Critique of the Left

[Genosse Kotze]

This entire ideological argument, rift, divide, war, whatever you want to call it that I have just stumbled upon after visiting an anarchist-communist website (I know they would want me to name their ideology correctly) is entire bullshit. A common perception of the Left in general (doubtlessly encouraged by Capitalists) is how it does little more than bicker and fight amongst itself. And there is definite truth to it. I heard several lectures/discussions about Marxism and Anarchism, about their common ground but mostly about the entire unjivability of the two tendencies. There was much discussion of a possible synthesis between the two camps, but it really didn’t amount to much. The speakers spoke about unity as some abstract, utopian hope, that both sides of the argument popularly call for, yet neither can (will) want to be together. I find this not only to be hot air, but really a morass to the process of revolution that all Leftists call for.

One can easily see that the Leftist in-fighting, is exactly the same as the perceived partisan divide found in mainstream politics between democrats and republicans. As is constantly witnessed in the Capitalist press, there is great partisan divide within the country. Any bill introduced into congress is always decided upon along party lines. Republicans derogatorily label the democrats ‘cutters and runners’, while the democrats proclaim themselves to be more nuanced in their approach to government.

We on the Left, when we are unfortunate enough to have to watch this on the Telescreens, shout at the television that they are both talking out of their asses. We know that republicans and democrats are both business parties and, some of us consider this entire divide to be nothing more than a capitalist construction to give the impression of a real, live, meaningful debate in this country’s political establishment. At the same time, capitalists view any Leftist tendency with (perceived) revolutionary ideals as nothing more than extremists. Whether they proclaim themselves to be Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, etc.. to the Capitalists and their respective parties, they are all a bunch of radicals that want to destroy America and its values. Also, what we have seen on the Left is all sorts of name ambiguity. We are anarcho-communists, we are Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we’re the Anarco-communist-syndicalist-trotskyist-titoist-ambiguists! All of these terms can really make ones head spin and really don’t describe what the platform is because: first one must look in an encyclopedia in order to find out what the precise differences between these terms are, and second, in order to understand the definitions you must first look up all sorts of other terminology.

Third, by the end of it all, you forgot why you got interested in the whole matter in the first place! The subject of labeling and name ambiguity can also be found within mainstream politics. We are conservative-democrats, compassionate-conservatives, Goldwater conservatives, new Democrats--we are completely full of shit! One thing that is nice about the mainstream, however is that it requires little effort to understand what the terms mean. These foolish names are crafted to be nice and simplistic so people stay perfectly docile and don’t feel the need to go to the library and perhaps learn something.

So while the ambiguity of Leftist terminology can defiantly put people off, it is, in some ways, a testament to Leftist learnedness. We can see that at the end of the day, as Democrats and Republicans are the same fucking people, with the same plans for society, so are Communists and Anarchists. The final parallel that I have found between the mainstream and the Left is their constant insistence for some form of unity and/or reconciliation. After George Bush Jr. was reelected, he called for “an end to the senseless partisanship that is tearing America apart.” A popular congressional appeal when the old men begin their wind-baggery at the podium in the Senate floor is “nobody needs to be partisan about this issue.” There are countless other examples that can be witnessed within 5 minutes of watching the Capitalist press, all of which have to do with ‘coalition building’. On the Left too one hears much about harmony in one form or another. In the 1930’s CPUSA constitution (this is just one specific, perhaps obscure reference), there was a section dealing with a “United Front,” which was the Communist Party’s overture for cooperation between themselves, the Socialist Party, the AFL, the CIO, agricultural workers, and black people in the struggle against the Capitalists. There are many instances of this, at the moment it is almost 2 a.m and I can’t come up with any others except Karl Marx’s plea at the end of The Communist Manifesto “Workers of the World Unite!!” but undoubtedly, solidarity and unity between the tendencies has a central mantra of the Left.

But while mainstream politicians and Leftists alike espouse some sort of synthesis or cooperation, they have both done little more than that. So while a Republican may begin his sentence with “nobody needs to be partisan about this issue” he may very well end it with “but the policies of the Democrats only embolden our enemies!” Likewise, the RCP advocates unity on the Left but calls any other Communist party a bunch of Mensheviks. Everybody knows that everybody likes the sound of unity building, but few are genuinely committed to this task. In fact, serious proponents of it on the Left, those who hold it as one of their central values, are often dismissed as people who lack real ideological beliefs.

There is a need for ideology, yet not an ideological platform that defines itself in convoluted terminology, and as the negation of another tendency. There doesn’t even have to be a unity, you could have it too but it really doesn’t matter. Call yourself an Anarchist, call yourself a Libertarian Socialist, call yourself whatever you will, and if you want, don’t mix with people or organizations that you find yourself to be against. Just work towards the revolution. And also, when there is a protest or some action that was not founded by you or your comrades, but is against the System, for God’s sake support it, as was traditionally the case in the history of revolution.

During the October revolution, anarchists and all sorts of leftists traveled to Russia to take part in the growing revolution there which was led by communists. A few decades later, different groups from different countries and tendencies traveled to Spain to fight the fascists in what is commonly perceived as an anarchist revolution. To espouse unity, partnership is not non-ideology. If I meet somebody who starts pressing me on my ideological positions, and calls me unlearned in the specifics of Leftist doctrine for saying, Intra-Leftist solidarity is one of my key principals, I’ll call him a douche bag! Unity is not indicative of unrefined ideology, but rather a disdain for Leftist prattling, and also the mark of a revolutionary who may, in fact, take part in a developing revolution, as opposed to sitting back and critiquing all the faults within it!

[RGacky3]

Fascists and Liberals are both pro-Capitalist, but that does'nt mean they are going to get on very well.

Anarchists and Stalinists are both anti-Capitalist.

see my drift?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The left isn't united and hasn't been united because it can't be united. Just deal with it!

You'll get nowhere with that attitude, sonny. :lol:

Seriously though, why is it impossible? The way I see it unity is our only hope, in practical terms. Obviously not every single person who's an anti-capitalist being brouhgt under one banner, but you must agree that this ridiculous, overkilled sectarianism is just killing us as a movement.

-Alex

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:02 pm

The left isn't united and hasn't been united because it can't be united. Just deal with it!

You'll get nowhere with that attitude, sonny. :lol:

Seriously though, why is it impossible? The way I see it unity is our only hope, in practical terms. Obviously not every single person who's an anti-capitalist being brouhgt under one banner, but you must agree that this ridiculous, overkilled sectarianism is just killing us as a movement.

-Alex
It isn't going to change.

Even capitalists can't agree on whether government should be involved in the economy and to what degree.

We aren't robots. Humans are not going to unite and "reach consensus" on much of anything.

Once you understand that fact, you see communism and socialism's foundations for what they are: sand.

[apathy maybe]

First to all the people who responded with one line posts or two lines post criticising the format and structure, fuck off. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, don't say anything at all.


Secondly, I read it. Here are my opinions, yes it needs paragraphs, but I'm sure the author can edit them in now that it has been pointed out. Secondly, yes there are two many labels on the left. Which is why I like to use anarchist amongst those who aren't leftists, and "adjective free anarchist" among those who might be more broadly interested in what I believe in.

The reason we have labels, is because we are ideologically different. Though, do we on the left use these labels in their full form, ("Anarco-communist-syndicalist-trotskyist-titoist-ambiguists") when around non-leftists or people who aren't interested so much in ideology as opposition to capitalism? As I said, I don't. I use ideas rather then labels, if I require a label, I use anarchist. And I explain it.

And we aren't going to change the fact that we have different ideologies. It is a utopian dream to think that we might. Sure we can work together, but it will end in either compromise or bloodshed. It won't end in one side being the sole victor.

Anyway, to the author, stick around on RevLeft. Read and participate in discussion. I couldn't make out if you were a capitalist or not, but hopefully by the end of your stay at RevLeft you will be an anarchist (an adjective free one preferably). After all, anarchists have more fun :AO:.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:50 pm
It isn't going to change.

Even capitalists can't agree on whether government should be involved in the economy and to what degree.

We aren't robots. Humans are not going to unite and "reach consensus" on much of anything.

Once you understand that fact, you see communism and socialism's foundations for what they are: sand.
That's why I think that, whatever the legal or political structure of a post-capitalist society, it needs to be flexible and heterogeneous, to an extent. That is, the illusion of consensus should not be created where an illusion is needed. Varying levels of autonomy should provide a solution to problems regarding social division such as religion. Of course, consensus should be sought and encouraged wherever possible, but my point is that even in the absence of unanimous agreement amongst society as a whole, it is possible to incorporate several different viewpoints into one fundamental belief system. All that is required is a bit of foresight, social awareness and vigilance when when crafting the constitution of a post-revolutionary society.

By the way, the above paragraph was not intended to address the issue of the socialist-anarchist split. It was intended to answer t_wolves' claim that diversity in human opinion renders revolution infeasible. As regards the issue of intra-left division, I agree with TAT in that I believe the left cannot be unified. The only way to prevent opponents of the left from attacking its divided nature is to make clear the leftism is not one ideology, but rather it refers to a whole array of ideologies that, while similar in some ways, are by no means identical.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:13 pm

That's why I think that, whatever the legal or political structure of a post-capitalist society, it needs to be flexible and heterogeneous, to an extent. That is, the illusion of consensus should not be created where an illusion is needed. Varying levels of autonomy should provide a solution to problems regarding social division such as religion. Of course, consensus should be sought and encouraged wherever possible, but my point is that even in the absence of unanimous agreement amongst society as a whole, it is possible to incorporate several different viewpoints into one fundamental belief system. All that is required is a bit of foresight, social awareness and vigilance when when crafting the constitution of a post-revolutionary society.


Sounds like the federalist system the United States already has.

Either way, there's a word for what you describe: government. You just want a government that looks like what you want it to look like. I'll bet in one way or another you even kind of wish that if this candy-land government ever took shape, you'd be in charge in some way.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Either way, there's a word for what you describe: government. You just want a government that looks like what you want it to look like. I'll bet in one way or another you even kind of wish that if this candy-land government ever took shape, you'd be in charge in some way.
You got me, I advocate a form of government.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 pm


Either way, there's a word for what you describe: government. You just want a government that looks like what you want it to look like. I'll bet in one way or another you even kind of wish that if this candy-land government ever took shape, you'd be in charge in some way.
You got me, I advocate a form of government.
Which looks like what, specifically.

And what's your message to communists and anarchists?

[Lenin II]

Just because the Left has an amount of division in it doesn’t mean it will fall apart. Division is normal and healthy for human beings. What little differences we have are far overshadowed by what we share in common. Furthermore, you can’t just expect every single person to fall under one banner or ideology. That’s called fascism. Just because we aren’t “united” by your very strict definition doesn’t mean we are incapable of getting any goals or peace accomplished.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Which looks like what, specifically.
Social and material condition have not advanced to such an extent that I can possibly know specifically what such a government would look like; precise government structure and the levels of autonomy it grants to its subjects in different areas would be based on pragmatism, that is, finding the most stable and efficient form of government within the new order. You yourself seem to think that this government would resemble the government of the US in structure, that may be so but we can't really know at this point in time.


And what's your message to communists and anarchists?
My message to anarchists and socialists is, as I stated before, that the only way to prevent people criticizing the left by claiming that it is not united is to make clear the fact that we do not pretend to be united. That's it in short anyway, see my above post for more.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:02 pm
Seriously though, why is it impossible?
Because part of "victory" for the Leninists involves the execution and military obliteration of the Libertarian movement.

History has shown this, and many here, on this forum, still openly admit that they'd kill me, if I challenged their Leninist state, post-revolution. :lol:

Whereas Libertarians want direct workers control of the factories through soviets, Leninists want top-down party-dictatorship, which historically has not included workers control in any way-shape-or form. But has in fact meant that the economy is nationalised, and pioneered by capitalist advisors.

The Leninist programme threatens workers control, and the lives of those that want to fight for it.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Love Underground+April 04, 2007 06:44 pm--> (Love Underground @ April 04, 2007 06:44 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 12:02 pm
Seriously though, why is it impossible?
Because part of "victory" for the Leninists involves the execution and military obliteration of the Libertarian movement.

History has shown this, and many here, on this forum, still openly admit that they'd kill me, if I challenged their Leninist state, post-revolution. :lol:

Whereas Libertarians want direct workers control of the factories through soviets, Leninists want top-down party-dictatorship, which historically has not included workers control in any way-shape-or form. But has in fact meant that the economy is nationalised, and pioneered by capitalist advisors.

The Leninist programme threatens workers control, and the lives of those that want to fight for it. [/b]
Exactly coming from a person who knows nothing about Leninism or analyses anything in a Materialist point of view.


Leninists want top-down party-dictatorship, which historically has not included workers control in any way-shape-or form. But has in fact meant that the economy is nationalised, and pioneered by capitalist advisors.

Care to provide where exactly Lenin have said this ? when it is done by anarchists it is perfectly acceptable when it is done by others it is "authoritarian" or "evil leninism"



The Leninist programme threatens workers control, and the lives of those that want to fight for it.

Unfortunately it is the Leninist program that established the first workers state and it was that programme that has fought/is fighting for the worst opprssed people IMO.

And your Libertarian programmes have never been known in the place where the real oppression happens.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

:lol: talk about melodramatic

Really talk about puitting words into Lenin's mouth.

I will have a try too. ;)

Proudhonists, Kropotkinists and Bakuninists all advocate the suppression of workers power and rational thinking.

They seek to disrupt workers self organisation and actually advocate the killing of "Leninists" (whatever that very open "term" actually means).

They also seek to form cults of ultra leftism so as to explicitly divide the workers movement, unintentionally doing to the capitalists a favour.

[Idola Mentis]

Really, I'd prefer for everyone to have their own little playground. Let the leninists have their party rule, let the capitalists flock to their abusers, let the fascist throw themselves at the mercy of their strongman - in fact, let every damn ideologist who can drum up a sufficient number of idiots build his own little utopia. Time will show if it is sustainable. If they can live off it, and replenish their ranks without coercing anyone to stay, where's the harm?

It's a roomy planet, after all. I have no right to tell communities which I am not a part of how to organize. As long as I am free to join a community which lets me live as I prefer, I can't see why I should get in the way of others choosing theirs. If you choose to be a slave when faced with a real, present alternative, who am I to stop you, unless you plan to drag me down with you?

As it is now, "voting with your feet" isn't an option. But I believe that forms of association founded on coercion does not stand a chance once real alternatives are realized. If there's any common thread of thought to be found in "leftism", it seems to me to be the desire to unlock one or more of these potential ways of living. If you take a step back, I think we can see that anarchists and communists aren't the only ones forced by the tyranny of a fabricated majority to live in a way they find unjust, degrading and inhumane.

So many ideologies want to dominate and rebuild the entire support structure of global civilization to the way they find best. But even if the left, or the islamists, or the liberalists or the fucking christian democrats got the majority of the world's population in on it, what would you do with the remaining billions who wanted to try something else? I can't bring myself to say I'd force them.

True capitalism, even fascism and racism is just as untried and unrealized as true communism. I wish we could just let them at it, and slap'em if they try to coerce anyone into joining. Can't you picture the clownish antics of nazis trying to make their own "racially pure" communities? They'd most likely fail every test of sustainability there is, and go the way of the Branch Davidians in a generation or two, tops. Tragic, of course, but hopefully the majority of them would see sense and get out in time.

All real political conflict is about ways to organize the structures that keep us alive. At the core of anarchism as I understand it is the belief that communities do not need to have this done for them. It's a thought as old as Aristoteles, zoon politikon - human beings are built to collectively arrange for their own survival. If left to their own devices, they will do so. The problem occurs when we are forced or tricked to stay with and maintain a malfunctioning support structure. I can't pretend to know for sure if the myriad schemes for communism or any other way of organizing will work or not, but it is not my job, or anyone elses, to stop anyone from trying.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:59 pm
Care to provide where exactly Lenin have said this ? when it is done by anarchists it is perfectly acceptable when it is done by others it is "authoritarian" or "evil leninism"

Well. No offence comrade, but you have a very unusual understanding of what actually was happening on the ground just after the revolution. As I said before, Lenin had, within months, curbed the soviets decision making powers and given overall economic power to a panel of capitalist advisors. He had banned "anti-government" leaflets in workplaces, and arrested agitiative unionists and Syndicalists.

Libertarian-communists have never done this. The free soviets that the Anarchists ran in greater Ukraine were relatively functional. Although the military structure that defended it was, indeed hierarchical.


And your Libertarian programmes have never been known in the place where the real oppression happens

An interesting claim. You are either choosing to ignore, or have perhaps never heard of the great historical anarchist-communist movements, such as the Diggers movement during the English revolution...

The Anarchist-Communists once held large parts of central Korea, under the guide of Kim Jwa Jin, in the 1920s until they were crushed.

What about The Makhnovists? who liberated Ukraine from the Denikin army, established a soviet democracy that lasted 3 years, and fought with the Bolsheviks against the white army? - Until their land was eventually sold off to the Germans by lenin. Embarrassed that the workers might combat the German forces, Trotsky decided to massacre the workers militias himself. And sadly succeeded.

What about Anarchist-Catalonia during the Spanish civil war? and the massive efforts of the CNT who, with the POUM practically held the Aragon front with no weapons for several years. Until being banned and hunted down by the Republic and the USSRs, NKVD

Interestingly, on the two occasions whereby anarchists made vast successes, even total victory, In Ukraine 1917 and Spain 1936, despite attempts at cross-ideological alliance. They found a knife in the back from the leninist camp.

I would blame the millitary hostility of lenninism for the failure of Anarchism in Ukraine and Spain. I would also blame it for the failure of leninism in every practical application.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:03 pm
Proudhonists, Kropotkinists and Bakuninists all advocate the suppression of workers power and rational thinking.

I've never met a Proudhonist, a Kropotkinist or a Bakuninist. They may exist, but certainly have no sort of organisation, and never have. So what the hell does it matter what they advocate?


They seek to disrupt workers self organisation and actually advocate the killing of "Leninists" (whatever that very open "term" actually means).

In it's manifestations, Leninism is hardly a force for workers self-organisation, which is what the anarchists strive for - and the reason they combat defunct authorotarian programs like Leninism.


They also seek to form cults of ultra leftism so as to explicitly divide the workers movement, unintentionally doing to the capitalists a favour.

Cults of ultra-leftism? What are they? and how do they divide workers? I can do a fair bit of anarchist bashing to, comrade, the movement is quite totally in the gutter - in the western world at least.

But im not sure I understand this particular criticism?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:44 pm
My message to anarchists and socialists is, as I stated before, that the only way to prevent people criticizing the left by claiming that it is not united is to make clear the fact that we do not pretend to be united. That's it in short anyway, see my above post for more.
More power to you. ;)

[Vargha Poralli]

Well. No offence comrade, but you have a very unusual understanding of what actually was happening on the ground just after the revolution. As I said before, Lenin had, within months, curbed the soviets decision making powers and given overall economic power to a panel of capitalist advisors. He had banned "anti-government" leaflets in workplaces, and arrested agitiative unionists and Syndicalists.

And Bolsheviks had a reason for this. The young workers state was isolated and faced immediate collapse(starangled in its infancy in the words of the Famous imperialist sof those times). So it was a tactical decisions which is based on the reality of the times. If you were Lenin you would have done that.

And don't ask what was the famous anarchists prince had done at this time. :rolleyes:


Libertarian-communists have never done this.

How could they ever have done this. They were busily supporting Kerensky


The free soviets that the Anarchists ran in greater Ukraine were relatively functional. Although the military structure that defended it was, indeed hierarchical.

At least you accept the truth.



An interesting claim. You are either choosing to ignore, or have perhaps never heard of the great historical anarchist movements, such as the Diggers movement durign the English revolution.

Seriously I have never heard of it. Any link about it would be helpfull.


The Anarchist-Communists once held large parts of central Korea, under the guide of Kim Jwa Jin, in the 1920s until they were crushed.

Please don't blame Leninists for this too. :wacko:


What about The Makhnovists? who liberated Ukraine from the Denikin army, established a soviet democracy that lasted 3 years, and fought with the Bolsheviks against the white army?

Fair Enough


- Until their land was eventually sold off to the Germans by lenin.

Yeah talk of treaty of Brest-Litovsk ? What else the bolsheviks would have done.


Embarrassed that the workers might combat the German forces, Trotsky decided to massacre the workers militias himself. And sadly succeeded.

Sources please. Trotsky made a big mistake by not sigining the treaty which lead Germans to overrun Ukraine and Belarus which was used by the troika to polarise him.If you are delibrately lying then we can't agree with it.


What about Anarchist-Catalonia during the Spanish civil war? and the massive efforts of the CNT who, with the POUM practically held the Aragon front with no weapons for several years.
There you go. So only victory is achived only when there is a Leninist org.And CNT had ministers in Republican govt so anarchism is not so pure as you claim to be.


They found a knife in the back from the leninist camp.
I don't know about the Ukraine but in Spain at leasdt the Knife was not from "leninist" camp. It is from traitor Stalinist camp.


I would blame the millitary hostility of lenninism for the failure of Anarchism in Ukraine and Spain. I would also blame it for the failure of leninism in every practical application.
And turn blind to your own mistakes. Since you obvioulsy have thecomfortable boogeyman - Leninism.

[Vargha Poralli]

By Diggers do you mean This Movement ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_%28True_Levellers%29)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:05 pm
And Bolsheviks had a reason for this. The young workers state was isolated and faced immediate collapse
Oh, I have no doubt that the suppression of the working class was a material necessity for the bolshevik state - this is the case for any state.


And don't ask what was the famous anarchists prince had done at this time. :rolleyes:

Who cares?


How could they ever have done this. They were busily supporting Kerensky

The lack of serious points on this issue suggests you have none?


At least you accept the truth.

What's wrong with that? I quite like the hierarchical nature of Makhnos army. It was of course, democratically accountable to the soviet structure.


Seriously I have never heard of it. Any link about it would be helpfull.

No problem Comrade. There is a fair bit about it here (http://libcom.org/node/7492) :)


Please don't blame Leninists for this too. :wacko:

haha of course not, we can't blame everything on them. But the Anarchist-Communists successes in Korea were worthy of some praise, and seldom get any.


Yeah talk of treaty of Brest-Litovsk ? What else the bolsheviks would have done

haha is there a leninist handbook of responses or something? You all come out with the same stuff, almost in parrot fashion.

Anyway, even if you accept that the Bolsheviks had to deal with the Imperialists, which I can perhaps sympathise with (though I still disagree) - then what was it that forced them to do the Germans work for them, and massacre the Free soviets themselves?

The Maknovists had vast, and effective artillery, Tachankas (machine guns mounted on vehicles), scores of rifles, ammunition, and popular support, and had already obliterated the Austro-Hungarian army but a few years previously. It was obvious they could have dealt with an invading German force - had the germans tried to occupy Ukraine.

At the very least the Bolsheviks could have sat back and watched. There was no need for them to do anything... Or maybe they were worried about the political implications of a Free, Functional Soviet state, that didn't need capitalist advisors and secret police?


Sources please.

That's a bit desperate isn't it? I mean, if you aknowlege that Ukraine isn't Anarchist anymore, and refuse to believe the Red army had a hand in its destruction, then you are either suggesting that the Maknovists all just disapeared or were defeated by the Germans.

Either way, here are some sources - the Makhnovists were obliterated by The Red Army;

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/makhno37.html

http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-uk...novist-movement (http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement)


There you go. So only victory is achived only when there is a Leninist org.And CNT had ministers in Republican govt so anarchism is not so pure as you claim to be.

Did I claim it was 'pure'? why was the CNTs involvement in the Republic a bad thing?


I don't know about the Ukraine but in Spain at leasdt the Knife was not from "leninist" camp. It is from traitor Stalinist camp.

Well, im glad you admit to not knowing about the Ukrainian situation. You seem very sensible, and I hope that after you read into the atrocities committed by the Bolsheviks - and the successes of the Makhnovists, you look at leninism in a different light.


And turn blind to your own mistakes. Since you obvioulsy have thecomfortable boogeyman - Leninism.

A blind eye? not at all, Anarchism today, in the developed world, is something of a joke - and I have plenty of criticisms to make of it. (Though the same can be said for leninism)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:05 pm

The free soviets that the Anarchists ran in greater Ukraine were relatively functional. Although the military structure that defended it was, indeed hierarchical.

At least you accept the truth.

Well, to just illuminate the issue a bit more, here are the 10 decrees of the Makhnovists.



1. All decrees of the White army are hereby abolished, those decrees of the Communist authorities which conflict with interestes of the peasants and workers are likewise abolished.

2. The land of the gentry, the church and other enemies of the toilers with all its livestock and equipment must be transferred to the peasants, who will live on it only by their own labour. The transfer will take place in an organized manner, according to the decisions of peasant assemblies, which must take into acount not only their own local interests but also the common interests of the whole oppressed labouring peasantry.

3. The factories, workshops, mines and other means of production are to become the possession of the working class as a whole, which through its trade unions will take all enterprises into its own hands, resume production, and strive to link together the industry of the whole country in a single united organization.

4. It is proposed that all organizations of workers and peasants begin to create free workers' and peasants' soviets. These soviets must consist only of toilers engages in some form of labour that is necessary for the national economy. Representatives of political organizations have no place in workers' and peasants' soviets, for their participation will transform the latter into soviets of party deputies, which can only bring about the demise of the soviet order.

5. The existence of Chekas, party committees or similar ocercive, authoritarian and disciplinarian institutions is impermissible among pesants and workers.

6. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, trade unions, and the like is an inalienable right of every worker, and any limitation of this right represents a counter-revolutionary act.

7. State militias, plice and armies are heeby abolished. In their place the people will organize their own self-defence units of the workers and peasants, and the individual peasant and worker must not allow any counter-revolutionary manifestations by the bourgeoisie or military officers. Nor must they allow the emergence of banditry. Anyone convicted of counter-revolutionary acts or of banditry will be shot on the spot.

8. Soviet and ukrainian money must be accepted along with all other kinds of money. Violators of this rule will be subject to revolutionary punishment.

9. The exchange of goods and products, until taken over by workers' and peasants' organizations, will remain free. But at the same time it is proposed that the exchange of products take place for the most part between toilers.

10. All individuals who attempt to hinder the distribution of this declaration will be regarded as counter-revolutionaries.

MILITARY REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL AND COMMAND STAFF OF THE REVOLUTIONARY INSURGENT ARMY OF THE UKRAINE (MAKHNOVISTS)

[Janus]

The Anarchist-Communists once held large parts of central Korea, under the guide of Kim Jwa Jin, in the 1920s until they were crushed.
There's no way that they could've controlled central Korea while it was under the domination of the Japanese particularly in the 20's when suppression was at its height. It's much more probable that these anarcho-communists were simply one of the many bands of anti-Japanese forces operating in Manchuria and Siberia though no one seems to be sure exactly where their base was.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:02 pm
The way I see it unity is our only hope, in practical terms.
The only way for unity is if Leninists renounce the concept of centralised political and economic control (i.e. the state) and advocate a decentralised and federated form of political and economic organisation.

How likely do you think that is?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:24 pm
There's no way that they could've controlled central Korea while it was under the domination of the Japanese particularly in the 20's when suppression was at its height.
No they didn't control it, but they were active in it, and with other forces, managed to set up a rebel state in the province of Shinmin in 1929, part of Manchuria, which is why you would have thought they were part of the banditry.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Love Underground+April 04, 2007 05:18 pm--> (Love Underground @ April 04, 2007 05:18 pm)
g.ram
There you go. So only victory is achived only when there is a Leninist org.And CNT had ministers in Republican govt so anarchism is not so pure as you claim to be.

Did I claim it was 'pure'? why was the CNTs involvement in the Republic a bad thing? [/b]
I can't work out if you're seriously asking that question or not?

Participating in the state was a massive deviation and ultimately it failed and in so doing proved the inability for governmental organisation of this nature to achieve any lasting anarchist society.

The point is that the state is inherently unable of creating communism. As the Friends of Durruti rightly observed, the only way to create anarchism is by creating it.

Relying on bourgeois political structures will never achieve anything. It will only, as proven here, lead to betrayal and even more compromise. To the point of pointlessness.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 04:34 pm
I can't work out if you're seriously asking that question or not?

Of course I am.
But it was directed at him, I agree with everything you've said, but your (and my) objection is entirely practical, where as he was going on about some abstract "purity" , and I wanted clarification.

[Janus]

No they didn't control it, but they were active in it, and with other forces, managed to set up a rebel state in the province of Shinmin in 1929, part of Manchuria, which is why you would have thought they were part of the banditry.
I never accused them of being bandits rather I was wondering how they could've been present in Korea at a time when most of the anti-Japanese forces had already withdrawn to Manchuria and Siberia and would remain there until the end of Japanese rule.

Also, I'm still trying to figure out where exactly "Shinmin" is.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The only way for unity is if Leninists renounce the concept of centralised political and economic control (i.e. the state) and advocate a decentralised and federated form of political and economic organisation.

How likely do you think that is?

If a leninist says he will kill you or LU for challenging their state post-revolution, yes, clearly, there can't be unity.

Leninists are still humans, at the end of the day. They aren't machines that just churn out an infallible ideology over and over. They simply must be open to argument and reason, or leninism would be little more than a political religion.

Compromise is possible. If it's unlikely, we have to still try, because it's our only bloody hope. You are never going to get one sect strong enough to revolt by itself, end of story.

And I'm sure it isn't just the leninists that need to compromise either.

-Alex

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:28 pm
Compromise is possible.
What would this compromise be?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Don't ask me, I'm the village idiot.

In the case of Leninism, agreeing to not kill the anarchists would be a good start.

Perhaps in the case of Anarchism, accepting that hierarchy is sometimes not avoidable?

Meh. It's a vast question. What I'm sure of is that leftism isn't going anywhere fast without some serious thought put into a compromise of ideology.

Or, we could just ask LSD for the solution. :D I know it's cheating... :blush:

-Alex

[Vargha Poralli]

In the case of Leninism, agreeing to not kill the anarchists would be a good start.

Come on this is really BULLSHIT coming from a reasonable poster like you.

Historially the Bolsheviks didn't "KILL" anarchists just because they are Anarchists.

I could give a good example.EMMA GOLDMAN,ALEXANDER BERKMAN,VICTOR SERGE(I expect you would say he was never an anarchist showing that who is more dogmatic) and PETER KROPOTKIN.

Only those idiots who didn't confine their criticism to words faced harsh punishments.

Speaking of Leninism there has been one revolution that could be described Leninist. The fucking disgusting thing is that we(anarchists and Leninists) learnt nothing from it.The meaningless sectarian shit posted by Love Underground and Anarchists Tention is a good example for it.

The problem is our enemies have learnt it better. That is why they have an clear adavantage over us.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:56 am

In the case of Leninism, agreeing to not kill the anarchists would be a good start.

Come on this is really BULLSHIT coming from a reasonable poster like you.

Historially the Bolsheviks didn't "KILL" anarchists just because they are Anarchists.

I could give a good example.EMMA GOLDMAN,ALEXANDER BERKMAN,VICTOR SERGE(I expect you would say he was never an anarchist showing that who is more dogmatic) and PETER KROPOTKIN.

Only those idiots who didn't confine their criticism to words faced harsh punishments.

Speaking of Leninism there has been one revolution that could be described Leninist. The fucking disgusting thing is that we(anarchists and Leninists) learnt nothing from it.The meaningless sectarian shit posted by Love Underground and Anarchists Tention is a good example for it.

The problem is our enemies have learnt it better. That is why they have an clear adavantage over us.
I think this bickering is what heine was talking about. This is why the movement has such trouble getting stuff done: all we do is talk. And talk. And talk.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by g.ram+April 08, 2007 03:56 pm--> (g.ram @ April 08, 2007 03:56 pm) Historially the Bolsheviks didn't "KILL" anarchists just because they are Anarchists.
[/b]
No, you're right, they killed them because they didn't like their hats.


Speaking of Leninism there has been one revolution that could be described Leninist. The fucking disgusting thing is that we (anarchists and Leninists) learnt nothing from it.

This is true, neither side seems to have learnt much. I mean, the lesson to be learnt was already held as truth by the Anarchists, arguing long before the russian revolution that; "Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar himself" - The Anarchists have learnt, I hope, not to trust the Authoritarians.


lovelyshadeofred
I think this bickering is what heine was talking about. This is why the movement has such trouble getting stuff done: all we do is talk. And talk. And talk.

No, I think what you mean is that all you do is talk and talk. Some of us are actually politically active :rolleyes: . And if you're not, I suggest you get involved, Im more than willing to help you do so.

PM me with your details, and I can put you in touch with the nearest organisation.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Come on this is really BULLSHIT coming from a reasonable poster like you.

Well, thanks for saying I'm a reasonable poster.

I was really referring to Love Underground's comment that there are leninists who openly admit that they would kill him post-revolution.

A leninist who is not of that position needn't compromise, at least in that area.

A leninist who would kill anarchists because they are anarchists must compromise.

Capiche?

-Alex

[Idola Mentis]

How about a little utopianism? Put the endless rubbing of the past behind and try to work out how WE should do it? I'm sure the great communist and anarchist thinkers of the past have a great deal to teach us, and the history of revolutionary movements can hardly be ignored. But is the "left" really about nothing more than exchanging dusty anecdotes and playing endless games of WWBD*?

Learn to put things in the language of modern capitalism, or the great majorities will never bother to listen to the content of what you're saying, hearing only the aging form. When you can do that, you can turn the content of the language of capitalism to support your arguments for you, like Marx once did, and you'll have made it to the first step - having an attentive audience capable of understanding you without a textbook for reference.


*"What Would Bakunin Do" - insert your favourite theorist.

[Forward Union]

You're ignoring the fact that there are vast, unbridgeable, chasms between the Authoritarian and Libertarian communist traditions.

[KC]

You're ignoring the fact that there are vast, unbridgeable, chasms between the Authoritarian and Libertarian communist traditions.

Well, if you base everything on principle, yes.

[Rawthentic]

The point is that the state is inherently unable of creating communism. As the Friends of Durruti rightly observed, the only way to create anarchism is by creating it.
You are far too trusting of the bourgeoisie. You think that post-revolution they're all going to happily and easily join your communes and "federations"? Oh please.

A state is necessary to destroy class antagonisms. Yet it is not a bourgeois structure, because the working class does not take control of the bourgeois state, but destroys it and builds its own for practical and concrete reasons like...oh.. defending themselves maybe.

[KC]

The point is that the state is inherently unable of creating communism. As the Friends of Durruti rightly observed, the only way to create anarchism is by creating it.

Relying on bourgeois political structures will never achieve anything. It will only, as proven here, lead to betrayal and even more compromise. To the point of pointlessness.

The state isn't a bourgeois political structure. It has existed long before the bourgeoisie has.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, they seem to have a weird or different definition of "state".

And even if it was created by the bourgeois, the working class destroys it and builds its own based on workers councils and assemblies and armed to the core.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:56 pm
The meaningless sectarian shit posted by Love Underground and Anarchists Tention is a good example for it.
Can you point out where I've been "sectarian"?

[Axel1917]

Firstly, the left cannot be merely judged by a website largely dominated by those that don't spend much time (if any) on actual organizational work.

Secondy, there has been left division in the past, and that has not hampered capitalism from being overthrown (the Bolsheviks, on a correct programme, perspectives, reaching out to the toiling masses, etc., historically speaking, quickly went from a small group going against the stream of many other groups to winning over the majority of the population and seizing power.

Furthermore, if this whole "mass division" thing were an actual argument, i.e. having good merit, then there would be no need for the bourgeoisie to spend all kinds of money on libelling socialism and communism to scare people away from it. They won't waste money on something that they know has no chance of removing them from power (for instance, notice how they don't print textbooks for the schools libelling pre-Marxian, utopain socialists like Fourier, Saint-Simon, etc.).

Those leftists that read up on and learn the methods, tactics, etc. of genuine Bolshevism will realize how to build an organization, expand it, and eventually win over the masses. ;) There is quite a bit of reading and practice to do in this aspect, but it will pay off. They keep saying that we are dead, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating - the pendelum is starting to swing back to the left, we are growing, more and more people are starting to question the world they live in, and the bourgeoisie are always at war with Marxism in the textbooks, for it is true, and they know it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:19 am
Those leftists that read up on and learn the methods, tactics, etc. of genuine Bolshevism will realize how to build an organization, expand it, and eventually rule over the masses.
Corrected.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:56 pm
Historially the Bolsheviks didn't "KILL" anarchists just because they are Anarchists.
Nonsense!


I could give a good example.EMMA GOLDMAN,ALEXANDER BERKMAN,VICTOR SERGE(I expect you would say he was never an anarchist showing that who is more dogmatic) and PETER KROPOTKIN.

Only because they either left Russia or died before the repression happened.


Only those idiots who didn't confine their criticism to words faced harsh punishments.

The destruction of the revolution, betrayal of the working class, centralisation of a tyrannical bureaucracy, mass murder and the restoration of a capitalism is the legacy of your heroes.

Perhaps, for those who aren't blinded by lethargy and hero-worshipping, they will be able to see that in fact those "idiots" had a point.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Love Underground+April 10, 2007 08:55 am--> (Love Underground @ April 10, 2007 08:55 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 02:19 am
Those leftists that read up on and learn the methods, tactics, etc. of genuine Bolshevism will realize how to build an organization, expand it, and eventually rule over the masses.
Corrected. [/b]
And thus we clearly see that if the OI types ever want to put forth an anti-Marxism thread, they will find a good deal of cronies within the left movement itself to assist them every step of the way!

[RNK]

Yeah. It's just too bad that anarchism has never actually happened -- I'd love to hijack every anarchist thread with little quips about its historic failures.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:56 pm
Yeah. It's just too bad that anarchism has never actually happened -- I'd love to hijack every anarchist thread with little quips about its historic failures.
Sorry. Didn't see the sign at the door saying "commies only". Leaving now.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Axel1917+April 10, 2007 06:27 pm--> (Axel1917 @ April 10, 2007 06:27 pm)
Originally posted by Love [email protected] 10, 2007 08:55 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 02:19 am
Those leftists that read up on and learn the methods, tactics, etc. of genuine Bolshevism will realize how to build an organization, expand it, and eventually rule over the masses.
Corrected.
And thus we clearly see that if the OI types ever want to put forth an anti-Marxism thread, they will find a good deal of cronies within the left movement itself to assist them every step of the way! [/b]
Talk about opportunism.

Nice try though.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:56 pm
Yeah. It's just too bad that anarchism has never actually happened -- I'd love to hijack every anarchist thread with little quips about its historic failures.
Anarchism hasn't been falsified though, which is exactly what has happened with Leninism in it's varying disgusting forms.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 10, 2007 10:38 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 10, 2007 10:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:27 pm

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 10, 2007 08:55 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 02:19 am
Those leftists that read up on and learn the methods, tactics, etc. of genuine Bolshevism will realize how to build an organization, expand it, and eventually rule over the masses.
Corrected.
And thus we clearly see that if the OI types ever want to put forth an anti-Marxism thread, they will find a good deal of cronies within the left movement itself to assist them every step of the way!
Talk about opportunism.

Nice try though. [/b]
Where in that post was I changing my political position to gain support? Oh, wait, I wasn't. I was merely pointing out how a lot of ultra-lefts do the propaganda work of the bourgeoisie for them at times, i.e. spread lies about Bolshevism!

If you are implying that I was signing up to help the OI people (this is what I was stating the ultra-lefts do) in that aspect, you clearly have no reading comprehension whatsoever.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:40 am
Where in that post was I changing my political position to gain support? Oh, wait, I wasn't. I was merely pointing out how a lot of ultra-lefts do the propaganda work of the bourgeoisie for them at times, i.e. spread lies about Bolshevism!

How is pointing out the historical failures of Leninism bourgeoisie? Is it inconceivable to you that any criticism of the bolsheviks could possibly be fair?

The reality of the situation is quite irrefutable . Within months of seizing the state apparatus, the Bolsheviks had demolished soviet decision making power and given it to capitalist advisors, and created a precursor to the Cheka, that executed and imprisoned leading Syndicalists that criticised the bolsheviks decisions. Unions were smashed up and any form of Libertarian-Communist organising was banned. By this point there was no way you could call the USSR a workers anything with a straight face.

They then set about going to war with prominent class-conscious organisations, such as the Ukrainian anarchist project to the south, and Kronstadt sailors - after making deals with the imperialists.

And although it's hard to believe things could have got any worse, they did.


If you are implying that I was signing up to help the OI people (this is what I was stating the ultra-lefts do) in that aspect, you clearly have no reading comprehension whatsoever.

Oh please, I could argue that in defending the maintaining of a state (and thus class) it is in fact you who side with the people in OI, at least im sure you can find some "cronies" on various issues. It's all a bit pathetic, neither of us are capitalists, or remotely sympathetic, if you're going to try the old 'reductio-ad absurdum' or "death by association" argument, do it properly.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:56 pm
Yeah. It's just too bad that anarchism has never actually happened -- I'd love to hijack every anarchist thread with little quips about its historic failures.
I've already given a small list of examples where anarchism has been achived, and worked. Best example being the Free Territories of Ukraine.

Notably, crushed by leninists

There are various criticisms to be made, and I make them. But the historical errors made by the Libertarians are no where as grotesque, disasterous and absolute as yours.