forms of communism

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I was just wondering if anyone could briefly summarize different forms of communism. Especially leninism since I am least clear on it. Thank you.

[LSD]

Leninism is nothing more than a political philsophy based on the writings and actions of Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, especially following the Russian Revolution. Although based on Marxism, it introduced some novel concepts into the framework, especially with regards to the role of the party, and was the dominant strain of communism during most of the twentieth century.

Simply put, Leninists advocate a disciplined hiearchical party structure organized along principles of "democratic centralism" (think parliamentary cabinet) that will both "lead" and "organize" the proletariat before and during the revolution.

Ostensibly, the Proletariat itself is "not yet capable" of direct self-rule and so requires that the "most revolutionary" of the class "prepare" them for "eventual" self-government.

Therefore, following a successful proletarian insurrection, Leninists see the party as immediately assuming sole power as the "vanguard" and "representatives" of the entire Proletarian class. As a sort of "general staff" of the revolutionary Proletariat, the party will be trained and prepared to assume absolute command.

This command will be organized based on a statist "socialist" approach which generally tends towards a powerful top-heavy institutionalized centralized government with all the standard accessories such as bureaucrats, police forces, and standing professional armies.

Theoretically, the ruling parties of Leninist states are supposed to be democratic and loosely based on republican princples, but practically, Leninist governments have been universally authoritarian and highly corrupt.

For more information see the Revolutionary Left Dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What branch of communism would the communist league be most aligned with. I tend to agree with them on a majority of things including the abolition of the executive branch and democratic elections in the judicial branch.

[LSD]

As I understand it, the Communist League (US) identifies itself only as communist. Although it claims a degree of Leninist influence and undoubtably has a significant number of Leninist members, I don't think it would be fair to call it a Leninist organization.

Certainly it rejects a number of traditional Leninist mainstays and tends to be much more democratic and transparent in its approach.

Overall, I think it would be fair to label it a Marxist Communist party; although you may wish to contact someone in the League for their take on the question.

[VermontLeft]

LSD, could you tell me, with all the historical shit that came with lenininism and whatever, how come there still so many lenininist parties around?

i mean there arent that many communists around at all (which sucks :() but of them a lot are still lenininists or trotsyists, maoists, etc... which are all kinds of lenininists...right? :unsure:

so i guess im askin why these people dont just fucking notice that lenininism hasnt worked yet and all these lenininist places are completely fucked up? :huh:

[LSD]

I think that the "history" of Leninism has been a bit of a double-edged sword.

Leninist attempts at "socialism" may have resulted in autocracy and authoritarianism, but those pheonomena have appeals of there own.

That is, no Leninist part has ever "lead" a country "towards socialism", but many of them have created some remarkably impressive state structures. Remember, for over fifty years, the Soviet Union was easily the second-most powerful country in the world; a "superpower" to rival the US and a supremely powerful military force.

Was it "communist"? Was it "Marxist"? Was it a "workers' state"? Of course not.

But for a lot of the left, that didn't matter. All that mattered was that this, ostensibly, "socialist" state was seemingly poised to conquer the globe!

Remember, in the fifties and sixties there was a real appearance of a global "communist take-over". China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, eastern Europe, western Africa, everywhere it seemed that the Leninists were on the march.

Today we can recognize that the material conditions were not right for communism in any of those countries; but at the time it looked very much like a "world revolution" was on the horizon.

And, if so, it was the Leninists who were ushering it in! :o

In Europe and America, Leninism seemed like the "only way". After all the "council communists" had failed to make any inroads, the traditional Marxists were all but gone, the Anarchists' only real modern experiment had been crushed by fascism, and no other group seemed capable of mounting a serious campaign.

Additionaly, it was remarkably appealing to believe that the "one true way" had been discovered and leftists across the globe were ready to jump on the bandwagon.

This process was also self-feeding as the more "credible" Leninism became, the more leftists adopted it and the more leftists who adopted it, the more "credible" it became.

Meanwhile, the third world (which was, after all, where Leninism was born) found a special appeal in Leninism as, unlike most radical leftist philosophies, Leninism leant itself quite well to their socioeconomic situation.

Real mass organization is quite difficult in undeveloped, largely peasant-based, countries. But with the "leadership" principles and "special role of the party" implicit in Leninist organization, a third world "vanguard" is able to "run" and "manage" a "revolution" with no need for serious popular participation.

In countries like Ethiopia and Angola and Albania, there were no "workers" or proletariat to speak off. Regardless, "workers' parties" siezed power in their name and set-up ostensible "workers' republics" to "lead them to socialism".

Now, in most of these countries, Leninist leaders have manged to organize production, introduce industrialization, and generally increase economic development. But in not one has anything approaching "socialism" been achieved.

The thing is though, while the Leninists may have failed in that endeavour, so has everyone else. No one hass managed to create a real "workers' republic" or a functional Anarchist commune and most of the left is still too shellshocked and beaten down to really try.

Leninists, however, have been emboldened by their apparent "successes" and have, with reckless abandon, attempted to export their "revolution" to anyone and everyone willing to wave a red flag.

So while all Leninist states so far have been spectacular failures, they've nonetheless been spectacular.

Unfortunately, that's enough to get a lot of publicity. When it comes to filling history books and getting air time, trying is more important than succeeding and persistance is more useful than efficacy.

In the end, of course, Leninism will end up being an historically noteworthy philosophy, but a politically dead issue. Self-declared "Troskyist" and "Maoist" parties may still dot the political landscape, but they're not leading any mass proletarian movements any more.

Will there be more Leninist "revolutions" in the future? Who can say. Certainly the implosive demise of the Soviet Union and the gradual capitalization of the PRC has weakened the ideological "clout" of Leninist ideas, but they're by no means defeated.

It is certainly possible that there are more "Maos", "Hoxhas", and "Castros" in our future.

But in terms of the real proletarian movement; in terms of the utlimate first world working-people's battle against capitalism ...Leninism doesn't have a shot.

It's been undeniably potent, but its time is done. However the future of the revolutionary left will manifest, it will be undeniably novel.

Keep in mind, this is not meant as an "insult" to Leninists or their supporters. Most of them are genuinely well-meaning people and are honestly trying to work for proletarian emancipation. They are just unfortunately still trapped in a dying fantasy.

It's time that we let the dead stay dead and move past 1918 Petrograd.

We have important work to do! :)

[Nachie]

Very good answers, LSD.

[RebelDog]

Lets all get rid of capitalism!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What would leninism be minus the protaleriat dictatorship?

[LSD]

What would leninism be minus the protaleriat dictatorship?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

It's kind of like what would Anarchism be without the opposition to hierarchy. Well ...it would be something else, but an ideology is defined by what it is and you can't "minus" fundamental aspects.

Leninism is what it is. If you take away the special role of the party or the DoP (or Lenin's version of it), it's not Leninism anymore, it's some other variant of Marxism or myabe even utopian socialism.

Such thought experiments are acadmically interesting, especially if your interested in the historical evolution of socioeconomic paradigms, but in terms of practical leftism, it's an utter waste of time.

If the DoP or some other aspect of Leninism does not appeal to you, then I'm afraid that Leninism isn't for you. That's not a "bad thing", mind you, Leninism doesn't work for a lot of people, myself included.

And by all indications, by the time a real proletarian communist revolution rols around, Leninism will be all but marginalized.

Again, its time in the spotlight is through.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:42 PM
What would leninism be minus the protaleriat dictatorship?
If you also removed the vanguard party, you'd have anarchism. If you kept the vanguard party, but left out the DoP then it'd be some sort of bizarre anarchist/leninist hybrid.

[Comrada J]

Anarchists believe in revolution(destroying cappyism) right? Because I've met plenty of "anarchists" who said it's better to "convince" the capitalists rather then fight them. Although I suspect these people are just middle-class liberals that listen to punk.

[Morpheus]

Those "anarchists" are very confused. Hand them some of the classic anarchist texts.