the state? [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

6th July 2007, 10:10

Originally posted by bombeverything+July 05, 2007 10:25 pm--> (bombeverything @ July 05, 2007 10:25 pm) Then why was economic and political power consolidated after the civil war was over? [/b]
Ermm, because that was the only time it could be completely consolidated? That doesn't mean the material level of the nation didn't change during the civil war though. It didn't remain static, it fell drastically, and by "material level" I mean the economic level of production, infrastructure etc.

It played a large role, but I wouldn't argue that this was the sole factor. It does not justify the repression, revertion to capitalism, and general consolidation of power by the Bolsheviks during this period. Their politics played a role in the final outcome of the Soviet Union. It wasn't just "Stalin".

Well, general consolidation of power by the Bolsheviks was a logical step since practically every other political party in the country was opposed to the socialist revolution (with exception of the left-Socialist Revolutionaries, who later joined the Bolsheviks if I recall correctly), if they didn't consolidate power the revolution would've stayed bourgeois-democratic, and would've been led by Kerensky, an equivalent of Kautsky in Germany.

I'm sure that's not what you wanted, so please think of the alternatives before you criticize the actual outcome.

The working class does not need to be led, or to have "democracy" imposed on them from above.

Politicians, political parties and leaders give expression to class sentiment through their work in the state machinery. The Bolsheviks were the representatives of the proletarian class, and most of them were proletarians themselves, they were merely the most advanced section of it in terms of consciousness.

So you're wrong, the working class does need to be led, by its most advanced section.

TAT

Not according to history.

Yes but it is according to theory, which is more important than history because history is bound by circumstances out of the control of theory. For example anarchist theory was never completely implemented in Spain or in other nations where it should've been done, I do not criticize the anarchists for that because it would be pointless, I criticize their theory instead.

That type of state requires a certain level of material prosperity and stability in a nation, which is something the USSR did not have, if it was to be implemented the counter-revolution would've been succesful not in a matter of years but days.

Pawn Power

6th July 2007, 13:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:07 am
As if a small idealogical group can build a state independently from society as a whole.

It happeneds all the time. Look at the states we got today!

Led Zeppelin

6th July 2007, 14:04

Uh, not really, they formed their states based on the consent of the vast majority of the masses in society (from all classes).

Do you think that if the majority didn't consent any state would be able to function at all?

That's unlikely, especially in a bourgeois democracy.

Pawn Power

6th July 2007, 21:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:04 am
Uh, not really, they formed their states based on the consent of the vast majority of the masses in society (from all classes).

Do you think that if the majority didn't consent any state would be able to function at all?

That's unlikely, especially in a bourgeois democracy.
Certainly their is critiqual mass of the populace that must "comply" or "submit," but that does not presuppose ideaological unity. To be sure, consistantly it is the case that the masses do then assume the dominant ideology, though I would still be hesitant to label them with that same ideology. Phiysical force and state terror have played significant roles in forming more widespread compliance. That is not to say that sociopolitical beliefs between the masses and the rulling class are polar oppoisits but it also doesn't imply that they are one in the same.

CornetJoyce

6th July 2007, 22:32

Originally posted by Leninism+July 06, 2007 09:10 am--> (Leninism @ July 06, 2007 09:10 am)

TAT

Not according to history.

Yes but it is according to theory, which is more important than history because history is bound by circumstances out of the control of theory.
[/b]

All power to the theoretical soviets!

For example anarchist theory was never completely implemented in Spain or in other nations where it should've been done, I do not criticize the anarchists for that because it would be pointless, I criticize their theory instead.

But leninism was implemented so we can see it in operation in the real world.

RedJacobin

6th July 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:56 pm
in the communist manifesto it says that all powers are to be givin to the "state" but in a communist society isnt it suppose to be stateless?
This is the passage from the Manifesto:

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Marx is describing the means to get to a communist society, not communist society itself, which is indeed stateless and classless.

Rawthentic

7th July 2007, 01:03

fats, what I might add to that is where he came to the correct conclusion that the proletariat had to destroy the capitalist and create their own to protect their revolution.

bombeverything

7th July 2007, 01:17

Ermm, because that was the only time it could be completely consolidated? That doesn't mean the material level of the nation didn't change during the civil war though. It didn't remain static, it fell drastically, and by "material level" I mean the economic level of production, infrastructure etc.

Yeah obviously I get what your saying but I thought the Leninist argument tended was that the repression was necessary due to the constraints of the civil war, and once it was over, the economy would recover, and such policies would no longer be necessary? As far as I am aware this didn't happen.

Well, general consolidation of power by the Bolsheviks was a logical step since practically every other political party in the country was opposed to the socialist revolution (with exception of the left-Socialist Revolutionaries, who later joined the Bolsheviks if I recall correctly), if they didn't consolidate power the revolution would've stayed bourgeois-democratic, and would've been led by Kerensky, an equivalent of Kautsky in Germany.

The ones who were not executed joined the Bolshevik Party, because they had no other choice. It was clear that the working class were capable of taking power into their own hands, as the events in February had shown. They didn't need the Bosheviks to protect them from Kerensky.

Politicians, political parties and leaders give expression to class sentiment through their work in the state machinery. The Bolsheviks were the representatives of the proletarian class, and most of them were proletarians themselves, they were merely the most advanced section of it in terms of consciousness.

They were no longer proletarians when they joined the party. Instead they became part of a managerial class, above and seperate from the working class itself. Quite to the contrary, the party always lagged behind the masses in regards to their radicalism and willingness to revolt, and if anything I would say that the actions of the party, and the concentration of political power actually held back the revolution, rather than "leading it".

dannthraxxx

7th July 2007, 01:47

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 07, 2007 12:03 am
fats, what I might add to that is where he came to the correct conclusion that the proletariat had to destroy the capitalist and create their own to protect their revolution.
this is what i thought. i was getting confused for a second there.

The Feral Underclass

9th July 2007, 11:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:10 am
Yes but it is according to theory
The theory has been falsified.

which is more important than history because history is bound by circumstances out of the control of theory.

To ignore historical experience to the degree that Leninists have done is insanity.

ComradeR

9th July 2007, 13:17

Yeah obviously I get what your saying but I thought the Leninist argument tended was that the repression was necessary due to the constraints of the civil war, and once it was over, the economy would recover, and such policies would no longer be necessary? As far as I am aware this didn't happen.
The damage done by the war didn't vanish overnight just because the shooting stopped. Once the economy and infrastructure had recovered then it would no longer be necessary, but thanks to people like Stalin it never did stop.

To ignore historical experience to the degree that Leninists have done is insanity.
The same can be said of Anarchists.

The Feral Underclass

9th July 2007, 15:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:17 pm

To ignore historical experience to the degree that Leninists have done is insanity.
The same can be said of Anarchists.
Yeah, you could say it to anarchists but it wouldn't make very much sense if you did.

Rawthentic

9th July 2007, 15:46

The theory has been falsified.
No it hasn't. You would probably have a hard time describing what "Leninism" really is.

The Feral Underclass

9th July 2007, 18:45

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 09, 2007 03:46 pm

The theory has been falsified.
No it hasn't. You would probably have a hard time describing what "Leninism" really is.
Erm, yes it has and no I wouldn't.

co-op

9th July 2007, 18:55

If we look at Leninism and the fate of the USSR in general it is my opinion that, those who uphold that the working class require to be led, are cherry-picking soviet history and following failed, discredited dogma. Where did the this new ruling class lead the revolution? The answer is: to the elimination of any working-class control and ultimately to advanced capitalism.

In retrospect, with the knowledge that the Soviet Union ended in the establishment of advanced capitalism, a blind man can see that the key to this failure is the fact that the producers were just led by a different regime and were denied control by those who propose to 'lead' the working-class to freedom. Workers must oppose anyone who would seek to lead them and make and control the revolution themselves. That is where we have seen some success, (Spain) and is the key to future success.

No ruling-class throughout history has ever given up its power. Whether they believe they have the traditional right to rule, or are part of a transitional vanguard seemingly operating in the interests of the working-class, niether should be considered legitimate or acceptable by workers engaged in revolution or otherwise.

Rawthentic

10th July 2007, 02:00

Erm, yes it has and no I wouldn't.
Then please go ahead and explain what your "Leninism" is and how it has failed.

syndicat

10th July 2007, 03:21

The Bolsheviks didn't advocate assemblies as the governing base institution. That's because, as Sam Farber points out in "Before Stalinism," they didn't advocate participatory democracy. Rather, their concept of "proletarian power" was electing leaders to run things.

historically the emphasis on assemblies was an anarchist contribution to radical left politics. it is bound up with the whole idea of self-management. traditionally workers' self-management was derided by Leninists as leading to market competition between enterprises -- part of their argument for state ownership and central planning.

Similarly, the soviets that were built by the Mensheviks and later taken over by the Bolsheviks in the 1917 Russian revolution were top-down bodies, in which power was concentrated, not in the plenaries of the delegates, but in the executive.

The Bolshevik representative in Italy in 1918-20 told the socialists that the Turin workers councils were really more akin to the factory commitees in the Russian revolution which had been "superceded" by the Soviet state. This is evidence against the idea that workers councils in the industries were looked at positively by the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks immediately instituted a system of centralized state economic planning. This was a concept of socialism that had been popular in the pre-World War I social-democracy. For example, a Marxist writer in the American Socialist Party before World War I was John Spargo. in 1911 Spargo wrote a book called the "Common Sense of Socialiism." this book describes socialism as basically a centrally planned state run economy. the working class would have control, Fargo claimed, beause a "workers party" would control the state. this was basically the same kind of thinking that characterized Bolshevik pronouncements in the months and years after Oct 1917.

this idea of state management and central planning was long considered a central part of Leninism. for example, it is part of the very definition of socialism in the little book "An Introduction to Socialism" by Huberman and Sweezy, written in the '50s. this was used as a text by lots of Leninist groups back in the '60s.

The Feral Underclass

10th July 2007, 11:39

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 10, 2007 02:00 am

Erm, yes it has and no I wouldn't.
Then please go ahead and explain what your "Leninism" is and how it has failed.
Read 'State and Revolution' and then a history book.

Hit The North

10th July 2007, 13:45

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 09, 2007 11:18 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 09, 2007 11:18 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 10:10 am
Yes but it is according to theory
The theory has been falsified.

which is more important than history because history is bound by circumstances out of the control of theory.

To ignore historical experience to the degree that Leninists have done is insanity.[/b]
Leninists don't ignore history but neither do they create general laws from specific historical situations as you've done by arguing that the theory has been falsified (presumably for all time?) by the specific conditions of post-revolutionary Russia.

We need to see things dialectically - and by that, I mean the interaction between objective conditions and human will. The general theoretical underpinnings of action (Lenin's State & Revolution, for instance) and the more localised political positions (attitudes towards NEP, for instance) cannot be applied in a realm of freedom where will imposes itself directly upon the objective situation.

Every social theory contains a strong normative dimension. In State & Revolution, Lenin is drawing out an ideal model of a proletarian state. His practical political life was an attempt to approximate that model as far as possible, given the severely limiting circumstances which imposed themselves.

Rawthentic

10th July 2007, 16:01

Read 'State and Revolution' and then a history book.

Ha, funny boy. State and Revolution has by no means been falsified, as CZ said. A worker's state (socialism, working people's republic) is still necessary to safeguard the revolution and oversee the elimination of class antagonisms. Its be cool to think that communism can be created overnight, but it just can't.

co-op

10th July 2007, 17:35

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 10, 2007 03:01 pm

Read 'State and Revolution' and then a history book.

Ha, funny boy. State and Revolution has by no means been falsified, as CZ said. A worker's state (socialism, working people's republic) is still necessary to safeguard the revolution and oversee the elimination of class antagonisms. Its be cool to think that communism can be created overnight, but it just can't.
It is true that communism cannot be installed overnight. Working class people must fight to destroy state, class and inequality. What is also true is that under the Leninist paradigm, state, class and inequality will continue under a different structure.

gilhyle

10th July 2007, 18:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:21 am
The Bolsheviks didn't advocate assemblies as the governing base institution. That's because, as Sam Farber points out in "Before Stalinism," they didn't advocate participatory democracy. Rather, their concept of "proletarian power" was electing leaders to run things.

"...our party must devote itself to promoting the world-wide development of this new proletarian democracy. We must do our utmost to secure that the widest strata of the proletarians and the poor peasants shall participate to the utmost of their power in the work of the soviets. ,,,,,,The task of our party consists in the systematic and gradual attraction of the backward strata to participate in the general work of administration." Section 47 The ABC of Communism Bukharin and Preobrazhensky

"In the Soviet Republic, the masses do not merely elect, but they participate in the work of admnistration, for soviets and the other organisations of the working masses are administrative bodies" Section 51 Ibid

" Our party has to realize proletarian democracy to a greater and ever greater extent; to bring about an increasingly close contact between delegates or elected persons (those deputed to perform various tasks) and the masess; to induce workers to participate more and more effectively in the work of administration; finally to ensure that millions of eyes shall watch the delegates and control their work" Ibid

syndicat

10th July 2007, 19:45

gilhyle, nothing in any of your quotes advocates particiipatory democracy or the rule of the base assemblies. the first quote talks about participation in the soviets. the soviets were not base assemblies but elected bodies of delegates. moreover, the Mensheviks and SRs, who created the big city soviets, structured them with the power concentrated in the executive committees. the plenary sessions were converted into rubber stamps. this is described in Pete Rachleff's "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution".

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm

towards end of 1917 and early 1918 this was made worse thru concentration of power into even smaller body called the Presidium. e.g. the Moscow Soviet's Presidium had only 7 members. the Bolsheviks did not disagree with the Mensheviks in terms of thinking of "proletarian democracy" solely in terms of leaders being elected to run things. That's why the Bolsheviks didn't change the structure of the highly centralized unions or soviets when they gained control of them in the later part of 1917.

when the quote talks about "participation in administration", this refers to party stalwarts being drawn into the administrative hierarchies. "participation" here does not refer to decision-making by base assemblies of workers or residents in neighbordhoods.

the idea of "close contact" between the elected leaders and the masses also does not imply that the masses actually make the decisions.

The Feral Underclass

10th July 2007, 22:16

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 01:45 pm
Leninists don't ignore history but neither do they create general laws from specific historical situations as you've done by arguing that the theory has been falsified (presumably for all time?) by the specific conditions of post-revolutionary Russia.

We need to see things dialectically - and by that, I mean the interaction between objective conditions and human will. The general theoretical underpinnings of action (Lenin's State & Revolution, for instance) and the more localised political positions (attitudes towards NEP, for instance) cannot be applied in a realm of freedom where will imposes itself directly upon the objective situation.

Every social theory contains a strong normative dimension. In State & Revolution, Lenin is drawing out an ideal model of a proletarian state. His practical political life was an attempt to approximate that model as far as possible, given the severely limiting circumstances which imposed themselves.
Not just by post-revolutionary Russia but by it's many failed attempts. Although I accept that different material conditions must be taken into consideration depending on situations, what we have seen are general conclusions regardless of the variations.

The ultimate conclusion is that the state (i.e. the centralisation of political power) can only be destroyed through it's violent overthrow. The reason for this is - shown through empirical evidence - the state perpetuates itself; it is specifically designed to do just that. The state is a self-serving collection of institutions that has one purpose: To maintain itself.

This has clearly been shown through the test of the Leninist hypothesis and the objectives of it have never materialised. There is a clear discrepency in the theory that leads the state to deform/deteriarate and through reason one can only conclude that this is an inevitable outcome.

You meed to re-evalute history and correct your theory accordingly. In my opinion anarchism offers the solution. Clearly that is a matter of contention, but at least the theory has not been falsified. If it ever is then I suspect we will need to start again.

The Feral Underclass

10th July 2007, 22:18

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 pm

Read 'State and Revolution' and then a history book.

Ha, funny boy. State and Revolution has by no means been falsified
Reasserting your opinion is not an argument.

Its be cool to think that communism can be created overnight, but it just can't.

Who has suggested that this is possible?

Rawthentic

10th July 2007, 22:58

Who has suggested that this is possible?

You don't think this is possible? Neither do I. Semantics again. We both agree that a transitional period is necessary.

The Feral Underclass

10th July 2007, 23:23

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 10, 2007 10:58 pm

Who has suggested that this is possible?

You don't think this is possible? Neither do I. Semantics again. We both agree that a transitional period is necessary.
It has nothing to do with semantics. The anarchist concept of transition is profoundly different to the Leninist one.

Rawthentic

11th July 2007, 00:43

First of all, I am not a "Leninist", but its stupid to think that we can go on and ignore Lenin's theories, on the state and on imperialism. I mean, the Venezuelan workers that have occupied and taken over their factories discuss Lenin and his great importance and relevance, its something that is necessary and will always happen in worker's revolts.

I bet you that I have the same conception as you do of the transitional period, albeit minus the utopian-ness.

11th July 2007, 05:16

Read 'State and Revolution' and then a history book

That's Marxism, not "Leninism".

It is true that communism cannot be installed overnight. Working class people must fight to destroy state, class and inequality. What is also true is that under the Leninist paradigm, state, class and inequality will continue under a different structure.

So, again, what is "Leninism"?

First of all, I am not a "Leninist"

Yes you are. Don't you get it? All Marxists that aren't left/anarcho-communists are Leninists. :wacko:

The Feral Underclass

11th July 2007, 11:06

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 11, 2007 12:43 am
First of all, I am not a "Leninist", but its stupid to think that we can go on and ignore Lenin's theories, on the state and on imperialism. I mean, the Venezuelan workers that have occupied and taken over their factories discuss Lenin and his great importance and relevance, its something that is necessary and will always happen in worker's revolts.
Blah blah, I've heard it all before.

I bet you that I have the same conception as you do of the transitional period, albeit minus the utopian-ness.

Uh huh :rolleyes:

The Feral Underclass

11th July 2007, 11:08

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 11, 2007 05:16 am

Read 'State and Revolution' and then a history book

That's Marxism, not "Leninism".
In one argument you say that Marx wasn't necessarily a centralist and then in another you say that "Leninism" is Marxism. Which is it? Was Marx a statist and centralist or wasn't he? That is certainly what Lenin was.

There is absolutely no rational way that you can claim that what Marx wanted is what Lenin created because Marx didn't write about what he wanted and he was dead before he could ever see.

12th July 2007, 04:41

In one argument you say that Marx wasn't necessarily a centralist and then in another you say that "Leninism" is Marxism. Which is it? Was Marx a statist and centralist or wasn't he? That is certainly what Lenin was.

I didn't say anything about "Leninism". I said that State & Revolution is a Marxist work and not a Leninist one.

I'm still waiting for someone to define "Leninism" and show us all what "Leninist theory" is.

Rawthentic

12th July 2007, 06:59

Blah blah, I've heard it all before.
And yet never refuted it.

I'm still waiting for someone to define "Leninism" and show us all what "Leninist theory" is.
TAT has cowered away from it, and he'll probably pop up with straw men. How...unusual.

12th July 2007, 16:09

TAT has cowered away from it, and he'll probably pop up with straw men. How...unusual.

My guess is that he'll start talking about how the Bolsheviks consolidated power and all that irrelevant crap. That's generally what anarchists and "anti-authoritarian communists" do when you ask them to define Leninism.

Jazzratt

12th July 2007, 17:12

I always understood "leninism" to be shorthand for marxism-leninism and nothing more although I will admit a certain tendency amongst comrades to make strawmen of the ideology - usually through misunderstanding rather than actual malice.

Vargha Poralli

12th July 2007, 17:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:42 pm
I always understood "leninism" to be shorthand for marxism-leninism and nothing more although I will admit a certain tendency amongst comrades to make strawmen of the ideology - usually through misunderstanding rather than actual malice.
Well Marxism-Leninism is a meaningless term used by Soviet Bureaucracy to justify its existence. It has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.

To me Leninism is Marxism put in to practice. Yes I don't deny it has failed but we have to look at overall situation. Capitalism did not magically come in to dominance after the French Revolution. It did go back to a Bonaparte dictatorship and Bourbon Monarchy briefly.

And the fall of USSR did not and will not end in as a triumph for capitalism. This is not the end of history.

Rawthentic

12th July 2007, 17:38

Yes I don't deny it has failed but we have to look at overall situation.
Comrade, which of Lenin's theories failed and how? I think what you mean is that the Russian Revolution was defeated by the rising bureaucracy.

Vargha Poralli

12th July 2007, 17:43

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 12, 2007 10:08 pm

Yes I don't deny it has failed but we have to look at overall situation.
Comrade, which of Lenin's theories failed and how? I think what you mean is that the Russian Revolution was defeated by the rising bureaucracy.
Well I am said that to prevent " Oh Leninism was a great success in practice look at Soviet Russia" argument.

I did not mean Lenin's theories failed. I meant the degeneration of Russian Revolution and that degeneration has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.

Rawthentic

12th July 2007, 17:46

I did not mean Lenin's theories failed. I meant the degeneration of Russian Revolution and that degeneration has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.
Most definitely agreed.

The Feral Underclass

12th July 2007, 19:30

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 12, 2007 04:41 am

In one argument you say that Marx wasn't necessarily a centralist and then in another you say that "Leninism" is Marxism. Which is it? Was Marx a statist and centralist or wasn't he? That is certainly what Lenin was.

I didn't say anything about "Leninism". I said that State & Revolution is a Marxist work and not a Leninist one.
So Marx did advocate centralism?

I'm still waiting for someone to define "Leninism" and show us all what "Leninist theory" is.

Essentially centralised Statism and vanguardism

My guess is that he'll start talking about how the Bolsheviks consolidated power and all that irrelevant crap.

That's clearly a matter of opinion.

The Feral Underclass

12th July 2007, 19:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:43 pm
I did not mean Lenin's theories failed. I meant the degeneration of Russian Revolution and that degeneration has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.
:wacko:

The Feral Underclass

12th July 2007, 19:33

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 12, 2007 05:46 pm

I did not mean Lenin's theories failed. I meant the degeneration of Russian Revolution and that degeneration has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.
Most definitely agreed.
It must be comforting to have your opinions told to you.

Rawthentic

12th July 2007, 22:20

It must be comforting to have your opinions told to you.

It also must be comfortable to troll around. I agreed with what g.ram said, so I said it. Get over it.

bombeverything

13th July 2007, 03:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:17 pm

The damage done by the war didn't vanish overnight just because the shooting stopped. Once the economy and infrastructure had recovered then it would no longer be necessary, but thanks to people like Stalin it never did stop.

But whith the hierarchical structures created by the Bolshevik party at this time, this would be impossible. No one will simply give up power. These structures led to the rise of Stalin, they allowed for it. Yeah, Stalin sucked, but if structures were not in place which could allow for someone to gain so much power, Stalin would have been much less powerful. Stalin is just one person. It wouldn't have mattered who was in control, but that someone was in control. I.e. not the working class.

13th July 2007, 05:51

So Marx did advocate centralism?

Of course.

Essentially centralised Statism and vanguardism

More ambiguous terms. Define "statism" and "vanguardism". Also, why are these "-isms"?

The Feral Underclass

13th July 2007, 17:57

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 12, 2007 10:20 pm

It must be comforting to have your opinions told to you.

It also must be comfortable to troll around.
That doesn't make sense.

I agreed with what g.ram said, so I said it. Get over it.

Of course you did.

The Feral Underclass

13th July 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 13, 2007 05:51 am

So Marx did advocate centralism?

Of course.
You have argued in the past that this was not the case.

Essentially centralised Statism and vanguardism

More ambiguous terms. Define "statism" and "vanguardism". Also, why are these "-isms"?

Statism: The advocation of the centralisation of political authority.
Vanguardism: The advocation of a selection of individuals to act as a leadership.

They are -ism's because they are theories.

gilhyle

13th July 2007, 19:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:56 pm
in the communist manifesto it says that all powers are to be givin to the "state" but in a communist society isnt it suppose to be stateless?
The original question on this thread was how the state survives in a communist society. The answer lies in the Marxist concept of 'administration'. The State in a class society overlays on the administration of common concerns, the defence of ruling class interests. As classes are eliminated, the work of the state is replaced by administration.

This thread has gone through the tired old anarchist procedure of 'reading' Marxist theory from the practices of a revolution under duress - something they rarely do to their own history.

Th interesting point here is the anarchist emphasis on 'decisions' by contrast with the Marxist emphasis on 'administration'. The reduction of politics to 'decisions' is a fetish typical of the capitalist state which seeks to distinguish between 'democratic' decisions on who is to represent 'us' and the hidden work of the administration of the capitalist state which remains far away from the public and - often - even from their poltical representatives.

Marxism sets itself the twin goals, over time, of bringing more and more of administration into the democratic process and bringing more and more people into the administrative process.

13th July 2007, 19:27

You have argued in the past that this was not the case.

No, I have argued in the past that what you consider "centralization" isn't what Marx advocated.

Statism: The advocation of the centralisation of political authority.

Now you're going to have to define "centralization".

Vanguardism: The advocation of a selection of individuals to act as a leadership.

Then everyone is a vanguardist.

co-op

14th July 2007, 18:57

I would ask Leninists this: Do you think if Marx was somehow alive today he would not revise his work given what happened in the 20th century in Russia, China, Cuba etc, etc? He would surely reject the Leninist/Stalinist/Mao failed examples and turn to the more libertarian side of his work such as 'The civil war in France'. If the USSR was marxist theory in action, then we must come to the conclusion that Marxism is a theory that introduces state capitalism and thus must be rejected by the working class. The areas of Marx's work where he does show faith in the ability of the working class to act themselves without party or vanguard are of course rejected by Leninists and others who 'know whats good for the workers'.
Leninism is a recipe for state capitalism, a new ruling class and a bureaucratic elite.

14th July 2007, 20:39

I would ask Leninists this

What is a Leninist?

Do you think if Marx was somehow alive today he would not revise his work given what happened in the 20th century in Russia, China, Cuba etc, etc?

Of course he would.

He would surely reject the Leninist/Stalinist/Mao failed examples and turn to the more libertarian side of his work such as 'The civil war in France'.

Speculating on what he "would have" done is pointless.

The areas of Marx's work where he does show faith in the ability of the working class to act themselves without party or vanguard

He never believed any such thing.

Leninism is a recipe for state capitalism, a new ruling class and a bureaucratic elite.

Again you rant against Leninism, yet you have failed to define what it actually is when I asked you to do so. So go ahead and define it.

The Feral Underclass

15th July 2007, 13:27

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 13, 2007 07:27 pm

You have argued in the past that this was not the case.

No, I have argued in the past that what you consider "centralization" isn't what Marx advocated.
It's a generally accepted definition. If, once again, Marxists won't to reclaim words and change there meaning you are going to have to tell people. Alternatively, you could just say what you mean!

Statism: The advocation of the centralisation of political authority.

Now you're going to have to define "centralization".

No I'm not. My opinion's on this are well documented; especially to you. If you can't remember then interact with the search options.

Vanguardism: The advocation of a selection of individuals to act as a leadership.

Then everyone is a vanguardist.

Oh contraire!

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2007, 17:23

If you distribute flyers and pamphlets, hold teach-ins or give speeches, write articles and other peices, and simply agitate with the intended purpose of spreading socialist consciousness, then you are effectively the revolutionary vanguard; you are the political partisan of the proletariat that they rally around.

gilhyle

15th July 2007, 19:32

Originally posted by co-[email protected] 14, 2007 05:57 pm
I If the USSR was marxist theory in action, then we must come to the conclusion that Marxism is a theory that introduces state capitalism and thus must be rejected by the working class.
IF life was so simple that you could read the appropriate theory off from one example under duress, you wouldnt need theory.

Yes Marx would revise his theory. He would revise to understand imperialism and bureaucracy. He would not draw the crude conclusion that any 'Marxist' revolution just introduces state capitalism......just as I resist (sometimes with difficulty) the conclusion that anarchists are just the one sided representatives of the surviving idealism of a ruling class that likes to believe the State should not interfere with the private pursuit of wealth.

co-op

15th July 2007, 19:45

What is a Leninist?

An authoritarian marxist. One who believes that the working class cannot forge their own destiny and thus must be led to state capitalism.

Of course he would.

Then why, if you are indeed a Leninist, do you not revise your outlook.

Speculating on what he "would have" done is pointless.

Is it possible he would have revised 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'?

He never believed any such thing.

It doesn't really matter to me anyway. The marxist/leninist method has been utterly discredited. How many times does Bakunin have to be proved correct?

16th July 2007, 05:13

It's a generally accepted definition.

The "generally accepted definition" of centralization is the concentration of power into a group. Marx believed that power would be centralized in the hands of the proletariat. What you see this to mean is that Marx advocated a centralized/hierarchical/dictatorial/evil despotic government. That's why I made the distinction.

An authoritarian marxist. One who believes that the working class cannot forge their own destiny and thus must be led to state capitalism.

No Marxist believed or believes that. Anyone that believes that is not a Marxist.

Now rant on about how Lenin relied in a vanguard so I can school you on that, too...

Then why, if you are indeed a Leninist, do you not revise your outlook.

I'm not a Leninist; I'm a Marxist. And I have.

Is it possible he would have revised 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'?

No.

It doesn't really matter to me anyway. The marxist/leninist method has been utterly discredited. How many times does Bakunin have to be proved correct?

:lol:

You can't even define "Leninist" and you're ranting about how it's "bad" and "wrong"! What a fucking joke.

xskater11x

16th July 2007, 05:46

Originally posted by co-[email protected] 15, 2007 06:45 pm
It doesn't really matter to me anyway. The marxist/leninist method has been utterly discredited. How many times does Bakunin have to be proved correct?
Tell me exactly how the Marxist method was discredited.

From what I know Bakunin was an antisemitist who only disagreed with Marxist theories because he thought it support Jews.

The Feral Underclass

16th July 2007, 12:43

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 16, 2007 05:13 am

It's a generally accepted definition.

The "generally accepted definition" of centralization is the concentration of power into a group. Marx believed that power would be centralized in the hands of the proletariat. What you see this to mean is that Marx advocated a centralized/hierarchical/dictatorial/evil despotic government. That's why I made the distinction.
Stop being childish!

This has nothing to do with what I "think Marx thought" but with the practical application of these theories.

The proletariat is made up of millions and millions people. You cannot centralise - i.e. "bring together into a centre" - political power to the hands of millions. That's a fact.

The way Leninists get around this (quite willingly I might add) is to have a "vanguard" of the most "conscious" who control that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat. What we then witness (being an inevitable consequence) is the institutionalisation of this vanguard as an absolute. The state is then consolidated and continues with the purpose of maintaining it's political power. It becomes a self-serving tool of control.

That is how this theory is applied in practice, which is it's ultimate conclusion. It is simply the reality of Leninism (or of Marxism if you insist).

16th July 2007, 13:00

The proletariat is made up of millions and millions people. You cannot centralise - i.e. "bring together into a centre" - political power to the hands of millions. That's a fact.

For an anarchist you sure know little about democracy.

The way Leninists get around this (quite willingly I might add) is to have a "vanguard" of the most "conscious" who control that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat.

I haven't met a single "Leninist" that thinks anyone should control power on "behalf" of the "entire proletariat". That's just stupid.

The Feral Underclass

16th July 2007, 13:03

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 16, 2007 01:00 pm

The proletariat is made up of millions and millions people. You cannot centralise - i.e. "bring together into a centre" - political power to the hands of millions. That's a fact.

For an anarchist you sure know little about democracy.
What is that even supposed to mean?

The way Leninists get around this (quite willingly I might add) is to have a "vanguard" of the most "conscious" who control that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat.

I haven't met a single "Leninist" that thinks anyone should control power on "behalf" of the "entire proletariat". That's just stupid.

That is certainly what the theory both reflects and creates.

bombeverything

16th July 2007, 13:17

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 16, 2007 12:00 pm
For an anarchist you sure know little about democracy.

How would you define "democracy"?

The Feral Underclass

16th July 2007, 14:46

Originally posted by bombeverything+July 16, 2007 01:17 pm--> (bombeverything @ July 16, 2007 01:17 pm)
Zampanò@July 16, 2007 12:00 pm
For an anarchist you sure know little about democracy.

How would you define "democracy"? [/b]
I wouldn't pander to his petulance if I were you. Of course, only Leninists know the true meaning of democracy.

Rawthentic

16th July 2007, 17:41

Whatever happened in Russia or anywhere else in the world does not change the materialist analysis one bit. The fact of the matter is that the bourgeois state serves the bourgeoisie, and thus the proletarian state will serve the proletariat in its struggle to repress the ex-oppressors and eliminate class antagonisms. The state is not some "evil" monster as anarchists see it, but an organ of class rule. If there is a victorious revolution, the proletarian will rise to ruling class and will create their worker's state.

The way Leninists get around this (quite willingly I might add) is to have a "vanguard" of the most "conscious" who control that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat. What we then witness (being an inevitable consequence) is the institutionalisation of this vanguard as an absolute.
Lies again. The vanguard (the forward thinking and class conscious members of the working class), is that political entity which aids in the organization of the working class to achieve its emancipation, with the clear understanding that the class struggle is indeed a political struggle, and would thus have to be organized on such a level, primarily. The vanguard does not take power, the proletariat does through its organs of class rule (i.e: soviets, worker's councils, militias). It is only natural that the class conscious workers are always at the forefront of all worker's struggles.

Amusing Scrotum

16th July 2007, 20:00

You know, the seemingly endless debates on the state always miss the point and tend to highlight one conclusion. The conclusion is that, fundamentally, anarchists and Marxists have different analyses of the state -- what it compromises, what its function is, etc., etc.

But when we get stuck on this fact, then we miss the point. Because fundamentally, it's not important whether you call what you want a state or not -- what's important is what you call for in the first place.

The same way that it's not important whether, theoretically, you consider revolution an authoritarian act. What's important is that you view revolution as a necessary act. That you are calling for the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with a society based on workers' control, in other words.

So with this in mind, when these debates come up, rather than pondering on terminological differences -- which seems to have become the favourite past time of some Rev Left members -- we need to look at what each side of the debate is actually proposing. In other words what structures they want to see in a post-revolutionary society.

Because, as I've said, whether they call this a state is of little importance.

For example, during the Spanish Civil War, the POUM* -- who were a Marxist group who considered themselves part of the Bolshevik tradition -- largely agreed with the platform proposed by the Friends of Durruti. And whilst the Friends of Durruti, being anarchists, would not have considered what they proposed a state, the POUM would have.

But does that matter? Perhaps for people who want to have long winded, philosophical debates on what the state is and what it compromises, but not for anyone else. What really mattered, both at the time and now, is that both groups were calling for complete workers' control over industry.

Which is why despite them being "Leninists" and "statists" and "Bolsheviks", most of the CNT took a stand against the repression of the POUM. And why despite them being "idealists", the POUM took a stand against the repression of the CNT.

It's madness, I know, that people could look beyond terminological differences and actually consider what exactly someone else was proposing. But it happened. And had it not been for the cowardice of the CNT leadership and the reformism of the UGT leadership, then it would have lead to long lasting -- or at least longer lasting -- workers' control in Spain.

And by that I mean direct workers' control over industry. The kind where decisions are made democratically in the workplace, by those actually working in said workplace. (As was the case during the early stages of both the Spanish Civil War and the Russian revolution.)

And given all that, what you want to call the societal set-up in place, is fairly unimportant. You can call it feudalism for all I care, because what's important is the specifics.

And its on this point that we see the major divergences on the left. Where the revolutionary left basically breaks up into three distinct groups.

You have the anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, council communists, left-communists, left-Bolsheviks, etc., etc., who basically argue for direct control at the workplace level. And who have, historically, fought for this in practice -- from the Workers' Group to the Friends of Durruti.

Then you have those who argue in favour of early Bolshevism. By that I don't mean "Leninism", because for ease of understanding I just consider that to be the theories of V.I. Lenin -- with Bolshevism being the political programme of the Bolshevik Party during its early years in power.

These people -- and I'm trying to fairly characterise your views here and not allow my own views on them to come into play, so I apologise if they do -- argue for a more orthodox form of planning and administration.

A form where the functions of management -- bookkeeping, rota writing, etc. -- are actually given to a manager, and not taken on part time by those actually in the workplace. And where people are given specific, administrative roles within a Government. Minister of this, Head of that, and so on.

These people consider that certain democratic checks and balances are enough to ensure that workers' control is in place. And that wide scale nationalisations form the basis of a society under workers' control -- which is why, despite them considering that the democratic checks and balances were eroded in places like the Soviet Union, they still consider it a workers' state.

Be it deformed, degenerated, or just constipated.

Now these people, like the left-communists, would call what they want a state. But there are distinct differences between what they want, the kind of differences that don't necessarily exist between anarcho-communists and left-communists, for example.

(I'm sure, as well, that there have historically been anarchists who call for the second type of post-revolutionary society, or something similar, without calling it a state. For example, by the end of the Spanish Civil War, I imagine that a few of the right-anarchists within the CNT were calling for this. Which further exemplifies my point about what's in the package being more important than what it's wrapped in.)

The third group, are the anti-revisionists. Those who see theold USSR, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, etc., as examples of socialism in practice. They want to replicate the power structures present within those societies, and that is really all that needs to be said about that.

But again, despite them both calling what they want a state, there are differences between what those in the second category want, and what those in the third category want.

And basically, that's what I hope I've got across here -- debates about terminology are pretty pointless, because it's what we want and what we call for that matters, and not what we decide to call it.
_ _ _ _ _

*I'm curious, should you put a the before POUM? If it's translated, then it makes sense to say the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification -- but I'm still not sure you should put it there when you use the Spanish abbreviation.

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora
Whatever happened in Russia or anywhere else in the world does not change the materialist analysis one bit. The fact of the matter is that the bourgeois state serves the bourgeoisie, and thus the proletarian state will serve the proletariat in its struggle to repress the ex-oppressors and eliminate class antagonisms.

Perhaps, but what happened in Russia should impact in one way or another on someone's "materialist analysis". That is, whilst your little dictum may well remain true for someone, the Russian experience will help them to clarify, in one way or another, what a workers' state is and what it consists of.

And that, as I've pointed out, is the "materialist analysis" that really counts. And not the little theoretical dictum that you place so much faith in -- the kind of faith that makes you feel like you have a superior understanding, but just ends up with you missing the point completely.

16th July 2007, 20:27

What is that even supposed to mean?

What do you think democracy does? It "centralise[s] - i.e. "bring[s] together into a centre" - political power to the hands of millions."

That is a fact.

That is certainly what the theory both reflects and creates.

What is "Leninist theory"? Give me the specific works. Then tell me where in this "Leninist theory" it says anything of the sort.

You know, the seemingly endless debates on the state always miss the point and tend to highlight one conclusion. The conclusion is that, fundamentally, anarchists and Marxists have different analyses of the state -- what it compromises, what its function is, etc., etc.

But when we get stuck on this fact, then we miss the point. Because fundamentally, it's not important whether you call what you want a state or not -- what's important is what you call for in the first place.

The same way that it's not important whether, theoretically, you consider revolution an authoritarian act. What's important is that you view revolution as a necessary act. That you are calling for the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with a society based on workers' control, in other words.

So with this in mind, when these debates come up, rather than pondering on terminological differences -- which seems to have become the favourite past time of some Rev Left members -- we need to look at what each side of the debate is actually proposing. In other words what structures they want to see in a post-revolutionary society.

Because, as I've said, whether they call this a state is of little importance.

This is generally a terminological difference, yes. However, it is a reflection of the vast difference in focus and overall ideology that separates Marxists and anarchists. This discussion is merely one form of addressing that difference.

Perhaps, but what happened in Russia should impact in one way or another on someone's "materialist analysis". That is, whilst your little dictum may well remain true for someone, the Russian experience will help them to clarify, in one way or another, what a workers' state is and what it consists of.

And that, as I've pointed out, is the "materialist analysis" that really counts. And not the little theoretical dictum that you place so much faith in -- the kind of faith that makes you feel like you have a superior understanding, but just ends up with you missing the point completely.

I agree, but I don't think the Russian experience requires a vast overhaul of Marxist theory or the materialist conception of history.

Amusing Scrotum

16th July 2007, 21:03

Originally posted by Zampanò+--> (Zampanò)This is generally a terminological difference, yes. However, it is a reflection of the vast difference in focus and overall ideology that separates Marxists and anarchists. This discussion is merely one form of addressing that difference.[/b]

This statement really makes little sense, and the point I suspect you're trying to make is rather contradictory given the first sentence. That is, are you trying to say that "the vast difference" is one of terminology or one of political theory and practice? Because you could read either point into your statement, and I'll respond to both below.

Firstly, if this is just about terminological differences and slight differences in theory, then really what is the issue here? As I've pointed out, how we make our arguments is nowhere near as important as how we present our arguments, through political practice.

So just debating the terminology -- which what you indicate that this debate is about -- is rather pointless.

Secondly, if you're saying that this isn't just about terminology, and that more important things are at stake here, then you must make your case beyond simple terminology. Because if there are real differences here, then they won't be addressed in the manner you indicate -- which is through debates on terminological difference.

Rather, you've got to point out this "vast difference in focus and overall ideology that separates Marxists and anarchists."

I've already said that a difference does exist between some groups, but I don't think that it's an anarchist-Marxist difference. Because, in my view, there's not a tremendous amount of difference, in terms what they're fighting, between class struggle anarchists and non-Bolshevik and left-Bolshevik Marxists. But there is a large programmatic difference between these two groups and Bolshevik Marxists.

So really, you've got to decide what you're debating here, it's importance, and then make your case. Because so far, you've not done that -- you've just enagaged in a bout of mental masturbation.

Define this, define that, etc., etc. You know full well what people mean when they use the terms, you just don't share their definition. But not looking beyond that, and actually engaging in positive, useful debate, seems alien to you -- and most of the people posting in this thread.

Zampanò
I agree, but I don't think the Russian experience requires a vast overhaul of Marxist theory or the materialist conception of history.

I never said it did. My point was that the Russian experience should allow us to go beyond simple mantras about the state, and allow us to move onto more important, concrete issues regarding the type of society we would like to see.

16th July 2007, 22:48

This statement really makes little sense, and the point I suspect you're trying to make is rather contradictory given the first sentence. That is, are you trying to say that "the vast difference" is one of terminology or one of political theory and practice?

The latter.

Secondly, if you're saying that this isn't just about terminology, and that more important things are at stake here, then you must make your case beyond simple terminology. Because if there are real differences here, then they won't be addressed in the manner you indicate -- which is through debates on terminological difference.

The difference between Marxists and anarchists is well represented on the issue of the state; through the debate on the state those differences are addressed. These differences are actually probably best represented in this debate.

Rather, you've got to point out this "vast difference in focus and overall ideology that separates Marxists and anarchists."

The focus on "authoritarianism", the views on power and class dynamics in a revolutionary situation, views on centralization, etc.

I've already said that a difference does exist between some groups, but I don't think that it's an anarchist-Marxist difference. Because, in my view, there's not a tremendous amount of difference, in terms what they're fighting, between class struggle anarchists and non-Bolshevik and left-Bolshevik Marxists. But there is a large programmatic difference between these two groups and Bolshevik Marxists.

Yes, this is generally what is proclaimed to be where difference lies; however, this is generally a straw man constructed by "anti-authoritarian communists" and anarchists constructed by calling Marxists "Leninists" and calling left-communists and "anti-authoritarian communists" Marxists.

It's because of this straw man that I am constantly called "Leninist".

Define this, define that, etc., etc. You know full well what people mean when they use the terms, you just don't share their definition.

Actually, I did that to show that their assertions are full of crap, which is what myself and TAT were just getting into. I've never once heard anyone define "Leninism" to have any substance aside from "authoritarian Marxists that want an elite vanguard of rulers to rule over and command the proletariat" and once I ask them to provide any substantiation for this they run away with their tail between their legs or start ranting about the Russian experience which is irrelevant to the question at hand.

But not looking beyond that, and actually engaging in positive, useful debate, seems alien to you -- and most of the people posting in this thread.

I've lost any hope of "engaging in positive, useful debate" on RevLeft.

I never said it did. My point was that the Russian experience should allow us to go beyond simple mantras about the state, and allow us to move onto more important, concrete issues regarding the type of society we would like to see.

Of course, but that is not what this thread is about, so that is irrelevant.

Entrails Konfetti

17th July 2007, 03:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:21 am
Similarly, the soviets that were built by the Mensheviks and later taken over by the Bolsheviks in the 1917 Russian revolution were top-down bodies, in which power was concentrated, not in the plenaries of the delegates, but in the executive.
That is absurd, how could and why would a political party such as the Mensheviks send off party members to form a workers-council? You'd expect an intellectual to quit their endevours to find work in a factory-- working 12-18 hours a day!? :huh:

Don't give me another book to read, I'm reading far too much right now, instead tell me in your own words.

How can worker's councils be the creation of party geniuses? Historical evidence points the contrary, that councils form when the workers disobey their unions call to accept the bosses offers-- the strike committees are the embryos of the worker's councils. Are you claiming that Russia is a seperate case from this developmemt of workers organizing? I don't know what else I can assert from your statement, other than Russia is a seperate case or that worker's councils aren't the embryonic basis of the new society.

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 03:50

He's probably lying again.

The Feral Underclass

17th July 2007, 14:22

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 16, 2007 08:27 pm

What is that even supposed to mean?

What do you think democracy does? It "centralise[s] - i.e. "bring[s] together into a centre" - political power to the hands of millions."
You are clutching at straws and distorting several ideas to justify your failing argument. Democracy does not in any considered definiton, including Marxism I'd wager, mean "bring into the centre".

It doesn't even make any sense.

That is a fact.

No, it's a fallacious assertion.

That is certainly what the theory both reflects and creates.

What is "Leninist theory"? Give me the specific works. Then tell me where in this "Leninist theory" it says anything of the sort.

Read 'What is to be done?' by Lenin.

The Feral Underclass

17th July 2007, 14:36

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 16, 2007 05:41 pm

The way Leninists get around this (quite willingly I might add) is to have a "vanguard" of the most "conscious" who control that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat. What we then witness (being an inevitable consequence) is the institutionalisation of this vanguard as an absolute.
Lies again.
So in one sentence you tell me it's a lie and then with this: "It is only natural that the class conscious workers are always at the forefront of all worker's struggles" you affirm what I say.

Which is it? It cannot be lie and true at the same time. Do you actually know what it is you think?

The vanguard (the forward thinking and class conscious members of the working class), is that political entity which aids in the organization of the working class to achieve its emancipation, with the clear understanding that the class struggle is indeed a political struggle, and would thus have to be organized on such a level, primarily.

Exploited and oppressed people do not need others like you to tell them about class struggle or how to fight it. In the progression of a revolutionary situation class struggle will happen regardless of your political organisations and the most "class conscious workers".

What is necessary is the organisation of non-hierarchical, decentralised and federated tools for us to defend ourselves and begin re-organising production.

Political parties, the state and the leadership of the vanguard is unnecessary and in fact antithetical to the overall objective of creating a stateless society.

The vanguard does not take power

Theoretically perhaps, but the most "class conscious" workers will have to take control in order to ensure the state maintains itself in order to do whatever it is you people think a state necessary to do; including the centralisation and consolidation of political power.

the proletariat does through its organs of class rule (i.e: soviets, worker's councils, militias).

Providing that these organs are non-hierarchical, de-centralised and uninstitutionalised I see no problem with that.

17th July 2007, 17:26

You are clutching at straws and distorting several ideas to justify your failing argument. Democracy does not in any considered definiton, including Marxism I'd wager, mean "bring into the centre".

It doesn't even make any sense.

Would concentrates be a better word for you?

Read 'What is to be done?' by Lenin.

I have. Now show me how that is a "Leninist" work and not a Marxist one.

So in one sentence you tell me it's a lie and then with this: "It is only natural that the class conscious workers are always at the forefront of all worker's struggles" you affirm what I say.

Which is it? It cannot be lie and true at the same time. Do you actually know what it is you think?

Oh please. There's a huge difference between "control[ling] that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat" and being at the front of the struggle. There is a difference between teaching and commanding.

What an ignorant thing to say.

Exploited and oppressed people do not need others like you to tell them about class struggle or how to fight it. In the progression of a revolutionary situation class struggle will happen regardless of your political organisations and the most "class conscious workers".

Well, then they don't need you either. If the proletariat is just going to rise up spontaneously then what's the point of us revolutionary leftists? Let's just sit back and watch it happen.

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 17:55

Political parties, the state and the leadership of the vanguard is unnecessary and in fact antithetical to the overall objective of creating a stateless society.
Ah, Christ, just goes to show how your type have never and will never make revolution. A political party of the working class that can gain the support of the majority of workers is absolutely critical because the class struggle is a political struggle, whether you like it or not. Why? Because the state is a political organ.

And then again you obviously dont know what a vanguard or the state are, so thats that.

The Advent of Anarchy

17th July 2007, 18:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:56 pm
in the communist manifesto it says that all powers are to be givin to the "state" but in a communist society isnt it suppose to be stateless?
Well, here's my theory. When the people overthrow the capitalist system, they will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is controlled by the masses of the working people. Since the people own the state and run the government, they run the economy, so they control the command economy, making it a form of public collective property, where, the government and in turn the working people, own the means of production and everything else.

Amusing Scrotum

17th July 2007, 19:29

Originally posted by Zampanò+--> (Zampanò)The latter.[/b]

Okay, so you're saying that "the vast difference focus and overall ideology". So why on earth do you think that debating terminology will help to identify these differences, and discover their significance?

You highlight, for example, the following differences:

[i]Originally posted by Zampanò+--> (Zampanò)The focus on "authoritarianism", the views on power and class dynamics in a revolutionary situation, views on centralization, etc.[/b]

So we know that anarchists oppose "authoritarianism", "centralization", and they have their own position "on power and class dynamics in a revolutionary situation" -- not entirely sure what that one actually means, to be honest. Where as you, by contrast, presumably under what you perceive as the banner of authentic Marxism, don't oppose these things.

But as I've already said, unless we move beyond the words, we don't actually get any idea of what the real differences are. We just get the rather stale, old and boring anarchist-Marxist debates. History repeats itself and all that.

Therefore, it makes sense to me to move past the words, and actually discuss what we are proposing in a real sense. I don't doubt that there may be differences, but so far no ones really discussed them past a few abstract slogans. In other words, no ones presented anything other than dogma.

Yet in a revolutionary situation, we move past dogma. And I think it would make more sense if everyone understood where they stood before that situation arose.

To go back to my earlier example of the Spanish Civil War, are you in the camp of the POUM's "centralization" and the Friends of Durruti's "de-centralization"? Or are in the camp of the Communist Parties "centralization" and the right anarchists "de-centralization"?

Because, as you should see, words don't mean as much as you think.

Originally posted by Zampanò
These differences are actually probably best represented in this debate.

No they're not. The anarchists in this debate, have said they don't want a state; and the Marxists in this debate, have said they want a state. The only person who's really said what they want beyond that simple dictum, is Syndicat.

And whether he calls that a state or not, is of little consequence. What's important is deciding whether that kind of model of a post-revolutionary society -- one which, unless I've misunderstood his position, revolves around factory committees -- appeals to you.

Do you agree with his -- and the POUM and the Friends of Durruti's -- platform? Or do you have an alternative platform? Because of far, your position is really unclear. In fact, it looks like you don't actually have a platform, that you don't know what you want.

Originally posted by Zampanò
Yes, this is generally what is proclaimed to be where difference lies; however, this is generally a straw man constructed by "anti-authoritarian communists" and anarchists constructed by calling Marxists "Leninists" and calling left-communists and "anti-authoritarian communists" Marxists.

It's not a strawman. As I said in my first post, there are generally three revolutionary platforms -- and I've explained what they are already, so I'm not going to do it again. So unless you're contending that there's a fourth platform, occupied by Marxists like yourself, your claims of it being a straw man are unfounded.

And if you are claiming that there is a fourth platform, you've got to explain what it is and what it compromises. How is it different, in a general sense, from the syndicalist/anarcho-communist/left-communist/left-Bolshevik etc. platform? And how is it different from the early Bolshevik platform? And the anti-revisionist platform?

Because unless you move beyond the level of debate we've seen here, and articulate your position, the debate will just go round in pointless circles.

Originally posted by Zampanò
I've never once heard anyone define "Leninism" to have any substance aside from "authoritarian Marxists that want an elite vanguard of rulers to rule over and command the proletariat"...

An elephant never forgets (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49762&st=0&hl=Leninism).

Zampanò@
I've lost any hope of "engaging in positive, useful debate" on RevLeft.

It shows.

Zampanò
Of course, but that is not what this thread is about, so that is irrelevant.

This thread has everything to do with that. The need to go beyond simple mantras and actually articulate concrete platforms is what a thread like this should be about.

Entrails Konfetti

17th July 2007, 20:41

Worst thread ever!
Heres a summary of it!

1:Your a Leninist!
2: No I'm not!
1: You advocate a party dictatorship!
2: No I don't, you advocate people running around with their genitals hanging out!
1: Its their freedom to do so you authoritarian pig!
2: I'm not!
1: Yes you are!
2: No I'm not!
1: Anything you can do I can do better!
2: I can do anything better than you!
1: No you can't
2: Yes I can!
1: No you can't
2: Yes I can!
1: no you cant, no you cant, no you caaan't!
2: Yes I can, Yes I can, Yes I caaaan!
1: How dare you!
2; How dare you "how dare you" me!
1: How dare you how dare my "how dare you'!
2: How dare you how dare you "how dare you" me!
1: Last word
2: Last word
ECT...

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 20:44

This thread has everything to do with that. The need to go beyond simple mantras and actually articulate concrete platforms is what a thread like this should be about.
Generally I agree with your post scrotum. I've always said that in under socialism (worker's state, worker's republic, DoP, whatever) what I want to see (and what every communist and revolutionary should strive for) is direct control of society by the working class, always struggling to remove the remnants of bureaucracy that have plagued past revolutionary societies, namely Russia. I want to see a society controlled directly from a base of worker's councils, peasant councils, neighborhood assemblies, militias, etc, all uniting and coming together to form this revolutionary society, and conscious of its path to a classless, stateless society. Aside from this, I don't want to be utopian and think that everything will be decentralized, because it wont, things don't turn up like that. In the face of a counter-revolutionary force of millions, political centralization will be necessary. But thats beside the matter.

But, whats a "left-Bolshevik"? It sounds cool.

Amusing Scrotum

17th July 2007, 21:21

Okay Voz, you've articulated what you want to see; the type of post-revolutionary structure that you would argue in favour of. So now, I'd like to know if you think this differs from the historic platform of, for example, the Spanish syndicalists? They didn't use the word state, that's for sure -- but in general, that seems like the only significant difference.

That's not to say that there aren't differences both between you and the syndicalists, and between the syndicalists themselves at the time. But overall, they aren't that important -- just like the differences between Durruti's group and the POUM weren't that significant.

And when you realise that, or if you realise that, you'll understand that this type of debate, where the words "utopian", "idealist", "authoritarian", etc. are thrown around willy nilly, is pointless. Because, as I've said, there are three different platforms, and understanding which camp you are in and who your allies are, is far more important than debating whether what you propose constitutes a "state".

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora
But, whats a "left-Bolshevik"? It sounds cool.

It's more of a historic position than a present one, though I guess the ICC may fall into this category and the CPGB probably does fall into this category. Though that is disputable, granted.

Historically, Kollontai's Workers' Opposition and Myasnikov's Workers' Group were left-Bolsheviks. And Luxemburg, along with others at the time who supported the Bolsheviks but criticised them from the left, could also be considered left-Bolsheviks.

The Feral Underclass

17th July 2007, 21:46

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 17, 2007 05:26 pm

You are clutching at straws and distorting several ideas to justify your failing argument. Democracy does not in any considered definiton, including Marxism I'd wager, mean "bring into the centre".

It doesn't even make any sense.

Would concentrates be a better word for you?
It depends on what it is you actually mean?

Read 'What is to be done?' by Lenin.

I have. Now show me how that is a "Leninist" work and not a Marxist one.

You seem to be getting confused.

This discussion is not about whether Lenin's opinions were the same as Marx's. I couldn't care less whether that was the case.

Whether you want to call it Leninism or Marxism is entirely your choice; my argument is what Leninism actually is and if it is the same as Marxism then so be it.

So in one sentence you tell me it's a lie and then with this: "It is only natural that the class conscious workers are always at the forefront of all worker's struggles" you affirm what I say.

Which is it? It cannot be lie and true at the same time. Do you actually know what it is you think?

Oh please. There's a huge difference between "control[ling] that power on "behalf" of the entire proletariat" and being at the front of the struggle.

Apparently not.

There is a difference between teaching and commanding.

I agree. But that distinction is irrelevant to vanguardist parties.

Exploited and oppressed people do not need others like you to tell them about class struggle or how to fight it. In the progression of a revolutionary situation class struggle will happen regardless of your political organisations and the most "class conscious workers".

Well, then they don't need you either.

I agree.

If the proletariat is just going to rise up spontaneously then what's the point of us revolutionary leftists? Let's just sit back and watch it happen.

I am not separate to the working class. I am apart of it. When we "rise up spontaneously" then we will be united; hopefully united in both our desire to destroy capitalism and the state and create a communist society without Leninist parties.

Of course, that all depends on how manipulative and repressive they are allowed to be.

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 22:01

I'd like to know if you think this differs from the historic platform of, for example, the Spanish syndicalists? They didn't use the word state, that's for sure -- but in general, that seems like the only significant difference.
I suppose that it does not, but this is where their theoretical misconceptions come in hand with the state. This kind of dismissive approach to the state and its role in society is why, throughout the 20th century, syndicalism has failed to achieve anything substantive -- even when it had a chance to take power and implement its political program, such as in Spain in the 1930s. Because they see the state as "merely a product therein", they in fact joined the bourgeois system and attempted to wield elements of the state for their own ends ... which led directly to allowing the fascist Franco to come to power. I think, while I agree with their platform, these theoretical misconceptions need to be corrected.

Labor Shall Rule

17th July 2007, 22:19

The Anarchist Tension, I recently posted a thread that defended 'vanguardism', and I also posted a thread in the Theory forum about how anarchists are vanguardists and might not even know it. It would be satisfying if you could post there.

Leo

17th July 2007, 22:29

But, whats a "left-Bolshevik"? It sounds cool.

The left-wing of the Bolshevik Party. It is the wing around Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin during the October Revolution, around Bukharin, Ossinsky and Sapranov during the Brest-Litovsk debate and the Workers' Group of Myasnikov later on. Also various left-wings in Baku, Tashkent, Bashkir etc. can be counted as well.

Amusing Scrotum

17th July 2007, 22:37

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora
This kind of dismissive approach to the state and its role in society is why, throughout the 20th century, syndicalism has failed to achieve anything substantive -- even when it had a chance to take power and implement its political program, such as in Spain in the 1930s.

I think you're position here is a little strange, to be honest. That is, unless I'm mistaken, you're arguing that the anarchist rejection of the state was the "theoretical misconception" that led the CNT to join the Popular Front Government. And if that was the case, then one would expect that the UGT -- who generally speaking held the Marxist view of the state -- to have abstained from the Government.

Yet, as we know, the UGT were a part of that Government long before the CNT were. So if we apply your logic, then both groups had "theoretical misconceptions" -- and therefore, both the anarchist and Marxist interpretations of the state are incorrect.

Maybe they are, maybe there is a third position on this subject that no one has yet articulated. But it doesn't seem likely to me. Indeed, in my opinion, there are far bigger material reasons why the CNT leadership were in favour of joining the Government. The same material reasons that led to the UGT leadership and the Communist Party leadership enthusiastically joining the Government.

And if anything, I think that the anarchist interpretation of the state, and the fact that revolutionary syndicalism was deeply embedded in both the CNT rank and file and its programme, helped to delay the leaderships betrayal. Making it harder for them to justify, and therefore harder for them to do.

So no, I don't agree with you here. And what's more, I think what you've shown here is a classical example of Marxist dogmatism.

That is, in order to present Marxist theory in a superior light, you blame anarchist failures on anarchist theory. But, by contrast, I doubt you'd blame, in fact I know you don't blame the failure of the Russian revolution on Marxist theory. Which is a double standard, which leads you to ignore the real material reasons for the degeneration of the Spanish revolution.

And whilst anarchist theory ain't perfect, it wasn't what caused the degeneration.
_ _ _ _ _

And on the subject of syndicalisms success, I'd agree that post-1940 it's not amounted to much -- under its own banner anyway. But I'd say that it was probably the most important theoretical programme within the working class movement from the mid 19th century to the mid 1920's.

And even now, although it seems relatively unimportant, I'd say that elements of the syndicalist programme live on within the working class movement. Just not under the syndicalist banner.

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 22:59

Well, all I am saying is that if the question of the state is not taken into account in platforms and programs, how can they make revolution? The state is not something that is dealt with spontaneously, but an act that requires consciousness of the struggle ahead.

But, by contrast, I doubt you'd blame, in fact I know you don't blame the failure of the Russian revolution on Marxist theory. Which is a double standard, which leads you to ignore the real material reasons for the degeneration of the Spanish revolution.
Well, the Russian Revolution did not degenerate because of Marxist theory, but I never leave out material conditions when speaking of historical events, the Spanish Revolution was just something that I thought should be pointed out and learned from, because the question of the state is a crucial one.

Would it suit you if I spoke of Chile and Allende and how the capitalist state was never destroyed? Or maybe the occupied factories in Venezuela and how there can be no revolution unless the capitalist state is smashed?

Amusing Scrotum

18th July 2007, 12:58

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora+--> (Voz de la Gente Trabajadora)Well, all I am saying is that if the question of the state is not taken into account in platforms and programs, how can they make revolution?[/b]

But the CNT did take into account the issue of the state in their programme, and they also led, or made if you like, a revolution.

The CNT programme called for the working class to expropriate the industries in which they work, and for them to destroy the bourgeois state. Which, for a time, they managed to do in Catalonia -- with the whole area being under workers' control. And in other areas CNT members also expropriated other industries, taking the fist steps towards workers' control there as well.

So the idea that their failings were theoretical or programmatic, is absurd. Because they did deal with this issue, they knew what they wanted to do and what they wanted to replace. Meaning that they didn't think that "The state is ... something that is dealt with spontaneously".

Which again, means that your argument that it was the "theoretical misconceptions" of the anarchists that led to the degeneration of the Spanish revolution, is simply incorrect. In other words, the Spanish example simply doesn't make your case that a Marxist understanding of the state is necessary for success.

A better understanding of the role of labour leadership was needed within the ranks of both the CNT and the UGT, be that an anarchist understanding or a Marxist one. But a Marxist interpretation of the state, that wasn't needed -- indeed, as I've said, a Marxist interpretation of the state may well have hastened the CNT leaderships betrayal.

Because it certainly didn't slow down the decision of the UGT leadership to sell out the Spanish working class by joining the Republican Government.

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected]
...the Spanish Revolution was just something that I thought should be pointed out and learned from, because the question of the state is a crucial one.

But, as of yet, you've not shown how "the question of the state is a crucial one"; and how it was a poor understanding of this issue that led to failure.

Voz de la Gente Trabajadora
Would it suit you if I spoke of Chile and Allende and how the capitalist state was never destroyed? Or maybe the occupied factories in Venezuela and how there can be no revolution unless the capitalist state is smashed?

You're missing the point here, and I don't think you really understand the CNT's position. It wasn't that, being anarchists they were all wishy-washy and therefore unsure of what to do -- with regards to the state. They had a programme which called for its replacement with a system of workers' control.

A "revolutionary junta" as the Friends of Durruti called it.

They failed to act out this programme, yes. But that they had the programme they did, and that they set out to replace the old state apparatus, means that this isn't comparable to either Allende's Chile or present day Venezuela.

The Feral Underclass

18th July 2007, 15:21

Not just in Catalonia but in Aragon as well; where they managed to re-organise production to such an efficient level a Plenum of Workers Collectives was organised to start re-dstribution. All of which was done without political parties, state insitutions and hierarchy.

Entrails Konfetti

18th July 2007, 18:26

The failure of Syndicalism in Spain wasn't really much to do with their conception of the state. It was to do with their membership in the CNT. Anarchists like the FoD were in the minority. It's like Syndicalists expect workers to join a Syndicalist union and become Socialist consciouss-- consciousness comes with a redcard. They think that the struggles and telling workers over and over again "that capitalism is the fault of this" will make them ardent revolutionaries.

Syndicalism confuses itself by seperating politics from economics, and rejecting all politics, while at the same time they call to smash the state and replace it with syndicalist unions, and simultaneously ignoring that the state is a political entity. Politics decides who gets what, and how. The state weilds political power in deciding who gets what and how. The "what" and the "how" are wealth, and wealth is an economic concept. But Syndicalists do not take time to understand political constructs, and concepts, and so the members are confused about what they are doing. The confusion lead members to join the Republican Government.

That's not to say La POUM didn't commit any serious errors, for one thing they recruited alot of people in their militia who were in it for the food and to fight Franco, because there were food shortages in the towns. Not to mention POUM was a very small group, who tried to bore holes into the UGT while ignoring the UGT's bureaucratic structure. I've never heard of the POUM trying to get workers to form outside their unions into councils.

Both groups made the error of uniting with the Republicans and the International Column against Fascism in some battles, while proping up the slogan "the war against Fascism and the Revolution are inseperable"-- confusing! They didn't bother trying to show what the bourgeoisie would do if it was threatened, and that would be to side with Fascism.

The Feral Underclass

18th July 2007, 18:28

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 18, 2007 06:26 pm
The failure of Syndicalism in Spain wasn't really much to do with their conception of the state. It was to do with their membership in the CNT. Anarchists like the FoD were in the minority. It's like Syndicalists expect workers to join a Syndicalist union and become Socialist consciouss-- consciousness comes with a redcard. They think that the struggles and telling workers over and over again "that capitalism is the fault of this" will make them ardent revolutionaries.

Syndicalism confuses itself by seperating politics from economics, and rejecting all politics, while at the same time they call to smash the state and replace it with syndicalist unions, and simultaneously ignoring that the state is a political entity. Politics decides who gets what, and how. The state weilds political power in deciding who gets what and how. The "what" and the "how" are wealth, and wealth is an economic concept. But Syndicalists do not take time to understand political constructs, and concepts, and so the members are confused about what they are doing. The confusion lead members to join the Republican Government.

That's not to say La POUM didn't commit any serious errors, for one thing they recruited alot of people in their militia who were in it for the food and to fight Franco, because there were food shortages in the towns. Not to mention POUM was a very small group, who tried to bore holes into the UGT while ignoring the UGT's bureaucratic structure. I've never heard of the POUM trying to get workers to form outside their unions into councils.

Both groups made the error of uniting with the Republicans and the International Column against Fascism in some battles, while proping up the slogan "the war against Fascism and the Revolution are inseperable"-- confusing! They didn't bother trying to show what the bourgeoisie would do if it was threatened, and that would be to side with Fascism.
That's all utter rubbish!

The reason anarchism failed in Spain was because they were betrayed by the Leninist government!

I wish you people would read some books!

Entrails Konfetti

18th July 2007, 18:55

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:28 pm
That's all utter rubbish!

That's kinda like the line in the movie My Cousin Vinny. Vinny wakes up from sleeping and says "Your honor everything that man says is bullshit!". Amuzing line, but it didn't prove is point.

The reason anarchism failed in Spain was because they were betrayed by the Leninist government!
By that logic I can say "the reason why the German Revolution failed was because of the KAPD was betrayed by the social-democratic government!"

From Germany 1918 to now we are probably going to face the facade of so-called worker ran governments when the revolutionary tide rises. We have to understand how to look through this facade, and that it is nothing more than the upper-classes bringing the workers to sit side by side at the dinner table for awhile, and that its looking pretty proletarian right now because the worker has the bowl of peas. But what happens when the bowl of peas is placed down? The bourgeois takes it!

You had 18 years to prepare for such a facade, but you rejected understanding politics! And this is what POUM gets for believing in the tactics of Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder. But all in all, it's the workers who lost.

I wish you people would read some books!
Either you're trying to stall this debate, or you actually know of some books, if you know this books well enough, how about you refute my claims using knowlege from those books and reference me to the book.

PRC-UTE

18th July 2007, 19:26

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:28 pm
That's all utter rubbish!

The reason anarchism failed in Spain was because they were betrayed by the Leninist government!

I wish you people would read some books!
They weren't betrayed by the government as it never was on their side.

Nor was it a "Leninist" state. That must be the most overused strawman here at revleft. The government was a popular front, and though I don't have the exact numbers off hand, a large amount of it wasn't even vaguel Leninist.

Entrails Konfetti

18th July 2007, 19:32

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 18, 2007 06:26 pm
Nor was it a "Leninist" state. That must be the most overused strawman here at revleft. The government was a popular front, and though I don't have the exact numbers off hand, a large amount of it wasn't even vaguel Leninist.
Well it was because of Stalins influence that what kept the popular government in place, and from losing power. So it was technically influenced by "Leninists", if you are actually of the sort who consider Stalin's regime Leninist.

The Feral Underclass

18th July 2007, 19:39

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+July 18, 2007 06:55 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ July 18, 2007 06:55 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:28 pm
That's all utter rubbish!

That's kinda like the line in the movie My Cousin Vinny. Vinny wakes up from sleeping and says "Your honor everything that man says is bullshit!". Amuzing line, but it didn't prove is point. [/b]
I'm sure he was right nevertheless.

betrayed by the Leninist government!
By that logic I can say "the reason why the German Revolution failed was because of the KAPD was betrayed by the social-democratic government!"

No it isn't. Not at all.

From Germany 1918 to now we are probably going to face the facade of so-called worker ran governments when the revolutionary tide rises. We have to understand how to look through this facade, and that it is nothing more than the upper-classes bringing the workers to sit side by side at the dinner table for awhile, and that its looking pretty proletarian right now because the worker has the bowl of peas. But what happens when the bowl of peas is placed down? The bourgeois takes it!

There is a difference between a bourgouis government not giving a fuck and a Popular Front government refusing to continue arming a defensive force (on their side) fighting fascists.

I wish you people would read some books!
Either you're trying to stall this debate, or you actually know of some books, if you know this books well enough, how about you refute my claims using knowlege from those books and reference me to the book.

I've played this game far to long and have realised that citing sources and suggesting books is about as much use in displaying the ignorance of a poster than sitting here and drinking a glass of water.

Interact with google and I'm sure you'll be able to educate yourself.

The Feral Underclass

18th July 2007, 19:47

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+July 18, 2007 07:26 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ July 18, 2007 07:26 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 05:28 pm
That's all utter rubbish!

The reason anarchism failed in Spain was because they were betrayed by the Leninist government!

I wish you people would read some books!
They weren't betrayed by the government as it never was on their side. [/b]
Of course the CNT should have known better but they were all fighting the same enemy and fi you arm a defensive force and then stop doing so in order to destroy them I am confident that counts as a betrayel.

I get very confused by you people. At first you say we should unite and work together and then when we do you tell us we weren't on your side and that is why we are justified in stabbing you in the back.

Of course, what Leninists say is usually either mantra or bullshit lies. We have however, learnt our lesson.

Nor was it a "Leninist" state. That must be the most overused strawman here at revleft. The government was a popular front, and though I don't have the exact numbers off hand, a large amount of it wasn't even vaguel Leninist.

I can accept that the state itself was not structured like a Leninist state by the Spanish Communist Party was in control of the popular government at the time of the betrayel and it was funded by Moscow.

Entrails Konfetti

18th July 2007, 20:50

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 06:39 pm
I'm sure he was right nevertheless.
Only after taking the opportunity to supplement information to actually prove his point.

No it isn't. Not at all.

There is a difference between a bourgouis government not giving a fuck and a Popular Front government refusing to continue arming a defensive force (on their side) fighting fascists.

Yes they had their differences.
For one thing the Social-Democratic government in Germany, while protecting bourgeois interests proclaimed a socialist republic. In Spain the Stalinists said "first the war, then the revolution". Both were a facade of the workers taking control, in Germany they appeared to be in the government, in Spain it appeared that Moscow will help them take power in the future. Both wanted to prevent the workers taking control.

Oddly enough you knew that the USSR were trying to keep allies, and so a revolution in Spain would upset France, which meant revolution couldn't be possible under the program of the Communist Party. You knew that the upper-classes could organize illusions to prevent workers taking control-- or you totally ignored politics. You also saw how the Stalinists were protecting the bourgeoisie, yet you united with them to fend off Fascism, instead of organizing against both.

You had information, you had plently of time to prepare. What were you doing uniting with the Republicans?

I've played this game far to long and have realised that citing sources and suggesting books is about as much use in displaying the ignorance of a poster than sitting here and drinking a glass of water.

You use sources to display the ignorance in people! What a pissing contest!
I always though people cited sources on here to educate others, not to show they are king pisser!

Since I try to be above all that, here a link for you about Spain and the CNT:
LINK (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/spain.htm)