Another commie here :P

[Redscare102]

Another communist here. I live in upstate (well, not really upstate, per se... I'm closer to NYC than Buffalo.) New York, and am a... well, I don't know yet. I don't really know whether I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or a Maoist, or a Trotskyist, or something else. So, for the time being (and probably in the future, too), I'm going to avoid labels entirely and just say that I'm a communist. :P

Hrm... what else should I put here? Well, I'm 15 years old. I'm also, oddly enough, an ex-Libertarian (big L. More Rothbard than Chomsky, sadly). A former "anarcho"-capitalist. I'm still struggling somewhat to get the Libertarian propaganda out of my head, but I'm mostly fine, now. Politically, I'm 100% fine. Some of the historical propaganda is still there, so I'm a little fuzzy on history, but I'm mostly fine, there, too.

[sizpoao communist]

hi :D

[Black Dagger]

We all make mistakes - don't worry too much about your past - hopefully you'll find RL a useful source of knowledge and discussion.

[INDK]

Yeah, backing BGM here-- it's never too late, bro. Welcome to the boards; and don't stress too much about labels, if you just call yourself a "Communist" you can be as ideologically promiscuous as you'd like with no breaking obligations!

[Enragé]

for god sake, please keep a little Libertarianism ;) or well, a shitload. Capitalism from a libertarian point of view (i.e actual libertarianism, libertarian socialism) is inherently flawed. Freedom without equality is privilege, equality without freedom is a barracks.

Not to mention, anarchism is more fun.

Leninism accomplishes more, yet as it turned out in the past what it accomplished wasnt fun, at all (so thats also why, anarchism is more fun)

So... long live Anarcho-Leninism, mixing fun with actual results! :lol:



j/k, but not really

[INDK]

for god sake, please keep a little Libertarianism ;) or well, a shitload. Capitalism from a libertarian point of view (i.e actual libertarianism, libertarian socialism) is inherently flawed. Freedom without equality is privilege, equality without freedom is a barracks.

Not to mention, anarchism is more fun.

Leninism accomplishes more, yet as it turned out in the past what it accomplished wasnt fun, at all (so thats also why, anarchism is more fun)

So... long live Anarcho-Leninism, mixing fun with actual results! :lol:



j/k, but not really

..... WTF?

[Enragé]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or a Maoist, or a Trotskyist, or something else

Out of those, go trotskyite. Decent trotskyites = anarcho-leninists. (like the POUM, or the committee Bolshevik-Leninists or something along those lines [both spanish revolution]....again, j/k, but not really ^^ the same works if you flip it. Decent anarchists = anarcho-leninists [platformists, friends of durruti])

[Enragé]

..... WTF?

the real divide between shitty revolutionary practice and good revolutionary practice is not to be found in the divide leninism - anarchism, let alone marxism - anarchism (let it be clear that when i say leninism im NOT talking about Maoism, Stalinism, or related ideological freaks of bureaucratic society). The divide is to be found in the anarchist camp between those with an irrational allergy for "power", the extreme sectarians, and those with a sense of realism (like the friends of durruti, platformists)... though there is alot to be said for the lesser (in my view) side of anarchism (but, so is there for the sucky side of trotskyism). Amongst leninists, the divide is to be found basically between those who espouse DEMOCRATIC centralism (the decent ones), which basically entails as centralised as necessary as decentralised as possible (also, the decent, realist anarchist stance), and those who espouse democratic CENTRALISM.

The central feature of both decent varieties is however first and foremost a willingness to work together, and not be sectarian *****es, but without doing the opposite of the mistake of sectarianism, thus making a new mistake, i.e opportunism, leading you down the path of social-democracy. And well, look at history, most who started out leninists/orthodox marxist (i.e before lenin) ended up social-democratic, reformist, the anarchists mostly ended up isolated and crushed (with ofcourse, in both cases exceptions, though ofcourse not really big exceptions, because were that the case, capitalism would be dead).

Whereas fucked up leninism is all about centralism, strict hierarchical organisation, and fucked up anarchism is a bunch of lunatics (albeit heroically) fighting the system on their own, unorganized, what we need is a mixture of the two, cancelling the fucked-upness out and bringing it into an equilibrium, a balance, whatever. This would be Anarcho-Leninism. For both most anarchists and most leninists this will seem a paradox, simply bullshit, because both sides in the ideological debate have developed insane charicatures of the other side (basically what i described as the fucked up versions of anarchism and leninism), which often arent based on reality, or at least only in a remote way.

[INDK]

But what of the fact that Leninists are Marxists, believing in the dictatorship of the proletariat? Anarchists generally view these things as authoritarian or unnecessary. Leninists see Anarchists as illogical idealists. Leninists are vanguardist, something Anarchists strictly represent the opposition of? They are completely incompatible, I believe Leninists would call Anarchists just as much of an "infantile disorder" as Left-Communism (which share many more sympathies than Anarchism and Leninism)

[Enragé]

dictatorship of the proletariat

Please, define the DotP? It is the rule of a class, a class which constitutes the majority of society. For a collective to rule, one needs democracy, thus freedom. Also, decentralisation is the key in each workers' state which is actually a workers' state (i.e based on worker-councils, formed by the workers in factories, offices, etc etc), the workers are those in power, the councils have the last say (the councils being the worker-councils at the "lowest" level). Does the phrase "All power to the soviets/councils!" ring a bell?

http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-and-the-spanish-revolution-tom-wetzel
Read under "Left-Libertarian vision" and "The Debate in the CNT over political power
The plans by the CNT on how to structure revolutionary society, are in fact a "workers state" in the leninist sense of the word, and what is a "workers state" (a decent one, mind you) is in fact such a federalised system (there is a reason why the USSR was a federation in name, because thats what workers states are supposed to be, ofcourse the USSR wasnt, or only in a very limited manner).

As i said, the divide in the leninist camp runs between those for democratic CENTRALISM and those for DEMOCRATIC centralism. The idea of, freedom of discussion, but unity in action is central in every functioning revolutionary organisation/group, including anarchist groups, through a mechanism called self-discipline (a self-discipline enabled since though things might not go exactly as you want it, the decision making process was such that at least your voice was heard, not simply brushed aside, and that it was a majority decision, a decision by a majority which has your loyalty if for nothing else that there is only one thing worse than a bad plan put into action, which is a bad plan failing.... there are ofcourse always exceptions to this, and that is what can be the beginning of authoritarian degeneration, but on the other hand, to allow a minority to refuse to obey a majority decision amounts in practice to the minority having power over the majority.. a balance has to be struck, and that balance is the middleground between decent anarchism, and decent leninism, both already a middle ground, i.e rational, not sectarian nor overtly opportunist, not having spastic reflexes either towards the idea of "power" nor towards the idea of "decentralisation")


Leninists see Anarchists as illogical idealists

which is a load of rubbish. They should read a little more anarchistic stuff and i'd recommend Debord's Society of the Spectacle (who btw is rabidly anti-leninist, which was his greatest flaw. His ideas are however completely based on Marx). Again the problem is that both sides of the debate have made insane charicatures of the other side (this is a historical phenomenon dating back to the Bakunin - Marx split, which, was due to the fault of not one or the other, but both).


Leninists are vanguardist, something Anarchists strictly represent the opposition of?

Yes, which is actually laughable. Vanguardism in the sense that, again, decent leninists (most trotskyites) mean it is in fact not how anarchists see it. Vanguardism is simply the idea that you need to organise a group of people who are pro-revolution in order to agitate for the revolution, to try to convince people, to start things such as demonstrations, or strikes etc and in that sense and in that sense alone "lead". Tell me, how is this "leading" any different from what anarchists groups do? I mean, its by mere definition impossible to have a revolutionary group/organisation which isnt "vanguard", the avant-guarde, the fore-front, first in the fight, of the class struggle. It is unavoidable, someone has to be first (first, to keep things crystal clear, in time, not in hierarchy).


They are completely incompatible, I believe Leninists would call Anarchists just as much of an "infantile disorder"

Again, the whole debate is based on insane charicature. Anarchism's insane charicature is infantile disorder, leninism's insane charicature is totalitarian nightmare. If you want to push it so that theoretically anarchism and leninism cannot be mixed, then we must throw both out the window, and open our eyes to the fact that even though anarchism and leninism might not be theoretically, ontologically, methodologically, epistemologically compatible (though i doubt this) that anarchisTS and leninisTS are people who mean well but simply disagree on the way how to achieve a common goal, and that we should proceed, as said earlier, to throw both ideologies out of the window and start a new one (in marxist terms it wouldnt be an ideology, more anti-ideology) in which the revolutionary project and its conclusion being the freedom of mankind is central (with reference to marxist concepts of species being, human nature, alienation leading to anarchist conclusions, i.e the overthrowal of all hierarchy is a condition for a free man, for mankind to realise its potential as conscious, thus creative, being, which, ZOMG! -_-', is actually the same as marx's conclusion, or in the very least the conclusion which comes out of using those concepts to look at the world). Revolutionaryism anyone?


Also to illustrate, I'm in a trotskyite org. The charicature given by anarchists of trotskyism is indeed insane, where that charicature correct, rest assured i wouldnt have joined it, or have had alot more problems with structure of the organisation and the CC in particular (ofcourse, i still have a few, but friendly ones, ones we can work out, and if we cant, we'll replace 'em ;) ) And well, my soft spot lies with anarchism a fuck of a lot more than leninism (i started out as anarchist, still am really, the decent kind that is), and you can imagine this leads to constant debates, which it does (which is fun ^^). Basically, what im saying here is my conclusion (ofcourse, all conclusions are to be temporary ;)), and also the conclusion of a veteran in the organisation, that it is not a question of trotkyism or anarchism, but a question of either decent versions of both (together aptly called, Anarcho-Leninism), or fucked up versions of both.

[INDK]

Please, define the DotP?

The period after Capitalism and before Communism, in which the State and means of production are owned by the proletariat.


It is the rule of a class, a class which constitutes the majority of society. For a collective to rule, one needs democracy, thus freedom. Also, decentralisation is the key in each workers' state which is actually a workers' state (i.e based on worker-councils, formed by the workers in factories, offices, etc etc), the workers are those in power, the councils have the last say (the councils being the worker-councils at the "lowest" level). Does the phrase "All power to the soviets/councils!" ring a bell?

Of course, I don't understand the dispute here. If you're trying to put Leninism and Anarchism together as similar ideological persuasions, I don't think you'll be sucessful, especially not with an approach on Councils; Leninists have Soviets for central planning, Anarchists have workers' councils for democratic social organization. The differences remain apparent.


As i said, the divide in the leninist camp runs between those for democratic CENTRALISM and those for DEMOCRATIC centralism. The idea of, freedom of discussion, but unity in action is central in every functioning revolutionary organisation/group, including anarchist groups, through a mechanism called self-discipline (a self-discipline enabled since though things might not go exactly as you want it, the decision making process was such that at least your voice was heard, not simply brushed aside, and that it was a majority decision, a decision by a majority which has your loyalty if for nothing else that there is only one thing worse than a bad plan put into action, which is a bad plan failing.... there are ofcourse always exceptions to this, and that is what can be the beginning of authoritarian degeneration, but on the other hand, to allow a minority to refuse to obey a majority decision amounts in practice to the minority having power over the majority.. a balance has to be struck, and that balance is the middleground between decent anarchism, and decent leninism, both already a middle ground, i.e rational, not sectarian nor overtly opportunist, not having spastic reflexes either towards the idea of "power" nor towards the idea of "decentralisation")

I understand your points and I generally agree, but you really can't deny the huge rift between these ideologies without at least a tiny smirk on your face... You're kind of ignoring political theory.


hich is a load of rubbish. They should read a little more anarchistic stuff and i'd recommend Debord's Society of the Spectacle (who btw is rabidly anti-leninist, which was his greatest flaw. His ideas are however completely based on Marx). Again the problem is that both sides of the debate have made insane charicatures of the other side (this is a historical phenomenon dating back to the Bakunin - Marx split, which, was due to the fault of not one or the other, but both).

So how does this prove "Anarcho-Leninism" is possible? It just seems to enforce the idea.


Vanguardism in the sense that, again, decent leninists (most trotskyites) mean it is in fact not how anarchists see it.

Eh, I'd dispute that...


Vanguardism is simply the idea that you need to organise a group of people who are pro-revolution in order to agitate for the revolution, to try to convince people, to start things such as demonstrations, or strikes etc and in that sense and in that sense alone "lead".

Then Platformism is a form of Vanguardism? Grassroots organization is Vanguardist? I believe you have a misconception as to what "Vanguard party" means... it means a group of revolutionaries that lead the proletariat in revolution and to represent the working class in class warfare; personally, and I believe many would agree, Vanguardism and "Bolshevism" seem almost completely synonymous.


Tell me, how is this "leading" any different from what anarchists groups do?

I'd agree with you if Vanguardism is what you speak of, which is a point I did make directly above.


I mean, its by mere definition impossible to have a revolutionary group/organisation which isnt "vanguard", the avant-guarde, the fore-front, first in the fight, of the class struggle. It is unavoidable, someone has to be first (first, to keep things crystal clear, in time, not in hierarchy).

Of course, but a vanguard party is avant-guarde and the fore-front, whilst excluding the proletariat itself! Only the proletariat can liberate itself, and vanguard parties seek to do it for them, to be representatives, the leaders of the working class, and this leads to (in the DotP) dictatorship of party and clique instead of class, as you described. Vanguardism in the Leninist sense is not a part of Anarchist theory, any Anarchist would object to that view.


Again, the whole debate is based on insane charicature. Anarchism's insane charicature is infantile disorder, leninism's insane charicature is totalitarian nightmare. If you want to push it so that theoretically anarchism and leninism cannot be mixed, then we must throw both out the window, and open our eyes to the fact that even though anarchism and leninism might not be theoretically, ontologically, methodologically, epistemologically compatible (though i doubt this) that anarchisTS and leninisTS are people who mean well but simply disagree on the way how to achieve a common goal, and that we should proceed, as said earlier, to throw both ideologies out of the window and start a new one (in marxist terms it wouldnt be an ideology, more anti-ideology) in which the revolutionary project and its conclusion being the freedom of mankind is central (with reference to marxist concepts of species being, human nature, alienation leading to anarchist conclusions, i.e the overthrowal of all hierarchy is a condition for a free man, for mankind to realise its potential as conscious, thus creative, being, which, ZOMG! -_-', is actually the same as marx's conclusion, or in the very least the conclusion which comes out of using those concepts to look at the world). Revolutionaryism anyone?

As much as I like the idea of a unity such as this, but ideological differences (which do lie in a means to an end) are too different from ideological persuasion to ideological persuasion. I don't think the Left movement can unite in such a fashion, the people will need to choose their ideology....

[quote]

[Enragé]

If you're trying to put Leninism and Anarchism together as similar ideological persuasions, I don't think you'll be sucessful, especially not with an approach on Councils; Leninists have Soviets for central planning, Anarchists have workers' councils for democratic social organization.

That's just... factually incorrect. The Soviets were organs of self-rule, by the workers themselves. In its most basic, the soviet was all the workers in the factory. Indeed, central planning is necessary, and just as the CNT had regional assemblies, national assemblies, participated in the militia committee etc, so did the russians. All power to the soviets in the time that Lenin shouted all power to the soviets meant all power to the working class. Only later did the soviet system crumble, and was eventually usurped.

In any case, even if what you say was the case, which in the beginning it wasnt (the soviets in fact had nothing to do with the bolsheviks at the start), every trotskyite i have ever had a discussion with wants worker-councils in the same sense the anarchist want 'em. If they didnt, believe me, i wouldnt be in the organisation im in now.


but you really can't deny the huge rift between these ideologies without at least a tiny smirk on your face... You're kind of ignoring political theory

Well yes, there is a huge rift between the ideologies, but that rift is mostly semantics, and the rift that remains can be overcome... but not as long as both sides keep entrenched in their own system of thought while making charicatures of the opposing side's position.

When there is a State, there can be no Freedom, when there is Freedom, there can be no State
- Lenin

Let me pose it like this, I, as an anarchist, have had no mentionable problems with functioning in a trotskyite organisation (ofcourse there are disagreements, but none fundamental in nature, and not by a long shot disagreements based on any sort of intrinsic difference between [decent] anarchism and [decent] trotskyism). I am sure there are trot orgs which do indeed suck, but i could point anarchist orgs out to you which suck as well, on their respective points [i.e they dont suck in the same way those trot orgs suck, but they suck nonetheless]


I believe you have a misconception as to what "Vanguard party" means...

If that is the case, then so do my trotskyite comrades.


I'd agree with you if Vanguardism is what you speak of, which is a point I did make directly above.


According to my trotskyite comrades, yes. Now, it is not the question whether vanguardism really "is" what my trotskyite comrades tell me it is, the point is that, if thats how they understand vanguardism, there is no conflict with anarchism. So maybe, if you look it up in a "Grand Communist Dictionary" or whatever, vanguardism is what YOU say it is, but if there is a group of people who says "we're the vanguard!" but who ascribe to the definition i gave, DONT attack them on the grounds of that other definition. Its just semantics. And perhaps, those trotskyite comrades are for some reason not even trotskyite (well ok, they're cliffite, but besides that), then who cares? Or, who decides they're not? Trotsky? That motherfucker's long dead :P And yes we can keep *****ing about kronstadt, the closure of Golos Truda and what not, but we can also look at the Spanish revolution, the moment of glory for anarchism in europe is it not... and what do we see there? semi-trotskyites (POUM, not acknowledged by trotsky) and the CNT working together, and hardline trotskyites (Group/committee/whatever Bolshevik Leninists) working together with the Friends of Durrutti as the last line of defense for the revolution!


Of course, but a vanguard party is avant-guarde and the fore-front, whilst excluding the proletariat itself!

By your definition. But if that's true, my trotskyite org couldnt be defined as vanguard, even though they claim to be, because its about 50% worker 50% student (in my direct surroundings in the org even something like 75% worker 25% student). And, by the definition i again heard from one of my trotskyite comrades, the vanguard is not apart from the proletariate, it is simply the most radical of the proletariate bound together in order to radicalise the rest (radical/class conscious whatever)


Only the proletariat can liberate itself

And that has been ever since becoming a member of the trotskyite org my single most convincing argument in a number of debates. This sort of trumps all. There is, that much is true, in the leninist tradition a tendency to think the way you describe, however, in debates, if you force people to face the facts, they quickly give up that position you describe, and the most decent decent trotskyites in my org have realised this long ago and are struggling (yes, it is a struggle) to engrain this more in everyday practice (because, in theory, it is already there. That quote is from the preface of the something something first international, so yeh, its important, the working class can only free itself). Im not saying trotskyism is perfect, but among its ranks, there are alot of very fucking decent people, same goes for anarchism. Anarchism has in its tradition some weak points as well, so does leninism (particularly focussing on trotskyism as you have noticed), and what we need is an OPEN debate, and WORKING TOGETHER in practice. Because the glory days of both anarchism and trotskyism will be found in the future, as they have appeared in the past, when they unite, i.e when anti-authoritarian revolutionary thought (the only true revolutionary thought) breaks the hold of both capitalism as well as bureaucracy. It will be necessary to seperate Trotskyism from [some parts of] Trotsky (most notably what the fucker did in practice), and anarchism from the likes of Bakunin (like, honestly, wtf, secret societies? thats the most "vanguard" thing i've ever heard ;))


I don't think the Left movement can unite in such a fashion, the people will need to choose their ideology....


I think we must destroy ideology in the end and replace it with conscious revolutionary practice.

[Comrade Rage]

Welcome to the boards, Comrade. You'll beat that Libertarian non-sense yet!

[Enragé]

yes because oppression isnt oppression when it flies a red banner!