The contradiction of Marxist-Leninist thought

[chimx]

I'm sure that this is a topic that you all feel has been covered to death, but I would still like to present my points, as simplistically as possible, so as to here rebuttals from self-affirmed "Marxist-Leninists". If other people have points to add, I would be absolutely tickled. I will be covering three texts by Marx in particular: The Communist Manifesto, The Civil War in France, and the 1872 revised Preface to The Communist Manifesto.

In 1871, Karl Marx wrote, "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism. Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hinderances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France. "

For Marx, this realization camp in 1871 due to the experience of the Paris Commune. He writes following the above passage, "the direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of "social republic", with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic." This Parisian experience was significant enough for Marx to revise earlier propositions suggested in his earlier work, The Communist Manifesto.

Thus, in 1872, he wrote a new preface to his older work that specifically states that: "However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II."

Marx continues: "That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'"

So he specifically mentions the Parisian experience, which taught him that the working class can not simply "lay hold" on "state machinery". This led him to de-emphasize the end of the 2nd section, which is what I would like to now quote from the original Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

The enbolded points deal explicitly with state machinery and are the most obvious as to which Marx was trying to desuade communists to utilize in the future, given the Parisian experience. That said, reexamine the list, and ask yourself which points governments adhering to Marxism-Leninism chose to utilize despite (in spite of) Marx's writing.

[black magick hustla]

People should keep in mind the manifesto does not represent the evolution of marxism, considering it was published somewhere in the 1840s, and marx did keep theorizing many decades later.

Many M-Ls would argue that Marx exposed his support for a centralized state when debating with Bakunin, however people should keep in mind that what Marx found distasteful about Bakunin was his utopian socialism, that is, him laying careful plans for how a post-revolutionary society should organize, something that Marx was vehemently against.

Marx was an authoritarian in the sense that revolution is the ultimate of the authoritarian actions against the bourgeosie, but when dealing with organization between proletarians, Marx wasn't an authoritarian.

[KC]

The enbolded points deal explicitly with state machinery and are the most obvious as to which Marx was trying to desuade communists to utilize in the future, given the Parisian experience. That said, reexamine the list, and ask yourself which points governments adhering to Marxism-Leninism chose to utilize despite (in spite of) Marx's writing.

Marx wasn't necessarily trying to desuade people from these points. Rather, he was saying that, because of the development of bourgeois society, some of the points listed have become obsolete, "and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II."

Moreover, what of this passage:


The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

This passage coincides with some of the points listed further down in the list that you quoted. I think it's important to note that, while Marx was talking about the list you quoted in his 1872 German Preface, this statement is still acceptable to Marx.

With this statement, we can go back to the list and see which of those items on the list have been concluded from the previous statement. Of the ones you have bolded, that would mean that numbers 5 and 7 are still acceptable to Marx.

I think what Marx was more referring to was that, with the development of bourgeois society, some of these goals have already been achieved, or are no longer effective in furthering the aims of the proletariat and therefore shouldn't be focused on, because that can lead one to substitute one's revolutionary practice for the items on this list, i.e. practical advancements within bourgeois society (i.e. reformism).

[chimx]

Zampanò:

I certainly accept what you are saying as a distinct possibility, but ultimately I have my doubts. Allow me to suggest that the passage you cited, as being merely a preamble to Marx's revolutionary program, is as equally over-ridden as the the program itself, given the Parisian experience.

Take again, for example, The Civil War in France. Marx praised the commune because, "[it] was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers." He praised it for its decentralization, for abandoning the "ubiquitous organs" of "centralized state power," originating from "the days of absolute monarchy".

I will grant you that Marx, even after 1871, may not have shied away from centralization. He did say, "the antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization." But what does he mean by this specifically? "The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France." This restoration and regeneration is laid out under the model of decentralized communes through society, in which citizens are given "universal suffrage". Centralization of power is merely an abstraction to the fact that he ultimately glorifies a model of decentralized state power, via a unified (centralized) proletarian force.

This is the growth and development in proletarian praxis that he spoke of in the revised preface! Look what he wrote in 1872: ". . .and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune." This is why I can't buy that it is simply due to bourgeois production development. It is equally about new means of organization and new experiences that Marx revised his thoughts on the centralized state.

[KC]

I certainly accept what you are saying as a distinct possibility, but ultimately I have my doubts. Allow me to suggest that the passage you cited, as being merely a preamble to Marx's revolutionary program, is as equally over-ridden as the the program itself, given the Parisian experience.

While that's also a possibility, we must also recognize that Marx was specifically talking about the "revolutionary measures". I don't think that passage I have provided is part of those measures.



Take again, for example, The Civil War in France. Marx praised the commune because, "[it] was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers." He praised it for its decentralization, for abandoning the "ubiquitous organs" of "centralized state power," originating from "the days of absolute monarchy".

I think that we have to make an important distinction here between centralization of the means of production into the hands of the state and centralization of the state itself. This is a very subtle but important distinction. For example, in the following quote:



The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.


Marx is speaking of centralizing all instruments of production into the hands of the State. In other words, the State (i.e. the proletariat organized as the ruling class) has sole power and complete control over the means of production. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that the structure of the state itself is centralized; perhaps the state consists of various workers councils that control different means of production and the control is set up in a democratic way. In this instance the means of production are centralized in the hands of the state, but the state itself isn't necessarilly centralized.

I think that, with that distinction in mind, we can return to what you said above. You are correct in your assertion that that is what he is saying; however, we must keep in mind that he's talking about the structure of the state itself. This is different than centralization of the means of production.


This is why I can't buy that it is simply due to bourgeois production development. It is equally about new means of organization and new experiences that Marx revised his thoughts on the centralized state.

Well, yes, you are correct. Marx did revise his theories after the experience of the Paris Commune, as shown by the quote you provided in which he says that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

It's rather obvious that he revised his theories after learning from the Commune. The reason that I didn't bring this up before in my response to your initial post was because we were talking about the list at the end of Section II specifically.

So while Marx did revise his theories on the state due to the Commune, I think that many of the demands laid out at the end of Section II have been antiquated due more to the development of bourgeois society. The reason I say this is because of the distinction I laid out earlier in this post between centralization of the state and centralization by the state. Of course, this is pretty pointless to argue about since it's pretty much subjective.

[chimx]

Marx is speaking of centralizing all instruments of production into the hands of the State. In other words, the State (i.e. the proletariat organized as the ruling class) has sole power and complete control over the means of production. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that the structure of the state itself is centralized

Then we are of one mind, baring in mind that I said, "Centralization of power is merely an abstraction to the fact that he ultimately glorifies a model of decentralized state power, via a unified (centralized) proletarian force."

But then that brings us back to Marxism-Leninism. Was the ML experience of statehood one of state centralization, or one of production centralized around an organized proletariat? And as we discussed, Marx came to mean "organized" similarly to a model utilized by Paris. Ultimately we are end up with a call for centralized decentralization.

[Whitten]

As you pointed out youself Marx was strongly anti-utopia in his thinking. He also developed Dialectial Materialism. He believed strongly that the material conditions of the place and time would determine the nature of any revolution, and that laying down some arbitary principles regarding how a revolutionary society should be organised would be un-scientific, and attempting to apply a rigit set of ideals to every revolution would likely result in failure.

What I argue is that the Russian revolution required a greater centralisation of power as a result of the material conditions in Russia during the revolution, civil war, and soon after, world war 2. At the time of the revolution, Russia was still a semi-fuedal state, and so it would seem only natural that there was still a centralisation of state machinery. It wasnt developed enough to completly decentralise these things. The Civil War, and later WW2, also delayed the decentralisation of power. In short, it wouldnt have been practical until the 50s.

[KC]

Then we are of one mind, baring in mind that I said, "Centralization of power is merely an abstraction to the fact that he ultimately glorifies a model of decentralized state power, via a unified (centralized) proletarian force."

Yes.


But then that brings us back to Marxism-Leninism. Was the ML experience of statehood one of state centralization, or one of production centralized around an organized proletariat? And as we discussed, Marx came to mean "organized" similarly to a model utilized by Paris. Ultimately we are end up with a call for centralized decentralization.

The problem with trying to reconcile the experience of Russia in 1917 with this bit of Marxism is that the material conditions in Russia required a centralized state in order for the proletariat to rule effectively over the entire population of Russia, most of which was peasantry. Of course, I'm not necessarily agreeing with what the Bolsheviks did; I'm just saying that a centralized state was needed in order for the proletariat to rule effectively. Also, whether or not the centralized state was justified is all a matter of opinion.

[chimx]

I'm writing this in a hurry, so I apologize if it sounds excessively basic. I find it interesting that you both mention material, semi-feudal conditions in Russia at the time of the October putsch. Lenin obviously argues that due to imperial developments, revolution must begin in underdeveloped countries such as Russia (ignoring the fact that the British and French empires existed during Marx's time?). He thus advocated his own model of centralized power in contradiction to Marx's thoughts already mentioned. On the other hand, Marx, being a historical materialist, always advanced the idea that history must develop following certain stages, and undergo certain historical epochs. One can not "skip over" capitalism because capitalism provided the necessary industrialization for a growing proletariat. And in the end, what has history shown Marxism-Leninism to bring the world? Semi-feudal states, adopting quasi-socialistic, though centralized polices, developing in the end to be nothing more than capitalist nation states. This is true for Russia, China, as well as Vietnam.

And unfortunately for Marxism proper, this development of Marxism-Leninism has only succeeded in making Marx's own thoughts appear to be that of a bankrupt ideology, when the guilt lays primarily on the revisionism of Lenin.

[RedLenin]

He thus advocated his own model of centralized power in contradiction to Marx's thoughts already mentioned.
Not true. In the work where he discusses the state most indepth, The State and Revolution, he quotes Marx to justify each point of his vision. Lenin saw the soviets as the best possible form of state machinery, capable of organizing the proletariat for the suppression of the bourgeoisie. All Lenin did was to apply Marx's original ideas of the state, the proletariat being organized as ruling class, to the conditions in Russia in 1917.


One can not "skip over" capitalism because capitalism provided the necessary industrialization for a growing proletariat.
Trotsky dealt with this issue best with his theory of Permanent Revolution. The bourgeoisie is reactionary everywhere and cannot play any progressive role any longer. The bourgeoisie is tied to the landlords, the imperalists, etc. The bourgeoisie cannot carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Rather, the proletariat must seize state power and immediately carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; national unity and agrarian reform. In this way, the proletariat is the vanguard of the oppressed, hence Lenin claiming that the state will be, "the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as ruling class for the supression of the bourgeoisie".


when the guilt lays primarily on the revisionism of Lenin.
No. Lenin simply expanded Marxism into the era of imperialism. His ideas of imperalism as the highest stage of capitalism and the necessity of the vanguard party are, in my view, genuine additions to marxist thought. The other "marxist-leninist" countries were faliures mainly because they were not Leninist at all. They were Stalinist countries that utilized the peasantry as the main source of revolution. A proletarian revolution must be the work of the proletariat and it must be international.

[black magick hustla]

Not true. In the work where he discusses the state most indepth, The State and Revolution, he quotes Marx to justify each point of his vision. Lenin saw the soviets as the best possible form of state machinery, capable of organizing the proletariat for the suppression of the bourgeoisie. All Lenin did was to apply Marx's original ideas of the state, the proletariat being organized as ruling class, to the conditions in Russia in 1917.

the soviets were rendered practically useless after the introduction of war communism, around 1919,

[chimx]

Not true. In the work where he discusses the state most indepth, The State and Revolution, he quotes Marx to justify each point of his vision. Lenin saw the soviets as the best possible form of state machinery, capable of organizing the proletariat for the suppression of the bourgeoisie. All Lenin did was to apply Marx's original ideas of the state, the proletariat being organized as ruling class, to the conditions in Russia in 1917.

First, you did not address any of my major points. Second, if you are getting your information exclusively from State and Revolution you will forever be hopelessly lost. The soviets were not of Bolshevik invention. In reality Lenin fluctuated between liking them and feeling as if they had been co-opted by liberal elements, thus undermining their revolutionary (in reality, Bolshevik-friendly) nature. I should add, according to Trotsky's history of the (October) Russian Revolution, it was not Lenin's idea to claim power in the name of the soviets, but rather Trotsky's.

Now, I agree that the original 1917 soviet body was a decentralized organization of a semi-autonomous nature. Mild centralization occurred through a Congress of Soviets. Prior to October coup, 2 congresses had met, in both of which the Bolsheviks constituted a minority. Unfortunately for Russia, But the experience of the soviets once the Bolsheviks seized power is something else entirely. Centralization became the name of the game after the fact. The Supreme Soviet and the Congress of Soviets in practice acted as rubber stamps for the Politburo. In practice, the congress became an exclusive single-party body made up of Bolsheviks who had to be approved by local party members. In practice, a group at the top of the Communist Party directed civil affairs and granted little autonomy to individual soviets, workers, peasants, etc. It is the extreme antithesis of the model suggest by the late Marx.


Trotsky dealt with this issue best with his theory of Permanent Revolution. The bourgeoisie is reactionary everywhere and cannot play any progressive role any longer. The bourgeoisie is tied to the landlords, the imperalists, etc. The bourgeoisie cannot carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Rather, the proletariat must seize state power and immediately carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution

That's fine if you think that, but this is not Marxist thought. In the end, the practice of proletarians carrying out bourgeois revolutions has led to one thing: the creation of bourgeois nation states. And that is really all that Leninist revisionism has brought to the table: a new way to advance semi-feudal backward economies into capitalism.


Lenin simply expanded Marxism into the era of imperialism.

Why is it that followers of Lenin ignore the fact that Marx was witness to both the First French Empire as well as the British Empire? Mercantalism had been in practice since the 16th century, and had already given way to the beginnings of imperialism. The age of imperialism began during Marx's time. That is a fact. If you think that Marx didn't write about it because he was too blind to this fact, where as Lenin was, that's fine. But it isn't Marxism.

[KC]

On the other hand, Marx, being a historical materialist, always advanced the idea that history must develop following certain stages, and undergo certain historical epochs. One can not "skip over" capitalism because capitalism provided the necessary industrialization for a growing proletariat.

Yes and no. Marx never strictly applied his materialist conception of history, but rather realized that it's a tool that must be adapted to the conditions in which our object of study exists. We could argue endlessly on whether or not Marx would have thought the October revolution would have been successful in overthrowing capitalism, but I don't think that's really important, nor is there any point to it.

What we can look at, however, are the conditions in Russia at the time. Russia was in a very strange state during this time period; we can't exactly classify it as either feudalism or capitalism exclusively. Rather, it was a country with a significantly large industrialized proletariat as well as a large section of the population being peasantry, many unaffected by the changes made in the country for the decades beforehand, but also many being seasonal workers. That is, many peasants worked the fields in the summer months but came to the city to work in the winter.

So we have a large industrialized proletariat along with a semi-proletarian peasantry, and of course the rest being normal peasantry. Now, I'm too lazy to get out the statistics (I wrote them all down somewhere) but this added up to a significant portion of the population. So the class character of the country is somewhat precarious in the sense that one can't definitively say that it is either feudalist or capitalist (it in fact is neither, but a strange fusion of the two, due to the form of evolution of capitalism in the country), and therefore we can't either say that the October Revolution as a proletarian revolution was unmarxist.

Am I arguing that it is, in fact, Marxist? I am not. I don't think there would be any point to that argument, as we can study the events of the Russian Revolution as they unfolded and critique the actions of those involved without getting into such an abstract concept. Moreover, the situation in Russia was so unique that I don't think there's any relevance in that question anymore.


And in the end, what has history shown Marxism-Leninism to bring the world? Semi-feudal states, adopting quasi-socialistic, though centralized polices, developing in the end to be nothing more than capitalist nation states. This is true for Russia, China, as well as Vietnam.

I don't see how you can consider these "socialist states" "Marxist-Leninist".


And unfortunately for Marxism proper, this development of Marxism-Leninism has only succeeded in making Marx's own thoughts appear to be that of a bankrupt ideology, when the guilt lays primarily on the revisionism of Lenin.

I don't think Lenin revised any of Marx's theories, aside from expanding them to fit the age of imperialism. I think that many of both Marx's and Lenin's theories have been distorted and vulgarized the most by petty-bourgeois "intellectuals" and "party bureaucrats" and that vulgarization is where present-day "Marxism-Leninism" came from.


the soviets were rendered practically useless after the introduction of war communism, around 1919,

Many administrative and political powers of the Soviets were transferred to the Party circles by the mass of the Bolshevik party, i.e. the workers on the bottom, when they realized that the soviets were ineffective because of the domination of petty-bourgeois/bourgeois ideology. I don't think you can blame that switch on Lenin at all, since it was implemented and supported by the majority of the Bolshevik party.


Why is it that followers of Lenin ignore the fact that Marx was witness to both the First French Empire as well as the British Empire? Mercantalism had been in practice since the 16th century, and had already given way to the beginnings of imperialism. The age of imperialism began during Marx's time. That is a fact. If you think that Marx didn't write about it because he was too blind to this fact, where as Lenin was, that's fine. But it isn't Marxism.

The era of imperialism is exclusively characterized as an evolution of capitalist society. While Marx saw the imperialism of the French and British empires, he did not witness the era of imperialism, which had much more profound effects and is completely different than the empires of old.

[shadowed by the secret police]

We need to dispense with the Leninism that was anti-Marx (the part of the vanguard of professional revolutionaries) because that gave birth to Stalinism and to anti-socialist policies by the Soviet Union that prevented socialism to arise in some parts of the world like in Spain 1936-1939 and other places.

But we need to keep the libertarian Marxist ideology.

[chimx]

Z:


What we can look at, however, are the conditions in Russia at the time. Russia was in a very strange state during this time period; we can't exactly classify it as either feudalism or capitalism exclusively. Rather, it was a country with a significantly large industrialized proletariat as well as a large section of the population being peasantry, many unaffected by the changes made in the country for the decades beforehand, but also many being seasonal workers. That is, many peasants worked the fields in the summer months but came to the city to work in the winter.

So we have a large industrialized proletariat along with a semi-proletarian peasantry, and of course the rest being normal peasantry. Now, I'm too lazy to get out the statistics (I wrote them all down somewhere) but this added up to a significant portion of the population. So the class character of the country is somewhat precarious in the sense that one can't definitively say that it is either feudalist or capitalist (it in fact is neither, but a strange fusion of the two, due to the form of evolution of capitalism in the country), and therefore we can't either say that the October Revolution as a proletarian revolution was unmarxist.

That is an interesting take, but from the multiple histories I have read of Russia in 1917, it would lead me to say quite the opposite. If memory serves (though it quite often fails), roughly 80% of the Russian population in 1917 was agrarian. That leaves an urban proletariat of under 20%. However, as many historians have pointed out, the urban proletariat had not had time to develop its own class consciousness. They quite often aligned themselves with agrarian culture over that of urban culture. This is because that the vast majority of Russia's urban proletariat was only a 2nd generation urban resident. 3 generations living in a city were rare, and 4 generations was simply unheard of.

You mention seasonal workers too. One could take an alternative interpretation than what you suggested and say that this would cause an increase in peasant culture infiltrating urban life, especially with most of the urban population still having fresh bonds to the land.

However, in the end we are in agreement that Russia was a precarious demographic. It is impossible to classify it simply as feudalistic, because it was making steps towards industrialization, adherence of liberal democratic institutions, capitalist growth, etc. However, when compared to Russia's more capitalist contemporaries, I would opt to still say that Russia was leaning more towards feudalism than capitalism. Thus why I have chosen to describe the economy thus far as semi-feudal over that of semi-capitalist.


I don't see how you can consider these "socialist states" "Marxist-Leninist".

Well regardless of what you or I consider "true" Marxist-Leninist thought to be, they self-identified as being such. One of the primary "additions" was the notion that due to imperialism, revolutions must occur in capitalist "weak spots", such as the economically backward Russia. I see no issue with viewing China and Vietnam under these same guidelines. The only distinction is their later emphasis on peasantry participation. Which again returns us to imperialism. . .


The era of imperialism is exclusively characterized as an evolution of capitalist society. While Marx saw the imperialism of the French and British empires, he did not witness the era of imperialism, which had much more profound effects and is completely different than the empires of old.

I disagree. The age of imperialism began in the mid 1850s. Britain had been expanding its empire for hundreds of years. India was under its wing, as well as parts of Africa. Marx was witness to Indian uprisings, and living in England, I'm sure he was aware of it. Later imperialism is simply defined as "imperialism for imperialism's sake", a way for advanced capitalist countries to compete with one another for global capitalist hegemony. This began in Marx's life time, though it only came to a climax between the late 1890s and WWI.


Many administrative and political powers of the Soviets were transferred to the Party circles by the mass of the Bolshevik party, i.e. the workers on the bottom, when they realized that the soviets were ineffective because of the domination of petty-bourgeois/bourgeois ideology. I don't think you can blame that switch on Lenin at all, since it was implemented and supported by the majority of the Bolshevik party.

While everything you have said thus far is quite sensible, I can not get behind this assertion. The Bolshevik Part did not constitute the totality of labor. In 1917, the majority of workers and peasants were opposed to Bolshevik ideology. This is why their soviet representatives walked out in protest at the 2nd congress of soviets. To reword what you said: Bolsheviks voted to give Bolsheviks power over the soviets, regardless of the soviets opinion. This was legitimized by the Bolsheviks because they claimed to be the only true representatives of Russia workers. The illogic of this should be apparent.

But this is getting off topic. I was more concerned with Marx's abandonment of a centralized program behind the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Lenin's later implementation of a centralized program despite this. As was presented, the counter argument is that because Russia, as one example, was a backward feudal economy, material conditions necessitated a centralized model of administration for a proletarian dictatorship to be feasible (lets save the legitimacy of the assertion that proletarians did "dictate" instead of the politburo for another thread).

But where does that leave us today? Marxist-Leninist thought still grasps at the corpse of democratic centralism, in advanced capitalist countries no less! How can one apologize and advocated praxis of centralized administration in "first world countries" with what Marx wrote of a decentralized commune model in 1871-72? Not only is it in opposition to Marx, it is in opposition to Lenin's thoughts--that it is a model explicitly for underdeveloped countries to push forward to socialism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:57 am
I'm sure that this is a topic that you all feel has been covered to death....
I fail to see what contradiction you're pointing to and those points are intended to be progressive steps towards socialism, not socialism.

[chimx]

Then please re-read the thread and try to make a positive contribution.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:23 am


Many M-Ls would argue that Marx exposed his support for a centralized state when debating with Bakunin, however people should keep in mind that what Marx found distasteful about Bakunin was his utopian socialism, that is, him laying careful plans for how a post-revolutionary society should organize, something that Marx was vehemently against.


Bakunin was neither utopian socialist nor did he have careful post-revolutionary blueprints, this is against the very fabric of anarchism. It is just another authoritarian Marxist lie.

[Messiah]

Trotsky dealt with this issue best with his theory of Permanent Revolution. The bourgeoisie is reactionary everywhere and cannot play any progressive role any longer.The bourgeoisie is tied to the landlords, the imperalists, etc. The bourgeoisie cannot carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

This doesn't even make sense. The bourgeois cannot carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution? That's like saying the cow doesn't know how to act like a cow, we must act for it! It's taking on positions and work for ourselves that even Marx himself says "we" as the communists do not have the means or best experience in dealing with. If we want a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then by God it should be the bourgeois who should be left to do it.


Rather, the proletariat must seize state power and immediately carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; national unity and agrarian reform.

Rubbish. Those are not things that can be accomplished by a state for the people, it is something the people must do for themselves, and not through the state either. The state is an anti-revolutionary insitution, and if we are at a stage where the the state is being strenghted, then we are clearly past the stage of revolution. And no state will ever allow or create, willingly, the conditions for its own demise. A belief to the contrary is the height of utopianism.

Secondly, democracy is not "national unity" or "agrarian reform". Democracy, first of all, is not unity. It is the right, the freedom and the ability to disagree, freedly, openly, safely. "National unity" is a backward, primitive idea that appeals not to progressive, revoltuionary zeal but to petty, nationalist hate.

Agragrian reform, also has nothing to do with democracy as it is a purely economic policy (yes, that might lead to more democracy through economic equality) but it is in and of itself seperated from the concept.

Democracy will not and cannot happen overnight. Democratic culture is require, roots must take hold. As such, any belief in the idea that the government can instill democratic values in the people is pure garbage. Especially not when the government is dominated by a professional elite. Whether they be "professional revolutionaries" or professional CEOs.

It is the people who must make the government democratic, not the other way around. Revolution from below, not above.


In this way, the proletariat is the vanguard of the oppressed, hence Lenin claiming that the state will be, "the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as ruling class for the supression of the bourgeoisie".

And it turned out to be exactly the opposite of this, as was evident and pointed out from the get go, by the likes of Luxembourg and even Trotsky before he "changed his mind".

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 02, 2007 04:34 am--> (LeftyHenry @ February 02, 2007 04:34 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:57 am
I'm sure that this is a topic that you all feel has been covered to death....
I fail to see what contradiction you're pointing to and those points are intended to be progressive steps towards socialism, not socialism. [/b]
Any kind of authoritarianism is retrogression not progression.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Bakunin was neither utopian socialist nor did he have careful post-revolutionary blueprints, this is against the very fabric of anarchism. It is just another authoritarian Marxist lie.

Bakunin was a utopian socialist.

He even said you cannot be a anarchist without being a socialist first, but since he rejected marxism er...he was a utopian socialist not a scientific socialist.

[chimx]

Nusocialist: while I appreciate your enthusiasm, can we please try to focus the discussion to theoretical and practical differences between Marx and Lenin? A discussion on the merits of Bakunism over Marxism is certainly extensive enough for its own thread.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:17 am

Bakunin was neither utopian socialist nor did he have careful post-revolutionary blueprints, this is against the very fabric of anarchism. It is just another authoritarian Marxist lie.

Bakunin was a utopian socialist.

He even said you cannot be a anarchist without being a socialist first, but since he rejected marxism er...he was a utopian socialist not a scientific socialist.
You are just saying any non-marxist socialism was a utopian socialist.
I say all marxists are authoritarians, so whatever. And I fail to see the attraction of such as repressive, authoritarian doctrine as Marxism.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:17 am
Nusocialist: while I appreciate your enthusiasm, can we please try to focus the discussion to theoretical and practical differences between Marx and Lenin? A discussion on the merits of Bakunism over Marxism is certainly extensive enough for its own thread.
Surely it is worth defending Bakunin against some authoritarian calling him a utopian.
Utopianism is very non-anarchist, depsite what our enemies say.
They call us utopians but we don't believe that dictatorships that have killed millions last century and only created authoritarian dictatorships can result in a real social revolution.

[RedLenin]

Those are not things that can be accomplished by a state for the people, it is something the people must do for themselves
The state IS the armed proletariat. Unless you consider workers councils to oppressive things the take power away from workers you are seriously missunderstanding what Marxists mean by "state".


Democracy, first of all, is not unity. It is the right, the freedom and the ability to disagree, freedly, openly, safely.
I agree with you. That is not what I mean by national unity. This point is not really relevant anymore, as we have move past this point since the Russian Revolution. It only means that the nation becomes a nation. By the way, I am anything but a nationalist. I am an internationalist and the revolution can only succeed if it takes place world wide.


Especially not when the government is dominated by a professional elite.
Correct. That is why it won't be. It will be democratically administered by the entire working class.


Revolution from below, not above.
I agree one hundred percent. And if you believe that the proletariat must democratically organize and arm itself in order to suppress the bourgeois reactionaries, then you agree with the need for a state.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You are just saying any non-Marxist socialism was a utopian socialist.

No, it is not me saying that. It is all serious revolutionaries. Marxism has, for better and for worse, had a significant impact on the 20th century. Marxism is about looking at the world , find the right strategy, tactics and organisation dependant on the material circumstances you are working in.



I say all Marxists are authoritarians, so whatever. And I fail to see the attraction of such as repressive, authoritarian doctrine as Marxism.

I would say that of *some* anarchists, though not all.

Not only has anarchism failed to be successful in penetrating the workers movement, but it has also led popular movements down the wrong and dangerous path.

Anarchist leaders, similarly to fascist leaders, aren't elected or accountable. The only difference being that the anarchist just deny they are leaders. but that still doesn't alter reality.

I fail to see the attraction of such an impotent, potentially repressive, authoritarian doctrine as Anarchism ('cept syndicalists)

[Whitten]

This doesn't even make sense. The bourgeois cannot carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution? That's like saying the cow doesn't know how to act like a cow, we must act for it! It's taking on positions and work for ourselves that even Marx himself says "we" as the communists do not have the means or best experience in dealing with. If we want a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then by God it should be the bourgeois who should be left to do it.

Imperialism changed all that. The Bourgeois wouldnt benifit from a Bourgeois-democratic revolution in a third world country, they benifit from keeping it oppressed and used for cheap labour power.

[chimx]

*pounds head on table*

[dogwoodlover]

While I see the necessity for a revolutionary party, I would limit the role of the party exclusively to propaganda and agitation, something of a public-relations organ.

The problem, at least that I see, with Leninism, is that it wants to concentrate the decision-making power and visionary foresight in the hands of the party "vanguards", instead of the actual proletariat itself.

I think the idea of a system of councils (or "soviets") being the primary decision-making body of a socialist society hits the nail on the head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

I think it is fairly evident, that representative democracies do not result in actual democracy. They create a caste of bureacrats who always misrepresent the people. Direct democracy, I think, is the only way the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be put into its practical form.

[KC]

The problem, at least that I see, with Leninism, is that it wants to concentrate the decision-making power and visionary foresight in the hands of the party "vanguards", instead of the actual proletariat it

Dude, don't talk about stuff you don't understand.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:23 am
I say all marxists are authoritarians, so whatever. And I fail to see the attraction of such as repressive, authoritarian doctrine as Marxism.
What a stupid thing to say.

Care to explain what is "repressive" or "authoritarian" about Marxist "doctrine"? Preferably pointing to Marx text, instead of hearsay?

Luís Henrique

[dogwoodlover]

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 03, 2007 05:21 am

The problem, at least that I see, with Leninism, is that it wants to concentrate the decision-making power and visionary foresight in the hands of the party "vanguards", instead of the actual proletariat it

Dude, don't talk about stuff you don't understand.
Did not Lenin himself concentrate decision-making and implementation in the hands of the Bolshevik Party? I don't ever recall reading about the Soviets having the final say in things.

[chimx]

I find that this is one of the biggest hangups when discussing Leninism. Theory and practice are not necessarily the same. The period of War Communism notwithstanding, the Congress of Soviets and Supreme Soviet in practice acted as a rubber stamp for Party dictates, specifically the politburo. Though to my knowledge, this practice was never written about by Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone else.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I find that this is one of the biggest hangups when discussing Leninism. Theory and practice are not necessarily the same. The period of War Communism notwithstanding, the Congress of Soviets and Supreme Soviet in practice acted as a rubber stamp for Party dictates, specifically the politburo. Though to my knowledge, this practice was never written about by Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone else.

i think that's true, another difficulty, is different factions laying claim to Leninism.

I think, Bolshevism, is a more accurate term for Lenin's thought, while he was alive.

Lenin argued for all power to the soviets. Which would have advocated a decentralised state structure.

And democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party. Open debate, but accepting the majority vote even if you lose the debate.

If there is anything we should learn from Lenin, that is,keep changing organisation until you find something that works. I don't know where i heard it, but Lenin changed the structure of the soviet state 10 times before his death, once very shortly before he died.

Where i think things changed in the Soviet Union was during the Russian civil war. The workers soviets had effectively stopped functioning. Because workers were starving in the cities and so moved to the country side to find food.

This effectively meant that from the October revolution the already small industrial proletariat shrunk to a fragment during the civil war. The workers couldn't exercise power, simply because the material conditions of the civil war made it impossible to do so.

[KC]

Did not Lenin himself concentrate decision-making and implementation in the hands of the Bolshevik Party? I don't ever recall reading about the Soviets having the final say in things.

See? You have no idea what you're talking about. What you said has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of the vanguard. So again, don't talk about stuff you don't understand.

[robbo203]

Hi

How about this from the March 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard?

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

_____________________________


Marxism versus Leninism




Marx’s theory of socialist revolution is grounded on the fundamental principle that “the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself”. Marx held to this view throughout his entire forty years of socialist political activity, and it distinguished his theory of social change from that of both those who appealed to the princes, governments and industrialists to change the world for the benefit of the working class (such as Robert Owen and Saint Simon) and of those who relied on the determined action of some enlightened minority of professional revolutionaries to liberate the working class (such as Buonarotti, Blanqui and Weitling).




Conscious Self-emancipation

Marx saw that the very social position of the working class within capitalist society as a non-owning, exploited, wealth-producing class forced it to struggle against its capitalist conditions of existence. This “movement” of the working class could be said to be implicitly socialist since the struggle was ultimately over who should control the means of production: the minority capitalist class or the working class (i.e. society as a whole). At first the movement of the working class would be, Marx believed, unconscious and unorganised but in time, as the workers gained more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, it would become more consciously socialist and democratically organised by the workers themselves.




The emergence of socialist understanding out of the experience of the workers could thus be said to be “spontaneous” in the sense that it would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it about (not that such people could not take part in this process, but their participation was not essential or crucial). Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would come to be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism. As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, “the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.




This in fact was Marx’s conception of “the workers’ party”. He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite of professional revolutionaries, as did the Blanquists, but as the mass democratic movement of the working class with a view to establishing Socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.




Lenin’s Opposing View

This was Marx’s view, but it wasn’t Lenin’s. Lenin in his pamphlet What Is To Be Done?, written in 1901-2, declared:




“The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals” (Foreign Languages Publishing House edition, Moscow, pp. 50-51).




“Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers” (Lenin’s emphasis, p.133).




“The spontaneous working class movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and working class trade unionist politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics” (pp. 159-60) .




Lenin went on to argue that the people who would have to bring “socialist consciousness” to the working class “from without” would be “professional revolutionaries”, drawn at first mainly from the ranks of the bourgeois intelligentsia. In fact he argued that the Russian Social Democratic Party should be such an “organisation of professional revolutionaries”, acting as the vanguard of the working class. The task of this vanguard party to be composed of professional revolutionaries under strict central control was to “lead” the working class, offering them slogans to follow and struggle for. It is the very antithesis of Marx’s theory of working class self-emancipation.




The Bolshevik Coup

The implication of Marx’s theory of working class self-emancipation is that the immense majority of the working class must be consciously involved in the socialist revolution against capitalism. “The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority”.




The Bolshevik coup in November, 1917, carried out under the guise of protecting the rights of the Congress of Soviets, did not enjoy conscious majority support, at least not for socialism, though their slogan “Peace, Bread and Land” was widely popular. For instance, elections to the Constituent Assembly, held after the Bolshevik coup and so under Bolshevik government, gave them only about 25 per cent of the votes.




John Reed, a sympathetic American journalist, whose famous account of the Bolshevik coup, Ten Days That Shook The World, was commended in a foreword by Lenin, quotes Lenin as replying to this kind of criticism in a speech he made to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917:




“If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…” (Reed’s emphasis and omissions, Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15).




Compare this with a passage from the utopian communist, Weitling: “to want to wait...until all are suitably enlightened would be to abandon the thing altogether!” Not, of course, that it is a question of “all” the workers needing to be socialists before there can be Socialism. Marx, in rejecting the view that Socialism could be established by some enlightened minority, was merely saying that a sufficient majority of workers would have to be socialists.




Lenin’s Legacy

Having seized power before the working class (and, even less, the 80 per cent peasant majority of the population) had prepared themselves for Socialism, all the Bolshevik government could do, as Lenin himself openly admitted, was to establish state capitalism in Russia. Which is what they did, while at the same time imposing their own dictatorship over the working class.


Contempt for the intellectual abilities of the working class led to the claim that the vanguard party should rule on their behalf, even against their will. Lenin’s theory of the vanguard party became enshrined as a principle of government (“the leading role of the Party”) which has served to justify what has proved to be the world’s longest-lasting political dictatorship.


The self-emancipation of the working class, as advocated by Marx, remains on the agenda.

[chimx]

I hadn't read the forward to Reed's book before, and that is an interesting quotation. I would interested to here what people like Zampano and Luis have to say about it.

[Messiah]

The biggest indictment of Leninism from a Marxist perspective remains Luxembourg's "Leninism or Marxism?" A must read for all those interested in the subject. She pointed out the flaws, along with Trotsky, as early as 1904 and history proved her right. http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/...s-rsd/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm)

Anyway...

RedLenin:


The state IS the armed proletariat. Unless you consider workers councils to oppressive things the take power away from workers you are seriously missunderstanding what Marxists mean by "state".

No, I really am not. I am merely pointing out what what Marxists mean by state and what Leninists mean by state are two different things. And even that what Marxists consider to be the state, are still not the same what a council communist or even anarcho-syndicalist would consider to be the state. In terms of instrusiveness, authoritarianism and simply "non-communism" the Leninist conception of the state is by far the top rung on the ladder, that is, the worst.


I agree with you. That is not what I mean by national unity. This point is not really relevant anymore, as we have move past this point since the Russian Revolution. It only means that the nation becomes a nation. By the way, I am anything but a nationalist. I am an internationalist and the revolution can only succeed if it takes place world wide.

Fair enough, I'm simply pointing out that there are holes in Marxian theory. The national question cannot be assumed as a non-issue or something that will fade away quickly or easily at all, much as we may wish for it to do so. The 20th century has proven that amply.


Correct. That is why it won't be. It will be democratically administered by the entire working class.

Lenin argued for exactly the opposite -- the vanguard.


I agree one hundred percent. And if you believe that the proletariat must democratically organize and arm itself in order to suppress the bourgeois reactionaries, then you agree with the need for a state.

Why would I? Since when does democracy take place within the arena of the state? States are inherently undemocratic.

Whitten:


Imperialism changed all that. The Bourgeois wouldnt benifit from a Bourgeois-democratic revolution in a third world country, they benifit from keeping it oppressed and used for cheap labour power.

Nonesense. Liberalism has continued to function today, much as it did throughout history, by advnacing democratic rights to the rich and wealthy and in time towards the rest of society. That is one of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, that creates its own conditions for rebellion.

Just look at India, for example. A quickly developing society that at some point will overtake even the most advanced Western nations. That is when revolution will be possibly in the West, but will undoubtedly put us on a collision course with the former Third World.

Capital has not changed, like you seem to believe. You're simply focusing on a moment, when the story is in the process.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:48 am
I will grant you that Marx, even after 1871, may not have shied away from centralization. He did say, "the antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization." But what does he mean by this specifically? "The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France." This restoration and regeneration is laid out under the model of decentralized communes through society, in which citizens are given "universal suffrage". Centralization of power is merely an abstraction to the fact that he ultimately glorifies a model of decentralized state power, via a unified (centralized) proletarian force.
See, here's your problem. You're constantly yanking Marx quotes out of context. You can't even quote the whole paragraph. Here. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)


It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterparts of older, and even defunct, forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness. Thus, this new Commune, which breaks with the modern state power, has been mistaken for a reproduction of the medieval Communes, which first preceded, and afterward became the substratum of, that very state power. The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins, that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exagerrated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.

I'd suggest you're "mistaken" in precisely the same way Marx describes.

And unfortunately you chose not to link it, which makes it harder for other people to check the context of the quotes. Presumably you pasted them out of some such web source, rather than typing 'em in by hand - so why not link 'em while you're at it?

Then there's the historical context, which Marx partly describes and partly assumes (since he was writing for 19th-century people for who it was current events and more recent history.)

The bourgeois revolutions had a great centralizing influence, especially in France. The expansion of bourgeois democracy was also an expansion of state centralization. Which oughta help counter any simple-minded opposition of democracy to centralization.

But in France, this centralization went further than needed for democracy: municipal officials were apppointed by the national government. The decentralization of having municipal (communal) officials elected is one that people take for granted in, for example, the U.S.

And Marx is throughout that chapter arguing against the idea that the Commune represented "an exagerrated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization." Now why did he feel it necessary to argue against this idea? Because throughout his political life, up to that point, Marx had tended to favor state centralization and to regard proposals for state decentralization as a reactionary defense of trash left over from feudalism.

The Commune changed his mind - as far as the local election of municipal (communal in France) officials.

And yeah, he de-emphasized the stuff from the end of the 2nd section of the manifesto - because those were proposals to transfer capitalist property into the hands of the present state. But the commune had proved that the working class could not simply lay hold of that state machine, rather it had to be smashed.


The enbolded points deal explicitly with state machinery

No, they deal with making the means of production state property. Apparently you bolded the stuff which has the word "centralize" somewhere in it. Seems like another version of yanking phrases out of context.

****

BTW, "Marxist-Leninism" simply has nothing to do with the ideas of either Marx or Lenin. It's the term the Soviet and Chinese regimes used to describe their official self-justifications.


I think it is fairly evident, that representative democracies do not result in actual democracy. They create a caste of bureacrats who always misrepresent the people. Direct democracy, I think, is the only way the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be put into its practical form.

Does history support this? Bourgois democracy has certainly been able to create representatives who serve the bourgeois class and not just themselves. And direct democracy can also be a form of bourgeois democracy, manipulated by money just as much if not more than representative democracy. Take a look at California - referenda have often served actually to push through proposals more reactionary than what the representative bodies would pass.

Direct democracy's really best suited to a small elite, like Athenian democracy. With the involvement of millions, it becomes difficult for everyone to discuss every minor question and become meaningfully involved in deciding it.

Possibly it can play some useful role on a few of the biggest questions or for local and workplace democracy, but it's not a cure-all. Really there are no magic solutions to the problems of creating workers' democracy.

[chimx]

And unfortunately you chose not to link it, which makes it harder for other people to check the context of the quotes. Presumably you pasted them out of some such web source, rather than typing 'em in by hand - so why not link 'em while you're at it?

The historical context of centralization were already covered in the first citation I posted. I made it clear that I was only going to be citing from 3 (rather famous) works, all of which are easily found online. I thought it would be unnecessarily redundant to recite things that had already been covered elsewhere. Your comments liking my posts to biblical exegesis made me laugh earlier, but what do you propose as an alternative? Post a link to a book and say, "read all of this and answer me this? I posted what I thought was relevant, and if people think it is necessary to elaborate on the citation, than what's stopping them.

Regardless, and I'm not sure if you read all the responses, in the end we are speaking to the same fact. Decentralization isn't meant in the sense of feudal commune structure, but rather a centralized proletarian force where political power does not reside in a centralized body. To quote Zampano, with whom I agreed, "Marx is speaking of centralizing all instruments of production into the hands of the State. In other words, the State (i.e. the proletariat organized as the ruling class) has sole power and complete control over the means of production. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that the structure of the state itself is centralized."


No, they deal with making the means of production state property. Apparently you bolded the stuff which has the word "centralize" somewhere in it. Seems like another version of yanking phrases out of context.

Actually only 2 out of 5 had the word centralize in it. What I am really speaking to is the history of centralization within self-affirmed Marxist-Leninist states. That is why I ended this thread with, "That said, reexamine the list, and ask yourself which points governments adhering to Marxism-Leninism chose to utilize despite (in spite of) Marx's writing." While obviously a centralized production around a proletariat is possible within the embolded parts, but that is irrelavent to dhis discussion. We are speaking of the history of Marxist-Leninists to centralize the structure of the state itself.


BTW, "Marxist-Leninism" simply has nothing to do with the ideas of either Marx or Lenin. It's the term the Soviet and Chinese regimes used to describe their official self-justifications.

Obviously. Which is why this thread, in the title, was directed to them.