On the "slur" of "Leninism"

[LSD]

Originally posted by Severian
Y'know, you're labelled anarchist, I'm labelled Leninist. Therefore you automatically represent Freedom™ and I automatically represent Tyranny™. Nothing you do or say can possibly change that.

I am not allowed to question your claim to represent Freedom™, because that is hypocrisy, because of assorted tired historical arguments.

You're right, it's not "fair", but then you're the one who chose to link yourself to a decrepit ideology.

You're like a holocaust denier, not in the sense that you justify racism, but in that your politics are so tied into history that they have more to do with the particulars of the 1930s than an analysis of society.

You reject the "label" "Leninist", but you embrace the term "Trotskyist" for yourself and others. "Trotskyist", basically, meaning an adherence to the ideas and actions (?) of a Russian politician of the 1920s.

And yet somehow I'm in the wrong for bringing Russian history into the discussion... :rolleyes:

You model your politics on the iron notion that, 80 years ago, a "workers' state" was in the works, but was "ddegenerated" along the way.

That is the holy Trotskyist trinity after all: Lenin didn't implement proletarian government when he was alive because "times weren't right", after he died Stalin perverted his ideas, if only Trotsky had taken over instead the USSR would have worked.

It's a nice theory, very clean. But it doesn't really leave much room for verifiability, does it? Basically the theory postulates that "real" Leninism has never been put into practice and that we should ignore everything that "Leninists" have done and consider only what what the man himself wrote.

Now, as Communists and Anarchists we should be used to unverified theories. After all, there has yet to be a proletarian governed society so we're all rellying upon theory and speculation.

But the thing about Leninism is that, like it or not, a whole bunch of people have tried to put it into effect. Were a good number of them inspired (or even funded) by Stalin and his successors? Of course. But not all of them.

Like him or hate him, Lenin has been the iconic figure of the international revolutionary left for nearly 100 years. In the minds of millions, his name has been appended to that of Marx.

And yet, we are expected to believe that not once have his actual theories been put into effect? That every single one of his "adherents" were corrupt or imperialist or "Stalinist"?

Doesn't that seem awfully convenient?

Doesn't it, in fact, bear a striking resemblence to the "libertarian" position? That capitalism "would work" if only it were "structured properly"? They too propose that we ignore generations of evidence and relly only upon the "theory" that they present.

Leninists are to the state what "Libertarians" are to capitalism.

Instead of recognizing it as a fundamentally oppressive entity, once which, in its present form, developed to serve bourgeois class interests, they see it as something which can be "reformed" or "fixed".

Now, at a fundmental level, Lenin may actually have been right about this. Or, more properly put, Marx may have actually been right about this. The thing you have to remember about Marx's analysis of the state, however, is that it came out of his theories on historical materialism. Specifically the theory that the state has always been a tool for the rulling class (or classes) to dominate the rest of society.

The typical Marxist conclusion, therefore, is to say that once the proletariat siezes power, it too must use the state. To me, however, that seems like a needlessly deterministic approach to the issue.

There is no "must" in politics, especially not radical politics. A proletarian revolution is not just another class victory. As Marx himself pointed out, it will mark the first time that the majority gains authority over the minority instead of the other way around and as such is unique in human history.

An elite needs centralized power to enforce its will. A majority however, does not.

Because the workers are society and society is the workers (in a postrevolutionary society, all other classes quickly cease to be relevent), there is no need for a seperation between the community and the "government".

Who knows? Maybe this community-wide decentralized majoritarian governance is what the "state" will be under proletarian management. But that kind of a state is definitely not what Lenin meant by the term.

We can debate ad nauseum just how "democratic" the Bolshevik state was, but what's really relevent here is not how many people voted or how many "deputees" were subject to recall, but that the formulation of government was based on the bourgeois model.

USSR. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

There is no more bourgeois a form of "leadership" than the "democratic" Republic, it offers all the legitimacy of democracy with none of the risk of actual mass control. There's a reason why the entire "first world" is so constituted and why the rest is so eager to pose as it.

In looking through a political atlas these days, you'd be quite hard-pressed these days to find a country that doesn't call itself a republic. Even the most brutal military dicatorships still insist that they are "republican".

That's the model that the "socialists" in the Bolshevik party chose to follow? That's what Lenin thought would "lead the way to communism"?

Earlier I spoke of verifiability and Trotskyism's failure to have any. Well on this question, it's actually even worse than that. "Real Leninism" in an orthodox Trotskyist sense may never have been realized, but the republic has been realized time and time again and it has yet to lead to anything but continued class oppression. And that includes the Soviet Union and all its immitators.

Trotsky died at the peak of Stalinism so he never got to see the "revisionism" that followed, but his political descendents have tried to theorize in his name. Stalin represented a bureaucratic counterrevolution against Lenin, so Khruschev must represent a bureaucratic counterrevolution agaiinst Stalin.

Like with most Trotkyist theories, it's very clean. But it seems to come at the entire issue of Soviet leadership from a rather askew angle.

The question should not be why was Stain a bad leader (or Khruschev or Brezhnev or Gorbachev), it should be why was he leader at all. Why was the Soviet government structures so as to be maleable to one man rule.

The answer to that question, of course, is that Lenin set it up that way and so, here again, we run into that inpenetrable Trotskyist brick wall: Lenin didn't implement proletarian government when he was alive because "times weren't right", after he died Stalin perverted his ideas, if only Trotsky had taken over instead the USSR would have worked.

It's a clean theory, but it just isn't enough.

It may not be "fair" to link Leninism to Stalinism, but in the end they are politically inseperable and the one has lead to the other every single time it's been attempted.

Does that mean that Trotsky was wrong and Leninism can't actually work? I have no idea. But at this point, it doesn't really even matter. Leninism's time is done. It may never have gotten a "fair shake", but it's gotten 83 years of virtually unchallenged leadership and that's enough.

Many "Leninist" and "Trotskyist" ideas may even be good. Many of them clearly aren't, but no socialist current it without its redeming attributes. Those workable ideas, however, need to be extracted from their historical baggage before they can have any practical significance.

So is it wrong to condemn "Leninists" for the actions of Lenin? No. By tying yourselves with him you implicitly take responsiblity for the man's actions and politics.

The modern anarchist movement has moved well beyond the petty reaction of its early founders, its time that the rest of you do the same.

Ideas need to stand on their own. The lessons of the past should never be forgotten, but current affairs have about as much to do with "Menchiviks" and "Iskra" as they do with Chartism and Earl Grey.

Our course is not going to be set by dead Russians, it's going to be set by us. And as long as you tie yourself into the past instead of the future, the condemnations you recieve are perfectly justified.

If you don't like the baggage of being a "Leninst", don't be one! There's a reason that there are no more "Bakuninists". Personalized politics are implicitly reactionary. If you like some of Lenin's ideas, that's great. So do I. But the age of icon "Marxism" is over.

It's time to take back the wheel.

[apathy maybe]

Wow! That is amazing! I loved it. It completely agree about how anarchists do attach to anyone theorizers (I said something like that my self somewhere:)).

It is time we moved beyond Leninism and Marxism. Call yourself a communist sure, but even Marx is starting to look a bit old. Take the good stuff, throw away the rest.

Almost every other political movement does it, so why not you?

[Honggweilo]

Almost every other political movement does it, so why not you?

Is that seriously an argument? and by other politcal movements you mean who? neo-liberal/conservative reactionairy parties? :blink: their not trowing the old away, their returning the clock 100 years back into the past.

marxism and leninism is inherent to historical progress. but i guess im going to get anarchist rethoric barraged at me now :ph34r:

[STI]

marxism and leninism is inherent to historical progress. but i guess im going to get anarchist rethoric barraged at me now ph34r.gif

No, but you are going to get called out for making a blanket statement without any supporting argument.

Consider that "anarchist rhetoric" if you will, but you're still full of shit.

[apathy maybe]

Is that seriously an argument? and by other politcal movements you mean who? neo-liberal/conservative reactionairy parties?
Conservatives are a political ideology. It is an idea of how society should proceed. That is slowly and with respect for tradition. Who were the conservatives in the USSR in 1991? Are they the same conservatives as in the USA at the same time? Fuck no. Different country, different conservatives.

Liberals (that is classical liberals) have thrown away a lot of shit and moved forward. The theoreticians of liberalism today have radically different ideas to those of even 50 years ago. Democracy is one area where it is obvious that classical liberalism has moved forward. At its conception liberalism wanted government by the property owners, liberals now generally want a "democracy" of all.

The same with anarchism. You compare anarchist writings to those written 50 years ago and there is a marked difference. In those 50 years you see Bookchin introduce widely the idea of eco-anarchism for example. You also a completely new reaction to new international institutions.

Yet it seems that Leninist/Trotskyists are still pushing the same barrow.

[Ol' Dirty]

:) Absolutely, LSD! Bang on. Job well done, freind.

The time of Leninism is over. Hell, the time of Marxism is over! It is high time the proletariat got its act togther and put its shoulder to the wheel, so to speak. We must unbind ourselves from the chains of ideology and move on!

To use an anacrhronism , Workers of the World Unite!

[YKTMX]

That is the holy Trotskyist trinity after all: Lenin didn't implement proletarian government when he was alive because "times weren't right", after he died Stalin perverted his ideas, if only Trotsky had taken over instead the USSR would have worked.


Once again, no group or Trotskyist theorist has ever claimed this. We see the defeat of the Left Opposition, and Trotsky's personal defeat, as merely indicators of a general process of counter-revolution. The overthrowing of the working class by the bureaucracy was mirrored by the defeat within the Bolshevik Party, it did not "cause" it.

Trotsky lost because, amongst other things, he aligned himself with a social class (the proletariat) that was in the descendent politically in Russia, whereas Stalin aligned with an ascendant social class (the bureaucracy).

We don't believe the rubbish that if only Trotsky had been "more Machiavellian", then he would have won and automatically the Soviet Union would not have went the way it did. Ironically, this is a totally Stalinist analysis.

Sure, if Trotsky had, by some fluke of history, won his battle against the Rightists in the Party, he could have slown down the pace of counter-revolution with his efforts within the Russian state. But, as he realised and as we realise to this day, only worldwide socialist revolution could have solved Russia's internal contradictions.

So, LSD, if you do really want to "debate" the history, you're going to have to stop, for a second, being totally dishonest in it.

I know anarchists like to set up strawmen to beat, but you're going to have to resist it for a second if you want an "honest" debate.


Basically the theory postulates that "real" Leninism has never been put into practice and that we should ignore everything that "Leninists" have done and consider only what what the man himself wrote.


No, this, once again, is not the theory. The theory is that "Leninism" (working class self-emancipation, revolutionary party, workers' state) had been "tried" in Russia, but was brutally suppressed by a reactionary social strata that arose from within the process itself. A process distorted by a series of objective historical facts and circumstances.

The fact that Stalin continued to use "Leninism" as his raison d'etre is about as historically important as the fact that Napoleon claimed he was fighting for the "French Republic" or George Bush and his "freedom and democracy" efforts in Iraq.


Like him or hate him, Lenin has been the iconic figure of the international revolutionary left for nearly 100 years.

Icon is the correct word. In fact, it's impossible to seperate the historical Lenin and Leninism precisely because of the ridiculous treatment of him after the Stalinist counter-revolution. Lenin never wanted to be an "icon". He wanted his legacy merely to be Russian socialism.


Doesn't that seem awfully convenient?

The important question is not "convenience" but whether it's true or not? Something shouldn't be dismissed because it's "convenient" to some group. Because, of course, if the opposite were true, and Leninism was a dead duck and responsible for Stalinism, this would also be "convenient" to some people - namely anarchists, social democrats, fascists, imperialists etc.

So, when thinking about this, it's important to analyse facts as they are and not as you'd "hoped" they'd be.

Where the regimes set up in the name of Marx and Lenin Marxist and Leninst? Did they conform to Marx and Lenin's theories and writings in the either the way they were brought about or their structures?

If the answer is no, then say it's no.


So is it wrong to condemn "Leninists" for the actions of Lenin? No.

Nothing would fill my heart with greater joy, pride and happinness than to be associated personally and politically with how Lenin lived his life and conducted himself as a person and as a revolutionary socialist.


The modern anarchist movement has moved well beyond the petty reaction of its early founders, its time that the rest of you do the same.

Well, fine, since you brought it up, let's talk about the modern anarchist "movement".

In the areas of the world (very few) where is it completely non-existant, it survives as a shambolic relic of the past. Its cadre are unsympathetic, petty bourgeois malcontents with a disdain for the working class, absolutely no connection to the people they purport to represent and a fetishistic desire to ridicule and attack other members of the "left". It remains hermetically sealed within the borders of North-East America, Italy and Spain with absolutely no prospects for expansion. Most workers who break with capitalism still head over to Marxism and consider Anarchism the preserve of socially unfit provactuers and grandstanders. Its "groups" content themselves with fighting with the police, hijacking other peoples demos and being macho-aggressive.


As to the wider thrust of your piece, I do think you're shadow-boxing a bit. I think most of us, when pushed, would describe ourselves as socialists, not Leninists. We would self-desribe as "Leninist" in places like this, where the differences that that label implies become important.

And sure, for us, or for me and the people I know at least, defending Lenin and the history of the Russian revolution is important. Not only because people like you and your comrades would wish to defame it and claim it back for everything that we despise - defeatism, subjectivism, the forces of reaction etc. But because, fundamentally, we believe that the victory of the Russian Revolution (the only successful workers' revolution in history) and the politics of the Bolshevik Party is a lesson for us today.

And that doesn't mean that we accept everything Lenin ever did, or don't criticise him for the things he didn't do.

It means that we accept, as a historical fact, that the revolution won where others were suppressed because of the things Lenin, the Bolsheviks and, above all, the Russian proletariat did. And that those lessons will stand up, will remain crucial when we face similar decisions and paths in our revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

"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

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:44 AM







Because the workers are society and society is the workers (in a postrevolutionary society, all other classes quickly cease to be relevent), there is no need for a seperation between the community and the "government".

Who knows? Maybe this community-wide decentralized majoritarian governance is what the "state" will be under proletarian management. But that kind of a state is definitely not what Lenin meant by the term.

We can debate ad nauseum just how "democratic" the Bolshevik state was, but what's really relevent here is not how many people voted or how many "deputees" were subject to recall, but that the formulation of government was based on the bourgeois model.

USSR. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

There is no more bourgeois a form of "leadership" than the "democratic" Republic, it offers all the legitimacy of democracy with none of the risk of actual mass control. There's a reason why the entire "first world" is so constituted and why the rest is so eager to pose as it.


But then, how are you going to magically abolish the state over night? This is what Marxists recognise, the state can start withering away post revolution, but abolishing it instantly is unfeasible.

And the anarchists in Spain showed that. Their failure to know how to do this, lead to them ending up joining the Popular front goverment.


In looking through a political atlas these days, you'd be quite hard-pressed these days to find a country that doesn't call itself a republic. Even the most brutal military dicatorships still insist that they are "republican".
Irrelevant. Unless we're going to accept that the Nazis were "socialist" and the GDR "democratic". And I suspect neither of us would.

Judging states by their actions as opposed to their words is the first principle of politics.

[Rawthentic]

Letting go of Lenin, Ive been saying it all along, but letting go of Marx is absurd, he came up with the revolutionary theory of class struggle, his effects have reverberated around the globe abd will keep doing so. To think that by "letting go of our ideological change" we will proceed, you are utopian and idiotic. There will always be ideologies and -isms, even within the future communist society, for not everyone will agree with eachother. Letting go of Marx would be like forgetting about communism, because one way or the other, if you advocate revolution, you are tied to Marx.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 01:01 AM


In the areas of the world (very few) where is it completely non-existant, it survives as a shambolic relic of the past. Its cadre are unsympathetic, petty bourgeois malcontents with a disdain for the working class, absolutely no connection to the people they purport to represent and a fetishistic desire to ridicule and attack other members of the "left". It remains hermetically sealed within the borders of North-East America, Italy and Spain with absolutely no prospects for expansion. Most workers who break with capitalism still head over to Marxism and consider Anarchism the preserve of socially unfit provactuers and grandstanders. Its "groups" content themselves with fighting with the police, hijacking other peoples demos and being macho-aggressive.


Tell that to the 60 000 members of the CGT and 10 000 members of the CNT comrade.

How many members do the largest trotskyst groups have--around a few thousand?

How ironic, a cliffite condemning anarchists of sectarianism and petty bourgeoisness. :lol:

[KC]

But the thing about Leninism is that, like it or not, a whole bunch of people have tried to put it into effect. Were a good number of them inspired (or even funded) by Stalin and his successors? Of course. But not all of them.

And all of these events have failed to yield serious results for various reasons. To say "they were trying to implement Leninism and they failed so Leninism is a failure" is the most childish argument I've ever seen. Moreover, "Leninism" as an ideology doesn't exist. The so-called "Leninism" that you are referring to is Marxism for 1917 Russia. That's it.

Moreover, thoese so-called "attempts" to "put [Leninism] into effect" were never "Leninist" (mostly because "Leninism" doesn't exist).



And yet, we are expected to believe that not once have his actual theories been put into effect? That every single one of his "adherents" were corrupt or imperialist or "Stalinist"?

Nearly all of his theories were clarifications of Marxist theory. His expansions on Marxist theory are due to imperialism.



Leninists are to the state what "Libertarians" are to capitalism.

Instead of recognizing it as a fundamentally oppressive entity, once which, in its present form, developed to serve bourgeois class interests, they see it as something which can be "reformed" or "fixed".

Maybe you failed to notice this, but it was Marx that first supported the state. Right here you are arguing against Marx and not Lenin. Of course, you go on to say this:


Now, at a fundmental level, Lenin may actually have been right about this. Or, more properly put, Marx may have actually been right about this. The thing you have to remember about Marx's analysis of the state, however, is that it came out of his theories on historical materialism. Specifically the theory that the state has always been a tool for the rulling class (or classes) to dominate the rest of society.

The typical Marxist conclusion, therefore, is to say that once the proletariat siezes power, it too must use the state. To me, however, that seems like a needlessly deterministic approach to the issue.

But this only after you attack Lenin for the theory.



An elite needs centralized power to enforce its will. A majority however, does not.

And if you understood the way in which Marx used the term "state" you would understand that it doesn't need to be centralized to be a state.



Who knows? Maybe this community-wide decentralized majoritarian governance is what the "state" will be under proletarian management. But that kind of a state is definitely not what Lenin meant by the term.

I suggest that you read State & Revolution.



We can debate ad nauseum just how "democratic" the Bolshevik state was, but what's really relevent here is not how many people voted or how many "deputees" were subject to recall, but that the formulation of government was based on the bourgeois model.


You fail to understand the fact that what the Bolsheviks did in Russia was due to material conditions at the time and that Lenin's theories on the state therefore are not the same. You are trying to say that Lenin believed the Bolshevik state was a model that should be applied in every country systematically, regardless of material conditions, when, in fact, the opposite is clearly true (as seen in State & Revolution).

[Guest1]

Wow, so full of holes.

I think you kind of missed the mark on this one bro.

You have yet to actually become aware of objective process, you talk the talk but you definitely don't walk the walk. It's not enough to simply say you're a materialist, your conclusions must come from a judgement of the balance of forces and the material conditions of the situation.

In the case of Russia, the material conditions were decidedly backward, meaning the balance of forces was skewed against the proletariat as well. The Bolsheviks led a revolution with a proletarian minority in a coalition with a larger peasantry united behind the leadership of the working class. This was the situation in 1917.

That situation was untenable so long as Russia was isolated, only with the support of a revolutionary proletariat in an industrialized country in Europe could the Russian proletariat develop its industry and move towards a Socialist economy and end the grip of the peasantry and the trends towards capitalism within it.

Unfortunately, those revolutions failed, and Russia was left isolated. At this point the proletariat had no choice but to give concessions to the peasant majority, moving on would have meant war. This limbo within the country meant the rise of the bureaucratic caste within and around the party of the working class, the working class that was becoming disillusioned.

Stalin was simply an expression of this process, the stall of the revolution, and he and this bureaucratic caste saw this process through to the end. Once the stall began, it grew into a counter-revolution, and we can see the beginnings of the end planted right in those years.

Every step the bureaucrats took was one of destructive, uneven, bureaucratic maneuvering. Hence the democratically planned economy became the economy of bureaucratic command, the temporary concessions of Lenin towards the peasant masses became the all-important "incentives" of the Stalin era. The left opposition's demands to collectivize the peasantry gradually to end their influence are ridiculed and even spark witch-hunts. Until of course, it becomes dangerous to the bureaucrats to allow the peasantry any more influence, and all of a sudden the line is collectivize by force of arms in a few short years.

Which of course, is the story of the famines.

I'm not sure how unclear or "convenient" this is, it's just history, written from the materialist point of view. That is, the point of view that objective factors and conditions are the most important, and ideologies and the men that lead should only be considered within the context of the greater material situation around them.

[apathy maybe]

What I love about Marxists and Russia in 1917, is that they wanted Lenin to implement proletariat control. (Or at least the Leninists do.) But according to Marxian analysis you couldn't get socialism in a country that hadn't under gone a bourgeois revolution and a period of capitalism. The revolution in February (March) of 1917 was this bourgeois revolution, but there wasn't a period of capitalism.

So why do Leninists (who claim to be Marxists), want to implement proletariat control when the conditions where not right for it (i.e. they were not in a majority)?

[Dyst]

As weird as it may seem to some of you kids, you are either a capitalist or a communist.

The reason some (though not many) of the youth today simply want to get rid of the state (and create a "free" society though of course bringing unclarity as to how that would function) is a product of real left-wing (communist) politics being slurred and hidden by the capitalist media. Obviously it hides (if not, attacks or subtly attacks) the thoughts which are actually really a threat to them.

This is one reason anarchists represents perhaps the largest revolutionary left in the US (don't know the amount, plus I don't even live in the US, this is simply what I've experienced through communication with americans).

Now, don't get me wrong. Anarchists can be okay. As long as one of their main priorities is in getting rid of capitalism. When anarchists starts to denounce real communists and even Marx (are you fucking doped?) you gotta realize that Marx and the revolutionary movements he among others helped give birth to has been the ones closest to challenge capitalism.

Basicly, you denounce communism if you denounce Marx. You become a capitalist.


Letting go of Marx would be like forgetting about communism, because one way or the other, if you advocate revolution, you are tied to Marx.

Exactly.

Some of the anarchists in here should stop watching Fox news.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Marmot+Aug 29 2006, 03:10 AM--> (Marmot @ Aug 29 2006, 03:10 AM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 01:01 AM


In the areas of the world (very few) where is it completely non-existant, it survives as a shambolic relic of the past. Its cadre are unsympathetic, petty bourgeois malcontents with a disdain for the working class, absolutely no connection to the people they purport to represent and a fetishistic desire to ridicule and attack other members of the "left". It remains hermetically sealed within the borders of North-East America, Italy and Spain with absolutely no prospects for expansion. Most workers who break with capitalism still head over to Marxism and consider Anarchism the preserve of socially unfit provactuers and grandstanders. Its "groups" content themselves with fighting with the police, hijacking other peoples demos and being macho-aggressive.


Tell that to the 60 000 members of the CGT and 10 000 members of the CNT comrade.

How many members do the largest trotskyst groups have--around a few thousand?

How ironic, a cliffite condemning anarchists of sectarianism and petty bourgeoisness. :lol: [/b]
I said "Marxism" not "Trotskyism".

And the CGT are a trade union in decline. Are you saying everyone in the CGT is an anarcho-syndicalist?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 29 2006, 11:21 AM
What I love about Marxists and Russia in 1917, is that they wanted Lenin to implement proletariat control. (Or at least the Leninists do.) But according to Marxian analysis you couldn't get socialism in a country that hadn't under gone a bourgeois revolution and a period of capitalism. The revolution in February (March) of 1917 was this bourgeois revolution, but there wasn't a period of capitalism.

So why do Leninists (who claim to be Marxists), want to implement proletariat control when the conditions where not right for it (i.e. they were not in a majority)?
I am not a Leninist.

I am not a Leninist because I think Lenin's theory on the relationship between class and ideology, class and vanguard, is wrong*. Not because Lenin is outdated, not because Lenin lived in the beggining of the XX century, not because Lenin was Russian.

Those who reject Lenin for those foolish reasons do not reject what is problematic in Leninisn - substitutionism. In fact, some who claim to be Anti-Leninist are worse substitutionists than Lenin ever was.

Lenin's other contributions - his analysis of the development of capitalism in Russia, his analysis of "proletarian aristocracy", his analysis of imperialism, - should not be rejected without being carefully read and understood. They are very important contributions to revolutionary theory.

* in fact, I believe it is anti-Marxist.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

"Trotskyist", basically, meaning an adherence to the ideas and actions (?) of a Russian politician of the 1920s.

"Trotskyist" means someone who adheres to "organisational" Leninism (ie, the idea that the working class vanguard come from outside the class and is the bearer of "proletarian ideology"), plus Trotsky's theories of "Unequal and Combined Development of Capitalism" and "Permanent Revolution".

It doesn't mean (necessarily, though I am sure some "Trotskyists" adhere to it) a belief that Trotsky pissed gold.

It also cannot be summed up like


That is the holy Trotskyist trinity after all: Lenin didn't implement proletarian government when he was alive because "times weren't right", after he died Stalin perverted his ideas, if only Trotsky had taken over instead the USSR would have worked.

Which is a weak charicature.


The modern anarchist movement has moved well beyond the petty reaction of its early founders, its time that the rest of you do the same.

Has it?


There's a reason that there are no more "Bakuninists". Personalized politics are implicitly reactionary.

The reasons that there are no more "Bakuninists" is that, as far as I am informed, you can't extract a single important theory, right or wrong, from Bakunin's writings, only prejudices and abstract generalisations (if I am wrong, please correct me).

This is completely different from the case of Marx, who gave us an in-depth analysis of capitalism, most of which remains valid today, like it or not.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

It is time we moved beyond Leninism and Marxism. Call yourself a communist sure, but even Marx is starting to look a bit old. Take the good stuff, throw away the rest.

Well, corpses do look a bit old. However Marx had brought a method which still credible today (historical materialism). 'Marxism' is like 'Darwinism', it is about the terms those people introduced to certain sciences. It was evolution for Darwin, it is class struggle for Marx. I agree that Communism sounds better, but scientifically, that is when you add Historical Materialism into Communism, it is 'Marxism'.

Of course, this is not to say, ever, that everything Marx said were right. That goes without saying when we are talking about social sciences and communism.


But then, how are you going to magically abolish the state over night? This is what Marxists recognise, the state can start withering away post revolution, but abolishing it instantly is unfeasible.

State doesn't dissapear overnight, this is true, it has to be crushed tough, as soon as possible.

If you are interested:

http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/ci...rance/index.htm (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)


And all of these events have failed to yield serious results for various reasons. To say "they were trying to implement Leninism and they failed so Leninism is a failure" is the most childish argument I've ever seen. Moreover, "Leninism" as an ideology doesn't exist. The so-called "Leninism" that you are referring to is Marxism for 1917 Russia. That's it.

Leninism (as in Lenin's practice) = Kautskyism for Russia + Bakunin and Nechayev's Substituionalism/Elitism + Chernichevski on the National Question + Marx at "When There is State There Can't be Freedom" and April Theses

Obviously 'Leninism' has lots of contradicting parts, what he got from Marx contradicts the other parts of his ideology, and we see that the other parts became much more dominant after the Bolshevik Revolution.


His expansions on Marxist theory are due to imperialism.

I disagree, also his concept of imperialism was far weaker than Rosa Luxemburg's.


Maybe you failed to notice this, but it was Marx that first supported the state. Right here you are arguing against Marx and not Lenin.

Please read this:

http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/ci...rance/index.htm (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)


You fail to understand the fact that what the Bolsheviks did in Russia was due to material conditions at the time and that Lenin's theories on the state therefore are not the same.

Neither Lenin nor any other Bolshevik actually had no idea on what they should do after the revolution. In his own words "No one had studied it :o " Lenin did not act accoringly on what he wrote on the "State and Revolution" (he rejected the accuracy of that just a year after when it was written), but the way Bolsheviks carried out their practice was due to substitutionalism. They were a small group who sat down on the top of the State. They needed middle cadres, both bureaocrats and Tsar's army officiers to get things done and working.


That situation was untenable so long as Russia was isolated, only with the support of a revolutionary proletariat in an industrialized country in Europe could the Russian proletariat develop its industry and move towards a Socialist economy and end the grip of the peasantry and the trends towards capitalism within it. Unfortunately, those revolutions failed, and Russia was left isolated.

Now, lets get this clear: Lenin and the Bolsheviks had responsibility for the failure of revolutions in Europe. With Brets-Litovsk, it can be argued that they sold out the German Revolution. With the support they gave to national liberation movements, it can be argued that they sold out all the communists the regimes they supported killed. (Such as Mustafa Suphi from the Turkish Communist Party, killed by the State)


I am not a Leninist because I think Lenin's theory on the relationship between class and ideology, class and vanguard, is wrong*. Not because Lenin is outdated, not because Lenin lived in the beggining of the XX century, not because Lenin was Russian.

Those who reject Lenin for those foolish reasons do not reject what is problematic in Leninisn - substitutionism. In fact, some who claim to be Anti-Leninist are worse substitutionists than Lenin ever was.

* in fact, I believe it is anti-Marxist.

Good analysis.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 29 2006, 12:27 PM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 29 2006, 12:27 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:10 AM

[email protected] 29 2006, 01:01 AM


In the areas of the world (very few) where is it completely non-existant, it survives as a shambolic relic of the past. Its cadre are unsympathetic, petty bourgeois malcontents with a disdain for the working class, absolutely no connection to the people they purport to represent and a fetishistic desire to ridicule and attack other members of the "left". It remains hermetically sealed within the borders of North-East America, Italy and Spain with absolutely no prospects for expansion. Most workers who break with capitalism still head over to Marxism and consider Anarchism the preserve of socially unfit provactuers and grandstanders. Its "groups" content themselves with fighting with the police, hijacking other peoples demos and being macho-aggressive.


Tell that to the 60 000 members of the CGT and 10 000 members of the CNT comrade.

How many members do the largest trotskyst groups have--around a few thousand?

How ironic, a cliffite condemning anarchists of sectarianism and petty bourgeoisness. :lol:
I said "Marxism" not "Trotskyism".

And the CGT are a trade union in decline. Are you saying everyone in the CGT is an anarcho-syndicalist? [/b]
Of course they aren't.

However, the nature of anarcho-syndicalism is not ideological, rather it is practical. The IWW, the CNT, and the CGT are perfect examples of this.

You don't see the IWW boasting about anarcho-syndicalism, but it is pretty evident that their policies about workplace democracy and an industrial commonwealth are the basis for anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalists never intended to convert anyone into anarchist scholars--they tr8 to canalize the struggle of everyday life in the workplace into a revolutionary force.

The whole reason of developing revolutionary unions is to avoid ideological vanguards that will always separate themselves from the masses. Normal people do not have time to be active participants of parties, rather, they need to work, and syndicalists choosing the workplace as their battleground perfectly understand this.

The CGT has never hid its anarchoi-syndicalist leanings.

So maybe many of the workers in the CGT do not identify themselves as anarchists, but really, that isn't very important.

Do you think the workers at Petrograd where really well read about Marx?


Do you think that the workers that took over the factories in Barcelona where all well-read about kroptotkin and bakunin?

I doubt it.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What I love about Marxists and Russia in 1917, is that they wanted Lenin to implement proletariat control. (Or at least the Leninists do.) But according to Marxian analysis you couldn't get socialism in a country that hadn't under gone a bourgeois revolution and a period of capitalism.

Lenin says in " The Development of Capitalism in Russia" that capitalist relations had already been established within Russia. And as he was there, i think we should take his word on it.

Also, not every country will have revolutions. But because bourgeois relations were superior to all others before, they would become dominant everywhere.

So its not true what you said.



The revolution in February (March) of 1917 was this bourgeois revolution, but there wasn't a period of capitalism.

The change from feudal relations to capitalist relations happened in Britain, became dominant, and was exported. The Russian revolution was capitalism failing, and workers mass insurrection.

Whether you like the policies of the Bolsheviks is irrelevant.



So why do Leninists (who claim to be Marxists), want to implement proletariat control when the conditions where not right for it (i.e. they were not in a majority)?

Okay, for Marxists, they were dominant. Lenin says in "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" that basically when capitalist relations occur in the cities, the industrial proletariat grows, and capitalist relations are exported to the agricultural areas.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:33 AM

Almost every other political movement does it, so why not you?

Is that seriously an argument? and by other politcal movements you mean who? neo-liberal/conservative reactionairy parties? :blink: their not trowing the old away, their returning the clock 100 years back into the past.

marxism and leninism is inherent to historical progress. but i guess im going to get anarchist rethoric barraged at me now :ph34r:
Lenin said that the people will only be free when there is no state...

Furthermore, a classless society is an anarchistic one, and obviously the movement towards that is one that supports the destruction of the state apparatus.

[LSD]

We see the defeat of the Left Opposition, and Trotsky's personal defeat, as merely indicators of a general process of counter-revolution.

Yes, but counter-revolution to what?

Again, this is all predicated on an incredibly idealist reading of events: Lenin made "concessions", but those "concessions" were "meant to be" temporary.

And since it's impossible to say what "would have" happened or what Lenin "meant" to do, we're left with an impossible argument. That's the problem with modern Leninism, it's completely unfalsifiable. It doesn't offer much in the way of modern analysis, but instead relies upon an almost superstitious interpretation of 80 year old Russian politics.

If Lenin's ideas were so great, why can't they stand on their own? Why can't you promote your "vanguard parties" and "democratic centralism" on their own merits?

You see, I think the real reason that people are so eager to harken back to Lenin and his colleagues is that their ideas really don't have much resonance these days. Workers aren't interested in "iron discipline" from their political parties, they get enough of that crap from their bosses!

Having a "success story" (or an almost success story, I suppose) not only gives Leninists something to point to, it also provides them with moral support in their "struggle" against the increasingly libertine leftist movement.

How many times have we had posters on this board dismiss anarchism because it supposedly hadn't "had any results"? Now, whether that historical analysis is right or not doesn't even matter.

What's relevent is what it tells us about the Leninist mindset when it comes to politics, and that is a decidedly historiographic one.

Again, I'm not dismissing the need to understand the past, but, "dialectics" aside, history does not move in circles. What happened 80 years ago matters, but it is not "critical".

After all, fascism "worked" too, arguably more than Leninism did -- it certainly achieved its ideological goals better. Does that mean that fascism is "better" than anarchism?

Similarly, does the accident of Bolshevik rule nearly a century ago mean that one Vladimir Ulyanov's anachronistic 19th century theories have any bearing on modern revolutionary thinking?

History is important to a point, after which it becomes a hindrance on progress. Leninism, in all its varieites, misses that point by a mile.


Sure, if Trotsky had, by some fluke of history, won his battle against the Rightists in the Party, he could have slown down the pace of counter-revolution with his efforts within the Russian state.

And if Trotsky had "won" it would have indicated the ascendancy of the "good" proletariat over the "bad" peasantry, and blah, blah, blah.

This is just more hopelessly simplistic personalization of politics. Trotsky may have represented a political wing, but he mainly represented himself, as, of course, did Stalin.

Stalin wasn't interested in a "counterrevolution" or "bureaucratic power", he was interested in himself and he was willing to use any tool and any person to further that interest.

The fact that the Bolshevik party was so easily "co-opted" by one man and his allies of convenience cannot be blamed on that one man, but rather must be credited to the nature of the party itself.

Truly democratic organs don't get "corrupted". That's just not how it works. Stalin was only able to rise to power becasue he operated within an already authoritarian system. If he had been subject to democratic controlls, he never would have been able to excersize the power he ultimately did.

It's the same way that Hitler was able to exploit the power of the Weimar Presidency to deal his way into power.

Personal power perpetuates itself. Lenin might have been an able leader but Stalin wasn't and we all know the result. The only way that Stalin could have been prevented from rising was if the precedent was never set, if the cult of the individual had never been established in the first place.


In fact, it's impossible to seperate the historical Lenin and Leninism precisely because of the ridiculous treatment of him after the Stalinist counter-revolution.

You're probably right, but it's unfair to blame "Stalinists" for Lenin's posthumous apotheosis.

Your member photo on this board is called Trotzki_and_Lenin_in_Petrograd.jpg, it's not just the "rightist" Leninists who are guilty of glorifying the individual, it's all of you.

Even the word "Trotskyist" is personalized, specifically on one Leon Trotsky. Trotskyists who don't like to call themselves Trotskyists or Leninists tend to call themselves Marxist-Leninists, an equally individualized name.

Seriously, whatever happened to political labels? You know, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc... Can't you people come up with a descriptive name for your beliefs, seperated from the irrelevent flukes of Russian imperial past?

No single theorist has "all the answers" and no individual is so worthy of reverence that one should name oneself after them. Subscribing to a Marxian paradigm is one thing, but being a "Marxist-Leninist (trotskyist)" is pure hero worship, nothing more.


The important question is not "convenience" but whether it's true or not?


Well, obviously. But incredible convenience is often a sign of falsehood. Especially when it comes to complex historical questions like "what was socialism", it's important to read every indicator we can.

Again, I ask how if your approach functionaly different from that of "Libertarian" capitalists?

They too claim that all the accidents of laissez faire capitalism were "accidents" and "chance" and that "next time" things will be different.

For my part, I don't find their insistances any more convincing than yours.


And all of these events have failed to yield serious results for various reasons. To say "they were trying to implement Leninism and they failed so Leninism is a failure" is the most childish argument I've ever seen.

It's not just a matter of "failure", though. The Spanish anarchists "failed" too, but their failure was primarily due to external problems.

What's so damning about Leninism's various catastrophes is that, with a couple of exceptions, these experiments were allowed to run pretty much unhindered. No state is without problems and obviously there were many problems faced by the various "socialist" states throughout history, but all things considered, they had it pretty damn easy!

There were no fascist armies knocking down their gates and there was capitalist invasion to reverse their "victories". In dozens of countries, across the world, overwhelmingly earnest and well-meaning "communists" tried their best to implement socialist policies along the lines that Lenin laid down and all failed.

Does that mean that Leninism is intrinsically decrepid? I suppose not. But it sure does hint in that direction.

Obviously it all could be one enormous coincidence and there's just a grand material conspiracy to discredit Leninism. Who knows, maybe it all is just chance. Maybe Leninism is workable but it's just never been "given the shot".

...but you know what? At this point I don't even think that it matters.

If Leninism, for all its overt flaws and anachronistic rubbish, is realistic pragmatic route to "socialism", then there must be literally dozens of others. There is so little structurally "unique" about Leninism that it's basically impossible that it's the "only way" to Marxism.

Therefore while it's possible that abandoning Leninism would be a mistake, if so, it would be a tiny one. Whereas if I'm right, and "Leninism" is an instrinsically oppressive form of proto-Stalinist bureaucratism, dumping it at soon as possible could be invaluable.


And if you understood the way in which Marx used the term "state" you would understand that it doesn't need to be centralized to be a state.

Except we're not talking about Marx, we're talking about Lenin. While Marx was consistantly rather vague in just what a "state" meant to him (especially post-revolution), Lenin was nothing of the sort.

Marx never got the chance to put his ideas into practice, Lenin did. So while we can argue about what the former "would have" done, we know What Lenin did.

And as much as his apologists may love to portray his ations as "concessions" or "temporary measures", the facts are the facts.

The state that he constructed was enormous and monstrous. It is one of the worst examples of brutal government oppression in history and stands out as one of the single best examples of what's wrong with statist politics.


In the case of Russia, the material conditions were decidedly backward, meaning the balance of forces was skewed against the proletariat as well.

I'm not the one who tried to launch a "Marxist" revolution in a backwards feudal peasant empire, Fehr, Lenin was.

It doesn't take an expert in Marxism to recognize that 1917 Russia wasn't ready for anything approaching "socialism", but Lenin nonetheless thought that he could rewrite Marx and skip capitalism entirely.

Obviously he was wrong.

As to whether or not he could have succeded had other European countries erupted in revolution and supported Russia ...who knows. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Russia wasn't developmentally equiped for communism no matter what the rest of Europe did.

That said though, the real issue isn't what "would have" happened, but what did happen. Once he realized that he was basically alone in his "revolution", Lenin had an important choice to make, what to do next.

Bolshevik society could have gone in a number of directions, several of them democratic and participatory. Communism may not have been on the horizon, but there's no reason that the workers (and yes, even the peasants) couldn't have had an active role in shaping their society.

"Material conditions" obviously hurt the chances for a successful socialist transition in Russia, but they don't let the Bolsheviks off the hook for what they did.

Once in power, the Bolsheviks could have changed things, instead they replaced a white despotism with a "red" one. But then that's the nature of power, it corrupts. It doesn't matter how well-meaning or "smart" a politician is, once they have absolute authority, the temptation to use it is just too strong.

And the thing about despotism, when the despot is smart enough and well-meaning enough, it actually almost works.

The problem with Leninism is that it's bought into the myth of the functional Leninist despotism ...and calls it "democracy".


Unfortunately, those revolutions failed, and Russia was left isolated. At this point the proletariat had no choice but to give concessions to the peasant majority, moving on would have meant war.

The "proletariat"? The "proletariat" had no choice? Exactly when did the "proletariat" start having a say in Bolshevik-era decision making?

The "proletariat" didn't "concede" to the peasantry, the "Party" did. I know that y'all like to caste the "party" as the "voice" of the workers, but there were real flesh-and-blood working people in Russia at the time and they very little to do with what their "great leaders" "conceded" to.

Why was it so important to keep the Russian empire together? Why not allow particularly reactionary (and developmentally backwards) areas to go their own way? There was certainly enough support in western Russia for a progressive socialist course that there was no need to "concede" fundamental issues of principle.

And on the subject of "fundamentals", whatever happened to democracy? Was that also a "concession" to the peasantry? Did the workers just have to "accept" that they weren't going to get a way in how their revolution was managed?

Lenin and his buddies had no right to arbitrarily unilaterally dictate what the Russian proletariat could or could not "concede". The survival of the working class was never on the line, they had already proven their ability to defend themselves.

What the Bolsheviks were desperate to keep afloat were the Bolsheviks. it was their own power that was in danger and, frankly, rightfully so.

It takes a remarkably semantic dance to turn Bolshevik authority into "workers" authority and Lenin's decrees into "proletarian concessions".

This is the problem with the Leninist view, it's so blinded by its historical obsession, that it doesn't recognize the very real danger posed by so-called "workers parties".

After all, if Lenin could "speak for" the workers, why not someone else? Why not, say, Bobby Avakian or Ted Grant?

By linking the working class in general with "working class leaders", Leninists look to the elites instead of the people on the ground; they substitionalize themselves away from proletarian politics and instead merely craft a "new" bourgeois legislative system, only this time with a red flag on top.

"Stalinism" itself had more to do with Josef Stalin than anything else, but eastern Europe aside, all the "Stalinist" regimes of the next 50 years took their inspiration from Lenin and his policies.

For Maoists and Titoists and Kimists, the leader was the revolution and so supporting the one meant supporting the other.

That's not a "Stalinist" ideal, it's a Leninist one and it's probably the single most dangerous Leninist one out there. It's the one that turned "communism" from an inspiring ideology of hope into a synonym for "totalitarianism".

It wasn't Stalin who "perverted" communism, it was Lenin.


This limbo within the country meant the rise of the bureaucratic caste within and around the party of the working class

Political parties are bureaucratic by nature. Because they exist to promote an ideological line, they centralize authority into the hands of the most "theoretically advanced".

That means that while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

Now, for bourgeois parties this isn't a problem. Their fundamental purpose is to promote some political line. An inactive membership is irrelevent so long as the party stays ideologically on message.

When a bourgeois party takes power it aims to make changes, surely, but those changes are top-down in nature. Training average workers to be self-empowered is the last thing the bourgeoisie wants.

That's why it's nearly always petty-bourgeois academic types who end up "speaking for" the proletariat.

The bureaucracy did not "rise up" following Lenin's death, it had always been there. It was there before the Bolsheviks siezed power and it was there long before Trotsky was ousted from his comfy chair of power.

The tragedy of Russian "socialism" is not one of "counterrevolution" and "bureaucratic conspiracy", but of the fundamental flaw of trying to graft bourgeois politics onto proletarian revolution.

Like bourgeois electoral parties, "vanguard parties" promise liberation once they've been placed in power. The problem with this equation, however, is that it ignores the material basis of class relations. Once the "leadership" of a party is firmly in control, that leadership becomes the new ruling class.

Not the class that it supposedly "represents", but the party elite itself.

That's why every Leninist revolution has failed so spectacularly, that's why despite the dedication and best wishes of Communist leaders throughout history, the workers have yet to actually gain power anywhere.

For a proletarian revolution to actually succeed, it must be a liberating process in and of itself. It must begin and end with the workers on the ground and it must be predicated on worker self-managment and motility.

"Iron discipline" or "centralization" is fundamentally antithetical to this aim and so any revolution predicated on those principles cannot help but fail. "Military-like" party organization may prove useful at overthrowing weak governments, but if coup d'états were our aim, we'd all be social-democrats.

Communism is about more than a change in government, it's about a change in governance; it's about replacing top-down coercion with participatory democracy and a political theory based on a cult of personality and nineteenth century romantic myths about "discipline" and "centralization" is not capable of achieving that.


Hence the democratically planned economy became the economy of bureaucratic command

I might buy that argument if there had even once been a hint that the Bolsheviks planned on running things democratically.

There wasn't.

[YKTMX]

Yes, but counter-revolution to what?

State capitalism. The wholescale re-imposition of capitalist relations of production, the complete dismemberment of the Soviets and indepedent trade unions. The increase of the priveliges of the bureaucratic class at the expense of workers' living conditions. Mass exploitation engendered by "competition" between the Soviet State Capital and Nazi Germany and Western Europe. The brutal expropriation of the peasants. The replacement of the Bolshevik Party with a perverse personality cult around one man. The complete destruction of Soviet culture and politics, and its replacement with a nationalist, paranoid, authoritarian and anti-working class system of Fear and suspicion.


And if Trotsky had "one" it would have indicated the ascendancy of the "good" proletariat over the "bad" peasantry, and blah, blah, blah.

Well, it's not about good and bad. It's about class, material interests and social forces. If Trotsky had one, it would have indicated that all was not lost. But he didn't.


Trotsky may have represented a political wing, but he mainly represented himself, as, of course, did Stalin.

You're suggesting that Trotsky and Stalin had their eyes on the same prize?


Truly democratic organs don't get "corrupted".

This is facile. Democracy is just a relationship between individuals. This isn't physics, you can't just "impose" democracy and then everything is fine. Democracy is a relative force. At some moments, you can have "lots" of democracy", at other moments you will have very little.

Anarchists seem to imagine some god of "democracy deity" out there, protecting them from the vices of Leninism. It's totally bizarre.


Your member photo on this board is called Trotzki_and_Lenin_in_Petrograd.jpg, it's not just the "rightist" Leninists who are guilty of glorifying the individual, it's all of you.

:lol: Well, that's what it's a photo of.


Seriously, whatever happened to political labels? You know, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc... Can't you people come up with a descriptive name for your beliefs, seperated from the irrelevent flukes of Russian imperial past?

You're shadow boxing again. Hardly any Trotskyist groups self identifies as "Trotskyist".

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 03:45 PM
State doesn't dissapear overnight, this is true, it has to be crushed tough, as soon as possible.

If you are interested:

http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/ci...rance/index.htm (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

Yes, I think we actually agree on this.

I certainly would see the process of withering away as something that starts to happen immediately post revolution. My only argument with the anarchists is that I think that the idea of that taking a day is unfeasible and I think the experience of Spain bears that out.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by The Grinch
My only argument with the anarchists is that I think that the idea of that taking a day is unfeasible and I think the experience of Spain bears that out.

Then i guess you need to find a new argument with anarchists ;)

No anarchist i know of has ever said that the transistion from bourgeois state to anarchism will take a day. Obviously this process will take time (how long is anyones guess), the point is that we must organise ourselves in ways that reflect our goals, and to move towards these goal as soon as possible - no excuses.

[hoopla]

To say "they were trying to implement Leninism and they failed so Leninism is a failure" is the most childish argument I've ever seen.Why is that a childish argument? I think its rather good.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I agree, history shows that Leninism is detrimental to communism, but should only be used, if it must, in underdeveloped, 3rd world countries struggling for national liberation.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:17 PM
Yeah, I agree, history shows that Leninism is detrimental to communism, but should only be used, if it must, in underdeveloped, 3rd world countries struggling for national liberation.
Darn it.

Are you from a third world country? Do you know a third world country from direct experience?

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

Yes I do, I am Mexican and have seen directly the results of free trade and imperialism in the country.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:06 AM
Yes I do, I am Mexican and have seen directly the results of free trade and imperialism in the country.
And do you think that leninism could be useful in Mexico?

Luís Henrique

[KC]

Why is that a childish argument? I think its rather good.

Because you could do that with any political ideology.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Sep 5 2006, 09:46 AM--> (Luís Henrique @ Sep 5 2006, 09:46 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 12:06 AM
Yes I do, I am Mexican and have seen directly the results of free trade and imperialism in the country.
And do you think that leninism could be useful in Mexico?

Luís Henrique [/b]
No, I honestly dont. Maybe, MAYBE in the form of national liberation, but that would only speed up the process to an advanced capitalist society, not communism.

Also, Mexico is not in the position of revolution, there are great changes going on in Mexico's politics at this time, and a revolutoinary consciousness is achieved when the people can no longer trust the electoral system. The class divisions and oppression are vulgar in Mexico, but conditions are not ripe for revolution.

[Xiao Banfa]

Wherever anarchist movements have operated they have not even seized power.
This has happened every single time.

If we are pointing out 'historical failures', I think that should get a mention.

Siege socialism has radically transformed the planet.

Many errors were committed- too many. However if it weren't for Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev, Mao, Uncle Ho, Castro, Nkrumah and many other brave fighters; the blows against colonialism, racism, imperialism and backwardness wouldn't have been delivered.

Most major progressive figures of the 20th century have been partisans of Marxism-Leninism.

I think the fact that Anarchism mostly survives among bohemian first world youth should tell you something about it's effectiveness as an ideology.

You will find that everywhere class struggle is at it's sharpest, Marxist-Leninist parties are right at forefront.

Nepal, Phillipines, India, Columbia, Venezuela and on the picket lines of the first world.

[apathy maybe]

The only trouble with your statement "the blows against colonialism, racism, imperialism and backwardness wouldn't have been delivered", is that many of these people were colonialists, imperialists and ultimately backwards. The USSR invaded numerous countries and suppressed independence movements within there own borders and beyond. China invaded Tibet and has swamped that country with Han Chinese. Yes some blows have been struck against capitalism by these "leftwing" leaders, but the fact remains that they have done vast amounts of damage both to their own countries and to the idea of socialism. Socialism is about bring about equality and freedom. The USSR never (except maybe in the first few years) had either except for the higher echelons of the party.


You question why anarchists don't seize power, the answer should be obvious. Anarchists are against power. We wish to destroy it. It is obvious that power is a corrupting force, those who take it abuse it. For anarchists to take power would mean that they stop being anarchists.

[Hit The North]

You question why anarchists don't seize power, the answer should be obvious. Anarchists are against power. We wish to destroy it. It is obvious that power is a corrupting force, those who take it abuse it. For anarchists to take power would mean that they stop being anarchists.

What is power and how does one destroy it?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 08:09 PM
Wow! That is amazing! I loved it. It completely agree about how anarchists do attach to anyone theorizers (I said something like that my self somewhere:)).

It is time we moved beyond Leninism and Marxism. Call yourself a communist sure, but even Marx is starting to look a bit old. Take the good stuff, throw away the rest.

Almost every other political movement does it, so why not you?
Is a hidden agenda of Anarchist?

Of course Apathy Maybe wants to throw away Marxism, he hates the working class. If we throw away Marxism (reality) then anything we want and anything we do can be revolutionary. It's all fun and games this way, we no longer have any commitments. How can we be serious about acheiving socialism, if we are replace Marxism with bourgeois ideology?

If you're promoting Communist society without Marxist theory your nothing but a lifestylist. You only want to create a society that conforms to your ideas and lifestyle. If we get rid of Marxism, people can claim to be oppressed and explioted for trival reasons.

A Marxist looks at things from the materialist analysis, and realises the nature of class struggle. It's conclusion is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then Communism. It is the proletariat who can achieve this.


China invaded Tibet and has swamped that country with Han Chinese

What a ridiculous statement.

China didn't invade Tibet. Tibetenese Communist overthrow the feudal lords and joined the PRC. During the cultural revolution there was Tibetenese red gaurds.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:17 PM
Yeah, I agree, history shows that Leninism is detrimental to communism, but should only be used, if it must, in underdeveloped, 3rd world countries struggling for national liberation.
Does this make sense though? Leninism is basically forcing communism unto the country, one would assume that the real oppressed people (ie the Third World) wouldn't really need a guiding Vanguard because they would desire socialism greatly. The only real reason I see is that the Leninists have been able to create strong governments that are capable of standing up against US aggression.

[KC]

Does this make sense though? Leninism is basically forcing communism unto the country

First, socialism is always forced upon the country in which it is established. That is what a revolution is: the forceful implementation of the demands and goals of the revolutionary class (provided they are victorious, of course).

Now, I'm guessing what you meant was that the Bolshevik revolution was a coup by a minority that imposed its will on the majority of Russians. This is true, but not in the sense that you are thinking. The working class in Russia at the time was a minority within the country, with the majority being the peasantry.

"However, in terms of the mandate to rule, they could and did argue that it was not the population as a whole that they claimed to represent. They had taken power in the name of the working class. The conclusion to be drawn from the elections to the Second Congress of Soviets and the Constituent Assembly was that, as of October - November 1917 [the Bolsheviks] were drawing more working class votes than any other party."
-Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution 1917-1932

As you can see, the Bolsheviks actually had a majority of the working class supporting them during the time of the October Revolution. So it wasn't a minority organization imposing its authority on all of Russia; it was an organization with the support of the majority of the working class imposing its authority on the peasantry.


one would assume that the real oppressed people (ie the Third World) wouldn't really need a guiding Vanguard because they would desire socialism greatly.

The vanguard is a natural occurrence among all movements. There are always people that are more committed to the cause, who invest more time and energy to the cause, than others, especially with regards to the proletarian movement. The proletariat isn't going to rise up all at once and spontaneously take power; it just doesn't work like that.


The only real reason I see is that the Leninists have been able to create strong governments that are capable of standing up against US aggression.

Which "Leninist" governments are you referring to?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)Of course Apathy Maybe wants to throw away Marxism, he hates the working class. If we throw away Marxism (reality) then anything we want and anything we do can be revolutionary. It's all fun and games this way, we no longer have any commitments. How can we be serious about acheiving socialism, if we are replace Marxism with bourgeois ideology?[/b]Haha. I don't hate the working class, that is a slur. I hate the rich, the powerful, the state. Not those who do not have power or wealth. You talk about Marxism being reality, yet to me it doesn't appear that way. It seems that a lot of Marx ceased being reality when Lenin took control in Russia. Since then, a lot of his theories have become irrelevant (see for example redstar2000's opinion on this). What I said was not throw away everything, that would be stupid, but rather throw away the irrelevant parts, keep the good bits.

And by 'bourgeois' ideology, I assume you are talking about anarchism. You can think whatever you want, but in this case what you are thinking is incorrect. Go and talk to some class-war anarchists, go and talk to anarchists who believe that the Marxian analysis of class is useful; tell me, are they bourgeois? Is their ideology bourgeois? You might say that I am bourgeois or that my ideology is bourgeois, but again you would be wrong.


Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)If you're promoting Communist society without Marxist theory your nothing but a lifestylist. You only want to create a society that conforms to your ideas and lifestyle. If we get rid of Marxism, people can claim to be oppressed and explioted for trival reasons.[/b]This is just stupid. Lifestylist? WTF? The classic attack on lifestylists is that they think that doing nothing can create a classless society. But there are other theories other then Marx's to bring about communism.



[email protected]
A Marxist looks at things from the materialist analysis, and realises the nature of class struggle. It's conclusion is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then Communism.Keep telling yourself this. Have faith and God will provide.


Hiero
What a ridiculous statement.

China didn't invade Tibet. Tibetenese Communist overthrow the feudal lords and joined the PRC. During the cultural revolution there was Tibetenese red gaurds. Whatever, the fact remains that it is now a colony of China, and is being swamped by Han Chinese. Any Tibetenese who oppose this destruction of culture or of their land or simply just opposes the Chinese government (which any intelligent person should), is shot or imprisoned.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 08:27 PM

Why is that a childish argument? I think its rather good.

Because you could do that with any political ideology.
But, they no-one was really trying with those :P

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is my personal opinion that many anarchists that have a sort of class analysis and stress for some sort of central organization in the implementation of socialism are simple Marxists that were extremely upset and historically unconscious over the Russian experiment. As they were getting close to a strange form of reworded Marxism during the early 20th century, they all of a sudden returned to the idealistic presumptions of Bakunin and accepted the capitalist intellectual definition of Bolshevikism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
First, socialism is always forced upon the country in which it is established. That is what a revolution is: the forceful implementation of the demands and goals of the revolutionary class (provided they are victorious, of course).

Now, I'm guessing what you meant was that the Bolshevik revolution was a coup by a minority that imposed its will on the majority of Russians. This is true, but not in the sense that you are thinking. The working class in Russia at the time was a minority within the country, with the majority being the peasantry.

"However, in terms of the mandate to rule, they could and did argue that it was not the population as a whole that they claimed to represent. They had taken power in the name of the working class. The conclusion to be drawn from the elections to the Second Congress of Soviets and the Constituent Assembly was that, as of October - November 1917 [the Bolsheviks] were drawing more working class votes than any other party."
-Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution 1917-1932

As you can see, the Bolsheviks actually had a majority of the working class supporting them during the time of the October Revolution. So it wasn't a minority organization imposing its authority on all of Russia; it was an organization with the support of the majority of the working class imposing its authority on the peasantry.
By forced, I mean without majority support from not only the workers, but the peasants as well. Like in Russia, there were far to many people who were not supporters of the Bolsheviks. You cannot force feed communism to the masses, it goes counter to the communist rhetoric of freedom.

The vanguard is a natural occurrence among all movements. There are always people that are more committed to the cause, who invest more time and energy to the cause, than others, especially with regards to the proletarian movement. The proletariat isn't going to rise up all at once and spontaneously take power; it just doesn't work like that.
I don't deny a revolutionary Vanguard will happen, I actually suspect it to occur whether or not the movement is a Leninist one. However, the Vanguard government is reactionary, it wil become capitalist and no amount of purges will stop it from doing so.

Which "Leninist" governments are you referring to?
USSR, Cuba and North Korea stood up quite well against US aggression. China also held firm, even though they were Maoist - however they resemble Leninism or at teh very least Stalinism.

If you're one of those Leninists in denial, I'm not in the mood to argue with you which of those countries were Leninist because the fact of the matter is they each shared the fundamental part of the Leninist ideology: the Vanguard.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, there's alot of them in denial, kinda like the Holocaust revisionists no? :lol:

[KC]

By forced, I mean without majority support from not only the workers, but the peasants as well. Like in Russia, there were far to many people who were not supporters of the Bolsheviks. You cannot force feed communism to the masses, it goes counter to the communist rhetoric of freedom.

There's nothing anti-communist about forcing the reactionary elements of society to adhere to working class power. In fact, that's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is all about. This was a working class revolution for working class power, and that means that the interests of the working class will be represented within the new state apparatus.


However, the Vanguard government is reactionary, it wil become capitalist and no amount of purges will stop it from doing so.

What's a "vanguard government"?



USSR, Cuba and North Korea stood up quite well against US aggression.

None of which are "Leninist" (albeit the USSR up until Lenin's death). Perhaps you could clarify your definition of "Leninism"?



If you're one of those Leninists in denial, I'm not in the mood to argue with you which of those countries were Leninist because the fact of the matter is they each shared the fundamental part of the Leninist ideology: the Vanguard.

The vanguard exists within every movement, as I have stated before. Are you telling me that every single movement in the history of mankind has been Leninist? :rolleyes:

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
There's nothing anti-communist about forcing the reactionary elements of society to adhere to working class power. In fact, that's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is all about. This was a working class revolution for working class power, and that means that the interests of the working class will be represented within the new state apparatus.
Ideally, communism is putting the masses in a position of power. If the proletariat is small, they basically become exactly like the bourgeois with the peasants as the new oppressed class.

What's a "vanguard government"?
Elite group of people who are uber communists that are naturally fit to run the country because well, they said so.

None of which are "Leninist" (albeit the USSR up until Lenin's death). Perhaps you could clarify your definition of "Leninism"?
I knew this was coming, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be. When something fails, claim it wasn't Leninist... that'll work just fine. All I ever hear from Leninists is either hardcore Stalinism, finger-pointing trots or "Leninists' who deny anything and everything that came before them. Give it a rest, please.

The vanguard exists within every movement, as I have stated before. Are you telling me that every single movement in the history of mankind has been Leninist?
Each not only claimed to be Leninist, but instituted socialist policies of which appeared to be following the teachings of Lenin.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the conservatism of Lenin's ideology. I don't recall if anyone mentioned that already, but it's important.

[KC]

Ideally, communism is putting the masses in a position of power.

No. It is putting the workers in a position of power.


If the proletariat is small, they basically become exactly like the bourgeois with the peasants as the new oppressed class.

This makes absolutely no sense.



I knew this was coming, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be. When something fails, claim it wasn't Leninist... that'll work just fine. All I ever hear from Leninists is either hardcore Stalinism, finger-pointing trots or "Leninists' who deny anything and everything that came before them. Give it a rest, please.

You have failed to answer either of my questions. How do you define "Leninism" and how were the countries you listed "Leninist"?



Each not only claimed to be Leninist, but instituted socialist policies of which appeared to be following the teachings of Lenin.


That doesn't mean at all that they were following Lenin's theories, and thus the label of "Leninism" is incorrect.

[Hiero]

Haha. I don't hate the working class, that is a slur. I hate the rich, the powerful, the state. Not those who do not have power or wealth. You talk about Marxism being reality, yet to me it doesn't appear that way. It seems that a lot of Marx ceased being reality when Lenin took control in Russia. Since then, a lot of his theories have become irrelevant (see for example redstar2000's opinion on this). What I said was not throw away everything, that would be stupid, but rather throw away the irrelevant parts, keep the good bits.

And by 'bourgeois' ideology, I assume you are talking about anarchism. You can think whatever you want, but in this case what you are thinking is incorrect. Go and talk to some class-war anarchists, go and talk to anarchists who believe that the Marxian analysis of class is useful; tell me, are they bourgeois? Is their ideology bourgeois? You might say that I am bourgeois or that my ideology is bourgeois, but again you would be wrong.

I wasn't talking about all Anarchists. I was talking about you. You have made many statements where you attack the working class and have at times mentioned that class is not the basis of revolution. So I wasn't surprised when you took the opportunity to convince people to abandon Marxist theory.


This is just stupid. Lifestylist? WTF? The classic attack on lifestylists is that they think that doing nothing can create a classless society. But there are other theories other then Marx's to bring about communism.

Lifestylism also involves supporting politics that help sustain lifestyle. Some people have created a ideal society in their mind. This is however not based on class analysis. In socialism, there is only proletariat society, anything else will be suppressed.


Keep telling yourself this. Have faith and God will provide.

See, this is your anti-working class politics. How else can we achieve commmunism without complete control of the society by the proletariat. I will support any revolution that tries to create the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even if it is deentralised/anarchist, as long as it looks succesfull I will support. Which ever method proves to sustain this dictatorship I will support.

Nearly everyone on this forum acknowledges that the proletariat must become dictators.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Its typical life-stylist anarchists opposing the only places workers have even had a sniff of power and OMFG what a surprise its opposed because things didn’t go perfectly.

Opposing Leninism means opposing all varieties of Marxism today.

Since Marxists have the monopoly of the understanding about class struggle and the working class in general to be anything else confines you to being a SECOND rate revolutionary.

Marxist or "Leninists" if you prefer look at REALITY.

Life-stylist "anarchists" imagine their perfect society where everything is friendly and made of love.

Its really not so tough to understand why there is such opposition to Marxist-Leninist ideas.

The Life-stylist anarchists, who are really just extreme liberals, don’t oppose what Marx wrote because he was never at the front of a revolution, and thereby never needing to make the hard choices that Lenin had to.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Anarchists tickle me. 'Everyone is going to overthrow the state and we are going to live in little magical communes and work cooperatively amongst eachother'. That sounds nice, but what is the best way to reach those goals?

[Messiah]

It is my personal opinion that many anarchists that have a sort of class analysis and stress for some sort of central organization in the implementation of socialism are simple Marxists that were extremely upset and historically unconscious over the Russian experiment. As they were getting close to a strange form of reworded Marxism during the early 20th century, they all of a sudden returned to the idealistic presumptions of Bakunin and accepted the capitalist intellectual definition of Bolshevikism.

I didn't realize Freud was posting at RevLeft.

First of all, no, anarchists are not angry Marxists. With all due respect, our ideas, while maybe not as influential as those of Marx and his cohorts, have not come from the genius of but one man. We are not "Bakuninists", in other words. Anarchists trace their intellectual and ideological roots to several different strains of political thought, and several different individuals, and as a result we are not the rebellious little brothers of Marxism. We are seperate and equal individuals who differ with Marxists on certain key ideological points. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of overlap, and it's safe to say, that most anarchists would still describe themselves as "communists" in some shape, way or form.

Secondly, I'm getting really tired of this whole "you're either with is us or against us" bullshit. Just because we do not accept your glowing endorsement of Lenin and the Bolshevik work in Russia does not make us "traitors to the cause" or however else you choose to see us. We reject Leninism because we refuse to sacrifice the very essence of what communism is supposed to be for the supposed "enlightened leadership" of a vanguard party. We refuse to be involved in a struggle wherein we simply hand over the control of our lives from imperialists and robber barons to party chiefs and beurocrats.

Now you may believe that one has to compromise to achieve the revolution, and that's fine. There is an argument to be made for that, far be it from me to deny that. However, simply because we differ does not make us the scum of the earth.

In the word's of Mao's mistress to the Chairman himself:


It's sadly predictable that the only way you can come up with to celebrate the liberation you feel at leaving the old system behind is by coming up with a "system of liberation", as if such a thing could exist--but that's what we can expect from those who have never known anything other than systems and systematizing, I guess.

We are interested in freedom, equality, and fraternity. We refuse to compromise those ideals, even for a moment. And that's the crux of the differing views we hold. I just don't see why this needs to be a reason for animosity and conflict amongst cousins, which is what we anarchists and Marxists are in my view. Close cousins.


Opposing Leninism means opposing all varieties of Marxism today.

Oh please. Did you learn your Marxism from Pat Robertson by any chance? I guess you need go talk to all those Marxists who aren't Leninists and tell them they've got it all wrong, and you, Mr. Fundamentalism himself is the only whose got it dead on. Please.


Anarchists tickle me. 'Everyone is going to overthrow the state and we are going to live in little magical communes and work cooperatively amongst eachother'. That sounds nice, but what is the best way to reach those goals?

If the goal is freedom, we simply ask why a state, an inherently enslaving entity, would ever give it to us? A state is a state. You can fly all the red flags you want, and talk about all the proletarian dictatorships you want, but when you take control out of the direct hands of the workers, when you institute "representative democracy" (under the guise of revoltuionary socialism) in order to help the "vanguard party" ease the transition into communism one can't help but simply say: same shit, different pile. If I wanted political parties deciding my life for me, I'd have voted in the bourgeois elections.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
No. It is putting the workers in a position of power.

This makes absolutely no sense.
It's the abolition of the exploitation of man, by man. If the minority working class gains power and exploits everyone else, how are they any better than the bourgeois? They aren't.

You have failed to answer either of my questions. How do you define "Leninism" and how were the countries you listed "Leninist"?
Stalinism.

That doesn't mean at all that they were following Lenin's theories, and thus the label of "Leninism" is incorrect.
Of course not, Leninism doesn't fail. Leninism was the ideology at one point in all of these countries, but because of the nature of Leninism - the goverment (which is ALWAYS reactionary) turned the country into state-capitalism. You cannot claim a country was "Leninist up until [insert leader] point" because Leninism failed to bring about communism.

Grow up, accept the failures of your God's religion and move on.

[KC]

It's the abolition of the exploitation of man, by man. If the minority working class gains power and exploits everyone else, how are they any better than the bourgeois? They aren't.

It is the putting into power the working class and the creation of a workers state which is used to maintain proletarian rule until class antagonisms wither away. The workers won't "exploit" the peasantry.


Stalinism.

Ok, so you dropped the term "Leninist". Now, define "Stalinism" for me and tell me how those countries are/were "Stalinist".


Of course not, Leninism doesn't fail. Leninism was the ideology at one point in all of these countries, but because of the nature of Leninism - the goverment (which is ALWAYS reactionary) turned the country into state-capitalism. You cannot claim a country was "Leninist up until [insert leader] point" because Leninism failed to bring about communism.

"Leninism" isn't an ideology; it was a set of tactics that the Bolsheviks applied in Russia due to the material conditions present at the time. You have failed to define "Leninism" as an ideology, and therefore you can't use it in that context until you do so.


Grow up, accept the failures of your God's religion and move on.

Learn to use some common sense. If you can't define "Leninism" as an ideology then you can't use it in that context. So either define it or recognize the fact that your position is wrong.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
It is the putting into power the working class and the creation of a workers state which is used to maintain proletarian rule until class antagonisms wither away. The workers won't "exploit" the peasantry.
Are you claiming that the peasants didn't starve and that the urban areas (ie where the workers are) were naturally better off than the rural towns? Communism is a mass-movement and should always be that way. . . how could it not be?

Ok, so you dropped the term "Leninist". Now, define "Stalinism" for me and tell me how those countries are/were "Stalinist".
I said Stalinist because it was the simplest answer, I don't have hours of time to type of everything regarding Leninism so I opted to define it in one easy to understand word: Stalinism, which is the same as Leninism. And "Stalinism" (ie. Leninism) is running the country in the same fashion as Stalin did: central planning, collectivization, democratic centralism, periodic purges, anti-fascism and so on.

"Leninism" isn't an ideology; it was a set of tactics that the Bolsheviks applied in Russia due to the material conditions present at the time. You have failed to define "Leninism" as an ideology, and therefore you can't use it in that context until you do so.
What? If it's not an ideology - then what the hell are you arguing for?

Learn to use some common sense. If you can't define "Leninism" as an ideology then you can't use it in that context. So either define it or recognize the fact that your position is wrong.
I told you, it's Stalinism. Why must I completely redraw the Leninist ideology for you? My guess is that you have no argument.

[KC]

Are you claiming that the peasants didn't starve and that the urban areas (ie where the workers are) were naturally better off than the rural towns?

We've been talking about socialism. Russia wasn't Socialist. They were trying to build socialism, and the forceful requisition of the grain surpluses was a very bad move on their part (a mistake which Lenin later admitted). ;)


Communism is a mass-movement and should always be that way. . . how could it not be?

It's a mass working class movement.



I said Stalinist because it was the simplest answer, I don't have hours of time to type of everything regarding Leninism so I opted to define it in one easy to understand word: Stalinism, which is the same as Leninism. And "Stalinism" (ie. Leninism) is running the country in the same fashion as Stalin did: central planning, collectivization, democratic centralism, periodic purges, anti-fascism and so on.

Saying that the USSR was run in the same way under Stalin as it was under Lenin is completely idiotic and just plain wrong.


What? If it's not an ideology - then what the hell are you arguing for?

I'm arguing against the use of the term "Leninism" as it doesn't exist.


I told you, it's Stalinism.

This is completely idiotic. So all self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists now? :rolleyes:


Why must I completely redraw the Leninist ideology for you?

Because you can't because there is no such thing as the "Leninist ideology".


My guess is that you have no argument.

You have completely failed to define "Leninism" as an ideology, and have since decided to link "Leninism" with "Stalinism". The two aren't "the same thing" and it really goes a long way in showing your poor grasp of both the theories and the historical events surrounding these two individuals.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
We've been talking about socialism. Russia wasn't Socialist. They were trying to build socialism, and the forceful requisition of the grain surpluses was a very bad move on their part (a mistake which Lenin later admitted).
No, we've been talking about the minority proletariat seizing power in a military coup.

It's a mass working class movement.
Which entails a mass movement that's the whole point. The working class, when it's developed enough, is the majority. Lenin rushed his little revolution and ran it right into the ground... just like all of his followers.

Saying that the USSR was run in the same way under Stalin as it was under Lenin is completely idiotic and just plain wrong.
Did I? I don't think so. If anything, Stalin was more left then Lenin was. Lenin had his little bourgeois state-capitalism while Stalin instituted policies to bring Russia closer to socialism. Did Lenin oppose socialism? Did he oppose purges? Did he oppose democratic centralism?

I'm arguing against the use of the term "Leninism" as it doesn't exist.
So Lenin added nothing to what Marx left?

This is completely idiotic. So all self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists now?
The Marxist-Leninists who reject Stalin tend to be finger-pointing trots. I would say all real Leninists are defined by you as "Stalinists."

You have completely failed to define "Leninism" as an ideology, and have since decided to link "Leninism" with "Stalinism". The two aren't "the same thing" and it really goes a long way in showing your poor grasp of both the theories and the historical events surrounding these two individuals.
Right, and you understand them completely - in fact you're the only person who understands Leninism and Stalinism because you're the only person I've ever seen claim that Leninism doesn't exist.

You're the one putting out the new argument that Leninism isn't an ideology - so you are the one who has to prove that it isn't an ideology. All I have to do is post this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

[Labor Shall Rule]

Should we deny Marx's theories on the state simply because the Russian Revolution occured at the wrong place, at the wrong time?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedDali
Should we deny Marx's theories on the state simply because the Russian Revolution occured at the wrong place, at the wrong time?
No, we should deny Marx's theory on the state simply because the state is the most reactionary force to man kind. Show me one state which hasn't gradually reformed back to (State-)Capitalism after the revolution. The state, by nature is conservative and is almost always behind the times of the rest of the populous.

[ItalianCommie]

We refuse to be involved in a struggle wherein we simply hand over the control of our lives from imperialists and robber barons to party chiefs and beurocrats.


Lenin himself was against bureaucracy. He recognized all the evils of bureaucracy, and he wrote in his last works that that had to be substituted with self administration followed by mass education to prevent the so-called Great Russian chauvinists from reaching power. He continuously hammers home on those issues.

Notions which Stalin failed, or more probably didn't want to achieve.

No, we should deny Marx's theory on the state simply because the state is the most reactionary force to man kind. Show me one state which hasn't gradually reformed back to (State-)Capitalism after the revolution.

Stalin introduced State Capitalism. Lenin didn't. And you forget that Lenin wrote in his 'Last Testament' that he wanted Stalin to be out of the Central Comittee. Stalin also imposed his own 'interpretation' of Socialism on the whole of Eastern Europe. Thereby it was a Socialism imposed from above rather than from below, from the working classes of those countries. As history has shown us, socialism can only be imposed from below, and where it hasn't, it has miserably failed.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by ItalianCommie
Stalin introduced State Capitalism. Lenin didn't. And you forget that Lenin wrote in his 'Last Testament' that he wanted Stalin to be out of the Central Comittee. Stalin also imposed his own 'interpretation' of Socialism on the whole of Eastern Europe. Thereby it was a Socialism imposed from above rather than from below, from the working classes of those countries. As history has shown us, socialism can only be imposed from below, and where it hasn't, it has miserably failed.
I don't think so. If you look into the New Economic Plan, you will clearly see Lenin's state-capitalism. And when you look at what Stalin did (collectivization, industrialization, central planning ect) you will see of the two, Stalin was a lot further left in the economic spectrum.

The Last Testament wasn't written by Lenin, he was too weak to do so. Many allegations claim that he actually didn't write it and that it was forged. One would imagine that if Lenin truely felt threatened by Stalin, he would have been purged a long time ago.

Frankly, I don't care that Stalin "imposed" from above because that's exactly what Leninism does. If communism was imposed from the bottom, then there would be no government.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 9 2006, 08:23 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 9 2006, 08:23 PM)
RedDali
Should we deny Marx's theories on the state simply because the Russian Revolution occured at the wrong place, at the wrong time?
No, we should deny Marx's theory on the state simply because the state is the most reactionary force to man kind. Show me one state which hasn't gradually reformed back to (State-)Capitalism after the revolution. The state, by nature is conservative and is almost always behind the times of the rest of the populous. [/b]
Show me one example of your utopic anarchist paradise.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:46 PM





I don't think so. If you look into the New Economic Plan, you will clearly see Lenin's state-capitalism. And when you look at what Stalin did (collectivization, industrialization, central planning ect) you will see of the two, Stalin was a lot further left in the economic spectrum.


Lenin was only in power for a few years so it's impossible to look at it like that. Also the USSR wasn't completely established the way it was under Stalin so many things were impossibilities at the time.


The Last Testament wasn't written by Lenin, he was too weak to do so. Many allegations claim that he actually didn't write it and that it was forged. One would imagine that if Lenin truely felt threatened by Stalin, he would have been purged a long time ago.

key word; (anarchist) Allegations.


Frankly, I don't care that Stalin "imposed" from above because that's exactly what Leninism does. If communism was imposed from the bottom, then there would be no government.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There can be a state which is ruled by the working class. Look at the Paris commune or the Soviet union during Lenin when the Bolshevik worker councils elected officials and took part in desicions.

[Labor Shall Rule]

D Bokk, can you please tell me what you would do if you were in Lenin's position? If many peasants had a surplus of grain, and refused to pass it over to state authorities in order to feed starving urban centers that are on the edge of famine, what would you do? What about the civil war? Would you spank the White Army, makeout with Makhno, and have sleepovers with the 15 invading imperial armies, or would you take a position on the war similiar to that of Lenin? What would you do about the terrible economic conditions within Russia? Can you think of a reason on why Lenin would institute the NEP? Did he seize grain, "just to be a bad guy"?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Better yet! :lol: Tell me how you anarchists and left marxists will defend yourself against 15 modernized, well trained and supplied armies of Europe, America, Canada, and Japan. Tell me how you will defend yourself from a massive White Army of over 5,000,000 million men. TEll me what you would do to fight against the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. Tell me how you will do a better job than the Bolsheviks in the distribution of grain amongst all Russians. Tell me how you will survive a Russia that is on the verge of human extinction through the years of civil war, global war, and general economic chaos.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:49 AM
D Bokk, can you please tell me what you would do if you were in Lenin's position? If many peasants had a surplus of grain, and refused to pass it over to state authorities in order to feed starving urban centers that are on the edge of famine, what would you do? What about the civil war? Would you spank the White Army, makeout with Makhno, and have sleepovers with the 15 invading imperial armies, or would you take a position on the war similiar to that of Lenin? What would you do about the terrible economic conditions within Russia? Can you think of a reason on why Lenin would institute the NEP? Did he seize grain, "just to be a bad guy"?
:lol: right on

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry) Show me one example of your utopic anarchist paradise.[/b]
Communism. And we'll never reach it if your foolish socialists keep doing what you're doing.

Lenin was only in power for a few years so it's impossible to look at it like that. Also the USSR wasn't completely established the way it was under Stalin so many things were impossibilities at the time.
More than a few years. And that's a very poor excuse if you reject Stalin. Like you said, Stalin took the SU closer to socialism because Russia was "completely established." So the question is, do you support Stalin?

key word; (anarchist) Allegations.
Stalinist allegations.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There can be a state which is ruled by the working class. Look at the Paris commune or the Soviet union during Lenin when the Bolshevik worker councils elected officials and took part in desicions.
No, a working class "state" is impossible. The state ceases to look after the interests of the working class shortly after the revolution because they're more worried about their own selfish interests.

RedDali
D Bokk, can you please tell me what you would do if you were in Lenin's position? If many peasants had a surplus of grain, and refused to pass it over to state authorities in order to feed starving urban centers that are on the edge of famine, what would you do? What about the civil war? Would you spank the White Army, makeout with Makhno, and have sleepovers with the 15 invading imperial armies, or would you take a position on the war similiar to that of Lenin? What would you do about the terrible economic conditions within Russia? Can you think of a reason on why Lenin would institute the NEP? Did he seize grain, "just to be a bad guy"?
The question is, why was he in power in the first place? You see, Russia would have developed capitalism without Lenin, which is what was suppose to happen - if you're a Marxist. If I were in Lenin's position, I wouldn't have tried to make Russia a socialist state. If I'm remembering correctly, he wanted capitalism to take hold in Russia - but wanted the government to protect the working class while it developed. But... he ruined that when he conducted his coup.

Leninists will always rush the revolution, it's in their ideology. They will not wait for the correct economic conditions to establish themselves. Hence, they will fail every single time and further chip away at the revolutionary fervor of the working class. If the working class repeatedly fails, they'll soon give up on the notion that they shall inherit the world.

Better yet! laugh.gif Tell me how you anarchists and left marxists will defend yourself against 15 modernized, well trained and supplied armies of Europe, America, Canada, and Japan. Tell me how you will defend yourself from a massive White Army of over 5,000,000 million men. TEll me what you would do to fight against the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. Tell me how you will do a better job than the Bolsheviks in the distribution of grain amongst all Russians. Tell me how you will survive a Russia that is on the verge of human extinction through the years of civil war, global war, and general economic chaos.
You do realize that the whole reason why I was brought into this debate was because of this statement I made:

"Does this make sense though? Leninism is basically forcing communism unto the country, one would assume that the real oppressed people (ie the Third World) wouldn't really need a guiding Vanguard because they would desire socialism greatly. The only real reason I see is that the Leninists have been able to create strong governments that are capable of standing up against US aggression."

Capitalism will destroy itself, if you're a Marxist you would know/understand this. Therefore, we will not have anything to worry about post-revolution since the whole world will overthrow their oppressors at the same time. The only people left would be paramilitary groups that'll easily be wiped out.

This is not to say we wait until the whole working class enters dire poverty before we take action. We still have one enemy that is seemingly invincible (unless the capitalists are dumber than we think...) and that enemy is Imperialism. So if you want to have your little rumbles with the bourgeois... do it to destroy Imperialism. Otherwise capitalism will survive even longer than what Marx outlined.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 10 2006, 01:57 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 10 2006, 01:57 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Show me one example of your utopic anarchist paradise.
1.Communism. And we'll never reach it if your foolish socialists keep doing what you're doing.

Lenin was only in power for a few years so it's impossible to look at it like that. Also the USSR wasn't completely established the way it was under Stalin so many things were impossibilities at the time.
More than a few years. And that's a very poor excuse if you reject Stalin. Like you said, Stalin took the SU closer to socialism because Russia was "completely established." So the question is, do you support Stalin?

key word; (anarchist) Allegations.
Stalinist allegations.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There can be a state which is ruled by the working class. Look at the Paris commune or the Soviet union during Lenin when the Bolshevik worker councils elected officials and took part in desicions.
2.No, a working class "state" is impossible. The state ceases to look after the interests of the working class shortly after the revolution because they're more worried about their own selfish interests.

RedDali
D Bokk, can you please tell me what you would do if you were in Lenin's position? If many peasants had a surplus of grain, and refused to pass it over to state authorities in order to feed starving urban centers that are on the edge of famine, what would you do? What about the civil war? Would you spank the White Army, makeout with Makhno, and have sleepovers with the 15 invading imperial armies, or would you take a position on the war similiar to that of Lenin? What would you do about the terrible economic conditions within Russia? Can you think of a reason on why Lenin would institute the NEP? Did he seize grain, "just to be a bad guy"?
3.The question is, why was he in power in the first place? You see, Russia would have developed capitalism without Lenin, which is what was suppose to happen - if you're a Marxist. If I were in Lenin's position, I wouldn't have tried to make Russia a socialist state. If I'm remembering correctly, he wanted capitalism to take hold in Russia - but wanted the government to protect the working class while it developed. But... he ruined that when he conducted his coup.

4.Leninists will always rush the revolution, it's in their ideology. They will not wait for the correct economic conditions to establish themselves. Hence, they will fail every single time and further chip away at the revolutionary fervor of the working class. If the working class repeatedly fails, they'll soon give up on the notion that they shall inherit the world.

Better yet! laugh.gif Tell me how you anarchists and left marxists will defend yourself against 15 modernized, well trained and supplied armies of Europe, America, Canada, and Japan. Tell me how you will defend yourself from a massive White Army of over 5,000,000 million men. TEll me what you would do to fight against the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. Tell me how you will do a better job than the Bolsheviks in the distribution of grain amongst all Russians. Tell me how you will survive a Russia that is on the verge of human extinction through the years of civil war, global war, and general economic chaos.
You do realize that the whole reason why I was brought into this debate was because of this statement I made:

"Does this make sense though? Leninism is basically forcing communism unto the country, one would assume that the real oppressed people (ie the Third World) wouldn't really need a guiding Vanguard because they would desire socialism greatly. The only real reason I see is that the Leninists have been able to create strong governments that are capable of standing up against US aggression."

5.Capitalism will destroy itself, if you're a Marxist you would know/understand this. Therefore, we will not have anything to worry about post-revolution since the whole world will overthrow their oppressors at the same time. The only people left would be paramilitary groups that'll easily be wiped out.

This is not to say we wait until the whole working class enters dire poverty before we take action. We still have one enemy that is seemingly invincible (unless the capitalists are dumber than we think...) and that enemy is Imperialism. So if you want to have your little rumbles with the bourgeois... do it to destroy Imperialism. Otherwise capitalism will survive even longer than what Marx outlined. [/b]
1. We will never achieve communism if the working class is not politically organized. I think you fail to understand that, in the course of revolution, you will encounter some major problems and you would need to counter those obstacles with a formidable force. We can't defeat large intervening armies of reaction with non-hierarchal millitias, decentralized communes, and non-mechanized (and unorganized) economies. Read up on the recent "Spanish Civil War" post within the History section. ComradeOm gives a wonderful critique of the anarchist conflict and how their wonderful "anti-authoritarian" tactics just didn't work in Spain at that time.

2. All states have been dominated throughout history by economic elites. Have we ever seen a state dominated by the working class? How radically different would the state appear? Through clear examination of Marx's speeches to the Communist League, the Communist Manifesto, The Civil War in France, and The Critique of the Gotha Program, you would discover that central organization is completely different from the anarchist and common intellectual definition of state.
The means of production is socialized and democratically managed by the labourers themselves. The working class would elect completely recallable representives from their "revolutionary council" at the workplace and in the community, and they will be armed in order to prevent the possible rise of the bureaucracy. Therefore, the power of state is controlled by the working class. You can deny the events of the October Revolution 'as nothing but a bureaucratic choice of the intellectuals within the vangaurd party', but guess what? The workers of Russia decided that NOW was the time for revolution, that NOW was the time for peace of the Eastern Front, that NOW was the time for the establishment of the worker's state. I don't see why these concepts are so hard to grasp. Lenin and even Stalin were completely recallable public officials. I don't see why that fact is so hard to grasp for anarchists.

3. Because he was elected to be by the Russian working class. I have no clue why you would of placed such demands to "wait" on the starving and oppressed proletarian of Russia at that time. Besides, the working class had to assume state power. Various Russian generals and Kerensky was planning the establishment of a dictatorship that would swiftly silence the labour movement. Study the chronology of 1917 on MIA, and you would discover that the government was planning a sudden coup and massacre that would be worse than Hitler's Night of the Long Knives that would result in the complete elimination of the party hierarchy of the Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, various syndicalists, key anarchists, known revolutionary agitators, and basically all forms of political opposition. Martial Law was to be placed over all Russians. The growing government action against striking workers was also extremely alarming. Lenin and the whole Bolshevik Party accepted the fact that if revolution failed to spread to industrial countries, conditions would be literally impossible for socialism.

4. Leninists will follow the demands of the working class, and if that is to seize power at the current time, then I think that we would never abandon such a chance to. If I may add, anarchists were pressing for revolution even before industrial development even started in Russia. The anarcho-communists were starting peasant revolts, nationalistic agitation in the Baltic and Ukraine, and even focusing on the fact that the proletariat was nothing but a evil statist class. This created largescale sentiment of the whole anarchist movement in Russia towards industrialization, and formed the demand to recede back to agriculture and artisan craftsmanship. The anarcho-syndicalists were rejoicing over the events of the October Revolution, and largely supported the early Bolshevik efforts.

5. But we can't sit on our asses and until we think it is time to revolt. Men make history, not the other way around. History doesn't do anything. It doesn't promote any sort of revolutionary effort within it's magical self. We shape it, and we shape the historical nature of the struggle against capital itself. The Russian Revolution showed that the bourgeoisie will resist it's own downfall using any means neccesary, even famine and genocide, in order to retain power. It showed that the rich was just another step closer from losing their wealth and privileges. It showed that they were being haunted in their dreams by the terrifying threat of the armed working class, organized into the authoritarian state structure to destroy them and end their period of control.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:57 AM










Communism. And we'll never reach it if your foolish socialists keep doing what you're doing.

I meant one example of an anarchist society which came to power via anarchist revolution.


More than a few years. And that's a very poor excuse if you reject Stalin. Like you said, Stalin took the SU closer to socialism because Russia was "completely established." So the question is, do you support Stalin?

No he wasn't in power that long especially considering how the USSR was just estbalishing itself. I never said Stalin brought the SU closer to socialism although economically I guess he did but this was only possible because the white army was dead and there was no threat of being taken over by capitalists and fascists. And no I do not support Stalin because of his beaurocratization of the party, jailing of the opposition, and his handling of many issues.


Stalinist allegations.

Same difference. You think Stalin would like that being said about him?


No, a working class "state" is impossible. The state ceases to look after the interests of the working class shortly after the revolution because they're more worried about their own selfish interests.

There own selfish interests are one with the working class if it is truly a worker's state.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)'Marxism' is like 'Darwinism', it is about the terms those people introduced to certain sciences. It was evolution for Darwin, it is class struggle for Marx. I agree that Communism sounds better, but scientifically, that is when you add Historical Materialism into Communism, it is 'Marxism'.[/b]So you want us to move beyond Marxism? For scientists have moved beyond Darwinism. Darwin was very useful in showing that evolution existed. However, since his time many of his assumptions have been shown to be false and more information has been found. As such Darwinism is an outdated theory that is not used except by those who attack evolution as a whole. Is that really the analogy you wanted to draw?



Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+--> (bloody_capitalist_sham)Lenin says in " The Development of Capitalism in Russia" that capitalist relations had already been established within Russia. And as he was there, i think we should take his word on it.

Also, not every country will have revolutions. But because bourgeois relations were superior to all others before, they would become dominant everywhere.

So its not true what you said.[/b]I am sure that capitalism had been established in some parts of Russia, but feudalism and feudal relations persisted in the vast majority of the country. So bourgeois relations were not dominant. So while it may not be true that you needed a revolution, you do (at least according to Marx) need the dominant system to be capitalist. Which it wasn't (despite what Lenin may have had to say on the matter).


Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham
The change from feudal relations to capitalist relations happened in Britain, became dominant, and was exported. The Russian revolution was capitalism failing, and workers mass insurrection.

Whether you like the policies of the Bolsheviks is irrelevant. I agree that the politics of the Bolsheviks with regards to the February revolution are irrelevant. However, I disagree that it was capitalism failing. It was a reaction to numerous factors that had to do with the war and the feudalist/monarchist system of government in place at the time. The peasants were lacking food, so were the workers in the cities, the soldiers were ill-equipped and many were conscripted peasants that should have been getting in the harvest. The Tsar was a nutter who had taken personal control of the army, and when this failed to succeed in throwing back the Central Powers, people in the upper echelons of power thought that they should have another palace coup. But the workers, peasants and soldiers came out against the Tsar before they could. Whatever you want to call the revolution, I doubt that you could call it a proletariat revolt against capitalism.


Originally posted by BLS
Okay, for Leninists, they were dominant. Lenin says in "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" that basically when capitalist relations occur in the cities, the industrial proletariat grows, and capitalist relations are exported to the agricultural areas.I fixed that for you ;). I disagree that these capitalist relations had been exported to the agricultural areas. The serfs had only been freed within living memory. It might have happened if there had been enough time (such as in France), but there was not enough time before the Bolsheviks tried to take control and the country collapsed into civil war (not that one necessarily caused the other).



Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
There's nothing anti-communist about forcing the reactionary elements of society to adhere to working class power. In fact, that's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is all about. This was a working class revolution for working class power, and that means that the interests of the working class will be represented within the new state apparatus.Here I was thinking that the DoP would only be brought about when a majority of the population were proletariat ... Am I wrong? Is it possible that communism is about the proletariat and fuck any other oppressed class (such as the peasantry)?

If the proletariat is small, they basically become exactly like the bourgeois with the peasants as the new oppressed class.The DoP is about oppressing reactionary elements that would bring about a return to the old system yes? This quote makes sense because where the proletariat are not a majority, then there will be no incentive to increase the size of the proletariat, in fact the proletariat will simply become a new ruling class. Then a new proletariat will have to be found (from the ranks of the peasantry no doubt). Once a group takes power, they do not give it up easily.



Originally posted by Hiero
I wasn't talking about all Anarchists. I was talking about you. You have made many statements where you attack the working class and have at times mentioned that class is not the basis of revolution. So I wasn't surprised when you took the opportunity to convince people to abandon Marxist theory.You either do not understand my position, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I have not attacked the working class (you might dig up that o'l quote if you want, but I have already explained it. It was not an attack on the working class, but rather those who would glorify them as the only saviours the world can ever have). Nor do I think that class is not the basis of revolution. I simply disagree with a Marxian analysis of class and Marxian revolution. As such I do not think that simply being a proletariat (according to Marx) makes one a member of the revolutionary class.

Do you think I am bourgeois? Do you think that my politics are bourgeois? Maybe they support the bourgeois because they spread false hope or something like that? Are you sure I just don't have false consciousness?


[email protected]
Lifestylism also involves supporting politics that help sustain lifestyle. Some people have created a ideal society in their mind. This is however not based on class analysis. In socialism, there is only proletariat society, anything else will be suppressed.Oh fuck off. Socialism is not about a proletariat society. Yes in a socialist society there will only be proletariat, but that is not what socialism is about. Socialism is about equality and freedom. It is about the removal of oppression. You seem to be confusing cause and effect here. It does not matter how socialism is brought about, in the end the only relationship to the means of production will be one of using it (i.e. Proletariat). So if the lifestylists are correct, and do bring about socialism (and they have had as much success as Marxism has), then it will still be a proletariat only society.


Heiro
See, this is your anti-working class politics. How else can we achieve commmunism without complete control of the society by the proletariat. I will support any revolution that tries to create the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even if it is deentralised/anarchist, as long as it looks succesfull I will support. Which ever method proves to sustain this dictatorship I will support.

Nearly everyone on this forum acknowledges that the proletariat must become dictators.
You see I oppose dictatorship (you are welcome to call me anti-workerist here again if you wish). It does not matter if it is the oppression of the majority by the few, or the few by the majority. I also think that the proletariat will not need to become dictators. Once the majority of society desires a equal society, once they have removed power from those who currently hold it, the equal society can be moved towards immediately. Oh and another thing. When you talk of dictators, you do not mean 'representatives' do you? For they will become dictators.

I still do not understand why Leninist want to take power (in the name of the proletariat or not) in a country that does not have a majority of proletariat. It just seems all wrong to me to claim to be a Marxist, and yet want to try and implement socialism when the material conditions are not correct. It almost seems as if maybe historical determinism is not all that it is cracked up to be ... (though it has not yet been shown to be flawed by any Leninist revolution, after all they hardly implemented socialism let alone brought about communism).

[Labor Shall Rule]

You ultra-leftists would make a good addition to the Menshevik Party. Why wait? The Russian working class couldn't wait. The anarchists also certainly couldn't wait. Why wait for the freedom and liberation of the working class?

[Leo]

So you want us to move beyond Marxism? For scientists have moved beyond Darwinism. Darwin was very useful in showing that evolution existed. However, since his time many of his assumptions have been shown to be false and more information has been found. As such Darwinism is an outdated theory that is not used except by those who attack evolution as a whole. Is that really the analogy you wanted to draw?

:) Yes and no.

No, because as you also say Darwin introduced evolution, and evolution can only be attacked through Darwin. Darwinism is not accepting everything Darwin said as a dogma. It's the same thing for Marx, he introduced historical materialism, a method; not a dogma. Shame on Marxists who accept every word he said as the absolute truth.

Yes, because the very nature of "Marxism" requires us to move ahead of Marx. The nature of science requires moving ahead other scientists, but the name will be a sticky for a while, until a better method in introduced. Inventions are usually remembered with the name of the inventor.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedDali+--> (RedDali)1. We will never achieve communism if the working class is not politically organized. I think you fail to understand that, in the course of revolution, you will encounter some major problems and you would need to counter those obstacles with a formidable force. We can't defeat large intervening armies of reaction with non-hierarchal millitias, decentralized communes, and non-mechanized (and unorganized) economies. Read up on the recent "Spanish Civil War" post within the History section. ComradeOm gives a wonderful critique of the anarchist conflict and how their wonderful "anti-authoritarian" tactics just didn't work in Spain at that time.
[/b]
Why must you use scare-tactics to win over support for your ideology? I'm speaking of world revolution, not "Socialism in One Country."

2. All states have been dominated throughout history by economic elites. Have we ever seen a state dominated by the working class? How radically different would the state appear? Through clear examination of Marx's speeches to the Communist League, the Communist Manifesto, The Civil War in France, and The Critique of the Gotha Program, you would discover that central organization is completely different from the anarchist and common intellectual definition of state.
The means of production is socialized and democratically managed by the labourers themselves. The working class would elect completely recallable representives from their "revolutionary council" at the workplace and in the community, and they will be armed in order to prevent the possible rise of the bureaucracy. Therefore, the power of state is controlled by the working class. You can deny the events of the October Revolution 'as nothing but a bureaucratic choice of the intellectuals within the vangaurd party', but guess what? The workers of Russia decided that NOW was the time for revolution, that NOW was the time for peace of the Eastern Front, that NOW was the time for the establishment of the worker's state. I don't see why these concepts are so hard to grasp. Lenin and even Stalin were completely recallable public officials. I don't see why that fact is so hard to grasp for anarchists.
Are you denying that the so-called "Workers' States" of the 20th century had officials concerned with only self-interest? Do you not wonder why both Lenin and Stalin conducted purges or called for more purges of the party? Lenin and Stalin may have genuinely wanted communism - but the same cannot be said for the vast majority of the party members. Politicians are the worst scum on this earth, whether they're so-called "communists" or capitalists. They work against the will of the people. That's their sole purpose.


3. Because he was elected to be by the Russian working class. I have no clue why you would of placed such demands to "wait" on the starving and oppressed proletarian of Russia at that time. Besides, the working class had to assume state power. Various Russian generals and Kerensky was planning the establishment of a dictatorship that would swiftly silence the labour movement. Study the chronology of 1917 on MIA, and you would discover that the government was planning a sudden coup and massacre that would be worse than Hitler's Night of the Long Knives that would result in the complete elimination of the party hierarchy of the Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, various syndicalists, key anarchists, known revolutionary agitators, and basically all forms of political opposition. Martial Law was to be placed over all Russians. The growing government action against striking workers was also extremely alarming. Lenin and the whole Bolshevik Party accepted the fact that if revolution failed to spread to industrial countries, conditions would be literally impossible for socialism.
He was elected by a minority, just like the Democrats and Republicans are right now (ie. bourgeois). All the Bolsheviks accomplished was to feed the minority working class and starve the majority peasant class. Lenin was lucky that the USA gave aid to the SU so more people wouldn't starve... otherwise today you would look at Lenin with as much disgust as you look at Stalin.

I have never read anything about a planned massacre by Kerensky - would you mind sourcing your claim?

4. Leninists will follow the demands of the working class, and if that is to seize power at the current time, then I think that we would never abandon such a chance to. If I may add, anarchists were pressing for revolution even before industrial development even started in Russia. The anarcho-communists were starting peasant revolts, nationalistic agitation in the Baltic and Ukraine, and even focusing on the fact that the proletariat was nothing but a evil statist class. This created largescale sentiment of the whole anarchist movement in Russia towards industrialization, and formed the demand to recede back to agriculture and artisan craftsmanship. The anarcho-syndicalists were rejoicing over the events of the October Revolution, and largely supported the early Bolshevik efforts.
You keep ignoring the fact that the working class wasn't even developed in 1917... not even remotely close. Their "call" for the Leninists to seize power was premature and selfish. If you claim to be a Marxist, I certainly have no idea why you would support Lenin's premature "revolution."

Russian Anarchists have no bearing in this debate. The Anarchists of today want world revolution.

5. But we can't sit on our asses and until we think it is time to revolt. Men make history, not the other way around. History doesn't do anything. It doesn't promote any sort of revolutionary effort within it's magical self. We shape it, and we shape the historical nature of the struggle against capital itself. The Russian Revolution showed that the bourgeoisie will resist it's own downfall using any means neccesary, even famine and genocide, in order to retain power. It showed that the rich was just another step closer from losing their wealth and privileges. It showed that they were being haunted in their dreams by the terrifying threat of the armed working class, organized into the authoritarian state structure to destroy them and end their period of control.
Das Kapital clearly states that the capitalist system is doomed to failure due to their profit-driven economy. Eventually wages will be so low that the proletariat cannot survive, leading to desperation and therefore revolution. The bourgeois aren't going to look at their watch and say "Oops, looks like we're done here - good luck!" and leave. There will be a revolution, a world revolution.
LeftyHenry

I meant one example of an anarchist society which came to power via anarchist revolution.
History has not reached that point yet.


No he wasn't in power that long especially considering how the USSR was just estbalishing itself. I never said Stalin brought the SU closer to socialism although economically I guess he did but this was only possible because the white army was dead and there was no threat of being taken over by capitalists and fascists. And no I do not support Stalin because of his beaurocratization of the party, jailing of the opposition, and his handling of many issues.

Are you forgetting WWII? Are you forgetting when the allies betrayed the USSR? You don't support Stalin because he did when Lenin would have... but you do not realize this. Really, the only argument you have is "beaurocracy" and that's a very weak argument as to why Stalin wasn't a Leninist.

Same difference. You think Stalin would like that being said about him?
Anyone could have written it. It wasn't in Lenin's own hand writting and wasn't signed by Lenin. Lenin was dead when it was published and there's absolutely no evidence that Lenin in fact wrote the testament.

There own selfish interests are one with the working class if it is truly a worker's state.
That's what they'd like you to think.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:54 PM





History has not reached that point yet.

And it never will because anarchism is a sad utopic impossibility. That's a poor rebuttel.


Are you forgetting WWII? Are you forgetting when the allies betrayed the USSR? You don't support Stalin because he did when Lenin would have... but you do not realize this. Really, the only argument you have is "beaurocracy" and that's a very weak argument as to why Stalin wasn't a Leninist.

WWII was much, much later. The USSR became established towards the end of Lenin's time in power. Beaurocracy and consolidating worker's power. Also, Stalin's tyrannical rule was another non-leninist thing. If you look at Lenin's writings on all those things, you'd realize that it wuld be impossible for Stalin to be considered a leninist.


Anyone could have written it. It wasn't in Lenin's own hand writting and wasn't signed by Lenin. Lenin was dead when it was published and there's absolutely no evidence that Lenin in fact wrote the testament.

source?

[Hiero]

You either do not understand my position, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I have not attacked the working class (you might dig up that o'l quote if you want, but I have already explained it. It was not an attack on the working class, but rather those who would glorify them as the only saviours the world can ever have). Nor do I think that class is not the basis of revolution. I simply disagree with a Marxian analysis of class and Marxian revolution. As such I do not think that simply being a proletariat (according to Marx) makes one a member of the revolutionary class.


I have not misinterrupted. The parts i have bolded show your position. You do not hold a materialist position. You think that individual motives can change the course of history. Which is a bourgeois notion.

The materialist analysis shows that only the proletariat have interest in socialism. While at certain times in history they may not have the most progressive stance. History has shown that whenever a progressive movement has taken place, it is the proletarait who has been the initiates. All other individuals who comes form other classes active in the movement play a submissive and supportive role. They betray their class when they support the proletariat.


Oh fuck off. Socialism is not about a proletariat society. Yes in a socialist society there will only be proletariat, but that is not what socialism is about. Socialism is about equality and freedom. It is about the removal of oppression. You seem to be confusing cause and effect here. It does not matter how socialism is brought about, in the end the only relationship to the means of production will be one of using it (i.e. Proletariat).

Yes it is, there should be no confusion about it. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois can only maintain their existance in capitalism. They are only free under capitalism. When they can no longer act as a class under socialism, they are under a dictatorship. Once we remove their ability to own private property, and curtail private investment, we are begin to oppress that class. By oppressing this class we create socialism.

How can socialism be all about freedom, when the bourgeois are not longer free to act as the bourgeois?


So if the lifestylists are correct, and do bring about socialism (and they have had as much success as Marxism has), then it will still be a proletariat only society.

I can see that you are to arrogant to view the great improvements Marxist have brought to living conditions and power to the proletariat, in revolution and capitalist countries. I don't really care if you support the revolutionary proletariat or not.

But the term lifestylist implies that these people have done nothing. They act to futher their life style. Whatever goals they have, it is only to maintian their lifestyle. If they actually support a political movement, it will only be one where the society would maintian their lifestyle. Their goals are for individuals, not the oppressed of society.

Lifestylist have done nothing. How arrogant to imply they have. At any really movement, any rally, any working class event they are the parasites hanging off the end. Their only goal is to create the illusion their life has any meaning. That is why they are called liefstylists.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
And it never will because anarchism is a sad utopic impossibility. That's a poor rebuttel.
You deny communism? You neither a Marxist, nor a Leninist. So why are we even arguing here?

WWII was much, much later. The USSR became established towards the end of Lenin's time in power. Beaurocracy and consolidating worker's power. Also, Stalin's tyrannical rule was another non-leninist thing. If you look at Lenin's writings on all those things, you'd realize that it wuld be impossible for Stalin to be considered a leninist.
Much later? The fascist threat was created only but a few years after Lenin died. In fact, Stalin didn't just inherit Lenin's power right after Lenin passed away. When Stalin did obtain power he quickly industrialized Russia and made it a super power. You would need to back up your claim that Russia was developed right as Lenin died for your argument to have any validity.

I've read quite a bit of Lenin, in fact I've read more Lenin than I have read Marx. If you read Lenin you would know that Lenin supported purges and "destruction" of the bourgeois intellectualism. In other words, he would have supported Stalin's purges and oppression of the bourgeois which is what most people dislike.

source?
Source what, that there's no evidence? That's quite a difficult argument to source.

The document was typed and initialed in print, not by hand. conveniently enough, the document was created before Lenin lost his ability to speak and was suppose to be read in April. However his wife, another convenience, kept the document a secret incase he got better. Then after he died, she gave the letter to the communist party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Testament
http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/LeninTest.htm

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)It was not an attack on the working class, but rather those who would glorify them as the only saviours the world can ever have[/b]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)As such I do not think that simply being a proletariat (according to Marx) makes one a member of the revolutionary class.[/b]


Originally posted by Hiero
You do not hold a materialist position. You think that individual motives can change the course of history. Which is a bourgeois notion.I do not know where you go this from. I am a materialist, it just so happens that I disagree with Marx on some issues (which does not make me not a materialist). I am also not dogmatic, which it seems that you are. Individual motives can change the course of an individual's history, added them up, and individual motives change the course of history. Funny that. But I do not think this is what you meant. I think you meant that allproletariat will be for socialism, and that any who are not will either not exist or not matter. They will exist, thought they may not matter. I cannot for the life of me see how it is a bourgeois notation, I am not bourgeois, nor are my parents or grandparents. I do not think that my ideas are bourgeois, please tell me what you mean.


Originally posted by Hiero
The materialist analysis shows that only the proletariat have interest in socialism. While at certain times in history they may not have the most progressive stance. History has shown that whenever a progressive movement has taken place, it is the proletarait who has been the initiates. All other individuals who comes form other classes active in the movement play a submissive and supportive role. They betray their class when they support the proletariat.Classes are not nations to be "betrayed", they are social constructs that can change at a moment. And where do you get the idea that the proletariat are the initiates of all progressive movements? The solider/peasants where the catalyst and reason for the Russian Revolution. There were not enough proletariat for them to actually succeed on their own, let alone actually start a revolution. In more modern times it has been students, both rich and poor who have started movements (example being in France 1968 and protests against the Vietnam war in the USA and here in Australia). Yes the proletariat have started movements (the 8 hour day being an example), but not all.



Originally posted by Hiero
Yes it is, there should be no confusion about it. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois can only maintain their existance in capitalism. They are only free under capitalism. When they can no longer act as a class under socialism, they are under a dictatorship. Once we remove their ability to own private property, and curtail private investment, we are begin to oppress that class. By oppressing this class we create socialism.

How can socialism be all about freedom, when the bourgeois are not longer free to act as the bourgeois?Socialism is about freedom and equality. Freedom is limited when it impinges on the freedoms of others, this is why the capitalists and statists will not be able to run their ruinous trade in a socialist society. Socialism is not "the dictatorship of the proletariat". Dictatorship requires someone to oppress, it also requires a minority over a majority. While you may support the oppression of those opposing socialism before it comes about, when we do achieve it, it will not be necessary.
One way of getting to a socialist society maybe oppressing anyone who opposes it.


Originally posted by Hiero
I can see that you are to arrogant to view the great improvements Marxist have brought to living conditions and power to the proletariat, in revolution and capitalist countries. I don't really care if you support the revolutionary proletariat or not.
Marxism has had as much success in bringing about socialism (on a large scale) as has any other method!. That is it hasn't. That is not to say that some reforms have been inspired by Marxist ideology or Marxist movements, but reforms are not socialism.


[email protected]
But the term lifestylist implies that these people have done nothing. They act to futher their life style. Whatever goals they have, it is only to maintian their lifestyle. If they actually support a political movement, it will only be one where the society would maintian their lifestyle. Their goals are for individuals, not the oppressed of society.Whatever.


Hiero
Lifestylist have done nothing. How arrogant to imply they have. At any really movement, any rally, any working class event they are the parasites hanging off the end. Their only goal is to create the illusion their life has any meaning. That is why they are called liefstylists.I did not imply that they had done anything, in fact they haven't brought about socialism, just like the Marxists haven't! (or for that matter any anarchist variant for a long time on a large scale). And no, the goal of the lifestylist is to bring about a better world by living that better world in their individual lives. If everyone did it, it might work.


So I stand by my position, simply being a member of the proletariat class does not make one a revolutionary. Nor does not being a member make one not a revolutionary. The Marxian analysis of class and historical materialism do not adequately explain events, nor are they useful for a revolutionary to explain how things will come about.

Economics is not the only thing that exists in societies, states are a major obstical (sp?) to freedom. (Will come back later to finish this.)

[LSD]

You're suggesting that Trotsky and Stalin had their eyes on the same prize?

Basically.


Democracy is a relative force. At some moments, you can have "lots" of democracy", at other moments you will have very little.

Obviously, but the transition between "lots" and "little" is gradual, it doesn't "just happen" because of some "bad man" "perverting" it.

If Lenin hadn't laid the groundwork for one-man rule, there wouldn't have been a power vaccuum following his death and there wouldn't have been a chance for Stalin to "take over".

Look, I'm not saying that Lenin was "bad" or that he "intended" to usher in a Stalin, on the contrary I think he regretted what he did a great deal. But history isn't determined by "intentions".

Upon gaining control over the means of production, it was no longer in Lenin's class interest to free the workers.

He now had the ability to directly manage the economy and to push it in the directions that he saw fit. That opportunity was simply too tempting for a lifelong theoretician to resist.

That's the ultimate problem with revolutionary "leadership" in any form, if the revolution is successful, the machinery for a new state despotism are already in place and the party elite all too smoothly transition into the new rulling class.


As you can see, the Bolsheviks actually had a majority of the working class supporting them during the time of the October Revolution. So it wasn't a minority organization imposing its authority on all of Russia; it was an organization with the support of the majority of the working class imposing its authority on the peasantry.

You're taking class politics to a ridiculous extreme. The fact that the working class was a such a minority in Russia is not an indication that that minority should "take over", but rather that Russia was not ready for a Marxist revolution.

Tell me, if there were 100 workers in a country of 10 million, would you support those hundred establishing a "dictatorship" over the entire nation?

Revolution needs to be class-based, but it also needs to be popular.

Besides, this obession with "who the workers supported" misses the point entirely. An organization's class identity cannot be deduced simply by looking at voter rolls.

Unless you're claiming that "to its end", the CPSU was a proletarian party and the Soviet Government was a "workers' state", you must acknowledge that an organization can be effectively bourgeois even when its largely made up of proletarians.

For my part, I would contend that not only can "majority worker" political parties be bourgeois, but that they must be so. The party structure is, again, intrinsically capitalist in function. It doesn't matter what percentaqe of it's membership are technically workers, it will nonetheless always be fundamentally antithetical to proletarian organization.

Remember, fascist groups can be made up of workers too, that doesn't make them any less petty-bourgeois as organizations nor does it make them any less of a threat to the working class at large.

The American democratic party is almost entirely made of workers at its base, nonetheless because it is a bourgeois political party, its membership is wholly irrelevent.

The nature of political parties is that the leadership very rarely reflects the party at large. Ideologues and bureacrats are the only ones who have the dedication and energy to rise to the top. The rest barely have time to attend meetings.

At its hight, the CPSU counted something like 10% of the Soviet population among its members, around half of those were industrial workers. Despite the official tally, however, no one but the most die hard "revisionist" would claim that those 9 odd million workers had any say whatsover over state policy.

Stalin and Khruschev and Gorbachev did not differ to the "will" of the proletariat, they "judged" what was in the "popular interest" and acted accordingly. And they did so because that's what Lenin had done before them.

As I've repeated several times, power perpetuates itself and once it's established it does not dissapate without a fight. Lenin and his successors may have meant well, but because they operated within a centralized and anti-democratic power structure, they could not help but be oppressive.

A political party is designed to promote an ideology, the most "effective" means of doing this is to centralize and restrict power to those who are most expert in and most dedicated to the said ideology.

Obviously that's not conducive to democracy.


The vanguard is a natural occurrence among all movements.

<_<

This is such a non-issue it&#39;s ridiculous and I blame both Leninists and anti-Leninists for perpetuating this ludicrous argument.

Marxistly speaking, the vanguard is merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation.

As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and through it the entire working class, the "vanguard party" seeks to lead in the sense of control, rather than the sense of "position".

Personally, I would suggest for all my Anarchist and left-communist comrades, forget about the "vanguard" debate, it really isn&#39;t where you should be spending your energies. You will only end up in this kind of circular mess because what you&#39;re thinking of as the "vanguard" is not what a Leninist means by that term.

The central conflict between the "old" Leninist and the "new" "ultra leftists" is not over the esoteric political science question of "vanguards", it&#39;s over the flesh and blood political question of "vanguard parties".

It&#39;s important that we keep that distinction clear in our minds. We&#39;re never going to convince Leninsts that there "shouldn&#39;t be a vanguard". Such a notion is antithetical to their entire class understanding.

Occasionaly, though we might just be able to convince a couple that that vanguard does not need a "leading party" to rule it. Accordingly, that&#39;s where we should focus our efforts in such conversations.

To the Leninists I must say though, you know full well what people mean when they attack the "vanguard". Obviously they&#39;re not critisizing the notion of politically active workers, but rather the Leninist extension on that notion.

"Refuting" that valid critisism by pedantically pointing out their semantic flaw is pointless and utterly pretentious.

We get it, you know your Marx. Can we please move on to the real issues now? If you can&#39;t defend the Leninist party structure, at least have the honesty to be upfront about it.

Otherwise, lay off this textbook crap and engage&#33;


Nearly everyone on this forum acknowledges that the proletariat must become dictators.

Maybe in theory, but what does that "dictatorship" actually mean?

In a backwards feudal state, it apparently means that 2% of the population (or more accurately, the "representatives" of 2% of the population) should sieze absolute power and enact their will upon the general majority.

In advanced first world countries, however, it&#39;s less clear what people mean. Especially considering that class is only relevent in pre-revolutionary and revolution situations. In postrevolutionary society, classes as they are presently structured will not exist.

You seem to be approaching class as if it were ethnicity, something that is pased down from generation to generation to generation.

Obviously class perpetuates itself -- that&#39;s the whole point of the "traditional family" -- but only to a point. If material circumstances intervene, one&#39;s class can radically varry from the class of one&#39;s parents.

When the child of a bourgeois father is unable to attain control over the means of production, he ceases to be bourgeois. If he is then forced to take a job wherein which he sells his labour power to survive, he becomes, by any definition, a worker.

Following a successful workers&#39; revolution, that will be the situation for every bourgeois son. Despite the best wishes of reactionary parents, there will simply be no material opportunities for bourgeois propagation.

After the workers have sized control over production and have kicked out the bosses and their parasitic "managerial clique", there will be no room for capitalist survival.

In less than a generation the class will be extinct.

Accordingly, any society that still has a thriving bourgeoisie is, by definition, not a workers&#39; state.

This applies, in a slightly more diluted way, to the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie as well. In an advanced majority proletarian coutnry, the proletarianization of the remainder is inevitable and surprisingly rapid.

That&#39;s why revolution is workable in such states. It also explains why communism has been such an abysmal failure everywhere else. In places in which class cannot be immediately eliminated, the natural divisions of class society rapidly overcome any postrevolutionary "democracy".


"Leninism" isn&#39;t an ideology; it was a set of tactics that the Bolsheviks applied in Russia due to the material conditions present at the time.

So "Marxism-Leninism" isn&#39;t any different from classical Marxism? What&#39;s with the "-Leninism" part then?

Are you seriously denying that Leninism exists? :blink: That has got to be one the wierdest defenses of Leninism I&#39;ve ever seen.

Revolutions live and die on "tactics". To assert that political tactics have nothing to do with ideology is ludicrous. The Bolsheviks employed the tactics they did because they believed them to be an effective means of achieving communism

If they were right, those tactics should be repeated, if they were wrong, they should not. But that&#39;s a question of ideology; of whether or not one accepts the idea of the disciplined "vanguard party" or the idea of the dictatorial "workers&#39;" state.


Saying that the USSR was run in the same way under Stalin as it was under Lenin is completely idiotic and just plain wrong.

Perhaps, but then we have 3 decades of Stalinist leadership compared with less than 8 years of Leninist. That makes it remarkably easy to find "differences" between the two individual&#39;s style of leadership.

What I think really stand out, though, is that you&#39;re not talking about "socialist" leadership or even "bolshevik" leadership, but Lenin&#39;s leadership.

As much as you may want to deny that Lenin was a tyrant, the fact that you refer to the USSR "under" him speaks volumes about the man&#39;s political position. Democratic societies do not exist "under" anyone. They are ruled from the bottom.

The Bolshevik state, however, waa anything but bottom-up. Rather it is one of the more archetypal examples of a top-down centralized institutionalized state.

Is that "bad"? Well, I suppose that depends on your point of view. For the Bolsheviks, it was doubtlessly a good thing. They got to rule a massive country and finally had the power to implement their ideas.

For a group that had been plotting and theorizing for decades, the chance to actually set policy must have been intoxicating.

If you were an average peasant, though, or even an average worker, it was pretty much a nightmare. After years of civil war with all the misery and shortaged that go with it, the people of Russia found themselves pretty much back where they started.

Sure, they&#39;d exchanged the feudal rule of the Czar for the "socialist" rule of Lenin, but they had no more freedom than they did before and no more ability to affect state policy.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, Lenin and his colleagues did some good things for the people, but then so did Nicholas II. In both cases, however, it was top-down reformism and in both cases it was a response to popular pressure, not a product of popular democracy.

So was life "under Lenin" "as bad" as it would be "under Stalin"? Frankly, it doesn&#39;t even matter.

For any dicator you can name, you can find one who was worse (save one obviously), so the fact that Lenin "wasn&#39;t as bad" as Stalin is hardly a vindication of Leninism.


That makes no sense whatsoever. There can be a state which is ruled by the working class.

No there can&#39;t. There can be a state which is ruled by members of the working class (or, more realistically former members of the workingclass), but the nature of a state is that it is composed of a seperate elite.

If the entire working-class was truly in control, there would be no need for a state, nor would there really even be a practical means of creating one. The only kind of "workers state" that can possibly exist is a representative one, but republicanism is fundamentally antithetical to democracy.

"Vanguard parties" promise liberation once they&#39;ve been placed in power. We are expected to "trust" that when they become the bosses, things will "get better".

The problem with this equation, however, is that it ignores the material basis of class relations. Once the "leadership" of a party is firmly in control, that leadership becomes the new rulling class.

Not the class that it supposedly "represents", but the party elite itself.

That&#39;s why every Leninist revolution has failed so spectacularly, that&#39;s why despite the dedication and best wishes of Communist leaders throughout history, the workers have yet to actually gain power anywhere.

For a proletarian revolution to actually succeed, it must be a liberating process in itself. It must begin and end with the workers on the ground and it must be predicated on worker self-managment and motility.

"Iron discipline" or "centralization" is fundamentally incompatible with this aim and so any revolution predicated on those principles cannot help but fail. "Military-like" party organization may prove useful at overthrowing weak governments, but if coup d&#39;états were our aim, we&#39;d all be social-democrats.

Communism is about more than a change in government, it&#39;s about a change in governance; it&#39;s about replacing top-down coercion with participatory democracy.

And that&#39;s somewhere to which no one can "lead" us.


D Bokk, can you please tell me what you would do if you were in Lenin&#39;s position?

You&#39;re missing the point. The problem isn&#39;t that Lenin made "bad decisions", it was that he was in a position to make unilateral decisions at all.

Some of Lenin&#39;s ideas were good, some of them were bad. But it should have been be people who got to choose between them. One man, no matter how "smart" or "theoretically advanced" he may be, does not have the right to dictate the lives of 150 million people.

I don&#39;t care how "Marxist" or "dialectical" Lenin was, it wasn&#39;t the man that was the problem, it was the office.

You want to know what I would do "in Lenin&#39;s position"? I&#39;d abolish the position.

At least that&#39;d be a step towards democracy.


Tell me how you anarchists and left marxists will defend yourself against 15 modernized, well trained and supplied armies of Europe, America, Canada, and Japan.

Democratically.


We will never achieve communism if the working class is not politically organized.

Agreed, but class organiztion does not require submitting ourselves to bourgeois party rule.

A political party is built to take political power and execute its ideology. That&#39;s the whole reason for its existance.

But communism and workers&#39; liberation isn&#39;t just a matter of "seizing" power. The revolutionary process cannot be treated as just another political process, because when it is, the results bear nothing in common with communism.

"Communist" parties promise Marxist liberation once they&#39;ve been placed in power; we are expected to "trust" that when they become the bosses, things will "get better".

The problem with this equation, however, is that it ignores the material basis of class relations. Once the "leadership" of a party is firmly in control, that leadership becomes the new ruling class.

Not the class that it supposedly "represents", but the party elite itself.

That&#39;s why every Leninist revolution has failed so spectacularly, that&#39;s why despite the dedication and best wishes of Communist leaders throughout history, the workers have yet to actually gain power anywhere.

For a proletarian revolution to actually succeed, it must be a liberating process in itself. It must begin and end with the workers on the ground and it must be predicated on worker self-managment and motility.

"Iron discipline" or "centralization" is fundamentally antithetical to this aim and so any revolution predicated on those principles cannot help but fail. "Military-like" party organization may prove useful at overthrowing weak governments, but if coup d&#39;états were our aim, we&#39;d all be social-democrats.

Communism is about more than a change in government, it&#39;s about a change in governance; it&#39;s about replacing top-down coercion with participatory democracy.

Syndicalism is therefore the only means pursuing a revolutionary proletarian agenda while remaining true to the actual proletariat. Political parties, no matter how they are organized, exist to service an ideology. Workers&#39; syndicates, however, exist to service workers. In my judgment, revolution must come from the latter direction rather than the former.

We cannot succede the bourgeois by doing exactly what they do "with a red flag". Exploitation is at the heart of what the bourgeoisie is and so it is at the heart of their political model as well.

The bourgeois political process is what it is; it cannot be "made" to be proletarian.


Because he was elected to be by the Russian working class.

Just like how George Bush was elected by the American working class.

Electoral politics don&#39;t work, not in "republics", not in "democracies", and not in "workers states".

After all, a fascist party could be supported by proletarians. That wouldn&#39;t make it a "proletarian party".

Many "labour" or "socialist" parties around the world are primiarly made up of working people, that doesn&#39;t make them any less a part of the bourgeois political process. And revolutionary politics do not come out of conformist collaboration.

The party system is itself a bourgeois creation and in its basic institutional nature, is fundamentally opposed to proletarian organization.

Workers do not have time to sit on party committees or attend party functions. They are far too busy, you know, working. Within that work, however, is the opportunity for genuine working class unity.

Instread of trying to force working people to fit into the bourgeois model of politics, why not construct a proletarian political model from the beginning?

You see, that&#39;s the problem with Leninism, it tries to "learn" from bourgeois successes, but in the process it turns communism into nothing more than another parliamentary position. But revolution is supposed to be about emancipation, not another fucking bourgeois electoral campaign&#33;


The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois can only maintain their existance in capitalism.

Which is why Leninist "socialism" is such a joke.

[KC]

No, we&#39;ve been talking about the minority proletariat seizing power in a military coup.

We&#39;ve been talking about the building of socialism within a country in which the working class is a minority.



Which entails a mass movement that&#39;s the whole point. The working class, when it&#39;s developed enough, is the majority. Lenin rushed his little revolution and ran it right into the ground... just like all of his followers.

So you have changed your position from "Leninism made it fail" to "the material conditions weren&#39;t there"? Could you just pick a coherent argument and stick with it please?



So Lenin added nothing to what Marx left?

Of course he did, but it certainly wasn&#39;t enough to be considered a distinct ideology. It is popularly recognized as an extension of Marxism (Marxist theory applied to an age of imperialism); hence the term "Marxism-Leninism".


The Marxist-Leninists who reject Stalin tend to be finger-pointing trots.

Doesn&#39;t sound like you know anything about Marxist-Leninists.


I would say all real Leninists are defined by you as "Stalinists."

Don&#39;t put words in my mouth. There is no such thing as a "Leninist".


Right, and you understand them completely - in fact you&#39;re the only person who understands Leninism and Stalinism because you&#39;re the only person I&#39;ve ever seen claim that Leninism doesn&#39;t exist.

Then you&#39;re either ignorant or an idiot.



You&#39;re the one putting out the new argument that Leninism isn&#39;t an ideology - so you are the one who has to prove that it isn&#39;t an ideology. All I have to do is post this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/images/al-sharqat_chem.jpg


No, we should deny Marx&#39;s theory on the state simply because the state is the most reactionary force to man kind. Show me one state which hasn&#39;t gradually reformed back to (State-)Capitalism after the revolution. The state, by nature is conservative and is almost always behind the times of the rest of the populous.

This is about as idiotic as saying that the Russian Revolution failed because of Leninism. Every single working class revolution in history has failed for a variety of reasons and none of them have failed for a single one. To say that they have is pure idiocy and shows a complete lack of intelligent thought.

Oh, yeah. See: Paris Commune ;)


Frankly, I don&#39;t care that Stalin "imposed" from above because that&#39;s exactly what Leninism does.

Again, you&#39;re going to have to define the term "Leninism" because so far you have failed to do so.


Communism. And we&#39;ll never reach it if your foolish socialists keep doing what you&#39;re doing.

You and all your little utopian friends can keep dreaming. This shit isn&#39;t going to happen overnight, and it certainly won&#39;t happen the way you think it will. Your analysis shows a complete lack of the consideration of material conditions and will never amount to anything other than a dream in your head. You can leave the real work to people that are capable of intelligent thought.



No, a working class "state" is impossible. The state ceases to look after the interests of the working class shortly after the revolution because they&#39;re more worried about their own selfish interests.

I love how you didn&#39;t respond to what he said. Please do tell us how the Paris Commune "cease[d] to look after the interests of the working class shortly of the revolution because they&#39;re more worried about their own selfish interests."


You see, Russia would have developed capitalism without Lenin, which is what was suppose to happen - if you&#39;re a Marxist.

Let me guess: you&#39;re basing this on historical materialism. Guess what. Historical materialism isn&#39;t a set of laws and to interpret it that strictly is completely unmarxist and illogical. Marx and Engels both recognized the materialist conception of history as a guide from which to study and not a law set in stone.


Capitalism will destroy itself, if you&#39;re a Marxist you would know/understand this.

What a horribly stupid thing to say. Capitalism will not destroy itself. The only way capitalism will be destroyed is through the organization and formation of the proletariat into a class to take power from the hands of the bourgeoisie. Overthrowing capitalism requires organization. There&#39;s no doubt about it. And this isn&#39;t going to happen magically. The workers aren&#39;t going to spontaneously overthrow capitalism; it doesn&#39;t happen like that. That is why you will keep dreaming and acting on your silly little fantasies while Marxists continue to gain the support of the working class and further our goals.


Therefore, we will not have anything to worry about post-revolution since the whole world will overthrow their oppressors at the same time. The only people left would be paramilitary groups that&#39;ll easily be wiped out.

Wow. What a load of shit. Nations develop unevenly. To say that the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie at the same time is not only unMarxist, it&#39;s completely void of any common sense.


I am sure that capitalism had been established in some parts of Russia, but feudalism and feudal relations persisted in the vast majority of the country. So bourgeois relations were not dominant. So while it may not be true that you needed a revolution, you do (at least according to Marx) need the dominant system to be capitalist. Which it wasn&#39;t (despite what Lenin may have had to say on the matter).

Actually, it was. Serfdom was abolished with the Emancipation of 1861 (and along with it the entire feudal system). Redemption payments were made to the state over the next four decades; payments were responsible by the mir. At this time many peasants became seasonal workers, working in the cities until the harvest (1 in 2 peasant households in European Russia had a family member leaving the village for seasonal work). Also, the Stolypin reforms encouraged peasants to consolidate their holdings and separate from the mir, which was an attempt at giving the peasantry a petty-bourgeois mentality. By 1914 about 40% of peasant households in European Russia had separated from the mir.


Here I was thinking that the DoP would only be brought about when a majority of the population were proletariat ... Am I wrong? Is it possible that communism is about the proletariat and fuck any other oppressed class (such as the peasantry)?

The whole point is that socialism could be brought about in abnormal conditions. It really depends on the material conditions, and saying that socialism is only brought about when the proletariat is the majority isn&#39;t correct.

Also, it&#39;s not about "fuck any other oppressed class (such as the peasantry)". The allies of the working class will be supported while the enemies of the working class will be supressed. If certain elements of the peasantry, or the peasantry as a whole, are on either side, then they will be treated accordingly.


Socialism is about equality and freedom. It is about the removal of oppression.

Socialism is the ultimate oppression - the oppression of one class by another. It&#39;s not about "freedom" or "antiauthoritarianism" or any such rubbish.


So "Marxism-Leninism" isn&#39;t any different from classical Marxism? What&#39;s with the "-Leninism" part then?

Of course Marxism-Leninism exists.


Are you seriously denying that Leninism exists?

Yes.


Revolutions live and die on "tactics". To assert that political tactics have nothing to do with ideology is ludicrous. The Bolsheviks employed the tactics they did because they believed them to be an effective means of achieving communism

Tactics are influenced by both ideology and the material conditions present. However, tactics are not ideology. That is a crucial point.

[anomaly]

It is plainly evident that my old sparring partner, KC, is still in the closet over being a Lennie. Now, I will agree that your obvious embarrassment over your beliefs is quite deserved, however your beliefs are your beliefs. Stand by them.

Now, it would please me, on this site mostly as a reader these days as I&#39;m at uni, if you would quit your senseless quarreling over semantics. Whether you want to call your outdated ideology &#39;Marxism-Leninism&#39; or simply &#39;Leninism&#39;, it does not matter. However, to be so frightened at being in the minority on revleft (as a Leninist) so as to claim that Leninism doesn&#39;t exist is simply rather stupid. It is historically evident that Leninism exists. It is simply defined by what Lenin wrote and did. A Leninist, such as yourself, follows and believes in good ol&#39; Vlad.

Put simply, the most recognized &#39;contribution&#39; Lenin made to Marxism was that of his &#39;Vanguard Party&#39;. We cannot say &#39;vanguard&#39;, my anti-authoritarian comrades, or else this Lennie will throw his usual temper tantrum. As entertaining as they often are, I have begun to get rather annoyed by his impression of a skipping record. It is painfully apparent to everyone but yourself that you support this &#39;contribution&#39; of Vladimir.

Now, to get to the point (I think) of this discussion, besides the normal squabbles between Leninists and anarchists, yes, the overthrow of capitalism and the State do demand organization. However, to assume to only worthwhile organization is that which is vertically structured, like your lovely Parties, is a terrible mistake. The emergence of horizontal structures, especially within anarchist groups, should be noted here. The NEFAC has a more platformist structure, however the dominant horizontal features should be noted. Any &#39;network&#39; is usually horizontally organized as well. The autonomous Marxists seem to prefer this form of organization as well.

Another point in the discussion: can &#39;socialism&#39; be built in a country in which the working class is the minority? Well, a few definitions are required. I&#39;ll use KC&#39;s definition of socialism (the &#39;correct&#39; version, as he&#39;d say). However, working class is very vague, especially today. But usually, looking at the nations classes broadly, whether or not the &#39;working class&#39; is in the minority or not should be clear.

We can take an nation in which the peasantry is the majority as an example, such as Ghana. Now, what the authoritarians seem to be implying is that &#39;socialism&#39; can be built in a nation such as Ghana, using their fantastic vertically structured Parties, no doubt. However, I take the opposing view. &#39;Socialism&#39; cannot occur because the material conditions are not yet advanced enough. More likely, nations such as Ghana will be some of the very last in the world to overthrow capitalism and the State.

But if it can be done, then I&#39;d very much like to see it.

Speaking as a human in the United States, I think the old Leninist strategies for success are far outdated for us. It is time for something more democratic, something more autonomous, and something less authoritative. I think the future of the radical left in nations such as the US will be dominated by anarchism and autonomous Marxism.

Speaking on a small scale, I can cite a good example. At my university, the only two existing radical left organizations are Marxist-humanist (akin to autonomous Marxism) and libertarian socialist (anarchism), respectively. There does not exist a Lenist (or even Marxist-Leninist) youth brigade or any such thing. In the local radical labor scence as well, most of the big players are either autonomous Marxists, anarchists, or far-left liberals.

Feel free to comment, but don&#39;t expect a response from me. I&#39;ve rarely any time to post these days, and I was fortunate that I had some today.

m(A)tt

[Labor Shall Rule]

Lenin was defending various central Marxist theories against opportunists, nationalists, and ultra-leftists that claimed they followed scientific socialism. Marx supported the notion of a class conscious grouping of the working class that would lead the revolution. He even supported the "vangaurd party", in one of his addresses to the Communist League. "Leninism" wasn&#39;t even a term produced by Lenin. Grigory Zinoviev actively used the term, and many party members denied it throughout the 20s, of course until the rise of Stalin. So these concepts of democratic centralism, the vangaurd party, etc., etc., were all theories that Marx created decades earlier before Lenin published What is to be Done? and The State and Revolution. These ideas is what split Marx from Bakunin, and the autonomists from the "authoritarians".

[GX.]

Obviously, but the transition between "lots" and "little" is gradual, it doesn&#39;t "just happen" because of some "bad man" "perverting" it...

Well, yeah. And every single "Leninist" (actually Trotskyist) that I&#39;ve come in contact with maintains that bureaucratism in Russia didn&#39;t just develop out of nowhere. Stalin didn&#39;t create bureaucracy all by himself, but was the embodiment of the interests of an emerging social class, a class whose emergence was the inevitable result of relative material scarcity and the failure of the revolution to spread abroad. But the bureaucracy was already developing under Lenin, and Lenin no doubt made certain mistakes which eased the development of bureaucracy (though, at the same time, he struggled against bureaucratism). I don&#39;t think if Trotsky came into power instead of Stalin, that he could have crushed the bureaucracy. In the long run, the bureaucracy could have only been legitimately fought internationally and through organic class struggle, from below. Thus, Leninists/Trots are first and foremost internationalists.


Revolution needs to be class-based, but it also needs to be popular. A popular socialist revolution? Umm.. Good luck with that.


To the Leninists I must say though, you know full well what people mean when they attack the "vanguard". Obviously they&#39;re not critisizing the notion of politically active workers, but rather the Leninist extension on that notion. I should hope anarchists and marxists alike agree on the need for a vanguard. But I think when people attack "the vanguard," they&#39;re attacking something closer to the Marxist-Leninist conception of the vanguard party than the "Leninist" conception of the vanguard party. Lenin made it pretty clear that he supported any plausible (plausible in this case meaning democratic and centralized) system of socialist political organization. Shit, I think some trends in anarchism are fine, and I wouldn&#39;t mind living in some anarchist societies (particularly the ones invisioned by Friends of Durruti and Dielo Trouda).


So "Marxism-Leninism" isn&#39;t any different from classical Marxism? What&#39;s with the "-Leninism" part then?

Are you seriously denying that Leninism exists? :blink: That has got to be one the wierdest defenses of Leninism I&#39;ve ever seen.

Revolutions live and die on "tactics". To assert that political tactics have nothing to do with ideology is ludicrous. The Bolsheviks employed the tactics they did because they believed them to be an effective means of achieving communism

If they were right, those tactics should be repeated, if they were wrong, they should not. But that&#39;s a question of ideology; of whether or not one accepts the idea of the disciplined "vanguard party" or the idea of the dictatorial "workers&#39;" state. I think he&#39;s saying that Leninism/Trotskyism is no different from classical Marxism in that it uses the same analytical tools that Marx gave us. Leninism, and Trotskyism, is simply the continuation of dialectical materialism as put forth by Marx. The only major theoretical contribution Lenin made to Marxism was an analysis of late capitalism. His main contribution to Marxism was the application of Marxist principles to the Russian situation. So "Leninism" is a set of tactics, not a distinct ideology. You&#39;ll seldom here somebody call themselves a Leninist, either, because most bolshevik-Leninists are Trostkyists, and most Trotskyists are bolshevik-leninists. Marxism-Leninism/anti-revisionism is a different story entirely. It&#39;s a reaction to the "de-Stalinization" of Russia and manifests itself as Titoism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, etc.

[KC]

Now, it would please me, on this site mostly as a reader these days as I&#39;m at uni, if you would quit your senseless quarreling over semantics. Whether you want to call your outdated ideology &#39;Marxism-Leninism&#39; or simply &#39;Leninism&#39;, it does not matter.

It certainly does matter. "Leninism" implies a coherent ideology, seperate from Marxism. This doesn&#39;t exist. Lenin never came up with a coherent ideology separate from Marxism. His theories are an extension of Marxism to the age of imperialism; hence the term "Marxism-Leninism".


It is simply defined by what Lenin wrote and did.

I&#39;m sorry but that isn&#39;t what an ideology is.


Put simply, the most recognized &#39;contribution&#39; Lenin made to Marxism was that of his &#39;Vanguard Party&#39;.

Here&#39;s some proof of how little you know about Lenin&#39;s theoretical contributions to Marxism.


We cannot say &#39;vanguard&#39;, my anti-authoritarian comrades, or else this Lennie will throw his usual temper tantrum. As entertaining as they often are, I have begun to get rather annoyed by his impression of a skipping record. It is painfully apparent to everyone but yourself that you support this &#39;contribution&#39; of Vladimir.

The idea of a vanguard wasn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s. Are you trying to embarass yourself?



Now, to get to the point (I think) of this discussion, besides the normal squabbles between Leninists and anarchists, yes, the overthrow of capitalism and the State do demand organization. However, to assume to only worthwhile organization is that which is vertically structured, like your lovely Parties, is a terrible mistake.

Please show how the League is "vertically structured".


Another point in the discussion: can &#39;socialism&#39; be built in a country in which the working class is the minority?

And the answer is that it all depends on the material conditions within that country. You can&#39;t compare Ghana to 1917 Russia because the material conditions are completely different. Here&#39;s your typical anarchist vulgarization of Marxist theory.


Now, what the authoritarians seem to be implying is that &#39;socialism&#39; can be built in a nation such as Ghana, using their fantastic vertically structured Parties, no doubt.

I don&#39;t think anyone implied that. Perhaps you could show where it was implied?


&#39;Socialism&#39; cannot occur because the material conditions are not yet advanced enough.

And in the case of Ghana I agree with you.

[LoneRed]

anomaly, you&#39;re digging your own grave, I suggest you stop, you clearly do not understand central marxist notions, but instead it seems that your looking at marxism, through, Its "vulgar marxist" phase, that happens a lot, You are failing to see things dialectically, in how every little action has a reaction and so forth, how mass movements are made, and how the societal relationships greatly affect that.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)His theories are an extension of Marxism to the age of imperialism; hence the term "Marxism-Leninism".[/b]
I completely disagree. Lenin&#39;s theories are not simply an &#39;extension&#39; of Marxism, they are a complete mutation. From dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin created a dictatorship of the Vanguard Party.


Here&#39;s some proof of how little you know about Lenin&#39;s theoretical contributions to Marxism.
I don&#39;t think so. You&#39;re referring to his theoretical work on imperialism, however, this ignores everything that Vlad did. Historically, the most significant &#39;contribution&#39; to Marxism given by Lenin is the concept of the Vanguard Party.


I don&#39;t think anyone implied that. Perhaps you could show where it was implied?


Originally posted by [email protected]
We&#39;ve been talking about the building of socialism within a country in which the working class is a minority.

This would refer to a country in which the peasantry was in the majority. My example was Ghana, though there are others. The point, of course, is that communist revolution is impossible in such a State.


Please show how the League is "vertically structured".
Do you or do you not have a Central Committee in this &#39;League&#39; of yours? And do they or do they not have an authoritative position?


LoneRed
anomaly, you&#39;re digging your own grave, I suggest you stop, you clearly do not understand central marxist notions, but instead it seems that your looking at marxism, through, Its "vulgar marxist" phase, that happens a lot, You are failing to see things dialectically, in how every little action has a reaction and so forth, how mass movements are made, and how the societal relationships greatly affect that.
&#39;Dialectics&#39; is a load of bullshit. Don&#39;t lecture me with that.

However, I certainly do understand central Marxist notions. The thing I don&#39;t understand is the thinking of the authoritarians.

[Dyst]

The reason "leninism" is more or less non-existant in the U.S. is because of the extremely aggressive anti-communist (or rather, anti-Soviet) propaganda the U.S. has been exposed to through the years.

In all other "advanced" nations I have been to or heard about there has, in my experience, been a higher amount of (what the american anarchists would call) leninists than "anarchists". And sorry to go ad hominem but the few anarchists tends to be either extremely capitalistic or simply uninterested middle-class students (lifestylists).

So, to summarize, in most corners of the world and peoples minds, (what american anarchists would call) Leninism = the revolutionary left. So stop being so ignorant.

[KC]

I completely disagree.

Nobody cares.



I don&#39;t think so. You&#39;re referring to his theoretical work on imperialism, however, this ignores everything that Vlad did.

And what he did can&#39;t be analyzed in a vacuum, much to your disappointment. Material conditions must be taken into account, which is something that you are refusing to do. Lenin wrote about the role of the Bolshevik party in early 20th century Russia. This was in no way a general theoretical contribution to Marxism. Moreover, it was a conclusion drawn from a Marxist analysis of the material conditions present in Russia at the time.

People like you who try to draw an ideology out of Lenin&#39;s actions are the ones that horribly misunderstand not only Lenin&#39;s theories and actions, but also a complete lack of thought in regards to what constitutes an ideology.



This would refer to a country in which the peasantry was in the majority. My example was Ghana, though there are others. The point, of course, is that communist revolution is impossible in such a State.


And I never implied that it was possible in every single country where the working class was the majority. If you would like to show where I or anyone else implied that then that would be great. Otherwise your point is completely irrelevant.

Your black-and-white interpretation of theory is completely idiotic. "He said that it was possible for Russia to have a socialist revolution&#33; That must mean that he thinks it&#39;s possible in all countries where the working class is the majority&#33;"

Do you know what material conditions are?


Do you or do you not have a Central Committee in this &#39;League&#39; of yours? And do they or do they not have an authoritative position?

Of course we do. The existence of a central committee doesn&#39;t imply the existence of a verticalist party structure. In fact, the central committee is completely subordinate to the congress, which is a body of delegates from different circles.



However, I certainly do understand central Marxist notions.

You&#39;ve repeatedly shown that you don&#39;t. Your disregard for material conditions is a great example of this.

[LSD]

Of course Marxism-Leninism exists.


Are you seriously denying that Leninism exists?

Yes.

<_<

Why do you do this KC? It&#39;s like the "vanguard" thing; you know what we mean, you&#39;re just being obstinent.

So here&#39;s an idea. Every time that someone writes "Leninism" just replace it in your mind with "Marxism-Leninism".

Happy now?


It certainly does matter. "Leninism" implies a coherent ideology, seperate from Marxism.

No it doesn&#39;t, it just implies a theoretical paradigm based on some guy called "Lenin". Where that theory came from, what it&#39;s based on... that&#39;s too much information to be contained in a name.

After all, no one would deny that "Hiterlism" is a form of fascism even though it&#39;s not called "Fascism-Hitlerism".

"Marxism-Leninism" isn&#39;t a neutral political label, it&#39;s a piece of propaganda, it&#39;s an attempt to make a political point -- that Leninism is "really just Marxism".

And since that position is highly controversial, it seems disingenuous to refer to Leninism as "Marxism-Leninism", just as it seems disengenuous to call Maoism "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism".

The question of how much Marx there is in Lenin is one that remains open, certainly we&#39;ve had enough threads on the subject on this board. Accordingly, I find it inappropriate to refer to Leninism as "Marxism" with a hyphen.

Now, clearly you disagree and feel that "Marxism-Leninism" is an appropriate term and I have no doubt that you will go on using that term. But please don&#39;t try and enforce your linguistic choices on the rest of us.

I use the term "Leninism" because it is my conviction that Lenin&#39;s theories are sufficiently different from those of Marx to merit his own ideological label. That is a reasonable and defensible positon.

So, in the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from engaging in these petty semantic squabbles. You have your prefered term and I have mine. So long as we can understand each other, I really don&#39;t see what the problem is.

So how about we move on to actually discussing theory?


Well, yeah. And every single "Leninist" (actually Trotskyist) that I&#39;ve come in contact with maintains that bureaucratism in Russia didn&#39;t just develop out of nowhere. Stalin didn&#39;t create bureaucracy all by himself, but was the embodiment of the interests of an emerging social class, a class whose emergence was the inevitable result of relative material scarcity and the failure of the revolution to spread abroad.

Again, though, you&#39;re missing the point.

Social classes don&#39;t just "emerge" and in truly democratic worker-controlled socities there is no room for new rulling classes to appear, bureacratic or otherwise.

If the means of production are in the hands of the workers and all issues of public policy are democratically determined, there&#39;s simply no place for emergent elits, political or economic.

Obviously, though, Soviet Russia was not a democratic or worker-controlled state. Rather, it was a tightly structured top-down ideological autocracy.

And that kind of society is ripe for the emergence of a new elite, indeed it&#39;s basically ineveitable. Think about it, this is Marxism 101. If a select group has total control over the means of production, that group forms an economic class.

Regardless of who they claimed to "represent", regardless even of what they believed, when the Bolsheviks became the sole political power in Russia, they also became the sole economic power ...and that made them a ruling class.

The Soviet bureacracy didn&#39;t "take over" because Germany failed to revolt or because materials were scarce (when aren&#39;t they), in fact the bureacracy didn&#39;t even "take over" at all.

Rather it was there from the begining. From the moment that Lenin set up a centralized Bolshevik state he nescessitated a ruling bureaucratic elite.

There was never an alternative.


I should hope anarchists and marxists alike agree on the need for a vanguard. But I think when people attack "the vanguard," they&#39;re attacking something closer to the Marxist-Leninist conception of the vanguard party than the "Leninist" conception of the vanguard party.

I don&#39;t think that there&#39;s really a difference, though. The "vanguard party" is what it is.

Obviously there&#39;s a degree of hyperbole in some Anarchist critiques of Leninist party structures, but to be honest the "vanguard" model pretty much speaks for itself ...as do the consequences of its employment.

"Democratic centralism" doesn&#39;t work.

The CCP preceding 1949; the CPY before 1945; all those "communist" parties that "Marxist-Leninists" so routinely condemn for holding the "wrong lines", if their leaders had not held such absolute power, those "wrong lines" might have been corrected.

And why do you think it is that "revolutionary parties" are so prone to splitting and fanctionalism? When there&#39;s no voice heard but the "leader&#39;s", people, especially politically committed people, tend to get frustrated and disillusioned.

Don&#39;t believe me? Ask one of your friends in the Communist League USA -- not affiliated with the Communist League of Great Britain, the Revolutioanry Communist League of France, or the former Communist League UK; also unaffiliated with the Socialist Workers Party (formerly the Communist League USA) or its associated parties such as the Communist League NZ, The Communist League of Canada, two Communist Leagues of Australia, etc...

Seriously, can you people say People&#39;s Front of Judea? :rolleyes:

And none of this even addresses the most important point, namely that you can&#39;t seperate "pre" from "post" revolution as if the two have no bearing on one another. The way that the "party" rules after a revolution is entirely determined by the way that it is run before-hand.

Democracy "pre-revolution" may be inconvenient, but it also essential if "post-revolution" we&#39;re going to actually serve someone other than the party elite.


The reason "leninism" is more or less non-existant in the U.S. is because of the extremely aggressive anti-communist (or rather, anti-Soviet) propaganda the U.S. has been exposed to through the years.

I would actually contest that explanation. Obviously anti-communist propaganda played a part in the marginaliztion of the extreme left, but what really did the far-left in was the Soviet Union itself.

The physical reality of what the Soviet system actually was in the 1950s and 1960s did far more damage to communism than any propaganda campaign ever could.

It&#39;s not unlike how the American far-right was discredited following the Second World War. It&#39;s hard to push for a "socialist revolution" when just across the Atlantic there&#39;s that Stalinist monstrosity staring you in the face.

Now obviously, the Soviet Union was not communist, but that&#39;s a distinction that most people don&#39;t make. It claimed to be communist and for 90% of the population, that was enough.

And, of course, China didn&#39;t help, neither did Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, etc... By the 1980s, there were more failed Leninst states in the world than there were communist parties in the United States.

Is it really such a mystery that Leninism was discredited?


Do you know what material conditions are?

Do you?

Because if Lenin&#39;s "tactics" were nothing more than a specifc response to the conditions of 1917 feudalist Russia, then what relevence do they have today?

Either Lenin constructed a new theoretical and political approach to socialism or he was just another political tactician trying to get into power. And if it&#39;s the latter, then we have no business following his example.


Of course we do. The existence of a central committee doesn&#39;t imply the existence of a verticalist party structure.

Of course it does. It may be "democratic" in organization, but it&#39;s still hierarchical in structure.

Now whether you think that&#39;s a "bad" thing or not depends on your political and ideological outlook, but to deny that "representative" leadership is "verticalist" is ludicrous.

Whenever there is a select group, seperate from the general organization, that makes decision, regardless of how the individual members are selected that&#39;s a political elite.

Besides, democracy isn&#39;t about "party Congresses", it&#39;s about participatory management.

The nature of political parties is that the leadership very rarely reflects the party at large. Ideologues and bureacrats are the only ones who have the dedication and energy to rise to the top. The rest barely have time to attend meetings.

At its hight, the CPSU counted something like 10% of the Soviet population among its members, around half of those were industrial workers. Despite the official tally, however, no one but the most die hard "revisionist" would claim that those 9 odd million workers had any say whatsover over state policy.

Stalin and Khruschev and Gorbachev did not differ to the "will" of the proletariat, they "judged" what was in the "popular interest" and acted accordingly. And they did so because that&#39;s what Lenin had done before them.

As I&#39;ve repeated several times, power perpetuates itself and once it&#39;s established it does not dissapate without a fight. Lenin and his successors may have meant well, but because they operated within a centralized and anti-democratic power structure, they could not help but be oppressive.

And unfortunately those organizations which continue Lenin&#39;s legacy are still making those same mistakes. Instead of running a revolutionary organization openly and democratically, they appoint "congreses" and "central committees".

Oh sure, they have regular elections to fill vaccancies and every "leader" was duly voted in ...but then so was George Bush.

The party structure is intrinsicaally bourgeois and will always be a tool of oppression and subjugation. The only way for a revolutionary organization to be truly revolutionary is by basing itself on the proletariat.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:40 PM
I completely disagree. Lenin&#39;s theories are not simply an &#39;extension&#39; of Marxism, they are a complete mutation. From dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin created a dictatorship of the Vanguard Party.


Lenin hardly had any direct theories on state. It was all borrowed directly from Marx. What do you think differentiates Marx and Bakunin from eachother anyway?

Marx and Engels&#39; address to the Communist League (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

"As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization."

[Janus]

And why do you think it is that "revolutionary parties" are so prone to splitting and fanctionalism? When there&#39;s no voice heard but the "leader&#39;s", people, especially politically committed people, tend to get frustrated and disillusioned.

Don&#39;t believe me? Ask one of your friends in the Communist League USA -- not affiliated with the Communist League of Great Britain, the Revolutioanry Communist League of France, or the former Communist League UK; also unaffiliated with the Socialist Workers Party (formerly the Communist League USA) or its associated parties such as the Communist League NZ, The Communist League of Canada, two Communist Leagues of Australia, etc...
All you have shown is that Communist and League are popular names for communist organizations. By the way, there is no Communist League USA.

[Messiah]

The reason "leninism" is more or less non-existant in the U.S. is because of the extremely aggressive anti-communist (or rather, anti-Soviet) propaganda the U.S. has been exposed to through the years.

As has been said, the Soviet Union and most supposed socialist/communist states did a far better job discrdditing themselves than even the bloated US propaganda machine ever could have.

Besides, it wasn&#39;t just anti-communist, it was anti-left as a whole. It just so happens anarchism, by and large, fared better than the communists because they refused to defend them undefendable and something they never stood for in the first place. Early 20th century anarchists like Goldman and Berkman still suffered at the hands of the US government, but they had a larger following, the whole anarchist movement did, in the US than the Leninists ever did.

This is due in part because of certain cultural differences, but also because of the development of American (and Canada for that matter) industrial society. Radicals in North America were very aware of the fact that they didn
t want to replace one ruling elite with another, they wanted revolution in the hands of the workers and the people themselves and they organized accordingly. They refused to call for "proletariat" uprisings while putting hands into the power of a vanguard party. Due to that intllectual and organizationl honesty, anarchism remains and popular radical current in N. America.



In all other "advanced" nations I have been to or heard about there has, in my experience, been a higher amount of (what the american anarchists would call) leninists than "anarchists". And sorry to go ad hominem but the few anarchists tends to be either extremely capitalistic or simply uninterested middle-class students (lifestylists).

I find it ironic that a supposed "Communist" is talking about a middle class. Since when do we believe in a middle class, friend? I was under the impression that there were two classes: the working class and the employing class.

Secondly, you&#39;re right, ad homiem is a garbage argument so I won&#39;t even address it frankly. Anecdotal evidence does nothing to further you argument.

And lastly, I will argue that in the next ten to twenty years you will see a far larger increase in the number of anarchists, left communists, explicit non-Leninists and anti-authoritarian radicals as whole than the continuation of "Marxist-Leninist" thinkers and activists. I do not for one second thing that Marxism is dead, in fact I think just the number of people at the message board shows that it will remain a integral theory in the modern world. But Leninism, and Soviet era proponents is on the way out, I have little doubt of that. At least in the West. It remains very active in the developing world. And that probably makes sense, I think it&#39;s a stage, one doomed to failure, but one that people will go through on their path to liberation.


So, to summarize, in most corners of the world and peoples minds, (what american anarchists would call) Leninism = the revolutionary left. So stop being so ignorant.

Ironic, to say the least. No Leninism = revolutionary left is not in the minds of most of the world&#39;s people. It&#39;s more correct to say, that if most of the world&#39;s people have been exposed to revolutionary thought, it has been Leninism. Thus, it&#39;s not that they equate the two, it&#39;s that they are unfamilair or completely ignorant of the vast amount of dissenting literature and opinions in regards to Leninism. Because of the USSR, Leninist thought has maintained an irong grip, a monopoly on many under developed countries and their supposed communist movements. I have no doubt that the further the USSR sinks into history, the less relvent the teachings of their failed experiment will be.

[IronColumn]

The USSR is actually very important to leftists of all stripes. In Kropotkin&#39;s words, "It taught us how not to make communism". Spain, the paris commune, and so on are important for teaching us how to make communism.

[Rawthentic]

Geez ur right....that&#39;s such a simple lesson that some people just cant grasp.

Those who deny history will be forced to repeat it. ;)

Or something like that

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:05 AM
Geez ur right....that&#39;s such a simple lesson that some people just cant grasp.

Those who deny history will be forced to repeat it. ;)

Or something like that
Who denies history here?

[GX.]

Again, though, you&#39;re missing the point.

Social classes don&#39;t just "emerge" and in truly democratic worker-controlled socities there is no room for new rulling classes to appear, bureacratic or otherwise.

If the means of production are in the hands of the workers and all issues of public policy are democratically determined, there&#39;s simply no place for emergent elits, political or economic. I haven&#39;t missed that point, and in fact I agree with it. Lenin wanted a democratic worker&#39;s state, consisting entirely of democratically elected representatives subject to recall at any time, but how we want things to be and what&#39;s actually possible don&#39;t always line up. How do you suppose the USSR could have accomplished the trick of maintaining democratic worker&#39;s control with civil war, famine, staggering illiteracy rates, and attack from 14 surrounding countries? Material conditions, material conditions, material conditions. Marx himself remarked on the danger of bureaucratic degeneration in the event of backwardness and material isolation. It&#39;s "Marxism 101." Bureaucratism is really going to be an inevitable feature of any revolution in any developing nation as long as imperialism is around. Again, this is why we&#39;re internationalists. All this hubbub about Leninists really amounts to in my eyes is a lot of moral indignation over the conditions in Soviet Russia. But there&#39;s no room for subjective moralising in scientific analysis (of course, Bakunin and Goldman and others detested the concept of a scientific socialism). It&#39;s not as if the anarchists could have done better. It&#39;s not as if they could have rode in on their horses, armor clad with swords in hand, and set all of the workers free forever more.


The Soviet bureacracy didn&#39;t "take over" because Germany failed to revolt or because materials were scarce (when aren&#39;t they), in fact the bureacracy didn&#39;t even "take over" at all. Notice I said relative material scarcity. Relative, that is, to the rest of the world. And could you at least get our ("Leninists") arguments right?


From the moment that Lenin set up a centralized Bolshevik state he nescessitated a ruling bureaucratic elite.

There was never an alternative. So are you saying that bureaucracy is an inherit feature of all hierarchical institutions, that representatives of the working class never act in the working class&#39;s interests? But on the other hand, I guess we&#39;ll have to assume that the anarchist "delegates" to the (anti-hierarchical, of course) "federational convention" chosen through "consensus vote" would act in the working class&#39; interests?


I don&#39;t think that there&#39;s really a difference, though. The "vanguard party" is what it is.

Obviously there&#39;s a degree of hyperbole in some Anarchist critiques of Leninist party structures, but to be honest the "vanguard" model pretty much speaks for itself ...as do the consequences of its employment. ? Are you suggesting that there&#39;s not a significant difference between Zinovievist party structure and Bolshevik party structure? Hyperbole doesn&#39;t even begin to cover it. More like outright lying.


And why do you think it is that "revolutionary parties" are so prone to splitting and fanctionalism? When there&#39;s no voice heard but the "leader&#39;s", people, especially politically committed people, tend to get frustrated and disillusioned. Why do groups split? Because of marginalisation, defeat, and inaction. Groups split on the grounds that they differ on some fundamental matter of principle and hold the one true correct and authentic Marxist position concerning that principle in opposition to every other group (but this is never the case). Groups don&#39;t split because Democratic Centralist party structure is too rigid or some nonsense, they split because people are unwilling to unite or find common ground, to reconcile their petty disputes, and because they see ideological differences where there are none (that matter, anyway).


Don&#39;t believe me? Ask one of your friends in the Communist League USA -- not affiliated with the Communist League of Great Britain, the Revolutioanry Communist League of France, or the former Communist League UK; also unaffiliated with the Socialist Workers Party (formerly the Communist League USA) or its associated parties such as the Communist League NZ, The Communist League of Canada, two Communist Leagues of Australia, etc...

Seriously, can you people say People&#39;s Front of Judea? :rolleyes:

Communist League USA? Do you mean Communist League (USA)? And SWP was formerly Communist League of America not CLUSA, IIRC. Most of these groups no longer exist. Communist League is a popular name, so what? What&#39;s your point, that communist organizations should find better names? I don&#39;t know anything about CL (USA), but their website tells me they work in conjunction with a larger group, IWPA, and to all appearances they&#39;re not some kind of isolated sect. Maybe if there is some other local group that doesn&#39;t serve a different purpose, they can unite with that group, but I&#39;m sure geographical/language constraints prevent them from uniting with all those other Communist Leagues, lol. I don&#39;t understand what this has to do with splitting/factionalism.

[GX.]

Obviously, though, Soviet Russia was not a democratic or worker-controlled state. Rather, it was a tightly structured top-down ideological autocracy.

And that kind of society is ripe for the emergence of a new elite, indeed it&#39;s basically ineveitable. Think about it, this is Marxism 101. If a select group has total control over the means of production, that group forms an economic class.

Regardless of who they claimed to "represent", regardless even of what they believed, when the Bolsheviks became the sole political power in Russia, they also became the sole economic power ...and that made them a ruling class. Are you saying with this that the Soviet state during Lenin&#39;s rule had complete control over the means of production? Clearly this isn&#39;t the case. Care to provide specific evidence or examples?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Worker&#39;s control of production existed until the beginning of summer in 1918.

[LoneRed]

Socialism is not "the dictatorship of the proletariat". Dictatorship requires someone to oppress, it also requires a minority over a majority. While you may support the oppression of those opposing socialism before it comes about, when we do achieve it, it will not be necessary.


Socialism IS The "dictatorship of the proletariat", A dictatorship is, you are right, or a state to say it correctly is one class oppressing another, The dictatorship neednt be a minority over a majority, but simply one group dominating the other. The Worker&#39;s must suppress all attempts at reinstalling a capitalist society. That is the aim of socialism, its not some pie in the sky, it is the real working class, using state power to oppress the bourgeoisie. Its not just those that oppose socialism, I suggest you look into how socialism can come about, specifically in regards to a "majority" revolution.

[Leo]

Socialism IS The "dictatorship of the proletariat"

No, socialism is not the dictatorship of the proletariat: the dictatorship of the proletariat is the first stage of communism, the dictatorship of international workers councils. As you say, it is workers actively oppressing the bourgeois. However, Marx defines socialism as "man&#39;s positive consciousness" (1844), some sort of an intellectual utopia, a step in man&#39;s psychological evolution of consciousness, something that can only be reached after or during communism.

Also, socialism is used by many happy reformists, so lets not use the term socialism to describe the dictatorship of the proletariat anymore.

[Janus]

No, socialism is not the dictatorship of the proletariat
There are many definitions of socialism. Marx was pretty loose on the definition which allowed Lenin to use it to refer to the transitional stage between capitalism and communism aka the DoP. Lenin&#39;s fame is really what has led the term to become almost synonymous with the DoP.


Also, socialism is used by many happy reformists, so lets not use the term socialism to describe the dictatorship of the proletariat anymore.
It&#39;s a pretty vague term so it creates confusion whenever people use it without clearly stating what they mean by it.

[Leo]

There are many definitions of socialism. Marx was pretty loose on the definition...

It seems pretty clear to me:

"Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society."

(Private Property and Communism, 1844 Manuscripts)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...cripts/comm.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm)


which allowed Lenin to use it to refer to the transitional stage between capitalism and communism aka the DoP.

Which was a good political move for embracing all who were calling themselves socialists (socialist revolutionaries, the majority party) but of course not a theoretical contribution which can be taken seriously.

[Janus]

It seems pretty clear to me

It still doesn&#39;t seem really concrete though and pretty ambiguous here.

Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness


but of course not a theoretical contribution which can be taken seriously
It&#39;s not an important contribution but rather just a terminology change which he was able to effect due to the fact that Marx and Engels were never especially tight on the term.

[Leo]

It&#39;s not an important contribution but rather just a terminology change which he was able to effect due to the fact that Marx and Engels were never especially tight on the term.

Also, Lenin never read 1844, so he might have not have used socialism if he read it.

Anyway, Marx&#39;s usage of the word &#39;socialism&#39; seems pretty nice to me. He pins &#39;utopian socialists&#39; as utopians, and uses socialism to describe utopia.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by LoneRed
Socialism IS The "dictatorship of the proletariat", A dictatorship is, you are right, or a state to say it correctly is one class oppressing another, The dictatorship neednt be a minority over a majority, but simply one group dominating the other. The Worker&#39;s must suppress all attempts at reinstalling a capitalist society. That is the aim of socialism, its not some pie in the sky, it is the real working class, using state power to oppress the bourgeoisie. Its not just those that oppose socialism, I suggest you look into how socialism can come about, specifically in regards to a "majority" revolution.
No socialism is not the "dictatorship of the proletariat". There are not going to be classes in socialism, so who are the proletariat going to oppress? And fuck that state power too.

Like Hiero you seem to be confusing cause and effect. The cause of socialism might be the DoP, but the effect will be socialism, no dictatorship necessary (in fact it is necessary that there is not hierarchical power, as this would impinge on socialism actually working).

Socialism will be "the real working class" living in peace with one another, there will be no bourgeoisie to oppress.

[KC]

who are the proletariat going to oppress?

The bourgeoisie and its allies.

[apathy maybe]

You should really quote me in context ...
Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)There are not going to be classes in socialism, so who are the proletariat going to oppress?[/b]

Khayembii Communique
The bourgeoisie and its allies.They will either be non-existent or irrelevent&#33; How hard is it to understand?

Unless of course we are using different definitions of socialism ... Are you using it to mean the stage between capitalism and communism? If so that would explain what is going on. I was using it as meaning the end result, one of communism, other anarchism or whatever.

[KC]

They will either be non-existent or irrelevent&#33; How hard is it to understand?

No they won&#39;t.


Unless of course we are using different definitions of socialism ... Are you using it to mean the stage between capitalism and communism?

Uh, yeah, that&#39;s how most Marxists use the term.


If so that would explain what is going on. I was using it as meaning the end result, one of communism, other anarchism or whatever.

Nobody is advocating a state in a communist society.

[apathy maybe]

Haha. I guess we were just using the word differently. Glad we sorted that out then.

Yes it is possible in the "transition" that opponents of the revolution will need to be suppressed. But as an anarchist, I do not see using any sort of state as the way to go about it.

But we do not need to get into that debate now.

[KC]

Yes it is possible in the "transition" that opponents of the revolution will need to be suppressed. But as an anarchist, I do not see using any sort of state as the way to go about it.

But we do not need to get into that debate now.

That&#39;s another semantics issue. Look up "State" on marxists.org Encyclopedia and you&#39;ll understand it.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17 2006, 05:59 PM
Haha. I guess we were just using the word differently. Glad we sorted that out then.

Yes it is possible in the "transition" that opponents of the revolution will need to be suppressed. But as an anarchist, I do not see using any sort of state as the way to go about it.

But we do not need to get into that debate now.
The transition between capitalism and communism is not a mere suppression of the capitalists and their lackeys. “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” (Marx) The political transition is the dictatorship of the proletariat but there must also be economic, cultural, etc. transformations. These tasks—automation, cultural revolution, abolition of work, etc. — must be carried out by the organs of the proletariat, including the state.

[Leo]

Originally posted by KC

Unless of course we are using different definitions of socialism ... Are you using it to mean the stage between capitalism and communism?

Uh, yeah, that&#39;s how most Marxists use the term.

Except Marx, of course ;)