We are not United...

[R_P_A_S]

I came here and at first I had the feeling everyone here was on the same page. exept for the restricted members. Now that I been here for about 4 months I've noticed that we are almost as bad as the damn cappies when it comes to division of people. Whats the problem here? there's people who only praise Mao so they are Maoist, some are obsessed with Stalin so they are Stalinist. and some Marxist don't like the Stanlist. and so forth. It's pretty sad. what can we do? why cant we all just be either a communist, a socialist or an anarachist whatever pretends to you and your fellow comrades most. why do some of you feel you have to single yourself out by applying someone else last name "ism" on your beliefs? I dont get it.

we should sort this issue that keeps us divided first. before we even think about a revolution. or we can talk down on cappies.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

We can't just hide all our differences and pretend to be one entity, sure it would be great in the short term but say we achieve a successful revolution by this method, and we are trying to establish our new Communist society. But the Stalinists and Maoists all want one absolute dictator, the Leninists want a vanguard party, some other Marxists want a working-class democracy (or a dictatorship of the proletariat), and the anarchists don't want a government at all. Soon enough this new society will collapse into civil strife and the capitalists, seeing this, will leap on this chance to take back society, we wil all be severely punished and the name of Communism tarnished for another 100 years or so.

Of course I completely agree that we need to unite, but we need to truly unite, not just put on some facade for the cameras.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:27 PM
I came here and at first I had the feeling everyone here was on the same page. exept for the restricted members. Now that I been here for about 4 months I've noticed that we are almost as bad as the damn cappies when it comes to division of people. Whats the problem here? there's people who only praise Mao so they are Maoist, some are obsessed with Stalin so they are Stalinist. and some Marxist don't like the Stanlist. and so forth. It's pretty sad. what can we do? why cant we all just be either a communist, a socialist or an anarachist whatever pretends to you and your fellow comrades most. why do some of you feel you have to single yourself out by applying someone else last name "ism" on your beliefs? I dont get it.

we should sort this issue that keeps us divided first. before we even think about a revolution. or we can talk down on cappies.
Yeah I agree with you.

First people differ about their aims: socialism, communism, anarchism.

Then people differ about history, what persons where good and what not.

Then people differ about what kind of methods they would use. Me for example, I hate violence, opression etc, even if the people who got that are my enemies. Some other people do not have the slightest problem with executing citizens and so forth.

So yes, when you take all these things into consideration, guys here differ a lot. That's sad indeed, but I won't unite with people who call mass murderes great people or who would shoot citizens.

[R_P_A_S]

can we start clean? we have so many tools now in this day and age. we really do. the communist reguardless of stalin, mao, lenin, marx or guevara SHOULD ALL JUST focus on the main and ultimate goal revolution. and what comes after.

for example I don't like to associate my beliefs and my self with figueres of the past. I don't want the name or picture of Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Mao or whoever next to my belief, or my flag. at the end of the day we all are here for the same reason. we hate what capitalism does to the people and we want to get rid of it.

We can't afford to make the same mistakes that hurt the communist ideology for years. we just cant live off the image and the example from past "leaders" is time to focus soley on a new leader. Us the people, the workers, the exploited. one man does not represnt me and it shouldnt represent us in whole. We together represent ourselves and there for we should take this into consideration and move forward. not backwards to the USSR, and the Cuban Revolution.

maybe im just ranting but we cant progress like this people. lets not forget those who faught for communist and freedom of the people. lets not do that. I dont want to forget and im not saying their actions were in vain or that they should matter.
they created their own faith and future. now is time for us to do the same.
not just sit here and think their portraits and beliefs were cool.

[bcbm]

I think you make some good points, comrade. There are very real differences among various leftist groups, but I think the amount of infighting, etc that goes on is just absurd and detrimental to the progress of proletarian victory.

[Nikkolas]

Well, as I've said, I agree whole-heartedly. I am not a violent person. I don't want people to die or be executed. I do, however, see that this may indeed be necessary for a revolution to take place. I urge people to try and aim for our singular goals but even that seems contested at times. We want a world where the workers rise up and toss away the oppresors and begin a more equal society. Yet, Leninism dictates a state to begin this. Others say the workers can do it on their own. I personally see no mass revolution coming anytime soon. That's why I think we should all agree on something and then, when we have achieved our initial aims of overthrowing the bourgeoisie, we can figure all the rest out.

[Jamal]

Well this is why we have this forum and we are debating, if we agreed on every thing, we wouldn't even argue and life would lose its tast. In my opinion, the difference in us makes us unique but it shouldn't be to this extent, because this kind of difference makes us too far away from each other.



can we start clean? we have so many tools now in this day and age. we really do. the communist reguardless of stalin, mao, lenin, marx or guevara SHOULD ALL JUST focus on the main and ultimate goal revolution. and what comes after.

but comrade, if that happens, as RedStar1916 said, the maoists and the stalinists want a dictator, the marxists want a working class democracy and the anarchists don't even want a government! So if the revolution happens and it is successful, the phase that is AFTER the revolution would be a complete chaos and the marxists will have their own state, the maoists their own the stalinists their own and the anarchists their own. Untill the capitalists take advantage of the situation and make a counter revolution on the four(or maybe more) communist states and they will take control of the world again, for centuries!!!



for example I don't like to associate my beliefs and my self with figueres of the past. I don't want the name or picture of Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Mao or whoever next to my belief, or my flag. at the end of the day we all are here for the same reason. we hate what capitalism does to the people and we want to get rid of it.

I totaly agree, one should have his own opinion and his own beliefs, every one of us should be his own hero. These leaders or rather heroes should be apreciated and respected because they made us reach this point, but not more. We cannot keep on looking backwards!!!

[Global_Justice]

i disagree.

i fundamentally disagree with the ideas of certain 'communist' theorists. i agree to an extent, that we shouldn't get bogged down with too many 'isms'. but people have a right to disagree with other communists ideas.

[Solitary Mind]

me and my friend had this discussion the other day, and i have personal anarchists friends, but even though our ideologies might differ, when it comes down to it, the goal is liberty, true freedom and no more capitalism, and i think that in the end we would put that all aside and fight towards a common goal, and who knows, maybe some people will set aside their differences for a second to achieve that common good, such as an anarchist friend of mine would gladly support a communist revolution, because its for the greater good

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

People like myself see that it is not what you want - it is inevitable, no matter if you want anarchism, facism, capitalism, or anything. That is Marx's theory of history that was partially blended from Hegel's system, - that there is one inevitabe end.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat will come, same with Socialism and Communism-Anarchism, because it is historically neccesary.

Or, as Marx said, "Common Ruin" (aka Nuke War, Global Warming, death for all people etc.)

[The Rover]

Or, as Marx said, "Common Ruin" (aka Nuke War, Global Warming, death for all people etc.)


Hmmmmmm, this is kind of depressing.


It's true though, we need to find a singular focus. The different factions need to come to some sort of compromise.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Hmmmmmm, this is kind of depressing.


It's true though, we need to find a singular focus. The different factions need to come to some sort of compromise.

Well its true, sadly enough:(, and it is coming very fast as with that global warming crap (Even though people back then knew zip about it) which will cause a lot of mayhem if not stopped through some kind of either industrial or peoples revolution.

[Switchblade]

GET A JOB YOU PINKO!!!

Thats right you long-haired
granola crunching,
Hacky-sack kicking,
Che loving,
bad hygened,
tree hugging,
Birkenstock wearing
animal rights protesting Hippie!!

Or the terrorists win!!!!



USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA

[Delta]

I think it's important to discuss our differences, and try to figure out what is best for our future. Once the revolution starts, we will surely all be united at first, but the differences are too stark to simply sweep under the rug (as others have pointed out).

In any case, the direction of the revolution may not hinge very much on what we think, but what the large number of workers will decide based on their own economic necessity and circumstances. The circumstances that shape the beginning of the revolution will probably determine whether that revolution is libertarian or not.

[Severian]

Why should we be united?

I don't automatically have more in common with somebody just because they call themselves a leftist, or a socialist, or a communist, or an anarchist. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.....

It's what you do, what role you play in relation to the concrete politics of today, that's decisive. Many workers who don't consider themselves leftists at all, may play more positive role than most leftists.

And what is this board for, if not discussion and debate among leftists? That's the one thing it can really usefully do, is serve as a forum where these disagreements can be openly debated. The purpose of OI, basically, is to keep supporters of capitalism from derailing those discussions and debates....

[Jamal]

The purpose of OI, basically, is to keep supporters of capitalism from derailing those discussions and debates....

well kick the guy with the poped che avatar, "Switchblade"


Dicussions and debating between the left should happen and it should be progressive so that people would have more similarities than differences so that the post-revolution phase would still be strong

[Ol' Dirty]

It's true. We are divided and falling, so to speak. :(

[Fawkes]

We are, but that's because our differences are to great. I can associate with Marxists maybe, but if you ever want me to get all warm and cuddly with a Leninist , Trotskyist, Maoist, Stalinist or Luxemborgist, I'm sorry, but no way in hell is that happening.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Anarchists are annoying and they shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Dyst]

Why should we be united?

Destroy capitalism?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:37 PM
Anarchists are annoying and they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Leninist don't represent the working class nor do they represent the people.

[Rollo]

I pointed this out in live chat a few days ago, it is truly depressing.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL+Aug 26 2006, 01:43 PM--> (Freedom for all...ALL @ Aug 26 2006, 01:43 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 01:37 PM
Anarchists are annoying and they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Leninist don't represent the working class nor do they represent the people. [/b]
"Those ultra-leftists who do not want to think as Marxists, that is, concretely, will be caught unawares by war. Their policy in time of war will be a fatal crowning of their policy in peace-time. The first artillery shots will either blow the ultra-leftists into political non-existence, or else drive them into the camp of social-patriotism, exactly like the Spanish anarchists, who, absolute deniers of the state, found themselves from the same causes bourgeois ministers when war came. In order to carry on a correct policy in war-time one must learn to think correctly in tune of peace."

Leon Trotsky

What are you talking about? Lenin, and even Stalin, were democratically elected by the workers of Russia. Most anarchists don't even read anything that Lenin, or his supporters, write. They are also untrained in history, pointing at Lenin and having similiar historical interpretations of the Russian Revolution as Reagan or a 8th grade social studies teacher. We successfully organized and represented the working class in a mass revolution in which the urban proletariat popularly participated for the first time in history. CNT armed themselves through the efforts of Spanish parliament and a strange, perverse sort of hierarchy within the group :D . The only revolution that was truly spontaneous and without central organization was that of the Spartakist Revolt in Berlin, in which only a few hundred workers were able to be mobilized within a week.

[Enragé]

First people differ about their aims: socialism, communism, anarchism.


no they dont

its all communism (anarchism = communism, and socialism is the transitional phase between the revolution and communism)

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by RedDali+Aug 26 2006, 01:53 PM--> (RedDali @ Aug 26 2006, 01:53 PM)
Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 26 2006, 01:43 PM

[email protected] 26 2006, 01:37 PM
Anarchists are annoying and they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Leninist don't represent the working class nor do they represent the people.
"Those ultra-leftists who do not want to think as Marxists, that is, concretely, will be caught unawares by war. Their policy in time of war will be a fatal crowning of their policy in peace-time. The first artillery shots will either blow the ultra-leftists into political non-existence, or else drive them into the camp of social-patriotism, exactly like the Spanish anarchists, who, absolute deniers of the state, found themselves from the same causes bourgeois ministers when war came. In order to carry on a correct policy in war-time one must learn to think correctly in tune of peace."

Leon Trotsky

What are you talking about? Lenin, and even Stalin, were democratically elected by the workers of Russia. Most anarchists don't even read anything that Lenin, or his supporters, write. They are also untrained in history, pointing at Lenin and having similiar historical interpretations of the Russian Revolution as Reagan or a 8th grade social studies teacher. We successfully organized and represented the working class in a mass revolution in which the urban proletariat popularly participated for the first time in history. CNT armed themselves through the efforts of Spanish parliament and a strange, perverse sort of hierarchy within the group :D . The only revolution that was truly spontaneous and without central organization was that of the Spartakist Revolt in Berlin, in which only a few hundred workers were able to be mobilized within a week. [/b]
I find it highly doubtful that the peasants actuallly supported Lenin when he stole from them. Those elections were obviously rigged.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It was the Soviet elections. Workers, intellectuals, peasants, and the petty bourgeoisie were elected straight out of their workplace or community. The Soviet system (groupings of both worker councils and a few rural communes), was a independant organization from that of the Boshlevik Party. There was Menshevik soviets, Anarchist soviets, and Socialist Revolutionary soviets also. But believe it or not, the Boshleviks were widely supported by a majority of these soviets in Russia.

As for the peasants, as a marxist you should recognized that they aren't the class of revolutionary potential and can be reactionary in many circumstances. Many peasants were against urban workers from the very seizure of state power by the soviets in the October Revolution, refusing to allow any of their agricultural produce to flow into many starving urban centers unless they were paid expensively. They dissented against their taxes, taking up arms and seizing the countryside, even resorting to guerilla tactics against the Boshleviks. Most supporters of the White Army, were of course peasants. The peasant revolts in France during the revolution was also a fine example of how rural folk will adopt reactionary ideas.

[norwegian commie]

Definetly a problem worth recognising. This is a fact, a problem so widespread. it even started to devolop on this post.wich is against it.

But let me continue with my answer.

I see your points and they are good. I personnaly have demonstrated, done active leftist work, written articles with people i disagree with. But we agreed on the fact that Israel was dangerus so we demonstrated. We both disliked US so we wrote an article.

But i will not reject my title as marxist, an admirer of Lenin, love Fidel and admire Cuba. I alsoe respect stalin, and I stand by that. This i have made clear on several occaions. Many dislike my "respecting" of stalin. But after a conversation with me they seee that i only have a different view on History. I do not love stalin, but i acnovlidge his place in history.

So it divides people, and it will continue to do so. But i agree with you in that our wiew of istory shuld not divide us. Past is past, but past must be recognised.

But i dislike working with maoists in my country related to akp. Other maoists i have no problem with. The reason is simple, the maoists in norway sabotaged for years political meetings. They couped them in different ways just to consolidate power. That is in direct conflict with my leninism (and marxism for that matter) it means that they do not selvlessly care about the good of the workers and the people. But that they have fallen so much in love with their party, that they are willing to sabotage other leftist groups fighting for the same cause.
-that splitted the left in Norway, along with the wiev on sovjet.

In Norway we alsoe have a problem with facists posing as leftists and communists. They admire mussolini and franco, support israel and fight muslims with racism.

Can i fight alongside with them? NO.

As you see i have mixed feelings about this, but all and all. I support you.
But some political groups can not work together. An Idea is to march seperatly but fight united. This i agree with, this must be done to manage a revolution anywhere.
After a revolution we can settle the differences throug democracy. And not bullshit democracy from the west.

Several posts has been made on this matter, one started my myselvf, promoting what you are. My conclution was to march seperatly but to fight united. To bring the Ide to life, it seems, is harder than we thougt.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:07 PM
It was the Soviet elections. Workers, intellectuals, peasants, and the petty bourgeoisie were elected straight out of their workplace or community. The Soviet system (groupings of both worker councils and a few rural communes), was a independant organization from that of the Boshlevik Party. There was Menshevik soviets, ANARCHIST (my capitalization) soviets, and Socialist Revolutionary soviets also. But believe it or not, the Boshleviks were widely supported by a majority of these soviets in Russia.


I believe the Kronstadt sailors would disagree with you there.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am sure that those peasants fighting at Kronstadt would most likely disagree.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The way I see it is that sure, we all have the exact same aims in establishing a more equal and freer society, but how will we create such a thing? How will we achieve communism? How can we make a successful transformation to socialism? Will this be achieved by disorganized mobs of workers? Or will these aims be achieved through organization, vast political and economic participation, and smart central planning? The anarchist revolutions of Spain and Ukraine prove that these things are needed even within these "disorganized mobs of workers". Durruti and CNT had a sort of hierarchy, ruled with organized violence, and even participated in the Spanish state. Nestor Makhno allowed vast political and economic participation; allowing peasants to manage their land and passing all millitary tactics through all of the elected officers before they were used. But then again, he still used organized violence and created a sort of hierarchy amongst the upper generals of his army.

[citizen_snips]

Fantastic. A topic about the need for unity turns into... an argument. Even brought Kronstadt into it! :P

There's a good reason why I have the Socialist Unity blog as one of the first tabs on my web browser!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here are the beginnings of a sociological explanation for why we on the left hate each other more than we hate the capitalists (reminiscent of Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’):

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Cults.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Cults.html)

I try to outline some of the subjective factors here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by RedDali+--> (RedDali)Most anarchists don't even read anything that Lenin, or his supporters, write. [/b]

Actually a lot of the anarchists that i know are ex-Marxists or Leninists, and of those who are not, many have still read Lenin.


RedDali

They are also untrained in history, pointing at Lenin and having similiar historical interpretations of the Russian Revolution as Reagan or a 8th grade social studies teacher.

What is it about anarchism that by association makes one 'untrained' in history? I'm an anarchist, and a history major. That anarchists may disagree with the marxist portrayl of the history of the Soviet Union does not mean that they are 'untrained', they just have a different perspective on events.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:37 PM
Fantastic. A topic about the need for unity turns into... an argument. Even brought Kronstadt into it! :P

There's a good reason why I have the Socialist Unity blog as one of the first tabs on my web browser!
You want the Weekly Worker. It's my first port of call for sectarian gossip dressed up as politics. ;)

[Nusocialist]

I find it highly doubtful that the peasants actuallly supported Lenin when he stole from them. Those elections were obviously rigged.
Actually Lenin and the Bolsheviks lost the election in either 1917 or 1918 to the peasant party, the social revolutionaries.

[CheRev]

It´s really annoying the lack of unity on the left, but to plaster over the cracks would be false and only a short-term solution, and these same cracks would surface in the future.

I also think the lack of unity is what turns many potential comrades away from actively pursuing communism. They ´give up´, because they can´t see how it would be possible for such a splintered left to succeed. I think it´s one of the key issues we need to overcome in order to gain some ground.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Che, I could not have put it better myself, that is why I attached the links above.

Check them out.

[TedGrant]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 02:24 PM
Here are the beginnings of a sociological explanation for why we on the left hate each other more than we hate the capitalists (reminiscent of Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’):

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Bac...xt27/Cults.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Cults.html)

I try to outline some of the subjective factors here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm
Hi Rosa
I have tried to follow your anti DM arguments and to be honest I dont think I am on the same level as your good self to be able in any way to criticise your works.

All I would like to ask you is this .
'Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it'.

What is your manifesto/guide to action?

(I realise that this isnt the point of the thread but my participation in forums like this is ,as a reader, to be educated and enlightened. Also I cant type , so my engagement is limited.)

Are the Marxist left doomed?

[Sa'd al-Bari]

The thing is there is such a complex myriad of issues out there across such huge boundaries of nations, ethnicity, age, gender, etc. that by supporting different things, different methods, at different places and different times, often leftists group wind up being quite different from each other. It’s important to remember that people often do things according to their own environment experience. Complex struggles and obstacles will give rise to a complex and varied movement to address these issues. You can hope for all of the varied units to get together and hold hands until pigs fly, but the fact is it won’t happen. That’s why materialism is so important, actually.

It’s important to note that the left is more weak and fragmented in the capitalist center, and as you move to the periphery they become more united and strong. Something to think about.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:22 AM

I find it highly doubtful that the peasants actuallly supported Lenin when he stole from them. Those elections were obviously rigged.
Actually Lenin and the Bolsheviks lost the election in either 1917 or 1918 to the peasant party, the social revolutionaries.
During the period following the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks assisted millions of peasants in the redistribution of land to the poorer elements of that class from former nobles. Support certainly temporarily rallied around this Bolshevik push even though the rural areas of Russia were terrified about the current seizure of power by the soviets. But Lenin and Marx predicted, as well as Engels when he wrote about revolutionary Germany, knew that the peasant class have seperate economic interests from that of the proletarian class. They all knew that they will either join the revolutionary element of the country at that time, or stand against it. Through the further isolation of Russia, the White Army (mostly peasants) and intervening armies continued to pummel the country vicously, creating mass food shortages, poverty, and famine. This forced Lenin to grant concessions to the capitalists and peasants of Russia, in order to save Russia from absolute destruction and maybe lay a early seed for socialism.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

"War Communism"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ted:


What is your manifesto/guide to action?

At the risk of derailing this thread, it needs emphasising that I am in 100% agreement with historical materialism.

My 'guide to action' is best summed up here:

http://www.swp.org.uk/where.php




Are the Marxist left doomed?

My guess is that we will continue to fragment, and fail once again to seize the masses as a result, who will then distrust us even more, and go into a long slow decline, [i]unless we begin to learn from the past.

There is little sign so far that many on this board (and elsewhere) are prepared to do that, for reasons I outline at my site.

Here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

and here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

[Nusocialist]

During the period following the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks assisted millions of peasants in the redistribution of land to the poorer elements of that class from former nobles. Support certainly temporarily rallied around this Bolshevik push even though the rural areas of Russia were terrified about the current seizure of power by the soviets. But Lenin and Marx predicted, as well as Engels when he wrote about revolutionary Germany, knew that the peasant class have seperate economic interests from that of the proletarian class. They all knew that they will either join the revolutionary element of the country at that time, or stand against it. Through the further isolation of Russia, the White Army (mostly peasants) and intervening armies continued to pummel the country vicously, creating mass food shortages, poverty, and famine. This forced Lenin to grant concessions to the capitalists and peasants of Russia, in order to save Russia from absolute destruction and maybe lay a early seed for socialism.
The peasant party,the social revolutionaries were socialist and radicals if not marxists.They weren't supporters of capitalism and Lenin ignored the democratic will of the russian people and socialism is meaningless without democracy.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

The peasant party,the social revolutionaries were socialist and radicals if not marxists.They weren't supporters of capitalism and Lenin ignored the democratic will of the russian people and socialism is meaningless without democracy.
Ridiculous. The “social revolutionaries” were completely against the Bolsheviks from the start and wanted to continue Russia’s participation in World War 1 and all of the devastation that it brought. Here’s what they said the day after the October Revolution:

“Comrade Peasants! All liberties gained with the blood of your sons and brothers are now in terrible, mortal jeopardy… Again a blow is being inflicted upon the army, which defends the homeland and the revolution from external defeat. (The Bolsheviks) divide the forces of the toiling people… The blow against the army is the first and the worst crime of the Bolshevik party! Second, they have started a civil war and have seized power by violence… (The Bolshevik promises) will be followed not by peace but by slavery.”

So right off the bat they wanted to continue Russian participation in the imperialist war and were throwing accusations at the Bolsheviks. Some friends of Marxists they were…

These “socialists” wanted to form with Mensheviks and bourgeois Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) a “Union for the Resurrection of Russia’. According to Kerensky: “They believed that a national government had to be created on democratic principles in the broadest possible sense, and that the front against Germany had to be restored in cooperation with Russia’s western Allies”.

Kerensky went to London on June 20, 1918 on behalf of this Union, and announced to Prime Minister Lloyd George:

“It was the aim of the government now being formed… to continue the war alongside the Allies, to free Russia from Bolshevik tyranny, and to restore a democratic system.”

Kerensky, in the name of the Union requested allied intervention in Russia and set up a Directorate in Siberia consisting of these “socialists”, bourgeois Cadets, and Tsarist generals Alekseyev and Boldyrev. The British and French governments would have gone with them as a legal government had they not decided to go with Kolchak instead. All of this, I mind you, as the Soviet Government was still being established and had not yet even firmly formed security in Petrograd and Moscow. Of course, ensuing was the Russian Civil War.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Thanks Sa'd al-Bari. I was busy today so I couldn't respond.

[black magick hustla]

It is a known fact that the bolsheviks made a coup against the socialist revolutionaries.

Regardless if the SRs were "reactionary" or "bourgeosie", it is an established fact that SR had a wider support base than the bolsheviks.

Of course, the bolsheviks had the support of the industrial sector [which was pretty small], but arguing that the bolsheviks established themselves by democratic means is pretty fucking absurd.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:37 PM
Fantastic. A topic about the need for unity turns into... an argument. Even brought Kronstadt into it! :P

There's a good reason why I have the Socialist Unity blog as one of the first tabs on my web browser!
Gotta say British trotskyisms the best for splits. I mean we are even people of the same basic ideas but we're brilliant at fighting amongst ourselves. I'm sure you're aware of the stae of the SSP, you said you were a member in another thread... Were you at the rally on saturday?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm not sure British Trots are the worst; it's an international phenomenon:

http://www.broadleft.org/trotskyi.htm

Communist parties (etc) are only marginally better (mainly becuse they tend to bump each other off):

http://www.broadleft.org/communis.htm

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:42 AM
It is a known fact that the bolsheviks made a coup against the socialist revolutionaries.

Regardless if the SRs were "reactionary" or "bourgeosie", it is an established fact that SR had a wider support base than the bolsheviks.

Of course, the bolsheviks had the support of the industrial sector [which was pretty small], but arguing that the bolsheviks established themselves by democratic means is pretty fucking absurd.
"It is a known fact that the bolsheviks made a coup against the socialist revolutionaries."

I hate how everyone thinks that the coup was something made by a small hierarchy of grumpy, old intellectuals within the Bolshevik Party. On the contrary, after a significant millitary revolt within the Petrograd area that was known as the July Days, public opinion towards the provisional government was rather unfavorable. Going into fall, the Baltic fleet abandoned the government and the Petrograd Soldier's Soviet declared that it would no longer follow the orders of Kerensky. This set off larger strikes across the country and significantly boosted trade union membership. Many factions of the Bolshevik Party were demanding that they take a less revolutionary policy, and actual participate more within the parliamentarian system. But the All-Russian conference of factory and shop committees voted 'yes' to the support of placing state power into the hands of the soviets. So no, the workers of Russia made a coup against the socialist revolutionaries.

"Regardless if the SRs were "reactionary" or "bourgeosie", it is an established fact that SR had a wider support base than the bolsheviks."

Any marxist would come to the conclusion that support should be placed behind the proletarian class. That is what made the Russian Revolution so special. It followed direct marxist principles.

"but arguing that the bolsheviks established themselves by democratic means is pretty fucking absurd."

All political acts during the historical period of 1917-1918 was done through strictly democratic means. The working class of Russia decided what actions the state would take in the implementation of socialism.

[citizen_snips]

Originally posted by The Grinch+Aug 31 2006, 10:34 PM--> (The Grinch @ Aug 31 2006, 10:34 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 12:37 PM
Fantastic. A topic about the need for unity turns into... an argument. Even brought Kronstadt into it! :P

There's a good reason why I have the Socialist Unity blog as one of the first tabs on my web browser!
You want the Weekly Worker. It's my first port of call for sectarian gossip dressed up as politics. ;) [/b]
That's true. I knew the Weekly Worker had a purpose!

[Messiah]

In a lot of ways it's cyclical. Us North American communists and anarchists have very little to do. I mean, we got war rallies, and we organize no doubt, and we do a lot of good work (and as should continue to) but in the end we're not seeing the impact that we want. We're still a very weak minority against an incredibly strong majority. Thus, we have a lot of time on our hands, too much in fact, and we spend it by taking our frustrations out on each other.

If and when the time comes, that some tangible revolutionary goals can be achieved in the West, I suspect most of these divisions will dissappear if we are to have any success. I'll be honest and say that I don't think Leninism has any place in the future, not even because I disagree with their views, but because of the amount of work they have to do. Not only do they have to reform people's image of communism, they have to reform their image of certain people, which to me is absurd.

I may be way off base her but I think by an large anarchism and left communism are more popular today than the Marxist ideologies, at least in the West. That's just my highly suspect reading of it. And as a result I think a lot of people, rightly, are putting behind them a lot of the old world problems. Very few of newer generation of revolutionaries really give a crap about Lenin, or Stalin or even Trotsky, except to say that they want little to no association with them.

In the end, our greatest success towards unity will come when someone, somewhere does something tangible. It is my hope that common sense will previal then and people will realize we have to work together or perish. It comes down to that. The capitalists cannot wait to humiliate and crush us, the least we need to do is give them more opportunities to do this.