How 'Commy' Are You?

[Death To Mankind]

How many of you so-called Commies are true Revolutionary Leftists? Would you gladly welcome a socialist revolution in your country? Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals 'dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?' Would you work alongside the masses, cleaning piss and shit and taking piss and shit and doing it for the rest of your lives, while the pampered few make all the laws, proscribe your lives and boldly 'lead the country to a social seventh heaven?'

I doubt it. Even those of you who are really 'committed', I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the 'vanguard'. Well sorry chaps, but the governing cabinet only has a limited amount of vacancies...those of you who don't make it up there - cya in the mines.

Don't ban me. I love Marx's idea. But let's be fucking realistic now eh, for once?

[RedAnarchist]

Many of us here are Anarchists. We don't want a vanguard, and we certainly do not want to create a new ruling class.


You obviously do not "love" Marx's work, as you don't seem to understand it at all.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Death To [email protected] 18 2006, 08:56 PM
How many of you so-called Commies are true Revolutionary Leftists?
True? as in; not one of the hologram ones you get? <_<


Would you gladly welcome a socialist revolution in your country?

If it were libertarian, yes.


Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals &#39;dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?&#39;

Hell no&#33; :angry:


Would you work alongside the masses, cleaning piss and shit and taking piss and shit and doing it for the rest of your lives, while the pampered few make all the laws, proscribe your lives and boldly &#39;lead the country to a social seventh heaven?&#39;
That&#39;s what happens now, in this society. You have accurately described Capitalism, and I hate it.


I doubt it. Even those of you who are really &#39;committed&#39;, I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the &#39;vanguard&#39;.

I am completely opposed to the vanguard concept, in my opinion, Lenin was wrong. Your arguments echo a complete distaste and hatred of hierarchy and Class, which is what we hate, also.


Well sorry chaps, but the governing cabinet only has a limited amount of vacancies...those of you who don&#39;t make it up there - cya in the mines.

Some of us here call for the abolition of government. Some call for the eventual dissolving of the state, so, who cares how big the cabinet is? We want to burn it down&#33;


Don&#39;t ban me. I love Marx&#39;s idea. But let&#39;s be fucking realistic now eh, for once?

We&#39;re not all Stalinists, most of us oppose the USSR, or are simpyl critical of it, some consider themselves Libertarian-Communists or anarchists. Your criticisms weigh heavily against Leninism, not communism in general.

Moved to OI,

[Death To Mankind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:01 PM
Many of us here are Anarchists. We don&#39;t want a vanguard, and we certainly do not want to create a new ruling class.


You obviously do not "love" Marx&#39;s work, as you don&#39;t seem to understand it at all.
If you are an anarchist then why respond to my comment. If you are such an anarchist surely such a question is unrelated to you and completely uninteresting to you.

And instead of giving glib answers give me proper ones&#33; Oh I don&#39;t seem to understand Marx&#39;s work do I. Explain how I&#39;m wrong please?

[Death To Mankind]

True? as in; not one of the hologram ones you get? <_<

Oh how funny, hihihihihi. No-one likes pithy remarks. Waste of fucking time.

If it were libertarian , yes.

Hardly a revolution then is it.

That&#39;s what happens now, in this society. You have accurately described Capitalism, and I hate it.

Capitalism on one hand, swing far enough left and you get back to it, it&#39;s like a circle. In Socialism inequality is more pronounced that&#39;s all.

I am completely opposed to the vanguard concept, in my opinion, Lenin was wrong. Your arguments echo a complete distaste and hatred of hierarchya nd Class, which is what we hate, also.

So you advocate a mix of socialism and democracy? Then it&#39;s not proper Revolutionary Socialism is it. Go join a moderate socialist forum, like Students for Democracy or some bland shite like that.

Some of us here call for the abolition of government. Some call for the eventual dissolving of the state, so, who cares how big the cabinet is? We want to burn it down&#33;

That&#39;s constructive isn&#39;t it. About as fucking useful as Sid Vicious, who was a useless piece of shite, and look where it got him. Romantic though, a quality I admire. You&#39;re plan for after the great blaze?

We&#39;re not all Stalinists, most of us oppose the USSR, or are simpyl critical of it, some consider themselves Libertarian-Communists or anarchists. Your criticisms weigh heavily against Leninism, not communism in general.

Communism in general? Communism is one thing my friend, which is supposedly after Socialism. Socialism comes first and that&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about. I&#39;m talking Marxism, proper Revolutionary Socialism. You are not one of these guys, I await them eagerly. Please leave (no offence, it&#39;s not going to go anywhere with you in it - the discussion that is)


Moved to OI

This is not an ideology, nor does it oppose Socialism, it merely asks if you guys are really prepared for a worker state.

Your quick movement of my topic however is reminiscent of Stalinism. What next...are you going to censor my words?

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by Death To Mankind+Aug 18 2006, 09:20 PM--> (Death To Mankind @ Aug 18 2006, 09:20 PM) And instead of giving glib answers give me proper ones&#33; Oh I don&#39;t seem to understand Marx&#39;s work do I. Explain how I&#39;m wrong please? [/b]

Originally posted by "Death to Mankind"@
Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals &#39;dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?&#39;


"Marx"
The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves

Does that answer your question?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Death To Mankind+Aug 18 2006, 10:20 PM--> (Death To Mankind @ Aug 18 2006, 10:20 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 09:01 PM
Many of us here are Anarchists. We don&#39;t want a vanguard, and we certainly do not want to create a new ruling class.


You obviously do not "love" Marx&#39;s work, as you don&#39;t seem to understand it at all.
If you are an anarchist then why respond to my comment. If you are such an anarchist surely such a question is unrelated to you and completely uninteresting to you.

And instead of giving glib answers give me proper ones&#33; Oh I don&#39;t seem to understand Marx&#39;s work do I. Explain how I&#39;m wrong please? [/b]
You appear to only see Marx&#39;s work after it was mauled to pieces by Lenin. Have you read the Manifesto and Das Kapital and other works?

[Death To Mankind]

= Communism

You forgot the transitional stage.

[The Grinch]

Oh, and where specifically did Marx use the term "vanguard", if you would?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This is incredibly stupid. A vanguard is necessary&#33; Never has there been a revolution which succeeds in overthrowing the government without a vanguard. A true vanguard party is not a dictatorship. It is run suing Lenin&#39;s priniciple of Democratic Centralism. Not beaurocratic centralism the way stalin turned it. Anarchists make nop sense whatsoever. They offer no alternative plan, they just simply critisize. They claim the revolution must be non-hiarchial, despite the fact that every single military or guerilla force that has ever had an affect has had hiarchy. Essentially, Anarchists hate the idea of workers organizing.

[da_prole]

I am extremely commie, thank you very much&#33;

[Qwerty Dvorak]

How many of you so-called Commies are true Revolutionary Leftists?
Pointless question...


Would you gladly welcome a socialist revolution in your country?
Yes.


Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals &#39;dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?&#39;
Yes, I would. That is, if I wasn&#39;t leading them.


Would you work alongside the masses, cleaning piss and shit and taking piss and shit and doing it for the rest of your lives, while the pampered few make all the laws, proscribe your lives and boldly &#39;lead the country to a social seventh heaven?&#39;
Wow, there is a copious amount of bullshit in that question. First of all, I can&#39;t even begin (nor do I want) to fathom where you came up with the idea that a Communist society is one who&#39;s sole purpose is to clean piss and shit. Truth is, most piss and shit would be cleaned by way of an automated system (there&#39;s this neat new invention called the sewage system), and the little human work involved after that would be divided up amongst society as a whole, meaning each individual actually did little to no "cleaning". Also, your claim that the laws would be made by "the pampered few" is ridiculous, and perfectly describes capitalism.


I doubt it. Even those of you who are really &#39;committed&#39;, I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the &#39;vanguard&#39;. Well sorry chaps, but the governing cabinet only has a limited amount of vacancies...those of you who don&#39;t make it up there - cya in the mines.
Well, since politics and the art of administration is my personal passion, I would quite fancy myself overseeing society&#39;s progression under a socialist government. However, I also have interest in the fields of sociology, history, English, maths, science etc. and would gladly offer my services in those areas in place of, or perhaps as well as, my service in the administration if required.

Failing all that though, yeah, see you in the mines. :)

[Publius]

This is incredibly stupid. A vanguard is necessary&#33; Never has there been a revolution which succeeds in overthrowing the government without a vanguard. A true vanguard party is not a dictatorship. It is run suing Lenin&#39;s priniciple of Democratic Centralism. Not beaurocratic centralism the way stalin turned it. Anarchists make nop sense whatsoever. They offer no alternative plan, they just simply critisize. They claim the revolution must be non-hiarchial, despite the fact that every single military or guerilla force that has ever had an affect has had hiarchy. Essentially, Anarchists hate the idea of workers organizing.

I guess you leftists will get around to smashing the state when you&#39;re done smashing other leftist factions?

See, this is part of the reason why I&#39;m not a leftist; why I think it&#39;s absurd: it isn&#39;t even a movement anymore, it&#39;s just a bunch of people making noise.

WHat&#39;s there to be a part of?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

See, this is part of the reason why I&#39;m not a leftist; why I think it&#39;s absurd: it isn&#39;t even a movement anymore, it&#39;s just a bunch of people making noise.

I don&#39;t consider myself part of the leftist movement; indeed, I refuse even to acknowledge its existence, for those reasons. I&#39;m part of the Marxist movement.

[Publius]

I don&#39;t consider myself part of the leftist movement; indeed, I refuse even to acknowledge its existence, for those reasons. I&#39;m part of the Marxist movement.

Which is exactly what I&#39;m talking about.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:24 PM
This is incredibly stupid. A vanguard is necessary&#33; Never has there been a revolution which succeeds in overthrowing the government without a vanguard. A true vanguard party is not a dictatorship. It is run suing Lenin&#39;s priniciple of Democratic Centralism. Not beaurocratic centralism the way stalin turned it. Anarchists make nop sense whatsoever. They offer no alternative plan, they just simply critisize. They claim the revolution must be non-hiarchial, despite the fact that every single military or guerilla force that has ever had an affect has had hiarchy. Essentially, Anarchists hate the idea of workers organizing.
We cannot therefore cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philosophical leaders.

(Marx, circular letter to the leaders of the German Socialist Workers Party, 1879)

If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

(Engels, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891)

Were Marx and Engels incredibly stupid too? Because that can&#39;t be seen as anything other than a rejection of vanguardism in my book. As an aside, why is it that Leninists always defend Lenin against the charge of breaking from Marxist by citing Lenin and not Marx?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Death To [email protected] 18 2006, 08:56 PM
Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals &#39;dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?&#39;



most people here don&#39;t support any intellectuals "leading" anyone, anywhere.


I doubt it. Even those of you who are really &#39;committed&#39;, I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the &#39;vanguard&#39;.

the &#39;vanguard&#39; is a leninist idea, and i am no bolshevik.

"vanguardism" is not marxism. marx and engels were both critical of the vanguard.

so, i wonder, at who (or what), exactly, are you directing your criticism against?

[bezdomni]

You appear to only see Marx&#39;s work after it was mauled to pieces by Lenin. Have you read the Manifesto and Das Kapital and other works?
And where does Lenin "maul" Marx to pieces?

Have you even read State and Revolution? ;)

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:41 PM
What&#39;s there to be a part of?
metaphysical struggle. :D

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:03 PM
Have you even read State and Revolution?
"state and revolution" was one of the first political books i read.

what about it?

[Zero]

I have a commie score of 16.4 thank you very much. I can see your Capitalist score of 12.2, how sad for you.

[red team]

Would you work alongside the masses, cleaning piss and shit and taking piss and shit and doing it for the rest of your lives

Self-cleaning toilets are already here. I&#39;ve seen them, but their not widely adopted. Plus, it&#39;s not too hard to make a robotic mopper. They&#39;ve already have robotic vacuum cleaners. A robotic mopper would just be a variant on the same established model.


while the pampered few make all the laws, proscribe your lives and boldly &#39;lead the country to a social seventh heaven?&#39;

Laws, wages and profits are obsolete and belong more to an age where you have to deter people by coercion and intimidation. We&#39;re quickly approaching an end to that age. Thousands of highly skilled and competent college graduates are working in retail stores and telephone sales. A huge waste of resources for pushing products when I could simply look up the details of a product on a website and purchase it online wouldn&#39;t you say? In an age of material abundance, why would you need to use intimidation and money to control human behaviour?

Furthermore, the system of resource management and compensation for labour can be made to be virtually incorruptable through proper use of computer and network technologies. Redundant multiple copies of information along with sophisticated encryption methods makes the time and resources necessary for breaking into financial accounts not worth the effort. You&#39;ll be more successful in armed hold-ups for money, but that could disappear with the obsolescence of paper money.

Further, money is a type of debt and only useful in an economy where manual labour is used for most of the production that takes place. That is because people value a psychological debt for services performed. Automated machines have no use for debts.


I doubt it. Even those of you who are really &#39;committed&#39;, I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the &#39;vanguard&#39;. Well sorry chaps, but the governing cabinet only has a limited amount of vacancies...those of you who don&#39;t make it up there - cya in the mines.

Mines are obsolete when we can get enough energy to melt things down from "wastes" in landfills.


Don&#39;t ban me. I love Marx&#39;s idea. But let&#39;s be fucking realistic now eh, for once?

Widespread computerization along with the internet will virtually ensure that the current ways of doing things will quickly be obsolete. Barring the idiots currently in power and those that have the majority control of resources in the world don&#39;t screw things up royally, emerging new technologies (things that are already in prototype stage now) will guarantee to overturn all traditional ideas of society, culture and economics.

[Ultra-Violence]

See, this is part of the reason why I&#39;m not a leftist; why I think it&#39;s absurd: it isn&#39;t even a movement anymore, it&#39;s just a bunch of people making noise.

WHat&#39;s there to be a part of?

THANK YOU&#33; FOR CRYING OUT LOUD&#33; ITS FUCKING FRUSTRATING HERE IN AMERICA

THERE&#39;S NO FREAAKING MOVEMENT&#33;


theres nothing to be a part of and i wouldnt want to be. anarchist here are anoying and are not seroius about taking action unless its animal liberation and the commies a majority of them are white middle class Leninist NUT CASES&#33; look at he RCP.

(doesnt apply to all leftist in the U.S but sure the Freaking Majority)

[bezdomni]

"state and revolution" was one of the first political books i read.

what about it?
The majority of that book is direct qutoations from Marx.

In what manner does Lenin adulterate Marxism?

[Zero]

Ultra-Violence: +1.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Death To [email protected] 18 2006, 09:31 PM
Hardly a revolution then is it.

You wouldn&#39;t call the violent overthrow of capitalism, to be replaced by Libertarian-Communism, a revolution?


Capitalism on one hand, swing far enough left and you get back to it, it&#39;s like a circle. In Socialism inequality is more pronounced that&#39;s all.

What the hell are you on about?


So you advocate a mix of socialism and democracy? Then it&#39;s not proper Revolutionary Socialism is it. Go join a moderate socialist forum, like Students for Democracy or some bland shite like that.

I propose Anarchist organisation principals, im a Libertarian-Communist, I advocate dicrect democracy. fuck moderate socialism.


That&#39;s constructive isn&#39;t it. About as fucking useful as Sid Vicious, who was a useless piece of shite, and look where it got him. Romantic though, a quality I admire. You&#39;re plan for after the great blaze?

Assuming we have to destroy, Rebuild.


Communism in general? Communism is one thing my friend, which is supposedly after Socialism. Socialism comes first and that&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about.

Socialism only comes frist, in authorotarian communists eyes, not mine.


I&#39;m talking Marxism, proper Revolutionary Socialism.

It&#39;s not "proper" it&#39;s just a different strand.


You are not one of these guys, I await them eagerly. Please leave (no offence, it&#39;s not going to go anywhere with you in it - the discussion that is)

Or in other words "bollocks, they&#39;re not what i though"


This is not an ideology, nor does it oppose Socialism, it merely asks if you guys are really prepared for a worker state.

And your answer from me, is no, im not prepaired for a workers state.

[Rollo]

I think anarchism can only be achieved after many years of communism which can only be achieved via revolution. I would happily welcome a socialist government into my country.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How many of you so-called Commies are true Revolutionary Leftists? Would you gladly welcome a socialist revolution in your country? Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals &#39;dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?&#39; Would you work alongside the masses, cleaning piss and shit and taking piss and shit and doing it for the rest of your lives, while the pampered few make all the laws, proscribe your lives and boldly &#39;lead the country to a social seventh heaven?&#39;

I doubt it. Even those of you who are really &#39;committed&#39;, I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the &#39;vanguard&#39;. Well sorry chaps, but the governing cabinet only has a limited amount of vacancies...those of you who don&#39;t make it up there - cya in the mines.

Don&#39;t ban me. I love Marx&#39;s idea. But let&#39;s be fucking realistic now eh, for once?

True. You&#39;ve got a point.

It&#39;s a common tendency of Western "communists" and especially Leninists, to be chauvinistic.

[7189]

Death to Mankind, why don&#39;t you specify what you mean instead of launching into a diatribe? I think that would make the argument easier and would prevent acrimonious polemics&#33; Just a suggestion.

Also, may I ask what your own ideology is? Death to Mankind is an interesting name, I would like to know your political views.

[Wanted Man]

LMFAO, what a fucking joker. I&#39;m "commy" enough for you, spanky.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Death To [email protected] 18 2006, 09:31 PM

I am completely opposed to the vanguard concept, in my opinion, Lenin was wrong. Your arguments echo a complete distaste and hatred of hierarchya nd Class, which is what we hate, also.

So you advocate a mix of socialism and democracy? Then it&#39;s not proper Revolutionary Socialism is it. Go join a moderate socialist forum, like Students for Democracy or some bland shite like that.

Some of us here call for the abolition of government. Some call for the eventual dissolving of the state, so, who cares how big the cabinet is? We want to burn it down&#33;

That&#39;s constructive isn&#39;t it. About as fucking useful as Sid Vicious, who was a useless piece of shite, and look where it got him. Romantic though, a quality I admire. You&#39;re plan for after the great blaze?
This has to be the most ignorant post I&#39;ve ever seen in OI.

Opposing a "vanguard" is not wanting a moderate mix of socialism and democracy. Whether the vanguard is democratically elected or a dictatorship makes no difference, it is still a vanguard. Abolishing government, something I too agree with, isn&#39;t abolishing organisation and it is very constructive.

Anarchists seek to abolish government not through physical desctruction of it&#39;s institutions-although a lot of violent fighting with cops would be necassary-but by replacing it with decentralised democratic institutions. Small communities could organise regular meetings (the internet makes this even easier) to organise policing of their locality if necassary, to distribute wealth as they see fit, and to organise community projects and delegate individual tasks-waged work would not exist.

As for wider scale organisation, democratically elected and instantly recallable delegates (most likely rotating between different qualified individuals) from affected communities could federalise to create councils to run industry where they could organise what communities need whatever produce and if workers are needed (production would gradually become more and more automated meaning less workers are needed) would organise with the communities they represent and their fellow delegates to staff the factories.

Any wider scale projects could be handled through temporary federalism.

The end result would be a high tech society with no countries, no classes, no governments, no poverty, lots of leisure time and total democracy.

Pfft I&#39;ve explained that so many times to people who are like "OMFG [email protected] AN ANARCHIST&#33;&#33;&#33;1111111111" it&#39;s not funny...

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:16 PM
I think anarchism can only be achieved after many years of communism which can only be achieved via revolution. I would happily welcome a socialist government into my country.
I disagree....true historically progressive revolutions transcend political ideas. Capitalism was not a centrally planned next stage after feudalism-it just came to be. When capitalism hits the next major recession and people can&#39;t afford food or shelter despite it being in abundance, working class people are more likely to forcibly seize production out of necessity, and the only way to organise spontaneous looting and factory occupying it is in a way similar to anarcho-communism. Look at past examples of spontaneous communism like the Paris Commune or even look at some of the things that happened in Argentina where no-one involved had heard of Marx or Bakunin; joining a political party to replace the old one is only for people with political ideas but that is always abstract and detached from reality, and can only be full of "intellectuals" or those using the ideal as a pseudo-religion&#33; People are not guaranteed to be won over by a romantic ideal but they are guaranteed to loot for survival.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Death To [email protected] 18 2006, 09:31 PM
Communism in general? Communism is one thing my friend, which is supposedly after Socialism. Socialism comes first and that&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about. I&#39;m talking Marxism, proper Revolutionary Socialism. You are not one of these guys, I await them eagerly. Please leave (no offence, it&#39;s not going to go anywhere with you in it - the discussion that is)
I get the impression you&#39;re brainwashed into thinking that commies "hate freedom" and want to make a giant government to control everyone.

You&#39;re talking to real revolutionary commies for the first time I&#39;m assuming. Quit waiting for the ones propaganda has told you about to turn up and accept you&#39;ve been lied to about who we are and what we want.

(not that leninists don&#39;t exist but even leninists have a degree of grassroots democracy and they aren&#39;t the dominant force in the left)

[Zero]

The most ignorant post? Man, you hadden&#39;t hung around ebeneezer very much. The man stated that there wasn&#39;t anyone starving in America&#33;

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:24 AM
The most ignorant post? Man, you hadden&#39;t hung around ebeneezer very much. The man stated that there wasn&#39;t anyone starving in America&#33;
Oh yeah, forgot about him......hehe he was fun.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:24 PM
Essentially, Anarchists hate the idea of workers organizing.
haahahaha, you may say what you want about anarchists, but most commies I know (including my dad, who is heavily opposed to anarchism) have to admit that anarchists are often the best organized of the left, in fact while, the rest of the &#39;radical left&#39; is busy selling papers or setting up commitees, anarchists are attacking capitalism every day, you may not approve of the methods, but they are taking action.

EDIT: fuck, now it&#39;s gonna turn into an anarchist vs leninist thread

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:24 PM
This is incredibly stupid. A vanguard is necessary&#33; Never has there been a revolution which succeeds in overthrowing the government without a vanguard. A true vanguard party is not a dictatorship. It is run suing Lenin&#39;s priniciple of Democratic Centralism. Not beaurocratic centralism the way stalin turned it. Anarchists make nop sense whatsoever. They offer no alternative plan, they just simply critisize. They claim the revolution must be non-hiarchial, despite the fact that every single military or guerilla force that has ever had an affect has had hiarchy. Essentially, Anarchists hate the idea of workers organizing.
Read my description of an anarchist society a few posts up.

kthx

[Forward Union]

Essentially, Anarchists hate the idea of workers organizing.

What kind of definition of Organisation are you using? is it "A group of people that follow Leninist doctrine" ?

I Guess it must be love-hate considering Anarchisms long history of Proletarian Organsation, resistance, and direct action...

International Workers of the World (USA) (http://www.iww.org/)
IWW (UK) (http://www.iww.org.uk/)
IWW (Italy) (http://web.tiscali.it/andbene/index.html)
ect ect...
F.A.I (http://federazioneanarchica.org/)
International Workers Association (http://www.iwa-ait.org/)
CNT (http://www.cnt.es/)
Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation (http://www.asf.anarki.net/asf.htm)
Anarchist Federation (UK) (http://flag.blackened.net/af/)
Workers Solidarity Alliance (http://www.workersolidarity.org/)
Solidarity Federation (http://www.libcom.org.uk/hosted/sf/events.htm)
Class War Federation (http://www.londonclasswar.org)
The International of Anarchist Federations (http://www.iaf-ifa.org/)
The Free Workers Union (http://www.fau.org/)
National Labour Confederation (http://www.cnt-ait-fr.org/)
Workers Solidarity Movement (http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~rruaitjtko/)
Libertarian Coordination (http://www.banderasnegras.8m.com/)
Antifa (http://www.antifa.org.uk)

Hundreds of others can be found here (http://www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm) by followign the approppriate links.

See also
Spainish History# (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War)
Czech History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/anarchism-in-czech/index.php)
Chilean History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/anarchism-in-chile/index.php)
Chinese History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/anarchism-in-north-china/index.php)
Hungarian History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/hungary-resistance-anarchists-1944/index.php)
German History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/anarchism-in-nazi-germany/index.php)
Russian History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/russian-revolution-1905/index.php)
Turkish History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/anarchism-in-turkey/index.php)
Italian History (http://www.libcom.org.uk/history/articles/italian-resistance-anarchist-partisans-1943/index.php)
pretty much every countries history...

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Lenin is the simple clarifier of Marxism - the State and Revolution is neccesary material reading for all leftists and revolutionaries, and explains much more sophistically the theory of what WILL Happen when the revolution comes,

Most people seem to have enormous misconceptions of Lenin - before his death, he sent out numerous letters (The CC repressed them of course) criticizing both the Soviet System and every one of the Politburo members and general leaders - Stalin, Trotksy, Kamenev, Bakunin, Rykov, all of them.

He was seeing that the state was staying - and that directly contradicted his work.

and from Love Underground:
I could name over a thousand at least of communist/leninist revolutionary parties.

Marxist, Socialist, and Communist movements have been infinetly more influential and active in the movement for workers and communism ever since their conception.

The Anarchists in Marx&#39;s time were too idealistic - they had boiled up emotions but understood nothing about how to actually change reality. The Italian Anarchists even refused to meet the communist because they wanted to bathe in their happy-idealistic-land without the pressence of "Authoritarians".

But of course, we are all revolutionaries anyway - it doesn&#39;t matter if the unions or such follow a anarchist doctrine, marxist, or leninist - they will end up the same after the historical conditions are met

[Raisa]

:blink: IM so commy that Id support that shit over this shit.
Thats what.

[bcbm]

anarchists are often the best organized of the left, in fact while, the rest of the &#39;radical left&#39; is busy selling papers or setting up commitees, anarchists are attacking capitalism every day, you may not approve of the methods, but they are taking action.

Taking action is worthless if the actions taken are meaningless and completely divorced from active class struggle. There are many active leftist organizations doing good work and trying to build a fighting proletarian movement, but to say anarchists as a whole are doing better things than anyone else (let alone "best organized," as if&#33;) is rubbish. We&#39;re all doing pretty shoddy right now, in my estimation.


EDIT: fuck, now it&#39;s gonna turn into an anarchist vs leninist thread

Nope, its become an anarchist vs. anarchist thread&#33; :ph34r:



Most people seem to have enormous misconceptions of Lenin - before his death, he sent out numerous letters (The CC repressed them of course) criticizing both the Soviet System and every one of the Politburo members and general leaders - Stalin, Trotksy, Kamenev, Bakunin, Rykov, all of them.

Link me.


But of course, we are all revolutionaries anyway - it doesn&#39;t matter if the unions or such follow a anarchist doctrine, marxist, or leninist - they will end up the same after the historical conditions are met

:wub:

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Link me.

ok :P

Quote from Marxists.org about the Letters first:


The present work was not published until 1956, repressed by Stalin until his death, first published three decades after they were written.

On the State:


Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must first think very carefully how to combat its defects, bearing in mind that these defects are rooted in the past...

...And this justification is that only by thoroughly purging our government machine, by reducing it to the utmost everything that is not absolutely essential in it, shall we be certain of being able to keep going....

...In increasing the number of its members, the C.C., I think, must also, and perhaps mainly, devote attention to checking and improving our administrative machinery, which is no good at all...

...I have noticed that some of our comrades who are able to exercise a decisive influence on the direction of state affairs, exaggerate the administrative side, which, of course, is necessary in its time and place, but which should not be confused with the scientific side...

- http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm


http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...nt/congress.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm) = Last Letters to Congress


Our Party relies on two classes and therefore its instability would be possible and its downfall inevitable if there were no agreement between those two classes. In that event this or that measure, and generally all talk about the stability of our C.C., would be futile. No measure of any kind could prevent a split in such a case....

...I think that from this standpoint the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky....


Criqitue of Stalin and Trotsky:


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.

Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People&#39;s Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work....

...Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance...
(December 24, 1922 Letter)

on Bakunin:


there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).

On Pyatakov:


As for Pyatakov, he is unquestionably a man of outstanding will and outstanding ability, but shows too much zeal for administrating and the administrative side of the work to be relied upon in a serious political matter.

This is just a general overview - archive of his last letters and works can be found at - 1922: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/date/1922.htm, 1923: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/date/1923.htm

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Death To [email protected] 18 2006, 08:56 PM
How many of you so-called Commies are true Revolutionary Leftists? Would you gladly welcome a socialist revolution in your country? Would you open your arms to a bunch of so called intellectuals &#39;dedicated to leading the proletariat to utopia?&#39; Would you work alongside the masses, cleaning piss and shit and taking piss and shit and doing it for the rest of your lives, while the pampered few make all the laws, proscribe your lives and boldly &#39;lead the country to a social seventh heaven?&#39;

I doubt it. Even those of you who are really &#39;committed&#39;, I imagine most of you would see yourselves in that high echelon, what Marx called the &#39;vanguard&#39;. Well sorry chaps, but the governing cabinet only has a limited amount of vacancies...those of you who don&#39;t make it up there - cya in the mines.

Don&#39;t ban me. I love Marx&#39;s idea. But let&#39;s be fucking realistic now eh, for once?
hahaha fuck u. ur kids and your dead homies. that made no sense

[apathy maybe]

I guess the starter of the thread decided to troll and run... but I&#39;ll answer anyway.


I&#39;m an anarchist. I shoot vanguardists who try and take power during revolutions.

And I would welcome a libertarian revolution. Which would be a revolution, but without the crap.


Originally posted by Publius
I guess you leftists will get around to smashing the state when you&#39;re done smashing other leftist factions?

See, this is part of the reason why I&#39;m not a leftist; why I think it&#39;s absurd: it isn&#39;t even a movement anymore, it&#39;s just a bunch of people making noise.

WHat&#39;s there to be a part of?Firstly, we will fight our enemies singlely or all at once. Personally I see the state and capitalism as the biggest threat just now. Authoritarians who wish to re-establish the state will be fought afterwards.


Secondly, see this is part of the reason why I&#39;m not a rightist, why I think its absurd: it isn&#39;t even a movement anymore, it&#39;s just a bunch of people making noise. What&#39;s there to be a part of?

I mean you have so called "libertarians", who want to reintroduce slavery, fascists who wish to rule or be ruled, capitalists who want to own the world, religious nuts. You have people who want a bigger state, people who want a smaller state. There just isn&#39;t a movement. The only thing that holds them together is the fact that they either want to restrict my &#39;rights&#39;, or don&#39;t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

[KC]

I shoot vanguardists

Vanguard:
1. The foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle.
2.
a. The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement.
b. Those occupying a foremost position.

So you&#39;re going to shoot everyone at the forefront of the movement? :rolleyes:

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)I shoot vanguardists who try and take power during revolutions. [/b]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected]
So you&#39;re going to shoot everyone at the forefront of the movement?

apathy maybe
I shoot vanguardists who try and take power during revolutions.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

The Vanguard exists only during pre-revolution, as its simple idealism and impossible to make the entire working-class class conscious and revolutionary without a organization to do that.

Lenin stated in the State and Revolution that the party would be dissolved right after the revolution -or something like the USSR would pop up. I guess eventually he became mildly enticed by the power as well.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The Grinch+Aug 18 2006, 09:37 PM--> (The Grinch @ Aug 18 2006, 09:37 PM)

"Marx"
The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves

Does that answer your question? [/b]
[QUOTE]

And how many socialist parties are out there proposing the best ways for the workers to do just that?

Let&#39;s face it. Only the Stalinists really understand what socialism is all about.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 18 2006, 10:50 PM
We cannot therefore cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philosophical leaders.

(Marx, circular letter to the leaders of the German Socialist Workers Party, 1879)

If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

(Engels, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891)

Were Marx and Engels incredibly stupid too? Because that can&#39;t be seen as anything other than a rejection of vanguardism in my book. As an aside, why is it that Leninists always defend Lenin against the charge of breaking from Marxist by citing Lenin and not Marx?
[QUOTE]

Marx was wrong about the nature of socialism.