The Anarchist Alternative to Leninism

[Rawthentic]

Here's the Link. (http://struggle.ws/pdfs/alternative.pdf)

Its a PDF file, so I can't copy it here. I just want to here what people's thoughts are to this and have a discussion between both groups.

[RedLenin]

This pamphlet is the same anarchist rhetoric I've seen before.

First of all, It takes quotes out of context and makes gigantic leaps in logic. For example, the quote from Lenin in which he says that it is stupid to make the dictatorship of the party and the dictatorship of the class mutually exlusive, to anarchists means that Lenin wanted rigid bureaucracy and a one-party dictatorship. How they make that leap in logic I will never know. Lenin simply is saying that the party have can a leadership role within the overall dictatorship of the class. How this is confused with Stalinism is beyond me.

They also attack Lenin for saying that Socialism comes from below and above. This is just stupid. Of course Socialism comes both ways! The masses make the revolution and emancipate themselves, but the revolutionary theory and program have to come from somewhere! Where from? A party/organization! Even anarchists claim to support this.

The pamphlet also takes quotes of Lenin saying that the vanguard assumes power to mean that the vanguard composes a strict bureaucracy in the absense of workers democracy. Again this is false. The vanguard can hold power by having party members run in elections and get elected to the soviets. Again, the anarchists make a leap in logic.

They also ignore historical circumstances in which certain things were written. Lenin's quote that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will not be exercised by the entire Proletariat is also true, but missrepresented. There will be some minor sections of the Proletariat that are on the side of the bourgeoisie! Only those revolutionary workers will be able to exercise the class dictatorship. And again, I don't see the problem with having the most revolutionary party hold the most power in the state. Despite what the article claims, this does not rule out the election of all officials with right of recall. Party officials can be elected to office just like everyone else. What Lenin is saying is that, if the DoP is to survive, the party needs to lead the state. This is understandable considering the conditions facing Russia at the time Lenin wrote.

When going over the history of the Russian Revolution, the anarchists also ignore the material conditions. The Bolsheviks made a choice to preserve the revolution at all costs, even though that meant taking bureaucratic measures. Even Lenin himself refered to the state in Russia as a "workers state with bureaucratic deformities". The anarchists even have the nerve to criticize Trotsky for creating the Red Army! The Red Army was the only real solid way to defend the revolution against the monumental threats facing it. The strict centralization and hierarchy that the army necessarily had was an unfortunate product of the material conditions facing the revolution. There were a lot of problems in Russia, and both Lenin and Trotsky were well aware of it.

And I will not go too indepth as to the anarchists vision. Their vision of immediate, overnight complete direct democracy, federations of militias, etc are simply utopian. In the first phaze, a centralized but democractic state apparatus is necessary, along with a standing army. I would still say that State and Revolution is the best explanation for the "Leninist" vision of a State, though, unlike S&R, I believe a standing army is necessary. Even though S&R wasn't fully applied in Russia, that does not mean that "Leninists" want to recreat the Russian experience. Leninists follow Lenin's theoretical contributions to Marxism, one of which is his elaboration of the issue of the state, as is found in State and Revolution.

[The Grey Blur]

That has to be one of the worst articles I've ever read. I hate "anarchists" who spend all their time trying to convert "Leninists". And at an SWP conference? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Rawthentic]

I'm not an anarchist myself, I just wanted to see people's views on this. One problem I have is that it seems as if wherever "Leninist" revolutions have occured, the party becomes the central power over the proletariat. The state is supposed a transitional stage, but it seems as if there are always power-hungry people who corrupt this. I also understand the need for a state to suppress the counterrevolutionaries, so you see my contradictions here: I seem to doubt the transition stage in actually doing what its supposed to, but there's also the need for suppression of the bourgeoisie.

[RedLenin]

One problem I have is that it seems as if wherever "Leninist" revolutions have occured, the party becomes the central power over the proletariat.
There has only been one Leninist revolution. The October Revolution of 1917. Trotsky provided an excellent analysis of the bureaucratic degeneration of this revolution is his book: Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)

The other revolutions that have been termed "Leninist" were Proletarian Bonapartist revolutions that sought to replicate the Stalinist State.

[Rawthentic]

China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., followed the idea of a strong vanguard party which led to basically the same thing: a strictly centralized bureaucratic regime.

Your telling me the Cuba and Fidel sought to replicate the "Stalinist" state? Explain this more, as well as the other problems I have which I made in my last post here. Thanks

[RedLenin]

China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.,
All of those countries relied on the peasantry as the main force of revolution. As the peasantry is not a revolutionary class and can only be led by another class, relying on the peasantry will not end in socialism. What happened in these countries was that the peasantry was led by a Communist Party which, through the mechanism of guerrilla war, was thrust into power. The peasantry does not form independent institutions of class power (soviets), they relied on the party to give them what they wanted. It was the class nature of these revolutions that made them result in deformed workers states, as opposed to socialist states.


Your telling me the Cuba and Fidel sought to replicate the "Stalinist" state?
No, not initially. Fidel was actually more of a social democrat and a nationalist, with Che considering him to be on the left wing of the Bourgeoisie. Che on the other hand did have some admiration for Stalin and did, initally, see the Soviet Union and China as socialist states. He was working for such a "socialist" state in Cuba. Later in his life he did come to see that the bureaucracy was a problem. In fact, he died carrying a copy of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution. Needless to say, his views changed with experience.

The regime in Cuba only adopted a "socialist" agenda after the revolution. That said, I think that Cuba is the most promising of the deformed workers states. So much so that I think a political revolution may not even be necessary.

For more detail on this misalinement of class forces in revolution and Proletarian Bonapartism, check out this essay written by Ted Grant. The Colonial Revolution and The Deformed Worker's States (http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1978/07/colrev.htm)

[Rawthentic]

Since we are speaking about "Leninism" and suh, what are your views on the Black Panther Party?

[RedLenin]

what are your views on the Black Panther Party?
The BPP was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they were perhaps one of the most revolutionary groups the US has ever seen. They also served as an inspiration and as a form of vanguard for the oppressed black proletarian masses of the time. However, they were Maoists and, as such, I disagree with them on some theoretical matters.

I think the Black Panthers had the dedication, enthusiasm, and revolutionary energy to be a serious fighting force for the poor proletariat. However, I think they were too caught up in the Maoist/Guerrillaist mood of the 60's.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:11 am
China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., followed the idea of a strong vanguard party which led to basically the same thing: a strictly centralized bureaucratic regime.

Your telling me the Cuba and Fidel sought to replicate the "Stalinist" state? Explain this more, as well as the other problems I have which I made in my last post here. Thanks
There are plenty of elected officials in the PPA and council of state who are not members of the party. Why don't you try not acting as if all Marxist-Leninists are some caricature.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:07 am

what are your views on the Black Panther Party?
The BPP was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they were perhaps one of the most revolutionary groups the US has ever seen. They also served as an inspiration and as a form of vanguard for the oppressed black proletarian masses of the time. However, they were Maoists and, as such, I disagree with them on some theoretical matters.

I think the Black Panthers had the dedication, enthusiasm, and revolutionary energy to be a serious fighting force for the poor proletariat. However, I think they were too caught up in the Maoist/Guerrillaist mood of the 60's.
I partially disagree.

Most of the BPP's activities was community activism and organization that had little to do with violence. In many communities, especially in Oakland, the biggest problem facing the people was police brutality, and so the BPP addressed it.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with taking the revolutionary actions they did.

Their only faults were that they succummed to infiltration and provocation, although that is hardly something that can be laid solely on them.

I might have misread your post, so I apologize if I'm blabbering right now, I'm pretty tired.

[Rawthentic]

There are plenty of elected officials in the PPA and council of state who are not members of the party. Why don't you try not acting as if all Marxist-Leninists are some caricature.


What do you mean here?