Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and Leninism

[Jiub]

I've been hearing talks that Marxism-Leninism is way different than Leninism. I wondered what the difference would be then.

[KC]

There's no such thing as Leninism. People use the term to attempt to separate Lenin's contributions to Marxism from Marxism itself and claim that "Leninism" is an entirely separate ideology from Marxism.

Marxism-Leninism is simply Marxism plus Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory, the most prevalent being Marxism applied in an age of imperialism.

[Jiub]

Thanks, this seems to be a clear and short explaination.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:19 PM
I've been hearing talks that Marxism-Leninism is way different than Leninism. I wondered what the difference would be then.
While what KC said is true, leninism is often thought of as communism where the revolution comes through a workers vanguard party. Marxism-Leninism was coined by Stalin and thus is often used as a more polite term for stalinism.

[LSD]

I've been hearing talks that Marxism-Leninism is way different than Leninism.

From whom?

"Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism" are two names for the same phenomenon: V.I. Lenin's theoretical paradigm -- although when contrasted with "revisionism", "Marxism-Leninism" is often a code-word for political Stalinism rather than traditional Leninism.

I know this can get somewhat confusing, so just remember that, in general, "Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism" mean the same thing.

Now just how "Marxist" Leninism is and whether or not it constitutes a seperate ideology from Marxist Communism in general are points of contention and which term people use are usually determined by their positions on those issues.

As to which term you should use, that's a decision that only you can make. Personally I prefer "Leninism", not only for its brevity, but also because I find the label "Marxism-Leninism" to be more a propaganda piece than an attempt at honest description.

Whichever you chose, however, please keep in mind that semantics are only so important. Many Leninists on this board have this perverse obsession with which words people use to describe their icons, but real revolutionaries are much more interested in ideas than the labels people choose to give them.

If you're interested in reading more on the nature of "Leninism" and the controversy over it's name, I suggest reading On the "slur" of "Leninism" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55050). It's a rather long thread, but pretty much all the positions on this usse are represented and you're sure to get a basic understanding of the various arguments.

[KC]

Just how "Marxist" Leninism is and whether or not it constitutes a seperate ideology from Marxist Communism in general are points of contention.

It's about as controversial as the big bang theory. A bunch of idiots argue against it when it's obviously valid.


Whichever you chose, however, please keep in mind that semantics are only so important. Many Leninists on this board have this perverse obsession with which words people use to describe their icons, but real revolutionaries are much more interested in ideas than the labels people choose to give them.

If that were the case then you're either a. Not a "real revolutionary" or b. Going to start analyzing Lenin's theories based on his theoretical work and not his actions (which was applied due to a specific set of material conditions).

Now, many followers of Lenin have vulgarized his theories to the point where they would like to recreate the Bolshevik experience in their own country. They call this "Marxism-Leninism" when it's not; it's just a set of theories they developed from both the Bolsheviks' actions and a misinterpretation of Lenin's theories.

[LSD]

It's about as controversial as the big bang theory.

Really? I thought that the Leninists on this board didn't believe in the Big-Bang. Something about "dialectics" and "negation"... :rolleyes:

In all seriousness though, it's ludicrous to compare politics to science. There's not mathematical way to contrast Lenin's theories with Marx's and it's delusional to pretend that there is.

You contend that Leninism is nothing more than Marxism "ammended", but you've yet to actually prove that; certainly the evidence you've presented does not even compare with the scientific support for the Big-Bang theory.


If that were the case then you're either a. Not a "real revolutionary" or b. Going to start analyzing Lenin's theories based on his theoretical work and not his actions (which was applied due to a specific set of material conditions).

Does that mean that you only analyze capitalism by reading the theoretical works of its proponents or do you also study its real-world implementation.

Obviously one should read what Lenin thought about his own theories, but one must also consider what happened when he attempted to carry them out. The fact that Leninism has been such an abysmal failure every time it's been attempted cannot be ignored merely because its politically inconvenient.

Otherwise, we're not better than "Libertarians", insisting upon a theory which practice has long discredited.


Now, many followers of Lenin have vulgarized his theories to the point where they would like to recreate the Bolshevik experience in their own country. They call this "Marxism-Leninism" when it's not; it's just a set of theories they developed from both the Bolsheviks' actions and a misinterpretation of Lenin's theories.

Again, this is by no means the "fact" you claim it to be.

It remains controversial just what Lenin's theoretical paradigm is, let alone what constitutes a "perversion" of it. Lenin's work was not only his political writings, is were also his political actions and to ignore what he actually did is to miss the point of the man.

Did Stalin and Mao and the rest "misinterpret" Lenin's ideas? Do modern "Marxist-Leninist-Maoists" perpetuate those misintepretations?

Obviously modern Maoists would disagree, and they'd be pretty lucid in their arguments.

The revolutionary left has yet to come to a consensus on just what Leninism is, both in terms of ideology and in terms of history. And until there is some kind of general agreement on these issues or the accumulated evidence becomes overwhelming, it is disengenuous to uniltaterally declare what the "truth" on this matter is.

[Leo]

There's no such thing as Leninism. People use the term to attempt to separate Lenin's contributions to Marxism from Marxism itself and claim that "Leninism" is an entirely separate ideology from Marxism.

This is absolutely wrong. First of all, Marx's influence on Lenin was small, and only in his April Thesis and State and Revolution can we see Marx's influence - and it is important to note that he shows us how badly he misunderstood Marxin the State and Revolution. As for What is to be done?, there are really few passages that show influence from Marx.

The rest of him comes from Kautsky, Bakunin-Nechayev and old Narodnik celebrities such as Chiernichevsky.

Most of his theoretical 'contributions' doesn't have anything to do with Marx at all.

As for practical implications of his theories; such as supporting national liberation movements, which was one of the worst things ever happened to the communist movement and because of it Lenin died with blood of communist militants and workers all over the world in his hands.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:27 PM
Thanks, this seems to be a clear and short explaination.

I wouldn't say so. Here's a better one:

Marxism is an ideology formed within the II International by Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, etc., and even though it has alot to do with Marx, on the contrary, Marx has himself nothing to do with it. (Marxists would be: Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, August Bebel...)

Leninism is an ideology which refers to Lenin and the expirience of the Russian Revolution, based on his work and the line he pushed for in the Comintern. (Leninists would be: Georg Lukacs, John Reed, Antonio Gramsci...)

Marxism-Leninism is an ideology coined after Lenin's death by the "Soviet triumvirate" of Stalin-Bukharin-Zinoviev, and it became the official ideology of the party line and Comintern. (Marxists-Leninists would be: Edvard Kardelj, Georgi Dimitrov, Enver Hoxha...)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 10:25 PM
There's no such thing as Leninism. People use the term to attempt to separate Lenin's contributions to Marxism from Marxism itself and claim that "Leninism" is an entirely separate ideology from Marxism.

Marxism-Leninism is simply Marxism plus Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory, the most prevalent being Marxism applied in an age of imperialism.
Those two sentences don't logically follows.

[TC]

The distinction you're making between "leninism" as Lenin's ideology and "marxism-leninism" as an ideology invented after Lenin's death by Stalin and Zinoviev makes no sense.

Naturally neither the terms "leninism" nor "marxism-leninism" would have been appropriate to use during Lenin's lifetime since no one ever refers to themselves as a "Theirlastnameist" so Lenin would never have called himself a "leninist" nor would his followers within his party until his retirement and death. Marx likewise never called himself a "Marxist", Mao never called himself a "Maoist", etc.


Further the fact that most if not all 4th international parties who were formed specifically to oppose the Comintern, refer to themselves as "Marxist-Leninist" would seem to indicate that your claim is false.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Sep 23 2006, 02:00 PM--> (TragicClown @ Sep 23 2006, 02:00 PM) ...no one ever refers to themselves as a "Theirlastnameist" so Lenin would never have called himself a "leninist" nor would his followers within his party until his retirement and death. Marx likewise never called himself a "Marxist", Mao never called himself a "Maoist", etc. [/b]

That doesn't disprove anything I've said.

I'll make myslef more clear: Marx not only has nothing to do with coining the term "Marxism", he has nothing to do with it's content.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Further the fact that most if not all 4th international parties who were formed specifically to oppose the Comintern, refer to themselves as "Marxist-Leninist" would seem to indicate that your claim is false.

A simple attempt by some Trotskyists to reclaim the title. It still remains that Marxism-Leninism equals Stalinism, and all other ideologies derived from it.


TAT
Those two sentences don't logically follows.

Yeah, well, logic is not one of the strong sides of "Marxism-Leninism".

[TC]

DJ-TC making up utter babble based only on your own personal authority, derived from nothing, like the notion that Marx has nothing to do with the content of Marxism, just makes you seem absurd and irrelevant. Your own private definitions that you've made up yourself are not going to be adopted in mainstream political discourse.

[Leo]

DJ-TC making up utter babble based only on your own personal authority, derived from nothing, like the notion that Marx has nothing to do with the content of Marxism, just makes you seem absurd and irrelevant. Your own private definitions that you've made up yourself are not going to be adopted in mainstream political discourse.

:lol: Hah! Playing the number card eh TC? "More people think the way I do! What you think doesn't matter!" :rolleyes:

Anyway:


Originally posted by Karl Marx
All I know is I'm not a Marxist.

Does it sound familiar? That was the point. Marx wasn't a man with a grand ego, not only did he admit that he was wrong in several cases in the past, but he actually enjoyed proving himself wrong, as he was a true social scientist and obviously wasn't trying to create a "Marxist dogma".

[Karl Marx's Camel]

All I know is I'm not a Marxist.


IIRC, Marx commented the politics of a French (?) social democratic party portraying itself as marxist, by saying:

"If that is Marxism, I am not a Marxist"

[More Fire for the People]

I think DJ-TC captured the differences between ‘Leninism’ and ‘Marxism-Leninism’ quite well. Marxism-Leninism is the transformation of Lenin’s contribution to Marxism into a dogmatic state-ideology. Leninism is based upon Lenin’s various propositions regarding the means of the working class to carry out their socio-historical tasks. These propositions take varying forms but have a familiar content: struggle for workers’ power by any means necessary.

That is why What is to be done?, The April Theses, The State and Revolution, and Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat are all different but they have the same end: the politcal rule of the working class.

[Lamanov]

TragicClown, it [my "utter babble"] is derived from reading and thinking, two things not exactly characteristic of "Marxists-Leninists". Here's a reference for my claims: How the "Marxists" Buried Marx (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm) and Origins of "Marxism" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2a.htm).

And, of course, for those bit more ambitious: link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm). :lol:

P.S. Why should we listen to a person who thinks that Mirjana Marković is a significant personality for the workers' movement?


Originally posted by NWOG
IIRC, Marx commented the politics of a French (?) social democratic party portraying itself as marxist, by saying: "If that is Marxism, I am not a Marxist"

That is true, for that particular case. But keep in mind that Marx refused all ideology per se.

[Alf]

Leo, greetings - I still don't agree with your assessment of Lenin. Despite some very grave errors, he still made an immense contribution to marxism, above all on the party question and the problem of the state. I would be interested in your reaction to the series of articles we did on 'The Birth of Bolshevism' , beginning here: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/116_1903.html


DJ-TC, we meet again. How are things? I still don't agree with your definition of marxism, if I understand it right. It's the question of the 'organic continuity'.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:14 PM
DJ-TC, we meet again. How are things? I still don't agree with your definition of marxism, if I understand it right. It's the question of the 'organic continuity'.

Not so bad :) .

What do you mean by "organic continuity"?

[Leo]

Leo, greetings - I still don't agree with your assessment of Lenin. Despite some very grave errors, he still made an immense contribution to marxism, above all on the party question and the problem of the state. I would be interested in your reaction to the series of articles we did on 'The Birth of Bolshevism' , beginning here: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/116_1903.html

Hmm, sounds pretty interesting. Thanks for the post, I'll send you an e-mail about my opinions on the text :)

[KC]

You should start a thread on that text.

[Leo]

You should start a thread on that text.

That's a good idea actually.

[Leo]

Ok, here's the new thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=ST&f=6&t=56743 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=56743)

[Alf]

hello Leo - I read your notes on the Birth of Bolshevism article and look forward to more.

DJ-TC: what I mean by 'organic continuity' is that there is a continuous thread connecting the organisations of the workers' movement, in particular the revolutionary minorities, going from (at least) the Communist League, through the three Internationals and the communist left. It's not a straight line - one current holding a monopoly on truth - but it can only be understood as a totality. You can't pick and choose, accept or reject on the basis of simple hindsight, you have to understand that whatever clarity we have today would exist withut the contributions of and debates between previous generations of the movement.

This continuity was fairly obvious to most revolutionaries up until the 1930s or so, but the terrible counter-revolution that descended on the working class at that time came very close to breaking the thread, creatiing a kind of amnesia among latter day revolutionaries, who began to imagine that they had been born fully formed, out of the head of Zeus, or worse, out of their own brains.

I felt that your categorisation of the past and of marxism, leninism, etc, had an echo of this attitude. It's one thing to show that 'marxism-leninism' is the spawn of the counter-revolution, another thing to argue that that Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Lenin, Lukacs (or for that matter, Bebel, Kautsky and co.) were nothing but ideologists and to present them as being on the same level as Stalinism ('marxism-leninism'). Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but I think there is a basic lack of the historical method in your approach.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Alf
It's one thing to show that 'marxism-leninism' is the spawn of the counter-revolution, another thing to argue that that Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Lenin, Lukacs (or for that matter, Bebel, Kautsky and co.) were nothing but ideologists and to present them as being on the same level as Stalinism ('marxism-leninism'). Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but I think there is a basic lack of the historical method in your approach.

No one is leveling the two. Besides, my method is precisely historical.

There's nothing wrong in saying that "Orthodox Marxism" (and that was the first one), as it was formulated by the II International, was a mere ideology with major flaws -- to which Marx has no claim. Allot of it was built upon the separated structures of Social Democracy and missunderstanding of Marx. There's no need to remind you of critical flaws such as "Marxist economics" - refuted by exposition of Grundrisse, concept of private properity as a key element within capital - wage labour relation - refuted by Paris Manuscripts, "Dialectical materialism" - refuted by Theses on Feuerbach, "centralization" - refuted by Drafts of the CWIF, or "worker's state" - refuted by Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy. There are yet allot of myths which come from the ideologists of "Marxism".

Continuity of revolutionary theory stems from the continuity of the class struggle, not from continuity of ideology. It's "curves" stem from the episodic attempts of revolutionary overthrow which always attempts to express itself through theoretical re-birth. Rediscovering theory as a constant search for practical truth does not lie in the "unbroken thread".

Luxemburg and Liebknecht were indeed revolutionaries, and even though they were affected by their own ideological self-authority, they transcended their own ideological flaws by practical engagement in class struggle of the proletariat. By their practical "Aufhebung" they cross the line which separates ideology from theory.

As far as I'm concerned, Lenin, Lukacs and Kautsky stand on the other side of that line of division. To be more precise, they never crossed it, while Luxemburg, Ruhle, Pannekoek, Mattick, did. Regardless of the remaining flaws.

Here's a distinction which separates the two wings of the movement: Bolshevism and Leninism accepted the ideological authority of "Marxism" and its separative ideological essence, while Council Communism and the Ultra-Left accepted authority of practical expression of the working class.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
They call this "Marxism-Leninism" when it's not; it's just a set of theories they developed from both the Bolsheviks' actions and a misinterpretation of Lenin's theories.

I must admit, I find it rather strange that a self-described Marxist would wish to separate revolutionary theory from revolutionary practice. To isolate one from the other, therefore moving any debate into the ideological realm....and not the Theatre we call the material world.

It's strange mainly because Lenin's theoretical contributions are a reflection on real world events; and his theoretical contributions, obviously, had practical implications. Which, of course, makes the subjects of Lenin's theoretical contributions and Bolshevik practice to sides of the same coin. In other words, the component parts of a theoretical paradigm.

To analyse these two things together, and to present "Leninism", Bolshevik-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism as the synthesis of these two elements, is hardly a "vulgarization". If anything, it's the desire to assign Lenin's theoretical contributions the status of a timeless classic, completely removed from their material environment, that represents the real "vulgarization".

After all, I doubt Lenin himself would have wanted to be separated in such a manner. He would have viewed Bolshevik theory and practice as a package; worthy, of course, of a distinct label. And meaning that to analyse it, you'd have to analyse both the practical and theoretical elements of the paradigm. And not just "analyzing Lenin's theories based on his theoretical work and not his actions", as you put it.

And, it's by taking this approach that you can see far more clearly whether X or Y has "vulgarized" Lenin. For instance, if X's practical programme is completely different to the methods of the Bolshevik Party, more specifically the policies advocated by Lenin himself, then it's fair to say that, on this issue, there is little continuity between Lenin and X....a "vulgarization", if you will.

That, to me anyway, seems a far more sensible way of "analysing Lenin" than the method you propose. Which is basically one of completely disconnecting Lenin from the material world and analysing him in a vacuum. Which is, I must add, similar to the way in which bourgeois academia often analyses subjects.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

As for the original question, DJ-TC's answer is pretty good, though I'd disagree slightly with his characterisation of "Marxism". Yes, I'd agree that it was likely made into an "ideology" by the Second International....but I'd also say that "Marxism" was a defined entity before then, just not an "ideology".

Plus, the term Bolshevism is probably a better replacement for the term "Leninism". Even though describing "Leninism" as "Bolshevism" is a misnomer of sorts, because Lenin didn't have a monopoly over the definition of "Bolshevism". There were distinct working class currents that also laid claim to the term "Bolshevism"....and it would be silly to overlook them.

[CombatLiberalism]

There are parties who identify as "Marxist-Leninists," yet usually such an identification is not correct. Most genuine Marxist-Leninists call themselves "Marxist-Leninist-Maoists." Today, there isn't really such a thing Marxism or Marxism-Leninism without Maoism. The reason for this is because Marxism is not just a set of beliefs like a religion. Marxism is revolutionary science. And, today, the most revolutionary science is called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or just Maoism for short.

It's kind of like physics. No physicist claims to be Newtonian and at the same time ignores the advances of Einstein or Quantum Theory. If someone was out there saying they upheld Newton, but not any advances in physics after Newton, you wouldn't really consider them a scientist. You'd say they were taking a metaphysical approach to Newton and you'd say that they misunderstood what Newton was about as a scientist. You'd say they were treating Newton like the scholastics treated Aristotlean doctrine.

What most people on revleft don't understand is that Marxism is an evolving science. It is a SCIENCE. To uphold Marx and nothing that has been discovered since is to take a metaphysical approach to his works that actually goes against Marx's own methodology. The same is true of Marxism-Leninism. You can't really be a Marxist-Leninist without recognizing the incredible advances of Mao. Most people have a channel flipper approach to ideology. "Anarchism is over here," and, "Marxism Leninism over there," and "Maoism there." And, they just pick an ideology like they are picking a favoriate TV show. This kind of approach is completely at odds with Marxism, with science.

[Leo]

As far as I'm concerned, Lenin, Lukacs and Kautsky stand on the other side of that line of division. To be more precise, they never crossed it

I can understand where your arguements against Kautsky and even Lenin are coming, but why are you opposed to Lukacs?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 03:43 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Lenin, Lukacs and Kautsky stand on the other side of that line of division. To be more precise, they never crossed it

I can understand where your arguements against Kautsky and even Lenin are coming, but why are you opposed to Lukacs?

History of Lukac's self-repudiations to ideological authority of any dominant "party line" is all well too known.

[Alf]

DJ: just a brief response for now, but I will try to come back later.

There is no doubt that there were numerous profound flaws and regressions in the social democratic parties, right from the start. Marx and Engels understood this (Engels even attacked the name 'social democracy'); but they also saw that for all their weaknesses these parties were an advance for the real movement. So if you think there is an absolute line - which for me, can only be a class line - between Marx and the Second International, you would have to begin by criticising Marx's fatal errors.

Also your approach seems to leave out the phenomenon of degeneration. This is clear with Lukacs, whose History and Class Consciousness from the early 20s is a real contribution, even though he later capitulated to the counter-revolution. I would also argue that Bebel and Kautsky also degenerated. And of course, Lenin...

Finally (for now) the continuity of the movement isn't constituted simply by class struggle in general, but also by the specific struggles of the political organisations and revolutionary currents active within the working class. This takes us back to the first point - Marx's work makes no sense unless you see it as part of a continual struggle to construct the political organisation of the working class

[Alf]

DJ:
You could check out this article for a more developed argument about the class nature of social democracy: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/084_commy12.html

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by AS+--> (AS)Yes, I'd agree that it was likely made into an "ideology" by the Second International....but I'd also say that "Marxism" was a defined entity before then, just not an "ideology".[/b]

I'd need a concrete evidence for that claim. One which could be combined with that "I'm not a Marxist" thing. ;)


Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf)...you would have to begin by criticising Marx's fatal errors.[/b]

I'm aware of that. But there's just no way to make peace between the ideology of the II International and key theoretical concepts brought forward by Marx. In fact, most of key concepts of "Marxist" ideology from the turn of the century collapsed by the introduction of his unpublished manuscripts, mainly Theses in 1921, Paris Manuscripsts in 1932, and Grundrisse in 1941. Of course, not even already existent works could be analyzed at the time due to existence of these "socialist professors" which held monopoly to interpretation of Marx.

From what I can tell, Marx's greatest practical mistake was his support for the unions. But I don't want to jump to conclusions, I've never read any text in which Marx speaks concretely of them. If I'm not mistaken, MIA has a bulk of his correspondence on that subject, so I'll look into it when I find some free time.


Originally posted by Alf
Also your approach seems to leave out the phenomenon of degeneration. This is clear with Lukacs, whose History and Class Consciousness from the early 20s is a real contribution, even though he later capitulated to the counter-revolution. I would also argue that Bebel and Kautsky also degenerated. And of course, Lenin...

Degeneration? Well, Lukacs made a breakthrough by his analysis of commodity fetishism. But his scriptae about Rosa Luxemburg were, for me, quite honestly, meaningless. Regardless, he never made any other theoretical breakthrough except this one.

Kautsky degenerated? Only degeneration he made is this one: he turned his "Marxism" from the ideology of the revolution to the ideology of reform and pacifism. It's simply a degeneration from one ideology to other ideology.

Lenin, if anything - on a philosophical plane - made a progress. From his 'Epyrio-Criticism...' to his 'Conspectus of Hegel's...' we see a person who is struggling to find his way "back to Marx". Of course, other that that, his practical and ideological "progress" was always alienated and separated from the working class, and always under the vast impression of his ideological development under the banner of the II International --- Kautsky's and Plekhanov's "Marxism".


Originally posted by Alf
Finally (for now) the continuity of the movement isn't constituted simply by class struggle in general, but also by the specific struggles of the political organisations and revolutionary currents active within the working class.

Actually, it is. If we speak of "revolutionary currents active within the working class", it's that simple. We have revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice, and that's it.

But there's a problem. Not all elements, organizations, currents, find themselves integrally within the class itself. Social-democracy erected into a bastiogne of political separation which layed basis for a formulation of specialized ideological representation, helped by limited knowledge of Marx's missunderstood theoretical concepts.

As Debord said: "the representation of the working class has become an enemy of the working class." Workers' struggles in 1920's revealed the struggle between self-emancipation and representation, and thus, between "new" theory of Praxis and ideology as a form alienation. That also happened in 1936, in 1956, in 1968.

True nature of whole Marx's contribution found its rejuvenation in these struggles, not in its "continuity" through ideological authority of any kind.

There is no "ogranic continuity" of revolutionary theory [as a means of "constant search for practical truth"] besides one carried within the class struggle of the proletariat.


[email protected]
This takes us back to the first point - Marx's work makes no sense unless you see it as part of a continual struggle to construct the political organisation of the working class.

Of course, but when we talk about Marx in the context of his practice as an integral part of the struggle of the working class we can speak of his 40 year revolutionary "career" and that's it.

When his work affects us as such, it helps our revolutionary theory, and thus our practice. If we try to reshape it according to our ideological needs, than we're dissfunctioning it.


CombatLiberalism
What most people on revleft don't understand is that Marxism is an evolving science. It is a SCIENCE.

Soul fact that a self described Maoist is calling this "Marxism" a "Science" proves my point: ideologues separated from the working class have their own "science" that only they as specialists can interpret, and thus, lead and represent the working class. The rest of us just don't know, we're not "scientists".

This is precisely what AS describes as a separation of theory from practice, and in this case, in the worst kind of separation.

Now, this is contrary to Marx.


P.S.

It seems that this thread shold be moved back to theory. :D

[Leo]

Degeneration? Well, Lukacs made a breakthrough by his analysis of commodity fetishism. But his scriptae about Rosa Luxemburg were, for me, quite honestly, meaningless. Regardless, he never made any other theoretical breakthrough except this one.

On class consciousness, he is the only one who examined the topic in such great detail. I'm assuming that you also know about Lukacs involvement in Hungary 56. He narrowly avoided execution.

Of course he had lots of bad qualities, but one should remember that he was living in a Stalinist state, and for an intellectual who had been criticized by Lenin and people around him, we could imagine how dangerous it could have been.


Lenin, if anything - on a philosophical plane - made a progress. From his 'Epyrio-Criticism...' to his 'Conspectus of Hegel's...' we see a person who is struggling to find his way "back to Marx". Of course, other that that, his practical and ideological "progress" was always alienated and separated from the working class, and always under the vast impression of his ideological development under the banner of the II International --- Kautsky's and Plekhanov's "Marxism".

As for Lenin, I would say he was a truly weak theoretician with good intentions. He did struggle his way back to Marx, and in his time, and considering the influence likes of Kautsky and Plekhanov had on him, works such as the April Thesis and even State and Revolution despite the fact that it was full of misunderstandings, were pretty impressive. Lenin was taking the proletarian line, despite his weakness in theory, in 1903, when he split from the Mensheviks. Lenin was taking the proletarian line, despite his weakness in theory, in 1914 when he opposed the world war one. was taking the proletarian line, despite his weakness in theory, in 1917, when the Military Commitee of Petrograd and Moscow soviets took power. However, from the first day of the revolution, Lenin and Bolsheviks acted as if it was a coup, and from day one the revolution started degenerating, and Lenin started walking back from the proletarian line he had struggled so much to get to. It can be argued that 1918, Brets-Litovsk was the time when Lenin was anti-working class. I think the fine line is 1921, when the Bolsheviks actually start shooting strking workers, so I say that the Bolshevik Party had became anti-working class by 1921. So I would agree with Alf on Lenin's degeneration.


Kautsky degenerated?

Yet when it comes to Kautsky, it is just pushing it too hard for me too.


Actually, it is. If we speak of "revolutionary currents active within the working class", it's that simple. We have revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice, and that's it.

But there's a problem. Not all elements, organizations, currents, find themselves integrally within the class itself. Social-democracy erected into a bastiogne of political separation which layed basis for a formulation of specialized ideological representation. As Debord said: "the representation of the working class has become an enemy of the working class."

But, here's the problem with your arguement: it's about the role of the organization. A communist organization is not, by any means, to represent the proletariat or have authority on them. The sole reason of the communist organization is to raise class consciousness and argue the right points - that's it! Of course when the working class is struggling, militants of such organizations can take greater roles and participate in workers councils, but even then, their role would be arguing the right position. Infact, this is where a communist organization, which Alf reffered as a continuity of the class movement, differs from any left-capitalist organizations of social-democrat, stalinist trotskyist parties of any variety or combination, syndicalists, national liberation-ists, parlimentarianists etc. Also, those left-capitalist organizations are what I think Debord meant.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Leo
>>On class consciousness, he is the only one who examined the topic in such great detail. I&#39;m assuming that you also know about Lukacs involvement in Hungary 56. He narrowly avoided execution.<<

Not a single worker organized in workers&#39; councils gave a flying fuck about his participation. This might be an overstatement, but it summarizes the improtance of his role in &#39;56.


>>...were pretty impressive.<<

There&#39;s nothing "impressive" about the S&R except the used quotes of Marx and Engels.


>>So I would agree with Alf on Lenin&#39;s degeneration.<<

That&#39;s because you both don&#39;t see that he was "degenerate" from day one he stepped into the realm of revoltionary politics, just as most of Socialist militants and "professors" at the time.

Leading a militant sect to power in the name of the proletariat by coup d&#39;etat and then using all means for holding that power are not two ways of ascend and descend. You are trying to say that everything this sect did before 1918 was "proletarian", and everything after that was "degenerated". Guess what: history is not a fairy tale about "ups and downs", about good leaders and bad ones who take over.


>>Yet when it comes to Kautsky, it is just pushing it too hard.<<

Pushing what too hard?

Maybe you would like to see pre-1914 ol&#39; professor Kautsky as s role model, just as Lenin did, and after that, one big fucking "degeneration", but I don&#39;t. From the standpoint of the revolutionary practice, he was always flawed. To Rosa, his turnover in 1914 was of no surprise. To Lenin, when he first heard the news, he thought it was a lie which is stating the impossible.

Maybe you want to share Lenin&#39;s illusions - but I don&#39;t.


>>But, here&#39;s the problem with your arguement: it&#39;s about the role of the organization. The sole reason of the communist organization is to raise class consciousness and argue the right points - that&#39;s it&#33; ...<<

Was PSUC a "communist organization" you speak of? Was it the CPSU? Was it Pol Pot?

If you actually understood my argument you wouldn&#39;t be making that comment. You obviously didn&#39;t get anything out of there. Simply rephrasing the lines of the Manifesto which you did not read carefully speak for my argument - thus, I&#39;ll repeat myself: "If we speak of "revolutionary currents active within the working class", it&#39;s that simple. We have revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice, and that&#39;s it."

By that talk of "organization" as a form of "continuity" you&#39;re making even bigger mistake that the separation of theory form practice: you&#39;re separating organization and class struggle, identifying representation and those nominally represented, and confusing ideology for theory.


>>...those left-capitalist organizations are what I think Debord meant.<<

:rolleyes:

What you think is irrelevant. If you actually read Debord you wouldn&#39;t be telling me what you "think", but confirming what I allready know.

[Leo]

Not a single worker organized in workers&#39; councils gave a flying fuck about his participation. This might be an overstatement, but it summarizes the improtance of his role in &#39;56.

This is an overstatement. He was a significant participant, so was his daughter who led a revolutionary youth organization. Councils did give a fuck about him, much more than they gave a fuck about Nagy. The question is, was Lukacs really worth it?


There&#39;s nothing "impressive" about the S&R except the used quotes of Marx and Engels.

Used and misunderstood actually, but nevertheless, back in the day and considering Lenin&#39;s theoritical weaknesses, it was rare thing for the majority of leftists in Europe.


Pushing what too hard?

Maybe you would like to see pre-1914 ol&#39; professor Kautsky as s role model, just as Lenin did, and after that, one big fucking "degeneration", but I don&#39;t. From the standpoint of the revolutionary practice, he was always flawed. To Rosa, his turnover in 1914 was of no surprise. To Lenin, when he first heard the news, he thought it was a lie which is stating the impossible.

Maybe you want to share Lenin&#39;s illusions - but I don&#39;t.

Maybe you should calm down a little bit, and I should write more complete sentences.

Yet when it comes to Kautsky, accepting that he was proletarian and that he degenerated is just pushing it too hard. He had never been proletarian.


That&#39;s because you both don&#39;t see that he was "degenerate" from day one he stepped into the realm of revoltionary politics, just as most of Socialist militants and "professors" at the time.

Degenerate as in what? In his intentions? I quite frankly don&#39;t doubt his intentions, nor do I think he was an evil baby-eating creature, but as Marx said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".


Leading a militant sect to power in the name of the proletariat by coup d&#39;etat and then using all means for holding that power are not two ways of ascend and descend. You are trying to say that everything this sect did before 1918 was "proletarian", and everything after that was "degenerated". Guess what: history is not a fairy tale about "ups and downs", about good leaders and bad ones who take over.

Of course not, it seems to me that you are the one who takes history as a fairy tale about "ups and downs", about good leaders and bad ones who take over. I am saying that Lenin managed to take proletarian stances while splitting from the Mensheviks, taking a stance against WWI and in 1917, which was organized by the councils. So this is three. And again, his "denegeration" is not an epic tale of falling into the dark side, it&#39;s the material conditions, and class conditions that really matter. When a small, elite group finds itself on top of the state, they need middle cadres, middle rank army officers and petty land owners to get things done, all those are enough for a class society. Lenin had to degenarate, Lenin had to cross the line, because the situation he had found himself in had made him a petty-bourgeois politician. Material conditions required capitalism in Russia as it was a mostly a vast feudal society, so it came, and now Russia reached full-fledged modern capitalism after 69 years of capitalist development under a command economy.

Now this is how you attack Lenin and the Soviet Union, not by saying that "oh, he was all evil, he was an authoritarian tyrant, a shameless conspirator...". It doesn&#39;t work that way. Blaming individuals, creating cults out of them -either exalting or condemning cults-, is just useless. Leaders don&#39;t make history. History makes leaders, and classes make history. All the evidance you need to prove that whay they practiced was capitalism can be seen by looking at the current stance of Russia. No, it wasn&#39;t a counter-revolution, it was just the next stage of capitalist development, and the exact point where you draw the line to show where this development begun is largely irrelevant.


Was PSUC a "communist organization" you speak of? Was it the CPSU? Was it Pol Pot?

Of course not. I was thinking something like KAI perhaps, or ICP, or ICC.


If you actually understood my argument you wouldn&#39;t be making that comment. You obviously didn&#39;t get anything out of there. Simply rephrasing the lines of the Manifesto which you did not read carefully speak for my argument - thus, I&#39;ll repeat myself: "If we speak of "revolutionary currents active within the working class", it&#39;s that simple. We have revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice, and that&#39;s it."

By that talk of "organization" as a form of "continuity" you&#39;re making even bigger mistake that the separation of theory form practice: you&#39;re separating organization and class struggle, identifying representation and those nominally represented, and confusing ideology for theory.

I am against the entire concept of representation of the working class by parties. That was my whole point, where you seemed to say it would be okay for a sect to represent the working class if it is formed around a current that is active in the working class. It simply wouldn&#39;t do. Workers don&#39;t really care about subjective differences between different currents in their movement. I&#39;ve seen conservatives develop class-consciousness. Do you actually think the Situationist International was representing the working class during May 68, or were they just saying the right, practical and realistic things? What communists, as the most class-consciousness workers, should do is to take the right position. And this, organizations holding positions, becomes continuties depending on the positions held. For examples, me being opposed to all kinds of nationalism is a continuity from left communists opposing WWII. Power of the proletariat comes from not being bound to authorities of parties and unions, it comes from acting independently as a class, with a consciousness.

In a way, and on practical grounds, I am seperating the organization with class struggle. It is not the organization that is going to pull out a strike, workers strike themselves, and they strike because of the problems of their daily lives. The organization obviously can&#39;t strike by itself, I&#39;m sure you can see why this wouldn&#39;t be possible. The organization can&#39;t struggle itself, because it would substitutionalism, which never works. The organize can&#39;t substitute itself with the class.

As for that theory and practice thing, it seems to deeply philosophical for me, but I would say "an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory", and I would even go further to add that theories themselves are developed from historical events and class movements.


What you think is irrelevant. If you actually read Debord you wouldn&#39;t be telling me what you "think", but confirming what I allready know.

Oh, so the authority has spoken <_<

Communist organizations do not try to become representations of the working class. Left-capitalists do. Debords quote stated that people who (claim to) represent the working class are their enemies. Communists don&#39;t want to represent the working class, left capitalists do, therefore Debord&#39;s quote is directed at left capitalist organizations. Is that clear enough?

[Alf]

It’s worth looking into the context of Marx’s oft-quoted remark “I’m not a Marxist” , which is often used by people who like their Marx but are not so sure about some of his followers, especially during the period of the rise of the European social democratic parties. Very often the implication is that Marx made his remark as a means of distancing himself from some of the most overtly opportunistic currents in social democracy, people who already in his day were busying themselves with “state socialist” schemes and looking for ways to ally themselves with the likes of Bismarck in order to reform capitalism into socialism.

Of course, Marx spent a good part of his latter years combating these people. But the remark in question was not so much directed against the deviations from the right of the party, but against something which Marx would probably have called a form of “sectarianism”, a refusal to get involved in practical struggles.

The following passage is from the introduction to the Programme of the Parti Ouvrier on www.marxists.org:

“This document was drawn up in May 1880, when French workers&#39; leader Jules Guesde came to visit Marx in London. The Preamble was dictated by Marx himself, while the other two parts of minimum political and economic demands were formulated by Marx and Guesde, with assistance from Engels and Paul Lafargue, who with Guesde was to become a leading figure in the Marxist wing of French socialism. The programme was adopted, with certain amendments, by the founding congress of the Parti Ouvrier (PO) at Le Havre in November 1880.
Concerning the programme Marx wrote: “this very brief document in its economic section consists solely of demands that actually have spontaneously arisen out of the labour movement itself. There is in addition an introductory passage where the communist goal is defined in a few lines.” [1] Engels described the first, maximum section, as “a masterpiece of cogent argumentation rarely encountered, clearly and succinctly written for the masses; I myself was astonished by this concise formulation” and he later recommended the economic section to the German social democrats in his critique of the draft of the 1891 Erfurt Programme.

After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu&#39;il y a de certain c&#39;est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist” (a remark cited by Engels in his letter to Bernstein of 2-3 November 1882).

If you look at the programme of the Parti Ouvrier, it includes a number of demands which raise the eyebrows today. Some of the economic demands indeed look like realisable goals within the framework of a capitalist society which was still in its ascendant phase and capable of granting real reforms to the working class: legal minimum wage, legal rest day each week, equal pay for men and women, bosses’ responsibility for compensating industrial accidents, etc. But some of the more political demands are more open to question – such as “abolition of the standing army and the general arming of the people”, or “the Commune to be master of its administration and its police”. These demands – which do indeed seem unrealisable within the framework of capitalism - were intimately linked to the notion, enshrined in the document, that the working class could use universal suffrage and the democratic republic as a means for taking political power.
The programme of the Parti Ouvrier thus states that universal suffrage could be “transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation”. In his critique of German social democracy’s Erfurt programme in 1891, Engels refers to the programme of the French party as a model for the Germans to follow. Here he is even more explicit that the democratic republic could, at least in the countries with a functioning parliamentary system, become an instrument for the political emancipation of the working class:

“One can conceive that the old society may develop peacefully into the new one in countries where the representatives of the people concentrate all power in their hands, where, if one has the support of the majority of the people, one can do as one sees fit in a constitutional way: in democratic republics such as France and the U.S.A., in monarchies such as Britain, where the imminent abdication of the dynasty in return for financial compensation is discussed in the press daily and where this dynasty is powerless against the people. But in Germany where the government is almost omnipotent and the Reichstag and all other representative bodies have no real power, to advocate such a thing in Germany, when, moreover, there is no need to do so, means removing the fig-leaf from absolutism and becoming oneself a screen for its nakedness”.

These lines were written, it should be recalled, after the Paris Commune, whose principal lesson, according to Marx and Engels, had been that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the existing state machine but has to smash it and create an entirely new apparatus. Evidently the implications of the lessons they themselves drew from this experience had not been taken to their conclusion. As it happens, it was Lenin, in State and Revolution, a work often dismissed as doing no more than dig up old quotes from Marx and Engels, who concluded that in the epoch of the imperialist, militarist state announced by the first world war, the epoch of proletarian revolution announced by the social upheavals in Russia, the necessity for the violent destruction of the bourgeois state clearly held for all countries in the world.

So Marx, on this point at least, reckoned he was “not a Marxist” not because his teachings had been distorted by openly opportunist currents, but because he did not agree with those who were ready to ditch the “minimum” programme and substituted revolutionary phrases for the patient work of building the class party – a position most obviously crystallised in the anarchist current for whom Marx was never more than the spokesman of an oppressive form of statism and reformism.

There can be no doubt that in carrying out this difficult struggle on two fronts, both Marx and Engels made some substantial errors. Engels in particular was pulled towards the notion of the social democratic party gradually conquering material positions within the old society as a prelude to revolution, a perspective which turned out to be pure illusion, since it was capitalist society which was gradually ‘conquering’ the social democratic parties for its own interests, as the watershed of 1914 finally brought home.

The point remains: however much we can criticise the weaknesses of the social democratic parties and their theorists during the latter part of the 19th century, however much we may point to the huge gulf between Marx’s work and their interpretation of it, it is meaningless to draw a class line between Marx, Engels and the social democratic parties. They were all expressions of the “real movement” of the proletariat; and thus subject to all kinds of mistakes and inevitably limited by the conditions of their times.

[Hannibal_Barca]

wow I just read this whole post and im impressed , you all really know how to stretch a bunch a bibble babble bullshit. Heres one for you to disect , How did the chicken cross the road? Who gives a shit the fucker got to the other side , which is more then I can say for most of you with your non progessive banter , Ive noticed on this forum most of you like to quote notable people that accomplished a great deal some how thinking this brings you some what to there level of thinking of action , News flash those people DID somthing , they didnt sit idley by and watch other people do things or type cute little blogs on websites , sure they wrote alot but they put into practice what they preach. try it then write a 10 page letter on your accomplishments.

[Leo]

wow I just read this whole post and im impressed , you all really know how to stretch a bunch a bibble babble bullshit. Heres one for you to disect , How did the chicken cross the road? Who gives a shit the fucker got to the other side , which is more then I can say for most of you with your non progessive banter , Ive noticed on this forum most of you like to quote notable people that accomplished a great deal some how thinking this brings you some what to there level of thinking of action , News flash those people DID somthing , they didnt sit idley by and watch other people do things or type cute little blogs on websites , sure they wrote alot but they put into practice what they preach. try it then write a 10 page letter on your accomplishments.

First of all, notice that you are in an internet discussion forum. You are posting here too. Don&#39;t make idiotic assumptions that people discussing here aren&#39;t practicing anything just because you aren&#39;t practicing anthing. Coming here to say "OMG YOU ARE DISCUSSING IN A DISCUSSION FORUM&#33; YOU ARE STUPID&#33;" just because you can&#39;t understand the content is simply spamming, which is, in terms you will understand, not cool. <_<

[Hannibal_Barca]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 6 2006, 11:13 AM

wow I just read this whole post and im impressed , you all really know how to stretch a bunch a bibble babble bullshit. Heres one for you to disect , How did the chicken cross the road? Who gives a shit the fucker got to the other side , which is more then I can say for most of you with your non progessive banter , Ive noticed on this forum most of you like to quote notable people that accomplished a great deal some how thinking this brings you some what to there level of thinking of action , News flash those people DID somthing , they didnt sit idley by and watch other people do things or type cute little blogs on websites , sure they wrote alot but they put into practice what they preach. try it then write a 10 page letter on your accomplishments.

First of all, notice that you are in an internet discussion forum. You are posting here too. Don&#39;t make idiotic assumptions that people discussing here aren&#39;t practicing anything just because you aren&#39;t practicing anthing. Coming here to say "OMG YOU ARE DISCUSSING IN A DISCUSSION FORUM&#33; YOU ARE STUPID&#33;" just because you can&#39;t understand the content is simply spamming, which is, in terms you will understand, not cool. <_<
I appreciate you dude , I really do , I want to say this upfront so it doesnt get lost in translation or is at the end of my rant and seems half hearted so Ill say it now.

1st off I understand everything being said , So I would like you to understand that , beleive it at face value. 2ndly I never called anyone stupid, in fact it almost troubles me is to how well versed alot of you seem to be on this subject and others but thats somthing else that I will get to in a second , but 1st retract your previos implication of me calling anyone stupid , please.

I lashed out on this post cause i was at a boiling point. See Ive been reading ALOT of threads and posts on this forum for about the last 5 hours and there is a very apparent patern, 2 actually.

One being there is almost a little cut and paste compitition with some people ,seeing how long they can make a post and riddle it with googled excerpts of other peoples writings.
I want to clarify that Im not implying that EVERYONE has no knowledge on anything , howevery the same shit keeps circulating on just about every thread , which tells me two things either the people writing them have little to add or the people reading them cant grasp much.

The second reoccuring theme I noticed is the yuppies , or "trend commies" as I like to call them , The ones that are communists cause its the thing there right wing doctor parents dont want them to do so there gonna do it. Its cool to be a communist cause its looked down upon by the Elite and the ignorant Majority.

Look man there are close to 9,000 people that are registered on here , granted not all are communists but lets low ball it and say 50% , so thats 4,000 alone in just this forums that are self proclaimed communists. There are 2,500 in my Local Florida Party and shit isnt getting done. Why? Cause we spend to much fucking time talking about what other people did , and how cool other people were for actually getting off there asses and doing somthing. its a bunch of fucking bullshit , the communists of old would roll over in there graves if they saw how watered down the party is with do nothing pussies today.
Man while I was at my meeting last week not 20 blocks away was a anual KKK raly , a fucking KKK rally man , what the shit is that crap. And do you know what the so called communists of today were doing? (my self included) Holding a discusion about or distrabution of some bullshit "Bring the troops home" white ribbon drive.
There is just to much talk and no action for something that is in such dire need.

[Leo]

Barca;

From your last post, you seem like a sensible person. I appriciate you not replying by flaming.


1st off I understand everything being said , So I would like you to understand that , beleive it at face value.

Okay.


but 1st retract your previos implication of me calling anyone stupid , please.

I saw a mild implication there and I exaggerated the meaning I got out from there, but if you say that wasn&#39;t your intention, that&#39;s fine.


One being there is almost a little cut and paste compitition with some people ,seeing how long they can make a post and riddle it with googled excerpts of other peoples writings.

Everyone does that, but not to admire the person they quote, more to prove their point. It&#39;s a debating technique.


The second reoccuring theme I noticed is the yuppies , or "trend commies" as I like to call them , The ones that are communists cause its the thing there right wing doctor parents dont want them to do so there gonna do it. Its cool to be a communist cause its looked down upon by the Elite and the ignorant Majority.

Well, that&#39;s an unfair observation I think. People might have different motives for being left-wing, but when someone wants to piss of their right wing doctor parents, they usually do drugs instead of becoming revolutionaries.


Look man there are close to 9,000 people that are registered on here , granted not all are communists but lets low ball it and say 50% , so thats 4,000 alone in just this forums that are self proclaimed communists.

Yeah the thing is neither numbers or just being a self proclaimed communist isn&#39;t enough. Everyone has their own definition of communism, it is a little subjective.


There are 2,500 in my Local Florida Party and shit isnt getting done. Why? Cause we spend to much fucking time talking about what other people did , and how cool other people were for actually getting off there asses and doing somthing. its a bunch of fucking bullshit , the communists of old would roll over in there graves if they saw how watered down the party is with do nothing pussies today.

Ah, yes, I can agree with that. Grasping the communist tradition is important, history is important and more importantly it is there for us to learn from it. Yet, if all we care about and talk to others about is how great old revolutionaries is, it would be like an outdated grand father giving advice to teenagers - it wouldn&#39;t work.


Man while I was at my meeting last week not 20 blocks away was a anual KKK raly , a fucking KKK rally man , what the shit is that crap. And do you know what the so called communists of today were doing? (my self included) Holding a discusion about or distrabution of some bullshit "Bring the troops home" white ribbon drive.
There is just to much talk and no action for something that is in such dire need.

I saw much worse rallies that any KKK rally could be. Sometimes there&#39;s nothing you can do about it in the short term except carrying out your own work. A party or an organization can not substitute itself with the working class, nor can it lead the working class into victory (at least in the traditional sense). The role of the organization is to raise actual class consciousness so that even the most militant fascists for example would be terrified to go and have a rally.