Marxism and Anarchism - Can there be a compomise?

[The Feral Underclass]

I have been a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for six years now (i joined when I was 14), but I never really understood some of the theory until a year ago, and still I do not understand it all.

But as I have started to study, sort of like a hobby, Marxism etc, I have picked up different names of theorists, philosphers, revolutionaries. I have looked at different ideologies from Lassalle to Trotsky, only scratching the service you understand. And now, I am in a bit of a pickle :(

One thing has strook me as hard to get my head round and maybe you guys could let me know what you think. The fundamental difference between Bakunin and Marx was the State. Marx declared it a necessary tool for the revolution, Bakunin saw it as a contradiction to the whole idea of the revolution and called for its absoulte abolishment.

Well...I tend to agree that the destruction of the State should be the main objective of a revolution, but then I think will such a libertarian view be helpful in the beginning of the transition.

What id like to know is, could there be a middle ground. Can there be a compromise between the two ideologies, and if so. What would it be? Also any idea, books, links or comments would be greatful.

[redstar2000]

The fundamental difference between Bakunin and Marx was the State. Marx declared it a necessary tool for the revolution, Bakunin saw it as a contradiction to the whole idea of the revolution and called for its absoulte abolishment.

I really don't know. To some extent, those two guys were arguing a theoretical problem: is the state an organ of class rule or does it have an "existence" independent of the class structure of a given society?

Bakunin and other classical anarchists have argued, at least as I understand them, that the state, even in the absence of classes, would proceed at once to create them. Marx, of course, thought that with the victory of proletarian revolution, that the new state apparatus created by the working class would begin to wither away at once...because in the absence of classes, no state as an organ of class rule is required.

It seems as if this actually happened in the brief existence of the Paris Commune; most of the initiatives came from neighborhood and workplace groups and the weak "central authority" of the Commune actually did very little.

In the present era, I see no chance that modern anarchists would have anything to do with Leninists of any variety; the idea of a small vanguard ruling over the working class "in the name of the working class" is flatly unacceptable.

On the other hand, I think there are some modern anarchists that are "open" to what I call "Marxism without the crap"...non-Leninist Marxism, in other words. Marxists who make the effort to understand what the anarchists are getting at (instead of just repeating ancient insults) may find that they have more in common with some strands of anarchist theory than they thought they had.

For example, a "classical" Marxist who advocates the beginning of the transition to communism on "day one" after the revolution (no intermediate "strong state" socialism) might discover that in practice the only difference would be one of terminology...rather trivial under the circumstances.

But I don't mean to make it sound like a smooth road to unity; there's been a lot of bad feeling between Marxists and anarchists (most of them) for more than a century and that's not something that's easily forgotten. And that's not to mention some of the (pardon the expression) elderly figures in both camps that have something of a vested interest in maintaining the antagonisms.

Perhaps it will be the young Marxists who shake off all the old Leninist crap and the young anarchists who are not over-burdened with respect for their elders that will meet one another, over time, in the common struggle to establish the rule of the working class as a class.

But it will take a while.

:cool:

[Blackberry]

As with anarchism and leninism - there is definately no path for compromise. The vanguard is extremely contradictory to anarchism.

As with marxism - well, there are plenty of anarchists who are very hostile to it, for a variety of reasons. I'll mention one of them: in quite a few cases, anarchists use 'marxism' instead of 'leninism', which gives marxism absolutely no credibility at all. This is thanks to Lenin of course, and so you have people like RedStar2000 trying to fix that up. But for some strange reason, trotskyists are more of a target of abuse, thanks to the antics of some trotskyists around the world. There is a certain trotskyist member of this board who wastes an exhaustive amount of time attacking anarchists, so I suppose it is justified.

There are 'old school' anarchists who will still squabble over the state question 'religiously' as well.
I don't see nothing too wrong with that, but I do not bother with the issue myself much. There isn't much difference between them anyway (there are more pressing differences with leninists). It is quite trivial as RedStar2000 says, and I believe that whatever happens will happen. I am quite sympathetic of 'traditional marxism' (I'm an anarchist, if you didn't catch on already).

The shining example of anarchism/communism (as in practice, not survival) being implemented is in Spain, where the state was rid of in various places, so I think the 'burden of proof' about the state lies with the anarchists. That is debatable, though.

The Paris Commune is also seen another example of anarchism. Much of what Bakunin said was right in his theory of revolution - Marx was right in many parts too of course, but he altered his views slightly upon analysing it. Anarchists acknowledge that the state was not abolished, but anarchists still held great influence in the Paris Commune. I hear Marx didn't acknowledge this influence as a good one. However, I hope that 'marxists without the crap' will overlook Marx's shortsightedness. But then again, I am not too knowledgable over the 'fights' that went on between Marx and Bakunin, and others, so please fill me in about that one.

You will find however, that many anarchists today hardly refer to people like Bakunin, and other anarchists. They prefer to 'think for themselves' more. In fact, the 'famous' Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) is written up entirely of ordinary people!

Anarchism has also dropped some authoritarian elements. For example, more traditionally, religion was not accepted. It is today, but it is my personal view that religion will have little part to play in any anarchist/communist society. In Spain it certainly didn't.

To sum up: there is the possibility of anarchism and marxism being 'conciliated', but you will always get your differing views between people, no matter what leftist ideology they may 'follow'. However, after a future socialist revolution actually settles down and succeeds in implementing anarchism/communism, and gets past the stage where it is 'shaky', the old differences won't matter too much. The practical example will be there for all to see.

(Edited by Neutral Nation at 2:23 pm on June 28, 2003)

[The Feral Underclass]

Can either of you give me a comprahensive list of the differences between Marxism and Anarchism? I would like to have a basic idea before I continue reading stuff.

Also, why do Trotskyists dispise Anarchists so much? is it simply because of the idea of the State?

How exactly does Anarchism expect society to change directly after the revolution?

I understand that the best thing for me to do is read more, but I really would like to know what you have to say. I feel like I am having a crisis of faith here.....

[Revolution Hero]

According to Marxism stateless society have to be reached through the transitional stage (socialism). The main point is that stateless society can't function effectively without the developed economy. The necessary level of development is attained as the result of socialist and communist building.
Anarchist want to destroy the state right after revolution. Obviously, society would not be able to survive without any development directed on the transition from capitalism into socialism and later to communism (stateless society).
Marxist position is that the state can't be destroyed over night. Learning theory in depth will help you, Libertarian.

Libertarian: "I have been a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for six years now ".... and also you have to add "...and don't know what marxism- leninism is about..."

P.S. just came in to see how you revisionists are doing...

[The Feral Underclass]

I have been a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for six years now (i joined when I was 14), but I never really understood some of the theory until a year ago, and still I do not understand it all.

I never said I didnt understand what Marxism-Leninism was. What I said was tht I didnt understand it all. And that now I understand more, I am haing a crisis of faith. Is the second phase really what we need?

[redstar2000]

All Leninists will repeat as a holy mantra that "Marxism" "requires" a transitional "strong-state"--called "socialism"--before the state can be abolished.

RH has just given you an example along with a couple of pathetic arguments--the stateless society can't function "effectively" without development and, by implication, stateless societies can't develop economically; a "strong state" is "needed" to make that happen.

All Soviet-era nonsense, of course, which has nothing in common with Marx.

Frankly, I think what really motivates the Leninists is that without a "transition stage" of "strong-state socialism", there's nothing for them to do. Specifically, their dreams of being the next Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. are reduced to the level, at best, of figuring out the best way to use the space in a warehouse or devising an efficient bus schedule--the "administration of things rather than people"--and where's the fun in that? No cheering crowds, no pictures of yourself on every public surface, no life of luxury when the proles aren't looking, no crowd of flatterers telling you how sweet your farts smell, etc.

One thing RH is right about, of course. It is important to read as much good theory as you can find...and finding it is not always easy. But there are sites on the web that have a lot of good texts (see the Websites forum). I would advise concentrating on Marx and Engels and on the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain. But Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, I would not recommend...their entire paradigm no longer has any relevance for workers in advanced capitalist countries.

Of course, should you develop a passion for the history of 20th century proto-communism, those are essential sources.

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

personally I dont think that the state would wither away "eventualy" under communism. why would you overthrow one government to establish another?

[Red Comrade]

No cheering crowds, no pictures of yourself on every public surface, no life of luxury when the proles aren't looking, no crowd of flatterers telling you how sweet your farts smell, etc.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I personally take offense to this generalization, and utter crap. I have NEVER even considered any of the following things you have listed. It is ignorant to think that what you say is true for all Marxist-Leninists.

Ever hear of Ho Chi Minh? One of the most simple men to ever walk this earth. He was a Marxist-Leninist. What about Fidel Castro? He is a Marxist-Leninist, and I don't really see all of the crap you listed in Cuba. What about CHE? He was a dogmatic Marxist-Maoist-Leninist; probably a lot more dogmatic than Castro.

Yeah, I'm more of a Marxist than Leninist, but blatant stereotypes that only the Western bourgeois media would use against Marxist-Leninists are just not fair. I don't know where you have been, but Marx and Engels both were strongly against Anarchism! They denounced Bebel, Proudhon, and about every other Anarchist around their timespan. So how in the name of logic do you put Marx and Engels in the same category of the Anarcho-syndacalists? I mean, I admire the Anarchists' bravery, but you do know that Communists fought RIGHT along side them, do you not? In fact, it was the "evil" Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union (even though i don't agree with Stalin's purgery, he did do some good things) that gave support to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war.

So please, do not generalize, how would you like it if I called you a liberal hippy scumbag Anarchist that wants to smoke pot all day?

[commie kg]

First of all, Redstar, I agree with most of the stuff you said.
I am NOT a Leninist, I consider myself more of a Marxist, but I also think that there does need to be a transition phase between capitalism and communism.
I always thought that's what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was.

I think it is absurd to say one can jump right from capitalism into a classless, free society.

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. :confused:

[Red Comrade]

Ahh, who cares, I'm not a Leninist, I just like lenin and what he did for the poor.

[redstar2000]

Ever hear of Ho Chi Minh? One of the most simple men to ever walk this earth. He was a Marxist-Leninist. What about Fidel Castro? He is a Marxist-Leninist, and I don't really see all of the crap you listed in Cuba. What about CHE? He was a dogmatic Marxist-Maoist-Leninist; probably a lot more dogmatic than Castro.

You left out Lenin himself, who also lived very simply.

But if you think for a second the either Lenin, or Ho, or Che was not surrounded by a gaggle of flatterers, then you don't understand the dynamics of power at all.

Go look at this thread and you'll see what I'm talking about...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=912 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=912)

They denounced Bebel, Proudhon, and about every other Anarchist around their timespan.

I think you mean Bakunin in that sentence, but I take your point and so what? Proudhon's mutual-aid ideas were not really revolutionary at all and Marx said so. Bakunin had some very strange ideas about how revolutionary organizations should function and Marx criticized them. Engels wrote a rather silly polemic against the anarchism of that era based, in my view, on word-play more than anything else--e.g., "revolution is an authoritarian act and therefore anarchists can't be really revolutionary and still be consistent".

So how in the name of logic do you put Marx and Engels in the same category of the Anarcho-syndacalists?

Because the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain acted in practice "as if" they were Marxists...supporting a rising of the working class, not a self-appointed "elite" or "vanguard".

I mean, I admire the Anarchists' bravery, but you do know that Communists fought RIGHT along side them, do you not? In fact, it was the "evil" Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union (even though i don't agree with Stalin's purgery, he did do some good things) that gave support to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war.

First of all, it's not a matter of "bravery"...physical courage is a common human characteristic and even fascists can be "brave".

It is a question of theoretical clarity and understanding...who had the "best idea" for Spain? The Spanish Communist Party and their Soviet "handlers" united with the "progressive bourgeoisie" in support of the bourgeois Spanish Republic and actively suppressed the most rebellious elements of the working class; the anarcho-syndicalists and one Leninist party--Trotskyist as it happened--supported a full-fledged working class revolution...and as well the immediate transition to communism.

You actually phrased it correctly: the USSR supported the Spanish Republic and not the Spanish working class. There's a difference.

So please, do not generalize, how would you like it if I called you a liberal hippy scumbag Anarchist that wants to smoke pot all day?

When people call me things that really have no relevance to my actual existence or convictions at all, it really doesn't bother me. But I will concede that when I was speaking of "Leninists" generally, I should have made it abundantly clear that I was speaking of the upper-strata of these formations, not the ordinary members.

You see, in Leninist political formations, the "leadership" are the only people that matter.

:cool:

PS: On the problem of "transition", see these threads...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=895 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=895)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=900 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=900)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote form redstar:"All Leninists will repeat as a holy mantra that "Marxism" "requires" a transitional "strong-state"--called "socialism"--before the state can be abolished."

Do you know what Marxism is? One of the main Marx's idea is that the transitional period called DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT is needed in order to achieve pure socialism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is politically directed on the oppression of bourgeois class and economically it is directed on the achieving of such level of economical development which will allow the state to enter the first stage of communism (socialism). Socialism characterized by the public (state) property on the means of production is the necessary stage which provide for economical development necessary for the state to wither away.
What has to be understood is that stateless society is the society of the highest level of economical and social conditions.

Quote from redstar: " All Soviet-era nonsense, of course, which has nothing in common with Marx."

Please show me and others Marx's definition of socialism which would be contrary to the historical realities of the Soviet Union, show me Marx's definition of socialism which would prove that USSR wasn't socialistic state. You wouldn't be able to find any!
Marx's said very simply (exactly for such "leftists" like you redstar and other so called "leftists") that socialism means the presence of public property on the means of production.

Quote from redstar:" Frankly, I think what really motivates the Leninists is that without a "transition stage" of "strong-state socialism", there's nothing for them to do."

Obviously you are not Marxist. You don't support SOCIALISM or how Marx also called it the FIRST STAGE OF COMMUNISM. Are you that redstar who moderates che- lives forum called "Theory"? Actually if you have been chosen on this position by the "community" then such kind of community is formed from theoretically uneducated "marxists".


I would advise all to study theoretical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Read the works of all these great communists and you will find that there is no contradiction between their contributions to the theory development.

[The Feral Underclass]

One of the main Marx's idea is that the transitional period called DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT is needed in order to achieve pure socialism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is politically directed on the oppression of bourgeois class and economically it is directed on the achieving of such level of economical development which will allow the state to enter the first stage of communism

First of all, I would like you to explain exactly why we need this dictatorship of the proletariate. "...the oppression of bourgeois..." is not a good enough reason for the preservance of this so called workers state. The defence of the revolution and the "oppression" of bourgeois counter revolutionaries can quite easily be co ordinated by workers councils and militias, independent of each other in the different areas of a country. I accept that some level of organization must be used in order to safe guard the revolution, but why does it need to be a centralised government. Do you mean to use some elite "vangaured" of intellectuals. Will they be better suited to co ordinate such an activity? Is it your oppion that the workers are too stupid to be able to organize such tasks? If the workers are capable enough to over throw capitalism, then surly they are capable enough to organize themselves?

You say that it is important to have this "dictatorship of the proletariate" which so far we actually means a dictatorship of a vangaurd, not only to coordinates the states security but also the states economy - "...economically it is directed on the achieving of such level of economical development which will allow the state to enter the first stage of communism..." But surely Marx talked about communism being the evolutioanry inevitablity of capitalism. That communism can only come out of industrialised nations. So what exactly do you mean by economic development? And again, why can this not be co ordinated by a workers federation?

Also. Why do you have to believe in a the first stage of communism in order to be classed as a Marxist. To use religion as my analogy. Christians do not follow the bible to the letter, yet they are still called christians. This is not a political argument.

Anyway, if you are such an expert on Marxist theory, then you will know that there is a higher stage of communism which is a libertarian society. Do you then think that Stalin was indeed fighting for this higher level. I do not think so. In fact he gripped the nation with 25 years of totalitarian socialism. He had no intention of seeing the revolution through. So, by your own ideas of what makes a Marxist. Stalin was not!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Libertarian: " The defence of the revolution and the "oppression" of bourgeois counter revolutionaries can quite easily be co ordinated by workers councils and militias, independent of each other in the different areas of a country. "

The solution proposed by you can't be called realistic one. The state which used to be capitalistic posseses many features of the bourgeois society such as state system (which can't be destroyed in one day without causing a grave crisis situation), bourgeois elements and those so called "communists" who may easily side with bourgeois. That is why past bourgeois state system have to be slowly changed (it is clear that it can't be changed in one day, and I don't even talk about its destruction) into one which would be able to serve to the interests of all working people. Such kind of state must be only of strong centralized nature, so workers would be able to oppress capitalists.
The other reason why centralized state is needed is determined by the necessity of economical development. Proletarian state realizes economical planning function over state (public) enterprises; it is evident that planning can't be implemented in economically backward state right after victory of socialistic revolution if revolutionary proletariat decide that state have to be decentralized, rather than centralized.
U all have to understand that revolution will never take place in the modern develo9ped states, but in the most backward (so called "third world" countries).

Libertarian: "Is it your oppion that the workers are too stupid to be able to organize such tasks? If the workers are capable enough to over throw capitalism, then surly they are capable enough to organize themselves? "

Workers can't organize revolution by themselves. Communist party is main force which guides workers in their struggle. Party educates workers and makes them understand their interests, thanks to communist party workers gain class counsciousness.
Workers by no means are stupid, they are eager to learn. During transitional stage workers learn how to organize work in factories and on the governmental level. Once again, communist party teaches workers. Most able workers may take high governmental positions, while others participate in an activity of soviets.

Libertarian: "You say that it is important to have this "dictatorship of the proletariate" which so far we actually means a dictatorship of a vangaurd"

Dictatorship of the proletariat is not dictatorship of a vanguard. but it is dictatorship of all working people. Dictatorship of the proletariat means democracy for all workers and other working people, as only working people as a whole would be able to enjoy all possible rights and freedoms.

Libertarian: "But surely Marx talked about communism being the evolutioanry inevitablity of capitalism. That communism can only come out of industrialised nations. "

You stand on increadibly dogmatic position. History showed us that socialism may appear in backward states.
Tell me if it is possible for socialism to take victory for example in the US. You have o be a great dreamer to believe in that.

Libertarian:" Why do you have to believe in a the first stage of communism in order to be classed as a Marxist"

Read Marx and Lenin and you will understand what Marxism is about.

Libertarian:" Do you then think that Stalin was indeed fighting for this higher level. I do not think so. In fact he gripped the nation with 25 years of totalitarian socialism"

Totalitarian socialism is the bourgeois term, forget it and don't use it anymore. Socialism don't guarantee freedoms and human rights to bourgeois elements. That's my answer.

Anyway read theoretical works of great classics.

[The Feral Underclass]

The solution proposed by you can't be called realistic one. The state which used to be capitalistic posseses many features of the bourgeois society such as state system (which can't be destroyed in one day without causing a grave crisis situation), bourgeois elements and those so called "communists" who may easily side with bourgeois. That is why past bourgeois state system have to be slowly changed (it is clear that it can't be changed in one day, and I don't even talk about its destruction) into one which would be able to serve to the interests of all working people. Such kind of state must be only of strong centralized nature, so workers would be able to oppress capitalists.

I understand that bourgeois society can not disappear over night, and this is what led to this thread. Why can the transition not be lead by workers federations. You have not answered my question satisfactorily. You keep repeating that the state has to be centralised to oppress the capitalists and plan the economy. But you have not said why this can not be done by a workers federation. If the planning was done before a revolution, and everyone new exactly what to do, then there would be no need for this centralised state. Areas could work independently from each other, while still keeping an overall level of co ordination. Each area would know what was happening in another area and it would be co ordinated in relations to those happenings.

You clarified your point again, that if you do not believe in Socialism as a transitional phaze, then you are not a marxist. And I will clarify again, that this is not the case. You do not have to believe in everything to be called a Marxist. Libertarian Marxism has been defined as a political theory and practiced by some intellectuals.

This leads into another question that you did not really answer. If you have to believe in all of Marx's theories to be a Marxist, which you say is the case. Then do you agree that Stalin was not a Marxist?

Tell me if it is possible for socialism to take victory for example in the US. You have o be a great dreamer to believe in that.

I think this is an extremely sectarian oppinion to have. Of course it is possible to have Socialism in the US, as much as it is in any other country. The US might have a bigger capitalist mentality, but the workers are still oppressed and they still have the ability to emancipate themselves.

You say that the Dictatorship of the Proletariate is not a dictatorship of a vanguard, yet all the examples of revolutions have turned out to be just that. A group of intellectual elites working in the "interests of the workers".

workers cant organize revolutions by themselves

Why not? Why does it have to be a party. Why can it not be a solidarity movement. Which encourages workers to educate each other with the help of intellectuals. Why cant the movment be guided, instead of led? There is no real logic behind what your saying. There is no real reason as far as I can see to have a vanguard, a party or a state.

read marx and lenin, you will understand what marxism is about

I do understand what marxism is about, but I do not necessarily agree with it all.

Bourgeois term or not, it was Totalitarian socialism.

[commie kg]

I understand that bourgeois society can not disappear over night, and this is what led to this thread. Why can the transition not be lead by workers federations. You have not answered my question satisfactorily. You keep repeating that the state has to be centralised to oppress the capitalists and plan the economy. But you have not said why this can not be done by a workers federation. If the planning was done before a revolution, and everyone new exactly what to do, then there would be no need for this centralised state. Areas could work independently from each other, while still keeping an overall level of co ordination. Each area would know what was happening in another area and it would be co ordinated in relations to those happenings.

I believe the "workers' federations" idea ia a De Leonist one. I have been reading alot about that lately.
De Leon basically said that the workers should form into unions that would run the country. He called it "Socialist Industrial Unionism".

There's over 100 .pdf files on the subject here: Socialist Labor Party (http://www.slp.org)

[redstar2000]

I put this response off as long as I could, RH, because, frankly, your "Marxism" is religious in character. To be a "Marxist" in your view is to study and memorize "the holy words of the scriptures" without a moment's thought as to what these guys were really saying, much less why.

You constantly repeat: "read Lenin and Stalin" with the same fervor as the Christians in the religion thread keep saying "read the bible".

It is tedious to argue with "true believers", no matter what their faith.

But here's a couple of examples...

Workers can't organize revolution by themselves.

If that were true, why should you or I or anyone do it for them? What's the point?

Are we just "super-humanitarians" interested in pulling off the biggest act of global "charity" in recorded history?

Or, perhaps some of us, taking note that we were not born into the existing ruling class, have decided to rectify that historical oversight by planting our own butts in some nice plush seats of power?

The problem with Leninism-Stalinism-Trotskyism-Maoism is that, at best, it teaches workers how to change masters...when what communists need to do is teach workers how to liberate themselves from all masters.

You all have to understand that revolution will never take place in the modern developed states, but in the most backward (so called "third world" countries).

In other words, historical materialism is a bunch of "crap" and people can "by command" create any social order that they "will", regardless of material conditions.

Like all religious people, RH, you have a special interpretation of the "Marxist bible" that neatly converts anything into its opposite whenever useful or convenient.

If Marx said A and Lenin said B and you want to uphold B, then you think you can assert that Marx also said B and no one will notice.

Ahem, people notice.

:cool:

PS: On the question of "transition", see this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=900 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=900)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:37 pm on June 29, 2003)

[Som]

Quote from Libertarian: " The defence of the revolution and the "oppression" of bourgeois counter revolutionaries can quite easily be co ordinated by workers councils and militias, independent of each other in the different areas of a country. "

The solution proposed by you can't be called realistic one.

Except they can and they have, even at the same time and the same enemies as the leninists did.

In 1918, when Russian withdrew from WWI, the Ukraine was ceded to the axis powers. An ANARCHIST insurgency sprouted up from this and routed out the foreign armies. The makhnovist armies even saved the red army, defeating two seperate white armies that were headed towards moscow.
They weren't defeated by the reactionary capitalist forces, they were stopped by trotsky and the red army.

The makhnovists supported decentralization, never took control of anything, destroyed prisons instead of filled them, encouraged free speech instead of silenced it, and with all that, they still were an effective revolutionary force, even as a small army of untrained poorly equipped peasants.

Similiarly in spain, the democratic councils and militia of the CNT were no less effective then the Stalinist PCE.

It IS realistic, and history backs it up.

The other reason why centralized state is needed is determined by the necessity of economical development. Proletarian state realizes economical planning function over state (public) enterprises; it is evident that planning can't be implemented in economically backward state right after victory of socialistic revolution if revolutionary proletariat decide that state have to be decentralized, rather than centralized.

Any backing for this besides "because lenin said so" ?

Well heres a equally unbacked counter: Planning does not need to be authoritarian and centralized.

[elijahcraig]

The object of Communism and Anarchism is to abolish the State, it is how to get there that is the problem. The only difference I see is the defense of the revolution: Communism says that a state is needed to defend the revolution against the capitalists, Anarchism says that communal federations will defend the revolution. Both theories have failed in the past. One leads to tyranny, the other to capitalist takeover. We need to a)establish a way to not let the Marxist revolution slip into tyranny, to keep it in the hands of the people; or b)find a way for the Anarchist theory to work correcty, which means finding a better way to defend the revolution/

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Libertarian: "you have not said why this can not be done by a workers federation. If the planning was done before a revolution, and everyone new exactly what to do, then there would be no need for this centralised state. Areas could work independently from each other, while still keeping an overall level of co ordination. Each area would know what was happening in another area and it would be co ordinated in relations to those happenings."

Well, federation is still a state structure. I see that you don't support stateless society, but you support decentralized state. You yourself said that the state keeps on functioning after the socialistic revolution.
So, why does proletariat and all working people need to have CENTRALIZED STATE after the revolution? The main reason is that economical activity on the places has to be controlled by one planning center. Such kind of control is more efficient than self - control and self - planning of decentralized subjects of a workers federation. It must be understood that for realization of effective economy planning some kind of central governmental body is needed, so it will supervise all subjects of a state federation..
The other reason why proletarian state has to be of CENTRALIZED character is that such kind of state has to implement common internal and external policy. Here, I would like mainly to talk about internal policy as it presents the most important problem for a young proletarian state. Political center supervises activity inside certain subjects or areas of state and is obliged to maintain one political direction. The oppression of the bourgeois class is also one of the main functions of state central body.

And also the old truism is that any state participates in international relations, as this state is surrounded by another state and has to be recognized by the world community. So, central body of a proletarian state has to take care about realization of strong foreign policy and direct its efforts on building friendly diplomatic relations with other states, no matter if these states are socialistic or capitalistic. Of course, economical cooperation has to be settled mainly with socialistic states.

Quote from Libertarian:" You clarified your point again, that if you do not believe in Socialism as a transitional phaze, then you are not a marxist. And I will clarify again, that this is not the case. You do not have to believe in everything to be called a Marxist."

Have you ever heard Marx's definition of a STATE? State is the machine of oppression of one class by another. As long as there are antagonistic classes in whatsoever society, the freedom in this society will be limited by a state's law. When proletariat and working people defeats bourgeois class as the result of hard political class struggle, in other words when socialistic revolution takes victory in a definite capitalistic state, proletariat of that state organizes its governmental organs on the ruins of a past bourgeois state machine. One state machine has to come on the place of another state machine. In our case 'proletarian' state machine is needed in order to oppress bourgeois class.
So, you consider yourself 'marxist', but you don't know the basics of Communist theory, moreover and much worse, you don't even want to learn and keep on repeating revisionist crap. Who taught you that? Have you learned that bullshit in your so called 'marxist- leninist party"?

Quote from Libertarain: "Then do you agree that Stalin was not a Marxist?"

I don't want this thread to become a place for discussion of Stalin's policy. That topic deserves separate thread. But I would answer you simply. I have read many of Stalin's theoretical works and have to say that they 100% conform to theories of both Marx and Lenin. Also Stalin's policy was a correct one, it was determined by the historical moment, internal and external factors of objective and subjective character. However I don't have any time to discuss it with such uneducated people as all you.

Quote from Libertarian: "The US might have a bigger capitalist mentality, but the workers are still oppressed and they still have the ability to emancipate themselves."

What I know is that US workers hate communism. Of course this hate was caused by US anti- communist propaganda. The fact is that there is no any force inside the US, which is able to educate workers and to lead them in their struggle.
US bourgeois atmosphere completely penetrated into workers life. Many american workers dream how it would be good for them to become at least petty - bourgeois parasites. Do you really believe that they want to destroy the system? Anyway, they are weak and they are not ready for the struggle. I am sure that they don't even have any idea about what revolutionary situation means.

Quote from Libertarian: "You say that the Dictatorship of the Proletariate is not a dictatorship of a vanguard, yet all the examples of revolutions have turned out to be just that. A group of intellectual elites working in the "interests of the workers". "

Communist party is also called proletarian vanguard. Vanguard is mainly formed of workers, and that is why it is called PROLETARIAN. So why do some workers form a part of vanguard while others not? The reason is that some workers have class-consciousness, they gained it as the result of years spent in theoretical learning and practical struggle; vanguard workers realize interests of their class, better than other representatives of the class. That is why Communist Party knows the needs and interests of ordinary workers, in other words workers know the interests of the workers and defend the interests of all working mass.
In their turn, ordinary workers may become the members of the communist party, as it all depends on them. Non- party members/ for example in the USSR/ could participate in LOCAL self - governing. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat was the democracy for all workers.

Quote from Libertarian: ".workers cant organize revolutions by themselves
Why not? Why does it have to be a party."

What is wrong with the party if it mainly consists of workers?

Quote from Libertarian: "I do understand what marxism is about, but I do not necessarily agree with it all.
Bourgeois term or not, it was Totalitarian socialism. "

Don't make me laugh. The latter statement proves that you don't understand anything in Marxist theory!

[The Feral Underclass]

Whether or not you think I understand Marxist theory is irrelevant and inconsequential. We obviously disagree on this point. I can see why you think a State is necessary, but I do not think the reasons you have given are satisfactory.

I think to safegaurd a revolution, or at least a Anarchist revolution, the mass movement has to have a class consience. It can not be a group of intellectuals leading the masses, it has to be the intellectual masses leading themselves.

I can accept your argument about the need for a body of people to operate international affairs, while the revolution is still young. However, after the victory of an inernational revolution I do not think it will be necessary to have such a body.

As for internal defence and the economy, I do not agree that this centralized government is necessary. I do accept your point that such a federation could be classed as a state structure, but the word state holds many bourgeois connections. Which this vangaurd wish to keep. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

In furture I think it is important for comrades to stay out of ths play ground mentality of trying to belittle each others knowledge of philosophy and marxist theory. It isnt productive and it just makes arguements nasty. I am not interested in talking with people who's level of debate can be so ignorant.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:30 am on June 30, 2003
I put this response off as long as I could, RH, because, frankly, your "Marxism" is religious in character. To be a "Marxist" in your view is to study and memorize "the holy words of the scriptures" without a moment's thought as to what these guys were really saying, much less why.

You constantly repeat: "read Lenin and Stalin" with the same fervor as the Christians in the religion thread keep saying "read the bible".

It is tedious to argue with "true believers", no matter what their faith.

But here's a couple of examples...

Workers can't organize revolution by themselves.

If that were true, why should you or I or anyone do it for them? What's the point?

Are we just "super-humanitarians" interested in pulling off the biggest act of global "charity" in recorded history?

Or, perhaps some of us, taking note that we were not born into the existing ruling class, have decided to rectify that historical oversight by planting our own butts in some nice plush seats of power?

The problem with Leninism-Stalinism-Trotskyism-Maoism is that, at best, it teaches workers how to change masters...when what communists need to do is teach workers how to liberate themselves from all masters.

You all have to understand that revolution will never take place in the modern developed states, but in the most backward (so called "third world" countries).

In other words, historical materialism is a bunch of "crap" and people can "by command" create any social order that they "will", regardless of material conditions.

Like all religious people, RH, you have a special interpretation of the "Marxist bible" that neatly converts anything into its opposite whenever useful or convenient.

If Marx said A and Lenin said B and you want to uphold B, then you think you can assert that Marx also said B and no one will notice.

Ahem, people notice.

:cool:

PS: On the question of "transition", see this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=900 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=900)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:37 pm on June 29, 2003)



Quote from redstar: " To be a "Marxist" in your view is to study and memorize "the holy words of the scriptures" without a moment's thought as to what these guys were really saying, much less why."

Actually, you, redstar, don't even know who I am, you know nothing about me and you don't have any right to talk shit about me.
You, redstar, just showed your weakness, you are too weak, man, both morally and theoretically.

Quote from redstar: " You constantly repeat: "read Lenin and Stalin" with the same fervor as the Christians in the religion thread keep saying "read the bible"."

Don't you pervert my words, I also advised everybody to read Marx and Engels. And you seem to propagandize complete ignorance.
If you like, then you can call their works the bible, Marx himself didn't even criticize those who called "Das Capital" the bible of the working movement. The point is that there are certain fundamental principles of the communist theory, which has to be understood by every Marxist and realized in practice, if, of course, there are definite objective and subjective preconditions for their implementation.

Quote from redstar: " If that were true, why should you or I or anyone do it for them? What's the point? "

The point is the same which Marx, Engels and Lenin had - to fight injustice.
After all, workers are not inferior to separate intellectuals, but they have to be educated and guided by certain theoreticians and finally workers themselves grow theoretically, and become those intellectual - leaders of the movement.
The fact that workers are the main force of the socialistic revolution shouldn't be undermined.

What I meant saying that workers are not able to organize revolution by themselves was that Communist Party has to help and guide workers in their struggle. My prior formulation was not clear enough, I have had to say that ordinary workers (non- party members) can organize revolution with the help of their colleagues (members of the communist party) and representatives of intelligentsia (also party members).

Quote from redstar:" The problem with Leninism-Stalinism-Trotskyism-Maoism is that, at best, it teaches workers how to change masters...when what communists need to do is teach workers how to liberate themselves from all masters. "

Marxism- Leninism teaches workers to liberate themselves from oppressors. Proletarian state and its leaders can be oppressors only in the relation to bourgeois class representatives, but socialistic state can't oppress workers living in it, as it is characterized by the public property on the means of production.

Quote from redstar: " historical materialism is a bunch of "crap" and people can "by command" create any social order that they "will", regardless of material conditions."

I've never said that. Historical materialism teaches that the law of the class struggle is one of the main laws of historical development of any society.
For the successful socialistic revolution to take place in the capitalist society certain situation (revolutionary situation) is needed; level of states' development is not of great importance. The practice of the past perfectly proves the corectness of the statement above.
Keeping in mind marxist- leninist theory and historical practice of the victorious socialistic revolutions, it is possible to make a prognosis that one of the 'third world' states which at the certain historical moment would appear to be the weakest link in the imperialistic chain and the latter condition will be characterized by the presence of a revolutionary situation in that particular state, this state will be ready for the socialistic revolution to take place. However such subjective factors as the strength of workers movement in that state and the level of activity of the communist party in that state should also be considered. All as a whole determine the readiness of a particular "third world" state for the socialistic revolution and further transformation of that state into a socialistic one.
Now will you, redstar, explain all 'comrades' when the developed countries will step into the socialistic future? Tell us when US bourgeois class will be so kind to give its property into the public use for all people…

Quote from redstar: " If Marx said A and Lenin said B and you want to uphold B, then you think you can assert that Marx also said B and no one will notice. "

You have to keep in your revisionist mind that Marx and Lenin lived during different historical periods of capitalistic development. Marx had lived during 'wild' capitalism or the capitalism, which had been just developing, and Lenin lived during the time when capitalism stepped into its last stage of development or in other words Lenin lived during imperialism.
Thus, if Marx had said A regarding the certain issue, and Lenin said B on the same issue, then it meant only that historical conditions changed and Marx's A just would not work at the definite changed moment.
Marx himself admitted in 1860s or 1870s (don't remember exactly) that 'Communist Manifesto' was already in some aspects outdated, as certain conditions changed and therefore the strategy and tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat had to be developed to fit new historical realities.
Vladimir Lenin developed Marxism in accord with the imperialistic conditions. Lenin's conclusion that imperialistic chain can and must be broken in the point where its weakest link is situated is genius indeed.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Libertarian: " I think to safegaurd a revolution, or at least a Anarchist revolution, the mass movement has to have a class consience. It can not be a group of intellectuals leading the masses, it has to be the intellectual masses leading themselves"

Educational work has to be realized in order to achieve such level of intellectual development of the working masses you talk about. This work may be done only by the party, or by the proletarian vanguard. And, of course, such work will take decades and would definitely be accomplished already during socialism. And only then all masses would be ready for taking part in state governing fully and completely.

Quote from Libertarian: " I can accept your argument about the need for a body of people to operate international affairs, while the revolution is still young. However, after the victory of an inernational revolution I do not think it will be necessary to have such a body. "

Think about what you have said! It will take centuries for the world socialistic revolution to take victory. World revolution will definitely be achieved, but it is a step by step process.

Quote from Libertarian:" I do accept your point that such a federation could be classed as a state structure, but the word state holds many bourgeois connections"

The main question you have to ask yourself is whether a particular state belongs to workers or not. If workers own a democracy in a definite state, then this state is ANTAGONISTIC to all bourgeois states.

Quote from Libertarian: " In furture I think it is important for comrades to stay out of ths play ground mentality of trying to belittle each others knowledge of philosophy and marxist theory."

I hope that comrades will not listen to you and learn from Marxist posts. Unfortunately there is a lack of latter on this board.


(Edited by Revolution Hero at 9:35 pm on July 2, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

I have read Stalin, and I have also read his want to abolish the individual. He was not a Marxist, saying it hurts the theory. Saying Stalin was a Marxist says that all of the people's fears of "horrible communism" are actually true. Take up for Stalin you are taking up for a state capitalist. Fuck Stalin.

I'm not sure what to do on the State, it seems it will go bad either way. I do not want a vanguard of rulers, as it has always been in the past, to make decisions for the working class, instead of the working class making their own decisions. We need direct democracy to solve this I think.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 11:38 pm on July 2, 2003
I have read Stalin, and I have also read his want to abolish the individual. He was not a Marxist, saying it hurts the theory.



Please bring on the quote from Stalin to back up your words. Yeah, and also provide it with the name of the work you will take it from.



"Take up for Stalin you are taking up for a state capitalist."

Give your definition of 'state capitalism', so I will be able to smash your arguments completely.

I didn't want to discuss Stalin, but your words have just made me to defend true communist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hero, your as irrelevant and ignorant as your politics.

[elijahcraig]

How can you take up for the man who ruined communism? Ridiculous.

State Capitalism? It was more like State-monopoly capitalism, ...the monopoly of the state controlling production. This means a government, not the representative of the people, controlling the means of production and distribution, making money off of it, and not serving the people.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -Nikita Khrushchev

That is one quote from Stalin's great successor.

Stalin represents every stereotype of communism we need to destroy. He is the worst curse to communism. Lenin hated him, Trotsky hated him, he was a fuck up.

You're not a Communist, you're a Stalinist.

[redstar2000]

Actually, you, redstar, don't even know who I am, you know nothing about me and you don't have any right to talk shit about me.

I am uninterested in your personal characteristics, RH, and I am not "talking shit" about you.

I have been on this board for nine months now, and I have read a great many of your posts. Your style of argument is: Thus and such is so because Lenin (or Stalin) said it was so. That's not Marxism...it's religion---specifically, Soviet-era Leninist-Stalinist orthodoxy.

The idea of using the tools of Marxism to analyze a situation is as alien to you as a Russian Orthodox priest trying to "analyze" the resurrection. To you, things are either "articles of faith" or heresy (revisionism).

I don't know, maybe it's a "Russian" thing. An argument could be made that Stalin was as much a "patriarch" as he was a communist. But I've noticed here and on other boards that people from Russia seem to have a "religious" interpretation of Marxism that simply does not allow for the possibility of doubt or questioning.

That's my impression, anyway.

... but socialistic state can't oppress workers living in it, as it is characterized by the public property of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. A Stalinist verbal formula is substituted for evidence and asserted as true...when the evidence is clearly in the other direction (1953 Berlin, 1956 Budapest, etc.). What did the Soviet working class have to show for 74 years of "socialism"? So little that when the USSR collapsed in ignomy, not one worker in a hundred thousand raised his/her voice in protest.

Now will you, redstar, explain all 'comrades' when the developed countries will step into the socialistic future?

No, RH, I will not tell you "when"--I am not a prophet. What I will tell you is what Marx and Engels would have told you: pre-capitalist societies cannot become socialist/communist without first passing through capitalism. All your "victorious socialist revolutions" in pre-capitalist countries have, in fact, become capitalist or are in the process of doing so.

Contrary to your assertion, Marx was right and Lenin & Co. were wrong.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the Leninists were "evil" or "stupid"...I'm saying that the evidence demonstrates that they were wrong.

What is stupid and may be "evil" is the refusal of today's religious "Marxists" to accept the clear and overwhelming evidence and move on.

What you (and some others) need to do, if you can, is go back and read Marx and Engels not as "scripture" but as a way of looking at history and the contemporary world and making sense of it all. Their ideas are tools, not "holy writ".

And perhaps you've heard the saying: a good workman respects his tools.

:cool:

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 9:17 am on July 4, 2003


State Capitalism? It was more like State-monopoly capitalism, ...the monopoly of the state controlling production. This means a government, not the representative of the people, controlling the means of production and distribution, making money off of it, and not serving the people.


You chose to have the portrait of Lenin as your personal avatar, so you claimed to be Leninist, didn't you? Well, actually you don't even know Lenin's definition of socialism. In one of his works Lenin defined socialism as state monopoly directed on the wellbeing of all working people (I will post the quote later).
Soviet state officials indeed served the interests of all people. They didn't make any profit, they were not owners of the means of production, as all property on the means of production was in a public use.


You posted the following quote from Khrushchev : "Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."

And before doing that you had said the following: "I have read Stalin, and I have also read his want to abolish the individual."

Ha! This is funny indeed. Did you mean that the quote from Khrushchev is somehow connected with your first false statement? Did you mean that the Khrushchev's quote proved the correctness of your words about Stalin?
Talking about "abolishment of cult of the individual" (the best translation would be "cult of personality"), Khrushchev talked about abolishment of so-called Stalin's cult of personality. Cult phenomenon was Khrushchev's invention and had nothing in common with the true reality.

Anyway, Stalin never had wanted to abolish individuality of the soviet people. You can't prove your statement and therefore I proved you to be a blatant liar!

[Revolution Hero]

Redstar, I don't have time to write a reply to you...maybe I'll post reply later.

[elijahcraig]

I'm sorry, but Lenin did not view socialism as state monopoly capitalism, I know the quote you are talking about (I think), or I know one that relates to that. And I think you know what he means by that (it's obvious). He's not saying that state capitalism as we know it with the rich, etc. exploiting, he meant it as the working class using state capitalism against the bourgeois. Now, that is a way of looking at it, it's not exactly how it sounds. Stalin did not do this how Lenin said, he turned Lenin's workers' state into a bourgeois state, turned it into state monopoly capitalism towards the workers, etc.

Here's an article I found on What went wrong in Russia:

Russia
What went wrong?

The Russian revolution of October 1917 was the most important event of the twentieth century. It changed the face of history. The Russian workers, organised and led by the Bolshevik Party, smashed the state power of the capitalists and the rich. They broke up the bosses' police force and bureaucracy. All armed power and authority passed into the hands of the working people. They set themselves the task of building a world socialist society, based on mutual co-operation and production for need instead of profit.

But the revolution never finished its job. The task of building socialism still lies ahead of us.

Under Stalin in the 1920's and 30s, Russia became a monstrous caricature of socialism. Instead of being a society controlled by the workers it became a totalitarian dictatorship. Workers were not allowed any freedom to express their ideas and had no control over their workplaces, their communities or their country. The so-called socialist state was not used to protect and fight for people's rights but to spy on people and make sure there was no opposition to Stalin and his government. Millions of people, including socialists, were sent to die in labour camps if they disagreed with what was happening.

So are the pessimists right when they say socialism is an impossible dream? Is capitalism just something we have to learn to live with? Will all revolutions start with hope but end in tyranny?

In 1917 the backbone of the Russian Revolution was the Soviets. These started out as councils made up from delegates of workers, peasants and soldiers. They came together to organise the fight for freedom - against the Tsar (the Russian King), against the factory owners, against police persecution and against war.

They were real democracy in action. If your delegates broke their promises or did not argue what you wanted, you could get them out immediately and replace them with someone who did! But they weren't just talking shops. Decisions would be implemented by them as they were made, whether it was a call for a demonstration, a strike, an occupation or the setting up of armed workers' defence to challenge the Tsar's police.

It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who first realised that Soviets could be the basis for a whole new society once the capitalist class had been overthrown. They could be the foundation of a totally new type of state, where workers could directly plan and implement decisions on what was produced and how it was distributed. They could do this better than a 'normal' parliament which is elected only every five years and can then break all of its promises without being held to account.

The new workers' state pulled Russia out of the bloody First World War which the rich were fighting for profits. They gave the land to the peasants and the factories to the workers. They introduced free abortion, divorce on demand, and tried to set up decent public dining, laundry and nursery facilities, to allow women to have control of their lives instead of being treated like men's property. Homosexuality was legalised and racist anti-Jewish groups were suppressed .They sacked army officers and let the soldiers elect new ones. Their aim was to rotate all government duties so that, as Lenin put it, "all may, for a time become 'bureaucrats' and therefore nobody can become a bureaucrat".

But the Bolsheviks faced serious problems. Russia was a very backward country: 70% of production was based on farming using extremely old-fashioned methods. Only 20% of the population could read or write, limiting office tasks to a minority of the population. The industry of the country had been totally drained by the War.

Even worse, in the middle of 1918 armies from 14 different capitalist countries invaded Russia. They wanted to crush the new workers' state before it could get off its feet. All production had to be geared towards defence rather than development. Compromises that normally would never have been contemplated had to be brought in to defend the state. Plans to elect officers were temporarily scrapped, because they needed military expertise immediately! This meant re-appointing former Tsarist officers to the army, under armed guard. Those workers most committed to socialism were the first to join the Red Army and go to war to defend the revolution. Thou sands of committed revolutionaries were wiped out. To meet the needs of the desperate war effort, the running of the factories was centralised in the hands of appointed officials rather than elected delegates. Again this often meant ex-Tsarist officials. But these measures were seen as temporary, necessary evils to be reversed as soon as possible.

The Red Army, led by Leon Trotsky, defeated the counter-revolutionaries and drove them out. But Russia was devastated. Worse still, the revolution was isolated.

The Bolsheviks had always realised that Russia could not achieve socialism on its own. The most urgent task was to spread the revolution world wide. There would need to be successful revolutions in more advanced countries, like Germany and Britain, so that Russia could get technical help. If the workers in the advanced countries could take power then they would be able to send aid to Russia. They would be able to make steel for new railroads, they could help Russia set up new factories, engineers could come and help them build up industry. Without the revolution spreading, the Russian revolution would go down to defeat. That is why they formed the Communist International. It was made up of Communist Parties all over the world who were trying to spread the revolution.

But no help came. In Germany the revolution after the war was betrayed by the Social Democratic Party. Like the Labour Party in Britain today they were reformists. They opposed revolution and just tried to get a few reforms by working within the system. The workers missed their chance to take power.

In Italy the workers seized control of the factories and the peasants took over the land. They wanted revolution. But their leaders in the reformist Socialist Party said no. The workers paid a terrible price for this missed opportunity. Once the capitalists could see that the Socialist Party were not going to make a revolution, they put Mussolini's Fascists in power.

Only in Hungary did the workers take power for a short time, but they were crushed by invading armies. The Russian workers were alone.

It was the isolation of the revolution that led to its defeat. Some people say this was inevitable that all power corrupts and so the revolution was bound to go wrong. But what these pessimists ignore is that the revolution started to go wrong because of real practical problems.

The failure of revolution to spread to the West meant that Russia had to trade and do deals with the capitalists and make all sorts of compromises just to keep things going. A whole new layer of middlemen emerged, and for them compromise was not a necessary evil but a whole way of life. These people became the new bureaucrats. They looked to Stalin to protect their privileges. And they fought a long and bloody campaign to take over the Bolshevik party and the workers state.

Stalin banned all opposition and persecuted all the real socialists in the party. The leaders who had made the revolution were framed up, banished and killed one by one until only Stalin was left. The bureaucrats reversed the socialist measures that had been taken after the revolution. Abortion and homosexuality were banned again. Women were told 'your place is in the family'. The Soviets were turned into bodies to rubber-stamp Stalin's orders. Previously the Bolshevik Party was full of internal debate and discussion. But now the Chief demanded obedience and nothing more.

The idea that only world-wide revolution could build socialism was abandoned. The Stalinists argued that socialism could be built in one country alone - Russia. This was rubbish, but the last thing the bureaucrats wanted was revolution or upheaval in another country upsetting their relations with foreign capitalists. In time Stalin ordered the Communist International not to fight for socialist revolution in their own countries but make deals with capitalist parties who he thought would be friendly to Russia. To keep capitalist governments friendly Stalin got Communist Parties to sabotage workers' revolutions in countries like France in 1934 and during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39. In this way he blocked the one thing that could have saved the Russian Revolution - more revolutions abroad.

But there were people in the Communist Parties that fought against Stalin. Trotsky and his supporters fought to keep the idea of world revolution alive. They fought for an end to the Stalin dictatorship and for the workers to seize back power from the bureaucrats.

The Stalinists responded with vicious repression of the Trotskyists. First they were expelled from the Bolshevik Party, then driven into exile. They were framed up in show trials and accused of everything under the sun. They were imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered in their thousands. Stalin's agents finally caught up with Trotsky in Mexico in 1940. He was killed by a blow to the head from an ice pick

Why did the Stalinists bother? Because the Trotskyists never gave up fighting. Every time the Communist International betrayed workers they fought against the betrayal. Every piece of repression, every lie the Stalinists told, the Trotskyists countered with real revolutionary politics. Once they recognised that the Communist International would never be revolutionary again, they tried to build a new International, the Fourth International.

Stalinism was a disaster from start to finish. But it was not the inevitable result of revolution. It was the opposite of revolution. By the 1980s Stalin's successors ended up trying to bring capitalism back to Russia - the very system the Russian Revolution had overthrown. That is why today Russia is filled with unemployment, poverty and crime.

To end as we started: the tasks of revolution still lie ahead. They fall to working class youth. Who do not bare the scars of lost battles. Who do not fear the bosses and their police. Who do not look to parties like Labour who will only betray them. And who capitalism has nothing to offer.

Stalinism may have succeeded in destroying the Russian revolution. But there is a new generation rising. We will make new revolutions. We will learn from the past and do everything in our power to build an international movement from the start.

Today, hand in hand with groups in France, Austria, Britain, Germany, Sweeden, Australia, and beyond, REVOLUTION is fighting to build an international working class youth movement. Youth are the future - join REVOLUTION and shake the world.

How can you take up for Stalin? Yes, maybe his writings "conform" to Marxism-Leninism, but what he actually DID was to turn the whole thing over to the capitalist system. He murdered millions! How can you take up for a man who outdoes Hitler by something like five times!?

[elijahcraig]

Here's another article:

Modern History Sourcebook:
Stalin's Purges, 1935

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1936, Stalin began to attack his political opponents in a series of" purges" aimed at destroying the vestiges of political opposition to him. What follows is the official explanation from textbooks published before Stalin's excesses were repudiated by his successors.


The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.

But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.

They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes - the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.

These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand. subversive activities against the workers and peasants.

At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to lay down their arms.

Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.

On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.

The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.

S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.

The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.

The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty - to be shot.

Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimo and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.

To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.

The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.

As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang....

The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.

The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members....

Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee, under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage - the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.

[redstar2000]

I note with regret that this thread, which was originally intended to discuss the possible convergence of anarchist and modern communist thought has degenerated into yet one more Stalin-Trotsky theological dispute...more or less along the same lines as different denominations of Islam fight over who was the "true and legitimate caliph" back in 800CE.

"Judas Trotsky"? By that measure, was Stalin "Christ"?

Why are people looking for the "right" church?

:cool:

[rAW DEaL bILL]

bleeeeeeh! i think any one calling themselves a (persons name here) ist might as well be worshiping that person. its like saying i believ in the teachings of christ or something. why can u just be a communist with your own ideas added in? why do u have to label yourself after some philosopher or in this case some fucking exploitative dictator? i just dont understand why people have to limit themselves to certin boundries in an ideology like only believing in the teachings of stalin. fuck that man, be yourselves, dont be worshipers of philosiphers. peace.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from rAW DEaL bILL on 7:59 pm on July 6, 2003
bleeeeeeh! i think any one calling themselves a (persons name here) ist might as well be worshiping that person. its like saying i believ in the teachings of christ or something. why can u just be a communist with your own ideas added in? why do u have to label yourself after some philosopher or in this case some fucking exploitative dictator? i just dont understand why people have to limit themselves to certin boundries in an ideology like only believing in the teachings of stalin. fuck that man, be yourselves, dont be worshipers of philosiphers. peace.

You are right.