For the left-communists

[Rawthentic]

I have a question that I have been pondering on lately.

Why do left-communists regard tendencies such as Stalinism (obvious), Leninism and Maoism as variants of left-capitalism?

I'm not saying I disagree, I would just like an explanation. Thanks.

[Leo]

Why do left-communists regard tendencies such as Stalinism (obvious), Leninism and Maoism as variants of left-capitalism?

For Stalinism, there are two reasons: the first one is historical, the second one is related to observations. Left communists see worldwide Stalinism as the political apparatus of the counter revolution in Russia made by the bureaucratic-bourgeoisie which raised in the Bolshevik Party. Left communists regard Stalin's USSR as an imperialist power and they regard the second world war as an imperialist war. Maoism is regarded as an offspring of the Stalinist counter-revolution, an ideology built on the defeat of the revolutionary proletarian movement in China. The problem of Trotskyism is the support given by Trotskyists to different capitalist and imperialist powers throughout their history. As for Leninism, council communists see it as the ideology of the Russian bourgeoisie, Bordigists think that they are Leninists themselves and mainstream left communists say that the label "Leninism" is a product of the Stalinist counter revolution, that it doesn't exist and that Lenin was a sincere revolutionary who made serious mistakes and whose mistakes should be carefully examined instead of turning him into god or devil.

[More Fire for the People]

First it is necessary to understand the historical figures behind such ideologies as Maoism, Stalinism, and Leninism.

I do not consider Lenin as anything other than the most sincere of revolutionaries but one caught up in a deadly whirlwind of populism and agrarianism. Lenin had a very sincere desire to liberate the oppressed workers and peasants of Russia. When the Social Democrats of Russia wanted to abandon dialectical, materialists, and moreover revolutionary Marxism he and the Bolsheviks argued for revolution. Even in exile he kept track of the news from Russia, participated in communist rallies, and developed a clear plan of organisation under the Tsarist police state.

However, when the Bolsheviks came to power he made a severe error in his support of land redistribution and the right of nations to self-determination. Without such policies the peasants, bitter perhaps at the loss of a chance to take the landlord’s old property, would nonetheless be organized into agricultural collectives operating with socialized means of production. Instead land was redistributed creating a sect of individualists opposed to socialization of agricultural production and the power of landlords was reinforced. It would take the iron fist of Stalin to undo the damage but Stalin’s rule, of course, was the rule of a state-bourgeoisie and not a party of the working class.

The policy of national self-determination led to the self-determination of the local bourgeoisie. The ‘self-determined’ nations served as a rallying ground for White intervention and a deadlier civil war.

And then there was Kronstadt. Lenin disagreed with Trotsky’s view of the uprising as ‘petty-bourgeois’. Lenin saw the Kronstadt uprising as a genuinely proletarian movement and the suppression of the movement devastated him.

And yet after all of this Lenin still wanted to apply the policies adopted by the Bolsheviks in the course of the disastrous Russian Revolution to the conditions of Western Europe.

Lenin as the theoretician of Russian Marxism did not represent a wing of left capitalism but his subsequent followers do. The Leninists & Stalinists would have us work within parliament or otherwise mediate with the civil society of the bourgeoisie, work within reactionary trade unions that have long since become agents of the bourgeoisie, and would have a party of strong-leaders and obedient masses regardless of the potential err and opportunism of the leaders, regardless of the communist outlook and consciousness of the masses. They represent in themselves a dull butter knife in the battle against the armoured tanks of the bourgeoisie.

While case of Stalin is clear the case of Mao represents something radically different. After the crushing of industrial organisations, unions, workers committees, and the communist party by the bourgeois forces of the Kuomintang in China Mao sought to abandon the urban working class in favour of a countryside struggle of the peasant against the landlord. The Chinese Revolution was won by peasants and peasants alone. The urban working class was subject to the chaos of a civil war between peasants and the bourgeoisie allied with the landlords all in the midst of occupation by a ruthless foreign bourgeoisie. It wasn’t until the Cultural Revolution that the working class was able to speak in its own voice and even then the ‘Maoists’ crushed it.

I think here it becomes apparent that the Leninists, the Stalinists, and the Maoists represent ideological factions of the bourgeoisie in practice despite their revolutionary insights into the movement of the proletariat. The Leninists, Stalinists, and Maoists are not the left wing of capitalism because of their impotence and idol worship of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao but because as soon as their respective parties gain power they lose their integrity as communists. Instead of being revolutionary theories for the workers and peasants they become tools in the subordination of the proletariat by the state-bourgeoisie. Their contradictions from within — through their maladapted policies — and from without — through their misunderstanding of Marxist theory — the ideologies of the Leninists, the Stalinists, and the Maoists become ideologies of the state-bourgeoisie.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks a lot comrades. This I agree with, especially coming from the fact that Stalin ruled a capitalist nation, as did Mao.

We see many "communist" parties talking about "comrade" Stalin and all that crap, and then proceed to talk about proletarian revolution and "liberation." Seems hypocritical to me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not a left-communist, and I consider myself to be a genuine "Leninist," separate from the "Marxist-Leninists," Maoists, and "Bolshevik-Leninists" (Trots).

Trots are most notorious for their dialectics-based sectarianism and absurd notion of "permanent revolution," while Maoists are today's pro-peasant Narodniks (even in classical terrorist activities, but not "terrorist" in the al-Qaeda sense). "Marxist-Leninists" are notorious for not-so-revolutionary activity (including "popular fronts"), following Stalin's "great" example before the Bolshevik revolution. :)

One area where I will still agree with STALIN though is his concept that labour unions are irrevocably reactionary even after the socialist revolution (though that is borrowing left-communist stuff). Their functions should be performed by factory/workplace/workers' committees. Afterwards, the labour unions, with the redundancy of functions, have two choices: disappear or Party subordination. :)



MY QUESTION FOR LEFT-COMMUNISTS: Since Lenin and Kautsky were the first Marxists to suggest the idea of the DOTP / revolutionary stamocap as its own separate stage of history (like mercantilism, mind you), do you share their idea that the DOTP / revolutionary stamocap will be a protracted stage? If so, the vanguard party will be around in its "authoritarian" role for a LONG time. :)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:19 pm
I'm not a left-communist, and I consider myself to be a genuine "Leninist," separate from the "Marxist-Leninists," Maoists, and "Bolshevik-Leninists" (Trots).

Trots are most notorious for their dialectics-based sectarianism, while Maoists are today's pro-peasant Narodniks (even in classical terrorist activities, but not "terrorist" in the al-Qaeda sense). "Marxist-Leninists" are notorious for not-so-revolutionary activity (including "popular fronts"), following Stalin's "great" example before the Bolshevik revolution. :)



One area where I will still agree with STALIN though is his concept that labour unions are irrevocably reactionary even after the socialist revolution (though that is borrowing left-communist stuff).
I'm not disagreeing on the sectarianism of many Trot groups, but what makes it "dialectical-based"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ask Rosa Lichtenstein and read her webpages. :)

[Hit The North]

Sorry, comrade, I'm asking you. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 08:44 pm
Sorry, comrade, I'm asking you. :)
^^^ Some stupid idea that history is on the side of every single Trot "theorist" who decides to break off from some ideologically diluted Trot group to form another, because such conflict leads to a revolution (synthesis) in favour of said Trot "theorist." It reaks of today's Protestant movements, only less popular.

[Hit The North]

That doesn't sound like an argument restricted to only Trots. Any charlatan can use a screwed-up interpretation of dialectics to justify their march into obscurity.

Conversely, many comrades have made the same journey through their rejection of dialectics.

See Rosa's website for details ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The real ticket question to be asked here is: would Lenin have veered into the "infantile disorder" if he here alive today?

I just read the thread "Luxemburg on unions," Lenin's remarks in Left-Wing Communism, and a remark regarding Stalin's anti-union stance, but now that labour unions are squat, what is to be done?

If a revolution occurs, is Stalin right in saying that the party must control the irredeemably opportunistic unions?

[Rawthentic]

Any more contributions on the actual thread?

[Rawthentic]

Take for example, the RCP.

They are "Marxist"- Leninist-Maoist. What on them?

[The Grey Blur]

The problem of Trotskyism is the support given by Trotskyists to different capitalist and imperialist powers throughout their history
Says the person who does not support the liberation of oppressed nationalities from Imperialism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 06:40 pm

The problem of Trotskyism is the support given by Trotskyists to different capitalist and imperialist powers throughout their history
Says the person who does not support the liberation of oppressed nationalities from Imperialism.
I think that what you call 'support[ing] the liberation of oppressed nationalities from Imperialism' is exactly what he means when he says 'he support given by Trotskyists to different capitalist and imperialist powers throughout their history'. You have obviously completly failed to understand his point.

Devrim

[More Fire for the People]

Permanent Revolution, would you like to clarify what constitute an oppressed 'nationality'? Because apparently for Lenin and his followers it constituted an oppressed nation of all different classes. What use is advocating the liberation of oppressed nationalities if it acts a springboard for the bourgeoisie?

The problem with Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. is that they can't conceive of colonialism and neo-colonialism in class terms. For them there is no differentiation between the colonized native intellectual, the colonized native petty-bourgeoisie, the colonized native bourgeoisie, the colonized native working class, and the colonized native peasantry.

[Rawthentic]

Take for example, the RCP.

They are "Marxist"- Leninist-Maoist. What on them?

So, can anyone respond? HA, Leo, Devrim?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

While case of Stalin is clear the case of Mao represents something radically different. After the crushing of industrial organisations, unions, workers committees, and the communist party by the bourgeois forces of the Kuomintang in China Mao sought to abandon the urban working class in favour of a countryside struggle of the peasant against the landlord. The Chinese Revolution was won by peasants and peasants alone. The urban working class was subject to the chaos of a civil war between peasants and the bourgeoisie allied with the landlords all in the midst of occupation by a ruthless foreign bourgeoisie. It wasn’t until the Cultural Revolution that the working class was able to speak in its own voice and even then the ‘Maoists’ crushed it.

oh so this is where HVL has been plagarizing from in other debates...

this is wrong on so many fucking levels. First the rural proletariat had the most power in the liberated territories of the people's war and would continue to throughout it and as the PRC was founded. Second, Lenin wasn't "devastated" and didn't differ with trotsky's view on it. He saw the objective truth as did trotsky. The worker's voice wasn't crushed during the cultural revolution. That happened during the coup d'etat by the Xioping revisionists who the cultural revolution had been fighting.


Take for example, the RCP.

They are "Marxist"- Leninist-Maoist. What on them?

okay um how the fuck aren't we marxist? The reason why you're not going to get a sufficient answer is because its bullshit.

[Rawthentic]

I'm actually asking for what they think.

And I agree with the left-communist analysis of state-capitalism.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 22, 2007 09:28 pm
The problem with Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. is that they can't conceive of colonialism and neo-colonialism in class terms. For them there is no differentiation between the colonized native intellectual, the colonized native petty-bourgeoisie, the colonized native bourgeoisie, the colonized native working class, and the colonized native peasantry.
Wow another pile of shite!

No, that is simply nonscense. Of course Leninists recognise the different classes invovled in national liberation movements. The working class must take part in any movement as an organised working class not sacrafice its class position for the sake of any other class. The theory of the pernament revolution is partly based upon the need to turn these national liberation movements into socialist ones, we need to go beyond just national liberation.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 22, 2007 09:28 pm
Permanent Revolution, would you like to clarify what constitute an oppressed 'nationality'? Because apparently for Lenin and his followers it constituted an oppressed nation of all different classes. What use is advocating the liberation of oppressed nationalities if it acts a springboard for the bourgeoisie?

The problem with Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. is that they can't conceive of colonialism and neo-colonialism in class terms. For them there is no differentiation between the colonized native intellectual, the colonized native petty-bourgeoisie, the colonized native bourgeoisie, the colonized native working class, and the colonized native peasantry.
Read my username.

And an oppressed nationality is one forcefully subjugated by Imperialism/Colonialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 22, 2007 10:14 pm
Of course Leninists recognise the different classes involved in national liberation movements. The working class must take part in any movement as an organised working class not sacrifice its class position for the sake of any other class. The theory of the pernament revolution is partly based upon the need to turn these national liberation movements into socialist ones, we need to go beyond just national liberation.
Correction: "Of course Leninists AND TROTSKYISTS recognize... TROTSKY's theory of permanent 'let's skip capitalist development' revolution..."

My opinion: Most national-liberation movements occur in countries which do NOT have the material conditions for even monopoly capitalism, let alone a proper socialist revolution, DOTP-controlled revolutionary stamocap, and socialism themselves. You are right in saying that going beyond national liberation is needed, but the need to change national-liberation movements is the need to turn them into revolutionary-democratic ones.

The beauty with revolutionary-democratic tasks is that they can be carried out either right after the immediate post-feudal years, or just before a country's economic system becomes one of monopoly capitalism.

[Devrim]

stamocap

What does this word mean?

Devrim

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by devrimankara+May 23, 2007 11:29 am--> (devrimankara @ May 23, 2007 11:29 am)
stamocap

What does this word mean?

Devrim [/b]
State Monopoly Capitalism if I am not mistaken.

I get that from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65105&st=0) and this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240).


Hammer

My opinion: Most national-liberation movements occur in countries which do NOT have the material conditions for even monopoly capitalism, let alone a proper socialist revolution, DOTP-controlled revolutionary stamocap, and socialism themselves. You are right in saying that going beyond national liberation is needed, but the need to change national-liberation movements is the need to turn them into revolutionary-democratic ones.


You are wrong.

National liberation movements do not necessarily occur in feudal or colonial countries.

My examples would be the struggle for self determination of Tamils in Srilanka. Srilanka is fully a capitalist country not a feudal or semi-feudal one. and the struggle for self determination by the Tribal/non Hindi speaking people of North Eastern States(Assam,Nagaland etc). India is no way a feudal country in property relation despite propaganda of Maoists.


The beauty with revolutionary-democratic tasks is that they can be carried out either right after the immediate post-feudal years, or just before a country's economic system becomes one of monopoly capitalism.

My point is any revolution carried in any country will be a Workers one. Alll most all democratic tasks have been carried out by the Capitalists themselves (strictly speaking in terms of India where I live) and workers should just make sure that those tasks reach all sections of the people who needs it and carry out socialist tasks as soon as possible.

Of course Socialism cannot sustain long enough in one country alone.