Marxist-Leninist-Sandinista democracy

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Why do anarchists always claim that Marxist-Leninism is totalitarian or w/e when the Sandinista revolution of 1979 was both marxist-leninist and brought democracy?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

nothing?

[chimx]

"totalitarian or whatever"?

i find it difficult to suggest a counter argument when you yourself aren't even sure what it is anarchists are claiming.

[Leo]

Sandinista revolution of 1979 ... brought democracy?

What the fuck is "democracy"? How is it "brought" at some place?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:19 pm
"totalitarian or whatever"?

i find it difficult to suggest a counter argument when you yourself aren't even sure what it is anarchists are claiming.
I know what they are claiming. Too clarify, I should&#39;ve said "totalitarian..<<insert anarchist rethoric here..>>



What the fuck is "democracy"? How is it "brought" at some place?

This is directed mainly at trots who whine about the "undemocratic" nature of Marxist-Leninism and shit like that.

Democracy is masses controlling political leadership. It is "brought" when there is a dictatorship then there is a revolution and the revolution brings some form of democracy.

[Leo]

This is directed mainly at trots who whine about the "undemocratic" nature of Marxist-Leninism and shit like that.

Oh, right I forgot that point. What you call Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) is not "undemocratic". "Undemocratic" is a completely meaningless term. It is capitalist and imperialist.


Democracy is masses controlling political leadership.

Oh, the "people"... Which people?


It is "brought" when there is a dictatorship then there is a revolution and the revolution brings some form of democracy.

Oh, I see; it is like bringing a bucket full of water from the river to the farm house <_< I&#39;ll give you a secret buddy, world is not only on white & black. You reverse the "democracy against dictatorship" argument used by liberals and co. but the fact is what you argue for is the opposite side of the same anti-Marxist medallion, and of course it completely denies the reality of class. Trotskyist or Maoist, I think you are still a liberal.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 06:33 pm
This is directed mainly at trots who whine about the "undemocratic" nature of Marxist-Leninism and shit like that.
Aren&#39;t trots practically Marxist-Leninists?

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 02, 2006 11:33 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ December 02, 2006 11:33 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 11:19 pm
"totalitarian or whatever"?

i find it difficult to suggest a counter argument when you yourself aren&#39;t even sure what it is anarchists are claiming.
I know what they are claiming. Too clarify, I should&#39;ve said "totalitarian..<<insert anarchist rethoric here..>>



What the fuck is "democracy"? How is it "brought" at some place?

This is directed mainly at trots who whine about the "undemocratic" nature of Marxist-Leninism and shit like that.

Democracy is masses controlling political leadership. It is "brought" when there is a dictatorship then there is a revolution and the revolution brings some form of democracy. [/b]
Trust me the masses do not control political leadership. You are think of the ruling class.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 02, 2006 11:43 pm




Oh, I see; it is like bringing a bucket full of water from the river to the farm house <_< I&#39;ll give you a secret buddy, world is not only on white & black. You reverse the "democracy against dictatorship" argument used by liberals and co. but the fact is what you argue for is the opposite side of the same anti-Marxist medallion, and of course it completely denies the reality of class. Trotskyist or Maoist, I think you are still a liberal.

:rolleyes: Please explain what you think I am arguing. What I am looking for in this thread is trotskyists and anarchists explain why they think that Marxist-Leninism is "undemocratic". You as well as I know they say that constantly. How am I a liberal? Frankly I don&#39;t see why you are *****ing about semantics as you know very well what I mean by "brought" and "democratic".

[RedLenin]

This is directed mainly at trots who whine about the "undemocratic" nature of Marxist-Leninism and shit like that.
"Trots" do not consider Marxism-Leninism to be &#39;undemocratic&#39;. We see Stalinism, which is what you are advocating, as &#39;undemocratic&#39;. My position is that power needs to rest with the Proletariat itself. Meaning power is in the hands of the soviets, there is a democratically planned economy, all officials are elected with right of immediate recall and paid a worker&#39;s wage, there is no standing army, and the masses participate in the running of the state. I support the state model as laid out in "State and Revolution." The regimes of Stalin and Mao in no way met this criteria.

We do acknowledge that those regimes expropriated the bourgeoisie and had progressive elements, such as a planned economy. However, we also recognize that those regimes were ruled by a buerocracy and not by the workers themselves. As such, we would consider such states to be deformed workers states, requiring a political revolution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Do you have any idea what you&#39;re talking about? Do you know what "deformed worker state" means? You sound like a Confused Cliffite. Do you know what the Cultural Revolution was all about? Can you try to consider the material conditions of the USSR under Stalin? And why did you completely circumvent the topic?

[Leo]

How am I a liberal?

You see things in a very limited black & white manner, with heroes and villains, like an epic battle between good and evil, "democracy" vs. "dictatorship". This is exactly what ordinary liberals do, you just reverse their argument, call yourself a Maoist or a Trotskyist or whatever and still reject the class based analysis, therefore Marxist analysis of the society.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 05:02 am
Do you have any idea what you&#39;re talking about? Do you know what "deformed worker state" means? You sound like a Confused Cliffite. Do you know what the Cultural Revolution was all about? Can you try to consider the material conditions of the USSR under Stalin? And why did you completely circumvent the topic?
Believe me cliffites think that all deforemed workers states are capitalist ones, hell they don&#39;t even use the term :P .

The cultural revolution was Mao&#39;s attempt to strikea blow against the bueraucracy using the peasantry and Red Army, but not to give power to the workers, Mao was a Proletarian Bonopartists, this means that he was balancing himself on playing the wings of the buearucracy off each other as well as using the army and peasantry to keep himself in power.

A deformed workers state is a &#39;socialist&#39; state under the control of the buearaucracy rather than the working class this has already been stated.

[Leo]

The Nicaraguan revolution ended the hated Somoza dictatorship, and began the creation of a truly democratic (i.e. ruled by workers and farmers) revolution. Unfortunately, it was turned back... but the point remains.

Your liberalism and the need you feel to see the world in Black & White doesn&#39;t surprise me at all Compañero De Libertad. So what you call "truly democratic" is ruled by workers and farmers. Nothing to do with the left-liberals who still vote for the Democratic Party, eh? Nice one :rolleyes: I can almost hear you cry "We are the real Democrats, we are the real Democrats&#33;" :lol:

Now, lets get to the facts which you chose to ignore for your black & white analysis. Nicaraguan Revolution was "democratic" alright, Terceristas, led by Daniel Ortega Saavedra and his brother Humberto Ortega Saavedra called for ideological pluralism. They supported joint efforts with non-Marxist groups, including the right-wing opposition. In October 1977 "El Grupo de los Doce", known as the "Twelve", a group of prominent Nicaraguan professionals, business leaders, and clergymen allied to the Terceristas, was formed in Costa Rica. The main idea was to organize a provisional government from Costa Rica.

After taking power it wasn&#39;t the workers and farmers who were ruling, it was the Junta of National Reconstruction. It wasn&#39;t the workers and farmers who were controlling the means of production; it was still the capitalists. The political platform of the Sandinistas was social democratic nationalism at best.


Ultra-leftists never examine the condition of the working class.

:lol: Oh those ultra-leftists&#33;


They ignore gains made by workers and farmers who have carried out genuine revolutions, and instead remain "pure" by holding out for the perfect revolution that will never occur.

No, we want proletarian dictatorship, and we won&#39;t settle with left-bourgeois populist reforms. This is not to say that we don&#39;t care about gains of the working class, but we don&#39;t commercialize those gains, we tell the truth about the situation, whereas you do the quite opposite.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2006 09:42 am

How am I a liberal?

You see things in a very limited black & white manner, with heroes and villains, like an epic battle between good and evil, "democracy" vs. "dictatorship". This is exactly what ordinary liberals do, you just reverse their argument, call yourself a Maoist or a Trotskyist or whatever and still reject the class based analysis, therefore Marxist analysis of the society.
wtf??? umm no? I don&#39;t see things in black and white in this respect. What you don&#39;t understand is the arguement put forward by trots and anarchists that claim marxism-leninism is one big gulag. So I point to this just to see what they say.


Believe me cliffites think that all deforemed workers states are capitalist ones, hell they don&#39;t even use the term .A deformed workers state is a &#39;socialist&#39; state under the control of the buearaucracy rather than the working class this has already been stated.

THat&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying


The cultural revolution was Mao&#39;s attempt to strikea blow against the bueraucracy using the peasantry and Red Army, but not to give power to the workers, Mao was a Proletarian Bonopartists, this means that he was balancing himself on playing the wings of the buearucracy off each other as well as using the army and peasantry to keep himself in power.

No it was avoiding the beauracratic revisionism that had occured the Soviet Union by mobilizing the masses towards socialism, not the state if that makes sense.

[bolshevik butcher]

True, Mao did attack the bueraucracy in the cultural revolution, he used the peasantry as a battering ram agianst the buearucracy but the aim wasn&#39;t to destroy it, the aim was to keep it in it&#39;s place and make sure Mao remained in power.