down through various sectors.

Let me put it this way: Bolshevism is not what we need today, but if we don&#39;t take up its most important contribution, then we&#39;re screwed. It is an advancement that has been superceded and will continue to be superceded. The same way Newton was superceded by later physicists.

I&#39;m not on a high horse, literally or figuratively. I have simply attempted to inject some content into this discussion and focus in on the cardinal questions. Beyond that I&#39;ve simply tried to put into focus what the real stakes in the world are and how woefully inadequate what goes on in this board is in terms of living up to those stakes.

I&#39;m certainly not saying that everything I got is perfect, but I&#39;m not going to sit by and let the same game come in and play all this off without really engaging. The issue really is most importantly about whether people are going to be serious. This doesn&#39;t mean that you have to agree with me or anyone else, it simply means that people need to actually struggle with these ideas and not attack things in a spurious manner, as most tend to do here.

I&#39;m confident that it is possible for people to have an exchange about these issues in which something is learned. That was obviously not happening.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by repeater138
There is the point that ultimately Anarchists and opportunists (including Trotskyists) are basically two sides of the same liberal coin.

Warning: "Dialectician at work" :o

Lumping together people who generally can&#39;t stand each other is called "unity of opposites"...otherwise known as nonsense in Party dress&#33; :lol:

Trotskyist "dialecticians" do it also, of course: they&#39;ll cheerfully assert that anarchists and Maoists are "two sides of the same coin" -- "ultra-leftist in words and rightists in deeds".

Some fun, eh? :D

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

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 08:14 PM
Well let me boil down your previous comment then:

Although I am undeniably right about what I claimed in relation to the actual events of the Russian Revolution, you don&#39;t deny it, it doesn&#39;t matter because you have another opinion and since more people share your opinion it&#39;s true.

Profound.

Let me ask you this: If you&#39;re so good about summarising what you read why is it you only find one point in my post? There are several points that I&#39;m making in that post.

There is a point about the actual history of the Russian Revolution.

There is a point about what the Leninist position actually is, as opposed to all the characterizations.

There is the point about the similarity between anarchism and opportunism, which I back up with evidence.

There is the point that ultimately Anarchists and opportunists (including Trotskyists) are basically two sides of the same liberal coin.

There is the point about bourgoeis right (and if you want a primary, essential point in what I was saying this is it).

And there is the point about how worthless this discussion is given the methods being used.

So there are at least 6 points in what I wrote. You deal in the most superficial way with one aspect. Nice summation :rolleyes:

Let me suggest that if you "don&#39;t have the time" to do something right, then don&#39;t do it.
I&#39;ve already contested your view of the Russian Revolution, providing examples of why your view of srs weren&#39;t actually anarchists, and why the things you mentioned were in no way connected to the anarchism historically proscribed to the Russian Revolution.

What makes you think I&#39;m good at summarizing posts? I&#39;ve not claimed to be. I rather just don&#39;t have the patience to deal with such excercises in semantics.

The Leninist position, whether noble intention (or not) leads to bureaucracy.

And my to my understanding of opportunism in that it proceeds to promote whichever political cause whenever possible, gaining influence and support I can agree that anarchism has sometimes been characterized as such, and I find no fault with that.

I don&#39;t see how Anarchists are related to liberals in any way whatsoever, and how anarchism being historically linked to opportunism are connected to such things.

What&#39;s the point about the bourgoise right? If it has anything to do with connecting anarchism in any way with it, then it&#39;s poorly misguided as anarchism is the complete rejection of such ideals.

...Yes.

And your definition of what is "right" is different from mine, as I&#39;m fine with getting to the meat and bones of an argument at hand rather than long winded tirades about it which I&#39;ll devote much time to when necessary.

[вор в законе]

History advances on the basis of a contradiction, not because of technology. It is the class struggle, uneven development, and the contradiction between socialized production and private accumulation that causes "history to advance".

Hook, Line, and Sinker.

[repeater138]

Re: Redstar&#39;s "anti-dialectics". This is the source of your religious thinking and your determinism.

First off your "anti-dialectic" friend actually has the nerve to accuse dialectics of not relating to reality by using Newtonian physics as the paragon of reality. This is laughable.

More importantly as a philisophical point, and dialectics is a philosophy, if the development and motion of things is not at least partially driven by internal contradictions, then the only option is either there is no motion or that motion is only caused as a reaction to some outside encounter. Put it this way: What caused a particular motion? What caused that to cause that? And on and on. Go back far enough (and this is where this logic ends) and you come to the "first mover", i.e. God: the thing that started it all and was not started by anything else. Dialectics accounts for the obvious dynamism of reality without being reduced to this logical chain. So how bout it Redstar, what&#39;s your God?

If the world works like Newtonian physics and especially if that&#39;s how people operate, then there is no agency. Redstar is at least consistent in this regards, the only contradiction in his thought is between his philosophical and scientific obscurantism and his anti-religious stance.

One of these days you should get beyond the recognition of dialectics in formulation, i.e. "two sides of the coin", "unity of opposites", etc. and actually come to terms with a real understanding of the concept.

Finally, it has been suggested that Hegelian dialectics and the way in which Marx and Lenin practice dialectics are completely different. So you might want to recognize where Lenin&#39;s comments on Hegel&#39;s Dialectic are just that and where Lenin practiced it in his own right.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 08:14 PM
There is a point about the actual history of the Russian Revolution.

There is the point that ultimately Anarchists and opportunists (including Trotskyists) are basically two sides of the same liberal coin.
what the fuck&#33;

Your "actual history" of the Russian Revolution accuses SRs of being anarchists and Mensheviks of being opportunists. I don&#39;t even understand how someone could logically think the former, so we will skip that as being sheer idiocy. As to the latter point, the Mensheviks were far from opportunists, rather as orthodox marxists they feared seizing power prior to a legitimate bourgeois revolution. During the late summer, when politics became more polarized in Russia, there is a famous quote of a worker in a soviet screaming at why they wouldn&#39;t "take power when it is handed to you?" Of course they consistently declined.

If you want to look at political opportunism, then look no farther than the Bolshevik party. Lenin as a staunch opponent of democracy, despite ironically being a social democrat, despised the multi-party system of the soviets and worked constantly to have his party dominate the institution. However, when the Bolshevik dominated Petrograd Soviet created the MRC, the bolshies deliberated placed 4 anarchists on it (and possible a left-menshevik) to create the illusion of a multi-party committee. Of course it was this body that would then stage a political coup on the 25th of october, "in the name of the soviet", but we all know that this was a farce. Lenin had no intention of sharing power following his petrograd coup. If this sort of underhanded strategy to confuse public opinion isn&#39;t opportunism, I don&#39;t know what is.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by repeater138
Put it this way: What caused a particular motion? What caused that to cause that? And on and on. Go back far enough (and this is where this logic ends) and you come to the "first mover", i.e., God: the thing that started it all and was not started by anything else....So how bout it, Redstar, what&#39;s your God?

The current consensus among cosmologists is that the "big bang" was the "first mover".

If "plasma cosmology" turns out to be a superior theory, then we&#39;ll have to go back "a lot further" to find out "what happened first"

"God" is not a "required" hypothesis.


Dialectics accounts for the obvious dynamism of reality without being reduced to this logical chain.

How many "dialecticians" does it take to change a light-bulb?

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

May I suggest, in the meantime, that any "philosophy" that equates anarchism and Trotskyism (or anarchism and Maoism) is self-evidently the collective babbling of idiots.

Trotskyism and Maoism, as competing variants of Leninism, share obvious similarities. Dragging anarchism into the "mix" is just grotesque stupidity.

Anarchism can be legitimately criticized; but asking a "dialectician" to do it is like asking a chimpanzee to perform brain surgery.

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by repeater138
Further my position can&#39;t be invalid. It&#39;s perfectly valid.
:lol:

Well, at least we know where you stand.


Where did he say this?
State and Revolution.


And what do you do the day after the revolution? What do you do with all these classes that are left over? Does class struggle suddenly end? Do classes suddenly cease to exist? No, you need an aparatus which suppresses the counter-revolutionary classes this is by definition a State.
What is class but the relation to the means of production? And when everyone&#39;s relation to the means of production is the same...?

The end of private property means the end of classes. But I&#39;m guessing that you want private property to become state property, like any good Lennie would.

Tried that path. Didn&#39;t work. Let&#39;s move on.

The resulting society will be functionally classless because private property will be abolished. Those ex-bourgeois that actually fight (I&#39;m guessing they&#39;ll be relatively few in number...most will either assimilate into the collective or leave) will certainly be resisted and destroyed. But we need no state for this. We only need people. Not hierarchy.

Oh yea, and I echo what has already been said: anyone that puts Trots and annies in the same boat is pretty confused. You need some time to think. :lol:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:52 AM
Anarchism can be legitimately criticized; but asking a "dialectician" to do it is like asking a chimpanzee to perform brain surgery.
Wait a minuet you just said anarchism is simple to criticize, and that dialectians explain basic things in the hardest ways possible. So that whole monkey analogy doesn&#39;t make any sense. The simple thing in that is the monkey, not the brain surgery, and the monkey certainly doesn&#39;t represent complexity.

[DarkTravesty]

I think I&#39;ll pop in and give repeater a bit of support, I find his stance and views regarding this pointless argument refreshing. After having read all of this exhaustive thread, I still see no reason why anarchists and Leninists can&#39;t get along in the short run, we&#39;re both members of the left with radical ideas, everyone needs to chill out a bit.

[anomaly]

Leninist means are incompatible with anarchist means. That&#39;s what all the fuss is aboot.

[DarkTravesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:03 AM
Leninist means are incompatible with anarchist means. That&#39;s what all the fuss is aboot.
I don&#39;t care, I still think we can get along in the short run. As a fellow leftist, I refuse to subscribe to the view that anarchists are an enemy within our ranks, as it seems most people are (and the inverse from the anarchist point of view)

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by DarkTravesty+Apr 27 2006, 02:12 AM--> (DarkTravesty &#064; Apr 27 2006, 02:12 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 02:03 AM
Leninist means are incompatible with anarchist means. That&#39;s what all the fuss is aboot.
I don&#39;t care, I still think we can get along in the short run. As a fellow leftist, I refuse to subscribe to the view that anarchists are an enemy within our ranks, as it seems most people are (and the inverse from the anarchist point of view) [/b]
I agree with you. As it is there are plenty of activities and positions that can be agreed upon generally within the left-wing. The time when our different methods will be more pronounced is when we really get a revolution going, then I can see why anarchists would be fighting against Leninists trying to exert authority. Until then however I&#39;m fine and dandy working with teh L3n1nists.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:03 AM
Leninist means are incompatible with anarchist means. That&#39;s what all the fuss is aboot.
Vanguardism = Military Authoritarian Elitism
(by the very definition of Vanguard)

Every anarchist out there who supports the Military Authoritarian Elite raise their left hand in anger&#33;

"Enemy within our ranks." (???)

We are always the enemy of this or that state.

There is a lot of importance place on loyalty here.
If you find post-911 USA disgusting, just wait until you see the partriotism demanded of you by some of these folk in their new state.

Of course the new statists accept your help in smashing the old one.
New kind of soldier same as the old kind of soldier.
New kind of cop same as the old kind of cop, probably worse.

Incompatible means, and incompatible ends.

"Oh, the Anarchists were disloyal..."

Pffft.

[LoneRed]

You have not given any refreshing claims to this argument, your high in the sky, trying to scare people by saying how society will be if leninists have their way. I say that you should find a point of view and argue for it adequately instead of just resulting to scare tactics.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by repeater138+Apr 26 2006, 10:33 PM--> (repeater138 &#064; Apr 26 2006, 10:33 PM) If you look at the actual situation of the Russian Revolution it is in fact the case that the State was destroyed. The Army, the Executive, all the organs of coercive power were dissolved and at least for a time the Soviets were put in their place. To suggest that this was not a destruction of the State begs the question of what is? [/b]
So what was the Red army, the central committee, Politburo, the Cheka and the bureaucracy designed to reorganise production and where, prey tell, if no state existed, did the authority come from to exact laws?


You say that he wanted to use the State? Of course he did, I haven&#39;t claimed anything otherwise, but which State? The existing Bourgeois State? You say that he wanted to use the State? Of course he did, I haven&#39;t claimed anything otherwise, but which State? The existing Bourgeois State? The one which he said had to be destroyed and was, or the new Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

You just claimed he didn&#39;t use a state?

Anyway...


State and Revolution
In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law. It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state.

Highlight added.

Chapter 5 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)

[KC]

How many "dialecticians" does it take to change a light-bulb?

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

I remember a quote from one of my science teachers in grade school: "Everything falls eventually."

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:13 AM
You have not given any refreshing claims to this argument...
reminds me of when Scott McClellan would say:
"We have already answered that."

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I will and always will fight against Leninism as much as any other philosophy I disagree with strongly. I only discuss things with Leninists because they share similiar criticisms of capitalism. Lenin also contributed in a few other areas, but a Leninist revolution will never achieve communism. Anarchism is the new left, and people need to discard the old ways. Marx was also an authoritarian with great anti-capitalist theory - but poor ideas of how to implement that theory. People should drop the Marxist and Leninist banner altogether and embrace anarcho-communist philosophy. The conflict between Marxists and Leninists didn&#39;t begin because Bakunin didn&#39;t like Jews and Marx hated anarchists. It arose from a fundamental difference in the implementation of communist theory. Anarchism opposes the state. The only possible reconciliation is when Marxists disregard the dictatorship of the proletariat and adopt an anarcho-socialist model of transition.

[DarkTravesty]

And what is this model of transition, exactly? Sorry, new to anarchist ideas.

[anomaly]

It&#39;s called collectivism, Dark Travesty.

The most important part of such a system would probably be worker councils as well as Time Labor Vouchers. Communication could be used for planning. Basically, think communism, but with TLVs rather than a free-access economy.

Here&#39;s a thread about collectivism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34437&hl=)

(however, that thread does not discuss TLVs, which I believe are a crucial parts of any post-revolutionary economy)

DAB, I don&#39;t think &#39;Marxism&#39; is neccesarily &#39;at odds&#39; with anarchism. I know that may sound odd. But the libertarian Marxists on this board have shown a readiness to work with anarchists, and the reverse is also generally true.

The &#39;Marxists&#39; we can&#39;t work with are the authoritarians, also known as &#39;Leninists&#39;.

[DarkTravesty]

Well, I would like to think of myself as a Marxist you can work with, and am not opposed to much of what is outlined in that thread, from what I can initially tell. I am actually becoming more of Trot, lately.

[anomaly]

Dark Travesty, here&#39;s a thread about TLVs (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039), in case you&#39;re interested.

You&#39;ll notice that I change my mind about them. (I went into the posted thread opposing TLVs)

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Nachie+Apr 26 2006, 06:36 PM--> (Nachie @ Apr 26 2006, 06:36 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 06:03 PM
If the SWP really is such a terrible group of people, wouldnt we see some more evidence, from more periods?
Happy to oblige&#33;

Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist Adventures at Marxism 2001 (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/2001.html)

Marxism 2004: The Beginning of the End for the SWP? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/left/swp/marxism2004.html)

"In 1981-82 a number of working class members of the SWP left, or were expelled, to set up a new group, Red Action. The pamphlet they produced explaining why they left and what the new group would be is an important one in the relationship of the Left to the working class. It documents clearly the failings of the SWP, especially how it alienates the majority of working class people who come into its orbit. Red Action portrays itself (very convincingly) as being a non-sectarian, non-dogmatic organisation well aware of the failings of the authoritarian left.
However, Red Action has also proved itself to be very much a bastard child of the SWP when it comes to how it relates to other left groups." - Read More&#33; (http://www.redaction.org/archives/something.html)

But wait, it&#39;s not done yet&#33;

A Communist Turned Comedian? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/harman.html)

And for more ideological hoo-ha with a smattering of anti-SWP, check out Socialism from Below (http://struggle.ws/once/sfb_intro.html)

And, just for fun, the Dead Dogma Sketch (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/parrot.html)


Revolutionary: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this ideology what I embraced not half an hour ago at this very conference.

SWP: Oh yes, the, uh, the Russian Bolshevik... What&#39;s, uh... wrong with it?

R: I&#39;ll tell you what&#39;s wrong with it, my lad. Its dead, that&#39;s what&#39;s wrong with it&#33;

SWP: No, no, its, uh, . . . its resting. [/b]
i read the two first articles since they seemed most on topic

however this only shows more that anarchists should not attack "leninists" because its more often the leadership which is at fault and not the members. If you wish to further alienate the members from anarchism, by all means, hunt them down, burn their newspapers, if you want a better world, and a stronger libertarian left-revolutionary movement, dont.

as the articles show, dont hate or persecute members of leninist orgs (one SWP member was sympathetic to the guy in the first article and kinda got convinced, and "Given the visibility of the SWP in the country, it is fair to say that it is the party most would-be radicals come across when they first get involved in politics.")

In short, it in no way justifies what RAAN does.


anyway
leaning to anarchism again :lol:
or well anarchosyndicalism

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:46 PM
In short, it in no way justifies what RAAN does.
The only things RAAN has done on this matter is vandalize two RCP bookstores and egg a "left-wing" politician to get him to shut up.

Actually, those are just the only actions that anybody seems to care about. The vast majority of our "anti-Leninism" is in fact expressed through day-to-day continuous discussions with rank-and-file revolutionaries, who more often than not "come over to our side". I agree that the problem lies in the leadership, and that is in fact who RAAN "goes after", if and when it does actually does "go after" anybody.

A lot of people though have made a personal and psychological investment in the primacy of the Lenin cult and we would be hard pressed to convince them of any other option because changing ideas would involve far too great of an emotional undertaking for them. Such a change cannot be forced, it has to be entered into with the full willingness of the individual, with a detailed and personalized approach that only they can provide for themselves. For most established radicals, dropping the Leninist baggage involves a profound inner battle... something like letting go of the flotation device and learning that you can swim on your own.

In the meantime, we will be focusing on consolidating our support amongst those who are not Leninists.

[Janus]

I agree that the problem lies in the leadership, and that is in fact who RAAN "goes after", if and when it does actually does "go after" anybody.
I definitely understand. But what is RAAN&#39;s or AF&#39;s views on guides who can be recalled at any time rather than actual leaders?

[Nachie]

Something like Commisars?

At this stage there is no point in appointing anything of the sort and I am personally uncertain that it should ever become necessary. At any rate to return to the point we are as it stands an all-volunteer self-motivated force, and that is true no matter how you describe the non-electoral "revolutionary left". At this stage, everybody needs to be their own damn commisar or else we won&#39;t see revolution. If we can actually constitute a serious offensive "organization" towards dual and workers&#39; power relative to the experiences and failures of the past, then and ONLY THEN would it even seem like a good idea to be doling out responsibility, and even THEN only for efficiency where necessary. Responsibility for decision-making should be totally dispersed throughout the network to enable each cell or collective of operating independently for the good of the entire project, perhaps even irrespective OF the rest of the project. RAAN is an "organized contradiction" and that&#39;s what gives it life. That&#39;s why we&#39;re still poppin&#39; some boppin&#39; ideas and getting in the face of situations to see what the hell is down and how we&#39;re gonna fuck it up.

The only "elected guide" (and I speak soley for RAAN here) is the continuous public and interpersonal dialogue and meritocracy of activity in the network, which lives and dies with the network and defines it to its core, always. In Brazil they say, "troca uma idéia" which means to exchange some ideas, almost like one would with baseball cards or severed Barbie Doll heads.

[repeater138]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 27 2006, 01:14 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; Apr 27 2006, 01:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:33 PM
If you look at the actual situation of the Russian Revolution it is in fact the case that the State was destroyed. The Army, the Executive, all the organs of coercive power were dissolved and at least for a time the Soviets were put in their place. To suggest that this was not a destruction of the State begs the question of what is?
So what was the Red army, the central committee, Politburo, the Cheka and the bureaucracy designed to reorganise production and where, prey tell, if no state existed, did the authority come from to exact laws?


You say that he wanted to use the State? Of course he did, I haven&#39;t claimed anything otherwise, but which State? The existing Bourgeois State? You say that he wanted to use the State? Of course he did, I haven&#39;t claimed anything otherwise, but which State? The existing Bourgeois State? The one which he said had to be destroyed and was, or the new Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

You just claimed he didn&#39;t use a state?

Anyway...


State and Revolution
In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law. It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state.

Highlight added.

Chapter 5 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)[/b]

The follwing comments are touching on various posts not just the one quoted above. The primary issues being the question of the State, the historical experience of the Russian Revolution, what exactly Lenin&#39;s position is, the similarity between Anarchists and Trotskyists, and the issue of dialectics.

In terms of questions (more like assertions) regarding dialectics I will point out one very obvious reality in which internal aspects of a thing cause its movement. First off everything is matter in motion. This includes things like light, cellular structures, and various other discreet identities. The Sun produces material motion in the form of light. No one suggests that what causes the reactions within the Sun come from outside of it. This production of material motion comes from within the internal dynamics of the Sun itself.

Regarding the issue of the Big Bang, one merely need point out that using Newtonian logic something had to cause the Big Bang, and so the Big Bang itself could not be the "first mover". Once again, the cause of the cause of the cause. The only thing that could have the characteristics of causing while having not been caused itself is God. So if you want to call God the Big Bang thats your prerogative.

(Re: the history of the Russian Revolution)

The February Revolution very clearly inherited the Czarist State. The army continued to fight the war against the Germans at the direction of the Kerensky government.

Once again the Socialist Revolutionary Party is widely known to have been a main concentration of Anarchists. Frankly if you want to argue about this point all it does is put you into the alternative possibility that the Anarchists were not an organized force, or a major factor, until after the October Revolution, when Makhno and Kronstadt develop. This possibility brings to mind an anology an ex-anarchist friend once told me: Anarchists are the water-skiers of revolution. They party in the back while the communists create the openings and defend the interests of the masses against the lies and machinations of liberals and opportunists.

Again Kerensky was a member of the SR party. As was Kropotkin. Kropotkin was an Anarchist and Kerensky was not. To say that the SR party can be equated with the only organized anarchist presence in the situation is not to say that the SRs were all anarchists or that the party itself was avowedly anarchist. Nonetheless if we&#39;re to evaluate what anarchists did between February and October, we&#39;re going to have to look at the SRs as well as the most outspoken and obvious leaders of the Anarchist movement such as Kropotkin. If you need more anarchist sell-outs to realize there is a problem here are two: Grave and Corneliseen.

What you fail to recognize is that in saying this I am not suggesting that all anarchists are sell-outs. As I said before the split of the SRs into left and right SRs showed that many anarchists were revolutionaries, but many were not. On the other hand without the initiative of the Bolsheviks, whom the left SRs sided with, there would not have been a revolution. The anarchists were incapable of delivering the final blow.

This blow was the one that shattered the state. The State was destroyed when the military, the executive, and the bureaucracy of the State ceased to operate. That there was a parallel State in the form of the militias and the soviets which filled that empty space doesn&#39;t mean that the prior State was not destroyed. Moreover the Red Army wasn&#39;t created overnight, it didn&#39;t exist as such until well into 1918. The Cheka for instance was not founded until late December of 1917.

So once again the Bolsheviks destroyed the State and put a new one in its place.

(Re: Anarchist/Trotskyist)

This is the question around which my previous observation of the similarity of Trotskyists and Anarchists revolved around. The funny thing being that no-one looked at the content of my argument about this simple fact and just freaked out that I messed up their a priori categories. The similarity is exactly in the relation of the two political ideologies to the realities of destroying the State. As I said before Anarchists can&#39;t destroy the State, and Trotskyists don&#39;t want to. With regards to their objective position relative to the State they&#39;re on the same side. I should qualify a little more and say that properly speaking I&#39;m referring to opportunists rather than Trotskyists, but that the statement holds for most Trotskyist groupings since most of them are opportunist. The most obvious example of Trotskyist lack of interest in destroying the State is their continued work in the electoral realm, where they engage rather unsuccessfully in a contest over the State. This is ceratinly the case with the SWP (both in Britain and in the U.S.) as well as the ISO in the U.S. Non-trotskyist attempts at this kind of "revolution" take a slightly different take. The CPUSA since at least the 1930&#39;s had a program of supporting one side of the Bourgoeis State against the other while attempting to place cadre into the bureaucracy. The idea being to peacefully take the State from within as well as from without with "democratic mobilization". This is still essentially their program and you can find it in the most recent work of Sam Webb: http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/644/1/8/

So again what is your position on the State, and how are you going to realize it?

(Re: Lenin&#39;s position in State and Revolution)

As for your quotation from State and Revolution, its out of context. Previously in the book Lenin discusses the question of bourgoeis right, and quotes Marx&#39;s aphorism that right can be no higher than material conditions allow. If the material conditions are organized on the basis of capitalism right can be no higher than that material reality. In other words once you have the revolution the material conditions still exist out of which law is formulated. All Lenin is saying is that in the earlier period of socialism the productive relations and the limits of right will still be essentially bourgeois. I think he is being intentionally provocative by suggesting that the State then is Bourgeois, but that it has bourgeois characterisitcs is not in doubt.

Last point, I never claimed that Lenin&#39;s position was that the institution of the State was not to be used. I said very clearly that his position was that the old State must be destroyed and that a new State, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be put in its place as a transition to communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by repeater138+--> (repeater138)This production of material motion comes from within the internal dynamics of the Sun itself.[/b]

We have a Science and Environment forum in which these matters are discussed. If you feel "up to it", you are welcome to discuss physics in that forum.

Likewise, if you wish to defend "dialectics", by all means do so...in the Philosophy Forum.


Anarchists are the water-skiers of revolution. They party in the back while the communists create the openings and defend the interests of the masses against the lies and machinations of liberals and opportunists....

As I said before Anarchists can&#39;t destroy the State, and Trotskyists don&#39;t want to.

Perhaps you&#39;re under the impression that "argument by quip" is acceptable here.

If you had simply said that contemporary Trotskyism is mired deeply in reformism, I would not argue with you...at least with regard to the U.K. and the U.S. Some of them are even to the right of pre-World War I German social democracy.

Your assertion that anarchists "can&#39;t" smash the bourgeois state machinery and disperse its personnel remains simply an assertion...it depends on how well anarchists have learned the Spanish lesson.

Many of them say they have...but history will decide.

Meanwhile, what have you learned from history?

Your "living Marx" speaks...


Bob Avakian
And there will always be in one form or another political representatives; despite all the science fiction and everything else, I do not believe that the highest level that can be achieved is where everybody puts on their TV, listens to a big debate and pushes a computer, yes or no, up or down, kill ’em, throw ’em out, make ’em president or whatever; I don’t believe that’s the way that decision-making is going to be done under communism. There will be political representatives and struggle among them, and the masses will be decisive, yes, but not in the literal, direct, good old town meeting tradition.

http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/

"Political representation" is meaningless, of course, without a state apparatus.

There will be a "political class" that decides stuff and the masses who presumably get to "vote on their representatives" now and then.

According to Chairman Bob, communism is going to be run according to the "ideal" of a "perfect bourgeois republic".

With "good personality cults" at no additional charge. :lol:

Under the circumstances, the RCP is in no position to "quip" about either anarchists or Trotskyists. Your variant of Leninism offers no improvement.


All Lenin is saying is that in the earlier period of socialism the productive relations and the limits of right will still be essentially bourgeois.

Then why bother?

On the basis of someone&#39;s promise that "things will be better someday"?

How often have we heard that?

And how often has it been true?

If we must choose between promises, why shouldn&#39;t we choose the anarchists? Their promises beat the living crap out of yours.

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

[repeater138]

Khayembii Communique said regarding Redstar:


Most of your rants are ad hominems, careful evasions of the actual topic at hand or ranting. When I quoted McLellan, what did you do? Ad hominem. Was anything that I quoted false? No. Yet for reasons beyond me you chose to attack McLellan&#39;s person instead of what he said. When Axel posted a quote from one of Ted Grant&#39;s books that was an actual contribution to the discussion at hand, what did you do? You attacked Grant&#39;s person. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if you didn&#39;t even read what Axel quoted. What the hell is that supposed to accomplish?

And then Redstar provides us with a crystal clear example of this in his last post:


We have a Science and Environment forum in which these matters are discussed. If you feel "up to it", you are welcome to discuss physics in that forum.

Likewise, if you wish to defend "dialectics", by all means do so...in the Philosophy Forum.

First of all it was Redstar himself who brought up the issue of dialectics. But instead of continuing to discuss this issue, which is obviously theoretical, Redstar attempts to end the discussion by suggesting that it is not valid to this thread or this forum. This is completely changing the subject and moreover flat out rejecting a discussion.

Redstar then carefully tailors quotes by myself, taking them out of context and not at all dealing with the argument, in order to make a specious claim that I am arguing by quip. Lets just say that this attempt by Redstar is guilty of the very thing Redstar accuses me of:


Perhaps you&#39;re under the impression that "argument by quip" is acceptable here.

Quite the quip.


If you had simply said that contemporary Trotskyism is mired deeply in reformism, I would not argue with you...at least with regard to the U.K. and the U.S. Some of them are even to the right of pre-World War I German social democracy.

Your assertion that anarchists "can&#39;t" smash the bourgeois state machinery and disperse its personnel remains simply an assertion...it depends on how well anarchists have learned the Spanish lesson.

Many of them say they have...but history will decide.

As to the question of the ability of anarchists to destroy State power, it is well known that one cannot prove a negative, but in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary and given the theoretical and practical basis of anarchist politics it is fully justifiable to say that anarchists cannot destroy State power. If there is evidence to the contrary I&#39;d like to hear about it. Still it remains the case that no anarchist I have ever spoken to can give an actual plan for how they&#39;re going to destroy the State. To say nothing about whether the plan would work or not. What we can say is that historically speaking Anarchists themselves have never accomplished it.

What are these lessons of the Spanish Civil War, Redstar?

Redstar then brings in a quote by Bob Avakian. Leave it to Redstar to ignore what has been said and to bring in things that aren&#39;t being discussed in order to both change the subject and simultaneously commit an ad hominen attack.

Regardless, if Redstar&#39;s method isn&#39;t obvious to people yet this tortured analysis of a Bob Avakian quote, which is completely taken out of context, simply lays every trick that Redstar has on the table.



And there will always be in one form or another political representatives; despite all the science fiction and everything else, I do not believe that the highest level that can be achieved is where everybody puts on their TV, listens to a big debate and pushes a computer, yes or no, up or down, kill ’em, throw ’em out, make ’em president or whatever; I don’t believe that’s the way that decision-making is going to be done under communism. There will be political representatives and struggle among them, and the masses will be decisive, yes, but not in the literal, direct, good old town meeting tradition.

http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/

"Political representation" is meaningless, of course, without a state apparatus.

There will be a "political class" that decides stuff and the masses who presumably get to "vote on their representatives" now and then.

According to Chairman Bob, communism is going to be run according to the "ideal" of a "perfect bourgeois republic".

With "good personality cults" at no additional charge.

Under the circumstances, the RCP is in no position to "quip" about either anarchists or Trotskyists. Your variant of Leninism offers no improvement.

Political representation is not meaningless without a state aparatus. A state aparatus is an aparatus for the suppression of one class by another. Without classes you still have political representation and division within a society. This is evidenced in communities that have existed with pre-class social arrangements, and it remains a necessity once we get rid of classes. Simply put, there are 6 billion plus people on the planet and even without classes there will be the necessity for representation of some kind when engaging in political discourse.

Another oddity here is that Redstar quotes words and phrases which are not in the statement by Bob Avakian. There is no discussion of a "political class", or the "ideal" of a "perfect bourgeois republic". These are terms and concepts that Redstar reads into the statement by Bob Avakian. While following a certain logic these could follow from the concept of "Political representation", one has to ask who&#39;s logic? Is it Avakian&#39;s logic? No it&#39;s Redstar&#39;s fantasy. Redstar tortures this passage to get from a perfectly materialist observation about the necessity for political representation and comes up with the "ideal bourgeois republic". This is in fact the limits of Redstar&#39;s position. That someone would discuss a concrete necessity such as political representation and the only thing Redstar can see in that is an "ideal bourgoeis republic" clearly shows the extent to which he can&#39;t think outside of current bourgeois realities.

But again, why would Redstar want to bring up the RCP and Bob Avakian in this conversation? Is it not because he knows that both the RCP and Bob Avakian are the equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull in this forum? Is he not engaged in demonizing an argument not by dealing with its content, but by proclaiming guilt by association? Needless to say this is the same kind of obvious red-baiting which makes it impossible to talk about the content of Bob Avakian&#39;s work on this forum and in many other places on the internet. This method is a method that makes it difficult to have any discussion.


Then why bother?

On the basis of someone&#39;s promise that "things will be better someday"?

How often have we heard that?

And how often has it been true?

If we must choose between promises, why shouldn&#39;t we choose the anarchists? Their promises beat the living crap out of yours.

Was it simply a promise that life expectancies in China rose from 32 to 65 in 27 years? Was it simply a promise that the practice of foot-binding was ended? Was it simply a promise that women in Russia were the first to get the right to abortion? Was it simply a promise that the Bolsheviks ended Russian participation in WW1? Was it simply a promise that land got redistributed?

No, all these were realities that were created by communist revolution. No one suggests that things were perfect, but there was an obvious and profoundly positive difference in people&#39;s lives as a result of these revolutions. Furthermore these revolutions unleashed the aspirations and rebellions of millions more people around the world. Anarchism has been resigned to sit by ineffectually and point out the failings of these communist revolutions. Some of their criticisms are correct, most are not.

The assurances that "things will be better someday" are the assurances of reformists. Revolutionaries are rather impatient about when things are going to get better and they recognize that the only way it will happen is when people act to make it happen. Frankly, "things will be better someday" sounds an awful lot like "history will decide", but I digress. That classes cannot be immediately eliminated does not mean that things can&#39;t more or less immediately change for the better. That socialism early on continues to carry with it the leftovers from the old society does not mean that things haven&#39;t changed, or that it&#39;s somehow not worth it to create the basis to finally eliminate classes.

[Janus]

Something like Commisars?
Commissars are actual leaders with power over others and supposedly rule in the name of the people. I was talking more along the line of guides or advisors who may have more experience and expertise in certain fields who help out but don&#39;t have status or a great deal of authority over others.

[redstar2000]

One of the things I&#39;ve noted over my years here is that the Leninists (of all varieties) being unable to refute the evidence and arguments I present, piss and moan endlessly about my "style of argument".

I quote them (or their gurus) "out of context" and I&#39;m guilty of ad hominem attacks on their sources...etc., etc., etc.

Only the godsuckers complain more bitterly...and that may not be a coincidence. :lol:


Originally posted by repeater138
As to the question of the ability of anarchists to destroy State power, it is well known that one cannot prove a negative, but in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary and given the theoretical and practical basis of anarchist politics it is fully justifiable to say that anarchists cannot destroy State power. If there is evidence to the contrary I&#39;d like to hear about it. Still it remains the case that no anarchist I have ever spoken to can give an actual plan for how they&#39;re going to destroy the State. To say nothing about whether the plan would work or not. What we can say is that historically speaking Anarchists themselves have never accomplished it.

The Leninists say that we must submit to a despotism of their Vanguard Party to make a "successful transition" to communism.

But the "razor" you apply so enthusiastically to the anarchists shaves you just as close...no Leninist party has ever come up with an "actual plan" for the transition to communism, much less one that looks "workable".

Your only "advantage" in such an argument is that despotism is known to work whereas anarchism really isn&#39;t "known to work".

But despotism is unpleasant and widely regarded therefore as undesirable on its face.

On what solid grounds should we regard Bob Avakian or Ted Grant or some other "great leader" as superior in any way to George W. Bush or Tony Blair?

That the former make "nicer promises" than the latter??? :lol:


What are these lessons of the Spanish Civil War, Redstar?

That the anarchists almost "got it right". The failure to disperse the remnant of the bourgeois state machinery in Catalonia was a catastrophic blunder.

It would be genuinely astonishing if serious anarchists had not learned from that.


Without classes you still have political representation and division within a society.

Otherwise, what would the PARTY do? :lol:


Simply put, there are 6 billion plus people on the planet and even without classes there will be the necessity for representation of some kind when engaging in political discourse.

Can&#39;t allow those "6 billion" to actually decide anything important for themselves, right?


That someone would discuss a concrete necessity such as political representation and the only thing Redstar can see in that is an "ideal bourgeois republic" clearly shows the extent to which he can&#39;t think outside of current bourgeois realities.

What else could Avakian have meant? He clearly rejects any kind of direct popular control over decision-making in public life...even under communism.

What else can he be thinking of but an "ideal bourgeois republic" (without the bourgeoisie)?

A "World Parliament" composed of -- surprise&#33; -- delegates nominated and approved by the Vanguard Party which will unanimously approve the decrees of the "Great Leader" of that era.

Some fun, eh? :o


Is it not because he knows that both the RCP and Bob Avakian are the equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull in this forum?

You are self identified as a supporter of the RCP and a "follower" of Bob Avakian.

When you post in defense of Leninism, you cannot reasonably expect that people will "ignore" your agenda.


...obvious red-baiting...

It&#39;s not "red-baiting" if the person being "baited" is not really a "red". :lol:


No one suggests that things were perfect, but there was an obvious and profoundly positive difference in people&#39;s lives as a result of these revolutions.

Which is what always happens when countries leave the pre-capitalist epochs and enter the modern world...no matter who administers the transition.


Furthermore these revolutions unleashed the aspirations and rebellions of millions more people around the world.

Yes, they "raised hopes"...and then demolished them.


That classes cannot be immediately eliminated does not mean that things can&#39;t more or less immediately change for the better. That socialism early on continues to carry with it the leftovers from the old society does not mean that things haven&#39;t changed, or that it&#39;s somehow not worth it to create the basis to finally eliminate classes.

Perhaps that satisfies you...but, as you must have learned by now, there are a growing number of people that find your narrow "vision" inadequate.

We demand the abolition of wage slavery...and are not going to be "satisfied" with your "bourgeois right" no matter how many red flags you wave.

Or how many times you tell us that what we want is "impossible". :lol:

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

[KC]

One of the things I&#39;ve noted over my years here is that the Leninists (of all varieties) being unable to refute the evidence and arguments I present, piss and moan endlessly about my "style of argument".


Unfortunately your response is completely invalidated by the fact that I&#39;m not a "Leninist".



I quote them (or their gurus) "out of context" and I&#39;m guilty of ad hominem attacks on their sources...etc., etc., etc.

Only the godsuckers complain more bitterly...and that may not be a coincidence.

I would like everyone to notice that he is doing exactly what he has been accused of doing in response to the accusation&#33; :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Unfortunately your response is completely invalidated by the fact that I&#39;m not a "Leninist".

You aren&#39;t???

How is it that the "member title" that you selected for yourself is Lenin Rulez?

Was it a mistake and you really meant to write Lenin Suxx?

And who is that fellow that you&#39;ve selected for your avatar?

Were you intending to select a picture of John Lennon and just made another mistake? :lol:

I can certainly sympathize with the desire to "distance oneself" from the more embarrassing implications of Leninism. As I recall from other threads, you went to some lengths to elaborate on the theme that "your vanguardism" was "different" from Lenin&#39;s.

Or Stalin&#39;s or Trotsky&#39;s or Mao&#39;s.

Well, you see what is in dispute in this thread...and it&#39;s not "my style of argument".

Repeater138 just pulled up your criticism of me as a distraction from the weaknesses of his own position.

How do you feel on the issue of the "post-revolutionary state"?

Want one? With a Vanguard Party running it? With a "Great Leader" and a "good personality cult"?

A bourgeois republic without the bourgeoisie?

Or is that stuff just "too much" to choke down?

If so, then may I suggest a change in your "member title" and avatar? Something more in tune with your real views?

From your profile, I also note that you claim your "date of birth" as "27 August 1907". :lol:

Perhaps you&#39;d like to come up with something a little more plausible? :D

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

[KC]

You aren&#39;t???

How is it that the "member title" that you selected for yourself is Lenin Rulez?

Was it a mistake and you really meant to write Lenin Suxx?

And who is that fellow that you&#39;ve selected for your avatar?

Were you intending to select a picture of John Lennon and just made another mistake?

It is obviously a mockery of the anti-Leninist sentiments on this board. Doesn&#39;t make me a Leninist.



I can certainly sympathize with the desire to "distance oneself" from the more embarrassing implications of Leninism. As I recall from other threads, you went to some lengths to elaborate on the theme that "your vanguardism" was "different" from Lenin&#39;s.

Actually, I "went to some lengths" to define what a vanguard really is, as many people here have misconceptions about what a vanguard is.



How do you feel on the issue of the "post-revolutionary state"?

Want one? With a Vanguard Party running it? With a "Great Leader" and a "good personality cult"?

A bourgeois republic without the bourgeoisie?

Or is that stuff just "too much" to choke down?


I&#39;d recommend that you read both the basic principles of the League and my previous 2000 posts on this board. Your attempts at slandering me are in vain, unfortunately (for you), as many people on this board know where I actually stand, and those that don&#39;t don&#39;t really matter.



If so, then may I suggest a change in your "member title" and avatar? Something more in tune with your real views?

You can suggest it. But it won&#39;t happen.


From your profile, I also note that you claim your "date of birth" as "27 August 1907".

Perhaps you&#39;d like to come up with something a little more plausible?

I don&#39;t think that either my birthday or my age are any of your damn business, and I find it quite odd that you even bring it up. My guess is an attempt to play the age card, which quite comically failed; of course you got frustrated with not knowing my actual age and are now demanding it of me so that later you are able to do so. Why would I give you the capacity to further avoid real discussion?

I would like everyone to again realize that Redstar is AGAIN resorting to what he has been accused of&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
It is obviously a mockery of the anti-Leninist sentiments on this board. Doesn&#39;t make me a Leninist.

If you "are not a Leninist", then why should you feel a desire to "mock" anti-Leninist sentiments here?

Would you prefer that we speak of Lenin&#39;s views in "hushed" and "respectful" tones?

The way a few people here think we should speak about people&#39;s "religious beliefs"? :lol:


You can suggest it. But it won&#39;t happen.

Very well. Someone who does not want to be taken seriously probably won&#39;t be.

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

[KC]

If you "are not a Leninist", then why should you feel a desire to "mock" anti-Leninist sentiments here?

Would you prefer that we speak of Lenin&#39;s views in "hushed" and "respectful" tones?

The way a few people here think we should speak about people&#39;s "religious beliefs"?

EDIT: Just because I&#39;m not a Leninist doesn&#39;t make me anti-Leninist. I may agree with some things that he has said. This doesn&#39;t make me either a Leninist nor anti-Leninist, and therefore makes it difficult for you to place me in one of the two camps that you so love to place people in. On to my original post...

A lot of the anti-Leninist sentiments here are unfounded, horribly exaggerated, and basically idiotic (Leninism=Ev1l&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;OMGZ). I would rather that people are encouraged to come to their own conclusions instead of listen to their "benevolent leader" on what they should or should not believe. When I asked you if State & Revolution was a contribution to Marxist theory, all you would say was that it was "a rehash of what Marx and Engels said". When I stated that both rewording and expounding on the ideas that Marx and Engels wrote was indeed a contribution to marxist theory, as it makes the previously proposed ideas more clear, and asked you to again answer my previous question on whether or not it was a contribution to marxist theory, you failed to acknowledge that it is. Everything that Lenin did and/or said weren&#39;t inherently bad because Lenin said or did them. You need to pull your head out of your ass.



Very well. Someone who does not want to be taken seriously probably won&#39;t be.

My original observations about your posting style frustrates you because you know them to be true. So you proceed to attack me, as if this will solve the problem. It obviously won&#39;t; the only thing that will solve your problem will be to post sensibly and actually contribute to debates instead of resorting to flaming and ad hominems. If you need pointers, I could always PM you and let you know when you&#39;re doing this, so you can correct it and proceed to learn to debate properly. Let me know what you think. ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Just because I&#39;m not a Leninist doesn&#39;t make me anti-Leninist.

Curiouser and curiouser. You are "neutral" on the dominant paradigm of the 20th century left?


I may agree with some things that he has said.

Getting closer...what is it exactly that you find worthwhile amidst the ruins?


A lot of the anti-Leninist sentiments here are unfounded, horribly exaggerated, and basically idiotic...

If you refer here to those who portray Lenin as an "arch-villain" of history, I would agree.

But then why not explain to them why you think Lenin was mistaken rather than "evil"?

Or is it easier just to mock?


When I asked you if State & Revolution was a contribution to Marxist theory, all you would say was that it was "a rehash of what Marx and Engels said".

That&#39;s all it was.

Anyone can string a bunch of quotes together with a little commentary thrown in...happens on this board all the time. :lol:

It was not a "contribution to Marxist theory".

Sorry.


Everything that Lenin did and/or said wasn&#39;t inherently bad because Lenin said or did them.

True enough...he was right about World War I, for example. (And the famous Russian anarchist Piotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin was wrong.).

But what do you think Lenin was "right" about?

Isn&#39;t that the real issue?


You need to pull your head out of your ass.

Not an encouraging sign; the Leninists on this board far exceed the non-Leninists or anti-Leninists in personal abuse as a "style" of "argument".

What&#39;s that say about you?


So you proceed to attack me...

No, I "attack" what you&#39;ve said...which is not too good.


If you need pointers, I could always PM you and let you know when you&#39;re doing this, so you can correct it and proceed to learn to debate properly.

With all due respect, I don&#39;t think I need "pointers" from someone who considers "you need to pull your head out of your ass" a crushing rejoinder. :lol:

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

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 30 2006, 07:15 AM
Just because I&#39;m not a Leninist
You might just be the only non-Leninist running around with a picture of the guy as your avatar and "Lenin Rulez" as your personal text :blink:

[KC]

Curiouser and curiouser. You are "neutral" on the dominant paradigm of the 20th century left?


As I previously said, I agree with some things he has said and disagreed with others.



Getting closer...what is it exactly that you find worthwhile amidst the ruins?


State & Revolution and Imperialism, for example.



That&#39;s all it was.

Anyone can string a bunch of quotes together with a little commentary thrown in...happens on this board all the time. laugh.gif

It was not a "contribution to Marxist theory".

Sorry.

"String[ing] a bunch of quotes together with a little commentary thrown in" is a contribution to Marxist theory.



But what do you think Lenin was "right" about?

Isn&#39;t that the real issue?

Not at all. The real issue is your shitty posting style, not my views on Lenin.




Not an encouraging sign; the Leninists on this board far exceed the non-Leninists or anti-Leninists in personal abuse as a "style" of "argument".

What&#39;s that say about you?

It wasn&#39;t personal abuse. Your head is obviously up your ass.


No, I "attack" what you&#39;ve said...which is not too good.


Trying to imply that I belong to a personality cult is attacking me.



With all due respect, I don&#39;t think I need "pointers" from someone who considers "you need to pull your head out of your ass" a crushing rejoinder.

You really do need to pull your head out of your ass. It&#39;s not a crushing rejoinder. I just don&#39;t want you to hurt yourself.



You might just be the only non-Leninist running around with a picture of the guy as your avatar and "Lenin Rulez" as your personal text

Probably. :lol:

[anomaly]

I see KC is playing the superiority card again. His shitty debating style didn&#39;t change along with his name. :lol:


Originally posted by KC
State & Revolution
You agree with everything said in the work? That, after the revolution, all should be employees of the state? Quite the clarification&#33; Perhaps our friend KC isn&#39;t so &#39;non-Lennie&#39; after all.

Let&#39;s put it this way: he&#39;s completely anti-anarchist, and in love with St. Vladimir. (look at his avatar&#33;). :lol:

But, I get the sense that you putting up that silly avatar was a response to the growing anti-Leninist tendency on this board, something you obviously do not like (but, you&#39;re not a Lennie...). And so, in a courageous act of utter rebellion, our hero places the Saint&#39;s head as his avatar, with a cute caption.

If that is the case, then I say onward Spartacus&#33; :lol:

Oh, and redstar2000, you might want to stop arguing with the closet Leninist. His head is at such a size that any debate only proves an utter waste of time.

[repeater138]

One of the things I&#39;ve noted over my years here is that the Leninists (of all varieties) being unable to refute the evidence and arguments I present, piss and moan endlessly about my "style of argument".

What evidence Redstar? What was your argument in the first place? That even though you brought up the issue of dialectics you thought it should be discussed in another area of the forum? The only way to refute that is to show it for what is, a cheap attempt to change the subject and runaway from debate. Or was your argument that I support Bob Avakian and therefore am wrong? Well this argument is patently fallacious. Perhaps your argument is that Anarchists can destroy the State. What evidence have you got to back that up. I have simply said that in the absence of any positive evidence we can say that they can&#39;t destroy the State. It&#39;s kinda like saying in the absence of any positive indication that God exists, we can assume He doesn&#39;t. Prove me wrong.

When you said:


Your assertion that anarchists "can&#39;t" smash the bourgeois state machinery and disperse its personnel remains simply an assertion...it depends on how well anarchists have learned the Spanish lesson.

This was my reply:

"As to the question of the ability of anarchists to destroy State power, it is well known that one cannot prove a negative, but in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary and given the theoretical and practical basis of anarchist politics it is fully justifiable to say that anarchists cannot destroy State power. If there is evidence to the contrary I&#39;d like to hear about it. Still it remains the case that no anarchist I have ever spoken to can give an actual plan for how they&#39;re going to destroy the State. To say nothing about whether the plan would work or not. What we can say is that historically speaking Anarchists themselves have never accomplished it.

What are these lessons of the Spanish Civil War, Redstar?"

Your style of argument aside, I made a counter argument here. I backed up my "assertion" with the fact that there is no positive indication that Anarchists can destroy the State. In other words what positive evidence do you have that shows that Anarchists are capable of destroying the State? I have shown not only the capability, but the intention and the actuality of Communists destroying the State. Whether you like what&#39;s put in its place or not is not the issue when your part of this was directed at whether one could compare Anarchists and Trotskysists..

My claim that Anarchists and Trotskyists have exactly the same objective position with regards to the State has not been disproved by you. The best you can do is to go on about how Anarchists and Trots can&#39;t stand eachother. Clearly you need to recognize the difference between objective and subjective. In other words the question is not what they claim to believe, who they like or dislike, or what they desire to achieve, but what they can and actually do accomplish in relation to the State. The fact that Trots don&#39;t want to destroy the State and that Anarchists can&#39;t means that the State still exists with these two and thus they objectively share the same position in relation to the State.

You suggest later that the lesson Anarchists should have learned in the Spanish Civil War was that they should have destroyed the "remnants of the bourgeois machinery". Bullshit, not only was that not the intention of the Anarchists in Catalunya, but even if they had wanted to they were incapable of such an action. What "remnants of the bourgeois machinery"? The State was the Popular Front which was based in Madrid, then Valencia, then in November, after the events of May, the government moved to Barcelona. The Anarchists, Trots and Stalinists were engaged in sectarian violence in Barcelona during May, not any revolution or attempt to destroy the State, i.e. the Republic.

It was in fact the Republic itself which reestablished order, not by completely destroying the forces of the Anarchists and Trots, but by bringing in a neutral force to stop the fighting. By the time the militias were disarmed and more fully incorporated into the Republic&#39;s military it was a foregone conclusion, the Anarchists had no choice. Not exactly the position from which to begin sweeping away "remnants of the bourgeois machinery". More importantly the Fascists were winning and this itself was nearly a foregone conclusion at this point.

So you claim that they should have or could have destroyed the "remnants of the bourgeois machinery"? How?

Regardless, the Anarchists never had the kind of force or popular support that would have allowed them to, "smash the remnants of the bourgoeis machinery" and even if they had it wouldn&#39;t have been very long until the Republic fell and then soon after the Fascists conquered all of Spain. If anything further sectarian conflict, even with the victory of the Anarchists over everyone else in Catalonia, would have simply accelerated the defeat of the Popular Front.

Why are "should haves" and "could haves" the best you can come up with? Yeah, Anarchists might destroy the State, but why hold your breath? They&#39;ve been around longer than Communists and the&#39;ve never done it. In fact if anything it looks like Anarchists and yourself are the ones making empty promises about what you might do. But I suppose "history will tell" :rolleyes: But again, I&#39;m not waiting around for the Anarchists to get their shit together and I&#39;m not waiting for "history to tell". I&#39;m using what we know now based upon what has worked before to do better. Which is just another way of saying I&#39;m a Revolutionary Communist.

If the best example of Anarchist achievement is the quintessential example of the defeat of the left, then why are we still bothering with Anarchism? Do you want to actually answer that question before you turn it around and say, "Why are we still bothering with Lenin"?


You are self identified as a supporter of the RCP and a "follower" of Bob Avakian.

When you post in defense of Leninism, you cannot reasonably expect that people will "ignore" your agenda

You wanted to change the issue to Avakian because of my spooky communist agenda? Your claim that you&#39;re not red-baiting is garbage. You change the subject to affiliation, instead of sticking with the actual argument and you defend this pathetic retreat by suggesting that you were performing the noble action of exposing my "agenda". Please Redstar, this is fucking classic red-baiting. It doesn&#39;t matter how much Marx you read or how many thousands of posts you make to this forum, you&#39;re not a Marxist, a Communist, or much of anything but an ultra-left liberal. And as such your evaluation of what is in fact red or not, is more easily seen by who you decide to red-bait than by whom you give the seal of approval as a red.

Anyone who can both agree that State and Revolution is mainly a distillation of Marx and Engels and then reject it and claim to be a Marxist is obviously claiming something while simultaneously rejecting it. You&#39;re a Marxist about as far as I can throw you. You claim to be reevaluating the communist project and all I see is the reevaluation of communism out of the project.

This aside I very clearly dealt with your claims regarding the quote by Avakian which you pull out of thin air and introduce to this conversation. By suggesting that I&#39;m not dealing with your "argument" and "evidence" you&#39;re simply lying and refusing to discuss. I see no reason to say anything more on this subject than what I said in my previous post which I will put here for you:


Political representation is not meaningless without a state aparatus. A state aparatus is an aparatus for the suppression of one class by another. Without classes you still have political representation and division within a society. This is evidenced in communities that have existed with pre-class social arrangements, and it remains a necessity once we get rid of classes. Simply put, there are 6 billion plus people on the planet and even without classes there will be the necessity for representation of some kind when engaging in political discourse.

Another oddity here is that Redstar quotes words and phrases which are not in the statement by Bob Avakian. There is no discussion of a "political class", or the "ideal" of a "perfect bourgeois republic". These are terms and concepts that Redstar reads into the statement by Bob Avakian. While following a certain logic these could follow from the concept of "Political representation", one has to ask who&#39;s logic? Is it Avakian&#39;s logic? No it&#39;s Redstar&#39;s fantasy. Redstar tortures this passage to get from a perfectly materialist observation about the necessity for political representation and comes up with the "ideal bourgeois republic". This is in fact the limits of Redstar&#39;s position. That someone would discuss a concrete necessity such as political representation and the only thing Redstar can see in that is an "ideal bourgoeis republic" clearly shows the extent to which he can&#39;t think outside of current bourgeois realities.

Now lets see your response:

What else could Avakian have meant? He clearly rejects any kind of direct popular control over decision-making in public life...even under communism.

What else can he be thinking of but an "ideal bourgeois republic" (without the bourgeoisie)?

A "World Parliament" composed of -- surprise&#33; -- delegates nominated and approved by the Vanguard Party which will unanimously approve the decrees of the "Great Leader" of that era.

Some fun, eh?

What else could he have meant? He could have meant that with 6 billion people you would need to have people select representatives for certain (not all) political processes, while at the same time the most fundamental political agency and popular control will be brought out in people&#39;s everyday lives not in special elections.

You bum a smoke off me, and ask for a light, you want me to smoke it for you too? In other words you post an Avakian quote, fuck it all up, and then you ask me to clarify your thinking for you? Are you really so stupid that the only option you can see in what he is saying is "clearly" a rejection of "any kind" of popular control, or is it that the only true kind of popular control for you is direct democracy?

He does not reject direct popular control. I think that the masses engaging in debate, rallies, protests, even rebellions is a much more profound and real form of direct popular control than everyone in the world voting on issues all at once. There is nothing in what he says which negates this. In fact as Communists that uphold the Cultural Revolution this is exactly the point that we&#39;re always trying to make, that the most profound democracy has nothing to do with voting.

That there will be the material need for political representation is just obvious and doesn&#39;t preclude forms of direct popular control over society. Only a fool would say otherwise. Only a fool would take the realization that there will be situations in which political representation is used in a world of over 6 billion people to mean that there is no direct popular control over society. Our fool is Redstar. May his "logical" hijinks please the Crown.

Redstar:

But the "razor" you apply so enthusiastically to the anarchists shaves you just as close...no Leninist party has ever come up with an "actual plan" for the transition to communism, much less one that looks "workable".

No it doesn&#39;t because we were talking about the question of destroying the State, not a "transition to communism". But now that you bring it up, Socialism is the plan for a transition to Communism. What&#39;s the Anarchist plan? The plan is "we don&#39;t need no stinkin&#39; plan", and "we don&#39;t need no stinkin&#39; transition".

You&#39;re simply comparing apples to oranges when you discuss plans for transitioning to Communism. Anarchists, by definition refuse such a discussion. Now if we stick to discussing the issue of destroying the State we can compare plans, and again Communists have one, Anarchists don&#39;t. Both claim to aim for the destruction of the State, but only one has a plan to do so and accomplishes it historically. I guess it&#39;s just too bad for Anarchists that the only ideology that can lead to the conscious destruction of the State is one which also sees the necessity of building a new one.

Alas, Restar&#39;s bitter denunciation of reason takes a pattern in his reply.

He ignores the issue and the points which have been made, especially the strongest arguments, and then he suggests that the person he is arguing against is the one doing this:


One of the things I&#39;ve noted over my years here is that the Leninists (of all varieties) being unable to refute the evidence and arguments I present, piss and moan endlessly about my "style of argument".

He then twists the actual arguments until they&#39;re unrecognizable:


But the "razor" you apply so enthusiastically to the anarchists shaves you just as close...no Leninist party has ever come up with an "actual plan" for the transition to communism, much less one that looks "workable".

He then throws in some demagoguery followed by a quip or two:


But despotism is unpleasant and widely regarded therefore as undesirable on its face.

On what solid grounds should we regard Bob Avakian or Ted Grant or some other "great leader" as superior in any way to George W. Bush or Tony Blair?

That the former make "nicer promises" than the latter???

He adds a completely baseless assertion of what reality is:



No one suggests that things were perfect, but there was an obvious and profoundly positive difference in people&#39;s lives as a result of these revolutions.



Which is what always happens when countries leave the pre-capitalist epochs and enter the modern world...no matter who administers the transition.

(Tell that to the people of China today, or the people of Russia, or the people of Peru, or Vietnam, or South Africa, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or India. This statement betrays your ultimate faith in the progressiveness of the very system which you claim to oppose. This is liberalism.)

A couple more quips and another rousing slogan for the useful idiots and then he ends:


Otherwise, what would the PARTY do? :lol:


It&#39;s not "red-baiting" if the person being "baited" is not really a "red". :lol:


Yes, they "raised hopes"...and then demolished them.


We demand the abolition of wage slavery...and are not going to be "satisfied" with your "bourgeois right" no matter how many red flags you wave.

Or how many times you tell us that what we want is "impossible".

(Redstar, do you even know what bourgoeis right is?)

Herr, Redstar is a windbag. I strongly encourage everyone to study his method and recognize it as a distillation of everything not to do if you want to change the world. At least in this respects Redstar&#39;s ends and means are in accordance.

Unfortunately I won&#39;t be here to take Redstar&#39;s inevitable rejoinder, which will pick small quotes from my post and extrapolate all kinds of extreme assertions based upon them. I won&#39;t even be here to appreciate the amazing sarcastic wit so consistently formulated into biting quips of derision. It saddens me, but I will also be gone when Redstar completely misses the point and begins shouting ultra-left slogans about "wage slavery" and "despotism" (let me clarify that they are only ultra-left because Redstar understands and uses them in such a way as to preclude ever ending either wage slavery or despotism). I can only assume that the court will be amused by Redstar&#39;s "leftist" genuflecting and populist posturing. This image brings joy to my heart when I recall that Redstar claims no interest in leadership. For if Redstar was a leader he would be an exceedingly poor one. I have to go out and organize on May 1st, so I won&#39;t be around to play with the theoretical coloring books of RevolutionaryLeft.com.

Anyway, I hope somebody learned something.

I recommend this for those who want to deal with these questions of the State and Revolution in today&#39;s context: http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/reaching/

Actually, I recommend this entire page for people in the U.S. who want to be a part of building a Vanguard and making a Revolution: http://rwor.org/avakian/avakian-works.html#viewson

Oh, and Redstar, I hope you don&#39;t have a problem with this. After all I&#39;m only putting out my scary communist agenda. And as you said when you "outed" me we wouldn&#39;t want people to ignore my "agenda". :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by repeater138
I backed up my "assertion" with the fact that there is no positive indication that Anarchists can destroy the State.

Granted...they had one chance in Spain and didn&#39;t do it.

That makes them 0 for 1.

But insofar as they were actually running things in Catalonia, their failure to destroy the capitalist state apparatus was more like a caught line drive than a weak ground ball to second. The bourgeois state apparatus in that part of Spain was effectively powerless...and could simply have been dispersed with a proverbial "corporal&#39;s guard".

One out does not a ballgame make.


I have shown not only the capability, but the intention and the actuality of Communists [sic] destroying the State. Whether you like what&#39;s put in its place or not is not the issue...

What Leninists have actually done is replace a pre-capitalist state apparatus with a state apparatus modeled after a bourgeois republic...that doesn&#39;t yet have any capitalists in it.

Historically progressive to be sure...but hardly relevant for us.

I&#39;ve seen nothing about what the RCP intends for the United States...other than Bob Avakian&#39;s frank admission that his party will rule as an "enlightened despotism".


Clearly you need to recognize the difference between objective and subjective.

The Trotskyists have never had the opportunity to smash a bourgeois state apparatus.

And maybe they never will; who can say?

I could see a successful Trotskyist party as a possibility in a country like Pakistan...where they already have some members in the fake parliament there.

Granted that it&#39;s unlikely...but your subjectivism on the subject "closes the door" before they&#39;ve had even one chance to "blow it".

You&#39;ve already "determined" that Maoism is "better" than Trotskyism and "nothing more needs to be said".

Are you preparing to celebrate the constitutional monarchy that your comrades are preparing to install in Nepal?

Another Maoist "victory"? :lol:


I&#39;m using what we know now based upon what has worked before to do better. Which is just another way of saying I&#39;m a Revolutionary Communist.

Still trying to pass yourself off as a "winner" when everyone knows that Leninism is now 0 for ever. :lol:

Thirty years ago, you could get away with that. Now you&#39;re standing in the ruins still claiming victory.

Go figure.


If the best example of Anarchist achievement is the quintessential example of the defeat of the left, then why are we still bothering with Anarchism?

Because they got closer to the prize than the Leninists ever managed. There was something like real working class power in the parts of Spain where the anarchists were strong.

All the Leninists have ever managed to accomplish -- even at the height of their power -- were glorified welfare states run by party despotisms.

And that seems to be all you still want. You agree with that quote I always drag out to embarrass the Leninists: the working class is "not competent" to rule itself. You think the RCP should do it.

Fat chance&#33; :lol:


...you&#39;re not a Marxist, a Communist, or much of anything but an ultra-left liberal.

Shall I reply in the same spirit?

Nah, why bother?


Anyone who can both agree that State and Revolution is mainly a distillation of Marx and Engels and then reject it and claim to be a Marxist is obviously claiming something while simultaneously rejecting it.

Pretty silly, even by your standards. What I said was that State and Revolution was a "copy & paste" production...and not a "contribution to Marxist theory".

I didn&#39;t use the word "distillation"...because that would have been inaccurate.


[Avakian] could have meant that with 6 billion people you would need to have people select representatives for certain (not all) political processes, while at the same time the most fundamental political agency and popular control will be brought out in people&#39;s everyday lives, not in special elections.

Picked a funny way to say that...if that&#39;s what he meant.

In my opinion, you&#39;re just trying to put a democratic "spin" on his words. With present-day technology, people could vote on anything...if you trusted them, of course.

Bob Avakian doesn&#39;t...nor do you, I think.


...is it that the only true kind of popular control for you is direct democracy?

Actually, I personally favor demarchy (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&), a mechanism for pulling the masses into the "administration of things" in post-capitalist society.

But if demarchy proves impractical, then, yes, direct democracy is the only way to go.

So-called "representative" democracy has never been anything but a scam.

That Avakian wants to keep it around "forever" simply reveals his chronic distrust of the masses.


I have to go out and organize on May 1st, so I won&#39;t be around to play with the theoretical coloring books of RevolutionaryLeft.com.

Passing out "Bob Balloons", no doubt. :lol:


Oh, and Redstar, I hope you don&#39;t have a problem with this.

None whatsoever. Nothing drives people away from Chairman Bob like reading him. :lol:

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by repeater138
What&#39;s the Anarchist plan? The plan is "we don&#39;t need no stinkin&#39; plan", and "we don&#39;t need no stinkin&#39; transition".
Oh...you&#39;re in the Avakian cult...well, that certainly explains a lot.

Actually, an anarchist plan for transition is known as collectivism. It would be stateless, but would involve a TLV economy, or something similar.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by repeater138+Apr 29 2006, 04:46 AM--> (repeater138 &#064; Apr 29 2006, 04:46 AM) (Re: Lenin&#39;s position in State and Revolution)

As for your quotation from State and Revolution, its out of context. Previously in the book Lenin discusses the question of bourgoeis right, and quotes Marx&#39;s aphorism that right can be no higher than material conditions allow. If the material conditions are organized on the basis of capitalism right can be no higher than that material reality. In other words once you have the revolution the material conditions still exist out of which law is formulated. All Lenin is saying is that in the earlier period of socialism the productive relations and the limits of right will still be essentially bourgeois. I think he is being intentionally provocative by suggesting that the State then is Bourgeois, but that it has bourgeois characterisitcs is not in doubt. [/b]
Your entire post has been one of the most elaberate evasions I have ever witnessed.

Firstly, the quote was not "out of context". The context of that section was the discussion about the preservation of the state and not the "philosophy of bourgeois right", which actually only acts as a justification for the preservation of the bourgeois state.

All you have done here is evade the truth and very audaciously insist that Lenin didn&#39;t really mean what he wrote.


Last point, I never claimed that Lenin&#39;s position was that the institution of the State was not to be used. I said very clearly that his position was that the old State must be destroyed and that a new State, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be put in its place as a transition to communism.

You claimed:


repeater138
If you look at the actual situation of the Russian Revolution it is in fact the case that the State was destroyed. The Army, the Executive, all the organs of coercive power were dissolved and at least for a time the Soviets were put in their place. To suggest that this was not a destruction of the State begs the question of what is?

Which is a completely fatuous assertion. These institutions weren&#39;t "dissolved" as you suggest, they were consolidated into the hands of the Central Committee.

[Enragé]

The only things RAAN has done on this matter is vandalize two RCP bookstores and egg a "left-wing" politician to get him to shut up.

Actually, those are just the only actions that anybody seems to care about. The vast majority of our "anti-Leninism" is in fact expressed through day-to-day continuous discussions with rank-and-file revolutionaries, who more often than not "come over to our side". I agree that the problem lies in the leadership, and that is in fact who RAAN "goes after", if and when it does actually does "go after" anybody

then stop printing shit like that stupid pamphlet about hunting leninists down

wont get you anywhere.

Judge each leftist separately; and if there is a stalin like bastard by all means kick the living shit out of him. However 99,9 % arent. They want a better world, just like you, just like me.

So work together with the members while undermining any stalinist leadership


A lot of people though have made a personal and psychological investment in the primacy of the Lenin cult and we would be hard pressed to convince them of any other option because changing ideas would involve far too great of an emotional undertaking for them. Such a change cannot be forced, it has to be entered into with the full willingness of the individual, with a detailed and personalized approach that only they can provide for themselves. For most established radicals, dropping the Leninist baggage involves a profound inner battle...

very true

but burning their newspapers, and hunting them down as your pamphlet calls for is nonsense, it wont help them fight their inner battle, it would only strengthen prejudice against the "unorganised rabble which calls itself anarchist"

you know
you&#39;re actually starting to make some sense
dont hide behind dogma and rabid anti-whateverism
A better world is what we fight for, no matter what we call ourselves.

[Nachie]

Holy crap we&#39;re still talking about this?

RAAN affiliates have the right to distribute whatever they want. The flyer is up there because somebody made it and it doesn&#39;t violate the principles. Whether or not anybody actually distributes it is up to those individuals alone. The only people who are "pushing" the flyer are those who keep bringing it up on these forums.

Right now the "inner battle" we are most interested in is for unity with people who are already anti-authoritarian. Winning over the Leninists is too much hassle for too little reward, and maybe in the future we&#39;ll actually put some energy into it. In the meantime just deal with the fact that nothing we do has been carefully engineered to make you happy, and revleft isn&#39;t our target audience.

The RCP bookstores *do* represent the leadership, and uhhh yeah they actually are "Stalin like bastards". So what&#39;s the problem?

Besides, "rabid" is how we like our anti-Leninism. It makes sure that in five years, you guys still won&#39;t be able to "join" us.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:26 PM
then stop printing shit like that stupid pamphlet about hunting leninists down

wont get you anywhere.

Judge each leftist separately; and if there is a stalin like bastard by all means kick the living shit out of him. However 99,9 % arent. They want a better world, just like you, just like me.
You&#39;re being liberal. It wasn&#39;t Stalin who perverted Leninism -- every Leninist state that has ever existed has spiraled down that same path. Does that not suggest anything to you? Stalinism is nothing but the extension of the Leninist paradigm -- not some fluke in one country.

Most all RAANistas have a personal policy of friendly interaction with Leninists. I&#39;ve never knocked out the old Maoists I used to organize with -- but when I see them with the Quakers protesting Bush, and they ask me to help, I flatly explain to them why not.

[Enragé]

Right now the "inner battle" we are most interested in is for unity with people who are already anti-authoritarian

I am anti-authoritarian, but trotskism doesnt oppose that, at least not in the form i know.



The RCP bookstores *do* represent the leadership, and uhhh yeah they actually are "Stalin like bastards". So what&#39;s the problem?

RCP really is fucked so ok, it isnt even leninist. Fuck avakian and his bullshit followers

But the communist league for instance, nothing wrong with that, or the IS tendency&#39;s orgs (well at least the one over here is ok)


It makes sure that in five years, you guys still won&#39;t be able to "join" us.

define "you guys"?


It wasn&#39;t Stalin who perverted Leninism -- every Leninist state that has ever existed has spiraled down that same path

Because every socalled leninist state after Stalin (that is, all leninist states) followed the stalinist paradigm and accepted the leadership of the Soviet Union.

That is, except for the Maoists who had their own little spinoff.


Most all RAANistas have a personal policy of friendly interaction with Leninists. I&#39;ve never knocked out the old Maoists I used to organize wit

good thats all im asking

some fucking unity


but when I see them with the Quakers protesting Bush, and they ask me to help, I flatly explain to them why not.

and you&#39;re completely right when you do so.

[Nachie]

I am anti-authoritarian, but trotskism doesnt oppose that, at least not in the form i know.
We must be thinking of different Trotskyisms.


define "you guys"?
Leninists.

[Enragé]

Leninists.

There is no such thing as someone who is leninist, as in someone who cannot change.

The reason to be leninist is (for 99,9% of the people) the same as being an anarchist; wanting a better world

so what you should actually want is alot of leninists joining you

point is that would make them opposed to authoritarianism, and, therefore, in your mind, no longer leninist

so stop *****ing and work together :)

[Nachie]

RAAN "stopped *****ing" about four years ago when we put into practice the idea of a network united solely through action and mutual aid, and one of the only reasons this has worked is because we rejected Leninism and the vanguard model.

What we want is a lot of ex-Leninists joining us. A bunch just did. I&#39;m one myself.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by anomaly
After reading What Is To Be Done, any sane anarchist will oppose Lenin and thus Lenin-ism.

You haven&#39;t read it, so I wouldn&#39;t know about you.


Lenin speaks of "centralisation" of all "secret functions" of the Party. Such an authoritative position will only be held by "gifted" "professional revolutionaries" who will be hierarchically above the "rank and file".


Replace the word "gifted" with "class-conscious and more able to perform the job" and you have what Lenin proposed. It&#39;s idealist to think that every person has the same abilities, and can perform a job as good as any other person, that&#39;s just outright stupid. And it certainly isn&#39;t what Communism is. Communism doesn&#39;t mean that every person is equal in kind, that is, equal in thought, physical and emotional state. Communism means that every person regardless of those features should live equally.

If one class-conscious worker is better at writing an article than another class-conscious worker, guess what, the party asks him to write articles. It&#39;s just using simple logic. Oh, yeah, and I doubt the other class-conscious worker would be pissed at the fact that the party chose someone else to write articles, on the contrary, he recognizes the fact that the other one is better at writing articles, and therefore supports the decision. That&#39;s what we call not having a huge ego.


The training referred to is training to become a &#39;professional revolutionary&#39;.

What the hell is wrong with training to become a professional revolutionary? Do you even know what that term means? I doubt it, if you did you wouldn&#39;t have thrown a tantrum every time you heard someone use the term.


Now, Lenin says again and again that the German Social Democratic Party has more democratic priniciples than the Russian, but that this is due to the &#39;autocracy&#39; present in Russia. Well, on this point, Lenin may well have been right. But this shows the terrible error of attempting to use Leninist strategies in our situation today in the advanced capitalist nations of the world.

Don&#39;t be silly, the Bolshevik party changed it&#39;s position on democratic centralism after the revolution and with the setting-up of the 3rd international. Read: Terms of Admission into Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm)

Look, if you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about just don&#39;t bother posting, it doesn&#39;t make you look "smarter" when you post quotes of Lenin and then try to critique it. Your criticisms have to be correct, yours doesn&#39;t even take into account all the facts.


Stranger still is the Leninist superstition that the kind of organization described will result in a &#39;democratic state&#39;, as Lenin claims in State and Revolution.

A party isn&#39;t a state, states aren&#39;t based on singular parties. Go read some basic Marxist theory.


Also in that work (S & R), Lenin claims that he indeed wants classes to remain, but the suppression to reverse. And this suppression will be done by a state apparatus.

On the surface, many will agree with that. However, simply reversing class roles, rather than eliminating those class roles altogether, is a very dangerous thing. A new overclass appears which naturally wants to dominate the new underclass. And why, then, would this dominating class wish to lose their domination?


Lenin doesn&#39;t "want" "classes to remain", he&#39;s just saying that it is impossible for classes to disappear overnight. We call that not being an utopian anarchist high-school kid.

And the new ruling class won&#39;t "wish to lose their domination", since the economic differences and strata of class-society disappear as a result of the majority class ruling, the state will wither away.


For this very reason, anarchists want the state and class divisions to be smashed. This means that the access to the means of production must be the same for all, and there can be no designated group which is to be suppressed.


Anarchists can&#39;t differentiate between a bourgeois state and a proletarian state, and you can&#39;t either.

Bourgeois state = minority ruling over majority.

Proletarian state = majority ruling over minority.

Get it?

Only complete idiots --who just so happen to be referred to as reactionaries-- would want to smash a proletarian state, that is, a state in which the majority class rules over the minority class.


Of course, this does not mean that counter-revolutionaries will not be suppressed. They will be. But this does not neccesitate classes, and, indeed, it implies a functionally classless society. (we call it collectivism)


Classes don&#39;t disappear overnight, you can&#39;t "smash classes", they are a product of human society, classes can only be eliminated when the majority takes over and suppresses the minority. The majority needs it&#39;s own special instrument to do this; the proletarian state.

Also, your utopian fantasy theory presupposes that revolution will occur simultaneously all over the world, keep on dreaming.

I don&#39;t have the desire to reply to the rest of your crap.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Terms of Admission into Communist International
13. Parties belonging to the Communist International must be organised on the principle of democratic centralism. In this period of acute civil war, the Communist parties can perform their duty only if they are organised in a most centralised manner, are marked by an iron discipline bordering on military discipline, and have strong and authoritative party centres invested with wide powers and enjoying the unanimous confidence of the membership.--attributed to V.I. Lenin

Sound like a fun outfit to be hooked up with? :wub:

Interestingly, the Trotskyists still blame Joe...for what Lenin himself was clearly responsible for. :rolleyes:

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

[Fistful of Steel]

Who&#39;s to decide what exactly constitutes more class-conscious, and what makes them able to perform the job better? I never knew there were any set qualifications on being a "professional" revolutionary. Maybe there&#39;s a Camp Lenin, where all those undertaking the enormous strain of establishing a dictatorship are trained and only then do they get to be part of the revolutionary elite.

And I&#39;m not too sure about the "suppression of minorities". For instance, (in the ultimate example of everything everyone would rather avoid) Nazi Germany viciously suppressed every minority thinkable, and the majority supported it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Who&#39;s to decide what exactly constitutes more class-conscious, and what makes them able to perform the job better?

Class-conscious workers themselves, workers aren&#39;t complete idiots, you know. You should give them more credit, they deserve it.


I never knew there were any set qualifications on being a "professional" revolutionary.

There aren&#39;t.

Professional revolutionary means a class-conscious worker who is actively engaged in the class struggle full time.


Maybe there&#39;s a Camp Lenin, where all those undertaking the enormous strain of establishing a dictatorship are trained and only then do they get to be part of the revolutionary elite.


Grow up.


And I&#39;m not too sure about the "suppression of minorities". For instance, (in the ultimate example of everything everyone would rather avoid) Nazi Germany viciously suppressed every minority thinkable, and the majority supported it.

I was talking about classes, not ethnic or religious groups.

Oh, and since you obviously don&#39;t know what constitutes a class, read this: Class (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class)

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Massoud+May 6 2006, 04:29 PM--> (Massoud @ May 6 2006, 04:29 PM)
Fistful of Steel
Who&#39;s to decide what exactly constitutes more class-conscious, and what makes them able to perform the job better?

Class-conscious workers themselves, workers aren&#39;t complete idiots, you know. You should give them more credit, they deserve it.


I never knew there were any set qualifications on being a "professional" revolutionary.

There aren&#39;t.

Professional revolutionary means a class-conscious worker who is actively engaged in the class struggle full time.


Maybe there&#39;s a Camp Lenin, where all those undertaking the enormous strain of establishing a dictatorship are trained and only then do they get to be part of the revolutionary elite.


Grow up.


And I&#39;m not too sure about the "suppression of minorities". For instance, (in the ultimate example of everything everyone would rather avoid) Nazi Germany viciously suppressed every minority thinkable, and the majority supported it.

I was talking about classes, not ethnic or religious groups.

Oh, and since you obviously don&#39;t know what constitutes a class, read this: Class (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class) [/b]
I&#39;m the one giving the class-conscious workers credit. I don&#39;t believe they need a guiding hand to make sure everything turns out nice and neat for them, as I&#39;m guessing it will be a messy transition to say the least.

What&#39;s the use of calling them the "Vanguard" then, if they&#39;re just class-conscious workers? If that&#39;s all they are, then there&#39;s no need to place them behind such terms, but rather just emphasize that it&#39;s a general revolution and that some comrades are more knowledgeable on the politics of the matter than others, which still gives them no right to dictate other proletariat.

I&#39;ll grow up when I well and feel like it. I enjoy being a teenager and youthful as it stands, however.

I could figure you were talking about class, but then it&#39;s not really a suppression of other classes but an absortion and equalization. I wouldn&#39;t like to think that the bourgeoise would all be rounded up and shot after the revolution, rather they join the emancipated working class.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
What&#39;s the use of calling them the "Vanguard" then, if they&#39;re just class-conscious workers? If that&#39;s all they are, then there&#39;s no need to place them behind such terms, but rather just emphasize that it&#39;s a general revolution and that some comrades are more knowledgeable on the politics of the matter than others, which still gives them no right to dictate other proletariat.


Because we don&#39;t have time to dick around with "emphasizing" things that can be put into the context of a single word.

If you don&#39;t know what vanguard means then don&#39;t get pissed off at people who use the term.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Massoud
Replace the word "gifted" with "class-conscious and more able to perform the job" and you have what Lenin proposed.
Actually gifted was a word Vladimir used. He used those others as well.


If one class-conscious worker is better at writing an article than another class-conscious worker, guess what, the party asks him to write articles.
If you&#39;ve read my posts, especially in my discussions with Haraldur, you&#39;ll see that I fully support this rational authority.

However, the problem lies in the fact that the party &#39;asks&#39; him to do so. This implies a hierarchical relationship between &#39;the party&#39; and the worker. And what has &#39;the party&#39; always been in the past, in any Leninist party? The central committee, of course.

However, some people, according to you, are plain better than others, so I suppose this hierarchy and dominance of the high ranking members of the party is well-deserved. :lol:


What the hell is wrong with training to become a professional revolutionary?
Nothing, on the face of it. However, in the context of what Lenin and the other &#39;professional revolutionaries&#39; actually did, we see the problems. Professional revolutionaries start to feel like leaders, like rulers, like betters. And this is precisely because of their position within the party.


Don&#39;t be silly, the Bolshevik party changed it&#39;s position on democratic centralism after the revolution and with the setting-up of the 3rd international. Read: Terms of Admission into Communist International
RS2K posts point 13. Do you agree with that one? It appears to me that Lenin is blatantly calling for more undemocratic principles.


A party isn&#39;t a state, states aren&#39;t based on singular parties. Go read some basic Marxist theory.
Citing the obvious isn&#39;t helpful. However, do you not recognize that if an undemocratic organization &#39;leads us&#39; to revolution, that the hierarchy existing within the party will remain? This will lead, whether you want it to or not, to hierarchy within &#39;the state&#39;.


Lenin doesn&#39;t "want" "classes to remain", he&#39;s just saying that it is impossible for classes to disappear overnight.
Perhaps. However, either way it explains the dominant role he assumed after the revolution, one that modern Lennies seem to wish to repeat. :o


And the new ruling class won&#39;t "wish to lose their domination", since the economic differences and strata of class-society disappear as a result of the majority class ruling, the state will wither away.
Has any ruling class ever allowed that power to slip?


Bourgeois state = minority ruling over majority.

Proletarian state = majority ruling over minority.
I certainly &#39;get it&#39;. Either way, we have a state with two functional classes. And again, it certainly ahistorical to believe that &#39;classlessness&#39; can come for a class society. The ruling class wants to preserve their place as the ruling class. It is precisely such a system, such a state, that anarchists wish to avoid.


Classes don&#39;t disappear overnight, you can&#39;t "smash classes", they are a product of human society, classes can only be eliminated when the majority takes over and suppresses the minority. The majority needs it&#39;s own special instrument to do this; the proletarian state.
Capitalism is a product of human society. But I think that it can be smashed over night, in some area of the world (I do not think world revolution is possible...rather it will come as material conditions allow).

The state is just the same. With the destruction of capitalism, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat lose their old relation to the means of production. What you wish to do is place the old bourgeoisie as a new underclass, and give ownership of the means of production to the proletariat. Well, why? To do so would be a decision made by the class as a whole. We could certainly make all private property common property, thereby eliminating the material basis of class itself.

Why does that proposition so scare the Lennies?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Massoud+May 6 2006, 04:40 PM--> (Massoud @ May 6 2006, 04:40 PM)
Fistful of Steel
What&#39;s the use of calling them the "Vanguard" then, if they&#39;re just class-conscious workers? If that&#39;s all they are, then there&#39;s no need to place them behind such terms, but rather just emphasize that it&#39;s a general revolution and that some comrades are more knowledgeable on the politics of the matter than others, which still gives them no right to dictate other proletariat.


Because we don&#39;t have time to dick around with "emphasizing" things that can be put into the context of a single word.

If you don&#39;t know what vanguard means then don&#39;t get pissed off at people who use the term. [/b]
I didn&#39;t know we were on the clock? What&#39;s the pressing need to avoid getting the terminology right, late for your Camp Lenin meeting? :lol:

Really though, "Vanguard" has very negative connotations amongst anti-authoritarians on the left-wing and rightly so, as it&#39;s been used to justified the loss of freedom and autonomy within the working class. If it&#39;s just "class-conscious workers" we might as well call them that, or if they&#39;re authoritarian power-mongers who want to subvert the revolution and establish themselves at the top then call them the "vanguard".

[Enragé]

vanguard really only does mean "frontline", "those in the front".
I prefer to use the term avant-garde myself, which means the same, but doesnt have the negative connotation of vanguard.

However this is actually pretty stupid
Communism has a bad connotation in the world, anarchism as well, now are we going to change those names because people are ignorant, or are we going to tell people that communism and anarchism do not mean what they think it means

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:44 PM
vanguard really only does mean "frontline", "those in the front".
I prefer to use the term avant-garde myself, which means the same, but doesnt have the negative connotation of vanguard.

However this is actually pretty stupid
Communism has a bad connotation in the world, anarchism as well, now are we going to change those names because people are ignorant, or are we going to tell people that communism and anarchism do not mean what they think it means
The reason "Vanguard" has negative connotations is because it is in fact a negative concept. If it merely means the "frontline" then it doesn&#39;t even need to be specified, as it&#39;s understood however "vanguard" in connection with Leninism means consolidating power in the hands of a few amongst the revolutionaries.

[Enragé]

"however "vanguard" in connection with Leninism means consolidating power in the hands of a few amongst the revolutionaries. "

ask any trot i know and they&#39;ll deny this.

They say the vanguard is just a faction within the proletariat which is class conscious, and therefore takes upon itself to spread this class consciousness. To do this they need to organize, which leads to the creation of a vanguard movement, or a vanguard party.

[Fistful of Steel]

Trotskyists also happen to think Stalin perverted Leninism rather than was the heir to it. Goes to show you that an argument based around the conceptions of that particular segment of the left isn&#39;t exactly reliable.

[Nachie]

http://www.redanarchist.org/images/marxleninmusic.gif

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 6 2006, 08:44 PM
Trotskyists also happen to think Stalin perverted Leninism rather than was the heir to it. Goes to show you that an argument based around the conceptions of that particular segment of the left isn&#39;t exactly reliable.
they have good arguments for it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It wasn&#39;t Stalin who perverted Leninism -- every Leninist state that has ever existed has spiraled down that same path.

Well what&#39;s your plan? No leaders? Yet you expect there to be no crime, rape, or gangs? Anarcho-Communism is a fairy tale. It would be nice but c&#39;mon&#33;

It was Stalin that set the example. And it was the DOP that made it easy. The thing I like about Trotskyism is that it is anti-Stalin/dictator/DOP. There is still structure which will keep everything in order, yet there is democracy and equality.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

http://www.redanarchist.org/images/marxleninmusic.gif

What are you saying? That you&#39;re against the vanguard? Okay fine but think aboutthe people getting slaughter by missiles, M-16&#39;s, tanks, and etc... Oh? you want 90% and to overwhelm the cappies? Well you&#39;re in luck&#33; I think in the year 233456 that&#39;ll be possible.

[Nachie]

I am thinking about those people. I&#39;m not in a hurry to see them get "slaughtered" in the name of socialism.

Again.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I am thinking about those people. I&#39;m not in a hurry to see them get "slaughtered" in the name of socialism.

Again.

Overall the Bolshevik revolution was a success. Considering that they were a minority. It was the aftermath with the crazy bastard Stalin and the corrupt, flawed Lenin that got people killed.

[Nachie]

you, sir, are a very confused trotskyite

[barista.marxista]

It ain&#39;t communism if it ain&#39;t communal. Let&#39;s make everyone a "professional revolutionary"&#33; And we can dance while we&#39;re at it. ;)

*breakdances*

[OneBrickOneVoice]

you, sir, are a very confused trotskyite

Alot of times I am. But my point is that the October 1917 revolution worked as way of overthrowing a corrupt regime. In creating a government of the people, it didn&#39;t work. As a revolution it was good. It was the Red fascist Stalinists that fucked it all up.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:20 PM

It wasn&#39;t Stalin who perverted Leninism -- every Leninist state that has ever existed has spiraled down that same path.

Well what&#39;s your plan? No leaders? Yet you expect there to be no crime, rape, or gangs? Anarcho-Communism is a fairy tale. It would be nice but c&#39;mon&#33;
I personally think there&#39;ll definitely be a messy transitional period. And I don&#39;t mean transitional as in we introduce a new form of state to ensure a safe transfer, I mean a transition where elements in society will try and force their will upon others and deny them their freedom and equality, and they must be fought against. If the revolution comes and is a genuine uprising supported by the majority of people, staving off the few elements who would wish to make things hell for others shouldn&#39;t be impossible.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by anomaly
Actually gifted was a word Vladimir used. He used those others as well.

Source?


If you&#39;ve read my posts, especially in my discussions with Haraldur, you&#39;ll see that I fully support this rational authority.

However, the problem lies in the fact that the party &#39;asks&#39; him to do so. This implies a hierarchical relationship between &#39;the party&#39; and the worker. And what has &#39;the party&#39; always been in the past, in any Leninist party? The central committee, of course.


The entire party consists of class-conscious workers and Communists, so when I say "the party asks another member" I mean "the elected leadership of the party --who are class-conscious workers-- asks another member", and that other member is also a class-conscious worker.

Can&#39;t you just get the fact that true Communist parties aren&#39;t some kind of outside world object, but are the product of proletarian class-consciousness?


However, some people, according to you, are plain better than others, so I suppose this hierarchy and dominance of the high ranking members of the party is well-deserved.

There is nothing wrong with hierarchy, as long as it is democratic in nature.

The difference between anarchists and Communists is that we don&#39;t prance around words like hierarchy. Anarchist parties (or as you like to call them; "organizations") also have social hierarchies, they just don&#39;t have one officially. Do you really think any organization of people can exist without any form of authority figures in it?

Here&#39;s how an anarchist party, oops, sorry, I mean "organization", works:

"We don&#39;t have any leaders in the party, everyones opinion matters as much as the other ones, its just that older "comrades" are more "respected" and their opinion is "rated higher" than the opinion of some high-school kids."

I mean come on, do you really think if you join an anarchist organization your opinion carries as much weight as the opinion of an "old-timer"? If so, wake up from your fantasy world.


Nothing, on the face of it. However, in the context of what Lenin and the other &#39;professional revolutionaries&#39; actually did, we see the problems. Professional revolutionaries start to feel like leaders, like rulers, like betters. And this is precisely because of their position within the party.


Professional revolutionaries start to feel like leaders because they are leaders. That doesn&#39;t mean they start to feel like they&#39;re better than anyone else, or that they "deserve more respect", they know perfectly well that they are democratically elected and subject to recall at all times.

If they step out of line the workers simply replace them, we call that proletarian democracy.


RS2K posts point 13. Do you agree with that one? It appears to me that Lenin is blatantly calling for more undemocratic principles.

Yes, I agree with point 13, obviously you don&#39;t know what democratic centralism means either, here&#39;s another link for ya: Democratic Centralism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e.htm#democratic-centralism)

I suggest RS also reads that, he seems to be having the same problem as you.


Citing the obvious isn&#39;t helpful. However, do you not recognize that if an undemocratic organization &#39;leads us&#39; to revolution, that the hierarchy existing within the party will remain? This will lead, whether you want it to or not, to hierarchy within &#39;the state&#39;.


The Bolshevik party wasn&#39;t undemocratic, and even if it was it doesn&#39;t help your "argument" at all. The Bolsheviks --or rather-- the workers, smashed the bourgeois state and built a proletarian state from the ground up. A state based on Soviets, it was an independent entity from the party.


Perhaps. However, either way it explains the dominant role he assumed after the revolution, one that modern Lennies seem to wish to repeat.

Yeah, history is weird like that; the secretary-general of the party of the working class assumes a "dominant role" in shaping the political landscape of a country after a proletarian revolution.

Oh, let&#39;s not forget that he was elected to that position and that he was subject to recall at all times by the party, oh, and also let&#39;s not forget that he couldn&#39;t make singular decisions unless the rest of the party agreed with them.

It&#39;s that pesky democratic centralism thing again.


Has any ruling class ever allowed that power to slip?

No. Has the majority class ever held power?


Either way, we have a state with two functional classes. And again, it certainly ahistorical to believe that &#39;classlessness&#39; can come for a class society. The ruling class wants to preserve their place as the ruling class. It is precisely such a system, such a state, that anarchists wish to avoid.


You just don&#39;t get it do you? The state and class society in general are the product of a minority class ruling over the majority class, if the majority rules over the minority and the minority as a result of losing their economic, cultural and political position starts to die out, the state will wither away.

It&#39;s so easy to understand.


Why does that proposition so scare the Lennies?

Because it&#39;s utopian and can only work in your fantasy world, that&#39;s why.


Really though, "Vanguard" has very negative connotations amongst anti-authoritarians on the left-wing and rightly so, as it&#39;s been used to justified the loss of freedom and autonomy within the working class. If it&#39;s just "class-conscious workers" we might as well call them that, or if they&#39;re authoritarian power-mongers who want to subvert the revolution and establish themselves at the top then call them the "vanguard".

Sorry, if you can&#39;t accept the fact that Stalinists and the likes distort revolutionary phrases for their own benefit, and want to give up on those phrases because of it, you are nothing more than a defeatist and have no place in the proletarian movement.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Massoud+--> (Massoud)That doesn&#39;t mean they start to feel like they&#39;re better than anyone else, or that they "deserve more respect", they know perfectly well that they are democratically elected and subject to recall at all times.[/b]

Well, yes, it does mean that...at least that&#39;s been our historical experience with the mechanism.


Yes, I agree with point 13.

Fine...but why you would imagine anyone else would beats me.

It&#39;s basic meaning is that if, for any reason, you don&#39;t have "confidence" in the "strong and authoritative party centre", you get expelled.


I suggest RS also reads that, he seems to be having the same problem as you.


from your own link
However, “action” inevitably implies unforeseen obstacles and changes which require an instant and coordinated response. It is inescapable that effective coordination in action presupposes leadership which is obeyed without question. Consequently, unity in action necessarily invloves an acceptance of leadership. It is this problem which has been the source of most pain and controversy in the history of the workers’ movement. -- emphasis added.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e...atic-centralism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e.htm#democratic-centralism)

I think people "instinctively" have little difficulty grasping "democratic centralism"...it&#39;s really not that different from working for any other boss.

Just shut up and do what you&#39;re told&#33; :(

Why do most working people shun self-proclaimed "democratic centralist" parties like the plague?

That&#39;s a pretty good reason right there. :lol:


...you are nothing more than a defeatist and have no place in the proletarian movement.

The implication of your remark is plain and obvious; anyone who refuses your "revolutionary leadership" is "no damn good" and should get out or be thrown out.

You haven&#39;t noticed, of course, that the modern working class has thrown you out&#33; :lol:

Correctly so. :D

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Massoud
Source?
What Is To Be Done.

I believe the wording is something along the line of &#39;the gifted individuals of the working class...&#39;

I was rather surprised when seeing that word used as well.


I mean "the elected leadership of the party --who are class-conscious workers-- asks another member", and that other member is also a class-conscious worker.
Sure, it&#39;s fun to say such things. Leninists have always claimed that &#39;democratic centralism&#39; is highly democratic. Things work differently in real life.


Can&#39;t you just get the fact that true Communist parties aren&#39;t some kind of outside world object, but are the product of proletarian class-consciousness?
I certainly would &#39;get this&#39;...but history says otherwise. The fact is that every single Leninist party ends up looking the same: a powerful central committee which rules over the herd. Despotism is still despotism even if it is elected.


There is nothing wrong with hierarchy, as long as it is democratic in nature.
So you have no problem with the organization of the US government?

The truth is that official hierarchy is never a good idea.


I mean come on, do you really think if you join an anarchist organization your opinion carries as much weight as the opinion of an "old-timer"?
Perhaps not. I really don&#39;t know. Of course, you assume that the said organization is not a network. In a network, official hierarchy is simply impossible.

However, this &#39;hierarchy&#39;, as opposed to the official hierarchy sought by Lennies, is based on the quality of one&#39;s ideas. And it is subject to change, and all &#39;members&#39; have a much greater chance of being heard.

So we could either have that, or we could have a central committee dictating what to do. The choice is simple.


If they step out of line the workers simply replace them, we call that proletarian democracy.
Again, in theory, this all works nice and pretty. But in reality, well, the Leninists have one of the poorest track records in the entire movement. What happens is definite, official rulers develop over time, and democratic centralism seems simply the tool to produce such a thing.


es, I agree with point 13, obviously you don&#39;t know what democratic centralism means either
Leadership obeyed without question? I think I speak for the majority of this board when I say fuck that&#33;


The Bolsheviks --or rather-- the workers, smashed the bourgeois state and built a proletarian state from the ground up. A state based on Soviets, it was an independent entity from the party.
It seems to me that the structure of Vlad&#39;s state allowed itself to the tyranny of Uncle Joe. There was obviously no check, and to say that the Party had no power immediately after the revolution is simply false.


Oh, let&#39;s not forget that he was elected to that position and that he was subject to recall at all times by the party, oh, and also let&#39;s not forget that he couldn&#39;t make singular decisions unless the rest of the party agreed with them.
Unfortunately, this &#39;democracy&#39; assumes membership with the party. :o

And Lenin himself said that proletarians could not be accepted unless they were &#39;class conscious&#39;. So what we had was a new upper class assuming a dominant role over the entire state.

The party does not equal the people.


The state and class society in general are the product of a minority class ruling over the majority class, if the majority rules over the minority and the minority as a result of losing their economic, cultural and political position starts to die out
You&#39;re right, it is easy to understand. Once the bourgeoisie lose the material class basis, and private property goes out the window, class has no material base. It is here that Lennies delve into idealism by stating that &#39;class mentality&#39; still remains. What they don&#39;t realize is that this is meaningless without the material basis.

If you create a new state, you will have, by definition, two functional classes. And I hypothesize that if the material basis for class is kept, it will be in the interests of the ruling class to keep that material basis. Class thus will not wither.

The problem lies in the fact that Lennies do not wish to destroy private property, they wish to place it under the control of the state. And the state is run by the party.


Because it&#39;s utopian and can only work in your fantasy world, that&#39;s why.
Capitalists always tell us that our movement is utopian. And Lennies say the same thing to anarchists. Oh, irony is sweet.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:00 AM

Really though, "Vanguard" has very negative connotations amongst anti-authoritarians on the left-wing and rightly so, as it&#39;s been used to justified the loss of freedom and autonomy within the working class. If it&#39;s just "class-conscious workers" we might as well call them that, or if they&#39;re authoritarian power-mongers who want to subvert the revolution and establish themselves at the top then call them the "vanguard".

Sorry, if you can&#39;t accept the fact that Stalinists and the likes distort revolutionary phrases for their own benefit, and want to give up on those phrases because of it, you are nothing more than a defeatist and have no place in the proletarian movement.
:lol:
Because as you even admitted the meaning of the word "vanguard" has been distorted, and I would rather not use it due to the understanding of it popularly employed, I&#39;m a defeatist and have no place in the proletarian movement? That&#39;s some good logic, right there.

[Enragé]

Sure, it&#39;s fun to say such things. Leninists have always claimed that &#39;democratic centralism&#39; is highly democratic. Things work differently in real life.

i think this is the whole problem

i have no real life experience as of yet, so i really wouldnt know.
All i know is, is what a trotskist whom i have been in contact for quite some time now tells me; i have no reason whatsoever to suspect he&#39;s lying. He&#39;s not anti-anarchist or anything either, in fact he used to be one (nachie in reverse?)

[Nachie]

Hey I ain&#39;t no anarchist :P

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

I didn&#39;t read the every post here cause to me it seems like a bunch of pointless bickering. However my interpretation of anarchists is that they want to abolish all forms of organized government or society. I don&#39;t believe that communists and anarchists share the same beliefs or goals. As for "I doubt having a one-party defacto state that never changes is a goal of the Leninists. ", maybe not Leninists but I know Lenin wasn&#39;t a big fan of people with different ideas which was the one of the secrets goals of the founding of the Cheka(secret police). Not saying he was a bad guy but maybe paranoid and of the attitude my way or the highway.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by theCruzanCheGuevara
However my interpretation of anarchists is that they want to abolish all forms of organized government or society.
Anarchists do want a society--we want a society without classes and without a state. We want communism, just as socialists do. But we have different ideas of getting there (ones that do not involve the state).

[KC]

Originally posted by Anomaly
(ones that do not involve the state)

Because you don&#39;t know what a state is.

[anomaly]

Engels says that a state is a tool for one class to suppress another.

I agree with Friedrich. I think his definition is far clearer than Vlad&#39;s.

So stop with this nonsense you continually regurgitate.

[KC]

Provide the quote. I&#39;m guessing he was using the word class in the sense that you don&#39;t know about.

[LoneRed]

the quote is somewhere along that lines. but the only way for the proletariat to achieve success, is to Supress the Bourgeoisie while there is still a bourgeoisie, thinking otherwise is a pipedream

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RS+--> (RS)Well, yes, it does mean that...at least that&#39;s been our historical experience with the mechanism.
[/b]

Yes, about 10 years or so after the revolution.

Instead of dumping the whole thing, we just do something to prevent it from happening again, like, you know, actually implementing what Lenin proposed in State and Revolution.

Which means that if someone indeed does start to feel they&#39;re worth more than someone else, and "feel more gifted", the proletariat just recalls their asses and replace them.


It&#39;s basic meaning is that if, for any reason, you don&#39;t have "confidence" in the "strong and authoritative party centre", you get expelled.

No, that&#39;s not its basic meaning, that&#39;s what you think is its basic meaning, because you don&#39;t know what democratic centralism is.

Democratic centralism means that the strong and authoritative party centre is democratically elected by the party members, and are subject to recall at all times.

Again, we call that proletarian democracy.


You haven&#39;t noticed, of course, that the modern working class has thrown you out&#33;

And that&#39;s why the vast majority of Communists today believe in democratic centralism.

Get back into the real world.


Originally posted by [email protected]
What Is To Be Done.

I believe the wording is something along the line of &#39;the gifted individuals of the working class...&#39;

I was rather surprised when seeing that word used as well.


Link to it.


Sure, it&#39;s fun to say such things. Leninists have always claimed that &#39;democratic centralism&#39; is highly democratic. Things work differently in real life.


No it doesn&#39;t, prove that the Bolshevik party pre-revolution wasn&#39;t democratic.

Of course post-revolution the party had to transform dramatically, democratic centralism of the party became more important than it was pre-revolution, given the exceptional role the party had to play in state affairs.

And I agree, post-revolution the party degenerated, so don&#39;t bother whining to me about that.


Despotism is still despotism even if it is elected.

Despotism is not despotism if it is elected and subject to recall at all times and doesn&#39;t have dictatorial powers on decision making.

Especially not in a party, you&#39;re looking at history in a very immature manner, as if anyone would&#39;ve supported (let alone joined&#33;) the Bolshevik party if they really were as you claim they were. Parties like those you are referring to are sects, sects don&#39;t become vanguards of the most advanced class in society, duh.


So you have no problem with the organization of the US government?

:blink: What the fuck? The US government isn&#39;t democratic in nature...


However, this &#39;hierarchy&#39;, as opposed to the official hierarchy sought by Lennies, is based on the quality of one&#39;s ideas.

Ones ideas or abilities, yes, I agree.

The same goes on in Marxist parties, the person whom other comrades have most trust in and are thought to be most able are elected.

Proletarian democracy again.


Again, in theory, this all works nice and pretty. But in reality, well, the Leninists have one of the poorest track records in the entire movement. What happens is definite, official rulers develop over time, and democratic centralism seems simply the tool to produce such a thing.


Yes, but do you agree then that pre-revolution the Bolshevik party was democratic in nature?

If so, then we have no problem basically, since I agree that democratic centralism had to change in some aspects after the revolution, to prevent the eventual degeneration which occurred.


Leadership obeyed without question? I think I speak for the majority of this board when I say fuck that&#33;

No you don&#39;t speak for the board when you say that, you speak for people who have no clue when you say that.

Leadership sounds "bad" amongst comrades, and it should, because in the end we want to get rid of all forms of leadership and subordination. But sorry to say, the proletariat is not class-conscious, we do not have the world at our disposal, we have not defeated the bourgeois yet. We are in a struggle on a daily basis, we are in a war.

In order to win this war, the class-conscious proletariat has to do everything it can to win, if that means coming together and combining their efforts in an organization, then so be it&#33; If that means giving other comrades --who are more knowledgeable on certain subjects and who are more experienced in this war we are in-- leadership status in that organization, with the rule that they can be recalled at any time, then so be it&#33;

But why the leadership then? Because it&#39;s completely idealist to think that you can have a party without an able leadership to lead it. A party without a leadership is like a snake without its head; it dies pretty soon.

If you could like, hmm, I don&#39;t know, maybe provide an example of a successful party which had no leadership (either official or unofficial, like most anarchist parties have), then I would join your club.

But you can&#39;t can you?

No shit.


It seems to me that the structure of Vlad&#39;s state allowed itself to the tyranny of Uncle Joe. There was obviously no check, and to say that the Party had no power immediately after the revolution is simply false.


I never said the party didn&#39;t have power after the revolution (of course not immediately, aren&#39;t we forgetting the civil war?).

Lenin criticized the state --and especially the party structure-- himself, he made recommendations to prevent the future Stalinist degeneration, too bad the other "comrades" didn&#39;t agree with him.

Read:"Last Testament", Letters to the Congress (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/index.htm)
How We Should Reorganise the Wokers&#39; and Peasants&#39; Inspection (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/23.htm)
Better Fewer, But Better (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm)


And Lenin himself said that proletarians could not be accepted unless they were &#39;class conscious&#39;.

Source?

I&#39;m getting tired of you claiming things without bothering to provide sources for it, your above statement is simply historically false. Everyone who was interested in joining the party was allowed to join, because it was assumed that they were class-conscious.

I&#39;m not going to bother to reply to the state discussion, you obviously are clueless on that subject.


Fistful of Steel
Because as you even admitted the meaning of the word "vanguard" has been distorted, and I would rather not use it due to the understanding of it popularly employed, I&#39;m a defeatist and have no place in the proletarian movement?

Yup. If you budge on something as small as the use of a word, imagine in what other struggles you would just simply give up.

Sorry, the workers don&#39;t need people like that.

[chimx]

No it doesn&#39;t, prove that the Bolshevik party pre-revolution wasn&#39;t democratic.

Well, how about lenin&#39;s rather contrived plan to establish bolshevik hegemony within the post-october provisional government. it implies an intent by the party to bypass proper citizen representation prior to the surrender at the winter palace. the dismisal of the constituent assembly correlates with this, that the Bolsheviks were never interested in democracy, just bolshevik supremacy.

And as far as democratic centralism goes, lets not forget Lenin trying to force Kamenev out of the party for disagreeing with the very idea of the staging of a Bolshevik coup.

but fuck all that malarky. i kind of agree with Mick Armstrong when he said, "the great breakthrough that Lenin made in Marxist theory and party organisation was not democratic centralism but rather an understanding of the need for revolutionaries to form their own distinct party separate from the reformist elements of the working class movement." If there is one positive thing to take from the tragic history of Russia, it is not found in What is to be done?, but rather in the failure of the other marxist parties in Russia.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Massoud
Democratic centralism means that the strong and authoritative party centre is democratically elected by the party members, and are subject to recall at all times.

Want to explain how you&#39;re going to "recall" some leader that you are committed to "obeying without question"?

All he has to do is tell you to "shut up, dumbass, and get back to work&#33;" There goes your "recall". :lol:


Again, we call that proletarian democracy.

I don&#39;t care what you call it.

It stinks of despotism. :angry:


And that&#39;s why the vast majority of Communists today believe in democratic centralism.

Get back into the real world.

A vast majority of dumbasses in "the real world" happen to "believe in God"...why should I give a rat&#39;s ass?

A superstitious reverence for authority is self-evidently counter-revolutionary and anti-communist.

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

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:28 AM
the quote is somewhere along that lines. but the only way for the proletariat to achieve success, is to Supress the Bourgeoisie while there is still a bourgeoisie, thinking otherwise is a pipedream
the bourgoeisie is just people with priviliges right? Just people in control of the means of production.

Take those priviliges away, take away their control over the production process...and the bourgeoisie is no more.

or am i missing something here?

[Nachie]

It&#39;s not just about destroying the bourgeoisie but the capitalist mode of production itself.

If tomorrow all the same industries were "democratically" run by the workers, we&#39;d still be fucked.

[KC]

Take those priviliges away, take away their control over the production process...and the bourgeoisie is no more.

The word class is used in two ways. One of these ways is to describe historical materialism, in which case it can be defined based on one&#39;s relationship to the means of production. The other way, that a lot of people here seem to not know about for some strange reason, is used to describe the class struggle, in which case it is defined based on how people organize, of which class consciousness is an integral part.

[anomaly]

Class consciousness is based entirely on material relations to the means of production. It is the product of those relations.

Without those relations, class consciousness will disappear.

I don&#39;t know why it is so difficult for you to come to terms with a functionally classless post-revolutionary society.

[KC]

I think you should start reading my posts. Because you&#39;re either not reading my posts or not processing them correctly (or at all).

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:30 PM
It&#39;s not just about destroying the bourgeoisie but the capitalist mode of production itself.

If tomorrow all the same industries were "democratically" run by the workers, we&#39;d still be fucked.
by capitalist mode you mean competitive, and profit as the goal right?

well if the revolution occurs you&#39;ll need a class conscious majority, when that class conscious majority takes over they wont be competitive and wont have profit as the goal
right?


The other way, that a lot of people here seem to not know about for some strange reason, is used to describe the class struggle, in which case it is defined based on how people organize, of which class consciousness is an integral part

so...you&#39;ll have a minority of ex-bourgeois who still want to be bourgeois and will organize like bourgeois in the early years post-rev? or what do you mean?

well its a minority, and the people will deal with them
or is this where the state comes in?

[KC]

so...you&#39;ll have a minority of ex-bourgeois who still want to be bourgeois and will organize like bourgeois in the early years post-rev? or what do you mean?

Because these people are organizing together in the class interests of the bourgeoisie, they are bourgeois. They will gain support from the foreign bourgeoisie and will be an effective weapon for the bourgeois counterrevolution.


well its a minority, and the people will deal with them
or is this where the state comes in?

Yes, this is where the state comes in. This is the rule of one class over another (the proletariat over the bourgeoisie) and this rule is maintained by a state. That is the definition of state. "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." That is the formal definition provided by marxists.org.

[Nachie]

by capitalist mode you mean competitive, and profit as the goal right?
Right, production for exchange value rather than use value.


well if the revolution occurs you&#39;ll need a class conscious majority, when that class conscious majority takes over they wont be competitive and wont have profit as the goal
right?
It all depends. The capitalist economy can keep running without bosses or owners, and in fact it&#39;s often said that the managers would love nothing more than for workers to organize and supervise themselves. When profit - or capitalist valorization - isn&#39;t the goal anymore, we&#39;ll see whole industries such as advertising and packaging be either totally destroyed or completely reinvented.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 9 2006, 09:25 PM


so...you&#39;ll have a minority of ex-bourgeois who still want to be bourgeois and will organize like bourgeois in the early years post-rev? or what do you mean?

Because these people are organizing together in the class interests of the bourgeoisie, they are bourgeois. They will gain support from the foreign bourgeoisie and will be an effective weapon for the bourgeois counterrevolution.


well its a minority, and the people will deal with them
or is this where the state comes in?

Yes, this is where the state comes in. This is the rule of one class over another (the proletariat over the bourgeoisie) and this rule is maintained by a state. That is the definition of state. "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." That is the formal definition provided by marxists.org.
ah ok :)

but
the work of the state cannot be done by a federation of communes because....?



When profit - or capitalist valorization - isn&#39;t the goal anymore, we&#39;ll see whole industries such as advertising and packaging be either totally destroyed or completely reinvented.

True, and this will happen because those workers have revolted exactly for the annihilation of the capitalist mode of production, they are class conscious.

And its true that if you&#39;d just say tomorrow: "hey you can all have power over your company&#33;" people will just continue like it is now, though perhaps a little friendlier to workers at the same company but thats it.
But thats why revolution from below is necessary, not only because leaders suck, but because the working class must become class conscious, which happens running up to the revolution. The revolution is not only a proces of destroying the old, but also of laying the foundations for the new.

[KC]

but the work of the state cannot be done by a federation of communes because....?

This fits the definition of state. The question is whether it would work or not.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communiqu[email protected] 9 2006, 09:49 PM

but the work of the state cannot be done by a federation of communes because....?

This fits the definition of state. The question is whether it would work or not.
then why the hell do anarchists claim they dont want a state?

a federation of communes is about as anarchist as it can get, no? I mean, what else?

[KC]

then why the hell do anarchists claim they dont want a state?

Because they&#39;re idiots and don&#39;t know what a state is.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Massoud+May 9 2006, 07:12 AM--> (Massoud @ May 9 2006, 07:12 AM)
Fistful of Steel
Because as you even admitted the meaning of the word "vanguard" has been distorted, and I would rather not use it due to the understanding of it popularly employed, I&#39;m a defeatist and have no place in the proletarian movement?

Yup. If you budge on something as small as the use of a word, imagine in what other struggles you would just simply give up.

Sorry, the workers don&#39;t need people like that. [/b]
How exactly am I "budging on something as small as the use of a word"? Budging from what? Words are symbolic representations, if what they represents changes in popular understanding then the what the word signifies changes... That I recognize that the understanding is different means I&#39;ve given up and the workers don&#39;t need people like me? ... What the hell are you talking about, honestly?

The word "vanguard" has negative connotations.

I recognize that it has negative connotations.

Therefore I am the enemy of the working class.

:blink:

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 9 2006, 09:56 PM


then why the hell do anarchists claim they dont want a state?

Because they&#39;re idiots and don&#39;t know what a state is.
seriously doubt that

[Zero]

Marx told us that each country would approach the revolution differently. What makes the process through the revolution any different?

In some situations Imperialistic Capitalist armies would invade and "clense" the situation by killing off the revolutionaries. In some situations the only hurdle would be through elections. And even further, some countries would only have to appeal to the masses.

Different peoples, different problems, different solutions.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by NKOS
then why the hell do anarchists claim they dont want a state?
What KC isn&#39;t telling you are those conditions which give rise to the state in the first place.

The state is, and has always been, just a tool for the suppression of one class (the ruled class) by another (the ruling class).

So he wants a new ruling class. This will not accomplish the goal of a functionally classless society. This will not create common property. Rather, class, and all the hierarchical relationships that the state bring, remain in place. The structure of hierarchy and the objects of oppression and suppression differ.

But don&#39;t worry: the superstition is that class will &#39;wither away&#39;.

If that&#39;s what you want, by all means, be a socialist.

Also, KC: Class consciousness clearly arises from class. And class is based on a material relationship to the means of production. It is cause and effect. Not effect and effect.

[KC]

What anomaly isn&#39;t telling you is that he doesn&#39;t know what the fuck class even means, even after repeated explanations.

[anomaly]

No, I just have a materialistic concept of it. And class consciousness neccesarily rises from this.

As I said, cause and effect.

Without the material basis for class, class consciousness certainly will &#39;wither away&#39;. Being determines consciousness.

And it leads to a functionally classless society, which you strongly oppose.

Besides, you already admit that you want a functionally class society, right?

[KC]

No, I just have a materialistic concept of it.

No you don&#39;t. You are completely ignoring the second definition of class used to describe the class struggle.


Without the material basis for class, class consciousness certainly will &#39;wither away&#39;. Being determines consciousness.

Have you even read anything on class consciousness? Do you even know what it is?

[anomaly]

I just read it. It doesn&#39;t change my argument.

You are trying to delve into idealism. You are trying to separate class consciousness from the material basis for class. And thus you are saying that, really, being doesn&#39;t determine consciousness.

We are having the same &#39;debate&#39; in two different forums. Please, if you could, restrict the discussion to one forum.

[KC]

Originally posted by Marx
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves.

Care to explain why Marx uses class in this way in this sentence?


Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands.

There&#39;s another one.


The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

How about this one?


If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

Want me to go on?

[anomaly]

Your essay explains it rather nicely.


Originally posted by Essay
It is more useful, then, to distinguish between class consciousness - expressions of class identity, which can take many forms, for instance, class specific interpretations of dominant ideologies - and consciousness of class, that is, a class&#39;s awareness of its precise place and role in the historical process.
Emphasis mine.

It appears Marx was speaking of &#39;consciousness of class&#39;.

The definitions the essay gives, &#39;consciousness of class&#39; and &#39;class consciousness&#39;, both stem from the material (or economic) source of class itself.

You are trying to stretch this into idealism.

(I explain it right here, KC)

[KC]

I&#39;m not stretching anything. I&#39;m showing to you that there are two meanings to the word class. If there aren&#39;t then please explain why Marx used the word class in the way he did in the quotes I provided in my last post.


Originally posted by Book Excerpt
For men and women discover their shared predicament and articulate a common language and action, thus coming into existence as a class, only in the process of defending their interests against other men and women who occupy an antagonistic position in the relations of production.

You have explained nothing.

[anomaly]

Sure I have.

That appears to be another example of &#39;consciousness of class&#39;.

And your nice quote even includes reference to the material basis of class. So there you go.

If you choose to ignore this explanation, be my guest.

Also, this is quite a stretch now to defend your coveted post-revolutionary class society. :lol:

Functionally classless. Say it with me. :lol:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:30 PM
Class consciousness is based entirely on material relations to the means of production. It is the product of those relations.

Without those relations, class consciousness will disappear.

I don&#39;t know why it is so difficult for you to come to terms with a functionally classless post-revolutionary society.
Yes, and until you get rid of the world capitalist market, you will still have to deal with the capitalist class, and you will still be in the transition from capitalism to communism.

Or are you arguing for "anarchism in one country"?

Miles

[anomaly]

I suppose you could say that, if the wording pleases you.

Different areas of the world will progress at different speeds, clearly.

This means that Europe could have a functioning anarchist society while China has a functioning capitalist society, yes.

After all, in the past, feudal societies existed in the world at the same time capitalist ones did. So I take this point from a historical context.

I don&#39;t think we&#39;ll need a state to fend off any troublesome bourgeoisie. Indeed, as I have said previously, I think the bourgeoisie will have enough trouble dominating their proletariat once a revolution is successful.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:52 PM
I suppose you could say that, if the wording pleases you.

Different areas of the world will progress at different speeds, clearly.

This means that Europe could have a functioning anarchist society while China has a functioning capitalist society, yes.

After all, in the past, feudal societies existed in the world at the same time capitalist ones did. So I take this point from a historical context.

I don&#39;t think we&#39;ll need a state to fend off any troublesome bourgeoisie. Indeed, as I have said previously, I think the bourgeoisie will have enough trouble dominating their proletariat once a revolution is successful.
Comrades, let me introduce to you the latest mutant to come out of the petty-bourgeois left: the Anarcho-Stalinist&#33;

Miles

[anomaly]

How does that resemble in any way Stalin&#39;s concept of socialism in one country?

I am arguing from a materialist perspective. Stalin was not. Come on Miles. If you&#39;re just going to be an ass just to be an ass, just fucking leave. Seriously.

By the way: spam, spam, spam. Look, I&#39;m Miles&#33;

[KC]

I am arguing from a materialist perspective.

:lol:

[anomaly]

Do you deny the fact that feudal societies existed while capitalist societies did? Or does the world move as a whole?

By the way, your fellow Leaguer KC was arguing for socialism in one state. Is he a Stalinist?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:56 PM
How does that resemble in any way Stalin&#39;s concept of socialism in one country?

I am arguing from a materialist perspective. Stalin was not. Come on Miles. If you&#39;re just going to be an ass just to be an ass, just fucking leave. Seriously.
Your argument about how "different areas of the world will progress at different speeds" is the same argument that Stalin and his supporters used to justify their view that socialism in one country was possible. To wit:


Undoubtedly, the paths of development of the world revolution are not as plain as it may have seemed previously, before the victory of the revolution in one country, before the appearance of developed imperialism, which is "the eve of the socialist revolution." For a new factor has arisen -- the law of the uneven development of the capitalist countries, which operates under the conditions of developed imperialism, and which implies the inevitability of armed collisions, the general weakening of the world front of capital, and the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries. For a new factor has arisen -- the vast Soviet country, lying between the West and the East, between the centre of the financial exploitation of the world and the arena of colonial oppression, a country which by its very existence is revolutionizing the whole world.

All these are factors (not to mention other less important ones) which cannot be left out of account in studying the paths of development of the world revolution. (J.V. Stalin, IV, "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists" -- http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/OR24.html (http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/OR24.html)))

And Stalin saw himself as "arguing from a materialist perspective" too.

Now what, Kobanomaly?

Miles

[anomaly]

Do you or do you not argue for socialism in one state, Miles?

[KC]

By the way, your fellow Leaguer KC was arguing for socialism in one state. Is he a Stalinist?


I wasn&#39;t arguing for any such thing. I speak of the revolution within one nation because that&#39;s how revolutions happen; nation by nation. If you would like to prove me wrong and find a quote where I advocate this, then go for it.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:16 AM
Do you or do you not argue for socialism in one state, Miles?
What is your definition of socialism?

Miles

[anomaly]

Certainly. But you have in the past said that the goal of revolution is a socialist state. Socialism in one state.

So if we are to use Miles&#39; shitty comparison, let us apply it equally.

[KC]

Certainly. But you have in the past said that the goal of revolution is a socialist state. Socialism in one state.


The short term goal of revolution within one nation is to create a proletarian state/dictatorship of the proletariat. This doesn&#39;t mean I advocate socialism in one state at all. Try again&#33; :lol:

[anomaly]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+May 10 2006, 12:18 AM--> (CommunistLeague &#064; May 10 2006, 12:18 AM) What is your definition of socialism?

Miles [/b]
Wouldn&#39;t it make sense for you socialists to answer this question?

But I think socialism=the DoP.

This has turned into a piece of shit thread.


KC
This doesn&#39;t mean I advocate socialism in one state at all.
Does any circus need someone to walk the tightrope? :lol:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by anomaly+May 10 2006, 12:21 AM--> (anomaly &#064; May 10 2006, 12:21 AM)Wouldn&#39;t it make sense for you socialists to answer this question? [/b]

I&#39;m a communist.


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:21 AM
But I think socialism=the DoP.

In that case, I advocate "socialism" in all countries. "Socialism" may emerge one country at a time, but I do not "advocate" it be limited to one country, or a group of countries.


[email protected] 10 2006, 12:21 AM
This has turned into a piece of shit thread.

That&#39;s only because you&#39;re getting spanked in public again.

Miles

[KC]

Does any circus need someone to walk the tightrope?

Are you going to prove your accusations or do you give up?

[anomaly]

If we go by Miles definition, then my position does not resemble Stalin&#39;s in the least.

Indeed, mine is quite similar to his. Except from an anarchist perspective.


Originally posted by Holy Leader
That&#39;s only because you&#39;re getting spanked in public again.
Spanked? You called me a Stalinist anarchist. Humorous. But spanked? No. KC and I were actually having a decent debate, for once, and then you came here and started all this bullshit.

[KC]

KC and I were actually having a decent debate, for once, and then you came here and started all this bullshit.

A decent debate? No we weren&#39;t. As usual, I was defining a word and you were disagreeing with me, no matter how many sources I cited.

[redstar2000]

The ghost of Stalin stirs...


Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Your argument about how "different areas of the world will progress at different speeds" is the same argument that Stalin and his supporters used to justify their view that socialism in one country was possible....

And Stalin saw himself as "arguing from a materialist perspective" too.

Sprawling over 1/6th of the earth&#39;s surface and containing scores of distinct "nationalities", is it an adequate summary to suggest that Stalin was really arguing for "socialism in one country"?

If the Stalinist "take" on the matter was possible anywhere, then surely Russia was its "best chance".

Neither the Germans nor the Americans could "conquer" the USSR; it fell due to internal rot...not the strength of imperialism.

If an anarchist/communist society existed over a substantial land mass, would it "rot from within" or "inevitably" yield the field to the strength of enemy imperialisms?

Can it be credibly argued that capitalism will be overthrown everywhere -- "all at once" -- even in countries where capitalism has barely dawned? :unsure:

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

[Enragé]

Originally posted by anomaly+May 10 2006, 12:53 AM--> (anomaly @ May 10 2006, 12:53 AM)
NKOS
then why the hell do anarchists claim they dont want a state?
What KC isn&#39;t telling you are those conditions which give rise to the state in the first place.

The state is, and has always been, just a tool for the suppression of one class (the ruled class) by another (the ruling class).

So he wants a new ruling class. This will not accomplish the goal of a functionally classless society. This will not create common property. Rather, class, and all the hierarchical relationships that the state bring, remain in place. The structure of hierarchy and the objects of oppression and suppression differ.

But don&#39;t worry: the superstition is that class will &#39;wither away&#39;.

If that&#39;s what you want, by all means, be a socialist.

[/b]
I agree but what makes a federation of communes not a state?

or isnt such a federation what anarchists want? if so what on earth do they want?

i like the spirit of anarchism i just dont know if its feasible


Also, KC: Class consciousness clearly arises from class. And class is based on a material relationship to the means of production. It is cause and effect. Not effect and effect

exactly

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:54 PM
I agree but what makes a federation of communes not a state?
It depends on a number of things, including silly little details like if the word "state" is capitalized or not. Different vocabularies fly around depending on what group you&#39;re working with - for instance anarchists hate the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" but in practice nobody can deny that it exists regardless of if people are calling it that or not. Does it matter to you if this future federation of communes is called a state or not? Why? The only thing that matters to me is that it remains totally horizontally and organically-implemented with full autonomy to all participants. "State" or not, such a thing would be fundamentally different from the centralized bureaucratic monster the Bolsheviks artificially created to cement their own power.

It&#39;s silly to debate Leninists in semantics when it&#39;s much easier to just prove them wrong in practice.


i like the spirit of anarchism i just dont know if its feasible
Of course it&#39;s feasible&#33; The only "blueprint" for libertarian revolution is via the autonomous councils or other bodies of workers&#39; power that naturally spring up over the course of struggle and in its defense. In this sense it&#39;s the most feasible of all options and what&#39;s actually highly unrealistic is the idea of imposing Party rule and discipline over a revolutionary situation without totally destroying it in the process.

Seriously dude, and please don&#39;t be offended, but you strike me as someone who&#39;s heart is in the right place but maybe you&#39;ve just been a Leninist for a while or something and now you&#39;re finding it hard to drop the emotional investment so you&#39;re coming up with an unworkable and historically preposterous idea like "Leninist anarchism" to save yourself the trouble. Speaking as someone who went from being a Leninist to an autonomist communist and had to force myself to make those psychological changes and drop the authoritarian baggage I had been clinging on to for dear ideological life, my advice to you is that it&#39;s better done early, because eventually it&#39;s gonna happen anyway and you&#39;ll feel a lot better just getting it over with now.

[KC]

Also, KC: Class consciousness clearly arises from class. And class is based on a material relationship to the means of production. It is cause and effect. Not effect and effect

Class arises from class consciousness. Here&#39;s the full quote:


Originally posted by Book Excerpt
In an important sense, Marx inverts the structural conception, suggesting that class struggle precedes class. For men and women discover their shared predicament and articulate a common language and action, thus coming into existence as a class, only in the process of defending their interests against other men and women who occupy an antagonistic position in the relations of production.

By participating in the class struggle (which happens as a result of class consciousness), people are organized into a class (the second definition of class that you idiotically reject). Thus Marx&#39;s use of the term in the quotes posted above.

[Enragé]

It depends on a number of things, including silly little details like if the word "state" is capitalized or not. Different vocabularies fly around depending on what group you&#39;re working with - for instance anarchists hate the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" but in practice nobody can deny that it exists regardless of if people are calling it that or not. Does it matter to you if this future federation of communes is called a state or not? Why? The only thing that matters to me is that it remains totally horizontally and organically-implemented with full autonomy to all participants. "State" or not, such a thing would be fundamentally different from the centralized bureaucratic monster the Bolsheviks artificially created to cement their own power.

true.



Of course it&#39;s feasible&#33; The only "blueprint" for libertarian revolution is via the autonomous councils or other bodies of workers&#39; power that naturally spring up over the course of struggle and in its defense. In this sense it&#39;s the most feasible of all options and what&#39;s actually highly unrealistic is the idea of imposing Party rule and discipline over a revolutionary situation without totally destroying it in the process.

Very true when you put it like that.


Seriously dude, and please don&#39;t be offended, but you strike me as someone who&#39;s heart is in the right place but maybe you&#39;ve just been a Leninist for a while or something and now you&#39;re finding it hard to drop the emotional investment so you&#39;re coming up with an unworkable and historically preposterous idea like "Leninist anarchism" to save yourself the trouble

Its not like that. I just never made up my mind. I&#39;ve got this trot on my msn and we often have discussions and it always ends up with me saying something along the lines of "yea ok". He just has all this experience debating and he knows a shitload about anarchism too.
The idea behind leninist anarchist is more like; anarchist if possible, leninism if necessary.

anyway
running the risk of this turning into the "lets convince NKOS into being an anarchist/whatever thread"
got a few questions
Electing representatives, nothing wrong with that right? You cant decide everything together, especially not in large organisations or post revolution. These representatives should be recallable at any time should they fuck up.

How can you win a war in a decentralized system when the enemy is centralized as hell? Its common sense that centralization is more effective, especially in wartime. You can talk all you want about the willingness of the people to fight and die for their cause, but if everybody&#39;s dead the revolution is dead too.

During demonstrations, whats wrong with electing someone who makes decisions if and when shit hits the fan? You cant have a meeting with riot police storming at you.

Whats the difference between an autonomist marxist (you&#39;re one apparently) and an anarchist?


By participating in the class struggle (which happens as a result of class consciousness), people are organized into a class (the second definition of class that you idiotically reject). Thus Marx&#39;s use of the term in the quotes posted above.

There is class as a "fighting force" and class as a group of people with the same relation to the means of production.

If this were not the case, we&#39;d have a classless society today

[KC]

There is class as a "fighting force" and class as a group of people with the same relation to the means of production.

If this were not the case, we&#39;d have a classless society today


This is exactly what I am saying.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 10 2006, 06:11 PM

There is class as a "fighting force" and class as a group of people with the same relation to the means of production.

If this were not the case, we&#39;d have a classless society today


This is exactly what I am saying.
oh right didnt see "second definition"

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+May 10 2006, 05:15 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ May 10 2006, 05:15 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 11:56 PM
How does that resemble in any way Stalin&#39;s concept of socialism in one country?

I am arguing from a materialist perspective. Stalin was not. Come on Miles. If you&#39;re just going to be an ass just to be an ass, just fucking leave. Seriously.
Your argument about how "different areas of the world will progress at different speeds" is the same argument that Stalin and his supporters used to justify their view that socialism in one country was possible. To wit:


Undoubtedly, the paths of development of the world revolution are not as plain as it may have seemed previously, before the victory of the revolution in one country, before the appearance of developed imperialism, which is "the eve of the socialist revolution." For a new factor has arisen -- the law of the uneven development of the capitalist countries, which operates under the conditions of developed imperialism, and which implies the inevitability of armed collisions, the general weakening of the world front of capital, and the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries. For a new factor has arisen -- the vast Soviet country, lying between the West and the East, between the centre of the financial exploitation of the world and the arena of colonial oppression, a country which by its very existence is revolutionizing the whole world.

All these are factors (not to mention other less important ones) which cannot be left out of account in studying the paths of development of the world revolution. (J.V. Stalin, IV, "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists" -- http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/OR24.html (http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Stalin/OR24.html)))

And Stalin saw himself as "arguing from a materialist perspective" too.

Now what, Kobanomaly?

Miles [/b]
It is possible to accept the theory that it may be necessary develop socialism or anarchism in one country (which owed as much to Bukharin as the Stalser) and not at all fall into the mold of a Stalinist, as that theory was merely one aspect of the ideology. Oh no, because some ideas are shared with such a monster then Anomaly must be a monster himself. Like if Stalin enjoyed vanilla icecream, than obviously people who like vanilla icecream are liable to be oppressive dictators.

[Nachie]

The idea behind leninist anarchist is more like; anarchist if possible, leninism if necessary.
Historically, the role of Leninism has been to violently suppress all possibility of anarchism (however you define it). To the Leninist, Leninism is always necessary.


Electing representatives, nothing wrong with that right? You cant decide everything together, especially not in large organisations or post revolution. These representatives should be recallable at any time should they fuck up.
Sure, and "representatives" of all types have sprung out from the various organs of autonomous workers&#39; power that we&#39;ve seen develop throughout history, so why oppose it? But what are they going to be representing? Will their status as a representative grant them some power? Will the collective body of representatives form its own repressive mechanisms to implement their "reforms", or will they serve merely as efficient means of coordination and communication between those same autonomous organs of workers&#39; power that will actually be in charge of enforcing proletarian dictatorship? Will there be hierarchy? Will it be centralized? Etc.

Historically, the answer is usually "no" unless that hierarchy and centralization is put in place by someone else, someone or something foreign to the organic process of revolution and proletarian self-valorization which we defend at all costs, with or without "official" representatives.


How can you win a war in a decentralized system when the enemy is centralized as hell? Its common sense that centralization is more effective, especially in wartime. You can talk all you want about the willingness of the people to fight and die for their cause, but if everybody&#39;s dead the revolution is dead too.
Yes a more or less vertical command structure is more efficient. Just look at the EZLN - structured almost like a regular army, but totally under the control of the autonomous Zapatista communities. What we need to be on guard against is something structured almost like a regular army, but totally under the control of something else ALSO structured like a regular army (such as a Leninist party, for instance). There must be no standing army other than the mass of armed workers, organized as dictated by the material conditions of their self-valorization which of course would have been a prerequisite to revolution.

I would suggest studying the workers&#39; councils in Budapest during the 1956 revolution. They managed to coordinate everything as a CLASS without the use of a central party, and in fact without any prior preparation other than the forms of struggle organically adopted during the revolt. Of course they ended up losing against the Soviet army, but only after some incredible victories. The Kwangju uprising, which chimx just posted a thread on, is also an amazing example. As usual, geographic isolation rather than military inadequacy is what tends to dead insurrections. But in regions where the whole population has risen, it is often difficult if not impossible for the government to regain control (see: Algeria)

But most importanly, if the only way we can "save" the revolution is by adopting completely counterrevolutionary structures that will kill it anyway, I&#39;d rather not.

It comes down to this: Will the "red army" be based firmly in the material experiences of the revolution that caused it to be; in the mass of self-organized workers, or will it be put into place, designed, and controlled by a pre-revolutionary and non-organic body declaring itself to be the vanguard?


During demonstrations, whats wrong with electing someone who makes decisions if and when shit hits the fan? You cant have a meeting with riot police storming at you.
Usually things like this are pre-discussed in spokes councils, or "spokes", which happen immediately before and after all serious black bloc actions. Any groups who are serious about this kind of stuff also do extensive street-combat training and at least in your example (riot police) the available options in terms of self-defense are limited enough that people fall into the tactics they know are appropriate for the situation (linking arms, un-arresting people, giving cover while someone changes into "safe" clothes, etc.) If you don&#39;t have prior training with that kind of stuff, a "leader" telling you to do it isn&#39;t going to help.

Of course, I personally have very strong critiques of protest street violence and do not feel it to be a worthwhile tactic to put yourself in a position where the riot police are already there and waiting for you.


Whats the difference between an autonomist marxist (you&#39;re one apparently) and an anarchist?
One&#39;s a Marxist, one&#39;s not :lol:

I would say the difference tends to be in analysis: the (traditional, historical) anarchists are more focused on hierarchy and the state and the autonomists are more interested in spaces of proletarian economic self-determination. Of course there are also subtle differences relating to the different jargons we use, but especially in the past few years and particularly via groups like RAAN, these people are coming together to fit as complimentary sides of the same coin.

[LoneRed]

cant leave me out of this thread.

Miles luckily i was reading a biography on stalin, so i got the Kobanomoly thing ;).

Anyways

The role of leninism isnt to suppress, anarchism, in fact thats not stated explicitly, instead the "goal" of leninism would be to industrialize into a Liberal capitalist society, with the communists having a voice in the electoral body, well at least in russia that was the goal. Others wanted to revolt right on through to socialism... trotsky..

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:18 PM
the "goal" of leninism would be to industrialize into a Liberal capitalist society, with the communists having a voice in the electoral body, well at least in russia that was the goal.
So why is Leninism at all relevant in countries that are already industrialized liberal capitalist societies?

LoneRed, I&#39;d be interested in your comments on the texts I posted HERE (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49793)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by NKOS+--> (NKOS)i like the spirit of anarchism i just dont know if its feasible[/b]
Hopefully we&#39;ll soon find out, eh? :)

We really don&#39;t know if it&#39;s &#39;possible&#39;. But I think it is.

However, I&#39;ve come to the conclusion that Leninism is just about reactionary when applied in advanced capitalist nations.


Originally posted by [email protected]
By participating in the class struggle (which happens as a result of class consciousness), people are organized into a class (the second definition of class that you idiotically reject).
Class consciousness arises from class. The actual material relations that give rise to class are the most important. You can talk about &#39;class consciousness&#39; or &#39;consciousness of class&#39;, but they both arise from material conditions.

If you are saying that class exists separate of the material conditions which give rise to it, I utterly reject this notion. There will certainly be divisions of some sort or another, but class in the socioeconomic sense (the only sense worth talking about) will not exist. This means that your state has no function either.


Nachie
I would say the difference tends to be in analysis: the (traditional, historical) anarchists are more focused on hierarchy and the state and the autonomists are more interested in spaces of proletarian economic self-determination
This is probably correct. Just a difference on stress.

However, myself, I see no fundamental difference between the libertarian (or autonomous) Marxists and anarchists. Would you agree with this assessment?

[KC]

Class consciousness arises from class. The actual material relations that give rise to class are the most important. You can talk about &#39;class consciousness&#39; or &#39;consciousness of class&#39;, but they both arise from material conditions.

If you are saying that class exists separate of the material conditions which give rise to it, I utterly reject this notion. There will certainly be divisions of some sort or another, but class in the socioeconomic sense (the only sense worth talking about) will not exist. This means that your state has no function either.

Class consciousness arises from class as defined by one&#39;s relationship to the means of production. When people become class conscious, they organize and form a class (as defined by the definition that you reject).

When the proletariat organizes to form a class, the bourgeoisie will follow in reaction. When the proletariat takes control of the means of production, these classes still exist. The bourgeoisie will still have a bourgeois class consciousness. They are still organized into a class along a bourgeois consciousness. So two classes will inevitably exist within the post-revolutionary nation. This is the definition of class Engels used when he described what a state was.

This is plainly clear to everybody that there are two definitions of class. I have cited numerous sources and repeatedly explained all of them, yet you still can&#39;t seem to understand that class has two meanings. Are you just disagreeing with me because you don&#39;t like agreeing with me on things or what?