Time for everyone to reject Mao, Stalin etc.?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Is it not time that all those who truly advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, who advocate the toppling of the ruling class, that we all reject those who have isolated us, members of the working class, from the people as a whole?

Why do some people have such a hard time to reject Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceauşescu?

Normal people despise these rulers. Why should some people on the true left defend such rulers?

[TC]

Normal people despise these rulers. Why should some people on the true left defend such rulers?

"Normal people" don't "despise these rulers" if "normal people" include Chinese, Russians, Belorussians, Ukranians, Georgians, etc. Stalin is popular in the former soviet union and Mao is popular in China.

I think your notion of "normal people" is extremely racist.



The fact is is that what they did exactly is in dispute. Mao had economic mismanagement and extremely bad judgement in foriegn relations but no serious wrong doing, Stalin did more things that were seriously wrong but also a lot that were profoundly positive so it just depends on how you see the balance of what they did.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Stalin is popular in the former soviet union and Mao is popular in China.


True.

However, there are folks in the Balticum who flirts with Nazism. If Hitler is beginning to get popular in the Baltic states, does that mean we should support him..?

Capitalism is quite popular in Western Europe and some states in Eastern Europe. Does that mean we should support capitalism..?


Mao had economic mismanagement and extremely bad judgement in foriegn relations but no serious wrong doing,
Okay.. Even if he had no serious wrong doing.

Does it really matter that much? If the people in China did not hold power, does it matter if the ruler is an excellent leader, or a terrible leader?

[Proletar]

"Normal people" don't "despise these rulers" if "normal people" include Chinese, Russians, Belorussians, Ukranians, Georgians, etc. Stalin is popular in the former soviet union and Mao is popular in China.
Where do you get that from?


no serious wrong doing
Mao didnt do any serios wrong doings? that isnt true. He brutaly forced the chinese people to starve by taken away nearly all of their harvestet corn. He was a suppresor of the Proletariat and a dictator.

[Whitten]

Does it really matter that much? If the people in China did not hold power, does it matter if the ruler is an excellent leader, or a terrible leader?

The materialism of China in the 1940s-50s can not be compared to modern day western europe. A system of autonomus people rule on every level would have been incapable of managing national issues, they would have fallen to the nationalists, or just simply been unable to oppress the bourgeois classes, who would have rose up against the people.

[More Fire for the People]

To reject Mao or Stalin even Lenin and Trotsky while not grasping their moments of truth is to fail as a Marxists. That is, if you are an orthodox Marxist in the Lukácsian sense, i.e. a dialectical materialist.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To reject Mao or Stalin even Lenin and Trotsky while not grasping their moments of truth is to fail as a Marxists.

Their moments of truth? Could you elaborate?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:02 AM

To reject Mao or Stalin even Lenin and Trotsky while not grasping their moments of truth is to fail as a Marxists.

Their moments of truth? Could you elaborate?
I don't think the phrase 'moments of truth' could be any more clear. It means the things that they did that were actually of use to the workers’ movment.

[vyborg]

Of course stalinist dictators were as far away from marxism and socialism as we can imagine. nontheless 90% or more of people defending them NOW (not in the 50s or 60s when they were powerful) defend them because its the only way to defend socialism they know.

if we exclude some very old stalinist, that can actually remember ussr in all its strenght, they only know that the media and the right wing hate stalin and mao, so they think, if they hate stalin and mao, they did something good.

its our duty as communists and marxists to make them know that there is another way, there is the genuine thought of the great communists of the past, fro marx to lenin, from rosa luxemburg to trotsky, to defend and absorb

[Intelligitimate]

How about we reject the anti-communist narrative of history created by anarchists, Trots, the bourgeois media, etc?

[anomaly]

Intelligitimate, we could do that, but we are in search of the truth, not lies to support your great leaders. And 'anti-communist' is a fun adjective that some Maoists or Stalinists like to throw around, but since it is they that throw it around, any legitimacy is clearly gone.

If you think Stalin was 'alright', or that Mao was 'pretty good', then that is your opinion. But if you also think that road is one we should travel down again, then I think you'll find serious and extreme opposition in the modern movement.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:55 PM
How about we reject the anti-communist narrative of history created by anarchists
Your example of this is?

[R_P_A_S]

AMEN! lol or yes I agree. time to move on people...

[Janus]

Stalin is popular in the former soviet union and Mao is popular in China.
Actually, Stalin seems to be quite unpopular in the former USSR. This was clearly shown during the anti-Soviet demonstrations in the late 80's and early 90's.

As for Mao, he may be liked by some of the old-timers but only because they like to look back on the "good old" times. But that's only a small portion of the population.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're wrong Janus. Polls from bourgeois sources have consistently shown that 40-50% of people in Russia wish they lived under Stalin.

Mao is admired by more people than I ever would have expected. I know from experience that there are lots of Chinese small business owners throughout Latin America with pictures of Mao in their stores/resturaunts/hotels, etc.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:07 PM
Intelligitimate, we could do that, but we are in search of the truth, not lies to support your great leaders. And 'anti-communist' is a fun adjective that some Maoists or Stalinists like to throw around, but since it is they that throw it around, any legitimacy is clearly gone.

If you think Stalin was 'alright', or that Mao was 'pretty good', then that is your opinion. But if you also think that road is one we should travel down again, then I think you'll find serious and extreme opposition in the modern movement.
What "movement"? All this thread does is demostrate what a lie this "movement" is. There is no one movement. There are loads of movements all with seperate ideas, and quite polarised. We cling together now for mutual support against greater foes, that is the ideology that is "left". Think about it. Capitalism is being beaten down and workers everywhere are rising up. Once the bourgeois have been removed from power, and things are setteling down, can you honestly see anarchists and maoists working together? The Leninist (orthadox, stalin influenced, hohxite, maoist) wouldnt be able to work with trotskyites, who wouldnt be able to work with autonomists and council communists, and definatly couldnt work with anarchists.

[anomaly]

Yes, Whitten, you are correct about that. As one book put it, the anti-capitalist 'movement' is in actuality a movement of movements.

But what, then, are you predicting here? The left today is separated into two very large camps: the authoritarian left (Lennies, Stalinists, Maoists, Trots, etc. etc.) and the libertarian left (anarchists, council communists, autonomous Marxists). Do you think this will lead to unending hostility after the revolution?

I happen to view things a bit differently. After the revolution, the people will collectively make a choice of which way to go. And I think this choice will be the latter. But we'll see.

[Janus]

Polls from bourgeois sources have consistently shown that 40-50% of people in Russia wish they lived under Stalin.

Mao is admired by more people than I ever would have expected. I know from experience that there are lots of Chinese small business owners throughout Latin America with pictures of Mao in their stores/resturaunts/hotels, etc.
This doesn't show that they are popular just that due to the shitty conditions in which the people live in, people like to look back at the good old days.

Russians like the USSR because they yearn the days of glory when they were a superpower. I mean just look at Russia now. So I would say those polls are quite biased.

Maybe, the Russians like Stalinist times but it doesn't mean that Stalin himself is popular but that people liked the life they had back then because they had a guaranteed job and home.

The same goes for Mao. Some of the old timers admire Mao, particularly the in the rural areas. But most of the newer generation particularly those who grew up during the Cultural Revolution do not.

[Janus]

Polls from bourgeois sources have consistently shown that 40-50% of people in Russia wish they lived under Stalin.
Is this what you're talking about?

Over 40% of Russians Want New Stalin — Poll (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/04/wishedstalin.shtml)

It seems that it's more of the case of whether the Russians want to be strong again than actually liking Stalin. Besides, it is mainly the old-timers or the glory hounds who actually like him. But like I said up above, the polls are somewhat biased.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are about 10 more polls than that. One says 30% of people would vote for Stalin were he alive and running for president, and that another 50% (80% total) wouldn't mind if he was their leader.

The reasons are clear; in every measure imaginable, the republic of the USSR were better off under Stalin than they were before 1917, or after 1991.


But what, then, are you predicting here? The left today is separated into two very large camps: the authoritarian left (Lennies, Stalinists, Maoists, Trots, etc. etc.) and the libertarian left (anarchists, council communists, autonomous Marxists). Do you think this will lead to unending hostility after the revolution?

Of course not, most of the anarchists will show their true petty-bourgeois counter-revolutionary nature before the revolution has the chance to solidify. That's been the historical trend.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Those people were idealists who wanted to move from a non-capitalist (non-democratic, lol) systems of government to communism. Firstly, they used the wrong approach (a DoP style one) to achieve their goals. They failed, unsurprisingly, but improved the conditions of their people in many areas. They took their respective countries from one system of government to a better (though not communist) system of government. People should certainly reject those individuals as having the answers when it comes to achieving communism. They failed and worked out theories based on non-current economic and social conditions. Obviously it's a little difficult to take old theories (which failed to achieve communism but made gains for people) and try and make them the way we create a revolution in modern times.

[KC]

But if you also think that road is one we should travel down again, then I think you'll find serious and extreme opposition in the modern movement.

And here you are showing your extreme ignorance in regards to the working class movement. Tell me something: have ever even talked to anyone outside of the US that isn't an anarchist? How do you know how popular Stalin and Mao are overseas? Have you talked to people there? What are you basing this (rather shitty) analysis on?



I happen to view things a bit differently. After the revolution, the people will collectively make a choice of which way to go.

And here's a great example of ultra-leftist abstraction in regards to analyses of concrete events. Is it hard for you to accept that we are "the people"? Why do you separate class conscious proletarians from the rest of the class?

[JC1]

I wish people would stop suggesting there was no workers control in the USSR or other old school socialist states.

What about the co-op's, or the troika's in factory's (The Committee's that usualy ran the day to day afairs of Soviet workplaces, made up 1/3 by the Trade Union Rep's, 1/3 Co-ordinator's, and 1/3 directly elected by workers committee)?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:55 PM
How about we reject the anti-communist narrative of history created by anarchists, Trots, the bourgeois media, etc?
Now that would be a treat!

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:32 PM
Mao didnt do any serios wrong doings? that isnt true. He brutaly forced the chinese people to starve by taken away nearly all of their harvestet corn.
Where did you learn that?

Even bourgeois historians don't blame Mao for "taking away the harvested corn" of the peasants. I think you're confusing him with Stalin.

If you're going to use anti-Communist narratives, you should at least get them right. :lol:

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:17 PM
Maybe, the Russians like Stalinist times but it doesn't mean that Stalin himself is popular but that people liked the life they had back then because they had a guaranteed job and home.

The same goes for Mao. Some of the old timers admire Mao, particularly the in the rural areas. But most of the newer generation particularly those who grew up during the Cultural Revolution do not.
You should check out this recent article from Monthly Review:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0606weil.htm

And this earlier piece on the Zhengzhou Four:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105commentary.htm

-----

Maoism in China is not nostagla trip. It's a living political movement. It can't be compared to nostalgic feelings for Stalin in Russia. China had a cultural revolution. Russia did not.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I agree....time to move on.


I mean look at this cat "Intelligitimate" here, he's so caught up in defending the name of a corpse he's actually lost his original personality.

Who gives a fuck if Stalin was a "bad guy" or if he was railroaded by bourgeois history -- the fact of the matter is that in the end it didn't work.

[Rawthentic]

Exactly, and when people can realize that these personalities and their ideologies harmed the working class movement in the eyes of the world, then maybe we can move on . At least I hope

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:54 AM
Is it not time that all those who truly advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, who advocate the toppling of the ruling class, that we all reject those who have isolated us, members of the working class, from the people as a whole?

Why do some people have such a hard time to reject Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceau?escu?

Normal people despise these rulers. Why should some people on the true left defend such rulers?
This is a really opportunist and unprincipled way of thinking.

"Normal people" believe a lot of things that are blatantly wrong. A lot of "normal people" (in the US) support the occupation of Iraq. Does that mean socialists should support it too? In order to not alienate the "normal people"?

Leftists should draw lessons from history according to what is TRUE, not what is "normal," which is defined by the ruling class in every society.

If you think Mao, Stalin, or any other leader was wrong, explain WHY their ideas and actions were wrong. Don't ask people to reject anything just because it's not "normal."

With the approach you have now, you're only feeding people's dependence on bourgeois narratives, instead of promoting critical thinking.

If the politics and/or leaders you do support ever become a significant threat to the capitalist system, the same ideological machinery will be turned against you.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 10 2006, 08:45 PM
You're wrong Janus. Polls from bourgeois sources have consistently shown that 40-50% of people in Russia wish they lived under Stalin.

Mao is admired by more people than I ever would have expected. I know from experience that there are lots of Chinese small business owners throughout Latin America with pictures of Mao in their stores/resturaunts/hotels, etc.
LJ, could you provide a source that 40-50% wish they lived under Stalin? Thanks.

[Lenin's Law]

:lol:

How amusing! So called revolutionaries, communists and anarchists joining together to destroy the oh so few true socialist and communist that have been successful throughout world history! Now Stalin and Mao are under the boot of these throughly anti-communist and anti-working class crusade of the jackals, you better believe it won't be long before Lenin, and yes, even Marx and Engels are next!

And why?? Because "the 'normal' people are against it!!" :lol:

What an abomination! What an anti- Marxist and anti- materialist way of looking at events! Why, even a liberal or slightly left of center reading of history will reveal that at one time or another, 'normal' people believed in Kings, despots, slavery, the subjugation of women into 2nd class citizens, and supported some of the most backward and reactionary leaders in history!

If revolutionaries only followed what normal people believed in, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism would be a big NOTHING right now! (And would have remained a big nothing throughout all of history)

Indeed, what is your definition of being a revolutionary? Following what everyone else thinks?

Bah! What Childishness!

[Janus]

Maoism in China is not nostagla trip
The reason why people want to go back to Maoist China is because of "nostalgia" for the old days.


It's a living political movement
There may still be some actual Maoists like these guys and some more in the CCP itself but that's about it.


LJ, could you provide a source that 40-50% wish they lived under Stalin? Thanks.
I posted a link earlier. However, like I said, the polls are biased.

[IronColumn]

Lenin, Trotksy, Mao and Castro created police states. None of these states withered away into a classless society, even after decades of guidance by the "revolutionary party".

Whereas the Paris Commune in 2 short months created something much closer to theoretical socialism. Or the Spanish Social Revolution, or the workers in Hungary 56, and so on. Kronstadt in the 1921 revolt was much closer to socialism than the state piloted by Lenin, Trotksy, Zinoviev, Stalin, et al.

So yeah, forget them, remember the actual socialist struggles. Remember how Lenin was shot by an anarchist for betraying the revolution, and remember how Trotsky was booed by revolutionary workers, and remember how some took the phrase "All power to the Soviets" at face value.

All power to the soviets, not to the parties!

[Lenin's Law]

Lenin, Trotksy, Mao and Castro created police states


Yes, just as any liberal, conservative, and fascist will tell you!

Interesting how in a site called "Revolutionary Left" we have people repeating ad nauseum, verbatim the lies and propaganda of the capitalist bourgeois press.


So yeah, forget them, remember the actual socialist struggles. Remember how Lenin was shot by an anarchist for betraying the revolution

Of course! The real socialist struggles like trying to assasinate socialist leaders with a bullet in their head! My, what a revolutionary! He must have just beaten one of the Czar's agents to it! That anarchist must be awfully proud of himself!

Why not remember all the times the Anarchists have led the masses to victory after victory in the revolution of...uh ...well...the Anarchists really haven't led anybody to anything ...ever. So I guess there's not much to remember there. But they do like the play the role of ultra-moralist/idealist/utopian and take the same line the capitalist and bourgeois are taking.

Interesting that Anarchist whom you seem so proud of couldn't manage to find a bullet in the head of the Czar or one of the supremely repressive and reactionary groups trying to overthrow the Russian Revolution and return it to monarchy. Instead he chose Lenin.

Need I say more to prove the absurdity of the totally insane methods of the individualist anarcho-terrorist? Let me guess, you think V for Vendetta is a good way to lead a revolution? Have some guy in a mask blow things up! And maybe while he's at it he can assasinate a man who spent his entire life working for socialism! Yea that'll do it! That's the way to revolution! Now pass the popcorn! :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Stalin's Law
you better believe it won't be long before Lenin, and yes, even Marx and Engels are next!

Too late jack, the masses have been on to Lenin's crap for some time now. Besides that, there are indeed issues that Marx and Engels were simply wrong about.



Indeed, what is your definition of being a revolutionary? Following what everyone else thinks?

Creating the conditions necessary for the masses to revolt against the ruling class with the goal of eliminating class antagonisms, monetary economy and state control over the population.

All of this without a "socialist" transitional period of state control by people like you!

Sorry pal, there will no "moment in the sun" for you. So go ahead and put away your military costume and hair grease; your silly ass will not be waving to "your people" from the balcony of the palace.

I hate to burst your immense ego bubble son but we don't need you.

[Lenin's Law]

Too late jack, the masses have been on to Lenin's crap for some time now. Besides that, there are indeed issues that Marx and Engels were simply wrong about.

What "crap"? Revolutinary socialism that actually worked in overthrowing a corrupt regime? That's crap to you? Then what is "good"? - Anarchist theory that has failed miserably in just about every part of the world?


What were these things that Marx and Engels were wrong about? I'm guessing you are not a communist...



All of this without a "socialist" transitional period of state control by people like you!

Utopian nonsense.

The state will not just disintegrate all of a sudden - it will not just self-distruct because you and a few anarchists say so. Has the the entire history of your movement (ie failure) proven anything to you? At least with Communism, we can point to mistakes that were made and things that should have been done better.

With anarchism, we can't do anything because there is no example, not even one, of Anarchism leading a mass movement.



Sorry pal, there will no "moment in the sun" for you. So go ahead and put away your military costume and hair grease; your silly ass will not be waving to "your people" from the balcony of the palace.

What are you talking about? "People like me" You don't even know me!

What military costume? What hair grease? What palace?


I hate to burst your immense ego bubble son but we don't need you.

Of course not. Have I ever said otherwise?

We don't need any one person or one individual; we need a mass movement with a serious plan for overthrowing capitalism and creating socialism. This cannot be done by some magical process of "destroying" the state, the state is here, the state exists and the state has power. The workers need to take that power, not ignore it, and not hope it will simply go away.

If workers ignore the state, then the state will revolt mercilessly at the first chance it gets at the hands of the capitalists and their proxy in emergency times, the fascists.

Overthrowing capitalism will take hard work, organizition, political mass movements, and grassroot efforts from millions of people all over the world. We don't need me per se, but we need people like me who are willing and committed to work for this future; and we need lots of them.

For it is not exaggeration that the choice facing us now is this: Socialism or Barbarism.

[Sentinel]

Obviously the state should not be 'ignored' but dismantled, systematically, piece by piece, and as fast as the circumstances allow, and replaced by direct workers power. This would in my opinion be possible to a fairly large degree in isolated countries, and totally when the back of imperialism is broken and the first world is in revolutionary hands.

Then the price system and private property can be abolished, and then class antagonisms will disappear. And with them a need to have a state. Really, the only reason some elements of the state can prove to be hard to get rid of is external threats.. I'm thinking of a military for example. But even that can be turned into something run completely different than we are used to, as long as there is a need for one.

A leninist revolution might still be a desirable option in many a backwards country where it can do wonders to modernise the society, and I support such revolutions, but in developed countries vanguard parties leading transitions are history.

A revolution here must have the decentralisation of power and immediate empowerment of the proletariat as it's primary goals to have a chance to get a decisive amount of support.

It's going to be a people's revolution here, we are going to shit on leader wannabes, and do it ourselves.

[Connolly]

What "crap"? Revolutinary socialism that actually worked in overthrowing a corrupt regime?

1. It wasnt "revolutionary socialism".

2. It didnt work.


With anarchism, we can't do anything because there is no example, not even one, of Anarchism leading a mass movement.

Various elements of the Spanish Republic successfully applied anarchist principles during the civil war.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 25 2006, 09:37 PM

With anarchism, we can't do anything because there is no example, not even one, of Anarchism leading a mass movement.

Various elements of the Spanish Republic successfully applied anarchist principles during the civil war.
And we all know how fabulously that went for them.

[Connolly]

And we all know how fabulously that went for them.

Likewise, Stalinism, Maoism and Leninism also went very smoothly didnt they. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 25 2006, 10:23 PM

And we all know how fabulously that went for them.

Likewise, Stalinism, Maoism and Leninism also went very smoothly didnt they. :rolleyes:
I'm not denying that those ended badly, but they went somwhere. Stalinism, in some ways, was beneficial to Russia.

[karmaradical]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 25 2006, 10:34 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 25 2006, 10:34 PM)
The [email protected] 25 2006, 10:23 PM

And we all know how fabulously that went for them.

Likewise, Stalinism, Maoism and Leninism also went very smoothly didnt they. :rolleyes:
I'm not denying that those ended badly, but they went somwhere. Stalinism, in some ways, was beneficial to Russia. [/b]
Hitler also increased the economy of Germany through expanding the the military-industry complex.

That doesnt mean I'm about to suck his dick. The same goes for Stalin. He may have had lightning speed industrialization, he was still a crazy asshole.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by karmaradical+Sep 25 2006, 11:16 PM--> (karmaradical @ Sep 25 2006, 11:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:34 PM

The [email protected] 25 2006, 10:23 PM

And we all know how fabulously that went for them.

Likewise, Stalinism, Maoism and Leninism also went very smoothly didnt they. :rolleyes:
I'm not denying that those ended badly, but they went somwhere. Stalinism, in some ways, was beneficial to Russia.
Hitler also increased the economy of Germany through expanding the the military-industry complex.

That doesnt mean I'm about to suck his dick. The same goes for Stalin. He may have had lightning speed industrialization, he was still a crazy asshole. [/b]
When did I propose performing any form of fellatio on Stalin? Personally I think it was a very bad idea to have let him get to such a level of power, but I also recognise that marxist organisations have led a lot more revolutions that have got somwhere as compared to the anarchists who do near enough bugger all.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
but I also recognise that marxist organisations have led a lot more revolutions that have got somwhere as compared to the anarchists who do near enough bugger all.

That is because the material conditions needed to establish leninist state-capitalism were there. Almost a century ago, on some occasions.

Now, I'm confident conditions exist for higher level societies than that. ;)

And I'm inclined to believe they'll prove to be pretty anarchistic ones, ones that have learned from history.. and also quite technocratic ones. Perhaps we apply communism to technocracy from different viewpoints, Jazzratt. -- I would be most interested in your specific perspective. Have you seen this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48880&hl=technocracy&st=0) by Haraldur? Revive it if you feel like it, it was a good one. :)

[Lenin's Law]

1. It wasnt "revolutionary socialism".

2. It didnt work.


1. Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, John Reed, Georg Lukacs... would all disagree with you.

So on one side we have some of the greatest Marxist thinkers of the last 100 years versus some guy with a keyboard using an alias. What to do, what to do... :rolleyes:

2. What didn't work? If you're referring to attempts of anarchism to do anything in the last 75 years, then yes you are correct.

Notice how he just repeats the lies of the bourgeois press - "it didn't work" a cliche repeated ad nauseum by the capitalist media. What next? "Communism is good in theory - but bad in practice"


Various elements of the Spanish Republic successfully applied anarchist principles during the civil war.

Ahh yes! Their one moment of glory! No need to mention how they never successfully controlled the country at any given time and were quickly crushed by the fascists (unlike the Bolsheviks who managed to withstand numerous assaults by imperialist armies and fascist gangs)

In any event, the Anarchists were not the major force of the Spanish Republic and were not the main group that was elected in 1936 under the Popular Front. Therefore, at best, they were a significant force involved in fighting for the Spanish Republic, along with Communists, Trotskyists, liberals and so on.

What's more, they lost.

This does not exactly meet the definition of "leading a mass movement to victory"

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:34 AM
And I'm inclined to believe they'll prove to be pretty anarchistic ones, ones that have learned from history.. and also quite technocratic ones. Perhaps we apply communism to technocracy from different viewpoints, Jazzratt. -- I would be most interested in your specific perspective. Have you seen this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48880&hl=technocracy&st=0) by Haraldur? Revive it if you feel like it, it was a good one. :)
I'll certianly have a look at it.

[Connolly]

1. Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, John Reed, Georg Lukacs... would all disagree with you.

Do I honestly care if they would disagree with me?.........they would be disagreeing with history if they did.


So on one side we have some of the greatest Marxist thinkers of the last 100 years versus some guy with a keyboard using an alias. What to do, what to do...

:lol: Yes, kneel down to your unquestionable masters :lol:


2. What didn't work? If you're referring to attempts of anarchism to do anything in the last 75 years, then yes you are correct.

The establishement of socialism failed.

Im not an anarchist, so taking stupid cheap shots at anarchism dosnt really bother me. The fact is neither anarchism nor leninism achieved the desired outcome, both failed (so-far).

Anarchist attempts however didnt fail so spectacularly. Their failures are understandably unfortunate in many ways, leninist attempts however, failed because their theories didnt work out.


Notice how he just repeats the lies of the bourgeois press - "it didn't work" a cliche repeated ad nauseum by the capitalist media. What next? "Communism is good in theory - but bad in practice"

Yeah, its all lies im spurting out :lol: , those capitalist bastards crushed our socialist pardise developing towards communism. :lol: :rolleyes:


Ahh yes! Their one moment of glory! No need to mention how they never successfully controlled the country at any given time and were quickly crushed by the fascists (unlike the Bolsheviks who managed to withstand numerous assaults by imperialist armies and fascist gangs)

WOW, big fucking deal. So the fuck what if it "withstood numerous assaults" - that dosnt prove jack shit, the material outcome would have been state capitalist like every other "socialist" failure created by the stalinists.

Your ideology is complete reactionary bullshit, you dont even have the "guts" to accept that socialist attempts by leninists and most importantly Stalinists failed in a spectacular manner resulting in oppressive authoritarian states. It failed, accept it.


In any event, the Anarchists were not the major force of the Spanish Republic and were not the main group that was elected in 1936 under the Popular Front. Therefore, at best, they were a significant force involved in fighting for the Spanish Republic, along with Communists, Trotskyists, liberals and so on.

Did I say they were the "major force"?.....their establishment of stateless and collectivised societies throughout spain were very successfull and were closer to communism than any fucktart attempt by Stalinists.


What's more, they lost.

Unfortunatly so did the working and pesant classes of the USSR, DPRK, Communist China, Cuba and Vietnam with the establishment of state bourgeoisie.


This does not exactly meet the definition of "leading a mass movement to victory"

No, im sorry, it dosnt. It lead the bourgeois to victory quite inevitably.

[RNK]

I think it's time everyone accept and agree that all past attempts at socialism and communism have failed, in one way or another -- whether it was because of dictatorship or corruption or impotence or boureious interference or all of the above. What we should do is take an objective look at history, what has happened under each of these failed communist systems, and head forward with that knowledge so we have a better and clearer understanding of what to do and what not to do.

Having perpetual arguements about who is the "better" Communist is not only irrelevant, but sets back the Communist movement. I know everyone has their own personal opinion and view about what Communism really is, but why let that tear apart the Leftist movement? Instead, work together and come up with a truely democratic way of thinking, involving input and administration from all parties involved -- not simply "Okay, we're going to be TROTSKYIST!" "No, MAOIST!" "No, LENINIST!"

If you people are truely as dedicated to socialism as you all claim to be then it shouldn't be very hard to set aside your differences and work together for an amicable plan and solution. Otherwise you might as well all go home, the Revolution isn't going to happen if we aren't willing to work together to achieve it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Stalin's Law+--> (Stalin's Law)What "crap"? Revolutinary socialism that actually worked in overthrowing a corrupt regime? That's crap to you? [/b]

It's crap because that "corrupt regime" was immediately replaced by another "corrupt regime" that eventually reinstated capitalism in Russia. If capitalism ain't "crap" in your eyes then why are you here?


Stalin's law
Then what is "good"? - Anarchist theory that has failed miserably in just about every part of the world?

I can give two fucks about dogmatic "anarchist theory" that was presented decades ago. The modern era will inevitably use a model, or models, that are appropriate to the conditions of the modern era.[/b]

You can babble all you want about the "glory" of this and that or the "failure" of this and that and it will never change the historical facts: Leninism and Maoism led directly to the reemergence of capitalism and class based society.


What were these things that Marx and Engels were wrong about? I'm guessing you are not a communist...


You guessed wrong. I fully support the creation of a Communist society.

I do not however support crap that is meaninless to the modern era, crap such as:

The theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Labour Theory of Value.

A Socialist "transitional period".

There's some other 19th century garbage in there but I have since forgotten about it; that's how significant it is to the modern era.


The state will not just disintegrate all of a sudden - it will not just self-distruct because you and a few anarchists say so.

You're right, it won't "self destruct" on its own, there will always be people like you waiting in the wings ready to jump at the change to "lead the people".

It's up to the people themselves to make sure that you or anyone else never get that opportunity.

One bout with capitalism has been enough, we have no need for you and your party members recreating it again in a generation or two.


Has the the entire history of your movement (ie failure) proven anything to you?

Of course!

It has shown us what not to do; considering of course if its even relevant in the modern era.

Just like the complete failure of Leninst models (notice I do not refer to you and you kind as Communists as you clearly do not intent to ever get past the "socialist phase") has shown us that that shit simply doesn't work.


At least with Communism, we can point to mistakes that were made and things that should have been done better.

A good start would have been to tell the "dear leaders" that reinstating capitalism was a bad fucking idea. :lol:


With anarchism, we can't do anything because there is no example, not even one, of Anarchism leading a mass movement.

A "good example" with horrendus outcomes is still a bad example.

I'll take my chances relying on the masses to figure it out once threatened with falling into sociological chaos.

You see I, unlike you, still believe that the masses themselves are the keys to victory. Your fist pounding, flag waving, costume wearing marching up and down the square is of no use to creating the conditions necessary for a Communist revolution; it never was and never will be.


What are you talking about? "People like me" You don't even know me!


After 22 years as a "Stalinist", I know you better than you know yourself, son.


What military costume? What hair grease? What palace?

Try thinking abstractly.


We don't need any one person or one individual; we need a mass movement with a serious plan for overthrowing capitalism and creating socialism.

No thanks, Socialism has been materialistically proven to simply lead back to Capitalism.


The workers need to take that power, not ignore it, and not hope it will simply go away

We have no intention of "hoping it will go away" but have every intention of smashing it to bits before to leeches get their teeth sunk ito it.


If workers ignore the state, then the state will revolt mercilessly at the first chance it gets at the hands of the capitalists

You must be one of those silly cats that thinks capitalism can exist parallel to a Communist society, or even a Socialist one for that matter.

Boy is that historically inaccurate.


We don't need me per se, but we need people like me who are willing and committed to work for this future; and we need lots of them.

No thanks, kids like you are a dime a dozen.

You would be surprised to find out how many young people sit around fatasizing about being "the benevolent despot"; or maybe you wouldn't. :lol:

What we need are individuals committed to creating a Communist society.


For it is not exaggeration that the choice facing us now is this: Socialism or Barbarism.

I'll take what you call "barbarism" and leave the Capitalism to you.

P.S.

You've misquoted Stalin in your signature.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:12 PM
I think it's time everyone accept and agree that all past attempts at socialism and communism have failed, in one way or another -- whether it was because of dictatorship or corruption or impotence or boureious interference or all of the above. What we should do is take an objective look at history, what has happened under each of these failed communist systems, and head forward with that knowledge so we have a better and clearer understanding of what to do and what not to do.

Having perpetual arguements about who is the "better" Communist is not only irrelevant, but sets back the Communist movement. I know everyone has their own personal opinion and view about what Communism really is, but why let that tear apart the Leftist movement? Instead, work together and come up with a truely democratic way of thinking, involving input and administration from all parties involved -- not simply "Okay, we're going to be TROTSKYIST!" "No, MAOIST!" "No, LENINIST!"

If you people are truely as dedicated to socialism as you all claim to be then it shouldn't be very hard to set aside your differences and work together for an amicable plan and solution. Otherwise you might as well all go home, the Revolution isn't going to happen if we aren't willing to work together to achieve it.
I agree! :D :D :D

Even though I fully detest the Stalinists and the Maoists.

I can fully see Anarchists, Trotskyists, Libertarian Marxists and so on forming together and joining forces for a better world!! :)

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:12 PM
I think it's time everyone accept and agree that all past attempts at socialism and communism have failed, in one way or another -- whether it was because of dictatorship or corruption or impotence or boureious interference or all of the above. What we should do is take an objective look at history, what has happened under each of these failed communist systems, and head forward with that knowledge so we have a better and clearer understanding of what to do and what not to do.

Having perpetual arguements about who is the "better" Communist is not only irrelevant, but sets back the Communist movement. I know everyone has their own personal opinion and view about what Communism really is, but why let that tear apart the Leftist movement? Instead, work together and come up with a truely democratic way of thinking, involving input and administration from all parties involved -- not simply "Okay, we're going to be TROTSKYIST!" "No, MAOIST!" "No, LENINIST!"

If you people are truely as dedicated to socialism as you all claim to be then it shouldn't be very hard to set aside your differences and work together for an amicable plan and solution. Otherwise you might as well all go home, the Revolution isn't going to happen if we aren't willing to work together to achieve it.
Lol, so what are you doing for it? It's so easy to sit there criticizing sectarianism from the sidelines.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I think its high time to forget about the great bloody dictators like Mao, Stalin and company and embrace libertarian socialism!

Which is Anarchy really.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:52 PM
I think its high time to forget about the great bloody dictators like Mao, Stalin and company and embrace libertarian socialism!

Which is Anarchy really.
then why call it libertarian socialism?

[Comrade Kurtz]

Because libertarian socialism believes in a governmental institution that regulates the economy to a degree so citizens don't unequally seize more money/good than they ought to have. Much past that, it doesn't do anything else. Laissez-faire on social issues.

[Janus]

then why call it libertarian socialism?
Libertarian socialism is a much more broad category and includes anarchism, council communism, autonomist Marxism, and other strains.

[Comrade J]

Also, I'd say 'anarchism' unfortunately has too many negative connotations attached to it, people associate it with violence, chaos and general pandemonium, by using another name you are more likely to appeal to the masses, or at least not recieve direct opposition to your actions.

[Lenin's Law]

Anarchism is a failure and a big loser throughout history.

This has been proven to have been successful at elminating capitalist control:


http://www.internationalposter.com/pimages/RUL09658.jpg

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 27 2006, 05:26 PM
Anarchism is a failure and a big loser throughout history.

This has been proven to have been successful at elminating capitalist control:



This is your response? A "proclamation" coupled with a photo of some dead guys? :lol:

Stalin Kiddies -- What a joke.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 28 2006, 12:26 AM
Anarchism is a failure and a big loser throughout history.

This has been proven to have been successful at elminating capitalist control:


http://www.internationalposter.com/pimages/RUL09658.jpg
How? Russia looks pretty capitalist to me these days. Come to think of it, it looked pretty capitalist in Stalin's day as well, just with the state/party acting as one large corporation.

[RNK]

Funny, Stalin did as much to destroy Communism as all the world's capitalists combined, and yet he is still to this day worshipped as a hero of the Left... (by some people).