Any Marxists here? - I've seen everything, but very few Marx

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In these forums there are bunches of Anarchists, Stalinists, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Trotskyists, Capies, everything.
But where are my fellow Marxist-Leninists who aren't afraid of of a real revolution of the people?

It's probably wrong for me to believe in every single word Marx said without knowing thouroughly the other socialist movements in question, but I don't, yet I still call myself a Marxist-Leninist. Where are the rest of you? We will unite!!

[nz revolution]

Im here comrade.

REVOLUTION... BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Iepilei]

right here.

[MJM]

Here too.

[Behind enemy lines]

Count me in

[nz revolution]

ok so that's 5, not enough yet for a revolution but maybe a band :P

[Lardlad95]

SCARED OF A REVOLUTION?

No I'm not scared I just don't feel people who think that Lenin did a great job should be trying to remake a country.

You know why? Cuz some jackass will take power and become aa dictator.

Are the People supposed to rule? Oh wait for that to happen things need to be equal.


Marx's concept was good but his predictions were all dead wrong.

After teh revolution Lenin didn't do another damn thing that worked

[redstarshining]

here, but prepare to get flamed by some people for not counting Stalinists to marxism-leninism ;)

[RedRevolutionary87]

marxist here...frankly im not afraid of a revolution, but....i highly condem lenin for starting a revolution in russia before the russian proleteriat was ready, and its something we need to watch out for.

[Umoja]

We should all smoke the same Weed.

[redstar2000]

"Why aren't there more Marxists on che-lives?'

Clip the "Leninist" tag; Leninism is more a kind of "third-cousin" to Marxism than the real thing. There's nothing about a "vanguard party of intellectuals" "leading" the working class to victory in the pages of Marx and Engels.

Curiously enough though, it's usually ONLY the Leninists-Trotskyists-Stalinists-Maoists who have EVER read ANY Marx at all. They may be, and usually are, POOR representatives of Marx's thought...but that's too often ALL THERE IS. :sad:

There are other reasons at work: it's one thing to be vaguely sympathetic to the "left" or to emotionally identify with a particular left "hero". It's a DIFFERENT thing to learn to THINK like a Marxist...and once you begin to do that, it never really goes away. There is a sense in which you become "hooked"--you can't really ever look at ANYTHING in the same way that "most" people do.

People are sometimes a little "scared" (for want of a better word) of that...it means or can mean a life very different from what was planned for you or from what you had planned for yourself. The life of a revolutionary is NOT a particularly easy one.

There is a "safe" version of Marxism...the academic version. In the university environment, everyone agrees that ideas are toys...NOT to be taken seriously. An "academic" "Marxist" is perfectly respectable and can even land a juicy consulting contract with his government's chief intelligence agency without criticism from his peers.

Finally, of course, the reason that there are not many Marxists at che-lives is because it is mostly a "young" board...it takes TIME to read enough and learn enough to be, in a functioning sense, a Marxist. A few will make that effort, most probably won't. And some, of course, will say that it's pointless, that "Marx was wrong", that we are all doomed to live head down in a barrel of shit until the sun burns out.

We'll see. :cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:58 am on Dec. 17, 2002)

[nz revolution]

I agree with most of the things you have said. I have read a bit, and its hard to look at things the same now, all I tend to do is criticise, my girlfriend thinks it's funny and frustrating at the same time.

I disagree however that Lenin was a poor representative.

The others I dont know enough about but I think I won't like Stalin had to say

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from nz revolution on 4:58 am on Dec. 17, 2002
I agree with most of the things you have said. I have read a bit, and its hard to look at things the same now, all I tend to do is criticise, my girlfriend thinks it's funny and frustrating at the same time.

I disagree however that Lenin was a poor representative.

The others I dont know enough about but I think I won't like Stalin had to say

Lenin wasn't the god of socialism many of you see him as. He did a lot of "bad things" during the course of the revolution.

[nz revolution]

best representative so far...

I suppose trying to create a socialist state is bad :P

[Behind enemy lines]

I believe Lenin contributed many things to the revolution.
At the same time I'm not afraid to admit that he did make mistakes. I call myself a marxist-leninist. I don't follow either blindley.
I call myself a marxist-leninist because that is where the core of my teachings come from. I don't believe that it matters to much extent what you 'call yourself'. More important is whether you have the 'revolutionary spirit', and that you can work with others who aren't (in this case) marxist-leninist to overthrow the capitalist system.To me,that is being a true revolutionary and that is what matters.

[Ian]

I'm a marxist and I think his predications are quite accurate, I mean he was the only person to predict globalisation, which he called universal interdependance of nations. The only thing he predicted inaccurately is the victory of the proletariat.

RedRev- That's quite a menshevist attitude, something uncharacteristic of you.

[nz revolution]

Precisely comrade BEL.

We are not dogmatists and will not make the same mistakes, as we are wise and will learn from the mistakes of others.

(Edited by nz revolution at 6:29 am on Dec. 18, 2002)

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from nz revolution on 7:14 am on Dec. 17, 2002
best representative so far...



That doesn't make him a good representative :)


Quote: from nz revolution on 7:14 am on Dec. 17, 2002

I suppose trying to create a socialist state is bad :P



No, but creating an Authoritarian nightmare is a bad thing.

I believe lenin had the capabilty to create a democractic socialist state but didn't. He was a good revolutionary, a real man of the people, and for that I admire him. He just bad some bad choices in creating a nation.

[JoYKiLLaH]

im more a marxist then anything else, i like a bit of everything, mostly marx tho, so yes, i am a marxist

[Behind enemy lines]

I've changed my mind, I'm not a marxist-leninist anymore.

I prefer to just be a person. A person who is greatly inspired to marx, engels and lenin's teachings, but still nevertheless just a person.

[man in the red suit]

I would consider myself to be a Marxist even thought there are many theories or philosophies in which I would side myself with a revisionist or a social democrat but from the books I have read, I would agree with Marx and Lenin 90% of the time. So I'm with you.

btw..on the subject of Marx's prediction of a proletarian revoution, I believe there was a second part to it. I have been reading a book called an analysis of soviet Marxism by Herbert Marcusse and it says that Marx predicted that if the the revolution were to fail then capitalism would level off and "immaturity" among the proletariat would present itself. by this meaning, the proletariat will not suffer the hardships of their exploitation as severely and thus causing them to forget or to not realize themselves as a "historical agent of the revolution."

This seems to be very true to today. No worker really realizes that he is a proletariat nowadays. But wait there is more.....

according to Marcusse, Marx said that this stability among the proletariat would not last and that capitalistm would eventually reach a stagnation and revert back to imperialism with other less developed capitalist countries.

to me this seems very similar of what is going on today with America and Iraq..etc..These predicitions have fortified my faith in Marxism.

I hope that I was not "talking bullshit" as guerillaradio would put it. has anyone else read about this in their studies?

(Edited by man in the red suit at 7:58 am on Dec. 21, 2002)

[nz revolution]

yeah what you are saying makes sense totally.

the workers are so demoralised, my right wing mate and I were having a yarn, and he asked what I like about Che so I said that he fought for the average man and that is what I intend to do. He said the average man doesnt give a shit, which is true these days, they have been fucked over so many times, they have lost their fighting spirit, hence the lack of strikes and so on...

[Behind enemy lines]

FUCK AZASRRRGGGGGGg, stop making differences between us. I'm the same as you.

[bolshevik1917]

What defines 'being a Marxist'??

I am a 'Trotskyist' but the starter of this thread seems to think this prevents me from 'being a Marxist'

I wonder if he would care to be more specific, I must also note that these so called 'Marxist Leninists' are usually just stalinists.

Also RedRev, what would you have done in Lenin's possition?

Of course socialism could not be established in a backwards feudal country like Russia, but that was the basis of the permanent revolution which Lenin and Trotsky fought for. They knew they needed a western revolution to survive.

[redstar2000]

Bolshevik1917, I think that what PREVENTS all of the varieties of Leninists--Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists--from being Marxists is that all of those folks are still hypnotized by the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the last century. They are STILL trying to "repeat" those events, even though conditions are VERY different now.

I recall a thread a few months ago when Cassius Clay--"stalinist"--admitted that he wouldn't advocate stalinism for the advanced capitalist countries NOW...but he thought a "Stalin" would do a lot of good for a country like India. But in that, he's an exception.

MOST of the contemporary Leninists (at least in the U.S.) still want to re-create a militarized vanguard party along the same lines as Lenin's, remain basically opposed to intra-party dissent and internal democracy, etc. I believe in England, right now, there is a "purge" going on in a Trotskyist party that every "stalinist" would immediately recognize.

The difference between a Marxist and all the Leninists is that a Marxist STILL holds to the idea that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves (which is why we have so much in common with the anarcho-syndicalists...we agree on THE fundamental concern). The Leninists ALL think that someone has to do it FOR the workers, has to LEAD and ultimately COMMAND the workers..."for their own good".

That's a BIG difference.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:31 pm on Dec. 25, 2002)

[bolshevik1917]

Im not a huge fan of the vangaurd, obviously it was needed in Russia with such a widespread working class (many of which couldnt read or write) unity of ideas was hard to find.

In bourgoise democratic countries like the US, the UK and western Europe we have access to books, knowledge, and (to a certain extent) freedom of speech. This lessens the need for 'leaders' although I still beleive in them, as long as they are experienced, willing to discuss - and elected!

Lenin is black marked by the infamous 'workers can only develop trade union consciousness' quote, many do not know that he later on admitted he was mistaken here.

In all, if we know where we are going and what we are out to acheive then the less need there is to rely on others. We learn from the past and move on (its those who alter the past that makes me angry)

And I have no doubts over my claim to be a Marxist

[Miguel]

Buenas compadres, fellow marxist and other socialists.
To reply this "revolution will not work" - thing, I agree that a revolution has its risks, it is potentially dangerous to expose the post of power, but it is a necessary risk and even more important, its something unevitable. As Karl Marx said: "The capitalist soceity can´t survive, it is doomed to fail in its struggle and will colapse" and its when the soceity goes down that a strong socialistic party must araise and take power, not necessarely like in Russia or China but it must be firm in its ideas, then when it has setteld, the proletarian soceity can establish itself and a true (that´s without dictators or represive states) communist state can take its place in the peoples democracy.

[redstar2000]

"Lenin is black marked by the infamous 'workers can only develop trade union consciousness' quote, many do not know that he later on admitted he was mistaken here."

Bolshevik1917, I'm one of the "many" on this one. It's been quite a while since I read Lenin extensively, but at one time I read ALL of the collected works from 1918 to 1921 (for a paper I was writing; it's three or four substantial but not huge books). NOWHERE can I recall that Lenin EVER repudiated his "infamous quote" from What Is To Be Done.

Human memory is not all that reliable and mine is no better than anyone else's...so I'll ask you to provide a reference. Tell me where I can find Lenin admitting that he was mistaken.

Beyond this particular difference between Marxists and Leninists, there is also the Leninist "militarized" conception of a communist party; the communist party as the "general staff" of the revolutionary working class.

What this attitude created in real parties was a "climate of obedience"; a value-system in which the definition of a good communist was the SAME as the definition of a "good German"---one who "carries out his orders". I'm not making this up; if you read any of the numerous memoirs of 20th century communists, this theme pops up over and over again.

But HOW can we convince people to make revolution if we are NOT rebellious (disobedient) OURSELVES? At best, the message of 20th century Leninism was: "follow us communists; we will be more benevolent masters than the ones you have now."

Marx and Engels thought otherwise: a communist society is one without any masters at all.

:cool:

[Socialist Pig]

:cool:

You're going to get lung cancer comrade :)

[bolshevik1917]

I read about Lenin reputading the quote in a few different sources, i'll have a look over some stuff so give me a few days. Right now all I have is a paragraph from 'Lenin and Trotsky' by Ted Grant..

"Insofar as Monty Johnstone attempts to establish differences, he falls far short of the mark. With astounding self-assurance he takes Trotsky to task for his criticism of the idea, expressed in Lenin's What is to be Done?, that the working class, left to itself, was only capable of producing "a trade union consciousness", i.e. consciousness of the need to struggle for economic demands under capitalism. Monty Johnstone like the Communist Party leaders is apparently unaware that Lenin himself later repudiated this early formulation, which was an exaggeration that arose from his polemic against the Economists, a tendency which wished to confine the workers struggle to the level of purely economic demands. Referring to this Lenin explained that "the Economists bent the stick one way. In order to straighten the stick it was necessary to bend it the other way." Lenin was far from the view, found amongst the Stalinists, that the working class consists of so much putty to be moulded by the "intellectual" leadership as it pleases."

As ive said, the situation in a semi-feudal country is/was different to the situation in a modern day capitalist country. The personal conclusion I draw from this is 'the more educated and class consciuous the working class are, the less need there is for a vangaurd'

Lenin was constantly encouraging the readings of Marx and Engels to working class people, he did not see it as 'prescious knowledge' that only he and the 'vangaurd' should be allowed access too. Had more people studied Marx the less chance there was of idiots like Stalin rising to such possitions!

[bluerev002]

im still learning a bit, ive read "the communist manifesto" and i am going to start "das kapital" after im done with "guerrilla warfare."

so, i guess im a Marxist in the making ?

[peaccenicked]

One of the things that we can learn from the cuban revolution was not to be dogmatic. In the early years
the goal was mostly democratic . I would argue that it was american paranoia that pushed Castro into the arms of the russians. This spawned a peculiar brand of
what was called ''socialism'' but in reality was a relatively pro-working class welfare state. Socialism is about lifting the standards of life for the working class so much that the most modern welfare states would look like forms of barbarism. We have the nascent economic conditions for socialism but the capitalists have most of the worlds resources at their disposal and are leaving anything unprofitable to waste.
A revolution in the West is the best thing that could happen to the third world as they are prisoners to market forces in more senses than one.
The thing is that revolutionary Socialists only get about 5% of the vote. It is less rationale to be afraid of the revolution than to fear that the revolution is not going to happen in our life time.
However the big monsters are known to fall and all of the big powers that man has ever known has lasted forever.
There are signs that things can shift pretty rapidly. The rout of the Tories in England is still an ongoing process but it is a pleasure to see.
Anti imperialist forces are not always conscious of themselves and the polarisation in our world is becoming more sharply one between care and cash.
Even the church seems to be sensing this.

Marx said he was not a marxist, However Marx contributed to humanistic thought. Dimitrov called Marxism the highest form of humanism.

Scientific socialism, revolutionary humanism.

These words are ok and usable but a real step forward for humanity which is mostly working class in any sphere but especially the political is of a more pressing
nature.
Let us not get too pedantic.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:53 am on Dec. 27, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:13 am on Dec. 28, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Many of you called yourself marxists, some Marxist- Leninists, actually there is no difference between two definitions. I still think that the lack of political education, in the case of the most of you, is the main problem, which has to be successfully passed through the reading of more and more literature. (Marx, Engels, Lenin)
Revolutionary moods are good, but emotions have to stand on the second place.

[Pete]

"the rout of the tories in England"

That sort of reminds me how Kim Cambell lead the Canadian Progressive Conservatives from a majority government to something like 3 seats in one election.

I have read the Communist Manifesto, numerous fiction books, listened to Rage Against the Machine (Selftitled mostly), and my anachro-capitalist teacher talk. I don't believe any of these really pulled me 'left' so much that I could claim to be an 'ist' of one of them. But my friend Jenn taught me alot before she turned anachro-capitalist on me too. Maybe I'm a Jennist. But to name the biggest well know influence would be Zach de la Rocha. He studied Geuvera right? Geuvera was a 'good marxist' in Castro's opinion? So where does this put me in the catergorizing of things by the name of our greatest influence?