Communist Anarchist relations

[ILoveShrub]

just a quick thought I had. which I will elaborate on later.

before the revolution the Anarchist and Communist would draw up an agreement for how the new society would be governed and so on.
for revolution we should put our specific idealogical differences aside to fight as a unified front. After the revolution the Communist would set up a government. While Anarchist would live inside the country without being under the rule of the Communist government. The Anarchist would not have to live under any law or organization that was not agreed upon before the revolution. They also would not be able to take part in any social programs paid for by the government except defense. The only job of the anarchist would be to police the new Communist government. If the Communist broke any of the pre arranged agreements the anarchist would enage in a revolution against the government.

thank you brothers and sisters

[Som]

Not something all too realistic or practicle there. Especially don't think the anarchists would be too fond of it.

before the revolution the Anarchist and Communist would draw up an agreement for how the new society would be governed and so on.

Have you ever been able to get these groups to agree on something that big? The anarchists probably wouldn't deal with that crap in the first place, nevermind finding a representative for all or even a close majority of anarchists, and theres a good deal of overly sectarian communists around, its rare a country will only have one major communist party, no matter how similiar the ideologies of the groups actually are.

After the revolution the Communist would set up a government. While Anarchist would live inside the country without being under the rule of the Communist government.

Oh will they? Says who? Is anyone who simply calls themselves an anarchist somehow exempt from your governments rules?


The Anarchist would not have to live under any law or organization that was not agreed upon before the revolution.

To the anarchists, if their name isn't on it, or well, even if it is, that contract with the state means shit all. Not fighting for freedom to be screwed into a shit deal. Quite a few will be mighty pissed off when something they didn't agree to will be imposed on them, just because someone claimed to represent the anarchists.

They also would not be able to take part in any social programs paid for by the government except defense.

So, basically leave them out in the cold with a brick and their rifle and say "HAVE FUN GUYS!, we'll try not to bother you, oh, and try and stay fit, wouldn't do you well getting sick now, you're not allowed in the hospitals"

The only job of the anarchist would be to police the new Communist government. If the Communist broke any of the pre arranged agreements the anarchist would enage in a revolution against the government.

So now you've succesfully shafted the anarchists entirely, lets throw them a bone and say "oh you can just overthrow them if you're so inclined"

Not a very good plan.

Not as though it would ever get that far, the communists (leninists) have a nasty habit of not even waiting till the revolutions over to have all the anarchists shot.

[TXsocialist]

Anarchists are only progressive as a tool in attaining and aiding the revolution, after that, to hell with them :)

Marx spanked Prohound, sorry to say sad to report comrades ;)

[redstar2000]

It's a bit embarrassing to have to admit, but I'm afraid that the burden of trust is--and will be for a considerable time to come--on the non-Leninist communists to prove that they are not just another bunch of power-hungry hustlers willing to use anarchists and discard them afterwards.

As for Leninists, I see, as I've said before, zero chance of any cooperation with them by anarchists. As one anarchist wrote "Why should we help you arrange matters such that it will be as easy as possible for you to shoot us at your convenience?".

The theoretical task for real communists in the present era is to clear out all the Leninist shit. When anarchists see that we are really serious about that--in practice as well as theory--then will be time enough to talk about real cooperation...as equals.

Give it time.

:cool:

[TXsocialist]

It's funny that you say "Marxism without the crap," in your sig, because it seems what you're saying is crap, and not marxism.

Ever read some of the stuff said between Marx and Prohound?

[redstar2000]

Ever read some of the stuff said between Marx and Prohound?

I think that's Proudhon you're speaking of there, but I take your point.

My point is that the controversies between Marx and 19th century anarchist figures are not terribly relevant to the 21st century.

As it happens, I think Marx's criticisms of 19th century anarchist figures were mostly justified...but that says very little about contemporary anarchists, some of whom quite possibly might have been "acceptable" to Marx.

"Anarchism" is a very loose term (hardly surprising); some of them are serious revolutionaries, some are flakes. Cannot the same be said about many "communists"?

The "modern" version of "Proudhon-ism" is, as I understand it, the "shadow economy" anarchists...and we are not required to endorse that idea ideologically in order to get a good price on smuggled tax-free cigarettes.

The "modern" version of "Bakuninism" or perhaps even "Blanqi-ism" would, I suppose, be the "Black Bloc" formations that have shown up during recent anti-globalization and anti-U.S. imperialism demonstrations, engaging in some rather mild violence against the public order. Again, an ideological endorsement from us is not required in order to applaud their efforts to "raise the stakes" in such events.

What I am most interested in is the possibility of the revival of anarcho-syndicalism...I see that current of anarchist thought--with its emphasis on genuine working class autonomy--as a natural ally of real communists.

And what I am least interested in is the "criticism" of anarchist thought by Lenin-Stalin-Trotsky-Mao wannabes. The motive of self-interest is as obvious as shit on the tablecloth...how can you be the "Great Leader" with all these goddam anarchists around?

How, indeed!

:cool:

[Blackberry]

Quote: from TXsocialist on 9:43 pm on July 4, 2003
Anarchists are only progressive as a tool in attaining and aiding the revolution, after that, to hell with them :)

Marx spanked Prohound, sorry to say sad to report comrades ;)


And to hell with you, too, if that's going to be your attitude.

You obviously do not understand the many different types of anarchists out there, and how there are quite a many who would not advocate Proudhon's particular ideas, not to mention may not even be interested in what he had to say.

Oh, and what RedStar2000 said, especially the part where those stupid 19th century rantings are said to be not terribly relevant. It's history. I find referring back to that worse than talking about Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky.

[MiNdGaMe]

I'm just going to leave this quote:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called `the People's Stick'." - Bakunin

[Bush is a capitalist]

I'm afraid I agree with TXSocialist. Anarchists like Bebel and Proudhon do not compare to Marx or Lenin. No one takes them seriously.

I'm willing to help an Anarchist in his/her own cause if it's against a Fascist or Monarch (like the USSR helped the Anarcho-syndacalists in Spain), but just as long as they don't get in the way of the communist cause , like they tried during the Bolshevik revolution. The Anarchists want to have their silly little chaotic authority-less nation, fine, but don't try to overthrow a Communist revolution.

RedStar, no offense, but you are a joke if you consider yourself a Marxist. I like Mao and Lenin, like every Marxist serious about revolution does. How in the world can you say "Marxism without the crap" (As TX pointed out) when YOU ARE AN ANARCHIST YOURSELF! Marxism is based on centralization, Mao and Lenin were centralists. You trying to paint Marxism out as if it's some sort of branch of Anarchism is so ridiculous that it is hard to fathom. IT is impossible to be a Marxist if you are an anarchist, THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT comes to mind. Anarchists are "anti-authoritarians", Marxists are authoritarians. So how can Anarchists and Marxists be allies if they are opposites? Sure, Lenin and Mao could've granted more liberties, but they did what they could with the ignorant, hungry, and inalphabetic peasants in the countries they inherited. You know, I am just as compassionate towards the workers and poor as you claim to be. Simply because others in the past have distorted the ideas of Marxism-Leninism doesn't mean everyone is an "evil man that wants to grasp power, put their portrait everywhere, and kill children bla bla".

Here's a quote by Marx in a Polemic against the Anarchists: When the political struggle of the working class assumes a revolutionary form, when the workers set up in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie their revolutionary dictatorship , then they commit the terrible crime of outraging principle, for in order to satisfy their wretched, vulgar, everyday needs, in order to break down the resistence of the bourgeoisie, they give the state a revolutionary and transitional form, instead of laying down arms and abolishing the state.

There are millions of quotes by Engels detesting Anarchists as well! So again repeat to me Red Star, how do you plan on combining Anarchism and Marxism? There's no way, because it is impossible. I respect Anarchists as our anti-capitalists brothers, but if they start to bite the hand that feeds them, they will not be tolerated.

[Bush is a capitalist]

You obviously do not understand the many different types of anarchists out there, and how there are quite a many who would not advocate Proudhon's particular ideas, not to mention may not even be interested in what he had to say.

True, but to my knowledge all Anarchists are "anti-authoritarians". Marxists are centralists. Do you see what I'm talking about?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

True, but to my knowledge all Anarchists are "anti-authoritarians". Marxists are centralists. Do you see what I'm talking about?
i agree,as i see it the only thing really linking anarchy and socialism is that they both hate capitalism as it lacks compasion for all people

[redstar2000]

I like Mao and Lenin, like every Marxist serious about revolution does.

Oh, what is it exactly that you "like" about them? That they were "winners", perhaps?

Except they weren't. Russia is openly capitalist now and has been for more than a decade; China awaits only the admission of capitalists into its "communist" party to draft the formal declaration.

Serious? Yeah, if you want to lose.

Anarchists like Bebel and Proudhon do not compare to Marx or Lenin. No one takes them seriously.

You are not going to score real high on the "serious" index yourself, calling August Bebel, one of the founders of the German Social-Democratic Party, an "anarchist".

Marxism is based on centralization, Mao and Lenin were centralists.

But the question is: were Mao and Lenin Marxists? And even if they were (sort of), what about the modern versions of Leninism?

What you have to prove is that "Marxism" demands a dictatorship not of the proletariat but of an elite which "acts in the name of the proletariat". That's the "link" between Marx and Lenin...and it doesn't fucking exist!

Anarchists are "anti-authoritarians", Marxists are authoritarians.

No, Leninists are authoritarians. All that Marx says is that the working class must smash the old capitalist state machinery and set up a "transitional" state only for the purpose of crushing the resistance of the old ruling class.

Marx and Engels did not speculate much on the nature of post-capitalist society...but I think even the most ardent Leninist would have difficulty finding even a scrap or two of Marx or Engels to even remotely justify the USSR, China, etc.

Sure, Lenin and Mao could've granted more liberties, but they did what they could with the ignorant, hungry, and inalphabetic peasants in the countries they inherited.

Inalphabetic?

But I agree, they did "what they could"...made bourgeois revolutions wrapped in red flags. Not because they were "evil" or "stupid"...because, as Marx pointed out, you can't get from feudalism to communism without passing through capitalism. Material conditions prevail.

But this, of course, misses the contemporary point altogether. Our modern Leninists--walking fossils--want to see fresh versions of the USSR or People's China in the advanced capitalist countries. This is not only not Marxism of any kind, it's brazen idiocy. And they propose to achieve this dubious state of bliss (for them) through the old discredited methods of social democratic parliamentary cretinism...idiocy piled upon idiocy!

Simply because others in the past have distorted the ideas of Marxism-Leninism doesn't mean everyone is an "evil man that wants to grasp power, put their portrait everywhere, and kill children bla bla".

I simply can't imagine who you're talking about in such careful diplomatic language, but it actually doesn't matter. Although Lenin and Mao were fairly careful about that sort of thing, contemporary Leninist-Maoists regard the entire history of 20th century communism as one of betrayals, distortions, fuckups...and all around general "causes" due to the characteristics of individual personalities. So far have they drifted from any reasonable interpretation of Marx that they now effectively embrace "the great man theory of history"...a theory held in disrepute by even mediocre bourgois historians now.

If only so-and-so had done this, they say, or if only thus-and-so had not done that...then everything in Russia or China would have turned out differently.

You call that "serious Marxism"? Who is telling jokes here?

...in order to break down the resistence of the bourgeoisie, they give the state a revolutionary and transitional form, instead of laying down arms and abolishing the state.

A quote from Marx himself...very good. Now since Marx was involved in both a political and an organizational struggle with the anarchists of his time--mainly Bakunin--is it surprising that Marx would deliberately use the word "state" in a way that would clearly set his views apart from the "anti-state" Bakunin?

Do Marx's words clearly link his views with those of Lenin or Mao...neither of whom ever suggested the "transitional" nature of their state except as something that would happen far, far in the future...in a galaxy far away, no doubt.

Is there anything in Marx's words that suggest a "stage" called "socialism" that lasts for decades or centuries prior to the abolition of the state and the establishment of communism?

Is there anything in Marx's words that suggest that this "stage" of "socialism" is characterized by the dictatorship of a self-selected elite over the working class?

You know damn well there ain't.

I respect Anarchists as our anti-capitalists brothers, but if they start to bite the hand that feeds them, they will not be tolerated.

Anarchists lining up at Leninist soup-kitchens? That would be a sight to see. :cheesy:

:cool:

PS: I understand and accept the fact that to a Leninist, I must appear as either a "pot-smoking hippy" or a thinly-disguised "anarchist" attempting to steal some of your "Marxist scripture" for blasphemous purposes...namely undermining the principle of "papal succession". (You know, Marx annointed Lenin who annointed Stalin who annointed Mao who annointed...whatever Comrade Bigturd you prefer.)

Therefore, feel free to call me as many names as you like...but don't call me for the coronation of your latest designated heir to Leninist "wisdom"...I'm not religious.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:35 pm on July 5, 2003)

[Bush is a capitalist]

Oh, what is it exactly that you "like" about them? That they were "winners", perhaps?

Except they weren't. Russia is openly capitalist now and has been for more than a decade; China awaits only the admission of capitalists into its "communist" party to draft the formal declaration.

Serious? Yeah, if you want to lose.

What I liked about Lenin and Mao is that they expanded Marxist theory. You see, Mao and Lenin applied Marxism to the positions they were in, post feudalist society, so they were not dogmatic. They had to develop their own theories in order to make it work in a post-feudal society. I don't believe Leninism would necessarily be needed in a post-capitalist society, but in a feudal one it is.

Also, Lenin and Mao are not to blame for the mass reforms in Russia and China. The ones to blame are Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and especially Gorbachev who in their own ways all led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The one who instated "market socialism" in China was Deng Xiaoping. Surely, many of the ways Mao's collectivizing theories were executed failed and much blood was spilt during the cultural revolution, but it does not mean we should automatically dismiss Maoism as illogical. Instead, we should learn from Mao's mistakes and attempt to experiment with his revolutionary and reeducation theories. His theories can be seen practiced in anywhere from Cuba to East Timor.


You are not going to score real high on the "serious" index yourself, calling August Bebel, one of the founders of the German Social-Democratic Party, an "anarchist".

Excuse me, I meant reactionaries like Bebel and Proudhon. That was a typo.


But the question is: were Mao and Lenin Marxists? And even if they were (sort of), what about the modern versions of Leninism? What you have to prove is that "Marxism" demands a dictatorship not of the proletariat but of an elite which "acts in the name of the proletariat". That's the "link" between Marx and Lenin...and it doesn't fucking exist!

Mao and Lenin certainly were Marxists, they Marxists with more obstacles than Marx and Engels would've imagined. Again, Marx and Engels predicted the revolution would take part in the already industrialized western nations, but that did not happen, in fact the opposite happened. Lenin and Mao both got nations were little to anyone could EVEN READ. So how in the world are we going to have the proletariat run themselves if they are illiterate, ignorant, and superstitious? Leninism is simply Marxism applied to a post-feudal society. The outcome is predicted to be the same, the Proletariat ends up running themselves, but that cannot happen in the conditions Mao and Lenin were met with.

You see, the roles of Leninists is to educate, feed, clothe and teach the proletariat until they are fit to run themselves. The role of the state is to overthrow the bourgeois and put the proletariat into power according to Marx and Engels, and that is exactly what Mao and Lenin tried. You paint out Lenin and Mao as two autocratic Hitler wannabes.


No, Leninists are authoritarians. All that Marx says is that the working class must smash the old capitalist state machinery and set up a "transitional" state only for the purpose of crushing the resistance of the old ruling class.

Oh really? So you're telling me that Marx and Engels weren't centralists? Let's see what dictionary.com describes centralization as: To bring under a single, central authority: The Constitution centralizes political power in the federal government.

That is authoritarianism! Authoritarianism is one party, a centralized economy and centralized government. Marx and Engels were authoritarians if they were centralists. All "authoritarian" communists are centralists.

How in the world is the working class going to smash the capitalist state machinary IF there never was a capitalist state in the first place?

The only way to crush all class antagonisms is through a strong central government that can easily break through these antagonisms.

Marx and Engels did not speculate much on the nature of post-capitalist society...but I think even the most ardent Leninist would have difficulty finding even a scrap or two of Marx or Engels to even remotely justify the USSR, China, etc.

Well, maybe Marx and Engels would justify the situations in the Soviet Union and in China IF THEY WERE ALIVE. Marx and Engels did not speculate on post-capitalist society? What is this rubbish!? Here's a little piece they wrote in regards to liberties and society in a post-revolution state:
In a higher phase of Communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals in the division of labour has disappeared, and with it also the antagonism between mental and physical labour; when labour has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces too have grown, and all the springs of social wealth are flowing more freely-- it is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass completely beyong the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights, and for society to inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs!


Inalphabetic?
Typo, replace the I with A, don't be so picky.

But I agree, they did "what they could"...made bourgeois revolutions wrapped in red flags. Not because they were "evil" or "stupid"...because, as Marx pointed out, you can't get from feudalism to communism without passing through capitalism. Material conditions prevail.

I agree with some of this. You're right, it is impossible to get from feudalism to socialism without capitalism. Mao and Lenin both were met with this situation, so it was impossible for them to install generic Marxism; that is where Leninism comes in. Leninism-- as many said before-- is just Marxism applied to a post-feudal society. Regardless of what you say, Leninist Russia and Maoist China were both socialist. To say they were "bourgeois governments wrapped in a red flag" is simply ridiculous and baseless.

But this, of course, misses the contemporary point altogether. Our modern Leninists--walking fossils--want to see fresh versions of the USSR or People's China in the advanced capitalist countries. This is not only not Marxism of any kind, it's brazen idiocy. And they propose to achieve this dubious state of bliss (for them) through the old discredited methods of social democratic parliamentary cretinism...idiocy piled upon idiocy!

If you think about it, modern capitalist society is aristocratic and feudalistic. Instead of king and queen we have Prime ministers and mistresses, instead of lords and noblemen we have corporate CEO's. So you see, Leninism is still needed in order to bring Marxism to a third world ridden by imperialism. I belive the USSR and the PRC were both experiments. Experiments that need to be studied by dogmatic Marxists and Marxist-Leninists alike. I think a revised Marxism-Leninism can be seen in Vietnam and even Cuba to some extent. I think those countries are examples to follow.

Red Star, I'm not saying we must apply all Leninist theories to places like let's say the United States or Western Europe, I'm saying we should apply it to countries that are victims of neo-liberal economics, which are feudelistic. I am realistic, chances are there will not be an all out revolution in the west for a good while, so we should work with what we can, which is the third-world, most specifically Latin America. Marxism-Leninism is essential for these parts of the world to fully develop a workers state.

I simply can't imagine who you're talking about in such careful diplomatic language, but it actually doesn't matter. Although Lenin and Mao were fairly careful about that sort of thing, contemporary Leninist-Maoists regard the entire history of 20th century communism as one of betrayals, distortions, fuckups...and all around general "causes" due to the characteristics of individual personalities. So far have they drifted from any reasonable interpretation of Marx that they now effectively embrace "the great man theory of history"...a theory held in disrepute by even mediocre bourgois historians now.

If only so-and-so had done this, they say, or if only thus-and-so had not done that...then everything in Russia or China would have turned out differently.

You call that "serious Marxism"? Who is telling jokes here?

Pol Pot considered himself a Maoist. But he was not. Trotsky was an opportunist. Stalin a totalitarian. Brezhnevs politburo was full of morons. And Gorbachev and Xiaoping were capitalists that infiltrated the communist party.

That right their is all Chinese and Soviet history in a couple of sentences. You do not call any of that betrayal to the ideas of Mao and Lenin? The reason we blame people for betraying the ideas of Marx and Lenin is because THEY DID BETRAY THEM.

I think the majority of people would believe Marx and Engels would've agreed with Lenin a lot more than any Anarchist.

A quote from Marx himself...very good. Now since Marx was involved in both a political and an organizational struggle with the anarchists of his time--mainly Bakunin--is it surprising that Marx would deliberately use the word "state" in a way that would clearly set his views apart from the "anti-state" Bakunin?

This is simply what I call back peddling. The reason Marx used the words "state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" a lot is because that was his theory.

Do Marx's words clearly link his views with those of Lenin or Mao...neither of whom ever suggested the "transitional" nature of their state except as something that would happen far, far in the future...in a galaxy far away, no doubt.

What? Actually Mao and Lenin did write (and Mao acted) to progress to the stateless society. The problem with this, is as I've stated numerous times in this post, is that Lenin and Mao both inherited an ignorant society that could not possibly rule themselves until they had proper nutrition, education, literacy, health, etc. Lenin wrote that once all of the needs of the proletariat were met, the state would simply wither away . Mao attempted to build communes as well. But of course, due to his inexperience in economics and major building flaws, the communes ended up in starvation that left Mao notorious. So Mao and Lenin tried to speed up the processes but failed due to the inexperiences of the proletariat. That is what we must take notes on, the various failures of such actions if not properly planned.

I'm afraid nations that suffer from neo-liberal feudalistic economics too are massively illiterate, poor, hungry, etc. So that is why Leninism must be applied.

Is there anything in Marx's words that suggest a "stage" called "socialism" that lasts for decades or centuries prior to the abolition of the state and the establishment of communism?

I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over, you know my answer.

Is there anything in Marx's words that suggest that this "stage" of "socialism" is characterized by the dictatorship of a self-selected elite over the working class?

In whta sense is it "self-selected"? If the proletariat helped Lenin and Mao to victory, than that means they acknowledged them as leaders. I still have to read more on Marx, my knowledge is limited to the communist manifesto, but I am sure that if he condoned a centralized government, then yes, he did agree with one group of people working WITH the proletariat. Again, how in the world are workers that have no education supposed to democratically run their own collectivized land without assistence from the state?

Anarchists lining up at Leninist soup-kitchens? That would be a sight to see.
Who says they don't?

I understand and accept the fact that to a Leninist, I must appear as either a "pot-smoking hippy" or a thinly-disguised "anarchist" attempting to steal some of your "Marxist scripture" for blasphemous purposes...namely undermining the principle of "papal succession". (You know, Marx annointed Lenin who annointed Stalin who annointed Mao who annointed...whatever Comrade Bigturd you prefer.)

Well maybe if you didn't make such outrageous generalizations about Leninists, we wouldn't make outrageous generalizations about Liberals. But you sure are Anarchistic. To my knowledge Lenin did not even support Stalin. Mao criticized Stalin as well, but was not to critical when Stalin was in power in order to get economic aide for China. Mao and Stalin were actually quite different.

Therefore, feel free to call me as many names as you like...but don't call me for the coronation of your latest designated heir to Leninist "wisdom"...I'm not religious.

Assbutt. Again with the generalizations. I am not a sectarianism nor do I condone personality sects.

[redstar2000]

What I liked about Lenin and Mao is that they expanded Marxist theory. You see, Mao and Lenin applied Marxism to the positions they were in, post feudalist society, so they were not dogmatic. They had to develop their own theories in order to make it work in a post-feudal society. I don't believe Leninism would necessarily be needed in a post-capitalist society, but in a feudal one it is.

Ok, let's say, simply for the sake of discussion, that what you say here is true. So what?

Whether you use Adam Smith or Karl Marx as your "guide", what happens when you seek to promote the transition out of a semi-feudal society into a modern society? The answer is capitalism. Wave as many red flags as you like...material conditions prevail.

Lenin and Mao certainly had some interesting insights into the possibilities of revolution in their respective countries...but, at the core, and presuming their sincereity about socialism, they were idealist--they both thought (or acted as if they thought) that socialism could be established by the determined will of a small minority.

You can make something that "looks" like socialism in that fashion...but it crumbles away in a generation or two.

Also, Lenin and Mao are not to blame for the mass reforms in Russia and China. The ones to blame are Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and especially Gorbachev who in their own ways all led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The one who instated "market socialism" in China was Deng Xiaoping.

Let's try this again: Marxists do not assign "blame". Stalin, etc., etc. did not do what they did because they were "evil"...they acted in accord with the material conditions that existed in those countries, particularly their own class interests as an emerging capitalist class.

In contrast to Marxism, what you Leninists offer is the "great fuckup" theory of the fall of the USSR and China...Lenin and Mao (or Lenin and Stalin or Lenin and Trotsky, etc.) all "did the right thing" and it was the fuckups (or traitors) afterwards who are to "blame".

That's pathetic...and historically untrue. A good historian of the Lenin era could probably find plenty of fuckups by Lenin; and we know that Mao fucked up on several dramatic occasions.

His [Mao's] theories can be seen practiced in anywhere from Cuba to East Timor.

I know nothing of the tiny "nation" of East Timor, but I think it would come as quite a shock to the Cubans to discover that they are carrying out Mao's "theories"...perhaps they're doing it "unconsciously".

So how in the world are we going to have the proletariat run [things] themselves if they are illiterate, ignorant, and superstitious?

A good question. The Marxist answer is that it can't be done. The anarchist answer is that you should go ahead and try anyway...maybe they'll learn fast.

The Leninist answer is that the working class needs a self-appointed and self-perpetuating elite to run things "for their own good"---a "benevolent despotism" to "prepare" the working class for self-government.

What is really being prepared is a new and vigorous capitalist class...and this in spite of the sincereity or lack of same on the part of the Leninists.

You paint out Lenin and Mao as two autocratic Hitler wannabes.

No, actually I don't. What I am saying is that it does not matter in the long run "what you want to be"...given the material conditions and the political ideas of Lenin and Mao, the outcome would have been the same even if Lenin and Mao had died two weeks after assuming power.

If your "Marxism" depends on a "despot of good will"...then despotism is inevitable and how "good" it is will be problematic, to put it as kindly as I can.

That is authoritarianism! Authoritarianism is one party, a centralized economy and centralized government. Marx and Engels were authoritarians if they were centralists. All "authoritarian" communists are centralists.

And that is confused babble. There's nothing in Marx and Engels that I know of about "one party", "a centralized economy" and "centralized government".

And even if a few scraps could be found where Marx and Engels might have briefly entertained the ideas, there is absolutely no suggestion that such a hypothetical post-revolutionary society should be run by a self-appointed despotism. The overwhelming "bias" of Marx and Engels is in favor of the proposition that the working class, by overthrowing capitalism, ends the entire epoch of class society...there is no way you can twist this to mean that the working class becomes a new ruling class, with its elected (initially) and self-perpetuating (ultimately) "great leaders".

The only way to crush all class antagonisms is through a strong central government that can easily break through these antagonisms.

Yeah, we've been hearing that one for 80 years now...but those "strong central governments" didn't get the job done. Capitalism came back anyway; the counter-revolutionaries won.

Perhaps if Stalin or Mao had shot a few more people...???

Regardless of what you say, Leninist Russia and Maoist China were both socialist. To say they were "bourgeois governments wrapped in a red flag" is simply ridiculous and baseless.

No, actually I said they were bourgeois revolutions wrapped in red flags. It took time for the Leninist party elites in those countries to "transform" themselves from conscious "communists" into a new bourgeoisie. Material conditions do not do their work "instantly".

But it's interesting that you should raise this, because it's an area where I think Marxist and anarchist theory converge. Classical anarchist theory has it that as soon as you create "a state", society more or less quickly becomes divided into an elite of "order-givers" and a mass of "order-takers" and formal class divisions are quick to follow. A Marxist would say that whenever the state owns and manages the means of production and the state itself is in the hands of a political elite...that elite will inevitably become the nucleus of a new ruling class...and those not part of that elite will be an exploited and oppressed class (or classes).

That's pretty damn close to saying the same thing in slightly different words...and the historical accuracy is incontestable.

If you think about it, modern capitalist society is aristocratic and feudalistic. Instead of king and queen we have Prime ministers and mistresses, instead of lords and noblemen we have corporate CEO's.

And that, folks, is what's known as the set-up. Because, if true, then the benevolent guidance of a Leninist party "is still needed"...since we workers are "still" too dumb to run things ourselves.

So you see, Leninism is still needed in order to bring Marxism to a third world ridden by imperialism.

So you see, what you will bring to the third world is not Marxism...you will, at best, replace a semi-feudal aristocracy and colonial bourgeoisie with a more progressive and vigorous native bourgeoisie.

Up to you, I suppose, but my "simple" understanding of Marxism is that we should leave it to the bourgeoisie to make bourgeois revolutions. After all, they will take care of those things in their own time.

Marxism-Leninism is essential for these [backward] parts of the world to fully develop a workers state.

A "workers state" that becomes, in due time, a capitalist state and cannot do anything else.

I think the majority of people would believe Marx and Engels would've agreed with Lenin a lot more than any Anarchist.

"Believe" is the operative word here...because there's no way to actually know. The Leninists yelled the loudest in the 20th century and most people "believed" them. The outcomes have been catastrophic.

You used the word "experiment" to describe the USSR, China, etc. Ok, let's consider the implications of that approach. In science, when experiments are spectacular failures, that generally prompts a fundamental re-examination of the theoretical assumptions that prompted the experiment in the first place.

To continue to replicate "experiments" that you already know don't really work is religious, not scientific. The leaden despotisms of Leninist parties cannot be transformed into golden Marxist communisms; that is political alchemy and doesn't work.

In what sense is it "self-selected"? If the proletariat helped Lenin and Mao to victory, than that means they acknowledged them as leaders.

How about if they just stood aside while Lenin and his party seized power? How about if, in the spring of 1918, they wanted to replace the Bolsheviks, only to be frustrated in their attempts?

I guess if you don't immediately assassinate any despot, you have therefore "acknowledged" their "leadership".

I guess leader-types will reach a long way to find some scrap, any scrap, of "justification" for their ambitions.

I still have to read more on Marx, my knowledge is limited to the communist manifesto, but I am sure that if he condoned a centralized government, then yes, he did agree with one group of people working WITH the proletariat. Again, how in the world are workers that have no education supposed to democratically run their own collectivized land without assistance from the state?

Working with the proletariat? "Assistance" from the state? Now you're starting to sound like a guy whose Leninist shoes are pinching his democratic toes.

I encourage you to read as much Marx and Engels as you can. Whenever you find something that you think supports Leninism, bring it up here and we'll talk about it at as much length as you like.

And please keep in mind that nothing I have said or will say is intended to "demonize" you personally or even Leninists as a group. It is those ideas that I think are wrong and must be rejected by serious communists.

:cool:

PS: Excuse me, I meant reactionaries like Bebel and Proudhon. This is the sketch on August Bebel from marxists.org

Bebel, August (1840-1913)

A worker and Marxist revolutionary, Bebel co-founded German Social Democracy with Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1869. Bebel had trained as a cabinet maker, and in 1863, at the time of the founding of Lassalle's German Workers' Association, he found "socialism and communism" "totally unfamiliar concepts, double-duth words". Bebel was a member of the Reichstag from 1867. Sentenced with Liebknecht to two years imprisonment for "treason" (opposition to Franco-German War) in 1872. After the GSD merged with the Lassalleans in Gotha in 1875, Bebel remained the unquestioned leader. His fiery parliamentary speeches — from 1868 he was continuously a member first of the North German and later the German Reichstag — are part of the history of German social democracy, as are also his books, above all his autobiography From My Life and Women and Socialism.

---I'm sure he had his faults, but "reactionary" seems a bit over-the-top.


(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:08 pm on July 6, 2003)

[MiNdGaMe]

(like the USSR helped the Anarcho-syndacalists in Spain),
All Stalin did during the Spain Revolution/Civil War was litterally destoy it.

[TXsocialist]

RedStar, your anger and hate for leninsts only hurts the movement. I used to be like you, in that I hated Lenin, until I READ him ;)

Oh, and my bad for misspelling Prohoowie's name...

[TXsocialist]

Oh, and to that 'find where marxism supports lenin'

read lenin, he uses frikin quotes every other paragraph...

[rAW DEaL bILL]

fuck lennin man. fuck any fucking totalitarian dictator. bleh. i hate this authoritarian bullshit man. authority is just as exploitive, if not more exploitave, than capitalism! shit man. fuck lennin, fuck stalin, fuck mao fuck em all. the only thing i realy like about che is he didnt become a dictator, he just hepled a revolution. if he bacame a dictator id be saying fuck him too. bleh. peace.

[redstar2000]

RedStar, your anger and hate for leninsts only hurts the movement. I used to be like you, in that I hated Lenin, until I READ him.

Anger? Hate? We are talking about ideas that are wrong here...ideas that "hurt the movement" far more than any personal sentiments on my part.

I will concede that when I run into someone who clearly and obviously is looking forward with enthusiasm to getting their grubby little paws on the "levers of power" (need I name names?), I do react with anger and hatred. Perhaps I shouldn't...perhaps I should be more restrained and even "scholarly". I often try to "hold back"...you should see some of the things I've written that I don't post.

But, to be blunt about the matter, we communists have no future until all this Leninist crap is swept up, hauled away, deposited in some obscure museum in a small town in Russia, and utterly forgotten.

Just as Lenin himself correctly said that the 2nd International was "a stinking corpse", we communists must now say, just as bluntly, that Leninism itself has become a stinking corpse.

:cool:

PS: It does not matter how much one "quotes Marx" if one's political actions are contrary to Marx's views. That should be obvious.

[elijahcraig]

I wouldn't say Lenin is a dictator, he didn't always get his way.

[MiNdGaMe]

TXsocialist, Leninism in a modern era, has only a chance of succeeding in those countries who are not in advanced capitalist societies, but do you think their going to listen to some lennin wannabe(s)? As redstar has pointed out Marx stated that it is a continous move from one system to another Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism and so on, not Feudalism > Totiltarian Socialism.

Even if Lennists attempted a revolution in any society, i'd gurantee genuine marxists and anarchists would not sit back and let some party take control for their own superficial self-interests.

btw... Lennists hurt the movement not the other way around. Where I live they are the most annoying people around.

(Edited by MiNdGaMe at 4:32 am on July 7, 2003)

[Blackberry]

Quote: from MiNdGaMe on 4:24 am on July 7, 2003

btw... Lennists hurt the movement not the other way around. Where I live they are the most annoying people around.


They don't even practice what they preach. They are against the recent happenings of Columbia, yet continue to drink Coca Cola.

They don't even participate in any militant activities.

They have degraded themselves, by participating in bourgeois politics. Reformism would be their practice if they ever took any power. But they have only managed to have been elected in one local council seat. They are not becoming more radical, but are going rightways. They are doing what the Australian labor Party did a century ago - changing policy in order to become more 'voteable'.

Leninism has only been accepted in backwards societies. Advanced capitalist societies will simply not accept it. It is merely replacing one set of bosses with another set of bosses.