Leninists Can Only Screw the Whole Thing Up

[MurderInc]

Why you may ask?

They're human. Simple as that. A dicatorship for the benefit of the proletariat should last about one year, tops.

As soon as any small region can organize itself, leadership should not come from the top, but from that central, oca comune.

The army can be around to insure no backsliding and deal with traitors.

But central control of local decision making will only lead to mischief. The central leaders are human. After a year, they will find ways to hoard commodities, products and the like.

Maybe one or two leaders will live the revolution, but many will create special areas for themselves in a central capital.

The central capital must have NOTHING. Everything must be kept locally, and distributed where all can see all.

Leninists CAN'T step away from power.

Sad but true.

[LoneRed]

oh how fascinating, more anti-leninist rants, Next time I would ask you to talk to an actual leninist, Your in luck we have one here Marxism-Leninism, talk to him about what leninism is, before ranting off again.

[KC]

Wow this thread is fucked up.

[Nachie]

OH NO THE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

SCRAMBLE! SCRAMBLE!

QUICK! PUT OUT AN EMERGENCY EDITION OF OUR NEWSPAPER "WORKER'S SOMETHING"!

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:45 PM
OH NO THE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

SCRAMBLE! SCRAMBLE!

QUICK! PUT OUT AN EMERGENCY EDITION OF OUR NEWSPAPER "WORKER'S SOMETHING"!
So you, as a self-styled Marxist, agree with the topic starter that "Leninists fuck up" because they are human, meaning that selfishness is human nature? :lol:

You try to turn this into an exposure of the flaws of the Leninists, but your own flaws shine through: you are opportunist enough to support the wackiest assertions("humans are naturally selfish") as long as it is said by an anti-Leninist.

Anyway, I doubt this is "the people coming to their own conclusions", a look at Murder's post history shows us that he has probably been an ideologue on your side for a long time.

[KC]

OH NO THE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

I don't even think he came to any conclusions. :lol:

[MurderInc]

Nachie: Thank you for appreciating that there are people here who are not sheep.

Lazar: That was a funny comment.

Matthijs: I said they will only screw things up, not that they are "fucked up" in how they do things. They do things quite well. They insure the revolution will be arrested, stagnant, stuck in the mud, and then tell you how they are the only ones who can save th revolution after they stalled it.

In General: Whether or not humans are greedy by nature is obvious. I have no problem with a central authority, directing the comunes to ensure adherence to doctrine. What I wrote was, and I thought I was clear about this, that central authority shouldn't be given storehouses of products. That's all I wrote. If they have nothing to use as a currency, the local will become the place where everyone's attention should be placed. As it should be. This is my grand conclusion.

P.S. Lazar: I am not a "he", but a "she".

[barista.marxista]

Careful what you say around here, MurderInc. Trash-talk the Lennies, and they'll try to get you banned in CC. :lol:

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Apr 24 2006, 04:54 PM--> (Matthijs @ Apr 24 2006, 04:54 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:45 PM
OH NO THE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

SCRAMBLE! SCRAMBLE!

QUICK! PUT OUT AN EMERGENCY EDITION OF OUR NEWSPAPER "WORKER'S SOMETHING"!
So you, as a self-styled Marxist, agree with the topic starter that "Leninists fuck up" because they are human, meaning that selfishness is human nature? :lol:

You try to turn this into an exposure of the flaws of the Leninists, but your own flaws shine through: you are opportunist enough to support the wackiest assertions("humans are naturally selfish") as long as it is said by an anti-Leninist.

Anyway, I doubt this is "the people coming to their own conclusions", a look at Murder's post history shows us that he has probably been an ideologue on your side for a long time. [/b]
You may have noticed somewhere along the way that your claims that this poster agreed with the topic starter, or asserted humans were naturally selfish are nowhere to be found in this post. At worst it's a satire of stereotypes of Leninists, and at best it's pretty funny.

[IronColumn]

It surprises me how many Leninists there are after the dozens of complete failures and the undeniable near-successes of libertarian marxist/anarchist thought. Spain or the Ukraine under Makhno were closer to the classless ideal than Russia ever was. Leninists have this crazy circular logic: No one but us can make the revolution, other leftists can't possibly succeed->Therefore, attack anyone who differs from us->Then they claim the Makhnovists/syndicalists/Situationists etc. didn't succeed because of their theory, when in fact the only reason these revolutions miscarried was Leninist meddling! It's lunacy.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:06 PM


In General: Whether or not humans are greedy by nature is obvious. I have no problem with a central authority, directing the comunes to ensure adherence to doctrine. What I wrote was, and I thought I was clear about this, that central authority shouldn't be given storehouses of products. That's all I wrote. If they have nothing to use as a currency, the local will become the place where everyone's attention should be placed. As it should be. This is my grand conclusion.

P.S. Lazar: I am not a "he", but a "she".
:lol:

do you know what you are

authoritarian

[MurderInc]

New Kind of Soldier: All who work for socialism work for some kind of authroity during that period of infancy of post-revolutionary period. (Except for anarchists, who would more or less create a libertarian world where only the strong with guns will enjoy life, the rest of us would be food for the strong.)

During the time immediate to the revolution and its aftermath, there will be a socialsit dictatorhip, authoritarian if you like, directing the overall work of approving (recognizing) communities. Otherwise, there would be dueling arguments and no resolution.

My argument is that this must not last more than a year or so, and have NO WEALTH. Otherwise you end up with another Moscow in 1930, and an elite representing the workers, but no true revolution.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Lenin let the dogs out!

Lenin stole cookies from the cookie jar!

Lenin put the bop in the bop she bop she bop, and put the ram in the ram ah lamma ding dang!

Lenin shot the sheriff, but he did not shoot the deputy!

Lenin Lenin bo Benin, banana fanna foe Fenin me my mo Menin, Lenin!

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:30 PM
Careful what you say around here, MurderInc. Trash-talk the Lennies, and they'll try to get you banned in CC. :lol:
The anti-leninist position is nothing new, nor is it anything we are terribly concerned about. The illusions that you are frightening us, that we are "out to get you and your rebel anarchist friends" are simply untrue. A bullshit message from RAAN saying that they will beat me in the streets and take my newspapers hardly frightens me.

The CC has a ton of anti-leninists in it. You act as if the CC is some sort of Leninist Vanguard of the site, not an all-encompassing means of semi-democratic moderation. RedStar2000, Anomaly, RebelWorker and probably two dozen other anti-leninists are in the CC!

Quit being stupid. You "RAANistas" need a reality check. We are not out to get you, nor are we worried about your silly little club.

[MurderInc]

EL KABLAMO: Exactly!

Finally. someone understands why Leninists need therapy.

My dream guy.

[LoneRed]

Last time I checked the Libertarian "Marxists", anarchists, havent got any farther to socialism, oh wait, they want anarchism or communism or whatever the hell they advocate. Oh the beautiful anarchist state of..... err.... ill get back to you

[piet11111]

central leadership yes but not for a pre-set amount of time the individuals need to be able to be recalled on the spot.

the pre-set amount of time is also a bad idea because it would force someone who is a very good member of a workers council to be removed and replaced by someone that might not be capable.

[MurderInc]

piet111111111111111

I'm sorry you misunderstood me: A preset amount of time for the entire central authroiity. Then it's gone and the only central administration. I don't want to see those jokers, and if I do, they better not be stockpiling anything.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:58 PM
The CC has a ton of anti-leninists in it. You act as if the CC is some sort of Leninist Vanguard of the site, not an all-encompassing means of semi-democratic moderation. RedStar2000, Anomaly, RebelWorker and probably two dozen other anti-leninists are in the CC!

Quit being stupid. You "RAANistas" need a reality check. We are not out to get you, nor are we worried about your silly little club.
When did I say CC was any type of Leninist group? I just think it's pathetic (amusing?) that you guys go crying there when we say we'll do unto you what you've done onto us.

Basically: boo-fucking-hoo.

But you know what is really funny? We RAANistas aren't the ones starting the threads of "attacks" on this board: you Lennies are. Every RAAN thread we start doesn't have anything to do with Leninism, because Leninism is simply irrelevant to our organizational method. But you come in and make a hissyfit because we support direct action against your authoritarianism, and then anytime someone posts an anti-Lenin topic (such as this one, posted by a non-RAANista [as far as I can tell]), you scream "RAAN!!! RAAAN!!!!" hysterically.

Again: pathetic.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:30 PM
Careful what you say around here, MurderInc. Trash-talk the Lennies, and they'll try to get you banned in CC. :lol:
Unsuccessfully. :)

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

[emokid08]

Quit being stupid. You "RAANistas" need a reality check. We are not out to get you, nor are we worried about your silly little club

That's interesting, just like Lenin wasn't out to get the Kronstadt sailors?
:lol:


Last time I checked the Libertarian "Marxists", anarchists, havent got any farther to socialism, oh wait, they want anarchism or communism or whatever the hell they advocate. Oh the beautiful anarchist state of..... err.... ill get back to you

Well, Libertarian Communists (Marxists) tried, in Spain The Ukraine and Hungary, and they were all crushed by some Fascist regime.

Let's check in on the Leninist states:
USSR (dissolved and horrednous failure)
N.Korea (brutal totalitarian police state
Khemer Rouge (haneous killing fields)
China (Capitalist sell out, or if u perfer, state capitalism)
do I need go on?
Where has Leninism gotten the world?

I can speak for no one else, other than myself, I don't need a Vanguard Elitists to speak for me, but I advocate Anarcho-Communism/Libertarian Communism.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by CPA
RedStar2000, Anomaly, RebelWorker and probably two dozen other anti-leninists are in the CC!
CPA mentioned me. :wub:

In any case, I am starting to like the trend around here. It seems the left is beginning to wake up after the 20th century stupor.

Even the so-called Leninists are losing their authoritarian flavor. I've talked to CPA here and he definitely isn't an authoritarian (I don't think so, anyway...I'll have to talk to him more :P ). He's just into 90 year old men who were kicked out of the Labour party. :lol:

The reason to be anti-Leninist is quite clear. Hopefully, the next time a revolution comes around, we won't have to deal with that authoritarian shit. :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MurderInc
Leninists Can Only Screw the Whole Thing Up

Well, you have "history on your side".

But remember that the Leninist-Trotskyists haven't had "their shot" yet. Thus far, only Leninist-Stalinists and Leninist-Maoists have had the chance to demonstrate their "incompetence" in power.

I frankly don't expect Leninist-Trotskyists to ever get a chance to show how "they could run things" but history is full of "accidents".

I could visualize a successful Trotskyist party in countries like Serbia, Turkey, Iran...even India. And there actually is one represented in the fake "parliament" in Pakistan.

Trotskyists in the U.K. are rather giddy about their present prospects in Venezuela...but that looks wildly unlikely to me. Chavez's social democracy enjoys truly enormous popular support...and I can't see Venezuelan Trotskyists as anything there but a small furiously wagging tail on a really big dog. :lol:

Over the course of this century, I expect Leninism to simply "fade away"...as it will sound more and more "old-fashioned" to 21st century ears. After all, when you get right down to it, it's mostly a "revolutionary spin" on Kautskyian social democracy.

About as exciting as a Victorian-age fashion show. :lol:

Or as interesting as a Victorian novel, for that matter.

Lenin was a "giant" in the 20th century. But, as a rule, giants "shrink" with the passage of time.

Fortunately. ;)

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

[emokid08]

Oh, I forgot to mention.............................

yes (!) I have come to my own conclusion. That conclusion is that Leninism is authoritarian marxism (just like bakunin predicted!) and that Libertarian Communism/Anarcho-Communism is this century's revolutionary force.
:lol:
;)

[bezdomni]

When did I say CC was any type of Leninist group? I just think it's pathetic (amusing?) that you guys go crying there when we say we'll do unto you what you've done onto us.
You imply that the CC Leninsts are out to get everybody. There are anarchists in the CC, as well as other RAANheads. Get over it, there is no conspiracy against you, sorry to disspoint.


But you know what is really funny? We RAANistas aren't the ones starting the threads of "attacks" on this board: you Lennies are. Every RAAN thread we start doesn't have anything to do with Leninism, because Leninism is simply irrelevant to our organizational method.
It seems that Leninism is quite central to your organizational method (you are actually organized?) since that seems to be the main thing you rally against. I hear more anti-leninist crap from RAANheads than I do anti-capitalist.


But you come in and make a hissyfit because we support direct action against your authoritarianism, and then anytime someone posts an anti-Lenin topic [you complain]
When have you ever taken direct action against a Leninist? You have made a bunch of empty threats and have taken no action, from what I've heard. And since when are all Leninists authoritarians? Last I checked, I was pretty libertarian.

Unless you consider Marx executing Lenin (Lenin being the freedom fighter and Marx being the oppressor, very strange choice indeed) a form of direct action.

We don't like people posting crap against Leninism and doing fuck all to fight capitalism. RAAN has terribly confused priorities. However, I am not worried because you will not do anything to me or any other Leninist. You are all talk no action. In fact, I dare you to take "direct action" against Leninists...it would be nice to see a bunch of petit-bourgeois "anarchists" (I am not saying that anarchists are petit-bourgeois, only the ones who advocate violence against fellow leftists) try and do something. Not only would they probably get their asses handed to them, it would be the closest thing to an anarchist victory in history! :P


That's interesting, just like Lenin wasn't out to get the Kronstadt sailors?
No, not like that.

I don't want to kill anybody, but the "RAANistas" obviously wouldn't be too bothered if I dropped down dead.


Well, Libertarian Communists (Marxists) tried, in Spain The Ukraine and Hungary, and they were all crushed by some Fascist regime.
Give some credit to the Trotskyists why don't you?

There were also a ton of Stalinists fighting with the Republic in the Spanish Civil War.


Let's check in on the Leninist states:
Let's do!


USSR (dissolved and horrednous failure)
Stalinist bureaucracy and gross reformism.

Next!


N.Korea (brutal totalitarian police state)
Not Leninist.


Khemer Rouge (haneous killing fields) [sic]
Not at all Leninist.


China (Capitalist sell out, or if u perfer, state capitalism)
Maoism and reformism.


Where has Leninism gotten the world?
where has anarchism gotten us?



I can speak for no one else, other than myself, I don't need a Vanguard Elitists to speak for me, but I advocate Anarcho-Communism/Libertarian Communism.
Take it to the vanguard thread.

[bezdomni]

I frankly don't expect Leninist-Trotskyists to ever get a chance to show how "they could run things" but history is full of "accidents".
Go accidents!


CPA mentioned me.
How could I not?


Even the so-called Leninists are losing their authoritarian flavor. I've talked to CPA here and he definitely isn't an authoritarian (I don't think so, anyway...I'll have to talk to him more tongue.gif ). He's just into 90 year old men who were kicked out of the Labour party.
I'm not an authoritarian. ;)

Haha. mmm...90 year old men....mmm...Ted Grant..... :wub:

:lol: :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:21 PM

Quit being stupid. You "RAANistas" need a reality check. We are not out to get you, nor are we worried about your silly little club

That's interesting, just like Lenin wasn't out to get the Kronstadt sailors?
:lol:


Last time I checked the Libertarian "Marxists", anarchists, havent got any farther to socialism, oh wait, they want anarchism or communism or whatever the hell they advocate. Oh the beautiful anarchist state of..... err.... ill get back to you

Well, Libertarian Communists (Marxists) tried, in Spain The Ukraine and Hungary, and they were all crushed by some Fascist regime.

Let's check in on the Leninist states:
USSR (dissolved and horrednous failure)
N.Korea (brutal totalitarian police state
Khemer Rouge (haneous killing fields)
China (Capitalist sell out, or if u perfer, state capitalism)
do I need go on?
Where has Leninism gotten the world?

I can speak for no one else, other than myself, I don't need a Vanguard Elitists to speak for me, but I advocate Anarcho-Communism/Libertarian Communism.
Again, I completely agree with anomaly and emokid08. The best thing to do in a situation of revolutionary potential (which would be organized by the masses in a democratic fashion, not just by a few millitant politicans grasping for power).

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:37 PM
Trotskyists in the U.K. are rather giddy about their present prospects in Venezuela...but that looks wildly unlikely to me. Chavez's social democracy enjoys truly enormous popular support...and I can't see Venezuelan Trotskyists as anything there but a small furiously wagging tail on a really big dog. :lol:
You'll have to give them a decade or two, redstar... Bolivarianism and Trotskyism are only very recently becoming more attached and they still haven't totally implemented Trotskyist indoctrination via the Bolivarian Universities, but they're on their way and when Chavez needs his "red guard" you better believe that's where they'll be coming from.

And as for you, Mr. Clown Penis Anarchy, I will put you down on our list of people to call up later to yell "I told you so!"

It's a really long list.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:39 PM
Whimper whimper wah wah
Again, you judge us based only on your own experiences on a message board. Hardly a dialectical materialist analysis, is that? And it can easily be turned around to you: what have you done besides *****ing about RAANistas? Oh, and selling your newspaper.

We'll have our updated history up soon. Including our RAANfest, baby!

http://www.phillyraan.net/pics/raanfest.gif

[piet11111]

you judge us based only on your own experiences on a message board. Hardly a dialectical materialist analysis, is that?

yeah indeed if it was dialectical materialist i would not understand a word he said :lol:

anyway perhaps an idea to take the mud-slinging to the private message system as its not adding much to the thread.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:16 PM
RAANfest, baby!
that shit was off the hook

[bezdomni]

And as for you, Mr. Clown Penis Anarchy, I will put you down on our list of people to call up later to yell "I told you so!"

It's a really long list.
Yeah, it's almost as if you aren't a mass movement! ;)


And it can easily be turned around to you: what have you done besides *****ing about RAANistas? Oh, and selling your newspaper.
The last thing I did was help organize an anti-imperialism/anti-war demo and I'm getting behind the immigration movement. I'm not an organizer of it, but I am a participant - which is important.

However, one of the main organizers in St. Louis for the immigration movement is a Leninist.

Most of the work I do is Trotskyist work, IE: party building, fundraising..et cetera. Things you anarchists "aren't into".

Anyway, as anomly will tell you - I can get along with anarchists. It just seems that a lot of anarchists are total dicks!

My only experience with RAANheads is on message boards, since I have never met a "member" of RAAN in real life. I presume there are none where I live. And if there are, they are inactive.

Way to go plagiarizing another person's artwork and making an immature quote of what I said. You must be pretty tough.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:23 PM
Yeah, it's almost as if you aren't a mass movement! ;)
It's almost as if you were implying we had sold ourselves as one? ;)

[emokid08]

It just seems that a lot of anarchists are total dicks!

Oh darn! I'm guilty as charged! ;)

Just a little reminder:
There are a few branches of Leninism that are very closely related, they are:
Marxism Leninism
Trotskyism
Stalinism
Maoism

So all of SE Asia, Cuba, PRC, N Korea ( i know i know juche doesnt count, but they still are MLists), Former Bloc, USSR were/are ALL Leninist.

Again, I'm so glad to see the workers paradise alive well and prospering UNDER Leninism.

Communism should never be from the top down, it should be from the bottom up. :lol:

(sorry for the major typo! reason for edit)

[bezdomni]

It's almost as if you were implying we had sold ourselves as one?
I was just told by an anarchist that Leninism can't work because it isn't a mass movement.

Oh well.


There are a few branches of Leninism that are very closely related, they are:
Marxism Leninism
Trotskyism
Stalinism
Maoism
They are not closely related, if they were, then there would be no point in there being different branches.

I'm a Trot, and I notice a TON of differences between myself and Stalin/Mao. Namely, that I am a libertarian!


So all of SE Asia, Cuba, PRC, N Korea ( i know i know juche doesnt count, but they still are MLists), Former Bloc, USSR were/are ALL Leninist.
Cuba is pretty successful. They have problems, but they aren't unsucessful.

Why not say Maoism has failed, or Stalinism has failed? As RS2k said, Trots haven't had a chance yet. Don't group us in there!

Trots are Leninists too...and the best sort!

And nobody will dispute that change needs to come from the top. It is a reformist argument, and Leninsts are not reformists.

Change must come from the bottom up. Ie, popular insurrection by an organized working class.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:45 PM
I was just told by an anarchist that Leninism can't work because it isn't a mass movement.
Leninism is a mass movement. Didn't work, regardless :lol:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Trash this thread, it's garbage.

Someone please trash it.

Its almost as shitty as the time I saw some mall-punk opening band swing their fists around and chant "Oi oi oi-- we're Floridian, and we're 16 !"

[Nachie]

hey i think i was at that show

[anomaly]

Originally posted by CPA
where has anarchism gotten us?
I don't think this back and forth shit is doing anything for us.

So far, the simple fact is that no one has produced communism. Anywhere. Period.

But, we don't participate in fake elections. That's a start! :D

And emokid, I don't think we can really compare Trots and Stalinists. Stalinists don't really mind killing Trots, speaking historically. :o

As for Trotskyism, there is a lot of evidence, I think, that it is moving toward simple reformism. AS wrote a good article about it some time ago.

CPA will disagree, and that's cool. He's cool with anarchists, so it's all good. ;)

Don't listen to EK. This thread rocks.

[Janus]

Trash this thread, it's garbage.

Someone please trash it.
Well, if the members here could be more civilized in their debating then I think we could actually get somewhere but so far it has not occured.

I sympathize with anarchism in that I think that leadership can be quite dangerous and that even guides or counsels, which is another defintion of vanguard, can be potentially dangerous as well. I think that we could address these various topics without resorting to namecalling and ad hominem attacks, please.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:21 AM
So far, the simple fact is that no one has produced communism. Anywhere. Period.

But, we don't participate in fake elections. That's a start! :D

And emokid, I don't think we can really compare Trots and Stalinists. Stalinists don't really mind killing Trots, speaking historically. :o

As for Trotskyism, there is a lot of evidence, I think, that it is moving toward simple reformism. AS wrote a good article about it some time ago.

CPA will disagree, and that's cool. He's cool with anarchists, so it's all good. ;)

Don't listen to EK. This thread rocks.
The age old standby of parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War may not have been perfect but were pretty close to what I would hope would happen.

And about the whole "can seperate leftists get along" thing, I remember seeing a quote on this forum somewhere that sums up my opinion pretty nicely: "I have no enemies on the left, only arguments." Or something like that.

[emokid08]

Oi oi oi-- we're Floridian, and we're 16 !

Hey! How do u know me and my friends? That's us! :D :lol:


;)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Janus
I think that we could address these various topics without resorting to namecalling and ad hominem attacks, please.
Ok.

Well, the divisions between Lennies and annies are relatively obvious. Lennies want a post-revolutionary state, annies don't. Lennies want a leading 'vanguard' or 'Vanguard Party', in order to spread 'class consciousness' (I call it Party loyalty, but whatever) among the 'backward masses'.

And you know what? That's a good idea...in the 3rd world. Because Leninism has historically demonstrated its utility in bringing a country to modern capitalism.

Meanwhile, annies stress anti-authoritarianism--a topic that Leninists constantly distance themselves, and for good reason. We stress the smashing of the state, that is, the removal of any official hierarchy.

Often in my debates with Leninists and their supporters I am accused of 'misunderstanding' what the state actually is. Well, alright. But I think most of us can agree with the definition Engels once provided (unfortunately, I left my Marx book at school, so I'll cite it tomorrow...nvm, emokid cited it for me :) ): The state is a tool for a ruling class to suppress a ruled class. (paraphrased, obviously).

So Lennies and other statist Marxists want a post-revolutionary state with a ruling class and a ruled class. I think Bakunin's criticism that 'a new proletariat will develop' is quite relevant here.

On the other hands, annies want the state, and thus classes, to disappear with the bourgeoisie. Collectivism is a transitionary means of accomplishing this, and it seems like such a thing would develop into communism rather easily as material conditions allow. Time Labor Vouchers are, in my view, the best option for utility in collectivism.

So there you have it. It's really simply authoritarianism vs. anti-authoritarianism, no matter how much some sugar coat it.

Now, some well-read Marxist is going to clamor with the Engels quote "revolution is an authoritarian act'. Well, perhaps, if you wish to use Friedrich's odd essay ("On Authority"). But this in no way means we must have an authoritarian society.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:37 PM

Or as interesting as a Victorian novel, for that matter.


You really hate englit, don't you? :lol:

I was going to reply to your anti-Leninist rants, but maybe another time. I was to busy laughing at your witty remarks to make a good argument.

[bezdomni]

As for Trotskyism, there is a lot of evidence, I think, that it is moving toward simple reformism.
Not if I have anything to do with it!

To hell with Ted Grant...I'm going to be the old man now! :lol:

[anomaly]

CPA is the Jesus of Trotskyism. Plain and simple.

[emokid08]

Very, very well put Anamoly! I wish I was as articulate as you are. No sarcasm, there, I'm serious.I couldn't agree more ;)

the quote reads:


The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another--no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy.
Friedrich Engels, preface to Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, 1891

How true! The quote rings with a richness that is still relevant even tody.
:lol:

[bezdomni]

It works both ways.

The bourgeois class oppresses the working class through the state.

The working class can use the state to repress the last strands of the bourgeois class and end up with a stateless society (which is impossible until there are no more social classes).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Leninism is good except for the "dictatorship of the protaleriat". Anybody who has heard of the USSR knows how that can get out of hand. I think Trotskyism is a solidform of communism because to my knowledge they don't support the dictatorship, in fact they accused it of degenerating the worker's state.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:45 PM
Well, the divisions between Lennies and annies are relatively obvious. Lennies want a post-revolutionary state, annies don't. Lennies want a leading 'vanguard' or 'Vanguard Party', in order to spread 'class consciousness' (I call it Party loyalty, but whatever) among the 'backward masses'.

...But this in no way means we must have an authoritarian society.
I posted my response to this conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in this other thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=49167). Maybe it can clear up why RAANistas aren't ideologically sectarian by excluding Leninists.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by BM
But this also infers the suppression of the bourgeoisie -- they must either be subsumed into the system, or they are bled from resources including basic life necessities.
I've been saying this for some time now.

I would agree with you.

Also, I've read the RAAN article on the 'DoP'. I rather like it. :)

[barista.marxista]

Oops, double-posted.

Um, here's a funny picture:

http://tcal.net/images/communism.jpg

[LoneRed]

Every RAAN thread we start doesn't have anything to do with Leninism, because Leninism is simply irrelevant to our organizational method. But you come in and make a hissyfit because we support direct action against your authoritarianism

the reason why people start talking about leninism is because, YOU RAANers always bring it up, in one form or the other. we dont bring it up, we only bring up how your group advocates acts of "terrorism" against comrades.

[Nachie]

LeftyHenry, the DofP is a Marxist, not Leninist term. Also the Trotskyists are Leninists and are definitely in favor of a vertical party dictatorship. The "degeneration" you've heard them talk about is in reference to Stalin's rise to power. Trotskyists believe that the "degeneration" of the USSR was a result of material conditions, foreign intervention, and Stalin's own power plays instead of the inevitable result of the Bolshevik method of organization.

What barista.marxista had to say was pretty much spot-on. Some further reading you may find interesting is my own essay, Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html)

Horizontalism, baby! BOOMSHAKALAKA!

[DarkTravesty]

Personally, like RedStar stated earlier, I believe that Leninist-Trotskyism has never really had its chance to shine, yet. Trotsky is a largely forgotten figure of revolution, and I think that someday his ideas, when combined with Lenin's, will really begin to catch on.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:15 AM
we dont bring it up, we only bring up how your group advocates acts of "terrorism" against comrades.
Please allow me to paraphrase, here:

"We don't bring up Leninism, we only bring up how your group advocates acts of "terrorism" [why is terrorism in quotes? It's your term, not ours] against Leninism."

This is exactly like the massive debates on Infoshop.org that practically got RAAN banned from that newswire: We would post a theory piece on something totally unrelated, like say about non-cooperation with the media, and instantly one or two of the usual suspects would run into the thread and say "You guys are for a proletarian dictatorship, you're a bunch of statist authoritarians!"

And in this way every single discussion on RAAN got totally derailed through the insistence by two people that nobody was allowed to say anything about RAAN except that we liked the DofP and were authoritarian.

This is exactly the same thing that's happening here. If we try to talk about anything other than Leninism, you just can't help but force it into being the exact same debate. It's a way of making sure our actual ideas receive no attention whatsoever.

EDIT: Just to add insult to injury, I'd like to state my opinion that the Lennies' obsession with RAAN has less to do with the reality of any perceived threat of violence and more to do with their own psychological drama over seeing history leave them in the dust.

[LoneRed]

actually "lennies" get mad when it explicity states violent terms against them on your site, Comrades cant let their guard down, just because you say, its just to get the point across. comrades can never be too careful

I put terrorism in quotes, cause the use of the word there is arguable, whether or not it is terrorism is debatable, but it is blatant fear mongering.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:32 PM
EDIT: Just to add insult to injury, I'd like to state my opinion that the Lennies' obsession with RAAN has less to do with the reality of any perceived threat of violence and more to do with their own psychological drama over seeing history leave them in the dust.
oh yeah, dat's the jawn

[MurderInc]

I'm glad so many are enjoying this thread. Of course, despite my rant, there is a seriuos issue that the Leninists have never faced, and the reason why there have been so many failures, as someone listed in an above reply.

If the dictatorship is allowed to stay in power for a great length of time, AND had access to products, their human nature will eventually lead to abuse. Remember they have absolute power during the dictatorship period. And absolute power corrupts absolutly. This is why two things must be considered:

1. There must be a minimal amount of time they have to organize the "national" society, demine the communities and give orders to the army to ensure communities are following dogma, and not backsliding into private financial agreements and the accumulation of wealth on the part of members of a community.

2. Whether the dicatatorship has access to wealth, which would be measured by products and real property (land). This has ALWAYS been the death knell of the Leninists position, The dictatorship gets their hands on stuff, and can't help but pass out some of it to friends and family. Simple solution: Have the capital be bare naked of ANYTHING of value.


It is this argument that I have been disappointed of the lack of argument. I realize there is this long time argument amoung the Leninists versus others. So be it. In any case I hope someone takes up this challenge.

[KC]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is just that. A dictatorship of the proletariat. Go read some Marx.

[321zero]

Yeah, and because it's the proletariat doing the dictation, this tool for the supression of counter-revolution can be progressively discarded (material conditions allowing). Go read some Lenin!

[Nachie]

The DofP is not a "tool". It's also not anything anybody can choose to "discard".

It just happens without anybody declaring it, and then it becomes obsolete. And its obsolesence comes from its dictatorial omnipotence, as the DofP necessarily dissolves the proletariat everywhere.

In fact the declaration, management, institutionalization, or control of the DofP is the first indication that it is something else entirely!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:58 PM
The CC has a ton of anti-leninists in it. You act as if the CC is some sort of Leninist Vanguard of the site, not an all-encompassing means of semi-democratic moderation. RedStar2000, Anomaly, RebelWorker and probably two dozen other anti-leninists are in the CC!

Quit being stupid. You "RAANistas" need a reality check. We are not out to get you, nor are we worried about your silly little club.

Leninists arn't out to get us? Of coruse they are. All through history, Leninists obliterated their political rivals. They had Anarchists and Communists excecuted en masse, tortured, beaten, slaughtered. Even members of their own party were purged.

Revolutionaries with different political stances, who decidedly fought alongside the bolsheviks were disposed of in the most bloody manner when not needed anymore, or when they decided to stand up for democracy, having seen the betrayal of the revolution.

As I see it, if a Leninist organisation got power, in a region in which I lived, I would be in danger, as they would, if history tells us anything, try to slaughter me and my comrades, in death camps and/or on the battlefield. Even if we had fought along side them. Leninism is bloodthirsty, sectarian bullshit, and a fossil in the political museum.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:34 PM
The dictatorship of the proletariat is just that. A dictatorship of the proletariat. Go read some Marx.
A dictatorship of the proletariat means a dictatorship in which all the proletariat are part (even this is flawed). Not a dictatorship in which some workers rule the rest, in turn becoming the bourgeoisie themselves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:20 PM
Personally, like RedStar stated earlier, I believe that Leninist-Trotskyism has never really had its chance to shine, yet. Trotsky is a largely forgotten figure of revolution, and I think that someday his ideas, when combined with Lenin's, will really begin to catch on.
Remember that Trotsky himself worked side-by-side with Lenin and Stalin...so we have some pretty good ideas of what he would have done as well as what he did do.

And it "ain't pretty". :o

Of course, that doesn't say anything much about what contemporary Trotskyists "would do" if they ever got the chance.

Here's a very revealing account of a contemporary American Trotskyist group...

The Joy of Sects (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Sectariana/ISO.html)

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

[MurderInc]

To those telling me to go and read Marx or Lenin, I'd raher read a history book. This issue I've raised is where all theories and models break down.

If you give material property in large quantities to any group, that group, where it be a dictatorship, will exploit their control over these properties and stuff themselves so greatly that they will never step down from power, AND become something very different than anything written by Marx or Lenin. It happened that way in the Soviet Union and all of its satalites. Also in China, though that authority ran to capitalism without shame.

Ironically, these large "socialist states" which were never socialist or Marxist, are our greatest problem and worst PR.

I don't hide the fact that I'd rather live in the U.S. than the Soviet Union after 1935, or China after the Cultural Revolution.

I'm on the theory board to make my own comment about the theory of the DoP:

The only way to keep it "of the Proletariet" is to give it no access to products which will turn them into capitalists in socialist clothing.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:37 PM
New Kind of Soldier: All who work for socialism work for some kind of authroity during that period of infancy of post-revolutionary period. (Except for anarchists, who would more or less create a libertarian world where only the strong with guns will enjoy life, the rest of us would be food for the strong.)

During the time immediate to the revolution and its aftermath, there will be a socialsit dictatorhip, authoritarian if you like, directing the overall work of approving (recognizing) communities. Otherwise, there would be dueling arguments and no resolution.

My argument is that this must not last more than a year or so, and have NO WEALTH. Otherwise you end up with another Moscow in 1930, and an elite representing the workers, but no true revolution.
what on earth do you think the lennies planned in russia?

complete fucking tyranny and replastering the czarist state, painting it red or some shit?

if you believe that
then you are paranoid ;)

[IronColumn]

Leninists are socialist in the sense that Hitler was a socialist.

Also, to list another Leninist back stab of the working classes (apart from Ukraine and Spain and Hungary) the "Communist" trade unions ruined the revolutionary movement in France in May 1968.

I think most people are getting wise to the tactic of co-opting the people's struggle that Leninists, liberals, and even fascists use.

[MurderInc]

IronColumn: Right On! Thank you for some common sense and history.

[emokid08]

First off, I am against the dictatorship of the anything. I forget who said it, but whoever did was completely correct in stating that whenever you give any group complete and total free reign over society, they will undoubtedly every time be corrupted. This is even true of Marx's god like workers! They're not saints, hate to break it to ya. *GASP !* :o

:lol:

RedStar makes an excellent point about the buddy-buddiness between Lenin-Stalin-Trotsky. I read a great book (exceptionally long and thick, very heavy as well) "Three Who Made a Revolution" and in details in length towards the end the relationship between the three men. I don't wanna start an arguement about who did or didn't like who. I could care less. But no one can deny that there was at least some sort of working relatiuonship between these three. Who knows what Trotsky would have done? I shudder at the thought. (he was after all, the architect behind the Soviet Red Army)

Additives couldn't have hot the nail any harder on the head. Lenin was out to get all those who did not conform to his twisted view on Marxism.But so were Mao and Stalin, too. I guess it runs in the lennie family, eh?

:D

[вор в законе]

Leninists are socialist in the sense that Hitler was a socialist.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/humorist/screwloose.gif

[emokid08]

IronColumn:Finally there's someone with a no nonsense, straight shooting, common sense, basic, poignant, and blissfully factual approach to this argument!

[bezdomni]

Leninists obliterated their political rivals. They had Anarchists and Communists excecuted en masse, tortured, beaten, slaughtered. Even members of their own party were purged.
I won't dispite that some Leninsts have fucked up...however, doing these sorts of things to (leftist) political rivals are not revolutionary nor are they inherent to Leninism.

If there is a part of State & Revolution that says "we should kill the anarchists", then I must have skipped over it.

Your problems seem to be with what happened in the Soviet Union, not with Leninism on a theoretical basis.

Furthermore, the majority of bad things that happened were a result of Stalin and his bureaucracy, not Lenin. There was a civil war going on, people died.

Again. I don't 100% defend all of Lenin's actions. Hell, I don't even defend 100% of Trotsky's actions!


Revolutionaries with different political stances, who decidedly fought alongside the bolsheviks were disposed of in the most bloody manner when not needed anymore, or when they decided to stand up for democracy, having seen the betrayal of the revolution.
Again, this has pretty much nothing to do with Leninism. Many of the comrades that were executed (by Stalin) were Leninists! Don't forget that among these casualties was comrade Trotsky! (although he was a slippery sonuva*****).



As I see it, if a Leninist organisation got power, in a region in which I lived, I would be in danger, as they would, if history tells us anything, try to slaughter me and my comrades, in death camps and/or on the battlefield. Even if we had fought along side them. Leninism is bloodthirsty, sectarian bullshit, and a fossil in the political museum.
And it seems like if the RAAN was big in my area, I'd be in danger.

Again, most of you problems are with the actions of Stalinists, not the theories of Leninism.


First off, I am against the dictatorship of the anything. I forget who said it, but whoever did was completely correct in stating that whenever you give any group complete and total free reign over society, they will undoubtedly every time be corrupted.
If you are against the dictatorship of the proletariat then you are against both anarchism and communism. We'll either have the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat, there's no alternative. Well...maybe nuclear apocalypse or something...

Most anarchists (including anomaly) believe in the DoP. I think you misunderstand it. The DoP is a Marxist term used to describe the phase of society in which the working class is able to exercise their wills over society (as opposed to having the bourgeoisie exercise their wills over society). The DoP is not inherently statist (it can be interpreted in an anarchist manner, although I think this interpretation is problematic).


RedStar makes an excellent point about the buddy-buddiness between Lenin-Stalin-Trotsky.
Yeah...Stalin and Trotsky were the best of friends. :lol:


Leninists are socialist in the sense that Hitler was a socialist.
Are you illiterate? :blink:

[Dreckt]

What I don't understand is how Leninism would function as an "ideal".

I hope that we all agree on democracy - the freedom for all people in this "socialist nation" to say, write, demonstrate and so on - on any issue, the party, it's leaders, it's policies etc. But mustn't people in such society also be free to form their own groups? Like parties? And what happens if, for example, the majority of the people somehow wants to return to capitalism?

The way I see it, the socialist party has it's way and creates a society in the view of the party (state ownership for example), then people become angry and vote in a capitalist party, that in turn privatizes everything again. I mean, society would theoretically pendle from socialism to capitalism and back again. Unless, of course, such parties would be banned, which in turn means to ban groups who advocate capitalism and other "ideologies", which further leads to a ban on some of the basic freedom humans have.

And another question: how would you ban a society that have a free media (internet)? It's impossible (unless you smash all computers in that country).

[emokid08]

there's no alternative

um........How bout no state? I don't know about you, but that sounds good to me. I am against ALL forms of Authority and hierarchy.

I agree with anamoly, if there should be anything at all, it should be horizontal.

[bezdomni]

I hope that we all agree on democracy - the freedom for all people in this "socialist nation" to say, write, demonstrate and so on - on any issue, the party, it's leaders, it's policies etc. But mustn't people in such society also be free to form their own groups? Like parties? And what happens if, for example, the majority of the people somehow wants to return to capitalism?
I personally think there should be no party but the revolutionary party. People don't necessarily have to be members, and I certainly don't believe that non-members should be persecuted (protest is a right that must be protected)! This way, you don't have a bunch of party-line bullshit bickering. You'd have individuals either running with the party or not with the party and you are voting on an individual person's ideas as opposed to pure party line. The two party system is undemocratic - it has failed.

One party would result in more democracy, as long as the right to protest against the party and dissent (both within and without) the party are constitutionally protected.


The way I see it, the socialist party has it's way and creates a society in the view of the party (state ownership for example), then people become angry and vote in a capitalist party, that in turn privatizes everything again. I mean, society would theoretically pendle from socialism to capitalism and back again. Unless, of course, such parties would be banned, which in turn means to ban groups who advocate capitalism and other "ideologies", which further leads to a ban on some of the basic freedom humans have.
You make the fallacy of saying "state ownership". The state will only own what the people own, since the state is democratic.

Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the state is the worker's instrument of liberation - not the bourgeoisie's instrument of oppression.

Bakunin once said "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the people's stick'". The main fallacy that comrade Bakunin makes is that the people will have control of the stick - and they will inevitably throw it into the furnace after it beats out the last of the bourgeoisie and their reactionary ideas.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by CPA
Most anarchists (including anomaly) believe in the DoP.
Well, I don't much like the term. It really depends on what one means by the DoP. I generally oppose what most describe the DoP as, but I support what RAANistas mean by the 'DoP'. I'd just disagree on terminology, but that's nothing. :)

Another thing Bakunin said is of interest. If your state will be so democratic, what sense is there in destroying it? (that's a paraphrase, incase any hard asses wanna play the quote game :P ).

Lenin in S & R says that 'true democracy' will only exist in communism, or, if you prefer, during 'high' communism. During socialism, or 'low' communism, 'proletarian' democracy will exist, entailing the existence still of a lower class, which will be the ex-bourgeoisie.

However, in my talks with you, I get the sense that you disagree with Lenin on this point. I could be wrong, of course. ;)

The state means classes and I see no need for classes.

[More Fire for the People]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not democratic in the anarchistic (utopian) sense of the word; the dictatorship of the proletariat is the conquering of political power by the proletariat and democratic in so far as the proletariat, i.e. the masses, is elevated to the level of ruling class. This new dictatorship expropriates the bourgeoisie and centralizes the means of production. The dictatorship itself dissolves as the need for the state dissolves, as politics becomes the mere “administration of things”.

The RAANists argue semantics because they are trying to cover up their idealist / subjectivist conception of the world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
Yeah...Stalin and Trotsky were the best of friends.

No, I did not mean to suggest that they were "drinking buddies"...as I think you know. ;)

Indeed, I suspect they didn't like each other personally much at all...their "styles" were very different.

Trotsky was very "flamboyant" whereas Stalin preferred to work "out of the spotlight"...I imagine each had some rather sarcastic things to say about the other's "personality".

But as senior members of the Politburo, in Lenin's presence, they had to work closely together during and after the Russian civil war.

Contemporary accounts suggest that many Bolsheviks of that period distrusted Trotsky because of his military successes...remember Napoleon?

And some have suggested that there was some residual anti-semitism in the ranks of the Bolsheviks...another reason to "dislike" Trotsky.

I suspect that Stalin's popularity among the Bolsheviks was mostly because of his "down to earth" image...and the fact that he got stuff done.

Towards the end of his life, Lenin said that Stalin was "too rude"...indicating that he was already acquiring the "big head" that later on would stretch from Poland to the Pacific. :lol:

There are other examples of this kind of conflict. Though German revolutionaries to this day honor Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg as the martyrs of 1919, contemporary accounts strongly suggest that they didn't much like each other at all. (!)

Anyone who has been active in a political group for any length of time knows from experience that "personality conflicts" can sometimes play a significant role in the course of events.

Stalin ended up doing some of the things that Trotsky recommended...but that didn't make Joe like Leon any better. :lol:

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

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:45 AM
OH NO THE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

SCRAMBLE! SCRAMBLE!

QUICK! PUT OUT AN EMERGENCY EDITION OF OUR NEWSPAPER "WORKER'S SOMETHING"!
LMAO. . .

That pretty much sums it up

Can't say I'm a very big fan of leninists but whatever. If they didn't support a centralized state, I might like them better.

[More Fire for the People]

FinnMacCool, your petty-bourgeoisness is showing. The most conscious elements of the working class have always supported centralization of politics. The working class opposes anarchy in production; it creates localism, red tape, and bureaucracy.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 25 2006, 09:01 PM
The most conscious elements of the working class have always supported centralization of politics. The working class opposes anarchy in production; it creates localism, red tape, and bureaucracy.
Oh really? How has that worked out for them :D

Where is your classless society? Oh thats right, dictators adopted it for their own state capitalist purposes.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+Apr 25 2006, 08:05 PM--> (FinnMacCool @ Apr 25 2006, 08:05 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 25 2006, 09:01 PM
The most conscious elements of the working class have always supported centralization of politics. The working class opposes anarchy in production; it creates localism, red tape, and bureaucracy.
Oh really? How has that worked out for them :D

Where is your classless society? Oh thats right, dictators adopted it for their own state capitalist purposes. [/b]
Again, your anti-marxism is rearing its ugly head. You can play historical simplism, I'll stick with historical materialism. If we were to analyze failures of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. would find correct lines and incorrect lines. By removing these faults, which rarely have anything to do with centralism, we can improve scientific Leninism.

[anomaly]

...or we can leave Leninism to the third world. In the first world, we'll use anarchism.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 25 2006, 09:19 PM

Again, your anti-marxism is rearing its ugly head. You can play historical simplism, I'll stick with historical materialism. If we were to analyze failures of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. would find correct lines and incorrect lines. By removing these faults, which rarely have anything to do with centralism, we can improve scientific Leninism.
Yeah but your not gonna be the one leading a communist revolution, someone else will.

And even if you can somehow sustain a "dictatorship of the prole" without massacraing a huge number of people in the process, how are you gonna transist to a stateless society? You can't because you've alreayd put the power in the hands of a centralized government and they won't let it go without a fight.

All governments are inherently evil.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 26 2006, 02:01 AM
your petty-bourgeoisness is showing.
quick, cover it up!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
If we were to analyze failures of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. [we] would find correct lines and incorrect lines. By removing these faults, which rarely have anything to do with centralism, we can improve scientific Leninism.

Frequently promised...never delivered.

The "analysis" generally consists of which personalities are to blame. It's a "great villain" of history "analysis"...that has, of course, nothing to do with historical materialism.

It was Stalin's fault! It was Khrushchev's fault! It was Deng's fault! It was Castro's fault! It was Gorbachev's fault!

For all the "insights" that Leninists provide into their own failures, they might just as well use astrology...or "dialectics".

Oh, wait, they do! :lol:

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

[Dyst]

The way I see it, the socialist party has it's way and creates a society in the view of the party (state ownership for example), then people become angry and vote in a capitalist party, that in turn privatizes everything again. I mean, society would theoretically pendle from socialism to capitalism and back again. Unless, of course, such parties would be banned, which in turn means to ban groups who advocate capitalism and other "ideologies", which further leads to a ban on some of the basic freedom humans have.


This may be a good description of many peoples' ("leninists" particularily) believes. I will respond to their believes.

In the society you describe, there is not communism. Neither socialism, (if socialism means the transitional period between capitalism and communism.) You simply describe what happens when the old leaders gets swtiched by new ones, who claims to be revolutionary. Nothing they are able to do are revolutionary in an economic sense.

The new leaders claim it is communism (or socialism,) even though the economic foundations haven't changed much in any way, to indicate so. As a result of the new leaders' efforts to "live up" to the communist ideal, people will suffer from increased poverty.

The people start revolting and claim they want capitalism "back". This, in the eyes of the new leaders, is extremely frightening. It was not supposed to be happening.

And they are right, it is not. But it happens, because it isn't communism at all, it is simply a different shape of capitalism. Let us remember that communism will be to capitalism as capitalism is to feudalism today. Nobody "begs" to go back to feudalism, and no one really wants it. It is simply not in their interest to do so.

Communism is something that will come as a result of economic and technological advancement. It is not something that any number of people can decide on and create, it will happen because it is bound to happen.

[chebol]

So tell me, what great successes have there been for anarchism??

Well? Huh? A drunken psychopathic killer in the Ukraine? That little scenario at Kronstadt? Spanish anarchists who who stopped mid-battle to turn around and shoot the communists while Franco's guard were marching right on them? Bunch of kids smashing in a car window? Declaring left-wing groups Public Enemy #1?

Hell of an fucking alternative comrades!

The point about Leninism, my dear comrades, is that it was developed as a response to actual REAl conditions, not your bloody wishlist, as a way of enabling the proletariat to more effectively defeat the imperialists and bringing about a socialist revolution. And it worked.

Now, you say, these revolutions went wrong. Some did. Some didn't. (I'm not going to agree on all, and anyway, that's a loose and inexact way of putting it).

But what's the point? We've fucking well succeeded, or near succeeded, plenty more times than anarchists have.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a pissing competition any more than it already is one (and across almost the entire board now, no less), but while I see Marxist and Leninist movements organising, leading and inspiring masses towards revolution across the world (and I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind, but I don't see those numbers of anarchists getting ready to 'smash the state'), that's where my money is, because, based on a scientific analysis- that's where it's worth something.

And when I hear people refer to Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, for fuck's sake, as "leninists", I remind myself of how stupid these people are because they can't differentiate between a label and an action. Rather ironic, for people who are so reticent to take labels and brands, btw.

As I've said before, however, the key is organising as much as possible, despite our differences, in order to strike some serious blows against capitalism's arse. If you lot want to just keep on bickering like a bunch of school kids- fine. But remember boys and girls, this ain't a game. There are REAL enemies out there, with guns, and armies, and states, and media empires, and corporate goons, and their fingers on the fucking buttons. So get your heads screwed on straight, or it won't matter if you're a Leninist, Anarchist or Dancing-Clown-Troopist. There'll be noone left to tell it to unless we get our collective acts together.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:22 PM
So tell me, what great successes have there been for anarchism??
The Spanish collectives and the creation of the modern anti-capitalist movement...


A drunken psychopathic killer in the Ukraine

Ad hominem. Surely you can do better than that.


That little scenario at Kronstadt?

That clearly wasn't a success was it?


Spanish anarchists who who stopped mid-battle to turn around and shoot the communists while Franco's guard were marching right on them?

That's pure fantasy.

It is this specifically that really grates on me. The anarchist and POUM militias held the Aragon front single handedly while the communist militias refused to supply arms to them.

The Aragon front collapsed because the communist take over meant that anarchists militas were ordered to hand over their weapons and where they refused were either left to fight fascists without supplies or executed.

This is historically documented and I would suggest researching what you're talking about.

Fascism prevailed in Spain because the communist government were on a vendetta against anarchists and trotskyists.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:57 PM
I won't dispite that some Leninsts have fucked up...
Including Lenin himself.


If there is a part of State & Revolution that says "we should kill the anarchists", then I must have skipped over it.

Yes, but it's not written so clearly. Leninism argues that the state should be defended, it argues that killing the opposition is politically acceptable. Anarchists seek to destroy the state to create a free and equal society and every established ruling class will defend itself with lethal force.


Your problems seem to be with what happened in the Soviet Union, not with Leninism on a theoretical basis.
I have a problem with both


Furthermore, the majority of bad things that happened were a result of Stalin and his bureaucracy, not Lenin. There was a civil war going on, people died.

And yet the destruction of workers rights, consolidation of power, and dissolution of the soviets real power, all happened before the civil war.


Again, this has pretty much nothing to do with Leninism. Many of the comrades that were executed (by Stalin) were Leninists! Don't forget that among these casualties was comrade Trotsky! (although he was a slippery sonuva*****).

I was actually talking about the Kronsdat sailors and Ukrainian Anarchists.


And it seems like if the RAAN was big in my area, I'd be in danger.

If the RAAN achieved their ultimate aim, you'd live a happy life in a communist society. If Leninists achieved their aim, I'd be a rotting corpse.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:05 PM
Leninists are socialist in the sense that Hitler was a socialist.

Also, to list another Leninist back stab of the working classes (apart from Ukraine and Spain and Hungary) the "Communist" trade unions ruined the revolutionary movement in France in May 1968.

I think most people are getting wise to the tactic of co-opting the people's struggle that Leninists, liberals, and even fascists use.
those trade unions were stalinists
and the movement in france was supported by trots

[LoneRed]

in terms of the opposition being the bourgeois, killing opposition is more than acceptable in those situations, theve oppressed us for centuries, its time we show them whose boss


Lenin was correct in that analysis

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:52 PM
in terms of the opposition being the bourgeois, killing opposition is more than acceptable in those situations, theve oppressed us for centuries, its time we show them whose boss


Lenin was correct in that analysis
I agree with destroying the elitte ruling class. That includes a Leninist ruling elite to.

[FinnMacCool]

So tell me, what great successes have there been for anarchism??

The spanish collectives were doing pretty well until the Stalinists fucked things up.

[CCCPneubauten]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg/180px-WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg

Trotsky was oft' portrayed as a Jew, this is a White Army propaganda poster. I think Stalin did the same, but I'm not sure. We can all agree Stalin was an Anti-Semite.

Many members of the Bolshevik party were ethnically Jewish, especially in the leadership of the party, and the percentage of Jewish party members among the rival Mensheviks was even higher. The idea of overthrowing the Tsarist regime was attractive to many members of the Jewish intelligentsia because of the oppression of non-Russian nations and non-Christians within the Russian Empire. For much the same reason, many non-Russians, notably Latvians or Poles, were disproportionately represented in the party leadership. This fact was abused by the Tsarist secret police, the Okhranka, which used anti-Semitism and xenophobia as a weapon against the Russian revolutionary movement and promulgated fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion to explain Russian revolutions as a part of a powerful world conspiracy.

Soon after seizing power, the Bolsheviks established the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish section of the Communist party in order to destroy the rival Bund and Zionist parties, suppress Judaism and replace traditional Jewish culture with "proletarian culture".


BUT.... According to Lenin, anti-Semitism was an "attempt to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants from the exploiters toward the Jews."


Stalin might have tried to follow this, but The Doctors' plot shows his true anti-Semetic nature.

And some one said the 'Stalinists' botched the Spanish Civil War....HOW??!?! By providing arms, planes, ect? Although they did scare out the 'Trots' they helped the Revolution you know...not be crushed sooo quickly.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+Apr 25 2006, 08:28 PM--> (FinnMacCool @ Apr 25 2006, 08:28 PM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 25 2006, 09:19 PM

Again, your anti-marxism is rearing its ugly head. You can play historical simplism, I'll stick with historical materialism. If we were to analyze failures of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. would find correct lines and incorrect lines. By removing these faults, which rarely have anything to do with centralism, we can improve scientific Leninism.
And even if you can somehow sustain a "dictatorship of the prole" without massacraing a huge number of people in the process, how are you gonna transist to a stateless society?
[/b]
The State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)
The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm)
Platform of the Joint Opposition (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1927/opposition/index.htm)

All governments are inherently evil.
Moralism!

[bezdomni]

No, I did not mean to suggest that they were "drinking buddies"...as I think you know. ;)

Yeah, I know. Somebody quoted you (just that part) and I felt the need to bring it up.

I know you don't believe Stalin and Trotsky are the same by any stretch of the imagination.


And some have suggested that there was some residual anti-semitism in the ranks of the Bolsheviks...another reason to "dislike" Trotsky.
Very true. Both the White Army and the Stalinists exploited Trotsky's "jewyness".

[Forward Union]

What do you mean "how?" do you know what the spainish civil war was?
http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/spa...36-39/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/spanish-civil-war-1936-39/index.php)

and if you can't be bothered to read that, basically, as TAT has already said, the Stalinists refused to give support to a huge section of the antifascist resistance, and went as far as to outlaw the POUM and Anarchist organisations, accusing them of dealing with the Fascists. Thus causing infighting which resulted in street based gun battles, between Stalinists and Anarchist/Trots.

Basically the Stalinists turned on the antifascist movement, and in the end both were destroyed. Some histories even accused Stalin of intentionally failing to defeat Franco, as a fascist government was politically, more desirable for him than a Libertarian one

Thanks Stalin.

[CCCPneubauten]

Stalin encouraged the Comintern to organise the formation of International Brigades. He also sent Alexander Orlov of the NKVD to advise the Popular Front government. Orlov supervised a large-scale guerrilla operation behind Nationalist lines. He later claimed that around 14,000 people had been trained for this work by 1938.

The Soviet Union provided considerable help to the Spanish Communist Party to improve its position in the Popular Front government. This included the removal of the socialist Francisco Largo Caballero as prime minister and replacing him with the communist sympathizer, Juan Negrin.

Alexander Orlov also used NKVD agents to deal with left-wing opponents of the Communists in Republican held areas. This included the arrest and execution of leaders of the Worker's Party (POUM), National Confederation of Trabajo (CNT) and the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI).

The Soviet Union were the main suppliers of military aid to the Republican Army. This included 1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 300 armoured cars, 15,000 machine-guns, 30,000 automatic firearms, 30,000 mortars, 500,000 riles and 30,000 tons of ammunition.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPrussia.htm

http://www.johnreilly.info/spain.htm


SO...yeahhhhh....Stalin might have had quite a few leaders arrested, but with out him they would have been using twigs for guns.

[bezdomni]

Executing leaders of POUM and the CNT-FAI was a bad call.

He did not just arrest them, but saw that they had as little influence in Spanish politics as possible. Yes, military aid is nice - but communists should be beyond imperialism.

The goal should have been establishing a worker's state in Spain, not expanding the Stalinist bureaucracy.