Let's just forget the USSR [Archive]

View Full Version : Let's just forget the USSR

NerdVincent

24th July 2008, 13:04

BobKKKindle$

24th July 2008, 13:28

I'm communist. I loath USSR.

Although terrible crimes were committed in the former "socialist" bloc there were also many positive achievements which should be recognized and celebrated - for example, the universal provision of health care, the elimination of illiteracy, and full employment. In addition, the mistakes which were made need to be analyzed and discussed carefully, as they pose valuable lessons which can be used in future attempts to develop socialism.

RedAnarchist

24th July 2008, 13:31

revolution inaction

24th July 2008, 15:21

Why do I see all those soviet flag in member's avatar?
There are quite a few Leninists (Stalinist, Trotskyists and Maoists) on these boards, there are not our allies so long as there remain Leninist. Not all red flags represent the USSR though, and not every one with one in there profile will be a Leninist, it is the most well know communist symbol so I doubt everyone using it supports the USSR

I'm communist. I loath USSR. Why to bother with USSR when it was a state-capitalist totalitarian state? What kind of enemy done the most harm to us new communists, if it isn't Soviet Russia, Maoist China or Korth Korea? Those states are the reason why nowaday when people hear "communism", they think "goulag", "dictatorship" and "famine".
Me to I think it is important to be absolutely clear that we consider the ussr capitalist not communist.

I even think about putting a new name to the communist ideology, just so people won't make the link.
This wont work when I describe my ideas to people they often recognise it as communisum (when they don't say "but that would be anarchy!!" ::D ) the key is to point out that we don't think the ussr was communist, and why not.

Although terrible crimes were committed in the former "socialist" bloc there were also many positive achievements which should be recognized and celebrated - for example, the universal provision of health care, the elimination of illiteracy, and full employment. In addition, the mistakes which were made need to be analyzed and discussed carefully, as they pose valuable lessons which can be used in future attempts to develop socialism.
Many of those things happened in western countries to, the best thing we can learn from the ussr is what not to do.

Led Zeppelin

24th July 2008, 15:30

This belongs in History, so Moved.

trivas7

24th July 2008, 15:52

Tower of Bebel

24th July 2008, 16:12

I think we should leave the USSR behind for another reason:

The old contradictions are worth getting rid of not because they are ‘outdated’ at all. The far older division into reformists and revolutionaries, and according to the Russian tradition – into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, is not out of date. Just the conditions in which the left movement exists in the late 1980s – early 90s have radically changed. With the collapse of the socialist camp, the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, Eastern Europe and in a somewhat different form in China it was the end of the whole epoch of the development of both capitalism and the world revolution, which started with the victory of the socialism in Russia and with its defeat in Germany. Ground Zero of the world history came, partly even the ‘old’ imperialism returned. The polarization of the poverty and wealth, which was smoothed away in the 20th century in the leading capitalist countries for fear of ‘the repetition of the USSR’, has reached again the level of 1914.

History came full circle and came back to the same point again but at a new level of development. The national monopolies gave place to the transnational ones, liberalism to neoliberalism, colonialism – to neocolonialism; the advanced productive forces are not already an internal-combustion engine and electrical generator, but telecommunications industry and genetic engineering and so on. Accordingly the revolutionary theory must draw a kind of circle along the spiral of its own development and, getting rid of the contradictions of the other phase of the turn, come to the crotch of neobolshevism and neomenshevism.

The masses understand it better than the revolutionaries; they are hardly interested in the fact who was right - Stalin, Trotsky or Mao. They are interested in technologies of resisting to corporations, in defense of labor and social rights, one can get them interested in the idea of radical breaking of social relations, relations of property and authority, in the idea of revolution.

Many of those things happened in western countries to, the best thing we can learn from the ussr is what not to do.
Not true. Capitalism never achieved anything truely socialist in any country (I don't think the Soviet Union was socialist). The Soviet Union had positive aspects. It was not "evil" or "hell" or something.

godfailed

24th July 2008, 17:09

Personally I think it's more of a symbol than actually loving the USSR. I love the hammer and sickle. I will cut my crops peacefully but if you take that right from me i will bash you over the head with my hammer.

But yeah, USSR aren't exactly the poster boys for communism. Cuba have been far more successful imo. Free University education ftw.

Dros

24th July 2008, 17:37

I'm communist.

:lol::lol::lol:

No you're not. You are a left wing liberal with a bourgeois understanding of history.

Joe Hill's Ghost

24th July 2008, 17:57

:lol::lol::lol:

No you're not. You are a left wing liberal with a bourgeois understanding of history.

I guess all anarchists and ussr haters are liberals then?

Led Zeppelin

24th July 2008, 18:23

The masses understand it better than the revolutionaries; they are hardly interested in the fact who was right - Stalin, Trotsky or Mao. They are interested in technologies of resisting to corporations, in defense of labor and social rights, one can get them interested in the idea of radical breaking of social relations, relations of property and authority, in the idea of revolution.

Sorry but this is simply not true.

Any person who's even remotely interested in politics will bring up the Soviet Union/Stalin/Mao when you tell them you're a Marxist/communist/revolutionary socialist.

You should be able to defend your views when they do.

Hit The North

24th July 2008, 18:33

Not true. Capitalism never achieved anything truely socialist in any country

For the majority of the cold war, Western European countries were run by political elites who were committed to full employment, universal state benefits and health care, expansion of mass education, etc. - the whole Keynesian thing. Of course, none of those things are intrinsically socialist whether in a mixed economy or bureaucratically planned economy context. But there was an amazing correspondence in the thinking of both sides.

Trystan

24th July 2008, 18:41

Although terrible crimes were committed in the former "socialist" bloc there were also many positive achievements which should be recognized and celebrated - for example, the universal provision of health care, the elimination of illiteracy, and full employment.

Don't take this the wrong way, but there were many positive achievements in the Third Reich, too. Unemployment was reduced, for example. Should these be "celebrated", too? I think not.

the mistakes which were made need to be analyzed and discussed carefully

What "mistakes"? The Soviet ruling class only served their own interests, and by shitting on their people they kept themselves in power.

as they pose valuable lessons which can be used in future attempts to develop socialism

True. But the crimes committed certainly was a high price to pay.

The USSR was a grotesque caricature of socialism and we should have no qualms in saying so.

I don't see any problem with the Hammer and Sickle, though. I don't think that a new euphamism is necessary either. Christianity has a fucked up history, but upon hearing the word most people don't think "Spanish Inquisition" or "anti-Semitism". Propaganda/education IS necessary.

revolution inaction

24th July 2008, 18:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobkindles
Although terrible crimes were committed in the former "socialist" bloc there were also many positive achievements which should be recognized and celebrated - for example, the universal provision of health care, the elimination of illiteracy, and full employment. In addition, the mistakes which were made need to be analyzed and discussed carefully, as they pose valuable lessons which can be used in future attempts to develop socialism.
Many of those things happened in western countries to, the best thing we can learn from the ussr is what not to do.

Not true. Capitalism never achieved anything truely socialist in any country (I don't think the Soviet Union was socialist). The Soviet Union had positive aspects. It was not "evil" or "hell" or something.

Ok many was an exaggeration but in the uk there is free health care and illiteracy is quite low, and as I know this is also the situation in other west european countries. I agree that no capitalist county has achieved any thing truly socialist, but I deliberately didn't use the word capitalist because the "communist/socialist" countries where capitalist too, just a different kind.
I know the soviet union was not as bad as many people believe but it was probably the worst thing that has ever happened to socialism.

No you're not. You are a left wing liberal with a bourgeois understanding of history.

aren't you a Stalinist or a Maoist? you don't know fuck all about communism.

The Intransigent Faction

24th July 2008, 18:48

Why do I see all those soviet flag in member's avatar?

Because those members, and others, recognize the great achievements made by the Soviet Union before traitors dragged it through Capitalist reform.
They've been listed by other members above, I believe.

I'm communist. I loath USSR. Why to bother with USSR when it was a state-capitalist totalitarian state?

Put down the bourgeois story/"history" books.

What kind of enemy done the most harm to us new communists, if it isn't Soviet Russia, Maoist China or North Korea? Those states are the reason why nowaday when people hear "communism", they think "gulag", "dictatorship" and "famine".

Yes because bourgeois propaganda conveniently omits that:
-the gulags were not death camps, nor was everyone in them innocent.
-bourgeois democracies aren't democratic, and you use that like it's a bad word. heard of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
-the famine was caused by kulaks resisting collectivization and in fact raising food prices.

As for Maoist China and North Korea:
There's a sinister misinformation campaign directed at Mao which I would get into details of right now.
North Korea is more like a monarchy, and the "Juche" philosophy is hardly Marxist. However, the intent of the revolution there was certainly noble.
Comrades may tell you that they would like to replace Kim Jong Il with an actual Communist. Bourgeois will tell you that they want to replace Kim Jong Il as well--but with a Capitalist leader.

I even think about putting a new name to the communist ideology, just so people won't make the link.

I think that's the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.

LuÃs Henrique

24th July 2008, 19:13

I don't use a red flag with a hammer-and-sickle as an avatar, but...

The hammer-and-sickle is not a symbol of the Soviet Union.

It is the symbol of worker-peasant alliance.

Luís Henrique

Harrycombs

24th July 2008, 19:19

There are quite a few Leninists (Stalinist, Trotskyists and Maoists) on these boards, there are not our allies so long as there remain Leninist.

:laugh::laugh: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

So I guess you don't like me?:lol:

The Intransigent Faction

24th July 2008, 19:22

Ok many was an exaggeration but in the uk there is free health care and illiteracy is quite low, and as I know this is also the situation in other west european countries. I agree that no capitalist county has achieved any thing truly socialist, but I deliberately didn't use the word capitalist because the "communist/socialist" countries where capitalist too, just a different kind.

Yes there are hard-fought-four reforms that weren't just given on impulse by bourgeois leaders. They had to be fought for and in fact face threats of dismantlement far too frequently. Capitalism did not give us these reforms. The struggle against it has, at least for a while.
Ah yes the "state capitalism" card. Would you prefer to see free-market competition against state monopolies?
Public health care, public schooling, public housing..yeah, those really sound like Capitalist ideas.

I know the soviet union was not as bad as many people believe but it was probably the worst thing that has ever happened to socialism.

No, bourgeois variants of "Socialism" designed merely to appease the workers and keep the current system essentially in place are the worst thing to happen to Socialism. Well, there might be worse..like Feudal Socialism which I know a bit less about.

aren't you a Stalinist or a Maoist? you don't know fuck all about communism.

*SIGH* oh the sectarianism!
I really don't know how to respond to this, or even if I should, but:
Being anti-revisionist actually requires a significant knowledge regarding historical applications of Socialism and it's struggle against Capitalism.
Idealistic notions of an anarchistic society show that regardless of your knowledge or lack of knowledge of Socialism, you fail to grasp something more important: how it is to be implemented.
A Socialist Workers' State is an important step in the direction of Communism, whereas anarchy leaves a power gap which may be seized by bourgeois opportunists in counter-revolution.

ckaihatsu

24th July 2008, 20:21

I even think about putting a new name to the communist ideology, just so people won't make the link.

We've had numerous discussions on this issue, but if you ask me, I think that changing the name will be pointless. We shouldn't change our image to suit the bourgoisie, we should change our image as it is seen in the eyes of the working class.

Personally I think it's more of a symbol than actually loving the USSR. I love the hammer and sickle.

I don't see any problem with the Hammer and Sickle, though. I don't think that a new euphamism is necessary either. Christianity has a fucked up history, but upon hearing the word most people don't think "Spanish Inquisition" or "anti-Semitism". Propaganda/education IS necessary.

I've always found the hammer-and-sickle symbol to be misleading. I thought the point of communism is for the workers to collectively control the means of *industrial* production -- the hammer evokes individual, *manual* labor, and the sickle evokes individual, *agricultural* labor. Where's the collectivism? Where's the industrialism? The symbol should be more like a meeting hall, or a factory or tractor or something...!

On the issue of marketing I think symbols do have significance, and can't easily be dismissed. Perhaps people do associate backwards *agricultural production* with communism *because* of the hammer-and-sickle symbol, among historical reasons as well.

---

I know the soviet union was not as bad as many people believe but it was probably the worst thing that has ever happened to socialism.

The USSR was a grotesque caricature of socialism and we should have no qualms in saying so.

[T]hose members, and others, recognize the great achievements made by the Soviet Union before traitors dragged it through Capitalist reform.

The Soviet ruling class only served their own interests, and by shitting on their people they kept themselves in power.

Although terrible crimes were committed in the former "socialist" bloc there were also many positive achievements which should be recognized and celebrated - for example, the universal provision of health care, the elimination of illiteracy, and full employment. In addition, the mistakes which were made need to be analyzed and discussed carefully, as they pose valuable lessons which can be used in future attempts to develop socialism.

I guess all anarchists and ussr haters are liberals then?

[I]n the uk there is free health care and illiteracy is quite low, and as I know this is also the situation in other west european countries. I agree that no capitalist county has achieved any thing truly socialist, but I deliberately didn't use the word capitalist because the "communist/socialist" countries where capitalist too, just a different kind.

I think we have to look at the *whole world* in that period, where World War II was just a continuation of World War I, with the major imperialist powers vying against each other in their bids to carve up the world's colonies for their own benefit, to the detriment of the other empires.

It really was just the same as what the petty dictators did to Yugoslavia in the late '90s after its economic collapse -- the same dynamic was at work in World War II, but at a global scale -- it's called 'balkanization', where the only way for empire to (re-)establish its own order is through ethnic cleansing. In World War II, and then in the Cold War, this was done by the Allied and Axis powers alike, by FDR as much as by Stalin, Churchill, or Hitler.

Comrades may tell you that they would like to replace Kim Jong Il with an actual Communist. Bourgeois will tell you that they want to replace Kim Jong Il as well--but with a Capitalist leader.

Comrades would tell you that they would like to reunify Korea. (!)

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Random Precision

24th July 2008, 21:15

revolution inaction

24th July 2008, 21:54

Yes there are hard-fought-four reforms that weren't just given on impulse by bourgeois leaders. They had to be fought for and in fact face threats of dismantlement far too frequently. Capitalism did not give us these reforms. The struggle against it has, at least for a while.
What is it that gives you the idea that I don't know that? and why do you think the "communist" countries provided things like health care to the citizens? How long could they have maintained power if they had not given something to the people?

Ah yes the "state capitalism" card. Would you prefer to see free-market competition against state monopolies?
What? I get to chose what ever I want, but only from these two options? Is that the extent of your imagination? I don't want one so I must like two?
I recognise that health care, schools, public transport etc are often better when provided by the state rather than left to the free market, but this doesn't make them socialist, nor is it a universal rule.

Public health care, public schooling, public housing..yeah, those really sound like Capitalist ideas.
By that logic the UK is not a capitalist country

No, bourgeois variants of "Socialism" designed merely to appease the workers and keep the current system essentially in place are the worst thing to happen to Socialism. Well, there might be worse..like Feudal Socialism which I know a bit less about.
None of these have harmed the name of socialism like the "communist" countries.

*SIGH* oh the sectarianism!
how is it sectarian to oppose counter-revolutionaries?

Idealistic notions of an anarchistic society show that regardless of your knowledge or lack of knowledge of Socialism, you fail to grasp something more important: how it is to be implemented.
how the fuck is anarchism idealistic? basically you know nothing about anarchism, I am anarchist precisely because of my cynicism. I don't believe anyone can be trusted enough to have power, I don't believe a good government is possible, to believe in these things is idealism.
What makes you think I don't have any idea how to implement it? I favour the anaco-syndicalist model, but workers councils are good to.

A Socialist Workers' State is an important step in the direction of Communism, whereas anarchy leaves a power gap which may be seized by bourgeois opportunists in counter-revolution.
A "Socialist Workers' State" is a step in the direction of totalitarianism, and large obstacle to genuine revolution.
Anarchism leaves no power gap, the workers seize the power for them-self's and then let no one else near it, leaders never hand over power willingly so it is best that they never get it in the first place.

Sam_b

24th July 2008, 23:53

How long could they have maintained power if they had not given something to the people?

By the logic the UK is not a capitalist country

See, you've contradicted yourself there completely!

how is it sectarian to oppose counter-revolutionaries?

I wish some idiots would stop attacking people on their side and put some energy into attacking capitalism :rolleyes: What the left prides itself on is being open and having full debates. Its alright to disagree on strategy and analysis at times. However, if you want to elaborate on such so-called counterrevolutionaries on here rather than banding the word about to get some (false) credability, knock yourself out.

A "Socialist Workers' State" is a step in the direction of totalitarianism, and large obstacle to genuine revolution

Whats your full analysis then? I contest that a communist/revolutionary anti-capitalist state cannot be achieved without some sort of transitional method and what Marx called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You seem to believe that workers will smash the state and then class will somehow disappear. According to the above you also show your poor analysis, that "leaders never hand over power willingly so it is best that they never get it in the first place". The working class are their own leaders, and need to work to form democratic worker's control until the state is no longer needed and is destroyed.

NerdVincent

25th July 2008, 02:56

Although terrible crimes were committed in the former "socialist" bloc there were also many positive achievements which should be recognized and celebrated - for example, the universal provision of health care, the elimination of illiteracy, and full employment. In addition, the mistakes which were made need to be analyzed and discussed carefully, as they pose valuable lessons which can be used in future attempts to develop socialism.

I agree. After all, USSR was the only state untouched by the 1929 financial crisis. But I think that the "mistakes" aren't forgetable. After all, Nazi Germany had near-zero unemployement and all. But still...
I think Cuba would be a better example, although I despise Castro's dictatorship. I'd have put direct democracy after 8-10 years (just the time of cleaning the place), so people would really control the means of production.

The Intransigent Faction

25th July 2008, 09:47

What is it that gives you the idea that I don't know that? and why do you think the "communist" countries provided things like health care to the citizens? How long could they have maintained power if they had not given something to the people?

Yeah except that unlike the case of bourgeois reformists, these changes come about in a revolution of the proletariat and don't face the constant threat of retraction provided that counter-revolutionaries are not allowed to introduce reforms which, as we've seen, lead right back to Capitalist exploitation. They took power from the Czar in the first place to give to the people what they had been denied.

What? I get to chose what ever I want, but only from these two options? Is that the extent of your imagination? I don't want one so I must like two?
I recognise that health care, schools, public transport etc are often better when provided by the state rather than left to the free market, but this doesn't make them socialist, nor is it a universal rule.

Well what's the third option? A vanguard party and a Workers' State are necessary to prevent that the system is maintained properly and counter-revolutionaries are not given opportunities to threaten the system.
"Better" is a vague concept. Better in what way?
A Workers' State running the various industries at least provides benefits in an universal, or at the very least to a far more broad extent, than the free market. We saw the results in health care and literacy.

By the logic the UK is not a capitalist country/

Sam_b addressed this already and put it quite well. You've blatantly contradicted yourself here.

None of these have harmed the name of socialism like the "communist" countries.

Bourgeois "Socialism" hasn't been as harmful? Are you joking? It's designed to mislead the proletariat with the idea that the Capitalist system doesn't need to be overthrown, just altered using the tool of "bourgeois democracy" which, again, eventually seeks to undo such hard-fought-for gains.

how is it sectarian to oppose counter-revolutionaries?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, has it ever occurred to you that we may have the same end goals but merely vastly different approaches?
This sectarianism is what leads to bourgeois jokes about "splitting the lost-cause vote". We've got bigger fish to fry.

how the fuck is anarchism idealistic? basically you know nothing about anarchism, I am anarchist precisely because of my cynicism. I don't believe anyone can be trusted enough to have power, I don't believe a good government is possible, to believe in these things is idealism.
What makes you think I don't have any idea how to implement it? I favour the anaco-syndicalist model, but workers councils are good to.

Anarchism in the immediate post-revolution sense is idealistic because, as was stated so well again by Sam_b above, bourgeois sympathies won't simply immediately disappear after the revolution.
Councils..interesting..know what a "Soviet" is?

A "Socialist Workers' State" is a step in the direction of totalitarianism, and large obstacle to genuine revolution.
Anarchism leaves no power gap, the workers seize the power for them-self's and then let no one else near it, leaders never hand over power willingly so it is best that they never get it in the first place.

Well, there are clear obstacles to self-emancipation of the proletariat, which is why Capitalism hasn't already been done away with. Workers are taught, for one, to compete against each other in the current system. Workers have different degrees of awareness about the nature of the current system, and as such some are bound to take a leadership rule in stirring the proletariat to revolution.
Most of anything else I could say has already been covered well by Sam_b.
What I will say is that a dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to form an effective resistance to counter-revolution. A Workers' State is needed initially to implement progressive economic reforms and to properly resist counter-revolution.
I've got get some sleep for now, but I just might be wasting my time anyway, since you insist on branding Marxist-Leninists as "counter-revolutionaries".

sanpal

25th July 2008, 09:57

We cannot just "forget" the whole Soviet experience. Whatever leftist tendency one is from, all of us are bound to see the Russian Revolution as the major historical achievement of the workers movement. In fact, I believe it is the single most important event in history. All of us are bound to take lessons from the Russian experience, whether we believe it took the wrong track in 1918, 1927, 1956, or 1982.

Probably many elements of socialism (free-of-charge education, free-of-charge medicine, others) have appeared in the western capitalist countries as a result of struggle of their proletariat for the rights also under the big influence of an example of the USSR and also because of fear by bourgeoisie of spread of revolution to the West.

Soviet experience is important to learn it not to repeat mistakes.

If the surgeon does not study experience of other surgeons - predecessors it risks to have tens or hundreds broken destinies of patients in the future.

If the revolutionary does not study experience of other revolutionaries - predecessors it risks to have tens or hundreds millions broken destinies of humans in the future.

revolution inaction

25th July 2008, 10:02

By the logic the UK is not a capitalist country

See, you've contradicted yourself there completely!

Shit my spelling is bad, meant to say that, fixed! :)

I wish some idiots would stop attacking people on their side and put some energy into attacking capitalism What the left prides itself on is being open and having full debates. Its alright to disagree on strategy and analysis at times. However, if you want to elaborate on such so-called counterrevolutionaries on here rather than banding the word about to get some (false) credability, knock yourself out.
Leninist have repeatedly acted against the working class and genuine revolutionaries, they have suppressed revolutions and revolutionary political movements. The Trotskyists are the least counter revolutionary of the Leninist but still when Trotsky had the power he used it against the working class, and Trotskyist groups have repeatedly supported anti working class clauses. Also if they actually got implement there ideas it would lead to a repeat of the ussr.

Whats your full analysis then? I contest that a communist/revolutionary anti-capitalist state cannot be achieved without some sort of transitional method and what Marx called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You seem to believe that workers will smash the state and then class will somehow disappear.

Well what's you class analysis? Class is a social relationship, the proletariat are the people who have to sell there labour power to live, and the bourgeoisie are the people who have control over the means of production.
The reason the proletariat is the proletariat is because someone else has control over the means of production. When the workers take control of the means of production and smash the state, then they will no longer be proletariat, and the ex bourgeoisie will no longer be able to get away with living on someone else's labour.
To be absolutely clear, class is a social relationship, revolution is the act of destroying that relationship.

I know the revolution will not happen everywhere at the same time, nor in every industry at once as the consciousness of the workers varies, so during the time between the start of the revolution and its completion the workers must impose the power in order to protect the revolution and advance it where it has not yet succeeded, that is how I understand Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is not a phrase I would use as it is likely to confuse people, I would just consider this part of the revolution.

And last I don't seek a communist state because communism requires the abolition of states, no state can be revolutionary, but I do seek democratic workers control.

revolution inaction

25th July 2008, 10:52

Yeah except that unlike the case of bourgeois reformists, these changes come about in a revolution of the proletariat and don't face the constant threat of retraction provided that counter-revolutionaries are not allowed to introduce reforms which, as we've seen, lead right back to Capitalist exploitation.
The changes are not retracted except when they are? :)

They took power from the Czar in the first place to give to the people what they had been denied.
the Russia workers took power from the Czar, but they didn't keep a vary firm grip of it and so the Bolshevik where able to steal it.

Well what's the third option?
Direct workers control

A vanguard party and a Workers' State are necessary to prevent that the system is maintained properly and counter-revolutionaries are not given opportunities to threaten the system.
A vanguard party is counter-revolutionary

Bourgeois "Socialism" hasn't been as harmful? Are you joking? It's designed to mislead the proletariat with the idea that the Capitalist system doesn't need to be overthrown, just altered using the tool of "bourgeois democracy" which, again, eventually seeks to undo such hard-fought-for gains.
I didn't say that it wasn't harmful but it has done relatively little damage compared to the ussr and similar states.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, has it ever occurred to you that we may have the same end goals but merely vastly different approaches?
Yes but you approach will destroy the revolution if you where to implement it, as happened in Russia, Spain, China etc.

Councils..interesting..know what a "Soviet" is?
Those things that the Bolsheviks disbanded when the elections didn't go there way?

A Workers' State is needed initially to implement progressive economic reforms and to properly resist counter-revolution.
only the workers themselves can do this, no state can

This sectarianism is what leads to bourgeois jokes about "splitting the lost-cause vote". We've got bigger fish to fry.
voting is not revolutionry :)

By that logic the UK is not a capitalist country

Sam_b addressed this already and put it quite well. You've blatantly contradicted yourself here.
you said

Public health care, public schooling, public housing..yeah, those really sound like Capitalist ideas.
I was pointing out that if you take these as indicative of socialism then many western countries are not capitalist, but i spelt that as the :)

Sam_b

26th July 2008, 01:43

Leninist have repeatedly acted against the working class and genuine revolutionaries, they have suppressed revolutions and revolutionary political movements

Please expand.
And anyway, I believe thats a poor excuse for petty sectarianism.

The reason the proletariat is the proletariat is because someone else has control over the means of production. When the workers take control of the means of production and smash the state, then they will no longer be proletariat, and the ex bourgeoisie will no longer be able to get away with living on someone else's labour.
To be absolutely clear, class is a social relationship, revolution is the act of destroying that relationship.

Yeah, I do concede this. I meant to say that the workers seize the state and then destroy it when it is no longer necessary. However I think its wrong to say that when a revolution occours then the state is automatically smashed. There has to be a transitional approach.

And last I don't seek a communist state because communism requires the abolition of states,

I don't understand. An anarchist that doens't want the abolishment of states? (I take it as nation states, yes?)

The Intransigent Faction

26th July 2008, 10:15

The changes are not retracted except when they are?

In bourgeois reformism or in Workers' States?
Obviously they're retracted in bourgeois reformist societies. That's what I was saying.
In Workers' States, barring extenuating circumstances, no.

the Russia workers took power from the Czar, but they didn't keep a vary firm grip of it and so the Bolshevik where able to steal it.

Er..the Bolsheviks took power in the Bolshevik Revolution. I'll edit this later, perhaps, because it's ridiculously late..but the Menshevites and Social Revolutionaries were actually the whiners who walked out.

Direct workers control

As was said, "there are clear obstacles to self-emancipation of the proletariat, which is why Capitalism hasn't already been done away with. Workers are taught, for one, to compete against each other in the current system. Workers have different degrees of awareness about the nature of the current system, and as such some are bound to take a leadership rule in stirring the proletariat to revolution."
The Workers' control must at first be in the form of a Socialist state.
Without a properly coordinated resistance to counter-revolution, sabotage by bourgeois remnants is inevitable.

A vanguard party is counter-revolutionary

"Anarchy is counter-revolutionary."
...See how that feels? Those who understand the need for a vanguard party aren't supporting counter-revolution. Far from it, in fact. A vanguard party is needed for any sort of organized revolution. Having a different approach doesn't necessarily make you counter-revolutionary. And I'm being very generous about that.

I didn't say that it wasn't harmful but it has done relatively little damage compared to the ussr and similar states.

I know you didn't say that. Regardless, bourgeois economics are harmful, and comparing their level of "harm" to that of a Workers' State is absurd.

Yes but you approach will destroy the revolution if you where to implement it, as happened in Russia, Spain, China etc.

Er..actually, it was the abandonment of my approach that destroyed the revolution (see Khruschev's reforms, modern CCP, etc.).

Those things that the Bolsheviks disbanded when the elections didn't go there way?

Nonsense. Bolsheviks didn't disband all soviets. They did, however, disband "soviets" that were controlled by liberal reformists and, essentially, rightists.
I won't try to attack you, but I'd encourage looking more critically at counter-revolutionary revisionist bourgeois history.
It was the Czar who disbanded the Duma, which was angered by the Czar's proclamation of "Fundamental Laws" which deprived it of any genuine political significance, and after being broken up by the czar, several hundred members urged the populace to undertake a campaign of civil disobedience. The government responded with arrests and executions. I'd go on but I have to be brief for tonight. I'll sum it up by telling you that this smear is incorrect. Though, I suppose if you refuse to open up and instead turn me and any other Marxist-Leninists away as a hostile counter-revolutionary, it wouldn't be very productive to bother trying to explain why we think as we do. I'm not saying I speak on every issue for all Marxist-Leninist on this board..but when someone starts making accusations like that against Marxist-Leninists in general..it would irk most or all of us, for obvious reasons.
Taking sectarianism too far is counterproductive to any civil discussion of these matters here.

"...the workers must impose the power in order to protect the revolution and advance it where it has not yet succeeded"

Which is essentially the goal of a vanguard party.

only the workers themselves can do this, no state can

The workers are the State. Now, this doesn't mean that there should always be a State, but transition is necessary.

voting is not revolutionry

Um...no shit? I never said it was. Hence why I support the Bolshevik Revolution, for example.
I was merely making the point of what sectarianism does to the movement when it faces a much greater threat.

I was pointing out that if you take these as indicative of socialism then many western countries are not capitalist, but i spelt that as the

Yeah, no problem, we understood "that".
Why would they not be Capitalist? Because of such reforms? Point taken. That's why it's "petty bourgeois socialism".
I've got to pick a better time of day/night to type these responses.
In any case, the system is still very much Capitalist in reformist societies.
This presents a distinct difference, however, between reformism and revolutionary Socialism. A revolutionary Socialist state of the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie and does not merely temporarily provide the workers with what is needed to keep them appeased, but seeks to put everything--basics or otherwise, in the hands of the workers.
The U.K. is Capitalist, but that does not make free health care Capitalist by nature. The fact that reforms had to be fought for demonstrates otherwise.
What better way for the Proletariat to abolish the State than to take control of and gradually dismantle it? Sudden thrashing into oblivion overnight just doesn't work.

Sectarianism doesn't expand any movement. If it's come across that way at any point,
I apologize, but I never meant to say (or imply) thus far that you are counter-revolutionary. I don't believe that accusing every Marxism-Leninist in such a way that makes it sound as if they all consciously conspire to bring down revolution is a productive way of expanding sympathy for your methods..but I could be wrong.

I could make the accusation that Anarchy is a petty-bourgeois concept by nature since it opposes any sort of authority--even that which could safeguard a revolution against a bourgeois remnant's influence. ;)
For example, it was because of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin that soldiers were rallied back home from the front of WW1 to aid in the revolution.

"But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they

do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."

-Frederick Engels; "On Authority"; 1872.

A Side Note To Sam_b:

I'm quite sure that when he said "And last I don't seek a communist state because communism requires the abolition of states," he didn't mean that he doesn't seek Communism because it would have to be stateless.
Rather he meant that he doesn't/couldn't seek a "Communist state" because the term is essentially the definition of "oxymoron". A fair stance, because Communism is stateless. I think "phasing out" States would be more appropriate, though.

revolution inaction

26th July 2008, 14:04

And last I don't seek a communist state because communism requires the abolition of states,

I don't understand. An anarchist that doens't want the abolishment of states? (I take it as nation states, yes?)

Brad is right about this, although I don't know why he says but, should that be because?

I'm quite sure that when he said "And last I don't seek a communist state because communism requires the abolition of states," he didn't mean that he doesn't seek Communism because it would have to be stateless.
Rather he meant that he doesn't/couldn't seek a "Communist state" because the term is essentially the definition of "oxymoron". A fair stance, but Communism is stateless.

I defiantly support the abolition of nation states, I know some "anarchists" don't but I would say they are not really anarchist, or at best there theory is really badly thought out.

Yeah, I do concede this. I meant to say that the workers seize the state and then destroy it when it is no longer necessary. However I think its wrong to say that when a revolution occours then the state is automatically smashed. There has to be a transitional approach.

How do you define state, and how do you think the workers should seize it? How do you imagine it would be destroyed when no longer necessary?
Why must there be a transitional approach, what dose this mean?

I'm defining state as an instrument of minority rule, and revolution is the transfer of power to workers councils.
The state can not be used by the working class as it is a top down institution designed to allow a small minority to rule the majority, it is not suitable for co-ordinating between workers councils.

There are other ways of defining state, Marxists often define it as an instrument of class rule, if this is applied to an anarchist revolution you would say that the workers formed a state which there oppressed the bourgeoisie state until it ceased to exist, at which point it would also cease to exist as there would no longer be any classes. I do not like this definition, it calls to entirely different forms of organisation states, and then one form of organisation goes from being a state to not being without its structure changing, this seems illogical and likely to cause confusion about what is meant when you talk about states.
Another way of defining state would be as a form of social organisation, in this case during an anarchist revolution the workers form a state that would oppose the bourgeoisie state but when the bourgeoisie is finally destroyed the workers state continues to exist, in which case anarchist are in favour of a state, but only a vary specific one. :)
I don't like this definition either, it seems to define any organisation as a state, and the workers state would be so completely unlike any other state that it seems strange to give it the same name.

Leninist have repeatedly acted against the working class and genuine revolutionaries, they have suppressed revolutions and revolutionary political movements

Please expand.
And anyway, I believe thats a poor excuse for petty sectarianism.

Will expand in next post, but this has happened because of the structure and the theories of Leninist organisations, I don't see how it is petty or sectarian to object to being shot or imprisoned, or to oppose organisations that have repeatedly made anti working class decisions.

The Intransigent Faction

26th July 2008, 20:41

Brad is right about this, although I don't know why he says but, should that be because?

Yeah..my bad. Will change that now, I guess.

I defiantly support the abolition of nation states, I know some "anarchists" don't but I would say they are not really anarchist, or at best there theory is really badly thought out.

Fair enough.

How do you define state, and how do you think the workers should seize it? How do you imagine it would be destroyed when no longer necessary?
Why must there be a transitional approach, what dose this mean?

As in a nation state, correct? Well, in terms of a Workers' State, it is comprised of a vanguard & mass, and through the enforcement of Socialism, acts as an entity to guide towards revolutionary thought in the masses. So in this sense, a state is a vanguard entity designed to protect the revolution during a transitional stage.
Bureaucracies will wither away when not needed. The workers will dismantle it as Communism progresses toward achievement.
Actually, all you have to do is read the Manifesto:

"(These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be generally applicable.) 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
-Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)"

For more detail than I could post here with regard to the withering away of the state, check out Lenin's ""The State and Revolution; Chapter 5, The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State" or just the whole thing in general.

It means exactly what has been said..that Communism won't come overnight in a sudden fashion.

I'm defining state as an instrument of minority rule, and revolution is the transfer of power to workers councils.
The state can not be used by the working class as it is a top down institution designed to allow a small minority to rule the majority, it is not suitable for co-ordinating between workers councils.

If it's top down, the reason for that is the need for a centralization of certain powers as outlined by Marx & Engels in order to properly reorganize into a Socialist economy while evading bourgeois influence.
This is where the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" comes in:

(http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm#freedom)
"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx/Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)
Part IV (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

There are other ways of defining state, Marxists often define it as an instrument of class rule, if this is applied to an anarchist revolution you would say that the workers formed a state which there oppressed the bourgeoisie state until it ceased to exist, at which point it would also cease to exist as there would no longer be any classes. I do not like this definition, it calls to entirely different forms of organisation states, and then one form of organisation goes from being a state to not being without its structure changing, this seems illogical and likely to cause confusion about what is meant when you talk about states.

With all due respect, it's not so much a matter of what definition you "like" as what's applicable.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, either. You say what's bolded above and then go on to speak of "different forms of organization" and "without it's structure changing". I would think that the first half of the quote I just posted above from the Critique of the Gotha Programme should clear this up a bit.

Another way of defining state would be as a form of social organisation, in this case during an anarchist revolution the workers form a state that would oppose the bourgeoisie state but when the bourgeoisie is finally destroyed the workers state continues to exist, in which case anarchist are in favour of a state, but only a vary specific one. :)
I don't like this definition either, it seems to define any organisation as a state, and the workers state would be so completely unlike any other state that it seems strange to give it the same name.

You're spot on there in the second little paragraph.
As for the italicized part above, that's where I may take issue with the idea. The less the risk bourgeois influence there is, the more the state ought to wither away.
I couldn't see a workable scenario of an immediately anarchist revolution that would form a state either.

Will expand in next post, but this has happened because of the structure and the theories of Leninist organisations, I don't see how it is petty or sectarian to object to being shot or imprisoned, or to oppose organisations that have repeatedly made anti working class decisions.

Have you looked at the context of situations in which such decisions were made? Shot or imprisoned? What do you suggest be done with the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionaries? Some anarchist ideas could be regarded as anti-working class.

This came up in a thread regarding anarchy and I found such questions important:

"How would be the elimination of political hierarchy be possible after the working class has seized power? Would the remnants of the bourgeoisie be allowed to participate in elections and publish material promoting the restoration of capitalism? Would reactionary elements be allowed to organize military forces with the intention of destroying the gains of the social revolution? The abolition of political hierarchy means that everyone should have the same political rights and no-one should possess the authority to exercise political control over others - but this goal, although desirable, it simply not practical when a proletarian state is faced with the threat of counter-revolution."

Also, "the structure of the state depends on the class which controls the state apparatus". Therefore there are clear distinctions between bourgeois and proletariat states.

Anarchy as an end goal, we can agree on.
But immediate anarchy right after the start of the revolution?
There are too many practical problems with that, not the least of which being that revolution is a gradual process.

Philosophical Materialist

27th July 2008, 00:10

Why do I see all those soviet flag in member's avatar?
I'm communist. I loath USSR. Why to bother with USSR when it was a state-capitalist totalitarian state? What kind of enemy done the most harm to us new communists, if it isn't Soviet Russia, Maoist China or Korth Korea? Those states are the reason why nowaday when people hear "communism", they think "goulag", "dictatorship" and "famine".
I even think about putting a new name to the communist ideology, just so people won't make the link.

As it has been mentioned above, the Hammer and Sickle's significance is far more than it merely being on the USSR's flag.

I disagree with your interpretation of the USSR as "state capitalist" since there was no capitalist class in the Soviet Union. I would say that the USSR was a socialist state that became heavily deformed by bureaucratic parasitism.

Despite being destroyed by bureaucratism from within and western capitalism from outside, the USSR did achieve things. It took a backward illiterate feudal empire and industrialised it within a generation. It played a key role in the destruction of central European fascism. The USSR raised the standard of living for much of its citizenry, especially women who enjoyed greater rights compared to their western equivalents.

The USSR that you "hate" helped make the end of apartheid in South Africa possible, as well as the expulsion of the disastrous US/SEATO meddling in Vietnam's self-determination. Not to mention countless other anti-colonial wars of liberation worldwide.

You also mention PR China. Despite its mistakes, the standard of living for Chinese citizens was far higher in 1969 than it was in 1949. The CPC had an impoverished multiracial country with mass illiteracy and turned it around. Education and health care was widely-accessible unlike under the nationalists or the feudal empire.

Famine was a problem, but I don't see how this can be blamed on those countries, especially ones which were Third World in nature. I don't think the Soviet Union had mastered control over the weather.

Being sceptical of the official "communist" countries of the past is healthy, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Patridiot

27th July 2008, 14:06

When leninists and others claim that communists and others who doesn't think the Soviet Untion was ever socialist are shaped by burgoisie education, they are simply refusing to see the problem. Lenin was not a revolutionary because of the obvious incompatiblity in wanting to get rid of the state's ruthless grip over it's people by using his own ruthless grip over the people. And it's completly irrelevent that some people may have got a higher living standard than before the state capitalist regime, tell it to the ones who got murdered. That's pretty much the same arrogant and brutal way of thinking that capitalists and fascists always have had.

Crypto-fascists like leninists, stalinists, maoists and others are clearly the biggest threat to communism, and does not fit on a discussion board called Revolutionary Left.

A good quote on this by Kropotkin: "Vladimir Ilyich [Lenin], your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold."

Would some of you now call Kropotkin a burgoisie thinker?!

Aurelia

27th July 2008, 14:11

Patridiot

27th July 2008, 14:15

You sound like just another anarchokiddie rich-student, so I'll ignore you.
Answering is not an effective way of ignoring someone. Allthough it would be interesting to know why you think those things, and most of all, what they mean.

Aurelia

27th July 2008, 14:27

Answering is not an effective way of ignoring someone. Allthough it would be interesting to know why you think those things, and most of all, what they mean.
Look, I have little time for armchair 'revolutionaries' who incessantly criticize all real socialist constructions in the world and offer nothing themselves. Kroptkin never led a state, never led a revolution, and never led anyone but a bunch of fools acting sectarian. I think it's about time we just all admit that the airy-fairy dreams of the anarchists only exist in their heads, they have no firm grounding in reality in the slightest.

So yeah, I'll take the 'Leninists' because they have toppled more bourgeois state than any self-aggrandizing anarchokid will ever hope to. They actually do things, and don't sit around criticizing 'authoritarianism' in the comfort of their lavish homes as the anarchists do.

Bilan

27th July 2008, 14:32

Fixed title of the thread.

Bilan

27th July 2008, 14:38

Look, I have little time for armchair 'revolutionaries' who incessantly criticize all real socialist constructions in the world and offer nothing themselves.

So, how's your revolution going then? Just dandy?
You're going to have to come to grips with a simple fact: that if you fail to incessantly criticise them, you allow the mistakes to slip into the cracks of history.
IF you have any interest what-so-ever in a genuine socialist revolution, the abolishment of capitalism, and most importantly, the establishment of socialist economic organization, you're going to relentlessly criticise so that you can learn from your mistakes.

Failing to do so, you'll remain like many of your comrades. Useless.

Kroptkin never led a stateWhy would he? That's like accusing a bar tender of not being a chef. Idiotic.

,
never led a revolution,Neither did Marx. Is he useless too?

and never led anyone but a bunch of fools acting sectarian.Um...

I think it's about time we just all admit that the airy-fairy dreams of the anarchists only exist in their heads, they have no firm grounding in reality in the slightest.I think Ukraine, Spain, the Factory Committees in the USSR, Paris 68, prove otherwise.

So yeah, I'll take the 'Leninists' because they have toppled more bourgeois state than any self-aggrandizing anarchokid will ever hope to. They actually do things, and don't sit around criticizing 'authoritarianism' in the comfort of their lavish homes as the anarchists do.What the hell? Is this a competition.
You're argument is pathetic. Firstly, you fail to accept criticism purely because you don't like the persons criticising you (stupidly; your criticism of anarchism is historically unfounded, not to mention absurd and, ironically, extremely sectarian); secondly, you fail to realize what the criticisms mean; thirdly, Leninists have led many failed revolutions. Do you support the people who fail at math because they've made many attempts to get the right answer, too?

Many anarchists "actually" do things. Again, another unfounded claim.

Sam_b

27th July 2008, 20:27

How do you define state, and how do you think the workers should seize it? How do you imagine it would be destroyed when no longer necessary?
Why must there be a transitional approach, what dose this mean?

Brad has really dealt with everything :)

However, there is no real need to define 'state' as necessarily a nation stae per se. Any organisation that commands the legitimate use of coercion is basically thus. This is of course, legitimacy in the sense of bourgeois 'government' or otherwise.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

28th July 2008, 18:40

To the OP, Amen. And I know exactly were you're coming from.

The USSR was a colossal failure. So what if the slaves were given free healthcare? I'd rather just be free.

But if you go hangin up pictures of Chairman Mao/
You aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 18:47

The USSR was a colossal failure

Just as much of a failure as Western capitalism was/is.

"neither Washington nor Moscow"

bolshevik butcher

28th July 2008, 19:33

And that would explain why in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union we have seen a huge rise in unemployment, alcholism and poverty and a massive fall in the life expectancy of both men and women, not to mention a huge crash in social mobility. The fact of the matter is that despite its gross bueraucratic deformations the planned economy of the Soviet Union shielded its inhabitants from the worst effects of impeiralism and provided material gains in the forms of social wellfare such as housing, education, health, better and safer working conditions etc.

It is the complete childishness of sectarianism and a formalist analysis that regards the USSR as another capitalist state rather than looking at it from a marxist point of view, that is to say the property relations involved. There was a stalinist political counter revolution in the USSR that drowned the revolution in blood but as I have outlined above the original property form, the planned economy with an expropriated borugoirsie and asosisated working class gains remained in place. It was only with the restoration of capitalism in 1991 that this was completley eradicated.

LuÃs Henrique

28th July 2008, 22:05

So what if the slaves were given free healthcare? I'd rather just be free.

You are not really free if you have no free healthcare.

Luís Henrique

Dros

4th August 2008, 03:52

No you're not. You are a left wing liberal with a bourgeois understanding of history.

Many of them are.

aren't you a Stalinist or a Maoist? you don't know fuck all about communism.

Oh where to begin...

How about with "Stalinist". No self respecting Communist identifies themselves as a Stalinist. "Stalinism" is a derogatory term coined by Trots to identify Anti-Revisionists. If you knew fuck all about Communism, you'd know that.

Maoists are "Stalinists" (by which I mean Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists) so I'm both. If you knew fuck all about Communism, you'd understand that.

In fact I think that if you knew fuck all about anything, you'd be able to muster a more significant response. Clearly, you don't.

Chapter 24

4th August 2008, 05:35