Leninism Theory without Lenin

[RGacky3]

There are pretty much (broadly speaking) 2 Main Schools of Socialism, the Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist school, and the Leninist school.

The History of leninism as I know it pretty much centers around Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao. All of which are connected somewhat. The thing about Anarchism that I don't see much in Leninism is movements that have nothing to do with each other, for example the Zapatista movement is compleatly different from the Spanish Anarchist movement, Many Libertarian Socialist movements are compleatly unrelated to figures like Emma Goldman and Bakunin. However as far as I can tell those who support Vanguardist Socialist movements such as Leninism are pretty much ALL Leninists, they are all tied to Lenin.

Now heres my question are their any Vanguardist movements (i.e. those who believe in Socialism beling led by some Cenralized body, be it a State or a Party) That are not connected with Lenin and the Bolshivics?

[BreadBros]

Well, it could be argued that Leninism/Bolshevism is tied or has some roots in the Narodniks/Nihilists from the 1860s. While they saw the peasantry as the prime anti-capitalist force in society they had a huge focus on a leadership that "went to the peasants" to try to educate them and seemed to think that heroes from their generation would be the deciding factor in destroying the society that existed. They weren't Marxist or materialist at all but keep in mind that many Russian revolutionaries, including Lenin's family, had connections to the Narodniks.

[KC]

"Leninism" as a theory doesnt exist.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:38 pm
There are pretty much (broadly speaking) 2 Main Schools of Socialism, the Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist school, and the Leninist school.
Maybe you were not aware, but there is a strand/school/branch/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-it of communism that completely rejects key points of Leninism.

[RGacky3]

Left Communism, I know, but I would throw that under the Libertarian Socialist banner, I'm talking very broadly here.

To Zampano, you know what I mean, don't split hairs on me.

Perhaps the Bolshevics had some background in Nihilism, but as much as I know, Nihilism is compleatly against any type of authority.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 18, 2007 06:38 pm
"Leninism" as a theory doesnt exist.
How so?

[bezdomni]

Now heres my question are their any Vanguardist movements (i.e. those who believe in Socialism beling led by some Cenralized body, be it a State or a Party) That are not connected with Lenin and the Bolshivics?

That's like asking if you can make a sandwich without bread.

Actually, it is even more pointless than that. Marxism-Leninism is a way of looking at things. Lenin contributed his analysis of Imperialism to Marx's theories on Capitalism, and came up with an organizational method for Communist insurrection in the imperialist era.

Any revolution that achieves any reasonable degree of success will intrinsically be Marxist-Leninist, because Marxism-Leninism offers the only working way of organizing the masses for revolution.

There are probably some nutters who will reject Lenin's analysis but still maintain the necessity for a worker's state to exist as a transition from capitalism to communism...but those people are few and far between (and also not worth paying attention to). ;)

[вор в законе]

There are pretty much (broadly speaking) 2 Main Schools of Socialism, the Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist school, and the Leninist school.


Anarchists reject socialism. The only thing in common the Libertarians and the Anarchists have is the rejection of a revolutionary vanguard.


The History of leninism as I know it pretty much centers around Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao. All of which are connected somewhat....However as far as I can tell those who support Vanguardist Socialist movements such as Leninism are pretty much ALL Leninists, they are all tied to Lenin.

Leninism is a term coined by those who oppose Lenin as an individual, none of Bolsheviks called themselves ''Leninists'', neither did Trotsky, or Stalin etc. Trotsky, Mao, and the rest also claimed to be tied with Marx, hence why aren't they called ''Marxist''?

Furthermore Lenin died at 1924, subsequently he can't possibly be held responsible for what happened later regardless on whether Mao, Stalin and co justified their policies on his name. (Castro does the same in Cuba in regards to Che). Furthermore that reminds us the reasoning of the Crapitalists who blame Marx for the wrong applications of Socialism.

In fact, this entire I ''follow'' Marx, Lenin, Luxembourg etc reminds me religious practice.

Lenin is responsible only for his own actions. Bottom line: there's no such thing as Leninism. There is however the theory of Revolutionary Vanguard and ''democratic centralism'' which were advocated by Lenin.


The thing about Anarchism that I don't see much in Leninism is movements that have nothing to do with each other, for example the Zapatista movement is compleatly different from the Spanish Anarchist movement, Many Libertarian Socialist movements are compleatly unrelated to figures like Emma Goldman and Bakunin.

The Zapatista aren't Anarchist. However you are right about one thing: there are many types of tendencies in Anarchist movements and that is precisely because of the lack of ''democratic centralism''. Furthermore the Anarchists don't have the need to follow a ''line''. Everyone does whatever he wants. That is good on the one hand because there is more ''freedom'' but the bad thing is that all of them have a different perception of how an Anarchist society is supposed to be, leading to contradictions, and consequently they end up in not convincing the working class. Their only propaganda are their actions.

For the Libertarian Communists its a bit different. There are no Libertarian Communist Parties for start.


Now heres my question are their any Vanguardist movements (i.e. those who believe in Socialism beling led by some Cenralized body, be it a State or a Party) That are not connected with Lenin and the Bolshivics?

Maybe Chavez? Who knows.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:52 pm
Any revolution that achieves any reasonable degree of success will intrinsically be Marxist-Leninist, because Marxism-Leninism offers the only working way of organizing the masses for revolution.
Yes, because we saw how that worked in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. :rolleyes:

[sexyguy]

"Now heres my question are their any Vanguardist movements (i.e. those who believe in Socialism beling led by some Cenralized body, be it a State or a Party) That are not connected with Lenin and the Bolshivics?"

If you find any, we would love to talk to them.

[RNK]

There is however the theory of Revolutionary Vanguard and ''democratic centralism'' which were advocated by Lenin.

And what is this theory called? Isn't it simply a matter of simplicity to call this specific theory "Leninism"?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 18, 2007 08:10 pm
Leninism is a term coined by those who oppose Lenin as an individual, none of Bolsheviks called themselves ''Leninists'', neither did Trotsky, or Stalin etc. Trotsky, Mao, and the rest also claimed to be tied with Marx, hence why aren't they called ''Marxist''?
Stalin and Trotsky both used the term "leninism", and Stalin called himself a marxist-leninist.


Yes, because we saw how that worked in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc. rolleyes.gif

When you have a working non-leninist example that lasts longer you can make such stupid statements.

[Leo]

Left Communism, I know, but I would throw that under the Libertarian Socialist banner, I'm talking very broadly here.

No matter how broadly you talk, you can't throw Left Communism under the Libertarian Socialist banner.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Whitten+--> (Whitten)Stalin and Trotsky both used the term "leninism", and Stalin called himself a marxist-leninist.[/b]

Then they did wrong.


Originally posted by [email protected]
And what is this theory called?

Vanguardism.


RNK
Isn't it simply a matter of simplicity to call this specific theory "Leninism"?

Vanguardism is also simple to call. Lenin have said many things, such as the analysis of Imperialism, that are accepted by the Communists. If you reject ''Leninism'', it means that you reject everything that Lenin stated, including the correct things.

Which is why its better to call it Vanguardism for simplicity. Like it or not Lenin is a respected persona among Communists and when you bash him as an individual, and not for specific things that he might have said, instantly you create enemies even if your criticism is correct.

Whatever the case is I believe that the failure of Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact and China, Cuba etc wasn't related to the Vanguard, but the system* that these Vanguards established. Vanguardism is a way of doing a Revolution and as history has proved, it is quite effective.

We haven't seen any successful revolutions by those who oppose the revolutionary vanguard.

It also depends on what someone defines a ''Vanguard'' really. What if the Vanguard doesn't espouse democratic centralism? I have no reservation that some members of the Vanguard might just want to seize the power for themselves, but what if the Vanguard clearly states from the beginning that :''The Vanguard ceases to exist after the Revolution'' and ''if some of the members attempt to seize the power in the name of the workers then they should be shot''?

*Democratic Centralism, Statism, One Party State etc

[KC]

To Zampano, you know what I mean, don't split hairs on me.

I'm not "splitting hairs" at all.


How so?

Everything theoretically presented by Lenin was either a clarification of Marx's theories or a repetition of those theories. The actions of the Bolsheviks were merely Marx's theories applied to the material conditions of Russia at the time. Because of this, neither Lenin's theories nor the Bolshevik's actions can be classified as "Leninism". The only new thing that Lenin presented was imperialism, and I hardly think that because Lenin contributed imperialism to Marxist theory that he should get his own "ism". In fact, his theories on imperialism were just an observation of capitalist society due to the Marxist method. If we gave everyone that analyzed capitalism with a Marxist method an "ism" we'd be drowning in them.


Vanguardism.

Sorry, but Lenin definitely wasn't the first person to recognize or advocate the theory of the vanguard. Go read the Manifesto again.



Whatever the case is I believe that the failure of Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact and China, Cuba etc wasn't related to the Vanguard, but the system* that these Vanguards established. Vanguardism is a way of doing a Revolution and as history has proved, it is quite effective.


I hardly think that you could cite "the vanguard" as the cause of these developments, as I could just name every single successful revolution in history as proof that a vanguard is necessary; in fact, every single revolution in history has had a vanguard, so opposing the idea of a vanguard is opposing revolution in general.

I love how these topics on "Leninism" as a supposed "theory" always degenerate into discussing the actions of revolutionary groups; maybe that's because Leninism really doesn't exist? Seems to me like the term is used to condemn "failed" revolutions and really nothing more.

[вор в законе]

Sorry, but Lenin definitely wasn't the first person to recognize or advocate the theory of the vanguard. Go read the Manifesto again.

It doesn't make any difference whether he was the first or the last.




I hardly think that you could cite "the vanguard" as the cause of these developments,

I'm not sure where exactly did you saw me rejecting a revolutionary vanguard, perhaps you should read better before commenting.


as I could just name every single successful revolution in history as proof that a vanguard is necessary; in fact, every single revolution in history has had a vanguard, so opposing the idea of a vanguard is opposing revolution in general.

Every other revolution though was about the emergence of a tiny minority into the ruling power, whether it were the monarchist, the aristocrats or the bourgeois. The Socialist Revolution is the first time in history where the rulers are the majority. That's why a Vanguard seems awkward. Eventually, there is nothing to assure us that this Vanguard wont become corrupted and just keep the power for itself. It is naive to believe that an organized minority would simply hand the power to the majority.

Nevertheless I believe that a Revolutionary Vanguard is needed until we make the revolution because the Anarchist way of doing a Revolution, however ''nice'' it sounds, it is not practical and as history has showed, it fails. The Vanguard will be needed until the correct relations to the means of productions are installed, when the working class, not the State or the Vanguard, will own the means of production. After the Revolution the Vanguard must cease to exist as a political force.

If they refuse to then I'm afraid that they must be liquidated by the new democratically controlled or elected, depending on the established political system, State apparatus.

[Dominick]

Has anyone read Leninism Under Lenin by Marcel Liebman? I thought it was excllent, and I enjoyed an objective assessment of Lenin.

[Janus]

The idea of "vanguardism" arose before Lenin. One of the first proponents behind it was Louis Blanqui who formed his theory of Blanquism during the turbulent times of the 19th century. In addition, I suppose some of the social democratic parties could also be concerned vanguardist in a sense as well.

[Janus]

Split posts concerning worker's control in the USSR to History:

Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64349)

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:07 pm


When you have a working non-leninist example that lasts longer you can make such stupid statements.
The Spanish anarchists lasted longer, they lasted three years at least, the Bolsheviks counter-revolution began in about the spring of 1918.

The Makhnovists lasted longer as well.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 20, 2007 04:05 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 20, 2007 04:05 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:07 pm


When you have a working non-leninist example that lasts longer you can make such stupid statements.
The Spanish anarchists lasted longer, they lasted three years at least, the Bolsheviks counter-revolution began in about the spring of 1918.

The Makhnovists lasted longer as well. [/b]
Spanish anarchism was able to make an attempt simply because the Popular Front had already won in the elections. Without a leftist government, the anarchists in Northern Spain would not have been able to do what they did IMO.

I respect anarcho-syndicalism, but the fact is that you need to have a worker state in order to combat counterrevolutionaries and facilitate both socialism and the transition. Furthermore, it can be readily shown that vanguards naturally develop within the working class, and so it is imperative to utilize this.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 20, 2007 04:09 am
Spanish anarchism was able to make an attempt simply because the Popular Front had already won in the elections. Without a leftist government, the anarchists in Northern Spain would not have been able to do what they did IMO.


Actually the CNT had over a million members and was by far the most popular of the republican sects.


I respect anarcho-syndicalism, but the fact is that you need to have a worker state in order to combat counterrevolutionaries and facilitate both socialism and the transition. Furthermore, it can be readily shown that vanguards naturally develop within the working class, and so it is imperative to utilize this.
And look at how it has worked out time and time again, doesn't the fact that most of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century were Leninists?
The Bolsheviks started taking counter-revolutionary steps themselves within six months of seizing power.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 20, 2007 04:16 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 20, 2007 04:16 am)
manic [email protected] 20, 2007 04:09 am
Spanish anarchism was able to make an attempt simply because the Popular Front had already won in the elections. Without a leftist government, the anarchists in Northern Spain would not have been able to do what they did IMO.


Actually the CNT had over a million members and was by far the most popular of the republican sects.


I respect anarcho-syndicalism, but the fact is that you need to have a worker state in order to combat counterrevolutionaries and facilitate both socialism and the transition. Furthermore, it can be readily shown that vanguards naturally develop within the working class, and so it is imperative to utilize this.
And look at how it has worked out time and time again, doesn't the fact that most of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century were Leninists?
The Bolsheviks started taking counter-revolutionary steps themselves within six months of seizing power. [/b]
The CNT's membership has no relevance to my point. They were only able to institute their structure in Northern Spain after the Popular Front's victory, meaning they were unable to supplant a bourgeois structure until another event had done it for them.

Be serious. The Bolsheviks clamped down on counterrevolutionaries because they needed to (although Mensheviks and SR's were allowed to stay in the Soviets IIRC, which completely undermines your point). The actions of the Bolsheviks were completely warranted and reasonable and justified, and they allowed for socialism to take hold in Russia. There are few things wrong with what the Bolsheviks did (at least until 1924-1928).

Stalin was the result of an increased bureacracy, which is lamentable, but that is NOT inherent in a Leninist system. In spite of Stalin's actions, the USSR was still a worker state, just a deformed one. This is important because the Soviet Union was able to aid other revolutions, including those in Cuba and other countries, which helped the socialist cause. Furthermore, even when the Soviet Union was stricken with innumerable problems at its end, it provided many positive things for the workers (that's a fact, by the way).

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 18, 2007 08:10 pm

There are pretty much (broadly speaking) 2 Main Schools of Socialism, the Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist school, and the Leninist school.


Anarchists reject socialism. The only thing in common the Libertarians and the Anarchists have is the rejection of a revolutionary vanguard.


The History of leninism as I know it pretty much centers around Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao. All of which are connected somewhat....However as far as I can tell those who support Vanguardist Socialist movements such as Leninism are pretty much ALL Leninists, they are all tied to Lenin.

Leninism is a term coined by those who oppose Lenin as an individual, none of Bolsheviks called themselves ''Leninists'', neither did Trotsky, or Stalin etc. Trotsky, Mao, and the rest also claimed to be tied with Marx, hence why aren't they called ''Marxist''?

Furthermore Lenin died at 1924, subsequently he can't possibly be held responsible for what happened later regardless on whether Mao, Stalin and co justified their policies on his name. (Castro does the same in Cuba in regards to Che). Furthermore that reminds us the reasoning of the Crapitalists who blame Marx for the wrong applications of Socialism.

In fact, this entire I ''follow'' Marx, Lenin, Luxembourg etc reminds me religious practice.

Lenin is responsible only for his own actions. Bottom line: there's no such thing as Leninism. There is however the theory of Revolutionary Vanguard and ''democratic centralism'' which were advocated by Lenin.


The thing about Anarchism that I don't see much in Leninism is movements that have nothing to do with each other, for example the Zapatista movement is compleatly different from the Spanish Anarchist movement, Many Libertarian Socialist movements are compleatly unrelated to figures like Emma Goldman and Bakunin.

The Zapatista aren't Anarchist. However you are right about one thing: there are many types of tendencies in Anarchist movements and that is precisely because of the lack of ''democratic centralism''. Furthermore the Anarchists don't have the need to follow a ''line''. Everyone does whatever he wants. That is good on the one hand because there is more ''freedom'' but the bad thing is that all of them have a different perception of how an Anarchist society is supposed to be, leading to contradictions, and consequently they end up in not convincing the working class. Their only propaganda are their actions.

For the Libertarian Communists its a bit different. There are no Libertarian Communist Parties for start.


Now heres my question are their any Vanguardist movements (i.e. those who believe in Socialism beling led by some Cenralized body, be it a State or a Party) That are not connected with Lenin and the Bolshivics?

Maybe Chavez? Who knows.
Many Anarchists would'nt say they reject Socialism (or I guess Communism you'd have to call it).

The Zapatistas are not Anarchists in name, but are widely supported by Anarchists, so I'll include them, under my very braod distinctions.

Your right Anarchists don't have a need to follow a line, but for some reason, they can pretty much all agree on certain things, look at the history of the IWW for example, or the CNT, and how Anarchists got a large number of people together for a common cause, they did'nt need to agree with EVERYTHING but they had a common goal.

I suppose Vanguardist Socialists would be a good broad term.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 20, 2007 04:25 am
The CNT's membership has no relevance to my point. They were only able to institute their structure in Northern Spain after the Popular Front's victory, meaning they were unable to supplant a bourgeois structure until another event had done it for them.









The CNT did make mistakes and missed some chances but actually the problem was not they couldn't take power and wanted to, but they could of and didn't.



Be serious. The Bolsheviks clamped down on counterrevolutionaries because they needed to (although Mensheviks and SR's were allowed to stay in the Soviets IIRC, which completely undermines your point). The actions of the Bolsheviks were completely warranted and reasonable and justified, and they allowed for socialism to take hold in Russia. There are few things wrong with what the Bolsheviks did (at least until 1924-1928).
The Bolsheviks started to curb the power of the Soviets by march 1918( months before the civil war started!.) they also arrested left-wing rivals such as anarchism and started a campaign of repression and the excuse that they were fighting a war can't even be used.
Lenin was a despotic, mass murderer as well as Stalin you can't just point at Stalin as a bad sheep. The Cheka killed tens of thousands at least in his lifetime.

And since when did the Bolsheiviks ever create any kind of socialism, I seen nothing remotely socialists about what they did.


Stalin was the result of an increased bureacracy, which is lamentable, but that is NOT inherent in a Leninist system. In spite of Stalin's actions, the USSR was still a worker state, just a deformed one. This is important because the Soviet Union was able to aid other revolutions, including those in Cuba and other countries, which helped the socialist cause. Furthermore, even when the Soviet Union was stricken with innumerable problems at its end, it provided many positive things for the workers (that's a fact, by the way).
Post war Keynesianism provided even better things but that doesn't make it great does it.
And those revolutions it helped at best created benign enough dictatorships, usually there was mass murder to boot.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 20, 2007 04:37 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 20, 2007 04:37 am)
manic [email protected] 20, 2007 04:25 am
The CNT's membership has no relevance to my point. They were only able to institute their structure in Northern Spain after the Popular Front's victory, meaning they were unable to supplant a bourgeois structure until another event had done it for them.

The CNT did make mistakes and missed some chances but actually the problem was not they couldn't take power and wanted to, but they could of and didn't.



Be serious. The Bolsheviks clamped down on counterrevolutionaries because they needed to (although Mensheviks and SR's were allowed to stay in the Soviets IIRC, which completely undermines your point). The actions of the Bolsheviks were completely warranted and reasonable and justified, and they allowed for socialism to take hold in Russia. There are few things wrong with what the Bolsheviks did (at least until 1924-1928).
The Bolsheviks started to curb the power of the Soviets by march 1918( months before the civil war started!.) they also arrested left-wing rivals such as anarchism and started a campaign of repression and the accuse that they were fighting a war can't even be used.
Lenin was a despotic, mass murderer as well as Stalin you can't just point at Stalin as a bad sheep. The Cheka killed tens of thousands at least in his lifetime.

And since when did the Bolsheiviks ever create any kind of socialism, I seen nothing remotely socialists about what they did.


Stalin was the result of an increased bureacracy, which is lamentable, but that is NOT inherent in a Leninist system. In spite of Stalin's actions, the USSR was still a worker state, just a deformed one. This is important because the Soviet Union was able to aid other revolutions, including those in Cuba and other countries, which helped the socialist cause. Furthermore, even when the Soviet Union was stricken with innumerable problems at its end, it provided many positive things for the workers (that's a fact, by the way).
Post war Keynesianism provided even better things but that doesn't make it great does it.
And those revolutions it helped at best created benign enough dictatorships, usually there was mass murder to boot. [/b]
The fact is that the CNT did not, and this would seem to indicate that they couldn't, not that they were simply unwilling to (which is just as bad of an indictment).

The Russian Civil War started virtually right after the October Revolution, and it became apparent that the counterrevolutionaries would not sit by and do nothing. Therefore, it was only right that the Bolsheviks would begin to mobilize against this reactionary threat.

Yes, I do know that opponents were subjected to repression, but it is idealistic to think that repression is wrong no matter what. The Bolsheviks were faced with conditions that oftentimes necessitated such measures. Do you honestly think anarchists would be fine with a bunch of Leninists agitating against the anarchist structure? Of course not.

I didn't say Stalin was a "bad sheep", I cited increased bureacracy as the cause. The Cheka targeted counterrevolutionaries, and that is not a bad thing.

The Bolsheviks toppled a bourgeois government and created the first worker state. Workers managed their workplaces, the Soviets were central to the system and more. What isn't socialist about that?

Keynesianism? That is ludicrous. Keynesianism and Marxism are basically incompatible on purely economic terms. That is a completely flawed analysis.

The Cuban Revolution led to "mass murder"? Give me a break. If you actually tried to study, objectively, the movements you're trying to slander, you'd probably have a radically different view.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 20, 2007 04:47 am

The Russian Civil War started virtually right after the October Revolution, and it became apparent that the counterrevolutionaries would not sit by and do nothing. Therefore, it was only right that the Bolsheviks would begin to mobilize against this reactionary threat.




The civil war proper started in about may 1918 I believe. And it is funny how these counter-revolutionaries included anarchists and those to the left of the bolsheviks.


Yes, I do know that opponents were subjected to repression, but it is idealistic to think that repression is wrong no matter what. The Bolsheviks were faced with conditions that oftentimes necessitated such measures. Do you honestly think anarchists would be fine with a bunch of Leninists agitating against the anarchist structure? Of course not.
They would be fine enough unless the Leninsts were attacking people and the like.
And again the Bolsheviks started the repression before the war started in may 1918.



I didn't say Stalin was a "bad sheep", I cited increased bureacracy as the cause. The Cheka targeted counterrevolutionaries, and that is not a bad thing.
The Cheka killed many people, most weren't real counter-revolutionaries and quite a few were anarchists and others more left than the Bolsheviks.


The Bolsheviks toppled a bourgeois government and created the first worker state. Workers managed their workplaces, the Soviets were central to the system and more. What isn't socialist about that?
No, these things occured from the march/feb revolution onwards, the Bolsheviks gradually reversed most of it.


Keynesianism? That is ludicrous. Keynesianism and Marxism are basically incompatible on purely economic terms. That is a completely flawed analysis.
I was talking about the wests post war keynesian period not the USSR, it did more for the workers than the USSR did but neither of us are amaerican style "liberals!.

The Cuban Revolution led to "mass murder"? Give me a break. If you actually tried to study, objectively, the movements you're trying to slander, you'd probably have a radically different view.
Well Castro is hardly a saint, but when said at best benign dictatorships I was talking about him.

And again you ignore the fact that Leninism at best results in dictatorships, usually there is mass murder.

[manic expression]

The civil war proper started in about may 1918 I believe. And it is funny how these counter-revolutionaries included anarchists and those to the left of the bolsheviks.

The whites were mobilizing before that IIRC. Even if they weren't, it was obvious that a conflict was coming.


They would be fine enough unless the Leninsts were attacking people and the like.
And again the Bolsheviks started the repression before the war started in may 1918.

Right, let anarchists do that in reality and then we'll talk. The war was one part of it, there were many obstacles that were in the way of the Bolsheviks at the moment they took the Winter Palace (and before that).


The Cheka killed many people, most weren't real counter-revolutionaries and quite a few were anarchists and others more left than the Bolsheviks.

Do you have any support for that statement? Regardless, it seems naive to think that the Bolsheviks were simply imagining those threats, since history shows how plentiful they really were.


No, these things occured from the march/feb revolution onwards, the Bolsheviks gradually reversed most of it.

They defended and improved those gains (successfully), they did not reverse them.


I was talking about the wests post war keynesian period not the USSR, it did more for the workers than the USSR did but neither of us are amaerican style "liberals!.

OK, forget what I said about that comment then. However, it was imperialism that did "more for the workers".


Were Castro is hardly a saint, but when said at best benign dictatorships I was talking about him.

And again you ignore the fact that Leninism at best results in dictatorships, usually there is mass murder.

It is in defiance of the facts to say such a thing about the revolutionary government in Cuba. Leninism has not resulted in "mass murder", and to assert as much is to misunderstand or ignore the reality of what happened. Leninism does result in a dictatorship, that is the whole point, the dictatorship of the proletariat. In that, it has been successful.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 20, 2007 05:17 am
Right, let anarchists do that in reality and then we'll talk.


The anarchists would do it, it is a part of anarchism.


The war was one part of it, there were many obstacles that were in the way of the Bolsheviks at the moment they took the Winter Palace (and before that).And mass murder was the best solution?


Do you have any support for that statement? Regardless, it seems naive to think that the Bolsheviks were simply imagining those threats, since history shows how plentiful they really were.
It has been recorded many times how the Bolsheviks treated the real revolutionary socialists like anarchists. And what threats, except to their power and status did the anarchists pose?


They defended and improved those gains (successfully), they did not reverse them.Sure they did, they removed the power of the soviets and alot of workplace democracy as soon as possible.



It is in defiance of the facts to say such a thing about the revolutionary government in Cuba. Leninism has not resulted in "mass murder", and to assert as much is to misunderstand or ignore the reality of what happened. Leninism does result in a dictatorship, that is the whole point, the dictatorship of the proletariat. In that, it has been successful
Did you miss when I said that I meant Castro was not a mass murder just a benign dictator?
And as for the rest that's fine have your dictatorship, I'll just keep warning anarchists and libertarian socialists against any kind of compromise with such counter-revolutionary stances.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 20, 2007 05:35 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 20, 2007 05:35 am)
manic [email protected] 20, 2007 05:17 am
Right, let anarchists do that in reality and then we'll talk.


The anarchists would do it, it is a part of anarchism.


The war was one part of it, there were many obstacles that were in the way of the Bolsheviks at the moment they took the Winter Palace (and before that).And mass murder was the best solution?


Do you have any support for that statement? Regardless, it seems naive to think that the Bolsheviks were simply imagining those threats, since history shows how plentiful they really were.
It has been recorded many times how the Bolsheviks treated the real revolutionary socialists like anarchists. And what threats, except to their power and status did the anarchists pose?


They defended and improved those gains (successfully), they did not reverse them.Sure they did, they removed the power of the soviets and alot of workplace democracy as soon as possible.



It is in defiance of the facts to say such a thing about the revolutionary government in Cuba. Leninism has not resulted in "mass murder", and to assert as much is to misunderstand or ignore the reality of what happened. Leninism does result in a dictatorship, that is the whole point, the dictatorship of the proletariat. In that, it has been successful
Did you miss when I said that I meant Castro was not a mass murder just a benign dictator?
And as for the rest that's fine have your dictatorship, I'll just keep warning anarchists and libertarian socialists against any kind of compromise with such counter-revolutionary stances. [/b]
So you're saying that the existence of a vanguard party would be tolerated in anarchism? I doubt it.

You're making statements that are inexplicable. Mass murder? Try citing something, or at least making a reasonable claim.

Yes, since the "real revolutionary socialists" were content with Kerensky and his bourgeois government. In case no one told you, the real revolutionary socialists were taking control and instituting worker control during the October Revolution.

Are you really trying to say that there weren't any threats to the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution?

They did not remove the power of the Soviets, they responded to the necessity for a more resilient structure during a devestating and exhausting war. In Spain, the anarchist system was compromised at the first significant opposition (May Days).

I would disagree that Castro is a "benign dictator", and I tried to express that (although I could've done so more clearly).

The dictatorship of the proletariat is something that you call "counterrevolutionary" and something you think of as a threat? That shows a lot.

[RGacky3]

So you're saying that the existence of a vanguard party would be tolerated in anarchism? I doubt it.

Depends what you mean by a Vanguard party, as long as the party did'nt coerce any one sure, a bunch of middle class guys can come together and discuss theory and try convince others that they are right, but as soon as they start using force, or trying to Coerce people, then no, it won't be tolerated.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is something that you call "counterrevolutionary" and something you think of as a threat? That shows a lot.

I'm pretty sure when Marx was thinking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he did'nt have something like the Castro regime in mind, and if he did? Then to hell with Marx.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:38 am

So you're saying that the existence of a vanguard party would be tolerated in anarchism? I doubt it.

Depends what you mean by a Vanguard party, as long as the party did'nt coerce any one sure, a bunch of middle class guys can come together and discuss theory and try convince others that they are right, but as soon as they start using force, or trying to Coerce people, then no, it won't be tolerated.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is something that you call "counterrevolutionary" and something you think of as a threat? That shows a lot.

I'm pretty sure when Marx was thinking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he did'nt have something like the Castro regime in mind, and if he did? Then to hell with Marx.
A vanguard party is a working class organization. The activities of such a party are arguably incompatible with anarchist systems, and so there would clearly be conflict.

Spare me the misconceptions of Cuba and the revolutionary government.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 20, 2007 05:47 am

So you're saying that the existence of a vanguard party would be tolerated in anarchism? I doubt it.

Well then you know little of anarchism, that is the point.


You're making statements that are inexplicable. Mass murder? Try citing something, or at least making a reasonable claim.What do you mean? the crimes of the likes of Stalin, Mao etc are well known, I didn't think I'd have to cite sources, it is like citing holocaust sources.


Yes, since the "real revolutionary socialists" were content with Kerensky and his bourgeois government. In case no one told you, the real revolutionary socialists were taking control and instituting worker control during the October Revolution.
Kerensky was no less revolutionary than the bolsheviks, what he lacked in revolutionary zeal he made up in anti-authoritarianism.
Anyway the anarchists never went along with Kerensky gov't just as they soon went against the Bolshevik counter-revolution.
And you ignored the fact worker control was started after the feb revolution and gradually reversed by the bolsheviks, not encouraged.


Are you really trying to say that there weren't any threats to the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution?
I'm saying the civil war proper had not started.


They did not remove the power of the Soviets, they responded to the necessity for a more resilient structure during a devestating and exhausting war. In Spain, the anarchist system was compromised at the first significant opposition (May Days).
And with that "resilient structure" any hope of a true revolution ended, as it must always do when authoritarian means are introduced and the history of the USSR and all Leninist experiements shows us.
As for the anarchists in Spain they didn't have the popular, determined support they needed, despite the membership of the party. And the external attacks were too much for it.

I would disagree that Castro is a "benign dictator", and I tried to express that (although I could've done so more clearly).What is he?


The dictatorship of the proletariat is something that you call "counterrevolutionary" and something you think of as a threat? That shows a lot.Well that phrase seems to mean many things, what I mean is any authoritarian means of attempting social revolution are doomed to failure.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:21 am
Kerensky was no less revolutionary than the bolsheviks, what he lacked in revolutionary zeal he made up in anti-authoritarianism.
Kerensky was "anti-authoritarian"? This is the man who declared himself Dictator in August?

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 21, 2007 06:37 am
A vanguard party is a working class organization. The activities of such a party are arguably incompatible with anarchist systems, and so there would clearly be conflict.
A Vanguard Party is a working class organization? A Labor Union is a working class Organization, like I said before if a bunch of guys want to come together to make a 'Party' thats fine, but it would be kind of pointless because under Anarchism there would be no State power to take, and under Anarchism that 'Party' would not be allowed to coerce to do anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 21, 2007 10:21 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 21, 2007 10:21 am)
manic [email protected] 20, 2007 05:47 am

So you're saying that the existence of a vanguard party would be tolerated in anarchism? I doubt it.

Well then you know little of anarchism, that is the point. [/b]
Are you saying a vanguard party would be tolerated?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 21, 2007 03:34 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 21, 2007 03:34 pm)
manic [email protected] 21, 2007 06:37 am
A vanguard party is a working class organization. The activities of such a party are arguably incompatible with anarchist systems, and so there would clearly be conflict.
A Vanguard Party is a working class organization? A Labor Union is a working class Organization, like I said before if a bunch of guys want to come together to make a 'Party' thats fine, but it would be kind of pointless because under Anarchism there would be no State power to take, and under Anarchism that 'Party' would not be allowed to coerce to do anything. [/b]
That's just the point: communists would want to create a worker state, anarchists would obviously want to resist this. Anarchists would not tolerate communist activity, just as communists did not tolerate anarchist activity.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 21, 2007 09:21 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 21, 2007 09:21 am)
manic [email protected] 20, 2007 05:47 am

So you're saying that the existence of a vanguard party would be tolerated in anarchism? I doubt it.

Well then you know little of anarchism, that is the point.


You're making statements that are inexplicable. Mass murder? Try citing something, or at least making a reasonable claim.What do you mean? the crimes of the likes of Stalin, Mao etc are well known, I didn't think I'd have to cite sources, it is like citing holocaust sources.


Yes, since the "real revolutionary socialists" were content with Kerensky and his bourgeois government. In case no one told you, the real revolutionary socialists were taking control and instituting worker control during the October Revolution.
Kerensky was no less revolutionary than the bolsheviks, what he lacked in revolutionary zeal he made up in anti-authoritarianism.
Anyway the anarchists never went along with Kerensky gov't just as they soon went against the Bolshevik counter-revolution.
And you ignored the fact worker control was started after the feb revolution and gradually reversed by the bolsheviks, not encouraged.


Are you really trying to say that there weren't any threats to the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution?
I'm saying the civil war proper had not started.


They did not remove the power of the Soviets, they responded to the necessity for a more resilient structure during a devestating and exhausting war. In Spain, the anarchist system was compromised at the first significant opposition (May Days).
And with that "resilient structure" any hope of a true revolution ended, as it must always do when authoritarian means are introduced and the history of the USSR and all Leninist experiements shows us.
As for the anarchists in Spain they didn't have the popular, determined support they needed, despite the membership of the party. And the external attacks were too much for it.

I would disagree that Castro is a "benign dictator", and I tried to express that (although I could've done so more clearly).What is he?


The dictatorship of the proletariat is something that you call "counterrevolutionary" and something you think of as a threat? That shows a lot.Well that phrase seems to mean many things, what I mean is any authoritarian means of attempting social revolution are doomed to failure. [/b]
I work with anarchists on a routine basis and I know perfectly well about the ideology.

I've already explained that Stalin was the result of increased bureacracy, and even then the worker state was still fundamentally good. Mao did a lot to help the people of China (that's a big understatement), but he made a few big errors. The statistics for both rulers are woefully incorrect, the deaths they caused (most of which were through famine, famines that were NOT caused by the actions of the state) are far less than capitalists would have you believe.

Kerensky was "no less revolutionary than the Bolsheviks"? You have got to be kidding me. Tell me, how "revolutionary" is one who refuses to redistribute land and pursues an unabashed capitalist path?

The Whites had mobilized, and so did other counterrevolutionaries.

The Bolshevik revolution was a ture revolution. They fought off the reactionary and racist White Army and resisted foreign invasions, while stopping Polish incursions into their territory. All this while maintaining worker control. So no, you're patently wrong here.

No, the anarchists were not significantly lacking in any resource, they simply couldn't use any of it well. The external attacks on the anarchists were chump change in relation to what the Bolsheviks faced.

Castro is a leader of the revolution, who has served as the head of state. His powers are not dictatorial, and the Popular Assembly has the most influence in government.

It is a demonstated fact that (what you call) "authoritarian means" do not fail, and that they produce positive results time and again.

[RGacky3]

That's just the point: communists would want to create a worker state, anarchists would obviously want to resist this. Anarchists would not tolerate communist activity, just as communists did not tolerate anarchist activity.

Your skipping around my point, my point of coercion, The 'Communists' wanting to make a workers state would mean that it is not 100% voluntary, and thus would need coercion, so pretty much Anarchists would suppress the 'Communists' only if they were trying to Coerce people with force or some other means, thats why I said we would have no problem with a Vanguard party as long as it does'nt Coerce anyone. Now as for a workers state? Probably not because it would require Coercion and a set higharchy. So what I'm saying is you Lenninists can do what ever you want as long as your not forcing things on other people.

When you talk about Communist activity, I assume your not talking about communal property and a Cooperative economy, because thats what Anarchism IS, its pure Communism.

[Vargha Poralli]

The 'Communists' wanting to make a workers state would mean that it is not 100% voluntary, and thus would need coercion,

A wokers state will not be based on Coercion of workers. Any one who would rebel against a workers state will be a capitalist or a petty capitalist.

State is a tool for class antagonisms to exists and smashing state will not end the problem for workers. When there are no class antagonism the State would wither away.



so pretty much Anarchists would suppress the 'Communists' only if they were trying to Coerce people with force or some other means,

Highly based on principles and prejudices.


thats why I said we would have no problem with a Vanguard party as long as it does'nt Coerce anyone

Yet another prejudice. I would suggest actually read some thing about Marxism and Lenin's works and criticse the concept of vanguard party.


So what I'm saying is you Lenninists can do what ever you want as long as your not forcing things on other people.

Where in the world Leninists coerce others.


When you talk about Communist activity, I assume your not talking about communal property and a Cooperative economy, because thats what Anarchism IS, its pure Communism.

Anybody can claim that they are pure idelogically. Communism is not a doctrine it is a movement which is based not on principles but on facts.

[CodeAires]

I think they can be seperated, although it's not always easy. It's taking some elements of things you approve of but removing the other ideals, like removing the yolk of an egg and leaving the egg white.

[bezdomni]

It has been recorded many times how the Bolsheviks treated the real revolutionary socialists like anarchists. And what threats, except to their power and status did the anarchists pose?

And how would the "real socialist revolutionaries" treat Marxist-Leninists?

[RGacky3]

A wokers state will not be based on Coercion of workers. Any one who would rebel against a workers state will be a capitalist or a petty capitalist.

Thats rediculous, if a worker did'nt want to be led by a state, or he did'nt want someone telling him what to do he would automatically become a petty Capitalist or a Capitalist? I don't think thats how you determine classs.


State is a tool for class antagonisms to exists and smashing state will not end the problem for workers. When there are no class antagonism the State would wither away.

The Lenninist/Maoist view of Class is very twisted, if power and Control are taken away from the Capitalists, and they then must work they are no longer Capitalists are they? If the State and Capitalism are done away with they are no Class Antagonisms, Because there will be no class system.


QUOTE
so pretty much Anarchists would suppress the 'Communists' only if they were trying to Coerce people with force or some other means,



Highly based on principles and prejudices.


How so? the principle is you don't Coerce people, whats the prejudice?


Where in the world Leninists coerce others.

Pretty much anywhere they pop up. Did the Bolshivics Coerce people? Well they had police, they had set laws, and they had control over the economy, so yeah.


QUOTE
When you talk about Communist activity, I assume your not talking about communal property and a Cooperative economy, because thats what Anarchism IS, its pure Communism.



Anybody can claim that they are pure idelogically. Communism is not a doctrine it is a movement which is based not on principles but on facts.


its based on facts interprited be principles, like the principle that the economy should exist to benefit everyone, thats a principle, and the fact? that a Capitalist economy does'nt do it and a socialist economy does it better.

Your reply to my question of Coercion is strange, you seem to think that all the workers will pretty much accept the leadership and the state and that the state won't have to Coerce anyone that is'nt a Capitalist, very idealistic of you.

[Vargha Poralli]

Thats rediculous, if a worker did'nt want to be led by a state, he did'nt want someone telling him what to do he would automatically become a petty Capitalist or a Capitalist?

We live in a class society. States are real. They cannot be smashed without the class anatgonisms which is the real reason for their existence disappears.And we are taking about workers state which exists and operates in the class interest of workers so they have no need to obey the State or Led by a state.They too would act on their class intrest.



I don't think thats how you determine classs.


You are seriously stupid. I said "Any one who would rebel against a workers state will be a capitalist or a petty capitalist." Which means the workers state would act against their class interests so they would naturally oppose it.You took a ridiculus assumption.


The Lenninist/Maoist view of Class is very twisted, if power and Control are taken away from the Capitalists, and they then must work they are no longer Capitalists are they?

It is not Leninist/Maoist vies of class it is Marx's and Engels view too.



If the State and Capitalism are done away with they are no Class Antagonisms, Because there will be no class system.

State and Capitalism cannot be done away as simply as you dream off. State is just a tool of Capitalism and without doing away with capitalism the state cannot be done away with it and without doing away capitalism Class antagonisms too cannot be done away with .


How so? the principle is you don't Coerce people,
Even capitalism does not coerce the workers to do the jobs. It is in the interest of workers that he works.


whats the prejudice?

That Lenin wanted State so he is an evil Tyrant.


Pretty much anywhere they pop up.

Sources please.


Did the Bolshivics Coerce people?

No


Well they had police,

To supress counter revolutionaries in the intrest of workers.


they had set laws, and they had control over the economy, so yeah.


Because it is a material necessity. As far as I know they did their best in the interest of the workers and peasants.


its based on facts interprited be principles, like the principle that the economy should exist to benefit everyone, thats a principle, and the fact? that a Capitalist economy does'nt do it and a socialist economy does it better.

Capitalist economy cannot satisfy anyone is a fact. It is concluded by the analysis of capital. There are no principles involved in it.



Your reply to my question of Coercion is strange, you seem to think that all the workers will pretty much accept the leadership and the state and that the state won't have to Coerce anyone that is'nt a Capitalist, very idealistic of you.


One thing you cannot coerce people regardless how much strong army you have against Masses. They are the makers of the history.

You have completely taken my reply out of context anyway. No where I meant that workers "accept leadership and the state" and "the state wont Coerce anyone that isn't a capitalist". You have taken as I said because of the prejudice you have against Marxism in general and your flawed concept of the state.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 09:25 pm

Left Communism, I know, but I would throw that under the Libertarian Socialist banner, I'm talking very broadly here.

No matter how broadly you talk, you can't throw Left Communism under the Libertarian Socialist banner.
yes you can.

[RGacky3]

We live in a class society. States are real. They cannot be smashed without the class anatgonisms which is the real reason for their existence disappears.And we are taking about workers state which exists and operates in the class interest of workers so they have no need to obey the State or Led by a state.They too would act on their class intrest.

Thats very very very Utopian, not all Workers agree on everything, hell a lot of workers are Anarchists, many are religious, many of them may believe in free trade, of coarse pretty much anyone when it gets down to it is against exploitation and oppression, but not all workers are the same.

Also whats the guarantee that the State will work in the workers interest? Your just assuming that thats what it MUST do.


You are seriously stupid. I said "Any one who would rebel against a workers state will be a capitalist or a petty capitalist." Which means the workers state would act against their class interests so they would naturally oppose it.You took a ridiculus assumption.

Well stupid me I suppose, for thinking that anyone other that a Capitalist or a petty Capitalist can rebell against a "workers state." Let me ask you right now the United States Government is obviously working in Capitalist interests, yet there are many wealthy people that oppose many things the government does, and there are many working people that support many things the government does, wierd huh?


State and Capitalism cannot be done away as simply as you dream off. State is just a tool of Capitalism and without doing away with capitalism the state cannot be done away with it and without doing away capitalism Class antagonisms too cannot be done away with .

So waht your saying is that after the revolution Private Capital would'nt be taken from the Capitalists? You'd just take over the state and those with Capital and land, because if a Capitalist does'nt have any Capital or land he's not much of a Capitalist is he.


Even capitalism does not coerce the workers to do the jobs. It is in the interest of workers that he works.

Yeah it does, its pertty much extortion, if a guy has no food, and another guy has all the food, and they guy with all the food says "I want you to build me a house or you'll die of starvation" its in the guy with no foods best interest to build the guy a house right? But its still Coersion.


To supress counter revolutionaries in the intrest of workers.[QUOTE]

How will you guarantee that the poliece will only do that?

One thing you cannot coerce people regardless how much strong army you have against Masses. They are the makers of the history.[QUOTE]

Well right now the Capitalist-Imperialist system is doing a very good job of it.