Libertarian Communism

[welshred]

I have been reading up on this recently and would like a libertarian communist to explain its key ideas to me, thanks!

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

They are opposed to Lenninsts views on the centeralised vanguard of the party. They think this inevitabily leads to a dictatorship, like the USSR. Most think the party should be there merley for the distribution of propoganda etc.
They think that the state should be administered through workers councils immediatley, and should be democratic, even in the revolution.
Famous current are:
Council Communists
Left Communists
Famous people are: Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Panekov, Karl Leibnecht
I reconmend reading workers councils by Anton Panekov.

[syndicat]

Rosa Luxemburg and William Liebknecht weren't libertarian communists, altho some of the things Luxemburg said on the mass strike are similar. Anton Pannekoek was a council communist, sort of a libertarian Marxist. His book "Workers Councils" has been recently republished.

Libertarian communists include people like Nestor Makhno. After the defeat of the anarchists in the Russian revolution, Makhno and his group wrote the "Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists", advocating a disciplined activist group, but not to dominate or become managers of mass organizations, but to participate in them, to spread libertarian communist influence and ideas.

Libertarian communists can be either syndicalists or councilists. Councilists say that the mass democratic institutions that build the new society in a revolution only come into existence during the revolutionary period. Syndicalists look to the develpment within capitalist society of an increasingly radical and self-managed labor movement.

The massive anarcho-syndicalist union movement in Spain that was the main force in the Spanish revolution of 1936 was officially libertarian communist.

Libertarian communists don't advocate the construction of a "workers state" but of a governance structure based on the participatory democracy of the assemblies in workplaces and communities and councils of delegates.

The ideas about the society to be built are influenced by traditional anarcho-communism, such as the writings of people like Kroptokin and Malatesta, altho Malatesta rejected the Makhno "platform".

[Rawthentic]

Libertarian "communists" are just like anarchists in that they oppose the state, don't what it is, and refuse to accept its necessity.

[syndicat]

hasta:
Libertarian "communists" are just like anarchists in that they oppose the state, don't what it is, and refuse to accept its necessity.

yeah, but they do advocate the working class taking power, and creating a new governance structure to replace the state. this governance structure would be baseed on the workplace and community assemblies, and councils or congresses of delegates from the base assemblies, and a people's militia directly controlled by these democratic bodies. it's just that they don't call this a "state" because it's not separated from the control of the mass of the people, its controlled directly by the working masses.

[Rawthentic]

blah, blah, blah.

You advocate a state, whether you like it or not. And its necessary, theres no question about it, whether anyone thinks otherwise.

[syndicat]

hasta:
You advocate a state, whether you like it or not. And its necessary, theres no question about it, whether anyone thinks otherwise.

Not according to the definition proposed by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

It is best not to commit to the phraseology of a "workers state" because that commits to the Bolshevik legacy. And the the actual state constructed under Bolshevik tutelage after Oct 1917 was nothing like the horizontal governance structure i described. As Sam Farber says, the Bolsheviks didn't believe in participatory democracy. They had a poverty stricken concept of "workers democracy" that meant only getting to vote to elect leaders to make decisions for you, not actually making the decisions that affect you yourself with your colleagues.

[Rawthentic]

Oh christ. Dude, you sound like the message in Orwell's Animal Farm: don't try to overthrow the system because you will always fail.

Its not as if I am stuck to the idea of a worker' state; its that it is necessary because of the tasks that the working class faces, it needs to set this up in the form of working place councils, popular assemblies, working council delegations, and armed of course.

And please put the Engles quote here so we can discuss it.

[syndicat]

Its not as if I am stuck to the idea of a worker' state; its that it is necessary because of the tasks that the working class faces, it needs to set this up in the form of working place councils, popular assemblies, working council delegations, and armed of course.

I don't disagree with you about these tasks. Your description is fine. It's just very different than what happened under the Bolsheviks.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:19 am
hasta:
You advocate a state, whether you like it or not. And its necessary, theres no question about it, whether anyone thinks otherwise.

Not according to the definition proposed by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

It is best not to commit to the phraseology of a "workers state" because that commits to the Bolshevik legacy. And the the actual state constructed under Bolshevik tutelage after Oct 1917 was nothing like the horizontal governance structure i described. As Sam Farber says, the Bolsheviks didn't believe in participatory democracy. They had a poverty stricken concept of "workers democracy" that meant only getting to vote to elect leaders to make decisions for you, not actually making the decisions that affect you yourself with your colleagues.
The "horizontal governance structure" you described is incapable of maintaining worker control. You can make believe that the system can work, until it become apparent that reality has other plans. Try using a scientific analysis, then come up with a system that works.

Your criticisms of the Bolsheviks are simply incorrect, again. The Bolsheviks established worker control through their use of the Soviets. The worker councils elected administrators, and the administrators answerd to the workers. While you wax poetic about "participatory democracy" (like something out of Elshtain), you fail to recognize the nature of the Soviet governmental structure. Furthermore, administrators are needed in socialist states. Electing people who are going to make society run the way it should is both necessary and beneficial. Sitting around and coming up with utopian and impractical (to say the least) ideas isn't.

[Rawthentic]

The Bolsheviks established worker control through their use of the Soviets
Actually it was the workers that established their control, and then the Bolsheviks were able to win a majority in them.

[cenv]

Well, to answer the original question...

Libertarian communists are essentially those Marxists and class-struggle anarchists who place a large emphasis on self-management. Practically, this tends to result in structures rooted in decentralism, autonomism, and direct democracy as well as skepticism towards the role of the party in the revolution. Libertarian communists tend to prefer federations to centralized states, horizontalism to representative democracy, and so on. Some of the more popular strands of libertarian communism include anarcho-syndicalism (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction), anarcho-communism (http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction), council communism (http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction), but many people simply use the more inclusive "libertarian communist" title. This description is, of course, an oversimplification, but hopefully it illustrates the basic idea.

Some libertarian communist organizations in the USA include NEFAC (http://nefac.net), Workers' Solidarity Alliance (http://workersolidarity.org), and Industrial Workers of the World (http://iww.org). You also have a link to the Communist League in your signature -- although the League is not specifically libertarian communist (rather, it maintains a very nonsectarian approach), it has several members who are libertarian communists too.

One site you could check out for more information on libertarian communism is, if you haven't seen it already, LibCom (http://libcom.org). It has introductions to different strands of libertarian communist thought, works by various libertarian communist thinkers, forums for discussion, news, and so on. Worth a shot if you want to learn more about libertarian communism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg+--> (Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg)Famous current are:
Council Communists
Left Communists
Famous people are: Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Panekov, Karl Leibnecht
I reconmend reading workers councils by Anton Panekov. [/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
Libertarian communists can be either syndicalists or councilists


Cenv
Some of the more popular strands of libertarian communism include anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, council communism

I don't think that the Council communists, the left communists, or any of the people mentioned above would have refered to themselves as 'Libertarian Communists'.

Devrim

[KC]

yeah, but they do advocate the working class taking power, and creating a new governance structure to replace the state. this governance structure would be baseed on the workplace and community assemblies, and councils or congresses of delegates from the base assemblies, and a people's militia directly controlled by these democratic bodies. it's just that they don't call this a "state" because it's not separated from the control of the mass of the people, its controlled directly by the working masses.

Marxists recognize the fundamental difference between the proletarian state and other past states (including the contemporary bourgeois state). This is, for example, why Engels calls the proletarian state a state "not in the proper sense" and suggests that a better word for it would be "community" (the following quote was written a few weeks before Marx wrote his famous Critique of the Gotha Programme and while Engels was living with Marx in London):

"The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the [proletarian] state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune."
-Friedrich Engels, Letter to Bebel (emphases mine)

Here is Lenin's take on the issue, from State & Revolution:

"The Commune was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word"--this is the most theoretically important statement Engels makes. After what has been said above, this statement is perfectly clear. The Commune was ceasing to be a state since it had to suppress, not the majority of the population, but a minority (the exploiters). It had smashed the bourgeois state machine. In place of a special coercive force the population itself came on the scene. All this was a departure from the state in the proper sense of the word. And had the Commune become firmly established, all traces of the state in it would have "withered away" of themselves; it would not have had to “abolish” the institutions of the state--they would have ceased to function as they ceased to have anything to do."
-V.I. Lenin, State & Revolution, Chapter 4

Here is another quote by Lenin from State & Revolution which also deals with the issue and is a good supplement to what I've previously provided:

"The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. The organ of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not a minority, as was always the case under slavery, serfdom, and wage slavery. And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfil all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power."
-V.I. Lenin, State & Revolution (emphases mine)

So the overall Marxist consensus on the issue is that the proletarian state is a state, but not in the proper sense of the word and also that from the moment the proletarian state is created it begins to wither away. I'm not sure if you've read State & Revolution (though I assume you have), but Lenin outlines the Marxist position of the state rather well in it. I would also suggest you read Mansoor Hekmat's State In Revolutionary Periods (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/1985/11/state.htm) as it covers the same issue but provides a relatively different viewpoint on the issue. It's not that long of an essay (I read it in one sitting) so I think you'd enjoy it. In it he outlines the role of the state in revolutionary periods and shows how the role of the state in such periods is different than the role it takes in "normal society".


blah, blah, blah.

You advocate a state, whether you like it or not. And its necessary, theres no question about it, whether anyone thinks otherwise.

Comrade, stop being so antagonistic. Syndicat's outlining his argument rather well, being respectful and debating in a responsible manner. I think it's appropriate to treat him the same way, as a comrade, regardless of whether or not you agree with his views on this particular issue.


Not according to the definition proposed by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

What definition is that?

As for your definition of what should be set up as an apparatus for proletarian rule after the revolution, I would consider that a state not in the proper sense as I have outlined it above. I would, however, disagree with you that this is the only form in which the proletarian state can manifest itself, as different objective and subjective conditions will have a profound impact on the creation of the institutions used to maintain proletarian rule. I think having a discussion on what particular form this state should take without taking objective or subjective conditions into consideration is unproductive and devoid of any theoretical value.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

But in soviet russia the withering away of the state as described by Lenin never occured, or anyother "communist" state...which suggests to me that unless full democratic power is given to the people immediatley, then another USSR will be on our hands. Does that make me a lib. communist?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:31 am
I don't think that the Council communists, the left communists, or any of the people mentioned above would have refered to themselves as 'Libertarian Communists'.

Devrim

It doesn't matter what they consider themselves on the political scale they fall under the catagory of "libertarian communists"

There's no debate to be had.

[KC]

But in soviet russia the withering away of the state as described by Lenin never occured

That's because bourgeois society wasn't done away with. I think that's rather obvious.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+May 02, 2007 04:48 pm--> (Love Underground @ May 02, 2007 04:48 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 08:31 am
I don't think that the Council communists, the left communists, or any of the people mentioned above would have refered to themselves as 'Libertarian Communists'.

Devrim

It doesn't matter what they consider themselves on the political scale they fall under the catagory of "libertarian communists"

There's no debate to be had. [/b]
Well yes, you can draw your own political scale, and use it to grasp onto the history of any political current you want.
I read Libertarian communist to mean anarchist, and all of the people mentioned argued determidly against anarchism.
Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:17 pm
I read Libertarian communist to mean anarchist,
Well then you're absolutely wrong. Some forms of anarchism are Libertarian Communist, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-communism etc, but not all.

Libertarian-communist does not equate to anarchist. It's a term for many political ideologies that take one side of the split in teh first international.


and all of the people mentioned argued determidly against anarchism.


So?

You seem very confused about what "libertarian communist" means, so for more infomation about it, I suggest you read some of the relevent articles on libcom.org

[Devrim]

Libertarian-communist does not equate to anarchist. It's a term for many political ideologies that take one side of the split in teh first international.

Yet, the council, and left communists come from a split in the Third International.

It seems to me like a word for including Marxists in the anarchist current.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:45 pm
It seems to me like a word for including Marxists in the anarchist current.

Well, it's not. It's an umbrella term for ideoleogies that are both Libertarian and Communist...

[Boriznov]

Isn't the term Libertarian Socialist you are looking for
that includes councilists, anarcho-syndicalists, ...

libertarian communist isn't that just another word for anarcho-communist ?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+May 02, 2007 08:49 pm--> (Love Underground @ May 02, 2007 08:49 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:45 pm
It seems to me like a word for including Marxists in the anarchist current.

Well, it's not. It's an umbrella term for ideoleogies that are both Libertarian and Communist... [/b]
But the whole 'libertarian' thing is an anarchist conception. The left communists, which historically included the councilists, never claimed to be libertarian, as they didn't see the problem as authoritarianism. To me the whole idea of 'authoritarian socialism' relies on the idea of Lenin as 'bogeyman'.

I don't have any object to anarchist groups drawing on the ideas of the communist left. There are some anarchists groups that we draw insperation from also. I think that there can be revolutionary anarchism as much as I think there can be revolutionary 'Marxism'.

We wouldn't claim that the 'friends of Durruti' were left communists though.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Wingsomega+May 02, 2007 08:53 pm--> (Wingsomega @ May 02, 2007 08:53 pm) Isn't the term Libertarian Socialist you are looking for
that includes councilists, anarcho-syndicalists, ...

libertarian communist isn't that just another word for anarcho-communist ? [/b]

Well, for some reason wikipedias article on Libertarian communism re routes to an article on Anarchist-communism. And up until recent time the terms 'Libertarian' and 'Anarchist' were synonimous. So, I think anyone who gets a bit muddled up can be forgiven!

Fortunately, the wikipedia article does make a distinction;


Wikipeida
Anarchist communism is also known as anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, red anarchism or, sometimes, libertarian communism. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as council communists, are not anarchists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the former's opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination

Talk about word dancing! - I hope this helps clarify the somewhat confusing mess of political terminology. Let's not move onto the difference between Libertarian Socialism and Communism, I already have a headache! :D

As for this


But the whole 'libertarian' thing is an anarchist conception.

Somewhat, yes, insofar as it was a differentiation first made by anarchists. But this does not prevent it from being an entirely valid distinction nevertheless. There are two clearly defined forms of revolutionary Socialism, forms that wish to utilise the state and create a dictatorship, and forms that wish to abolish it, creating direct workers control.

This split (as has already been mentioned) was created during the first international, when members raised concerns about the practicality of commandeering the state. Bakunin famously said "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" - a statement that many Libertarians consider to be prophetic of what indeed did happen, especially after the Bolsheviks destroyed the first example of Decentralised Workers Power in Ukraine, massacring the workers militias, in aid of the German Imperialists.

In the decades that followed the split, the Libertarian Communists began organising separately to the International Working Mans Association, in a new international body called the in the International Workers Association. Which groups such as the CNT were part of.

These two different approaches lead to entirely different theoretical and practical outlooks. And cannot work together.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+--> (Love Underground)These two different approaches lead to entirely different theoretical and practical outlooks. And cannot work together. [/b]

Well you said that they couldn't work together. Personally, I find it possible to work with some anarchists.


Originally posted by Love [email protected]
This split (as has already been mentioned) was created during the first international, when members raised concerns about the practicality of commandeering the state.

As you had already mentioned. I had also mentioned the fact that the council communists came from a split in the Third International, and therefore were on the other side of the split in the first from the anarchists.


Love Underground
In the decades that followed the split, the Libertarian Communists began organising separately to the International Working Mans Association, in a new international body called the in the International Workers Association. Which groups such as the CNT were part of.

A current which the council communists argued vehmently against.

Devrim

[Vargha Poralli]

Well this might be off-topic but

Originally posted by LU
Bolsheviks destroyed the first example of Decentralised Workers Power in Ukraine, massacring the workers militias, in aid of the German Imperialists.

you always say that whenever you get an oppurtunity but in another thread you made about Makhno and Lenin this Post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65821&view=findpost&p=1292307144) heavily counters your argument about how much Makhno's "Libertarian" and "Decentralised" Ukraine was hardly a "Libertarian" and "Decentralised". COuld you respond to that ?

[Tiparith]

Okay I believe that a large organization of activists should be created and that all its members would spend as much of there time as possible helping towards revolution. (In other words no couch sitting communists) . And this body would expand by turning more people towards constant activism. The group would elect a body (council) that would be the ruling body and then (the people) elect regional councils and city councils.

So every level has a council. The ruling bodies purpose is to make sure that the lower bodies follow the rules of lawmaking while making there laws. So in other words upholding the constitution (written by the people, but only ammedable every twenty-five years to make a sweep of the goverment legally impossible) which would have certain clauses to ensure the country remain socialist and some irrevocable clauses that would be things to make the state dictator proof and inherently socialist. The three levels of goverment would all have certain laws that would be the same so that the regions are built and run in basically the same way. But would also have individual laws for specific things (like the French in Quebec). As well there will be an elected senate (representatives from each region) to make sure the ruling body is adhering to its own laws.

The original revolution would take place by the organization (mentioned at the start) leading its activists into open cvil war with the goverment and restructuring the country with a pre-approved plan. So before the first shots are fired the whole or the group needs to have decided on where factories will be built and where houses will be built. And in some cases the group will have already purchased land from the pre-existing goverment so that they know if the revolution isn't going well they have fall backs in place.

Once the new communist country is established the new state will begin its processes and the ruling body along with its lower councils will be elected every two years and the senate every other two years. In this society every production worker will produce and therefore recieve. So if you work, then you get the products and food you need. Service workers don't neccessarly produce anything but there service, but that service is still neccessary so they also recieve. However if the old oligarchy thinks it can setup new private corps they can eat it. One of the councils primary purposes is to protect distribution of resources. And if a person isn't producing for the communal good then they don't recieve from the community.

So all in all the state remains in existence but is limited. After every law a referendum would go out to see if people approve of it and if not it is revoked to be discussed further and all political positions are elected and recallable. However everyone is guarenteed the rights a worker should have. Along with the concepts of work to recieve we can work for greater environmental standards because it doesn't cost a thing to be green-friendly. And the goverment would work to expand by helping revolutions elsewhere and then inviting the new goverment to merge. However no nations would be forced to join. And all people have the right to travel. And other rights (the reason I don't elaborate is because I don't know what the people would vote for, like I can assume we would vote for all the major rights but I don't know so I don't say it.)

SO after all that I ask one: what am I? (like what kind of commie) . And two: any want to join my cause?

[syndicat]

You say this organization is an organization of "activists". That's not very clear, as far as what the basis is. Usually libertarian communists make a distinction between "specific" organization -- an organization that has a political perspective and people join on that basis -- versus the mass organizations, such as unions, or councils workers form in a revolutionary situation, or community assemblies, or big congresses of delegates from the mass organizations. Which do you have in mind?

The idea of a political organization, if that's what you have in mind, leading directly into a civil war with the government sounds like some form of guerrillaism. if you're thinking of an organization that tries to spur a mass insurection of the people, who form mass organizations to run things, that's more like "insurrectionary" anarchism.

perhaps it would be a good idea to step back and ask yourself, what is the purpose? let's suppose you agree that capitalism is a system of oppression, and a key part of it is the subordination and exploitation of workers, of the working class. then, do you agree that their liberation, the liberation of the oppressed, is something that oppressed themselves have to do?

the problem with any vanguard doing it "for them" is that then that "vanguard" ends up in power, and sets the agenda, and this just creates a new class system, a new system of oppression. the alternative is to say, with Marx, that "the liberation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." this is a slogan that most libertarian communists would also agree with. in that case, there would need to be mass organizations, mass struggles, of the working population that the social transformation grows out of, that is part of how they build a movement to liberate themselves.

[KC]

the problem with any vanguard doing it "for them" is that then that "vanguard" ends up in power, and sets the agenda, and this just creates a new class system, a new system of oppression. the alternative is to say, with Marx, that "the liberation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." this is a slogan that most libertarian communists would also agree with. in that case, there would need to be mass organizations, mass struggles, of the working population that the social transformation grows out of, that is part of how they build a movement to liberate themselves.


The vanguard is the most class consciouss and theoretically and practically advanced section of the working class. In other words, the vanguard is communists. Here is Marx discussing the vanguard in the Manifesto:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."
-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Ch. 2

What is the role of the vanguard, i.e. the communists, in the class struggle? Marx again:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."
-Ibid.

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
-Ibid.

[Rawthentic]

the problem with any vanguard doing it "for them" is that then that "vanguard" ends up in power, and sets the agenda, and this just creates a new class system, a new system of oppression.
This is just stupid and typical ignorance. The vanguard is the class-conscious section of the working class, they are the communists that push and guide their class brothers and sisters.

You are part of the vanguard whether you like it or not.

In the League, we agree that the liberation of the working class must be done with the self-organization and action of us workers.

[RebelDog]

In the League, we agree that the liberation of the working class must be done with the self-organization and action of us workers.

So you would have supported the aims and principles of the Kronstadt rebellion against the communist vanguard that crushed them?

[syndicat]

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

Note that Marx says the "most advanced" section of the working class PARTIES, not of the working class. So-called working class parties -- organizations that aim to put themselves in control of a state, and then implement their program topdown thru the hierarchies of the state -- have historically been led by people of non-proletarian origin.

To try to assess this issue of the "vanguard" objectively, we can look at the population as it is, especially the working class. And we can see that there is a distinction between people who have revolutionary ideas, and those who don't. We can see that some are activists, are organizers, and others are more passive or uninvolved. As a purely sociological description, then, there is a layer of activists, organizers, publicists who are actively pushing for social change, against the system, who have some idea about the possibility of society beyond capitalism. So, that's the "vanguard". Even anarchists historically recognized this. Emma Goldman speaks of those activists "in the advance guard of social progress."

Now, the key question, however, is what should be the relationship between the "vanguard", thus understood, and the mass of the working class. I'd suggest there are two quite different views.

On the one hand, there is the view that the vanguard are to be the people who direct the struggle. They are to use their confidence, knowledge and skills to get themselves into "leadership positions," positions where they can influence and direct the movement, such as on executive boards or steering committees. They see the struggle as one of "providing the right leadership". The emphasis among Leninists on having a good grasp of Marx's theory fits in with what is essentially a kind of meritocratic view -- that those who are more advanced, as demonstrated by their knowledge of Marx's theory, should be making the decisions.

Now there is another view. On this other view, the role of the activists, organizers, and publicists, the "vanguard", is to assist the development of self-confidence, skill, knowledge of ordinary working people so that ordinary folks can *run their own struggles*, can be informed and active participants. But, on this second view, it is not the role of the "vanguard" to become the "management" of the movement. And even if elements of the "vanguard" form themselves into political organizations, their aim is not to capture and run a state. Rather, on this second view, it is the mass of the oppressed, the working masses who are empowered, who are to gain control over their lives, through building mass organizations they control, and eventually a society made up of institutions of participatory democracy that enable them to be in control. This second view is the Left-libertarian view of the role of the "vanguard". The previous view -- of the vanguard as management of the movement, and eventually managers of a state, will inevitably tend to generate a new coordinator class dominated system.

That's because the characteristic position of the coordinator class (managers and top professionals) is of those people whose power and privilege is based on relative concentration of the decision-making and empowering positions -- look at the professional/managerial hierarchies in the corporations and the state. The construction of things like centralized state control and centralized state planning are institutional means to the power of a new coordinator class. Note also that a meritocratic ideology is characteristic of this class...the idea that because they know the most, have college degrees, have the most expertise, they should be making the decisions.

This may not be what the revolutionary vanguard party members intend, but often things don't turn out as you expect. It's necessary to examine objectively what the consequeces would be of your program and strategy.

[Leo]

Note that Marx says the "most advanced" section of the working class PARTIES, not of the working class. So-called working class parties -- organizations that aim to put themselves in control of a state, and then implement their program topdown thru the hierarchies of the state -- have historically been led by people of non-proletarian origin.


I think that's a common misunderstanding; what Marx meant was not actual political parties but the working class itself, different parts of the working class. "Working class parties" in the sense we understand it did not exist when the Communist Manifesto was written.

[syndicat]

Fine. But would you say that Marx opposed or supported the formation of the German Social Democratic Party? Would you say that Marxists have in general thought in terms of political parties as a means to political power? And the way this passage is often interpreted is that "the Communists" are to organize as a party. I'm not trying to suggest that Lenin's theory of a "vanguard party" already existed in Marx's mind. I doubt it. But "what Marx really meant" isn't really that germane to the point here, about the role of the vanguard. Quoting Holy Writ isn't really the rational way to argue for something anyway. It should be defended on its merits, not whether Uncle Karl said it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by g.ram+May 03, 2007 05:37 pm--> (g.ram @ May 03, 2007 05:37 pm) Well this might be off-topic but

LU
Bolsheviks destroyed the first example of Decentralised Workers Power in Ukraine, massacring the workers militias, in aid of the German Imperialists.

you always say that whenever you get an oppurtunity but in another thread you made about Makhno and Lenin this Post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65821&view=findpost&p=1292307144) heavily counters your argument about how much Makhno's "Libertarian" and "Decentralised" Ukraine was hardly a "Libertarian" and "Decentralised". COuld you respond to that ? [/b]
Yes, it's bullshit. Take note of what I have highlighted.


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 in ints 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, police and armies are hereby 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.

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

10. 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.

11. 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)

[KC]

nd the way this passage is often interpreted is that "the Communists" are to organize as a party.

Of course that's what he meant. Why do you think the pamphlet is called the "Manifesto of the Communist Party"?


But "what Marx really meant" isn't really that germane to the point here, about the role of the vanguard.

It's quite obvious. Marx defined the vanguard as communists, and then he went on to outline the role of the communists (i.e. the vanguard) in the class struggle. I don't see how he could have made it any more obvious.


Quoting Holy Writ isn't really the rational way to argue for something anyway. It should be defended on its merits, not whether Uncle Karl said it.

I'm not quoting it "because Marx said it". I'm quoting it because Marx put it best and because you seem to think that the vanguard is a "Leninist" conception.

[syndicat]

in my discussion of the role of vanguards above i didn't talk about "Leninism". you're not responding to my actual argument. the issue is the role that the activists, organizers, publicists with radical views play, and their relationship to the working class as a whole.

[KC]

in my discussion of the role of vanguards above i didn't talk about "Leninism".

Well you were condemning the idea of a "vanguard" "leading" the "masses" and becoming a power over and above the proletariat. That's generally attributed to "Leninism". Either way, you were wrong.


On this other view, the role of the activists, organizers, and publicists, the "vanguard"

That's not the vanguard. Anyways, I've already shown what the role of the vanguard is when I quoted from the Manifesto.

[Leo]

Fine. But would you say that Marx opposed or supported the formation of the German Social Democratic Party?

I remember that he opposed it but first of all it's irrelevant and secondly it is an special case because of the existence of Lassalle.


Would you say that Marxists have in general thought in terms of political parties as a means to political power?

No.


And the way this passage is often interpreted is that "the Communists" are to organize as a party.

Of course, and I do support this.


But "what Marx really meant" isn't really that germane to the point here

Of course, I was merely pointing out to a misunderstanding. Personally I am quite tired of all these "vanguard" debates.

Anyway, just clear out my position:

-There should be a world communist party.

-The party doesn't create class struggle; it is a result of class struggle thus it can only appear in revolutionary periods.

-The party never takes political power; workers do by using their independent political organs: workers' councils.

[syndicat]

Zampano:


Well you were condemning the idea of a "vanguard" "leading" the "masses" and becoming a power over and above the proletariat. That's generally attributed to "Leninism". Either way, you were wrong.

You need to address what I actually said. I acknowledged that it is a fact there is a vanguard. The vanguard are the activists, organizers, and publicists who have anti-capitalist ideas, ideas about moving to a society beyond capitalism out of the process of struggles within the present society. But i said there are two different ways of conceiving of the role of the vanguard.

I'll take it that you are here disagreeing with my rejection of the managerialist interpretation of the vanguard's role, as people who are to manage social movements, concentrate "leadership" in their hands, and who aim to gain "leadership positions" in a new social structure. Your view of the vanguard's role is substitutionist, it inevitably tends to lead to a new managerialist mode of production, presiding over by a corporate-style hierarchy of professionals and managers, as happened in all the "Communist" countries.

me: "On this other view, the role of the activists, organizers, and publicists, the "vanguard""

You're quoting out of context. You need to give the whole definition, as i did at the of this post.



That's not the vanguard. Anyways, I've already shown what the role of the vanguard is when I quoted from the Manifesto.

Again, you're not answering my argument. That suggests you do in fact adhere to the vanguardist view of what the role of the vanguard is. That is a conception that, if they got the chance, would merely lead to a new boss class, as happened in all the "Communist" countries.

[Tiparith]

The vanguard to me (mark that this is not my interpretation of Marx, but what I think is right) should not be what it is ment to be. The term and its application says that it should be a bunch of the greatest revolutionaries who get together and govern the revolutionary body. That is elitest and would eventually seperate the vanguard from the working class. I think the vanguard should simply be the elected organizers of the mass revolutionary body but they should be so numerous that it is difficult to see the differences. Practically applied I mean that instead of having 20 people at the top (which is what Lenin's goverment was like) have 800. And if they all do there little part for the goverment (files, management, w/e they may need) then they all will also have time to do a shift at the local factory or w/e.

[welshred]

So libertarian communism and anarchist communism are the same thing?

[KC]

-The party doesn't create class struggle; it is a result of class struggle thus it can only appear in revolutionary periods.

Class struggle doesn't only appear in revolutionary periods. There is always class struggle.


The vanguard are the activists, organizers, and publicists who have anti-capitalist ideas, ideas about moving to a society beyond capitalism out of the process of struggles within the present society.

Again, no it isn't. The vanguard is the most theoretically advanced and class conscious section of the proletariat (i.e. communists). What their occupation is is irrelevant.


I'll take it that you are here disagreeing with my rejection of the managerialist interpretation of the vanguard's role, as people who are to manage social movements, concentrate "leadership" in their hands, and who aim to gain "leadership positions" in a new social structure.

Well, you're wrong.


Your view of the vanguard's role is substitutionist, it inevitably tends to lead to a new managerialist mode of production, presiding over by a corporate-style hierarchy of professionals and managers, as happened in all the "Communist" countries.

Show me where I've supported such a thing. Or did you just assume that, since I didn't agree with your other conception of the vanguard that that means I must be in agreement with the other one? You know what they say about assumptions...


Again, you're not answering my argument. That suggests you do in fact adhere to the vanguardist view of what the role of the vanguard is.

So now I believe that because I "didn't answer your argument"? How strange.

So what really is the vanguard and what is its role in the class struggle? I already answered these questions in this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65988&view=findpost&p=1292309806) post. So you can stop making those crazy assumptions and reply to what I've actually said, if you want to continue this discussion.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:14 pm
So libertarian communism and anarchist communism are the same thing?
For chirsts sake, read my posts.

[Leo]

Class struggle doesn't only appear in revolutionary periods. There is always class struggle.

This is true, I see that I have not managed to express myself clearly enough.

What opens revolutionary periods is generalized class struggle with a political perspective. Usually the appearance of independent class organs internationally is a good sign to tell if Up until that point, it isn't possible for the communists to form the party physically without at least sinking down to opportunism (read: A card-carrying member recruitment campaign).

Does this mean that communists will simply "do nothing" in the non-revolutionary and counter-revolutionary periods? Of course not. Yet we have seen that in counter-revolutionary periods, communists only managed to exist in the form of small fractions. In non-revolutionary periods, they exist in the form of different proletarian currents. The tasks mentioned in the manifesto, in regards to what do during participation in class struggle, are always valid task. In non-revolutionary periods, existing proletarian groups have the extra task of trying to establish the roots of the future world communist party. In revolutionary periods, the extra task is "[t]o extend and build up workers' councils (...) and (...) [t]o win an assured, conscious communist majority in the councils."*

* http://en.internationalism.org/ir/100_theses.htm

[syndicat]

to identify the "vanguard" solely in terms of ideology is a mistake. nor is it the case that Marxists have always used the word that way. Lenin and Trotsky at various times in 1917 referred to the Kronstadt sailors or the metal worker factory committee movement as the "vanguard" of the revolution. This was because of not onlyl the advanced consciousness they exhibited but also the active role they were playing in pushing the class struggle forward.

nor is it the case that adhering to some theory or ideology is going to be what contributes to playing a leadership role. things like being the person who speaks up in meetings, who suggests direction, who is always there, is an active factor, who is knowledgeable in relevant ways to the struggle...these things also are part of influencing the course of events and having a "leading influence" on what happens. and this is also a characteristic of the activist, organizer, publicist layer, within the working class, who are the vanguard in a sociological sense.

defining it solely by adhering to some ideology or theory is a nerd's way of defining it.

and since you accept the Bolshevik legacy, the path pursued by the Bolshevik party, i think it is fair to say, especially since you've not responded directly to my argument, that you are committed to the vanguardist view that sees an ideological vanguard dominating the working class, making the decisions, and using the movement to propel itself into power. note that justifying a management role by how much more you know is a typical middle class meritocratic ideology. that is how the professional/managerial class justify their having power over the working class.

[KC]

This is true, I see that I have not managed to express myself clearly enough.

I assumed you meant what I said; I just wanted to confirm it.


to identify the "vanguard" solely in terms of ideology is a mistake. nor is it the case that Marxists have always used the word that way. Lenin and Trotsky at various times in 1917 referred to the Kronstadt sailors or the metal worker factory committee movement as the "vanguard" of the revolution. This was because of not onlyl the advanced consciousness they exhibited but also the active role they were playing in pushing the class struggle forward.

The vanguard is the most class conscious, theoretically advanced and active section of the proletariat. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I already said this here:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."
-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Ch. 2


nor is it the case that adhering to some theory or ideology is going to be what contributes to playing a leadership role. things like being the person who speaks up in meetings, who suggests direction, who is always there, is an active factor, who is knowledgeable in relevant ways to the struggle...these things also are part of influencing the course of events and having a "leading influence" on what happens.

And all those examples you gave are of people taking on a leading role, which is what the vanguard does. I explained earlier the role of the vanguard:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."
-Ibid.

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
-Ibid.

You're not reading my posts, which forces me to repeat what I've said. I suggest you read my posts so I don't have to do this.



defining it solely by adhering to some ideology or theory is a nerd's way of defining it.


Nice argument. :lol:


and since you accept the Bolshevik legacy, the path pursued by the Bolshevik party

Oh really? Where have I done that? Or are you making assumptions again...

[cenv]

I'm not quoting it "because Marx said it". I'm quoting it because Marx put it best and because you seem to think that the vanguard is a "Leninist" conception.
You make the mistake of equating the Marxian "vanguard", the most advanced segment of the working class, with the "Leninist" notion of a vanguard. I think it's reasonable to claim that while Marx viewed the vanguard as simply a part of the proletariat, Lenin would assert that the vanguard is an inherently more "revolutionary" entity distinguished from the proletariat. For instance, he justifies his take on the vanguard with the following logic:


Originally posted by "What Is To Be Done?"
We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.

Now consider that Lenin's model of revolutionary practice, based on the idea of the vanguard as a guiding force for the working class instead of simply a temporarily politically advanced section of it, resulted in nothing more than a system of bureaucratic, petty-bourgeois domination (the development of what syndicat calls a "coordinator class"). I think Lenin's pessimistic comments on the working class combined with the historical achievements of his ideas concerning revolutionary practice combine to illustrate quite nicely the class character of what some people call "Leninism" and, more specifically, Lenin's conception of the vanguard.

[KC]

Now consider that Lenin's model of revolutionary practice, based on the idea of the vanguard as a guiding force for the working class instead of simply a temporarily politically advanced section of it

The vanguard is recognized by both Marx and Lenin as a "guiding force" as I have shown with my previous quotes of Marx.


I think Lenin's pessimistic comments on the working class combined with the historical achievements of his ideas concerning revolutionary practice combine to illustrate quite nicely the class character of what some people call "Leninism" and, more specifically, Lenin's conception of the vanguard.

Ah, the famous WITBD? quote. This passage is constantly misinterpreted and misunderstood. While I haven't read this article in full, and while I've never visited this site so I don't know anything about the group (looks like a Trotskyist org.), I think that this sums it up best:


The second section of What Is To Be Done? is entitled “The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social Democrats.” This is, undoubtedly, the most important section of Lenin’s pamphlet, and, inevitably, the section that has been subjected to the most unrelenting attacks and misrepresentation. It is in this section, we have been frequently told, that Lenin exposes himself as an arrogant elitist, contemptuous of the mass of workers, disdainful of their aspirations, hostile to their daily struggles, lusting for personal power and dreaming only of the day when he and his accursed party will impose their iron-fisted totalitarian dictatorship over the unsuspecting Russian working class. It is worth our while to examine this section with special care.

The critical issue analyzed by Lenin is the nature of the relationship between Marxism and the revolutionary party on the one side and, on the other, the spontaneous movement of the working class and the forms of social consciousness that develop among workers in the course of that movement. He begins by tracing the evolution of the forms of consciousness among Russian workers, beginning with the initial manifestations of class conflict in the 1860s and 1870s.

Those struggles were of an extremely primitive character, involving the destruction of machinery by workers. Driven by desperation, lacking any awareness of the social and class nature of their revolt, these spontaneous eruptions manifested class consciousness only in an “embryonic” form. The situation that developed three decades later was significantly more advanced. Compared to the early struggles, the strikes of the 1890s manifested a significantly higher level of consciousness among the workers. The strikes were far more organized and even advanced quite detailed demands. But the consciousness exhibited by workers in these struggles was of a trade unionist rather than social democratic character. That is, the strikes did not raise demands of a political character, nor did they express an awareness of the deeper and irreconcilable nature of the conflict between the workers and the existing socio-economic and political order. The workers, rather, sought only to improve their situation within the framework of the existing social system.

This limitation was inevitable, in the sense that the spontaneous movement of the working class could not develop on its own, “spontaneously,” social democratic, i.e., revolutionary, consciousness. It is at this point that Lenin introduces the argument that has provoked so many denunciations. He writes:

“We have said that there could not have been Social Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status, the founders of modern socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.”[13]

In support of his interpretation of the relationship between Marxism and the spontaneously developing trade unionist, i.e., bourgeois, consciousness of the working class, Lenin cites—along with approving comments by Karl Kautsky—the draft program of the Austrian Social Democratic Party:

“The more capitalist development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more the proletariat is compelled and becomes fit to fight against capitalism. The proletariat becomes conscious of the possibility and necessity for socialism. In this connection socialist consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships just as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K.K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle [von Aussen Hineingretagenes] and not something that arose within it spontaneously [urwuchsig]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld program quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat [literally: saturate the proletariat] with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle. [emphasis mine]”[14]

Lenin draws from this passage the following conclusion:

“Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is—either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is much talk of spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the working class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology, to its development along the lines of the Credo program; for the spontaneous working class movement is trade unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working class from this spontaneous, trade unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy.”[15]
Source (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/le34-s09.shtml)

Again, I've never heard of this organization, I've only posted this article because it articulates my position the best.

Now, we can see that what Lenin is saying is that socialist ideology, i.e. proletarian ideology, didn't arise out of the spontaneous class struggle and that proletarians won't gain social-democratic consciousness through participating in the struggle. Socialist ideology is something introduced to a proletarian from without, i.e. from outside of the class struggle (in other words, a proletarian doesn't learn socialist ideology by merely participating in the class struggle); socialist ideology is introduced to the proletariat by communists, who in turn learned socialist ideology from members of what he calls the "bourgeois intelligentsia" (although I would disagree on that point). His entire point is that socialist ideology was developed by members of the bourgeoisie - Marx and Engels (again I disagree on this) - and that it reaches the proletariat not spontaneously through merely participation in the class struggle, but from introduction to them by communists. I find nothing wrong with this statement (aside from the classification of Marx and Engels as "bourgeois", though that's irrelevant) and fully support it.

I believe that Marx recognized that social-democratic consciousness doesn't occur spontaneously by saying that the immediate aims of Communists is the "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat".

[cenv]

The vanguard is recognized by both Marx and Lenin as a "guiding force" as I have shown with my previous quotes of Marx.
I fail to see how your quotes demonstrate this. Perhaps I missed some of the quotes you posted, but it seems to me that Marx is simply referring to the class conscious section of the working class (and its corresponding function as agitators), while Lenin gives the vanguard a much more crucial role than that.


Now, we can see that what Lenin is saying is that socialist ideology, i.e. proletarian ideology, didn't arise out of the spontaneous class struggle and that proletarians won't gain social-democratic consciousness through participating in the struggle. Socialist ideology is something introduced to a proletarian from without, i.e. from outside of the class struggle (in other words, a proletarian doesn't learn socialist ideology by merely participating in the class struggle); socialist ideology is introduced to the proletariat by communists, who in turn learned socialist ideology from members of what he calls the "bourgeois intelligentsia" (although I would disagree on that point). His entire point is that socialist ideology was developed by members of the bourgeoisie - Marx and Engels (again I disagree on this) - and that it reaches the proletariat not spontaneously through merely participation in the class struggle, but from introduction to them by communists. I find nothing wrong with this statement (aside from the classification of Marx and Engels as "bourgeois", though that's irrelevant) and fully support it.
I don't think Lenin is simply claiming that socialist theory cannot be acquired from class struggle. The key sentence is this:


The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc.
In fact, Lenin is saying that the proletariat cannot develop any sort of revolutionary consciousness. Instead, he claims that the working class is inherently unrevolutionary and consequently that it requires a revolutionary vanguard to lead a revolution.

There's quite a difference between the view of the vanguard you attribute to Lenin and the opinion revealed by the above sentence.

You seem to be saying that Lenin simply claims that the basis of proletarian ideology is introduced from outside the working class.

The sentence about "trade union consciousness" suggests that Lenin sees the need for a group of leaders to not just introduce socialist ideology to the masses, but also to develop and manage the revolution, as he views the working class as lacking revolutionary initiative. And Lenin's implementation of his ideas during October 1917 and following the revolution indicate the latter.

[KC]

I fail to see how your quotes demonstrate this.

Marx does this when he discusses what the role of communists is. If you scroll up or check out part 2 of the Manifesto you'll see what I'm talking about.


Perhaps I missed some of the quotes you posted, but it seems to me that Marx is simply referring to the class conscious section of the working class (and its corresponding function as agitators), while Lenin gives the vanguard a much more crucial role than that.


Again, I would argue that both Marx and Lenin saw the vanguard as the most advanced section of the proletariat, and also that one which acts as a guiding force for the proletariat as a whole.



I don't think Lenin is simply claiming that socialist theory cannot be acquired from class struggle. The key sentence is this:



The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc.

In fact, Lenin is saying that the proletariat cannot develop any sort of revolutionary consciousness. Instead, he claims that the working class is inherently unrevolutionary and consequently that it requires a revolutionary vanguard to lead a revolution.

What Lenin is saying there is that the proletariat cannot develop social democratic consciousness on its own, i.e. through the class struggle and that they can only develop a trade-unionist consciousness. I think this is similar to saying that proletarians can develop general anti-capitalist sentiments through their struggle against the bourgeoisie in the class struggle, but they can't develop a communist ideology through that. Again, what Lenin is saying is that socialist consciousness doesn't develop spontaneously through the class struggle but must be introduced to proletarians by communists.

I would say you're incorrect in assuming that Lenin thinks the proletariat is inherently unrevolutionary; proletarians have revolted spontaneously before, obviously, but these revolutions weren't necessarily proletarian ones, i.e. they weren't socialist ones. They weren't revolutions that would lead to socialism because of the fact that the proletariat doesn't gain socialist consciousness spontaneously through the class struggle.

The role of the vanguard, i.e. communists, is to bring this socialist consciousness (i.e. class consciousness) to the class as a whole and to guide it towards proletarian revolution. That is what Marx said is the role of the communists when he said in the Manifesto that "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

And regarding the last part of that quote: a revolutionary vanguard is necessary for proletarian revolution. In order for there to be proletarian revolution, there must be a section of the proletariat that is class conscious, theoretically advanced, and experienced in the class struggle in order to call for revolution and guide the rest of the class towards that overall outlook (class consciousness). If there aren't any class conscious or theoretically advanced members of the proletariat, then who would call for proletarian revolution? Obviously none, since in order to do so one must be class conscious.



There's quite a difference between the view of the vanguard you attribute to Lenin and the opinion revealed by the above sentence.


I don't think so. I think you're just misinterpreting it (which I wouldn't blame you for, as it happens all the time, especially on this forum).


You seem to be saying that Lenin simply claims that the basis of proletarian ideology is introduced from outside the working class.

I'm saying that that's what Lenin believed and while I disagree with that sentiment (because I don't see Marx and Engels as "bourgeois"), I recognize the fact that Lenin was right when he said that socialist ideology isn't learned through the class struggle but introduced to proletarians by communists.


The sentence about "trade union consciousness" suggests that Lenin sees the need for a group of leaders to not just introduce socialist ideology to the masses, but also to develop and manage the revolution, as he views the working class as lacking revolutionary initiative.

I don't see how it suggests that at all.

All Lenin is saying is that socialist ideology was created by Marx and Engels, not through experience in the class struggle but through scientific analysis, and that socialist ideology can't be gained through the class struggle but through the introduction to proletarians by communists, those already imbued with socialist ideology. This isn't saying that proletarians can't "understand" socialist ideology at all, as proletarians can be communists, too.

[syndicat]

Lenin had a low opinion of the possibility of the working class to liberate itself. The concept of the "vanguard" was probably not used by Marx but had become a common part of radical left thinking in the early 20th century, used by both anarchists and Leninists. The idea of the vanguard is based on what is called "uneven consciousness". But what sort of "consciousness"? It's not just a question of adopting some anti-capitalist ideology. If we're talking about the process by which the working class liberates itself, it's necessary to look at class consciousness, and how it develops. This is the process of "class formation," through which the working class moves from being a class "in itself" to a class "for itself," to use Marx's terminology.

A key thing in the development of class consciousness is the experience of collective working class power, as exhibited in a strike. To the degree that workers then develop a sense of their potenteial collective power, they tend to see that as the path to make changes, rather than thinking in terms of individual solutions in the existing system. To the degree that this collective power develops, perhaps through the emergence of largescale struggles and things like general strikes, then ideas about a possible future beyond capitalism move from being "nice ideas but unrealistic" to something more people are likely to take seriously.

Within the working class is a layer of activists, organizers and publicists. If people with anti-capitalist ideas are not among this layer, their ideas cannot have any effect. That's why I said that the idea that the "vanguard" is solely based on book learning, learning a theory, as the "nerd's" theory of the vanguard.

But the distinction between the libertarian and authoritarian view about the vanguard is not a disagreement about its existence, but how to properly understand its relationship to the ordinary working class people. The tendency to think of the vanguard in ways that lead to its substituting its decision-making for that of the working class, or lead to an emphasis on obtaining "leadership positions" in mass organizations, and eventually in some government, is part of the authoritarian view of the "vanguard." This view tends to believe that the crucial thing is the vanguard being in control, rather than focusing on the working masses being in control. It lacks a critique of how hierarchical organizations disempower the rank and file. It lacks an emphasis on participatory democracy.

We know from the experience of all the revolutions that put Communist Parties into power that it lead to a new class dominating and exploiting the workijg class. This result is rooted in the authoritarian concept of the vanguard, as well as in the programmatic and strategic commitments of Leninism. The idea of a party controlled by a centralized leadership gaining control of a state, and then implementing its program topdown thru a state hierarchy, as the Bolsheviks did in the October 1917 revolution. Statist central planning that concentrates expertise and power over the economy in a planning elite. These are ideas that tend to generate a new coordinator class regime, based on a corporate-style hierarchy ruling over the working class.

To see the antidote it's necessary to understand the basis of the class power of the coordinator class. This power of this class isn't based on ownership, unlike the capitalists, but on monopolization of empowering positions and expertise.

If you think of the vanguard concentrating expertise of social change in itself, and using this to gain control, this is part of what contributes to building a coordinatorist mode of production.

To avoid this outcome, what is needed is to think of the role of the vanguard in an opposite way, as people who, thru their organizing, their mobilizing work, their training of others, help to build capacity for self-management of organizations in ordinary folks, they help to mobilize involvement and participation, and development of informed consciousness in the mass of participants, to work to develop within the working class the self-confidence and capacity for self-organization that it needs in order to liberate itself. The aim of the vanguard, in the libertarian view, should be that of working to empower the working class in general, not the vanguard itself.

Revolutionary consciousness may be relatively rare at present in the USA but in a country that is moving towards social transformation, revolutionary ideas acquire more salience in the eyes of many and tend to spread. a liberatory revolution requires active involvement of millions of people, a huge level of participation and support, and a huge growth of revolutionary consciousness.

[KC]

What a pointless and redundant post.

[Leo]

I've never visited this site so I don't know anything about the group (looks like a Trotskyist org.)

It is a left-Trotskyist organization, their "international" is called "International Committee of the Fourth International" and they organize Socialist Equality Parties.

[KC]

So are they good or crazy?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 05, 2007 09:51 pm
So are they good or crazy?
If you are asking about WSWS a bit of both in my opinion. Their analysis among many workers struggle especially around South Asia(India,Sri Lanka and Pakistan) is really good.And their criticism of current American system is also rather very much convincing.I have fully quoted their articles regarding the recent shooting Incident in politics.And I have posted some newswire article I found interesting.

Their problem is they are too sectarianistic.

[Leo]

So are they good or crazy?

They are better than other Trotskyists but I don't think this makes them good.

As for crazy, I'll just tell a true story I heard about them and let you be the judge. The reason they named their parties "Socialist Equality Parties" was that they wanted to gain a Russian academician who defended that the problem in Russia was that everyone did not have equal wages to their organization. They succeeded, they renamed all their existing parties and they won the guy over. Unfortunately, the academician died the next day after he joined the organization.

[cenv]

I think this is similar to saying that proletarians can develop general anti-capitalist sentiments through their struggle against the bourgeoisie in the class struggle, but they can't develop a communist ideology through that
No... "trade union consciousness" does not refer to anti-capitalist sentiments. It's the idea that the workers should work within the capitalist system and try to make capitalism a little better. Lenin is claiming that the proletariat is not naturally inclined towards anti-capitalist feelings.


proletarians can be communists, too.
Well, that's good to know. Because otherwise, we'd be in trouble...


The role of the vanguard, i.e. communists, is to bring this socialist consciousness (i.e. class consciousness) to the class as a whole and to guide it towards proletarian revolution
Again, history would suggest that Lenin's views on the vanguard were slightly more complex than this. In the USSR, the vanguard not only guided the proletariat towards revolution. It led them through it and never stopped.


I don't think so. I think you're just misinterpreting it (which I wouldn't blame you for, as it happens all the time, especially on this forum).

Obviously I would disagree with that, but it's hard to tell... Marxist intellectuals tend to be rather complicated characters, and it's hard to tell exactly what their specific views were. In the case of Lenin, though, I'd say the implementation of his ideas in the USSR is a fairly good indicator. Not that it really matters... I'm as sick of the debates on "Leninism" as anyone else. In the end, all that really matters is what our thoughts on the vanguard are now and what we can learn from historical experience. Defending, attempting to understand, or identifying with any particular dead person ultimately tends to lead to more trouble than it's worth.


So are they good or crazy?
They may have a few interesting things to say, but they certainly aren't proletarian (http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.com/2007/04/trotskyist-scandal.html).

[KC]

No... "trade union consciousness" does not refer to anti-capitalist sentiments. It's the idea that the workers should work within the capitalist system and try to make capitalism a little better. Lenin is claiming that the proletariat is not naturally inclined towards anti-capitalist feelings.

No, he is saying that the proletariat can't become communist (i.e. develop a social-democratic consciousness) by itself. There's a huge difference between saying workers can't become anti-capitalist spontaneously and saying workers can't become communist spontaneously.

[syndicat]

There's a huge difference between saying workers can't become anti-capitalist spontaneously and saying workers can't become communist spontaneously.

And what is the difference? And what does it mean to become anti-capitalist or communist "spontaneously"? the ideas drop out of the sky and a light goes on your head? people learn things in a variety of ways.

[KC]

And what is the difference?

The difference is that proletarians can't spontaneously develop a social-democratic consciousness through participation in the class struggle alone. Proletarians never have and never will be able to do this because social-democratic consciousness doesn't come from the class struggle but from communists.


And what does it mean to become anti-capitalist or communist "spontaneously"? the ideas drop out of the sky and a light goes on your head?

Learning it spontaneously means that you can become communist and gain a social-democratic consciousness without reading about it or learning about it and solely through participating in the class struggle. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what Lenin is saying.

[syndicat]

The difference is that proletarians can't spontaneously develop a social-democratic consciousness through participation in the class struggle alone. Proletarians never have and never will be able to do this because social-democratic consciousness doesn't come from the class struggle but from communists.

You're repeating yourself. You never answered my question directly about what you mean by "spontaneously". Here it seems you mean "on their own".

I think workers in large numbers will only develop in their class consciousness, towards an anti-capitalist viewpoint, through class struggle. That's because in the absence of significant collective struggle occurring, people only see their own subordination, they are likely to think "you can't fight city hall", and thus they will tend to think of advancement or improvement in their situation in terms of individual solutions...get on the better side of management to get a promotion, take classes, learn a better paying occupation, etc.

Even if workers encounter people who present a revolutionary critique of capitalism and spell out ideas about a society beyond capitalism, workers will tend to say "Nice idea but it won't ever happen" unless they see that they and people like themselves have the power to bring it about. that can only come about thru increasing levels and scope of collective struggle and active participation by working people themselves in these struggles in increasing numbers.

Moreover, the development of class consciousness can't be understood as the acquisition of an ideology called "communism" because it's about developing the cohesion, self-confidence, organizational strength to be able to effectively challenge the dominating classes, and an understanding of a viable society based on workers actually self-managing industry and public affairs, ownership by everyone in common, and doing away with class subordination.

whether "communism" is an adequate ideology for this purpose depends upon whether it has an adequate understanding of what proletarian liberation consists in, including what the conditions are that need to be achieved to eliminate class domination. many different things have been called "communism".

you won't find the answers in dusty tomes written by Marx and Lenin. for one thing, they had no theory of the coordinator class, the class whose cadres play such an important role in corporations and the state in late capitalism, and which class became the dominant class in the "Communist" countries. without an understanding of that class, and what needs to be done to prevent a class of that type consolidating its hold in a revolution, the politics will not be adequate to the task of proletarian liberation.

[KC]

You're repeating yourself. You never answered my question directly about what you mean by "spontaneously". Here it seems you mean "on their own".

If you don't misinterpret that, then yes, that's what I mean. But you probably will.


I think workers in large numbers will only develop in their class consciousness, towards an anti-capitalist viewpoint, through class struggle. That's because in the absence of significant collective struggle occurring, people only see their own subordination, they are likely to think "you can't fight city hall", and thus they will tend to think of advancement or improvement in their situation in terms of individual solutions...get on the better side of management to get a promotion, take classes, learn a better paying occupation, etc.

I agree. You're agreeing with Lenin.


Even if workers encounter people who present a revolutionary critique of capitalism and spell out ideas about a society beyond capitalism, workers will tend to say "Nice idea but it won't ever happen" unless they see that they and people like themselves have the power to bring it about. that can only come about thru increasing levels and scope of collective struggle and active participation by working people themselves in these struggles in increasing numbers.

Again you agree with Lenin and myself.



Moreover, the development of class consciousness can't be understood as the acquisition of an ideology called "communism" because it's about developing the cohesion, self-confidence, organizational strength to be able to effectively challenge the dominating classes, and an understanding of a viable society based on workers actually self-managing industry and public affairs, ownership by everyone in common, and doing away with class subordination.

And in order to have a communist outlook you must have all of that.


you won't find the answers in dusty tomes written by Marx and Lenin. for one thing, they had no theory of the coordinator class, the class whose cadres play such an important role in corporations and the state in late capitalism, and which class became the dominant class in the "Communist" countries. without an understanding of that class, and what needs to be done to prevent a class of that type consolidating its hold in a revolution, the politics will not be adequate to the task of proletarian liberation.

Well, duh. Of course, you would blame it on "evil Leninism" when that's clearly not the case. But I'm not going to debate that with you because of the fact that you'll never change your viewpoint on it no matter how obviously wrong it is.

[syndicat]

Well, duh. Of course, you would blame it on "evil Leninism" when that's clearly not the case. But I'm not going to debate that with you because of the fact that you'll never change your viewpoint on it no matter how obviously wrong it is.

No, you won't debate me because (1) you have no theory of the coordinator class, and (2) you apparently can only repeat in a mechanical fashion formulas you've picked up from Holy Writ, i.e. books by Marx and Lenin.

Another aspect of class consciousness and class liberation is acquiring the ability to think for oneself and to address and debate issues on their merits, without a church-like crutch.

The critique of Leninism isn't a moral critique but is based on an objective understanding of the consequences of the programmatic and strategy commitments of Leninism, what the actual role of Leninism has been in history. The issue of the conditions that need to be met for proletarian liberation is a question of objective condtions that must be met. The basic fact is that Leninism is inconsistent with proletarian self-emancipation.

[KC]

Exactly what I expected you to say; you didn't even have to waste your time saying it.

[syndicat]

Your post says nothing. You just trying to take up space...sort of an internet equilavent of tagging? A theory board is supposed to be about debate, which means responding to arguments.

[cenv]

No, he is saying that the proletariat can't become communist (i.e. develop a social-democratic consciousness) by itself. There's a huge difference between saying workers can't become anti-capitalist spontaneously and saying workers can't become communist spontaneously.
I'm aware of that.

The important sentence is this:

the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc.
He's saying workers can only develop "trade union consciousness" and goes on to define trade union consciousness as trying to make conditions under capitalism better. Trade union consciousness is not anti-capitalist consciousness. The former is simply the idea that workers should attempt to improve working/living conditions within capitalism while the latter entails the realization that workers should organize to end capitalism.

[KC]

He's saying workers can only develop "trade union consciousness" and goes on to define trade union consciousness as trying to make conditions under capitalism better. Trade union consciousness is not anti-capitalist consciousness. The former is simply the idea that workers should attempt to improve working/living conditions within capitalism while the latter entails the realization that workers should organize to end capitalism.

I think anti-capitalist sentiments necessarily come from the class struggle and that having anti-capitalist sentiments is completely different than having social-democratic consciousness. Workers could develop anti-capitalist sentiments by realizing that capitalism inevitably exploits them and that they always get a bad deal. However, what separates someone with anti-capitalist sentiments from someone with social-democratic consciousness is a knowledge of what destroying capitalism entails and what comes after it and how to get there (i.e. class consciousness). One can't gain a social-democratic consciousness through the class struggle because it isn't something that can be learned through participating in the struggle; one must learn communist theory in order to understand it and gain a social-democratic consciousness.

Also, I think your conception of what social-democratic consciousness means is incomplete. Wanting to "end capitalism" isn't what makes someone have a social-democratic consciousness; ending capitalism and replacing it with the dictatorship of the proletariat and eventually communism is. Basically what I'm saying is that this is a progressive anti-capitalist movement as opposed to reactionary anti-capitalist movements such as the Luddites.

Finally, I'm not sure of your previous experience in participating in the class struggle prior to becoming a communist, but did you not learn about communism and become a communist until after you read about it and talked to people who already were communists? In other words, did you learn it from participating in the class struggle or by reading about it and discussing the issue with communists? If it's the latter then your personal experience fits in line with what Lenin is saying.

[syndicat]

why give a shit what Lenin said? His theory and practice, that is, the strategy and program of the Bolsheviks, led directly to the emergence of a new mode of production, not capitalist, but coordinatorist, based on the empowerment of the class of top professionals and managers -- the planning elite, party appartchiks, generals, managers of major industrial facilities. The capitalists had been expropriated and allocation of resources in social production wasn't governed by the market but by the central planning apparatus, so that the interests of the coordinator ruling class were dominant. Lenin did not advocate participatory democracy or direct worker management of production, but always opposed that during the revolution. eventually the elite coordinator class apparatchiks figured out how to privartize the country's assets and convert themselves into a private-property owning, capitalist class.

[Tower of Bebel]

I steal a thread again.

I believe that communist parties must come up with an alternative to the workers to prevent rightist parties from growing (rightist parties grow mostly because of discontent amongst the workers). Everytime the left betrayes the workers (and thereby it doesn't form a valid alternative to liberalism for the workers), rightist parties grow (NSDAP after the betrayal of the SPD f.e.)How do libertarian communists come up with a strong alternative to rightist parties? Especially council communists because I'm far more interested in their view.

[Leo]

How do libertarian communists come up with a strong alternative to rightist parties? Especially council communists because I'm far more interested in their view.

Council communists are not libertarian communists.

Rightist parties are, in a revolutionary period, incredibly weak among the workers and in the streets.

In Germany, the Nazi Party grew out of the defeat of the working class, the betrayal of the KPD and the international wave of counter-revolution.

Council communists do not enter any fronts with the bourgeoisie, they make anti-war propaganda, they call for revolutionary defeatism, to sum up, they do what communists did in World War 1.

[Tower of Bebel]

What if there is no revolutionary period?

[Leo]

As I said, in those times council communists do not enter any fronts with the bourgeoisie, they make anti-war propaganda, they call for revolutionary defeatism, to sum up, they do what communists did in World War 1. They defend the interests of the working class as strongly as they are able to.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 07:14 am
In Germany, the Nazi Party grew out of the defeat of the working class, the betrayal of the KPD and the international wave of counter-revolution.
This is wrong. The wave of international counter-revolution started at the start of WW2. In a small period of 5/6 years fascism in Europe exterminated an entire generation of the best and most capabel revolutionary's history had ever seen. Now all there experience lies with them in the grave and the previous generations could not hold on to their convictions because of the problems in the USSR and the heavy anti-communist propaganda. In this, we are the first generation (post-sovietunion) who are again confronted with the uncensored face of capitalism. We start from scratch again. When the revolutionary movement will have grown big enough because of the socio-economic problems wich are inherent to the capitalist system, the dogs will be send at us again. Fascism is a form of government the capitalists need when their interests are at stake.

[Leo]

This is wrong. The wave of international counter-revolution started at the start of WW2. In a small period of 5/6 years fascism in Europe exterminated an entire generation of the best and most capabel revolutionary's history had ever seen.

I take it that you are a Stalinist?

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 01:18 pm

This is wrong. The wave of international counter-revolution started at the start of WW2. In a small period of 5/6 years fascism in Europe exterminated an entire generation of the best and most capabel revolutionary's history had ever seen.

I take it that you are a Stalinist?
I just try to understand something that's much bigger than me. Hell... I don't no the truth! I just give it my best shot. Maybe I'm a Stalinist but frankly I don't give a fuck about names and groups. It's just not important to me. I try to be a good revolutionary. That's all.

[KC]

This is wrong. The wave of international counter-revolution started at the start of WW2.

He was talking about counterrevolution Germany, not internationally or continentally.

[Springmeester]

In Germany, the Nazi Party grew out of the defeat of the working class, the betrayal of the KPD and the international wave of counter-revolution.

[Leo]

The workers revolutionary movement is international. The international wave of counter-revolution means the defeat of the working class internationally - this happened in most places, of course in not exactly same dates but in close dates. The fall of the Spartacist Revolution and KAPD in Germany, the fall of the workers councils in Italy followed by Mussolini's seizure of power, the defeat of Shanghai worker's uprising in China, the defeat of Sultanzade and the "pure" communists in Iran, the defeat of the revolutionary movement in Anatolia, the Red Scare in America, the murder of the old Bolshevik leaders in Russia, the liquidation of revolutionary left wings in Communist Parties and re-establishing unity with social democracy, fronts with the "democratic", "progressive" or "nationalist-revolutionary" wings of the bourgeoisie... All of these happened in a certain period - I can count more signs if you want me to. This was the international wave of counter revolution.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Shift
This is wrong. The wave of international counter-revolution started at the start of WW2.

This seems quite a strange idea to me. I think that it is quite obvious that the counter-revolution begins much earlier with the crushing of the revolutionary movement in Europe in the twenties. Surely that is what a counter-revolution is.

Devrim