Marxist-Leninism vs Left Communism

[black magick hustla]

As always, you have nothing but empty phrases and slogans, whereas real revolutionaries are organizing growing struggles. Again, when's the last time anyone has ever cared about the ultra-lefts? That's right: never, because no one beyond RevLeft listens to puritans such as yourself. The KKE has immense support within the Greek working class and has recieved solidarity from around the world...but keep complaining from the sidelines, because it's all you're good for.


i like how half of your "arguments" is playing on the whole idea of "there are many and therefore they are correct" rather than on what is true is true because it is true. Democratically, there are more racists, democratically, there are more nationalists, democratically....

If we used democracy as a denominator, then the republicans and democrats are correct. And "5 percent" of electoral support is not massive".

I am glad we "ultralefts" can atleast touch your nerve because you are such a child.

[manic expression]

i like how half of your "arguments" is playing on the whole idea of "there are many and therefore they are correct" rather than on what is true is true because it is true. Democratically, there are more racists, democratically, there are more nationalists, democratically....

If we used democracy as a denominator, then the republicans and democrats are correct. And "5 percent" of electoral support is not massive".

I am glad we "ultralefts" can atleast touch your nerve because you are such a child.

Nice try, but it's more like this: Marxist-Leninists have a great deal of support and influence within the international proletariat. Marxist-Leninists have made revolutions, established working-class control and defended socialism. Marxist-Leninists are, as we speak, organizing the working class and building revolutionary struggles.

What have the "left-communists" done?

Exactly.

Oh, and perhaps you do touch a nerve of mine, for I detest stupidity, especially when it reeks of arrogance.

[Leo]

What have the "left-communists" done?

Well, we formed the majority of the communist parties in Europe, largely contributed to the foundation of the Communist International, had a majority in the Bolshevik Party for a while and played an important role in the first revolutionary wave following WW1.

In any case, no more off topic discussions please, this thread is about the events in Greece.

[black magick hustla]

Nice try, but it's more like this: Marxist-Leninists have a great deal of support and influence within the international proletariat. Marxist-Leninists have made revolutions, established working-class control and defended socialism. Marxist-Leninists are, as we speak, organizing the working class and building revolutionary struggles.

Depends on great influence. Perhaps if you consider the chinese communist party marxist leninist you could make that argument, but considering most people in the "hard left" hate the CCP, marxism-leninism has relatively very little influence on the "world proletariat". Obviously they do have more influence than we do, but we think ideas stand by themselves, regardless if they come from an organization that is composed of a man and his dog, some silly child in the internet, or a powerful international organization.





What have the "left-communists" done?

Exactly.

We were a big part of the russian revolution, we brought Italy to the brink of a civil war, We composed the mayority of the people who called themselves communists in Germany in the revolutionary wave, We agitated for strikes against the Getsapo and the huntings of jews while still opposing the allies (and many of us ended in jail or dead because of this. We opposed the rise of stalinism and some of the "ultralefts" got murdered by stalin....I think left communists have a fair amount of rich history to share.

[manic expression]

If a mod wishes to move this discussion, they should do so.


Depends on great influence. Perhaps if you consider the chinese communist party marxist leninist you could make that argument, but considering most people in the "hard left" hate the CCP, marxism-leninism has relatively very little influence on the "world proletariat". Obviously they do have more influence than we do, but we think ideas stand by themselves, regardless if they come from an organization that is composed of a man and his dog, some silly child in the internet, or a powerful international organization.

Denial at its best. Cuba, Nepal, Greece, Portugal, El Salvador, Colombia, Laos and other countries see a great deal of working-class support for Marxist-Leninists. The reason is because their program is successful and pragmatic.

You're right, ideas do stand by themselves, which is precisely why no one cares about left-communists outside of RevLeft.


We were a big part of the russian revolution, we brought Italy to the brink of a civil war, We composed the mayority of the people who called themselves communists in Germany in the revolutionary wave, We agitated for strikes against the Getsapo and the huntings of jews while still opposing the allies (and many of us ended in jail or dead because of this. We opposed the rise of stalinism and some of the "ultralefts" got murdered by stalin....The Bolsheviks overthrew capitalism and established socialism; the lack of concentration in Italy gave more fuel to Mussolini; the German revolution was led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht from Berlin and the Soviet Republic of Bavaria in the south, they were not left-communists (they were even cited as being opposed to the German "lefts" in Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism"); the KPD was the greatest threat to the fascists in Germany; Bukharin and Trotsky's Left Opposition were the greatest challenges to Stalin from within the party.


I think left communists have a fair amount of rich history to share.No, you have a fair amount of history you revised in order to make yourself feel less meaningless.

[black magick hustla]

If a mod wishes to move this discussion, they should do so.



[quote]Denial at its best. Cuba, Nepal, Greece, Portugal, El Salvador, Colombia, Laos and other countries see a great deal of working-class support for Marxist-Leninists. The reason is because their program is successful and pragmatic.it is not denial of anything. those do not constitute the "bulk" of the world proletariat. This is why I used the CCP as an example, because it has probably billions of supporters.




You're right, ideas do stand by themselves, which is precisely why no one cares about left-communists outside of RevLeft.Considering the majority of the ultraleft are older folks, most of them do not use the internet as much as you think. In fact, a lot of us do not even speak english. I dont think the mexican left communists I know even know about this site.



The Bolsheviks overthrew capitalism and established socialism; the lack of concentration in Italy gave more fuel to Mussolini; the German revolution was led by Luxemburg and Liebkneckt from Berlin and the Soviet Republic of Bavaria in the south, they were not left-communists (left-communism wasn't even a significant tendency at the time); the KPD was the greatest threat to the fascists in Germany; Bukharin and Trotsky's Left Opposition were the greatest challenges to Stalin from within the party.
First, lets be clear. The left communists were not at the beginning organizations outside the main communist parties. They were the left wing of the parties. Many left communists were bolsheviks, including one of the founder of the ICC, who is dead. (Marc Chirik)

Actually, I wasnt talking about luxembourg. Although we consider them as the left wing of the comintern, I know you trotskyists get all silly when we cite her as a reference. The KADP which splitted from the KDP was actually bigger than the KDP in the years of the revolutionary wave.

I never said the "utralefts" formed the biggest bulk of opposition to stalinism, I simply stated we opposed it and some of us died because of that. Myasnikov is a prominent example.

[manic expression]

it is not denial of anything. those do not constitute the "bulk" of the world proletariat. This is why I used the CCP as an example, because it has probably billions of supporters.

First, it is denial to say Marxist-Leninists do not have significant international support throughout the working class. Your assertion is simply wrong when you look at the facts.

Secondly, I never talked about the "bulk" of the working class, and I never intended to. Your argument is one of intentional misrepresentation of the worst sort.


Considering the majority of the ultraleft are older folks, most of them do not use the internet as much as you think-

Good for them. That does nothing to change the fact that "left-communism" is confined mostly to the internet.


First, lets be clear. The left communists were not at the beginning organizations outside the main communist parties. They were the left wing of the parties. Many left communists were bolsheviks, including one of the founder of the ICC, who is dead. (Marc Chirik)

What are you trying to prove? That the lefts were a quasi-splinter group on the very edge of relevance? You're not helping your case much.


Actually, I wasnt talking about luxembourg. Although we consider them as the left wing of the comintern, I know you trotskyists get all silly when we cite her as a reference. The KADP which splitted from the KDP was actually bigger than the KDP in the years of the revolutionary wave.

Luxemburg and Liebknecht are remembered, by socialist and capitalist alike, as the foremost leaders of the German Revolution after WWI. That even you admit they weren't "left-communists" just drives home what I've been saying. Further, the Soviet Republic of Bavaria was decidedly not aligned with the lefts. So what does that leave you with? Not much.


I never said the "utralefts" formed the biggest bulk of opposition to stalinism, I simply stated we opposed it and some of us died because of that. Myasnikov is a prominent example.

Exactly, "some" of "you", which implies few of "you". Which means you weren't much of a force at all.

Once you get down to it, your so-called "rich history" is nothing but the result of wishful thinking and a very creative imagination.

[zimmerwald1915]

Exactly, "some" of "you", which implies few of "you". Which means you weren't much of a force at all.
That's nothing other than a semantic argument, and not even a correct one at that.

[Bilan]

First, it is denial to say Marxist-Leninists do not have significant international support throughout the working class. Your assertion is simply wrong when you look at the facts.

Yet, despite your influence, you have successfully betrayed the proletariat every time because, despite your claims of Marxism, you have consistently failed to grasp the idea of class power, as opposed to the power of the party; you have consistently muddled the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat with that of the dictatorship of the party.

Left communists may not have such a big influence now as they did in the past (but neither do Leninists anyway, so that's pretty irrelevant) but they sure as fuck played a more important role in trying to establish true proletarian power, as opposed to that of a party.



Secondly, I never talked about the "bulk" of the working class, and I never intended to. Your argument is one of intentional misrepresentation of the worst sort.

What hypocrisy. Leninists have such a dreadful tendency to do that themselves. Indeed, any communist revolution in history you distort to fit into your ideological lines.




Good for them. That does nothing to change the fact that "left-communism" is confined mostly to the internet.

? What a baseless argument.





Luxemburg and Liebknecht are remembered, by socialist and capitalist alike, as the foremost leaders of the German Revolution after WWI. That even you admit they weren't "left-communists" just drives home what I've been saying. Further, the Soviet Republic of Bavaria was decidedly not aligned with the lefts. So what does that leave you with? Not much.


...And Stalin is remembered as the ultimate betrayer of the revolution by some socialists and all capitalists, but that doesn't make it fact.
What people are remembered by does not necessarily represent what they actually did.
Hilarious you'd cite capitalists as evidence of your point. :lol:




Once you get down to it, your so-called "rich history" is nothing but the result of wishful thinking and a very creative imagination.


I suppose that applies hilariously to your spineless politics too, though, doesn't it?
Your rich history of proletarian power is nothing but a sham; a façade of working class power.
So I'd bite your tongue if I were you.

[KC]

First off Manic, you are handling this discussion very poorly. Appealing to popularity is a cop-out, especially when you understand the theoretical shortcomings of the left-communists and are able to debate the (in)validity of that theory.


Yet, despite your influence, you have successfully betrayed the proletariat every time because, despite your claims of Marxism, you have consistently failed to grasp the idea of class power, as opposed to the power of the party; you have consistently muddled the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat with that of the dictatorship of the party.

How about expanding upon this so we can have an actual discussion in this thread?

[Oneironaut]

Yet, despite your influence, you have successfully betrayed the proletariat every time because, despite your claims of Marxism, you have consistently failed to grasp the idea of class power, as opposed to the power of the party; you have consistently muddled the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat with that of the dictatorship of the party.

Wonderfully put!

Manic: You are denying the historical conditions which the Left communists operated under. Western Europe was nothing like Russia. The Leninist model has absolutely no foundation in any solidified capitalist country. The basic reason is that the proletarian in capitalist countries truly stands alone. We can not rely on farmers to join in our struggle. It is accurate to say that without the peasants, Lenin would have had no revolution. Industrial workers made up a small fraction of the population of Russia in 1917, far outnumbered by peasants. Because we stand alone as proletarians in capitalist countries, it is of uttermost necessity that proletarians in Western Europe and the US are committed, hardcore revolutionaries if a socialist revolution is going to have success. We do not become committed revolutionaries while having to follow your dogma. We learn revolution by creating it ourselves as the proletarian. We do not need more figureheads who dictate that road of revolution; we need individual leaders who learn by practice amongst all the proletarian in our countries.

Yes Lenin's model "worked" in Russia. It was able to effectively subjugate the fractional working class and unite peasants under promised land. It has nothing to do with the proletarian in capitalist countries where we rely solely on ourselves as a collective class.

[Oneironaut]

How about expanding upon this so we can have an actual discussion in this thread?

Well... suppression of strikes, deportations, mass executions, expelling communists from the Party who objected to Party principles, stationing Party guards in worker "controlled" factories, Petrograd... the list goes on.

Trotsky in 1923 said, with Lenin's approval, that, “We are of course interested in the victory of the working classes, but it is not at all to our interest to have the revolution break out in a Europe which is bled and exhausted and to have the proletariat receive from the hands of the bourgeoisie nothing but ruins. We are interested in the maintenance of peace.”

When Hitler came to power in Germany 10 years later, what did the Comintern do? Jack shit.

[KC]

Well... suppression of strikes, deportations, mass executions, expelling communists from the Party who objected to Party principles, stationing Party guards in worker "controlled" factories, Petrograd... the list goes on.

Trotsky in 1923 said, with Lenin's approval, that, “We are of course interested in the victory of the working classes, but it is not at all to our interest to have the revolution break out in a Europe which is bled and exhausted and to have the proletariat receive from the hands of the bourgeoisie nothing but ruins. We are interested in the maintenance of peace.”

When Hitler came to power in Germany 10 years later, what did the Comintern do? Jack shit.

You're confusing Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism.

[Oneironaut]

You're confusing Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism.

In what way?

[KC]

When Hitler came to power in Germany 10 years later, what did the Comintern do? Jack shit.

It's pretty obvious from this quote that you are lumping Stalin into the same category as Lenin and Trotsky.

Also, I can only find that Trotsky quote you posted in one of Paul Mattick's works, which isn't exactly unbiased, and probably where you got it from. Considering the fact that that's the only place I can find it, I find it hard to believe that Trotsky actually said that. Perhaps you could source it for me.

[Oneironaut]

It's pretty obvious from this quote that you are lumping Stalin into the same category as Lenin and Trotsky.

Also, I can only find that Trotsky quote you posted in one of Paul Mattick's works, which isn't exactly unbiased, and probably where you got it from. Considering the fact that that's the only place I can find it, I find it hard to believe that Trotsky actually said that. Perhaps you could source it for me.

In that particular incident yes you are right that I did throw Stalin in there. My apologies... however let's not pretend that the Leninist state-capitalist model didn't allow for Stalin to get in there in the first place. Lenin established that those who didn't agree with the Party would be expelled from the Comintern. Stalin just followed his lead. The conditions were ripe for his taking.

I'm pretty sure I found it from something Paul Mattick wrote. I will try to get another source if that is the case.

[Eros]

It's pretty obvious from this quote that you are lumping Stalin into the same category as Lenin and Trotsky.

The USSR wouldn't have developed any differently if Trotsky, and not Stalin, had succeeded Lenin. That is unless of course you subscribe to the 'great men of history' viewpoint, which would be a strange thing for a self-proclaimed Marxist to do.

[KC]

The USSR wouldn't have developed any differently if Trotsky, and not Stalin, had succeeded Lenin. That is unless of course you subscribe to the 'great men of history' viewpoint, which would be a strange thing for a self-proclaimed Marxist to do.

The crisis in the Trotsky/Stalin conflict was not a crisis of individuals but a crisis of ideologies.

[ernie]

The crisis in the Trotsky/Stalin conflict was not a crisis of individuals but a crisis of ideologies.
In that case, would you care to explain what you think would have happened had Trotsky taken over after Lenin?

[Eros]

The crisis in the Trotsky/Stalin conflict was not a crisis of individuals but a crisis of ideologies.

The degeneration of the USSR was inevitable without other revolutions, Trotsky and Lenin clearly understood this.

So what could Trotsky have done differently?

[KC]

In that case, would you care to explain what you think would have happened had Trotsky taken over after Lenin?

I don't participate in such irrelevant speculative fantasies; they're pointless.


The degeneration of the USSR was inevitable without other revolutions, Trotsky and Lenin clearly understood this.

There were many revolutions, most of which were destroyed by the role the USSR played throughout the 20th century.

[Oneironaut]

KC:

You still have avoided the issues raised about suppressing strikes, expelling communists who were not in agreement with the Party line, stationing Party guards in "workers'" factories, and Petrograd. How do you rationalize these actions?

[KC]

You still have avoided the issues raised about suppressing strikes, expelling communists who were not in agreement with the Party line, stationing Party guards in "workers'" factories, and Petrograd. How do you rationalize these actions?

I can't respond to vague accusations like that. What strikes? Which communists? What factories? What about Petrograd? Be more specific.

[Leo]

KC;


especially when you understand the theoretical shortcomings of the left-communists

You can't in any serious manner say that really.


You're confusing Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism.

Well, one has to look at where the term originates from.

If anything, the expression "Leninism" was a betrayal of everything Lenin believed in.


It's pretty obvious from this quote that you are lumping Stalin into the same category as Lenin and Trotsky.

I don't think it is. Nor do I think that Stalinism appeared immediately when Lenin died. The bureaucratic degeneration of the Bolshevik Party started quite early on, when Lenin was alive, and Lenin and Trotsky, thinking themselves to be heads of states, were unable to detect this early and did act, at least for a while until they reached some understanding of the dangers the situation posed, act in it's interests. Considering their positions, it was rather understandable - neither of the fellas were gods after all.


Considering the fact that that's the only place I can find it, I find it hard to believe that Trotsky actually said that.

Why do you think Mattick would lie about Trotsky quotes? Despite all the grave disagreements I have with his positions, I think he was a revolutionary all his life and see no reason to accuse him as a communist militant of dishonesty.


Lenin established that those who didn't agree with the Party would be expelled from the Comintern.

Not the only guilty person but Lenin ceratainly contributed to the banning of factions in the party.

[manic expression]

Yet, despite your influence, you have successfully betrayed the proletariat every time because, despite your claims of Marxism, you have consistently failed to grasp the idea of class power, as opposed to the power of the party; you have consistently muddled the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat with that of the dictatorship of the party.

What an empty claim. Leninism has established the dictatorship of the proletariat on many occasions and in many locales. Some of these became deformed and problematic, yes, but that is another point that does not contradict the effectiveness of Marxism-Leninism.

And what else have other ideologies done? Anarchists and their self-styled "communist" allies have achieved a dictatorship of the nonexistent, which hardly deserves praise.


Left communists may not have such a big influence now as they did in the past (but neither do Leninists anyway, so that's pretty irrelevant) but they sure as fuck played a more important role in trying to establish true proletarian power, as opposed to that of a party.

I've tried to find this supposed influence of left communists in the past, and no one has come up with anything. So far, we know that some existed in Germany during the revolutions (even though they weren't leading them) and that some ended up in the Gulags (along with just about everyone else). The left communist claim of faded glory is just hot air.


What hypocrisy. Leninists have such a dreadful tendency to do that themselves. Indeed, any communist revolution in history you distort to fit into your ideological lines.

You mean the revolutions which were made and defended by Leninists. Yeah, distortions all.


? What a baseless argument.

Prove me wrong.


...And Stalin is remembered as the ultimate betrayer of the revolution by some socialists and all capitalists, but that doesn't make it fact.
What people are remembered by does not necessarily represent what they actually did.
Hilarious you'd cite capitalists as evidence of your point. :lol:

And that's why most Leninists criticize a lot of what Stalin did.

More importantly, are you actually suggesting that Luxemburg and Liebknecht WEREN'T the central leaders of the revolution in Germany? EVERYONE who knows the slightest thing about German history knows what you're implying is perfect nonsense, which basically proves my point about ultra-lefts anyway.

And for all of his faults, Stalin did make a lot of important decisions which saved not only socialism in the Soviet Union, but the very existence of multiple peoples from the hands of Nazism. Don't try to scuttle serious historical analysis in order to support your argument, it's bad taste.


I suppose that applies hilariously to your spineless politics too, though, doesn't it?
Your rich history of proletarian power is nothing but a sham; a façade of working class power.
So I'd bite your tongue if I were you.

Of course you would call working-class power a sham, you wouldn't know socialism if it was mailed directly to your door, and the incompetence of your ideology is proof enough of this.


Manic: You are denying the historical conditions which the Left communists operated under. Western Europe was nothing like Russia. The Leninist model has absolutely no foundation in any solidified capitalist country. The basic reason is that the proletarian in capitalist countries truly stands alone. We can not rely on farmers to join in our struggle. It is accurate to say that without the peasants, Lenin would have had no revolution. Industrial workers made up a small fraction of the population of Russia in 1917, far outnumbered by peasants. Because we stand alone as proletarians in capitalist countries, it is of uttermost necessity that proletarians in Western Europe and the US are committed, hardcore revolutionaries if a socialist revolution is going to have success. We do not become committed revolutionaries while having to follow your dogma. We learn revolution by creating it ourselves as the proletarian. We do not need more figureheads who dictate that road of revolution; we need individual leaders who learn by practice amongst all the proletarian in our countries.

Yes Lenin's model "worked" in Russia. It was able to effectively subjugate the fractional working class and unite peasants under promised land. It has nothing to do with the proletarian in capitalist countries where we rely solely on ourselves as a collective class.

You are forgetting, however, that the Bolsheviks did not depend on the peasantry in any way to make their revolution. Yes, support for land reform in the countryside did contribute to the Bolshevik cause, but in all honesty it benefitted the Left-SRs more than anyone else. The peasantry only really came into the picture with the onset of the Civil War, and that was after the fact. The Russian proletariat made the October Revolution, I think that is a safe assertion.

Secondly, this entire argument came from a disagreement on the KKE, which is certainly not operating in 1917 Russia-like conditions. Have I criticized such German communists as the Spartacist League and the leaders of the Bavarian revolution? No, I have not, because they were able to spread their message throughout the working class quite well. This is about the impractical and impotent nature of left communist theories, theories which have never been effective in any real sense.

Lastly, you talk of my dogma, but I am hardly a dogmatist. I actually uphold Trotsky's contribution to the communist movement, I defend the actions of the German revolutionaries (who clashed with the Bolsheviks on many issues), I support so-called "Stalinist" parties. I'm singling out one ideology that is particularly worthless, because history has shown as much.

[black magick hustla]

I am a republican because republicans have established democracy abroad and there are many of us therefore we are right.

[manic expression]

I am a republican because republicans have established democracy abroad and there are many of us therefore we are right.

You see, this is a strawman argument which has nothing to do with what I stated.

Part of my argument is that the left communists have never had a significant presence within the working class, much less the socialist movement; as such (and here's the rub), they have not been a significant factor in revolutionary activity. This, surely, is not a coincidence, for it has to do with their theoretical flaws. The inexplicable rejection of unions, the working-class vanguard party and other key components of working-class organization contributes to this.

The question, one which my opponents are doing their very best to ignore, is whether or not an ideology can organize workers to further the cause of socialist revolution. Have the left communists ever been relevant to significant revolutionary struggles? History would suggest that they haven't. That is the issue here, and you would do well to recognize this.

[black magick hustla]

The problem with you manic expression, is that you have a radical different idea of what it means to be a worker's state. So for you, a military coup put forward by stalinists is a worker's revolution, and to us, its only a coup of a different faction of the bourgeosie. Thats fine, however, you make the stupid assumption that your "examples" of working class power are interpreted by us as working class power. For us, there is nothing socialist about nationalists or leftist nationalists furthering the sectarian divisions between workers by putting forward silly slogans like "proletarian patriotism". If we talked about military tacticians and who has made more "coups", then yes, stalinists have done more, in the same way fascists and other factions of the bourgeosie has done.

And as about the history of the communist left. In all honestly, I dont want to participate in this worthless dick measuring contest on who's tendency was biggest, because the stalinists are bigger because the stalinists are a faction of the ruling class. My point was debunking your argument that we dont do "anything", nor historically have done so. Perhaps the impact is not the same as stalinists, but we certainly were doing something, and we certainly do something today. Its really silly when you say stuff like "left communists only exist in revleft", while there are internationalist circles in many countries in latin america, the middle east, india, etc. I am sure this people's presence is in english speaking websites when they cant even speak english themselves. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

The problem with you manic expression, is that you have a radical different idea of what it means to be a worker's state. So for you, a military coup put forward by stalinists is a worker's revolution, and to us, its only a coup of a different faction of the bourgeosie. Thats fine, however, you make the stupid assumption that your "examples" of working class power are interpreted by us as working class power. For us, there is nothing socialist about nationalists or leftist nationalists furthering the sectarian divisions between workers by putting forward silly slogans like "proletarian patriotism".

First, the objective stuff: the Bolshevik revolution was not a Stalinist coup, as Stalin wasn't even an important figure, nor was Stalinism in existence. In addition, if you knew the first thing about the October Revolution, you'd know that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Kerensky government with an incredible amount of support throughout the proletariat. The workers were imploring the Bolsheviks to overthrow the capitalists, which they did in November of 1917. Most importantly, the Bolsheviks, as they promised, put power into the hands of the Soviets, which duly elected Lenin as one of the leaders of the newly-founded socialist state.

That's what a revolution is. Left communists, unsurprisingly, blindly call working-class revolutions "bourgeois", "nationalist", "anti-worker" and so on; these are simply empty phrases with no actual meaning. As we can see from history, the Bolsheviks abolished capitalism and fully empowered the Soviets. One is tempted to conclude that the lefts resort to sloganeering because they simply don't know what a revolution is, what it entails or what it demands. In short, they are oblivious to the realities of class conflict (a conflict in which they have never played a notable role).


And as about the history of the communist left. In all honestly, I dont want to participate in this worthless dick measuring contest on who's tendency was biggest, because the stalinists are bigger because the stalinists are a faction of the ruling class. My point was debunking your argument that we dont do "anything", nor historically have done so. Perhaps the impact is not the same as stalinists, but we certainly were doing something, and we certainly do something today. Its really silly when you say stuff like "left communists only exist in revleft", while there are internationalist circles in many countries in latin america, the middle east, india, etc. I am sure this people's presence is in english speaking websites when they cant even speak english themselves. :rolleyes:Your entire analysis here is just absurd. Stalinists are not members of the ruling class, and that assertion of yours flies in the face of any serious scientific analysis. Firstly, your definition of "Stalinist" is so nebulous as to be rendered useless (according to you, Stalinists made a coup against Kerensky in 1917...:rolleyes:). Secondly, the bureaucrats you are apparently referring to cannot be considered capitalists because they never owned private property, nor did they profit from the exploitation of wage-laborers. Such nonsense has no business calling itself Marxist, for it is essentially the work of an imagination and not a materialist analysis.

And I would LOVE to hear what the left communists are "doing". The most I've gotten is a hopeless glorification of habitual insignificance.

[black magick hustla]

First, the objective stuff: the Bolshevik revolution was not a Stalinist coup, as Stalin wasn't even an important figure, nor was Stalinism in existence. In addition, if you knew the first thing about the October Revolution, you'd know that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Kerensky government with an incredible amount of support throughout the proletariat. The workers were imploring the Bolsheviks to overthrow the capitalists. Most importantly, the Bolsheviks, as they said, put power into the hands of the Soviets, which duly elected Lenin as one of the leaders of the socialist state.

And here is when you have no idea of what you are criticizing. Most left communists think the russian revolution was a proletarian revolution. And to us it is not either who l"ead the revolution", but the fact that the woiking class did. Left communists dont think everybody has to be a left communist, they argue for internationalist position.


That's what a revolution is. Left communists, unsurprisingly, blindly call working-class revolutions "bourgeois", "nationalist", "anti-worker" and so on; these are simply empty phrases with no actual meaning. As we can see from history, the Bolsheviks abolished capitalism and fully empowered the Soviets. One is tempted to conclude that the lefts resort to sloganeering because they simply don't know what a revolution is, what it entails or what it demands. In short, they are oblivious to the realities of class conflict (a conflict in which they have never played a notable role).

read above for everything else because you have no idea of what you are criticizing.

[manic expression]

And here is when you have no idea of what you are criticizing. Most left communists think the russian revolution was a proletarian revolution. And to us it is not either who l"ead the revolution", but the fact that the woiking class did. Left communists dont think everybody has to be a left communist, they argue for internationalist position.

On the "internationalist position", I find it duplicitous. The most consistent practitioners of internationalism have been the Cuban revolutionaries, as they sent soldiers to fight apartheid and imperialism in Angola, in addition to giving a great deal of material and ideological support to struggles throughout the Americas (including revolutionary movements in the US) and elsewhere. They have sacrificed their own people for the freedom of others.

Left communists uniformly disparage the Cuban Revolution and the socialist Cuban government. How is it possible to call oneself an internationalist when one simultaneously criticizes the foremost internationalists of our age?


read above for everything else because you have no idea of what you are criticizing.

So for you, a military coup put forward by stalinists is a worker's revolution, and to us, its only a coup of a different faction of the bourgeosie.

I'm not the one who needs to clarify their position. Had you taken the time to define what you were talking about, this wouldn't be a problem. Don't blame me for what you failed to do.

[Niccolò Rossi]

On the "internationalist position", I find it duplicitous. The most consistent practitioners of internationalism have been the Cuban revolutionaries, as they sent soldiers to fight apartheid and imperialism in Angola, in addition to giving a great deal of material and ideological support to struggles throughout the Americas (including revolutionary movements in the US) and elsewhere. They have sacrificed their own people for the freedom of others.

Left communists uniformly disparage the Cuban Revolution and the socialist Cuban government. How is it possible to call oneself an internationalist when one simultaneously criticizes the foremost internationalists of our age?

The internationalism of the communist left and it's condemnation of Cuban state-capitalism and "anti-imperialism" is in no way dishonest as you would like to suggest. It stems logically from it's evaluation of the Cuban revolution and the role of Cuba on the international stage. More information re this position can be found in the articles Fidel Castro retires: The problem is not the rider but the horse (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/castro-quits) and Che Guevara: Myth and Reality (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara)from the ICC. Of course I'm sure you've read both, as they have been posted on this board before and debated. If anyone is being duplicitous here it is yourself.


So for you, a military coup put forward by stalinists is a worker's revolution, and to us, its only a coup of a different faction of the bourgeosie.

I'm not the one who needs to clarify their position. Had you taken the time to define what you were talking about, this wouldn't be a problem. Don't blame me for what you failed to do.

Marmot's point was and is correct here. You are the one who took it out of context and applied it to the Russian Revolution. This is of course not surprising for someone who sees in the Russian Revolution, not the overthrow of the provisional government and the birth of a proletarian bastion as the work of the working class themselves but rather that of the Bolsheviks, handing power to the passively imploring proletariat and "abolishing capitalism" single-handedly.

[Pogue]

I'd rather have an ideal which has been fought for an implemented on a small scale such as Anarchism than hold an ideal derived from a dictator such as Stalin or Lenin who called themselves communists whilst presiding on the most authoritarian and restrictive societies ever. marx-Leninism had revolutions, yes, revolutions which led to nothing beneficial to the working class. Great acheivment, but not the sort any real communist aims for.

[manic expression]

The internationalism of the communist left and it's condemnation of Cuban state-capitalism and "anti-imperialism" is in no way dishonest as you would like to suggest. It stems logically from it's evaluation of the Cuban revolution and the role of Cuba on the international stage. More information re this position can be found in the articles Fidel Castro retires: The problem is not the rider but the horse (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/castro-quits) and Che Guevara: Myth and Reality (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara)from the ICC. Of course I'm sure you've read both, as they have been posted on this board before and debated. If anyone is being duplicitous here it is yourself.

You bring up important points here which should be considered. Allow me to address the theoretical issues first and the practical issues second.

The theory of state capitalism, as used by left communists, is completely illogical. State bureaucrats cannot own private property, they cannot profit from the exploitation of wage labor. This, alone, means that any actual analysis of their position will conclude that they are not and cannot be capitalist. Only the most flagrantly twisted misapplication of Marxism could yield such a foolish position. Moreover, the bureaucracy in Cuba has not once conquered political power since the revolution; the state is controlled through the very democratic political organs of the workers, and no party, not even the PCC, can nominate candidates for office.

Check the "Democracy in Cuba" link on the left of this site (notice it cites its statements):

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)

On Cuba itself, the fact remains that the Cuban revolutionaries have consistently fought and sacrificed for the workers of the world. In addition to discussing theory, these concrete examples of internationalism need to be accounted for. The left communist denunciation of such internationalism is, in fact, duplicitous, as they paint themselves the defenders of internationalism while slandering its foremost practitioners.


Marmot's point was and is correct here. You are the one who took it out of context and applied it to the Russian Revolution. This is of course not surprising for someone who sees in the Russian Revolution, not the overthrow of the provisional government and the birth of a proletarian bastion as the work of the working class themselves but rather that of the Bolsheviks, handing power to the passively imploring proletariat and "abolishing capitalism" single-handedly.

Marmot made a blanket statement that I tried to apply to the most important example of the Bolsheviks. There was no context from which to take it, and so it is certainly not my fault that Marmot was unable or unwilling to identify what in the world he was talking about. You're effectively congratulating someone for making a hopelessly vague statement and blaming me for trying to engage it.

At any rate, your conception of the Russian Revolution is at once correct and mistaken. On the one hand, you are correct, for the revolution was made by the workers themselves, organized within the working-class vanguard party of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks represented the most politically advanced section of the working class, and thus they continuously furthered the interests of the prolatariat. On the other hand, you are mistaken because you regard the Bolsheviks as separate from the workers. That is incorrect, for as I have explained, the Bolsheviks were made up by workers, led by working-class revolutionaries and dedicated to the cause of the workers. That is what Leninism is all about, and that is why it has been so effective throughout history.


I'd rather have an ideal which has been fought for an implemented on a small scale such as Anarchism than hold an ideal derived from a dictator such as Stalin or Lenin who called themselves communists whilst presiding on the most authoritarian and restrictive societies ever. marx-Leninism had revolutions, yes, revolutions which led to nothing beneficial to the working class. Great acheivment, but not the sort any real communist aims for.

That's precisely the point: it has only been implemented on a small scale and only for so long, because it's not a viable model for a large industrialized society. In addition, without the creation of a worker state, the bourgeoisie cannot be kept from reestablishing its control over society. Revolutions consist of one class overthrowing the former ruling class, and so it is necessary to suppress those who would forcefully impede the progress of the working class. For this, a socialist state is needed. Anarchism fails to recognize this critical fact, and thus its efforts have ended in total, abject and brutal failure. Lastly, it is important to note that it is perfectly possible to maintain and promote democratic processes along with working-class control, and Cuba has proved this to be true.

In your opinion, how was Lenin a dictator? Further, why were the Russian and Cuban Revolutions not beneficial to the working class? Did they not abolish capitalism and private property and establish socialism?

[PRC-UTE]

Well, we formed the majority of the communist parties in Europe, largely contributed to the foundation of the Communist International, had a majority in the Bolshevik Party for a while and played an important role in the first revolutionary wave following WW1.

In any case, no more off topic discussions please, this thread is about the events in Greece.

you have a future in writing fiction me son

[Niccolò Rossi]

The theory of state capitalism, as used by left communists, is completely illogical. State bureaucrats cannot own private property, they cannot profit from the exploitation of wage labor. This, alone, means that any actual analysis of their position will conclude that they are not and cannot be capitalist. Only the most flagrantly twisted misapplication of Marxism could yield such a foolish position.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no substance here. Your "critique" of the theory of state-capitalism is humorously simplistic. Unfortunately (or should it be unsurprisingly), it tuns out, a single sentence is insufficient to refute it.


On Cuba itself, the fact remains that the Cuban revolutionaries have consistently fought and sacrificed for the workers of the world. In addition to discussing theory, these concrete examples of internationalism need to be accounted for. The left communist denunciation of such internationalism is, in fact, duplicitous, as they paint themselves the defenders of internationalism while slandering its foremost practitioners.

Again, it is not the communist left whose internationalism is duplicitous here, but rather that of the Cuban "revolutionaries" and yourself. Internationalism means the fraternisation of the working class across all boarders and irrespective of national flags in the common fight against world capitalism. Whilst anti-imperialists, such as yourself, may employ internationalist rhetoric, your support for one or another faction of national capital or imperialist bloc is completely antithetical too and makes a mockery of proletarian internationalism.


Marmot made a blanket statement that I tried to apply to the most important example of the Bolsheviks. There was no context from which to take it, and so it is certainly not my fault that Marmot was unable or unwilling to identify what in the world he was talking about. You're effectively congratulating someone for making a hopelessly vague statement and blaming me for trying to engage it.

I understand where the ambiguity may come in here. However, I would have thought the positions of the bulk of the communist left, and specifically the ICC, would be common knowledge to an individual who, as KC suggested, understands "the theoretical shortcomings of the left-communists".


At any rate, your conception of the Russian Revolution is at once correct and mistaken. On the one hand, you are correct, for the revolution was made by the workers themselves, organized within the working-class vanguard party of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks represented the most politically advanced section of the working class, and thus they continuously furthered the interests of the prolatariat. On the other hand, you are mistaken because you regard the Bolsheviks as separate from the workers. That is incorrect, for as I have explained, the Bolsheviks were made up by workers, led by working-class revolutionaries and dedicated to the cause of the workers. That is what Leninism is all about, and that is why it has been so effective throughout history.

I'm sorry but I think you have me, and what I wrote previously, confused. The the bulk of the communist left have historically understood the Russian Revolution to be proletarian in nature, that is, the revolution was the act and expression of the revolutionary proletariat themselves. Neither I nor the bulk of the communist left (the exception being the later councilists), agree with the suggestion that the Bolsheviks where in any way "separate" from the working class or that the October Revolution was a (bourgeois) coup.

The point I was trying to make in my above post was that, ironically, it was you who was making these claims. If I may:


In addition, if you knew the first thing about the October Revolution, you'd know that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Kerensky government with an incredible amount of support throughout the proletariat. The workers were imploring the Bolsheviks to overthrow the capitalists, which they did in November of 1917. Most importantly, the Bolsheviks, as they promised, put power into the hands of the Soviets, which duly elected Lenin as one of the leaders of the newly-founded socialist state.

That's what a revolution is. Left communists, unsurprisingly, blindly call working-class revolutions "bourgeois", "nationalist", "anti-worker" and so on; these are simply empty phrases with no actual meaning. As we can see from history, the Bolsheviks abolished capitalism and fully empowered the Soviets. One is tempted to conclude that the lefts resort to sloganeering because they simply don't know what a revolution is, what it entails or what it demands.

Considering your more recent remarks suggesting that "the revolution was made by the workers themselves", I'd be interested to know where the resolution to this apparent contradictory position of yours lies. Was it the Bolsheviks who "abolished capitalism and fully empowered the Soviets", albeit with the (passive) support of the workers or was it the "workers themselves".

[manic expression]

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no substance here. Your "critique" of the theory of state-capitalism is humorously simplistic. Unfortunately (or should it be unsurprisingly), it tuns out, a single sentence is insufficient to refute it.

Care to comment beyond that statement, or do you just not feel like reasoned debate? The theory of state capitalism is humorously silly, and the very simplistic fact that bureaucrats of socialist states cannot be capitalists is enough to prove as much. Try making an argument next time.

And I suppose you feign from discussing the incredibly asinine theory of state capitalism, because continued belief in this myth allows you to spew nonsense such as this:


Again, it is not the communist left whose internationalism is duplicitous here, but rather that of the Cuban "revolutionaries" and yourself. Internationalism means the fraternisation of the working class across all boarders and irrespective of national flags in the common fight against world capitalism. Whilst anti-imperialists, such as yourself, may employ internationalist rhetoric, your support for one or another faction of national capital or imperialist bloc is completely antithetical too and makes a mockery of proletarian internationalism.

You continue to make statements without backing them up. You claim that the left communists are not duplicitous at all, as if this made it true. The fact is that the Cuban revolutionaries abolished capitalism in Cuba, for private property was abolished and the means of production were put in the control of the workers. On their internationalism, I have already illustrated many examples in which the Cuban communists sacrificed their own security and wellbeing for the good of the workers of other countries. You, like your fellow puritans, dismiss this and continue to make blanket statements without even trying to substantiate them.


I understand where the ambiguity may come in here. However, I would have thought the positions of the bulk of the communist left, and specifically the ICC, would be common knowledge to an individual who, as KC suggested, understands "the theoretical shortcomings of the left-communists".

I don't believe Marmot to be representative of the ICC, and so I dealt with his arguments on their own merits. One should never expect me to assume what someone meant if they failed to specify the context.


I'm sorry but I think you have me, and what I wrote previously, confused. The the bulk of the communist left have historically understood the Russian Revolution to be proletarian in nature, that is, the revolution was the act and expression of the revolutionary proletariat themselves. Neither I nor the bulk of the communist left (the exception being the later councilists), agree with the suggestion that the Bolsheviks where in any way "separate" from the working class or that the October Revolution was a (bourgeois) coup.

If this is the case, then it is necessary to clarify the position of the left communists on this issue.


The point I was trying to make in my above post was that, ironically, it was you who was making these claims. If I may:

Considering your more recent remarks suggesting that "the revolution was made by the workers themselves", I'd be interested to know where the resolution to this apparent contradictory position of yours lies. Was it the Bolsheviks who "abolished capitalism and fully empowered the Soviets", albeit with the (passive) support of the workers or was it the "workers themselves".

It's not hard to comprehend. The Bolsheviks represented the most politically advanced section of the working class. The working class as a whole was not fully revolutionary. In the run-up to the October Revolution, however, the bulk of the workers were radicalized and took to the banner of the working-class vanguard, the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks (again, the revolutionary vanguard of the workers) carried out the wishes of the entire working-class and subsequently put control of the means of production into the hands of the working class as a whole.

So, you see, it was a case of the organized and revolutionary portion of the workers carrying out the explicit interests of the entire working class in overthrowing capitalism. This is not contradictory, and this is what I've been saying the whole time.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Care to comment beyond that statement, or do you just not feel like reasoned debate? The theory of state capitalism is humorously silly, and the very simplistic fact that bureaucrats of socialist states cannot be capitalists is enough to prove as much. Try making an argument next time.

I don't have any intention to derail a thread discussing the history of and relationship between Left communism and Marxism-Leninism by debating the theory of state-capitalism. This topic has been discussed countless times on this board before, with varying sophistication, validity and value. I will however gladly recommend you some articles on topic since you are so keen for it. Brief comments re state-capitalism can be found in the platform of the ICC, here (http://en.internationalism.org/node/609) and here (http://en.internationalism.org/node/610). Aufheben published a four part series dealing with the various analyses of the USSR. Part I (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html) deals with the theories of Trotskyism, Part II (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_7_ussr2.html) with those of Ticktin as a "non-mode of production", Part III (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_8_ussr_3.html) with those of the German/Dutch and Italian Lefts and finally, Part IV (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_9_ussr4.html)presents the case of state-capitalism in the terms of Aufheben itself.


On their internationalism, I have already illustrated many examples in which the Cuban communists sacrificed their own security and wellbeing for the good of the workers of other countries.

That's not true. In this thread you haven't cited any examples of the internationalism of the Cuban Communists. This fact is irrelevant, given that the articles cited before by myself touch on this issue.


I don't believe Marmot to be representative of the ICC, and so I dealt with his arguments on their own merits. One should never expect me to assume what someone meant if they failed to specify the context.

The man has a link to the ICC in his signature and has his organisation listed as the ICC, how much more do you want! Either way, this argument is getting more and more tenuous. Why don't we both drop it.


If this is the case, then it is necessary to clarify the position of the left communists on this issue.

I don't follow you. Could you please clarify what you mean here.

[Herman]

Zeitgeist:


That's not true. In this thread you haven't cited any examples of the internationalism of the Cuban Communists.Manic:


On the "internationalist position", I find it duplicitous. The most consistent practitioners of internationalism have been the Cuban revolutionaries, as they sent soldiers to fight apartheid and imperialism in Angola, in addition to giving a great deal of material and ideological support to struggles throughout the Americas (including revolutionary movements in the US) and elsewhere. They have sacrificed their own people for the freedom of others.

[Junius]

Yes, Cuba supported the MPLA as a proxy of the USSR, whist China supported UNITA (by selling weapons and providing over a hundred military advisors) and the FLNA (originally supporting the MPLA and later changing) along with the US, Britain, France, South Africa and so forth. MPLA - the same group which helped break the Luanda dockers' wildcat strike of '75, which denounced labor unrest and excessive wage demands. The same MPLA, whose leader and first president Neto, originally requested help from the US government in overthrowing the Portugese, and when rejected turned to Cuba. The same MPLA which denounced, funnily enough, class struggle in the 90s (having long since abandoned it, of course). The same MPLA which is today the ruling capitalist party of Angola. Was this or was this not nothing more than an inter-imperialist conflict between different factions of the ruling class?

And you call the support for the MPLA internationalism?!

[Pogue]

Well then what? If Marx-Leninism leads to corrupt authoritarian and ultimately capitalist states as it apparently always has done, and Anarchism only exists on a small scale before being crushed by the bourgeoisie, what leftist ideology works?

[Pogue]

That was a rhetorical question. I see no reason why an Anarchist revolution could not defend itself. We have a history of doing so, in Ukraine and Spain. In Spain the CNT were the quickest to defend Spain from fascism and as effective as anyone.

[JimmyJazz]

You don't really want to brag about being "as effective as anyone" in defending Spain from Franco.


Yes Lenin's model "worked" in Russia. It was able to effectively subjugate the fractional working class and unite peasants under promised land. It has nothing to do with the proletarian in capitalist countries where we rely solely on ourselves as a collective class.

So your vision for a communist revolution extends only to a small handful of the most highly industrialized countries in which the proletariat strongly outnumbers every other class (peasantry, etc), and you won't allow said revolution to be achieved by any other method than a spontaneous mass uprising (which has never successfully resulted in the taking of state power, only in the toppling of governments)?

I'm not a "Leninist" btw, and I do my best not to conflate anti-imperialism with socialism.

[Valeofruin]

You're confusing Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism.

Too bad Stalin was a true Marxist-Leninist.


The USSR wouldn't have developed any differently if Trotsky, and not Stalin, had succeeded Lenin. That is unless of course you subscribe to the 'great men of history' viewpoint, which would be a strange thing for a self-proclaimed Marxist to do.

A communist party is an organization of class conscious workers, not a monarchy.

[manic expression]

I don't have any intention to derail a thread discussing the history of and relationship between Left communism and Marxism-Leninism by debating the theory of state-capitalism. This topic has been discussed countless times on this board before, with varying sophistication, validity and value. I will however gladly recommend you some articles on topic since you are so keen for it. Brief comments re state-capitalism can be found in the platform of the ICC, here (http://en.internationalism.org/node/609) and here (http://en.internationalism.org/node/610). Aufheben published a four part series dealing with the various analyses of the USSR. Part I (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html) deals with the theories of Trotskyism, Part II (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_7_ussr2.html) with those of Ticktin as a "non-mode of production", Part III (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_8_ussr_3.html) with those of the German/Dutch and Italian Lefts and finally, Part IV (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_9_ussr4.html)presents the case of state-capitalism in the terms of Aufheben itself.

Please don't try to sidestep this issue. Discussing the patently obvious flaws of left communist theories on state capitalism is essentially what this thread should be about.


That's not true. In this thread you haven't cited any examples of the internationalism of the Cuban Communists. This fact is irrelevant, given that the articles cited before by myself touch on this issue.

See Herman's post.


The man has a link to the ICC in his signature and has his organisation listed as the ICC, how much more do you want! Either way, this argument is getting more and more tenuous. Why don't we both drop it.

Don't be obtuse. I have a quote by James Connolly, does that mean everything I say represents his ideas? I also used to have links to the US SWP, does that mean everything I said during that time was a fully accurate representation of its party line?

The answers are no and no. It is impolite to take the words of one poster, of whose actual involvement in an organization is unknown, and place it upon the entirety of said organization. Taking someone's arguments on their own merit is common courtesy.


I don't follow you. Could you please clarify what you mean here.

It would be helpful for Marmot to clarify the context of his earlier statement. In the event that Marmot is unable or unwilling to do so, perhaps an ideological ally could instead.


Yes, Cuba supported the MPLA as a proxy of the USSR, whist China supported UNITA (by selling weapons and providing over a hundred military advisors) and the FLNA (originally supporting the MPLA and later changing) along with the US, Britain, France, South Africa and so forth. MPLA - the same group which helped break the Luanda dockers' wildcat strike of '75, which denounced labor unrest and excessive wage demands. The same MPLA, whose leader and first president Neto, originally requested help from the US government in overthrowing the Portugese, and when rejected turned to Cuba. The same MPLA which denounced, funnily enough, class struggle in the 90s (having long since abandoned it, of course). The same MPLA which is today the ruling capitalist party of Angola. Was this or was this not nothing more than an inter-imperialist conflict between different factions of the ruling class?

And you call the support for the MPLA internationalism?!

This is a position that, at its very base, necessitates a complete endorsement of capitalist propaganda. It is common knowledge that Cuba sent soldiers to Angola WITHOUT the approval of the USSR, and indeed the Soviet Union did not want Cuba to become involved.

Here are the facts:

"Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;

The United States knew about South Africa's covert invasion plans, and collaborated militarily with its troops, contrary to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified before Congress and wrote in his memoirs.

Cuba made the decision to send troops without informing the Soviet Union and deployed them, contrary to what has been widely alleged, without any Soviet assistance for the first two months."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/

The rest of your post is a denial of the situation involved. The MPLA, at the time, was the sole challenge to apartheid-allied forces; they were, much to the chagrin of ultra-left puritans, defending the freedom of Angola (and Namibia, as history would later show). The request of aid from the United States, if indeed that happened, indicates nothing but an attempt to stop a bloody conflict from happening before it could start. Kennedy began giving aid to the MPLA's reactionary adversaries, and if Washington could be convinced to refrain from doing so, many lives would have been saved. Why should anyone criticize this pragmatic policy, especially when it was carried out in the face of overwhelming imperialist aggression? I think most reasonable people would agree that all options should be exhausted in such situations.

In 1975, during this strike you mentioned, Angola was on the edge of being occupied by the racist apartheid state of South Africa...what did you expect them to do? They were in an all-out fight against institutionalized racism, and you find a way to belittle that. Lastly, their later turn from socialism (much like the ANC) is inconsequential and has more to do with the fall of the USSR in the early 1990's (with which the left communists, for their part, were quite contented).

And on edit, referring to the last part of your post: No, this was certainly NOT an imperialist endeavor, and such an accusation is beyond inexplicable. First, Cuba could not be imperialist, for it had abolished private property and institutionalized working-class control of the means of production. Second, the MPLA was not imperialist at the time, and its later turn from socialism has no bearing on what happened two decades prior. Third, the Cuban mission, in addition to defeating apartheid and racist slavery, consisted of education and social programs which uplifted and empowered the Angolan workers; imperialists don't do this, internationalists do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acKapfaEfLY

[Leo]

you have a future in writing fiction me sonDon't troll.

[Oneironaut]

So your vision for a communist revolution extends only to a small handful of the most highly industrialized countries in which the proletariat strongly outnumbers every other class (peasantry, etc), and you won't allow said revolution to be achieved by any other method than a spontaneous mass uprising (which has never successfully resulted in the taking of state power, only in the toppling of governments)?

Not quite. I was trying to express how Marxist-Leninism as an ideology of the proletarian in advanced capitalist nations has very little practicality. That is why I have adopted a line of Marxist thought that for me, being a proletariat of the United States, represents the only way a successful revolution could occur. I would even say that Maoism represented the only Marxist ideology that would lay the foundation for a socialist revolution in China. Both Maoism and Marxist-Leninism has nothing to do with the working class of the US. That doesn't mean they didn't have their appropriate positions in history. I don't concern myself with statements that a spontaneous mass uprising has never worked, which is itself debatable. As far as I'm concerned, both Marxist-Leninism and Left Communism are on an equal footing in establishing communism, for neither have achieved it to date.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The crisis in the Trotsky/Stalin conflict was not a crisis of individuals but a crisis of ideologies.

It was a "crisis" of utopianism and of practicality, and you can guess which side won. The plants and equipment were utilized to full capacity by the mid-twenties, and it called for expanded expenditure for more capital improvements. If there wasn't more output in industry, they'd be required to open up foreign trade. Trotsky obviously included that in the Joint Opposition's program, but he broke Party discipline.

[JimmyJazz]

Not quite. I was trying to express how Marxist-Leninism as an ideology of the proletarian in advanced capitalist nations has very little practicality. That is why I have adopted a line of Marxist thought that for me, being a proletariat of the United States, represents the only way a successful revolution could occur. I would even say that Maoism represented the only Marxist ideology that would lay the foundation for a socialist revolution in China. Both Maoism and Marxist-Leninism has nothing to do with the working class of the US. That doesn't mean they didn't have their appropriate positions in history. I don't concern myself with statements that a spontaneous mass uprising has never worked, which is itself debatable. As far as I'm concerned, both Marxist-Leninism and Left Communism are on an equal footing in establishing communism, for neither have achieved it to date.

Gotcha. That makes perfect sense.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If you insist...


The theory of state capitalism, as used by left communists, is completely illogical. State bureaucrats cannot own private property, they cannot profit from the exploitation of wage labor. This, alone, means that any actual analysis of their position will conclude that they are not and cannot be capitalist. Only the most flagrantly twisted misapplication of Marxism could yield such a foolish position.

The distinguishing factors which makes Cuba along with the other so-called socialist states state-capitalist in character is the existence of the wage labour relations, commodity production and the operation of the law of value. Firstly, the fact that state bureaucrats cannot own private property in the means of production is irrelevant to determining the mode of production and class nature of Cuban society and shows that you are confusing the relations of production with their juridical expression. The public ownership of the means of production by the state is not socialist, rather, the state here simply acts as a functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour and setting targets for production.



I don't follow you. Could you please clarify what you mean here?It would be helpful for Marmot to clarify the context of his earlier statement. In the event that Marmot is unable or unwilling to do so, perhaps an ideological ally could instead.

How does this answer my question? Again:







So for you, a military coup put forward by stalinists is a worker's revolution, and to us, its only a coup of a different faction of the bourgeosie.I'm not the one who needs to clarify their position. Had you taken the time to define what you were talking about, this wouldn't be a problem. Don't blame me for what you failed to do.Marmot's point was and is correct here. You are the one who took it out of context and applied it to the Russian Revolution. This is of course not surprising for someone who sees in the Russian Revolution, not the overthrow of the provisional government and the birth of a proletarian bastion as the work of the working class themselves but rather that of the Bolsheviks, handing power to the passively imploring proletariat and "abolishing capitalism" single-handedly.At any rate, your conception of the Russian Revolution is at once correct and mistaken. On the one hand, you are correct, for the revolution was made by the workers themselves, organized within the working-class vanguard party of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks represented the most politically advanced section of the working class, and thus they continuously furthered the interests of the prolatariat. On the other hand, you are mistaken because you regard the Bolsheviks as separate from the workers. That is incorrect, for as I have explained, the Bolsheviks were made up by workers, led by working-class revolutionaries and dedicated to the cause of the workers. That is what Leninism is all about, and that is why it has been so effective throughout history.I'm sorry but I think you have me, and what I wrote previously, confused. The the bulk of the communist left have historically understood the Russian Revolution to be proletarian in nature, that is, the revolution was the act and expression of the revolutionary proletariat themselves. Neither I nor the bulk of the communist left (the exception being the later councilists), agree with the suggestion that the Bolsheviks where in any way "separate" from the working class or that the October Revolution was a (bourgeois) coup.If this is the case, then it is necessary to clarify the position of the left communists on this issue.

So, once again, could you please clarify why you believe it is necessary for the communist left to "clarify [their] position on this issue"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The distinguishing factors which makes Cuba along with the other so-called socialist states state-capitalist in character is the existence of the wage labour relations, commodity production and the operation of the law of value. Firstly, the fact that state bureaucrats cannot own private property in the means of production is irrelevant to determining the mode of production and class nature of Cuban society and shows that you are confusing the relations of production with their juridical expression. The public ownership of the means of production by the state is not socialist, rather, the state here simply acts as a functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour and setting targets for production.

Indeed. Engels said this in Anti-Duhring (where he explicitly stressed that socialist distribution operate on the basis of labour credits and not money):


But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments of the workers as well as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers – proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

Emphasis on the words "no matter what its form" ;)

[ernie]

As far as I'm concerned, both Marxist-Leninism and Left Communism are on an equal footing in establishing communism, for neither have achieved it to date.
I'm not a Left Communist, but I think you're leaving out a very important detail: the Leninists had their chance to reach communism, and never even came close. They were in power for decades in several countries and all they could achieve was "socialism" (otherwise known as the despotism of the party).

The reason for this is, I think, what you've been saying all along; namely, that the places where Leninism has been successful didn't have the adequate material conditions for a communist society to emerge. Although I suppose this is debatable. What is extremely clear is that, for whatever reason, the Leninist paradigm does not lead to communism. I don't understand how this could be disputed.

[KC]

the Leninists had their chance to reach communism,

Which chances? What is "Leninism," by the way? Could you define it and relate it to Lenin?

[Pogue]

You don't really want to brag about being "as effective as anyone" in defending Spain from Franco.

What? I shouldn't praise the fact that self organised workers militias put up a dam good fight when the odds were against them in defending themselves and the world against fascism? Why not?

[Comrade_Red]

Ok, what is a left-communism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Nice try, but it's more like this: Marxist-Leninists have a great deal of support and influence within the international proletariat.

Where?


Marxist-Leninists have made revolutions, established working-class control and defended socialism. Marxist-Leninists are, as we speak, organizing the working class and building revolutionary struggles.Revolutions that have stagnated, failed and seen the massive repression of the working class until the re-establishment of capitalism. There is not one example of a Marxist-Leninist state ever succeeding in establishing long-lasting workers power.

This "well, what have you done" argument you have going on is based on a false premise. That being that what you have done has not actually affected any real change for the working class. The objective of any workers revolution is to begin a process of creating communism. While the Marxist-Leninist paradigm has succeeded in establishing a socialist state and defending it from counter-revolution, it has not once created the material conditions to begin an actual process of transition. Consolidating the parties power through the centralisation of political authority does not count.

If it's true that we must have neighbouring nations going through the same process for a revolution to be successful in our respective nations then why do we even need centralised political authority? The Marxist-Leninist paradigm has failed. It has been falsified. If you wish to create a socialist state, that's one thing. If you want to create the conditions for transition into a gift economy, then you are going to have to abandon these unworkable ideas.

[The Feral Underclass]

Which chances? What is "Leninism," by the way? Could you define it and relate it to Lenin?

You're the only Leninist on this board that denies that Leninism exists.

[ernie]

Which chances? What is "Leninism," by the way? Could you define it and relate it to Lenin?
You're joking, right? In a sentence, the Leninist paradigm states that the "Vanguard" party, made up of professional revolutionaries, must "lead" the workers to revolution and rule over them through a "worker's state" for a "transition" period (of undefined length), after which the state and the party will whither away and the workers will have control.

I relate it to Lenin because he is the one that first put into practice this concept of the "Vanguard" party, and, after the October coup-olution, his party took power and his disciples held it for decades.

And they did have their chance in all those nations with strong state socialism which, following the Leninist paradigm, should have transitioned towards communism eventually. None of them did.

[Tower of Bebel]

On revleft most of the time the definition (it's character, not it's form) of leninism depends on the person who writes it down.

In my opinion (1) the vanguard (party) is a goal, not a set of (correct) ideas or an entity separated from the working class since the working class can only liberated itself through the democratic dictatorship of the working class as a whole; (2) "professional revolutionaries" is a concrete definition of Marx' wish that the proletariat develops it's own political leadership through class struggle; (3) the vanguard (as a goal) must guide and lead the working class but cannot rule over them; (4) and a workers' state is a state where the working class as a whole is in power.

I think the only fundamental difference with left-communism is what this means in practice.

[Leo]

As far as I'm concerned, both Marxist-Leninism and Left Communism are on an equal footing in establishing communism, for neither have achieved it to date.

I think you are missing an important point here: neither ideologies nor their adherents do not establish communism, and it is - can only be - the working class itself that can make the revolution, establish it's dictatorship and build communism. Not even the party of communists that are the most radical section of the working class trying push forward this development can substitute itself in place of the class and fulfill it's tasks. Quite possibly "Leninists" would disagree with this but that's another point.


and a workers' state is a state where the working class as a whole is in power.

Actually left communists disagree with this. For us no state can be a "workers' state". It is, by definition, an organ that coordinates the whole society. We don't see proletarian dictatorship as the state either, quite the contrary. A state is, by definition, a conservative organ that is always open to degeneration and becoming fully reactionary. Thus the key point for us is that the working class has to exercise it's dictatorship over the state.


What is "Leninism," by the way? Could you define it and relate it to Lenin?

I would define "Leninism" in it's origins as an ideological fetishization that was developed by the Stalinist regime in order to create an ideological basis to justify the it's class rule over the Russian working class and to completely destroy the faintest life remaining in communist parties over the world with the purpose of turning them into mere agents of the Russian capitalist state. I don't see a relation with Lenin himself - the very term would be shocking and offensive to Lenin.

[Oneironaut]

I think you are missing an important point here: neither ideologies nor their adherents do not establish communism, and it is - can only be - the working class itself that can make the revolution, establish it's dictatorship and build communism. Not even the party of communists that are the most radical section of the working class trying push forward this development can substitute itself in place of the class and fulfill it's tasks. Quite possibly "Leninists" would disagree with this but that's another point.


Well yes I am agreement with you. It is left communism that advocates the working class itself leading the revolution. Leninism has shown to not trust the working class to successfully lead such a formidable task, whereas I think it is the only way it will actually work. I guess I don't really see where I missed your point...

[KC]

You're joking, right? In a sentence, the Leninist paradigm states that the "Vanguard" party, made up of professional revolutionaries, must "lead" the workers to revolution and rule over them through a "worker's state" for a "transition" period (of undefined length), after which the state and the party will whither away and the workers will have control.

Actually, that has nothing to do with Lenin.

Marx recognized the necessity of a party of the most advanced section of the proletariat in his Manifesto of the Communist Party.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

In this quote, he is calling the communists the "most advanced...section of the working class." In other words, the communists are the vanguard ("the most advanced...section") of the working class. He also says here that the communists "[push] forward all others." This is another way of saying that the communists are at the forefront of the movement (i.e. they lead it). The most advanced workers (communists) will lead the struggle of the proletariat.

Second, Lenin never made any such claim about professional revolutionaries in the sense that you are stating; that is either ignorance or dishonesty. When Lenin discussed professionalism of revolutionaries, he wasn't referring to revolution as an occupation but the general conduct of revolutionaries. He was combatting the amateurism of the movement at the time.

"Worker's state" and "transition period" are both Marxist tenets as well.


And they did have their chance in all those nations with strong state socialism which, following the Leninist paradigm, should have transitioned towards communism eventually. None of them did.What are "those nations"? How do they relate to Lenin?

[Tower of Bebel]

Well yes I am agreement with you. It is left communism that advocates the working class itself leading the revolution. Leninism has shown to not trust the working class to successfully lead such a formidable task, whereas I think it is the only way it will actually work. I guess I don't really see where I missed your point...
You still think in terms of ideology. The difference between Left-communism and Bolshevism is essentially one of organization. And theory or ideology is just a reflection of that. Lenin does not mistrust the proletariat, he just doesn't like unorganized spontaneity (which differs from other forms of spontaneity). Lenin fought for a mass revolutionary workers' party that had to be formed before the revolution brakes out while left-communists don't because they fear bureaucratization.

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually, that has nothing to do with Lenin.

It has nothing to do with him? Nothing at all?

I mean let's face facts. No one really digs this Leninism doesn't mean anything bullshit. Not even the dozens of political organisations that refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninist.

[KC]

It has nothing to do with him? Nothing at all?

Well obviously it has something to do with him, as he was a Marxist, but it isn't a distinct idea developed by Lenin.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well obviously it has something to do with him, as he was a Marxist, but it isn't a distinct idea developed by Lenin.

But it was a distinct idea developed by him. He was the first person to apply the ideas into practice and consequently adapted them for those specific conditions. Hence the word Leninism...

[KC]

But it was a distinct idea developed by him. He was the first person to apply the ideas into practice and consequently adapted them for those specific conditions. Hence the word Leninism...

This makes no sense. If he was putting these ideas into practice and adapting them to specific conditions, then he wasn't developing any distinct idea. Your statement is contradictory.

[Post-Something]

I think the only fundamental difference with left-communism is what this means in practice.

How would a left-communist revolution and follow up look like in comparison to a Marxist-Leninist one?

[The Feral Underclass]

This makes no sense. If he was putting these ideas into practice and adapting them to specific conditions, then he wasn't developing any distinct idea. Your statement is contradictory.

It's evidently clear what I was getting at!

Karl Marx developed distinct ideas about organisation i.e. he created ideas that were distinguishable from those of the current political epoch. Lenin took those ideas and adapted them. If there is some semantic mistake that I cannot see then fine, but it does not negate the fact that Lenin developed Marx's ideas and adapted them for the conditions of the time, thus qualifying the term Leninism.

[Leo]

How would a left-communist revolution and follow up look like in comparison to a Marxist-Leninist one?

There can't be a "left communist revolution" - there can only be a proletarian revolution. The Paris Commune, the October Revolution, the German Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution and so forth were proletarian revolutions, which were made by the working class.

Marxist-Leninist "revolutions" of the 20th century (such as the Maoist "revolution" in China, Tito's "revolution" in Yugoslavia, the "revolutions" in Angola, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea etc.) were merely Stalinists taking power via coups and had nothing to do with being actual revolutions.

[Post-Something]

There can't be a "left communist revolution" - there can only be a proletarian revolution. The Paris Commune, the October Revolution, the German Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution and so forth were proletarian revolutions, which were made by the working class.

Marxist-Leninist "revolutions" of the 20th century (such as the Maoist "revolution" in China, Tito's "revolution" in Yugoslavia, the "revolutions" in Angola, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea etc.) were merely Stalinists taking power via coups and had nothing to do with being actual revolutions.

ok, how would a Left-communist see society being organised post-revolution?

[KC]

Karl Marx developed distinct ideas about organisation i.e. he created ideas that were distinguishable from those of the current political epoch. Lenin took those ideas and adapted them. If there is some semantic mistake that I cannot see then fine, but it does not negate the fact that Lenin developed Marx's ideas and adapted them for the conditions of the time, thus qualifying the term Leninism.

You just repeated yourself. My statement stands that Lenin didn't develop any distinct ideas regarding Marxist theory. His tactics used at the time with regards to party organization were simply that: tactics developed and adapted to the current conditions. They weren't theories to be applied outside of those specific historical conditions and because of that they aren't contributions to Marxist theory.

It is completely pointless to define that as a distinct development on Marxist theory, because it wasn't; it was just adapting Marxist theory to material conditions.

[Tower of Bebel]

ok, how would a Left-communist see society being organised post-revolution?
In theory it is the same as with a genuine "Leninist revolution". It's all about the proletariat's self-organization, but we differ on what it would look like. While in general left-communism is emphasizing soviets, and leninism the party, both actually intend to organize the proletariat. It is actually the betrayal of both the 3rd and 2nd International that gave birth to Left-communism while "Leninism" is a product of the struggle against the betrayal of the 2nd International and Trotskyism comes from the 3rd International. All 3 currents are born out of militants, workers and others who stood for genuine working class self-organization but many differ on the concrete meaning of and tactical approach to self-organization.

Left-communists don't hate Lenin but try to make a concrete analysis of Bolshevism just like Lenin didn't hate left-communists and polemicized against them as a comrade. That's also the same with the case of Leon Trotsky: "hands off Trotsky! He still belongs to the working class (http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/319)". Of course the counterrevolution from within and without also affected Lenin (and Trotsky) between 1918 and 1924, which means that differences between the Bolshevik center and the Workers' Opposition kept on growing and growing till they ended in purges and killings. But this counterrevolution doesn't necessarily mean that "Leninism" has failed. Leninism is a marxist current, which means that it needs rigorous criticism because otherwise it turns into a holy script. We must try to avoid mistakes that have been made in the past, and we cannot simply do that by making stupid deductions, reductions and sectarian remarks. If we all argue for proletarian self-organization and proletarian revolutions (strategy), but differ on some concrete tasks (tactics), the we must try to discuss these differences in a democratic fashion in order to advance both politically and organizationally.

[ernie]

Actually, that has nothing to do with Lenin.

Marx recognized the necessity of a party of the most advanced section of the proletariat in his Manifesto of the Communist Party.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

In this quote, he is calling the communists the "most advanced...section of the working class." In other words, the communists are the vanguard ("the most advanced...section") of the working class. He also says here that the communists "[push] forward all others." This is another way of saying that the communists are at the forefront of the movement (i.e. they lead it). The most advanced workers (communists) will lead the struggle of the proletariat.
No, that does not mean they "lead it", much less in the Leninist sense. It certainly doesn't mean that the party should rule over the workers, which is what happened in the USSR. That was Lenin's interpretation.

Besides, Marx also said that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves". The thought of a vanguard party bravely leading the workers to revolution is in complete opposition to this idea.


Second, Lenin never made any such claim about professional revolutionaries in the sense that you are stating; that is either ignorance or dishonesty. When Lenin discussed professionalism of revolutionaries, he wasn't referring to revolution as an occupation but the general conduct of revolutionaries. He was combatting the amateurism of the movement at the time.
In practice, Leninists have always advocated that revolution be left up to the professionals. Lenin himself, with his actions, showed that he felt that the working class of Russia was not ready to rule (and he was probably right), and saw the necessity to rule over them.


"Worker's state" and "transition period" are both Marxist tenets as well.
I'm sure Marx didn't have the USSR or Cuba in mind.


It is completely pointless to define that as a distinct development on Marxist theory, because it wasn't; it was just adapting Marxist theory to material conditions.
No. Marx always held that communism needed to happen in the developed countries; 1917 Russia did not fit that description. Therefore, attempting to establish communism in a semi-feudal society is a "development" (a deviation really) of Marxist theory.

You understand, though, that I don't mean to demonize Lenin. I consider him a revolutionary...whose ideas aren't applicable to modern capitalist countries. I hold the same view of Stalin, Trotsky and even Mao.

[KC]

No, that does not mean they "lead it", much less in the Leninist sense. It certainly doesn't mean that the party should rule over the workers, which is what happened in the USSR. That was Lenin's interpretation.

Besides, Marx also said that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves". The thought of a vanguard party bravely leading the workers to revolution is in complete opposition to this idea.Well, yes, they do lead. To be the section that "pushes forward all others" is the very definition of lead. What you are doing is attaching moral baggage to the word, defining it to mean dictate. You're being emotional.

The thought of the vanguard bravely pushing forward the more backward sections of the class - i.e. leading it - is exactly what Marx was saying in that passage.


In practice, Leninists have always advocated that revolution be left up to the professionals. Lenin himself, with his actions, showed that he felt that the working class of Russia was not ready to rule (and he was probably right), and saw the necessity to rule over them.1. You have not made a formal definition of "Leninism" so you cannot use the term "Leninist".
2. The second part of this quote is simply wrong.


I'm sure Marx didn't have the USSR or Cuba in mind.You have yet to show how the USSR or Cuba have anything to do with Lenin.


No. Marx always held that communism needed to happen in the developed countriesMarx never applied such a mechanistic and simplistic view of the materialist conception of history. He recognized that this conception of history was merely a correlation drawn out of historical development and in need of constant criticism and revision. He recognized that there would certainly be exceptions to his "rule".

More specifically, he even stated that he thought that Russia might be able to "skip" capitalism due to the communal nature of the Russian peasantry!

The materialist conception of history is not something that can be so mechanically applied to the analysis of society. The world is much more dynamic and fluid than that, and at the expense of sounding like Richter, it would be more accurate to call your theory the reductionist conception of history.


Therefore, attempting to establish communism in a semi-feudal society is a "development" (a deviation really) of Marxist theory.

Aside from the fact that this is highly condescending and patronizing, it also has no basis in reality. Lenin completely demolished this nonsense in The Development of Capitalism in Russia and Trotsky completely finished it off with his law of combined and uneven development. If you are concerned with learning more about this issue, and about the incredible complexity of the situation that you are simplifying into "feudalism/capitalism", I suggest you start with Trotsky's works on the subject.

[ernie]

Well, yes, they do lead. To be the section that "pushes forward all others" is the very definition of lead. What you are doing is attaching moral baggage to the word, defining it to mean dictate. You're being emotional.

The thought of the vanguard bravely pushing forward the more backward sections of the class - i.e. leading it - is exactly what Marx was saying in that passage.
We don't know what he meant. I infer that he didn't mean "lead", in the sense you use the word, because of the outlook that is present in the rest of his works. In fact, the very idea that the vanguard can somehow magically make the backward sections of the working class progressive is antithetical to the materialist conception of history.


1. You have not made a formal definition of "Leninism" so you cannot use the term "Leninist".
Actually, I did briefly describe what I think the Leninist paradigm is about.

2. The second part of this quote is simply wrong.
Then why did he stay in power? Why did he not start the "transfer" of power to the workers right away?


Marx never applied such a mechanistic and simplistic view of the materialist conception of history. He recognized that this conception of history was merely a correlation drawn out of historical development and in need of constant criticism and revision. He recognized that there would certainly be exceptions to his "rule".
Absolutely, and that's why I insist on saying that Lenin had good reason to think what he did. But does it make sense now?


More specifically, he even stated that he thought that Russia might be able to "skip" capitalism due to the communal nature of the Russian peasantry!
Yes, I'm aware of this...I find it rather unfortunate that Marx would say this (in a letter, by the way). I suppose I could chalk it up to senility :D.


The materialist conception of history is not something that can be so mechanically applied to the analysis of society. The world is much more dynamic and fluid than that, and at the expense of sounding like Richter, it would be more accurate to call your theory the reductionist conception of history.
I agree that I am simplifying it for the purposes of this discussion. The point is that, even if we have no idea why, the fact remains that the USSR (and its replicas) failed to establish communism. Why in the world would we want to repeat their mistakes?

[ernie]

If we all argue for proletarian self-organization and proletarian revolutions (strategy), but differ on some concrete tasks (tactics), the we must try to discuss these differences in a democratic fashion in order to advance both politically and organizationally.
Fair enough. One problem, though: the Leninist paradigm (organizing in bourgeois political parties, proclaiming to want to "lead" or "organize" the workers, etc.) tends to attract all kinds of opportunist scum who do not have the same goal as communists. This can happen to a point that even the party's leadership is infested with such people. (I'd even go so far as saying that this is the inevitable result of such an organization.)

So how can we possibly discuss anything with such an organization? And how can we tell how honest a party's leadership is? In fact -- given the history of "communist parties" in the latter part of last century -- why should we trust any of them? You see, it's not always only a matter of "differing tactics".

[KC]

We don't know what he meant. I infer that he didn't mean "lead", in the sense you use the word, because of the outlook that is present in the rest of his works.The outlook that is present in all of his works is in agreement with what I have stated.


In fact, the very idea that the vanguard can somehow magically make the backward sections of the working class progressive is antithetical to the materialist conception of history.I never said that. I said the more backward sections of the working class; it was a relative term.


Actually, I did briefly describe what I think the Leninist paradigm is about.Yes and I showed that your definition was nothing more than an attack on Marxism.


Then why did he stay in power? Why did he not start the "transfer" of power to the workers right away?Lenin was a master of debate, and the entire reason he became the "leader" of the Russian Revolution is because of the fact that he was so influential in swaying people's minds.

As for the transfer of power to the workers, that is exactly what the Bolsheviks did.


Absolutely, and that's why I insist on saying that Lenin had good reason to think what he did. But does it make sense now?This question makes no sense. I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion.


Yes, I'm aware of this...I find it rather unfortunate that Marx would say this (in a letter, by the way). I suppose I could chalk it up to senilityYes, I'm sure everything he's written from around 1870 on can be completely discounted due to senility.:rolleyes:

You find it "rather unfortunate" and "chalk it up to senility" because you can't reconcile it with your reductionist conception of history.


I agree that I am simplifying it for the purposes of this discussion. The point is that, even if we have no idea why, the fact remains that the USSR (and its replicas) failed to establish communism. Why in the world would we want to repeat their mistakes?Their mistakes weren't ideological; they were tactical and environmental.


Fair enough. One problem, though: the Leninist paradigm (organizing in bourgeois political parties, proclaiming to want to "lead" or "organize" the workers, etc.) tends to attract all kinds of opportunist scum who do not have the same goal as communists.Every "paradigm" attracts all kinds of opportunist scum.



So how can we possibly discuss anything with such an organization? And how can we tell how honest a party's leadership is? In fact -- given the history of "communist parties" in the latter part of last century -- why should we trust any of them? You see, it's not always only a matter of "differing tactics".Which can generally be chalked up to the "split" in Marxism (Trotskyism/Stalinism) and the degeneration of the communist movement.

[Tower of Bebel]

Fair enough. One problem, though: the Leninist paradigm (organizing in bourgeois political parties, proclaiming to want to "lead" or "organize" the workers, etc.) tends to attract all kinds of opportunist scum who do not have the same goal as communists. This can happen to a point that even the party's leadership is infested with such people. (I'd even go so far as saying that this is the inevitable result of such an organization.)

So how can we possibly discuss anything with such an organization? And how can we tell how honest a party's leadership is? In fact -- given the history of "communist parties" in the latter part of last century -- why should we trust any of them? You see, it's not always only a matter of "differing tactics".
The struggle for a genuine marxist program based on strong principles (e.i. independence, internationalism, democracy and class struggle) must be our initial point from where we advance further. Democratic centralism must be translated as unity through democratic discussion. My example or model would be the Bolshevik party of 1917, not the one before and not the one juster after the revolution.

[Leo]

"Worker's state" and "transition period" are both Marxist tenets as well.

"Workers' State" is not a marxist tenet which originated from Marx - it became a formulation and issue of discussion in the communist movement at the times of the October Revolution. This doesn't mean of course that the people who discussed it weren't marxists for discussing it.

[Leo]

while "Leninism" is a product of the struggle against the betrayal of the 2nd International

I think it is very offensive both to Lenin and the Bolsheviks to name their current as "Leninism".


and Trotskyism comes from the 3rd International.

I'd actually say that Trotskyism comes from the Left Opposition which comes from the Third International.


Lenin fought for a mass revolutionary workers' party that had to be formed before the revolution brakes out while left-communists don't because they fear bureaucratization.

This is not true. First of Lenin did not fight for a mass revolutionary workers party but a narrow revolutionary party of the clearest militant workers. Second, left-communists say that the party will be formed before the revolution, but can only be formed in a revolutionary period - otherwise it will not be the class party, it will simply be a party - it will not carry the qualifications implied by the term party.

[ernie]

The outlook that is present in all of his works is in agreement with what I have stated.
If you say so...


I never said that. I said the more backward sections of the working class; it was a relative term.
It doesn't matter. Consciousness is not something that appears due to the will of the "vanguard".


Lenin was a master of debate, and the entire reason he became the "leader" of the Russian Revolution is because of the fact that he was so influential in swaying people's minds.
He didin't just become the "leader", he became the boss. Just like Castro and Mao did. That's what Leninist revolutions do, they put somebody in charge. They claimed that it would eventually lead to communism, but it didn't.


As for the transfer of power to the workers, that is exactly what the Bolsheviks did.
Not from what I've read. But say I'm wrong and you're right. Were the workers able to retain any kind of power? You know they didn't. Are you going to attribute it to "tactical mistakes"? You could always just blame Stalin...or the devil :D.


Yes, I'm sure everything he's written from around 1870 on can be completely discounted due to senility.:rolleyes:

You find it "rather unfortunate" and "chalk it up to senility" because you can't reconcile it with your reductionist conception of history.
I chalk it up to senility because it goes against almost everything else Marx wrote. I find it unfortunate because Leninists love to use that particular quote from Marx to justify themselves.


Their mistakes weren't ideological; they were tactical and environmental.
I see. Then, since all of the Leninist revolutions have given the same result (the despotism of the party), they must have been a bunch of incompetent dumbasses.


Every "paradigm" attracts all kinds of opportunist scum.
No, I don't think an organization that has no leaders and promises to abolish the state and authority right away will attract such people. They have nothing to look forward to.

Leninist parties have "leaders" and a hierarchy and talk about a "workers state" after the revolution...a perfect place to be for reformists and opportunists.

[KC]

It doesn't matter. Consciousness is not something that appears due to the will of the "vanguard".Of course it matters. Consciousness is not homogeneous throughout a class; it varies significantly. Because of this, talking about "the liberation of the proletariat must be done by the proletariat itself" is nonsense outside of being polemical. The most backward sections of the proletariat can be downright reactionary and might actually side with the bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie against the rest of their class (scabs, nazis, etc...).

Moreover, consciousness is dictated by both objective and subjective factors. Propaganda, education and agitation influence people's consciousness. If it didn't then we wouldn't be politically active. So the vanguard, the more class conscious and advanced section of the proletariat (communists) agitate, educate, organize and propagandize in order to help bring those less developed consciously to a higher level of consciousness. This is exactly what Marx was talking about at the beginning of the section Proletarians and Communists in the Manifesto.

Questions:
1. Do you believe that consciousness is homogeneous throughout a class or does it differ on a spectrum from the most advanced to the most backward?
2. If so, what is the role of the most advanced and class conscious workers in the proletarian movement?
3. Do subjective factors (i.e. the political activity of the most advanced section of the working calss) have a role in the development of class consciousness? Why/why not?


He didin't just become the "leader", he became the boss.This is an empty statement and simply a rant without any qualification.


Not from what I've read. But say I'm wrong and you're right. Were the workers able to retain any kind of power? You know they didn't. Are you going to attribute it to "tactical mistakes"? You could always just blame Stalin...or the devil :D.Of course it was both tactical mistakes and environmental conditions. That's quite obvious.


I chalk it up to senility because it goes against almost everything else Marx wrote.No it doesn't. In fact, it is in line with everything he has wrote. It is not in line with what you believe Marx to have meant, but that is because you have vulgarized and mechanized his theory into an economico-historical doctrine.


I see. Then, since all of the Leninist revolutions have given the same result (the despotism of the party), they must have been a bunch of incompetent dumbasses.What Leninist revolutions? You keep bringing this up but you aren't able to substantiate it at all. You can't even define "Leninist" much less classify revolutions as such.

Questions:
1. What is "Leninism"? Hint: In order to define this ideology you are discussing as Leninism you must show that it has originated with Lenin. I suggest sourcing some quotes from Lenin directly to support your assertion, otherwise it doesn't really stand.
2. Which revolutions are "Leninist" and why?


No, I don't think an organization that has no leaders and promises to abolish the state and authority right away will attract such people. They have nothing to look forward to.I've met plenty of opportunist anarchists.

I'm actually beginning to like left communists after discussing this with you; for example, at least Leo can acknowledge plain facts regarding Lenin's writings and beliefs. You're so clouded by ideology and emotion that you can't even do that much.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin fought for a mass revolutionary workers' party that had to be formed before the revolution brakes out while left-communists don't because they fear bureaucratization.

This is not true. First of Lenin did not fight for a mass revolutionary workers party but a narrow revolutionary party of the clearest militant workers.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html


"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih)



With the above having been said, what was the pre-WWI history of the international proletariat's first vanguard party like?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabh-ngige-sozialdemokratische-t95038/index.html


Proceeding from the above (although I was hoping for more discussion on, say, how the international proletariat's first vanguard party overcame the draconian Anti-Socialist Laws :( ), how decisive was the history of the USPD as a shortlived vanguard party in the German Revolution plus one or two years prior? It's also noteworthy that, last year, Die Linke ("The Left") in Germany commemorated the formation of the USPD:

https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/left-m10.shtml


At the start of April, the Left Party-Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) issued a press statement to commemorate the founding of the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) 90 years ago.

Under the heading “An Outstanding Role Model for Left Politics Today,” the national secretary of the Left Party-PDS, Dietmar Bartsch, described the founding of the USPD in 1917 as an event “worthy of commemoration.” He continued: “The Left Party-PDS, which is in the midst of a process of party reformation with the WASG (Election Alternative group), draws from many traditions. The USPD is one of them. This party maintained the anti-militarist tradition of German social democracy. With it emerged a new mass party and the prerequisite for a left alternative to the SPD (Social Democratic Party).”

Bartsch went on: “The USPD developed under the pressure of the war and as the product of a progressive process of differentiation in the SPD. Important Marxist social democratic theoreticians such as Eduard Bernstein, Rudolf Hilferding and Karl Kautsky, who regarded themselves as the upholders of social democracy, turned to the organisation. In the following years there were uncertainties and intense disputes over the political orientation of the party and its search for a realistic political strategy, conflicts that today one would probably be termed factional fights between ‘realist politicians’ and ‘representatives of the pure line.’ The subsequent splits and new unifications only served to complicate the creation of a uniform mass party which paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics.”

The statement concluded: “The internal struggles over orientation in the following years inevitably led to a further splintering of the workers’ movement and weakened the left in its fight against aspiring fascism. The attempt by Paul Levi to constitute a left socialist mass party based on the unity of the KPD (German Communist Party) and USPD-left, in the spirit of Rosa Luxemburg, failed. In its failure, as in its alternatives, the attempt provides an exemplary lesson for left policy today.





The USPD was never a vanguard party, nor was the SPD. That was their major failing. Only the KPD after 1919 made moves in that direction. The USPD, like all centrist parties, was just another tool used by the reformists to block the workers from forming their own revolutionary organizations. No one should regret its quick passing.

Why wasn't it a vanguard party? Didn't the SPD organize the vanguard of the German proletariat? Wasn't this the reason for the militancy of the German revolution: the "'filling up' [of] the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and [...] spreading enlightenment and 'combination'" (still having its effect after years of betrayal)?




Second, left-communists say that the party will be formed before the revolution, but can only be formed in a revolutionary period - otherwise it will not be [I]the class party, it will simply be a party - it will not carry the qualifications implied by the term party.

Wanna bet? :glare:

The revolutionary strategy of the centrists (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=366)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/books/order.htm


The free-market triumphalism of the 1990s is over. Early 21st century capitalism looks like Karl Marx’s description: growing extremes of wealth and poverty, and irrepressible boom-bust cycles. But for the moment, the beneficiary of growing anti-capitalism is forms of right wing religious and nationalist nostalgia politics. The political left remains in the shadow of its disastrous failures in the 20th century.

The centre-left, insofar as it has not joined forces with the neoliberal right, clings to nationalist and bureaucratic-statist nostalgia for the social-democratic Cold War era. The far left clings to the coat-tails of the centre-left. It is barred from uniting itself - let alone anyone else - by its unwillingness to think critically about the ideas of the early Communist International, especially on the ‘revolutionary party’.

To get beyond these traps we need to re-examine critically the strategic ideas of socialists since Marx and Engels’ time and their development. In this book, Mike Macnair begins this task.



The "profoundly true and important" contents of this book are, in fact, edited renditions of past editions of various 2006 articles found in the Weekly Worker:

Floundering towards Eurocommunism (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/612/lcr.htm)
While Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire theorists flounder towards Eurocommunism, the SWP’s Alex Callinicos can only answer them with evasion. In the first of a number articles, Mike Macnair discusses revolutionary strategy

Revolutionary strategy and Marxist conclusions (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/613/economism.htm)
In the second in a series of articles, Mike Macnair continues his examination of right-moving Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire theorists and the response of the SWP’s Alex Callinicos

Reform coalition, or mass strike? (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/618/McNair%20-%20Strategy3.htm)
In the third article in this series, Mike Macnair examines the basis of two contending strategies for working class advance

The revolutionary strategy of centrists (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/620/macnair.htm)
In the fourth article in this series, Mike Macnair turns his attention to Kautsky’s perspective of patient organisation and party building in the years before World War I. There were undoubted strengths in this strategy. But fatal flaws too

"The difference between the conceptions 'Marxist centre' (= independent policy, independent ideas, independent theory) and 'Marsh' (= wavering, lack of principle, 'turn table' ('Drehscheibe'), weathercock)." (Vladimir Lenin) (http://www.marxfaq.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/ni-alpha/marsh.htm)


Down to 1914, Russian Bolshevism was a tendency within the centre, not a tendency opposed to it [...] Without the centre tendency’s international unity policy there would have been no RSDLP; without the lessons the Bolsheviks learned from the international centre tendency, there could have been no mass opening of the Bolshevik membership in 1905, no recovery of the party’s strength through trade union, electoral and other forms of low-level mass work in 1911-14, and no Bolshevik political struggle to win a majority between April and October 1917.

[...]

It is important to be clear that the movement that the centre tendency sought to build was not the gutted form of the modern social-democracy/Labourism, which is dependent on the support of the state and the capitalist media for its mass character. The idea was of a party which stood explicitly for the power of the working class and socialism. It was one which was built up on the basis of its own resources, its own organisation with local and national press, as well as its own welfare and educational institutions, etc.

[...]

The centre’s strategy of patience was more successful than the other strategies in actually building a mass party. Its insistence on the revolution as the act of the majority, and refusal of coalitionism, was equally relevant to conditions of revolutionary crisis: the Bolsheviks proved this positively in April-October 1917, and it has been proved negatively over and over again between the 1890s and the 2000s. However, because it addressed neither the state form, nor the international character of the capitalist state system and the tasks of the workers’ movement, the centre’s strategy proved to collapse into the policy of the right when matters came to the crunch.

War and revolutionary strategy (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/621/macnair.htm)
Mike Macnair puts the record straight on Lenin’s call for defeatism and insists on the necessity of the left taking the democratic question of arms seriously

Communist strategy and the party form (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/622/macnair.htm)
Mike Macnair examines the Leninist ‘party of a new type’ and disentangles its advantages and shortcomings from the necessity of splitting from the Second International

Unity in diversity (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/624/macnair.htm)
How does the concept of the united front fit into the struggle for a Communist Party? Mike Macnair continues his examination of strategy


The split between communists, loyal to the working class as an international class, and coalitionist socialists, loyal to the nation-state, will never be ‘healed’ as long as communists insist on organising to fight for their ideas. The policy of the united workers’ front is therefore an essential element of strategy in the fight for workers’ power.

But this policy can only make sense as part of a larger struggle for unity in diversity. And this struggle is a struggle against - among other things - the Trotskyists’ concept of the united front.

The minimum platform and extreme democracy (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm)
Under what conditions should communists participate in government? Mike Macnair revisits the strategic problem of authority


We saw in the fourth article in this series that the Kautskyan centre, which deliberately refused coalitions and government participation, was able to build up powerful independent workers’ parties (Weekly Worker April 13). In the sixth article we saw that the post-war communist parties could turn into Kautskyan parties, and as such could - even if they were small - play an important role in developing class consciousness and the mass workers’ movement (Weekly Worker April 27). This possibility was available to them precisely because, though they sought to participate in government coalitions, the bourgeoisie and the socialists did not trust their loyalty to the state and used every means possible to exclude them from national government.

The Kautskyans were right on a fundamental point. Communists can only take power when we have won majority support for working class rule through extreme democracy. ‘Revolutionary crisis’ may accelerate processes of changing political allegiance, but it does not alter this fundamental point or offer a way around it. There are no short cuts, whether by coalitionism or by the mass strike.

The present task of communists/socialists is therefore not to fight for an alternative government. It is to fight to build an alternative opposition: one which commits itself unambiguously to self-emancipation of the working class through extreme democracy, as opposed to all the loyalist parties.

Political consciousness and international unity (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/626/macnair.htm)
What is the link between national and international revolution? What is the role of the workers’ international? Mike Macnair continues his series on communist strategy

Comintern and the Trotskyists (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/628/macnair.htm)
What sort of international does the workers’ movement need? Mike Macnair looks at the negative lessons of previous attempts


Imitating the Russians was not utterly disastrous, as attempts to imitate the Maoists in more developed countries were in the 1960s and 1970s. This is attributable to the fact that most of what the Russians endeavoured to teach the Comintern in 1920-23 was in fact orthodox Kautskyism, which the Russians had learned from the German SPD. But there were exceptions. The worker-peasant alliance was utterly meaningless in the politics of the western communist parties before 1940, and after 1945 was a force for conservatism, as the European bourgeoisies turned to subsidising agriculture.

The ‘Bolshevisation’ of the communist parties, and the savage polemics against Kautsky and others over “classless democracy”, which became part of the common inheritance of ‘official communism’, Maoism and Trotskyism, deeply deformed these movements. In the end, the Bonapartist-centralised dictatorship of the party bureaucracy produced kleptocrats in the USSR and the countries that copied it. In the western communist parties and the trade unions associated with them, it produced ordinary labour bureaucrats with more power to quash dissent than the old socialist bureaucracy had had (a feature gratefully copied by the social democratic right). In the Trotskyist and Maoist groups, it produced petty patriarchs and tinpot dictators whose interests in holding onto their jobs and petty power were an effective obstacle to unity. It thus turned out to be in the interests of … the capitalist class.

Moreover, casting out “the renegade Kautsky” cut off the communists from the western European roots of their politics. Lenin and his co-thinkers’ transmission of the inheritance of the Second International into Russian politics became Lenin’s unique genius on the party question, feeding into the cult of the personality of Lenin (and its successors …). Perfectly ordinary western socialist political divisions, pre-existing the split in the Second International, had to be cast in Russian terms. Communists began to speak a language alien to their broader audiences, the language that has descended into today’s Trot-speak.

Republican democracy and revolutionary patience (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/629/macnair.htm)
Mike Macnair concludes his series on communist strategy by throwing down the challenge to the existing left


In this sense ‘Kautskyism’ means the struggle for an independent workers’ party, intimately linked to independent workers’ media, trade unions, cooperatives and so on, and for - at least symbolic - internationalism. On the other hand, it means the struggle against the ideas of short cuts to power that evade the problem of winning a majority, through coalitionism or ‘conning the working class into taking power’ via the mass strike. These are positive lessons for today’s left.

[...]

This strategic orientation demands patience. The fundamental present problem is that after the failures of the strategies of the 20th century, in the absence of a Marxist strategic understanding, most socialists are socialists by ethical and emotional commitment only. This leads to the adoption of ‘get-rich-quick’ solutions that enter into the capitalist politicians’ government games.

This is the trouble with the idea that the Ligue should join a new gauche plurielle project rather than addressing seriously the question of unity with Lutte Ouvrière; with Rifondazione’s decision to participate in the Olive Tree government; with the PDS’s participation in a coalition with the SDP in Berlin; with the SSP’s orientation to an SNP-led coalition for independence; with Respect. The result is not to lead towards an effective workers’ party, but towards another round of brief hope and long disillusionment.

A different sort of impatience is offered by those who split prematurely and refuse partial unity in the hope of building their own ‘Leninist party’: the decision of the far-left platforms (Progetto Comunista and Proposta) to split prematurely from Rifondazione; the SAV’s split orientation in the WASG-PDS fusion process; the splits of the Socialist Party and Workers Power from the Socialist Alliance; and the refusal of much of the left of the SA to work as a minority in Respect. We find that, although these sects sell themselves as ‘revolutionary’, when they stand for election either to parliaments or in unions their policies are broadly similar to the coalitionists. They are still playing within the capitalist rules of the game.

The left, in other words, needs to break with the endless series of failed ‘quick fixes’ that has characterised the 20th century. It needs a strategy of patience, like Kautsky’s: but one that is internationalist and radical-democratic, not one that accepts the existing order of nation-states.

[manic expression]

I've been very busy for quite awhile, so forgive the delay.


If you insist...

The distinguishing factors which makes Cuba along with the other so-called socialist states state-capitalist in character is the existence of the wage labour relations, commodity production and the operation of the law of value. Firstly, the fact that state bureaucrats cannot own private property in the means of production is irrelevant to determining the mode of production and class nature of Cuban society and shows that you are confusing the relations of production with their juridical expression. The public ownership of the means of production by the state is not socialist, rather, the state here simply acts as a functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour and setting targets for production.

You are making blanket statements which contradict the facts. First, the inability of state bureaucrats to own private property is essential, for without a capitalist ruling class, that is a class which owns private property and which exploits the workers, calling a society capitalist is beyond foolish. If there is no ownership of private property, there is no capitalist class, and therefore there cannot be capitalism. That much should be common sense.

Second, targets for production and the utilization of labor does not disqualify a society from being socialist. The only question is whether or not the workers themselves control these processes. In Cuba, they do.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Please review the "Democracy in Cuba" link on the left hand of this page. It clearly demonstrates that the Cuban Revolution has established working-class control of society and the means of production. As you can see, it is important to identify the facts instead of making manufactured statements about entire societies. That mistake is all too common amongst ultra-lefts.


How does this answer my question? Again:

So, once again, could you please clarify why you believe it is necessary for the communist left to "clarify [their] position on this issue"?

I think it is quite clear. What is the position of the left communists on the October Revolution? The lefts have been dancing around this issue for some time, and people expect me to debate something they themselves can barely define or pinpoint.


Where?

Funny, I listed specific countries in that same post IIRC (if not there a post near it). Please read my posts before commenting.


Revolutions that have stagnated, failed and seen the massive repression of the working class until the re-establishment of capitalism. There is not one example of a Marxist-Leninist state ever succeeding in establishing long-lasting workers power.

That is false, and it borders on slander. Cuba is a very clear example of lasting working-class control over the means of production. In addition, the examples forged by Marxist-Leninists have been far more effective and far more long-lasting and far more relevant than any other ideology. Lastly, even the supposed "failed states" like the USSR were, even in their darkest days, extremely progressive forces and acted as an undeniable bulwark against imperialism. This is not to be ignored.


This "well, what have you done" argument you have going on is based on a false premise. That being that what you have done has not actually affected any real change for the working class. The objective of any workers revolution is to begin a process of creating communism. While the Marxist-Leninist paradigm has succeeded in establishing a socialist state and defending it from counter-revolution, it has not once created the material conditions to begin an actual process of transition. Consolidating the parties power through the centralisation of political authority does not count.

It is easy to see that the October Revolution and the other revolutions and struggles it inspired have affected quite some change for the working class. Bolshevism has established socialism and effectively countered imperialism; that, in and of itself, is very real change for the working class, in spite of your attempts to diminish these monumental achievements.

Yes, communism is the ultimate goal, but to fixate on this is to neglect just about every other important detail along the way. You can wax poetic about how we're not living in a communist society all you like, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that Marxism-Leninism has been the foremost force for the working class. That is the point here.


If it's true that we must have neighbouring nations going through the same process for a revolution to be successful in our respective nations then why do we even need centralised political authority? The Marxist-Leninist paradigm has failed. It has been falsified. If you wish to create a socialist state, that's one thing. If you want to create the conditions for transition into a gift economy, then you are going to have to abandon these unworkable ideas.

Centralized political authority is an inherent part of any modern, industrialized society. The planning and cooperation necessary for the establishment and operation of a well-populated society depends on some form of centralization. Further, any society in the epoch of class conflict is typified by an apparatus for suppression of other classes. To suppress the bourgeoisie successfully, centralization is needed.

Does this mean there is no democracy? No. Does this mean the state cannot disappear? No. Your criticisms are misled in the first place, your conclusions even moreso.

[Niccolò Rossi]

First, the inability of state bureaucrats to own private property is essential, for without a capitalist ruling class, that is a class which owns private property and which exploits the workers, calling a society capitalist is beyond foolish. If there is no ownership of private property, there is no capitalist class, and therefore there cannot be capitalism. That much should be common sense.

Let us take the analogy of a workers cooperative shall we? Does the fact that in a workers co-op the means of production are the property of the workers themselves, the workers' are self-managed and the profits flow directly to the workers collectively in any way change it's fundamentally capitalistic character or are these "islands of socialism".

Whilst you analyse Cuba from an essentially political standpoint (MOP are state property > state is democratically controlled by "the people" > no capitalist class exists > Cuba is socialist), we make an economic analysis, placing Cuba in it's international context. Capitalism is thus a mode of production characterised by the existence of wage-labour, commodity production and the operation of the law of value.


Second, targets for production and the utilization of labor does not disqualify a society from being socialist. The only question is whether or not the workers themselves control these processes.

To the former claim, of course any communist would agree. What is socialism but the conscious control of the economic functions of society, the production of use-values to match the needs of society. However we are not talking here about the production of use-values or the conscious and voluntary allocation of labour but rather production for the world market and wage-slavery.


I think it is quite clear. What is the position of the left communists on the October Revolution? The lefts have been dancing around this issue for some time, and people expect me to debate something they themselves can barely define or pinpoint.

The position of the left-communists (excluding the councilists) re the October Revolution is clear and has been stated already in this thread on more than one occasion. The October Revolution was proletarian in nature. Of course don't take my word for it: Proletarian Nature of Bolshevism and the October Revolution (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/311/bolshevism), 80 years since the Russian Revolution: October 1917 - a victory for the working masses (http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/2310), October 1917: The proletarian revolution is a real possibility (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/308/october-1917), October 1917: Beginning of the Proletarian Revolution (Part 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/012/october1917) and Part 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2640)).

[manic expression]

Let us take the analogy of a workers cooperative shall we? Does the fact that in a workers co-op the means of production are the property of the workers themselves, the workers' are self-managed and the profits flow directly to the workers collectively in any way change it's fundamentally capitalistic character or are these "islands of socialism".

Socialism is not simply a co-op, that much should be obvious. Socialism means a state controlled by the working class as well as the means of production controlled by the working class. One is not possible without the other in practice.


Whilst you analyse Cuba from an essentially political standpoint (MOP are state property > state is democratically controlled by "the people" > no capitalist class exists > Cuba is socialist), we make an economic analysis, placing Cuba in it's international context. Capitalism is thus a mode of production characterised by the existence of wage-labour, commodity production and the operation of the law of value.

First, let me note that you have made no effort to disprove the claim that the means of production are controlled by the workers. Second, let me reiterate the fact that socialism is typified by working-class control of the means of production and of the state; both of which exist in Cuba. Now, let me ask you, can the capitalist mode of production exist without a capitalist class in power? Can the capitalist mode of production exist with working-class control of production and state?


To the former claim, of course any communist would agree. What is socialism but the conscious control of the economic functions of society, the production of use-values to match the needs of society. However we are not talking here about the production of use-values or the conscious and voluntary allocation of labour but rather production for the world market and wage-slavery.

If the Cuban workers want to sell their products to the world market, so be it. That has no bearing on whether or not Cuba is socialist.


The position of the left-communists (excluding the councilists) re the October Revolution is clear and has been stated already in this thread on more than one occasion. The October Revolution was proletarian in nature. Of course don't take my word for it: Proletarian Nature of Bolshevism and the October Revolution (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/311/bolshevism), 80 years since the Russian Revolution: October 1917 - a victory for the working masses (http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/2310), October 1917: The proletarian revolution is a real possibility (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/308/october-1917), October 1917: Beginning of the Proletarian Revolution (Part 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/012/october1917) and Part 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2640)).

Thank you for that. Now, then, why should the lefts oppose the very system established by this proletarian revolution? The Soviet system was its immediate result, and the Cuban communists have only followed the example of the Russian Revolution.

[Dave B]

KC on 16th December 2008, 22:50 asked



Questions:
1. What is "Leninism"? Hint: In order to define this ideology you are discussing as Leninism you must show that it has originated with Lenin. I suggest sourcing some quotes from Lenin directly to support your assertion, otherwise it doesn't really stand.

2. Which revolutions are "Leninist" and why?


Perhaps an original Leninist contribution was Lenin’s idea to introduce and run state capitalism as a part of the 'transition stage', which he admitted himself that, as a ‘socialist’ experiment, it deviated from Marxist orthodoxy;

V. I. Lenin

Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)

March 27-April 2, 1922




On the question of state capitalism, I think that generally our press and our Party make the mistake of dropping into intellectualism, into liberalism; we philosophise about how state capitalism is to be interpreted, and look into old books. But in those old books you will not find what we are discussing; they deal with the state capitalism that exists under capitalism. Not a single book has been written about state capitalism under communism.

It did not occur even to Marx to write a word on thissubject; and he died without leaving a single precise statement or definite instruction on it. That is why we must overcome the difficulty entirely by ourselves. And if we make a general mental survey of our press and see what has been written about state capitalism, as I tried to do when I was preparing this report, we shall be convinced that it is missing the target, that it is looking in an entirely wrong direction.

The state capitalism discussed in all books on economics is that which exists under the capitalist system, where the state brings under its direct control certain capitalist enterprises. But ours is a proletarian state it rests on the proletariat; it gives the proletariat all political privileges; and through the medium of the proletariat it attracts to itself the lower ranks of the peasantry (you remember that we began this work through the Poor Peasants Committees). That is why very many people are misled by the term state capitalism.

To avoid this we must remember the fundamental thing that state capitalism in the form we have here is not dealt with in any theory, or in any books, for the simple reason that all the usual concepts connected with this term are associated with bourgeois rule in capitalist society. Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yot got on to new rails. The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat. We refuse to understand that when we say "state" we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class.

State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.





Another related idea of Lenin’s of 1905 was the idea of a ‘Marxist’ workers party governing bourgeois capitalism after the overthrow of feudalism, which formed part of a theoretical dispute between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks at the time.

The Mensheviks followed the orthodox Marxist line that the workers party in such a situation should only be part of an independent opposition and not enter government;

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the democratic revolution 6 1905





Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution. What does this mean? It means that the democratic reforms in the political system and the social and economic reforms, which have become a necessity for Russia, do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, the undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid, European, and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will, for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class.


The Socialist-Revolutionaries cannot grasp this idea, for they are ignorant of the rudiments of the laws of development of commodity and capitalist production; they fail to see that even the complete success of a peasant insurrection, even the redistribution of the whole of the land for the benefit of the peasants and in accordance with their desires ("Black Redistribution" or something of that kind), will not destroy capitalism at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus to its development and hasten the class disintegration of the peasantry itself.

The failure to grasp this truth makes the Socialist-Revolutionaries unconscious ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie. Insistence on this truth is of enormous importance for Social-Democracy, not only from the theoretical standpoint but also from the standpoint of practical politics, for from it follows that the complete class independence of the party of the proletariat in the present "general democratic" movement is obligatory.

But it does not at all follow from this that a democratic revolution (bourgeois in its social and economic substance) is not of enormous interest for the proletariat. It does not at all follow from this that the democratic revolution cannot take place in a form advantageous mainly to the big capitalist, the financial magnate and the "enlightened" landlord, as well as in a form advantageous to the peasant and to the worker.

The new-Iskraists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and significance of the category: bourgeois revolution. Through their arguments there constantly runs the idea that a bourgeois revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an idea. A bourgeois revolution is a revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, social and economic system.

A bourgeois revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism, and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does the opposite, it broadens and deepens them.

This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois revolution expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the bourgeoisie.

But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism.

From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilised capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.

All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism.

The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism.

That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for Socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of scientific Socialism can regard this conclusion as new or strange, paradoxical.





Although you could argue that this idea is similar, albeit ‘paradoxically,’ to the Fabian notion of making capitalism as ‘nice’ as possible for the working class, whilst it lasts.

You can get a flavour of the Menshevik objection and the theoretical debate, coming from an orthodox Marxist position with their use of the following Engels quote;


In The Peasant War in Germany, he wrote: "The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents, and for the realisation of the measures which that domination requires."

Contained in ; Social Democracy And The Provisonal Revolutionary Government part 1, 1905

[Revolutionary-Socialist]

It was a drag reading through this thread. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do it again.

All I have to say is that Manic Expression is not representative of 'Marxist-Leninists', thankfully.

[Niccolò Rossi]

My apologises for the long delay.


Socialism is not simply a co-op, that much should be obvious. Socialism means a state controlled by the working class as well as the means of production controlled by the working class. One is not possible without the other in practice.

Socialism is certainly not a co-op, however, I don't believe socialism is "a state controlled by the working class as well as the means of production controlled by the working class". However this is not surprising given you are a defender of "socialism in on country".


Now, let me ask you, can the capitalist mode of production exist without a capitalist class in power?

I think the juridical property relations existing in a given nation are irrelevant to determining the mode of production in which it operates.


Can the capitalist mode of production exist with working-class control of production and state?

In-so-far as wage labour, commodity production and the rule of the law of value continue to exist, certainly.


If the Cuban workers want to sell their products to the world market, so be it. That has no bearing on whether or not Cuba is socialist.

I disagree, I think it is fundamental to the discussion. The production of commodities for sale on the world market shows the operation of the law of value, competition and the anarchy of production. The cuban state is not a workers state, the Cuban state is an individual competing capital on the world market.


The Soviet system was its immediate result, and the Cuban communists have only followed the example of the Russian Revolution.

Would you care to elaborate on this claim?

[manic expression]

My apologises for the long delay.

Don't worry about it, I've been as guilty of delaying responses as anyone.


Socialism is certainly not a co-op, however, I don't believe socialism is "a state controlled by the working class as well as the means of production controlled by the working class". However this is not surprising given you are a defender of "socialism in on country".

Then what do you believe socialism is? You already mentioned modes of production, but modes of production are indicative of other developments in my view.

I'm a defender of socialism in one country, two countries, any country or otherwise. I do not prescribe to the specific theory of "Socialism in One Country" at all, I think that debate between Trotsky and Stalin is basically historically outdated. However, I do think it is possible for a revolution to be consolidated and maintained in a country under certain conditions (one of those conditions for Cuba was support from the USSR and a deal made during the Cuban Missile Crisis).


I think the juridical property relations existing in a given nation are irrelevant to determining the mode of production in which it operates.

The abolition of private property, in your eyes, means nothing then? Property relations are quite relevant to the mode of production, they go hand-in-hand.


In-so-far as wage labour, commodity production and the rule of the law of value continue to exist, certainly.

I don't see the reasoning there. If there is no capitalist class in power, how is there capitalism? If the working class has abolished private property and established a worker state, how can capitalism logically exist?

Lastly, I don't think that you have been able to disprove the claim that the means of production are controlled by the workers, which is fundamental to my premise.


I disagree, I think it is fundamental to the discussion. The production of commodities for sale on the world market shows the operation of the law of value, competition and the anarchy of production. The cuban state is not a workers state, the Cuban state is an individual competing capital on the world market.

I disagree with your final conclusion. The sale of products on the world market, for Cuba, is controlled first and foremost (and solely) by the working class. Again, if the workers of a socialist country democratically decide to open products to the world market, who is to question them? So long as the workers control and benefit from the process from start to finish, there is no real problem.

Your assertion that Cuba is not a worker state is really the issue here. Whether or not the Cuban workers are in control of society is the center of the disagreement in my opinion. I would hope that you review the link I posted before:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

(Check the link on the left side, "Democracy in Cuba")


Would you care to elaborate on this claim?

Of course. If the lefts truly believe the October Revolution was a proletarian revolution, then they must also conclude that the resulting Soviet state was a proletarian one as well. Since the Cuban revolutionaries largely followed this example, why do they not similarly conclude that Cuba is a proletarian state? What I'm saying is that Cuba emulated (and improved on) the Soviet model which was, in the view of the lefts, a product of the proletarian October Revolution.

[duffers]

I do think it is possible for a revolution to be consolidated and maintained in a country under certain conditions

I don't see the reasoning there. If there is no capitalist class in power, how is there capitalism? If the working class has abolished private property and established a worker state, how can capitalism logically exist?

Lastly, I don't think that you have been able to disprove the claim that the means of production are controlled by the workers, which is fundamental to my premise.

I disagree with your final conclusion. The sale of products on the world market, for Cuba, is controlled first and foremost (and solely) by the working class. Again, if the workers of a socialist country democratically decide to open products to the world market, who is to question them? So long as the workers control and benefit from the process from start to finish, there is no real problem.

Of course. If the lefts truly believe the October Revolution was a proletarian revolution, then they must also conclude that the resulting Soviet state was a proletarian one as well. Since the Cuban revolutionaries largely followed this example, why do they not similarly conclude that Cuba is a proletarian state? What I'm saying is that Cuba emulated (and improved on) the Soviet model which was, in the view of the lefts, a product of the proletarian October Revolution.

Wanted to address the points in order.

There's a world of difference thinking a solitary revolution possible, and desiring it. Regardless, it hasn't been proven to work in an actual communist society, instead providing us with the USSR and Cuba.

The state in these paradoxical 'communist' countries becomes the de-facto capitalist, living in splendor whilst the people live in slums. Tying in with the next point, the means of production are moot if the wealth is going through a centralised channel. As is inevitable with these power mongers, when workers tried to manage themselves, they were stopped by legislation or force. For more confusion, managers will afflicted upon the proletariat, thus maintaining a ground level difference upon class.

Your question of prevention assumes there is infact a choice; a state, by the virtue of what that is, doesn't require permission. Cuba's economy is as much up for debate, as the English's military intervention. The fact is, the workers do not control every turn of production. They are prevented from doing so, by the very thing you're attempting to defend.

And I accept the October Revolution on the basis that it was the will of the people. What would come after that however, was a flagrant disregard of the will of the people. As a result, Cuba's government would come to inherit the macho-Bolshevism that the USSR's government was famed for; precisely the reason it has been derided.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Then what do you believe socialism is?

Socialism is the absolute political power of the working class and the conscious and planned production of use-values to meet the needs of society on the basis of the means of production held in common (that is, that abolition of the means of production qua property) on an international scale.


The abolition of private property, in your eyes, means nothing then?

Private property has been abolished only juridically in the "socialist states". In reality private property has merely been consolidated in the hands of the state.


If there is no capitalist class in power, how is there capitalism? If the working class has abolished private property and established a worker state, how can capitalism logically exist?

In-so-far as Cuba acted and continues to act as a single capital on the world market, capitalism can be said to exist.


Lastly, I don't think that you have been able to disprove the claim that the means of production are controlled by the workers, which is fundamental to my premise.

Fundamental to yours, maybe. We are however debating the theory of state-capitalism and not whether Cuba is a shining example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Worker control of the means of production is perfectly compatible with capitalism see of course workers self-management and co-operative enterprises.


I disagree with your final conclusion. The sale of products on the world market, for Cuba, is controlled first and foremost (and solely) by the working class. Again, if the workers of a socialist country democratically decide to open products to the world market, who is to question them? So long as the workers control and benefit from the process from start to finish, there is no real problem.

Reading this it sounds no different from the standard defence of workers co-operatives:

"The sale of products on the world market, for [a given workers co-op], is controlled first and foremost (and solely) by the working class. Again, if the workers of a [co-op] democratically decide to open products to the world market, who is to question them? So long as the workers control and benefit from the process from start to finish, there is no real problem."

The reality is we can not speak of workers control of production so long as we speak of production for the market, production of commodities. Capital, so long as it exists on a world scale will continue to dominate the rhythm of production and yield only the self-exploitation of the proletariat


Of course. If the lefts truly believe the October Revolution was a proletarian revolution, then they must also conclude that the resulting Soviet state was a proletarian one as well.

The communist left have historically understood the Soviet state post-revolution as being proletarian during a period of time. 1926 and the adoption of the policy of "Socialism in one country" definitively sounded the death knell of the Russian Revolution and its proletarian character, though this process began much earlier with the passing of the revolutionary wave in Western Europe after 1919.


Since the Cuban revolutionaries largely followed this example, why do they not similarly conclude that Cuba is a proletarian state? What I'm saying is that Cuba emulated (and improved on) the Soviet model which was, in the view of the lefts, a product of the proletarian October Revolution.

This is the claim I am more interested in. Would you care to elaborate on how the Cuban Revolution emulated and improved on the experiences of the Russian Revolution?

[manic expression]

Wanted to address the points in order.

There's a world of difference thinking a solitary revolution possible, and desiring it. Regardless, it hasn't been proven to work in an actual communist society, instead providing us with the USSR and Cuba.

The question is the defense of revolutions, not the establishment of communist society outright. Defending the revolution of a country does not, in any way, imply that it should stay only within that country. The Cuban Revolution has always promoted internationalism of the most genuine sort (Latin America, Africa, New Orleans, etc.), and that is the hallmark of a socialist society.


The state in these paradoxical 'communist' countries becomes the de-facto capitalist, living in splendor whilst the people live in slums. Tying in with the next point, the means of production are moot if the wealth is going through a centralised channel. As is inevitable with these power mongers, when workers tried to manage themselves, they were stopped by legislation or force. For more confusion, managers will afflicted upon the proletariat, thus maintaining a ground level difference upon class.

Well, de-facto capitalism is capitalism, let's not split hairs. At any rate, the means of production are extremely relevant, for they determine control of society. If the means of production are collectivized under working-class control, capitalism is an impossibility; if the means of production are owned privately, capitalism is a reality. The USSR had no private property and no class of propertied owners, and thus capitalism is really unfeasible. Cuba, for its part, sees working-class control of society, as my links have strongly suggested.

Overall, I think you've oversimplified the issue. Calling people "power mongers" doesn't help us better understand the situations at hand, it's just a label, and a general one at that. Also, management is not a class, because it doesn't necessarily arise from one's relationship to the means of production. These sorts of analytical flaws are to be avoided.

Lastly, the leaders of the Cuban socialist state do not live much better than the average working-class Cuban. Even the most rabid Castro-haters (usually those who lost their large estates after the revolution) admit that he does not live in luxury, and the leader of the Cuban Communist Party lives in a regular working-class Havana neighborhood.


Your question of prevention assumes there is infact a choice; a state, by the virtue of what that is, doesn't require permission. Cuba's economy is as much up for debate, as the English's military intervention. The fact is, the workers do not control every turn of production. They are prevented from doing so, by the very thing you're attempting to defend.

If you want to say the Cuban people do not control the state, you'll need to account for the links I've provided, and you'll need to back up those assertions with evidence of your own. The state does need permission from its own class, and so the Cuban worker state definitely requires (and is based upon) the democratic participation of the workers.


And I accept the October Revolution on the basis that it was the will of the people. What would come after that however, was a flagrant disregard of the will of the people. As a result, Cuba's government would come to inherit the macho-Bolshevism that the USSR's government was famed for; precisely the reason it has been derided.

Macho-Bolshevism?

Anyway, when, exactly, was the "will of the people" discarded? Was it when the Soviets endorsed the Bolsheviks and elected Lenin to lead the new worker state? Was it when the Soviets led the fight against the Whites? I'm not disputing that the democratic organs of the Soviet state weren't destroyed (because they were), but our analysis must go beyond blind condemnations of "macho-Bolshevism" (whatever that means).

[manic expression]

Socialism is the absolute political power of the working class and the conscious and planned production of use-values to meet the needs of society on the basis of the means of production held in common (that is, that abolition of the means of production qua property) on an international scale.

Does the dictatorship of the proletariat need to be on an international scale? Marx didn't think so, as he deemed the Paris Commune such an example. This will be dealt with in specific later in my post.


Private property has been abolished only juridically in the "socialist states". In reality private property has merely been consolidated in the hands of the state.

That, again, is only an assumption and it has yet to be supported. If said "private property" is neither privatized nor privately owned, it is hardly private property. Abolishing private property "juridically" (as you term the process of working-class revolution) is, at least in the prominent examples cited, tantamount to abolishing it in practice, and that is something you have not accounted for.

If no one is privately owning the means of production, then there is no private property; collectivized property through a state is entirely different, that much is obvious. Is anyone directly employing workers? Is anyone owning stocks and bonds? Is anyone capitalist? No, no and no. Not only is your position essentially a tautology (the state is capitalist because property is only controlled by capitalists), it assumes that collectivized property is, in reality, private, contrary to a materialist analysis.


In-so-far as Cuba acted and continues to act as a single capital on the world market, capitalism can be said to exist.

You did not truly answer my question, because it revolved around worker control. Capitalism does not depend on entrance into a world market, this is scarcely a materialist analysis, capitalism depends on property relations, on production. On these two latter factors, both of which are central to Marxism, Cuba has certainly disqualified itself from capitalism. The next section of my reply deals with this as well:


Fundamental to yours, maybe. We are however debating the theory of state-capitalism and not whether Cuba is a shining example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Worker control of the means of production is perfectly compatible with capitalism see of course workers self-management and co-operative enterprises.

Reading this it sounds no different from the standard defence of workers co-operatives:

"The sale of products on the world market, for [a given workers co-op], is controlled first and foremost (and solely) by the working class. Again, if the workers of a [co-op] democratically decide to open products to the world market, who is to question them? So long as the workers control and benefit from the process from start to finish, there is no real problem."

The reality is we can not speak of workers control of production so long as we speak of production for the market, production of commodities. Capital, so long as it exists on a world scale will continue to dominate the rhythm of production and yield only the self-exploitation of the proletariat

As I've said, socialism is not a co-op, and I find the comparison unhelpful. A co-op has nothing to do with a worker state, a co-op has nothing to do with abolishing private property, a co-op has (practically) nothing to do with working-class struggles.

A co-op is a group of workers owning a firm and sharing in production and profit, all in a very petty-bourgeois manner. This violates none of the capitalists' laws of property, it does not seek to expropriate the capitalists for the benefit of the workers. Most importantly, however, a co-op does not overthrow existing property relations and social conditions. The revolutions of Russia and Cuba, however, did all those things. This, in and of itself, makes the example of a co-op highly irrelevant, as well as your point on this issue.

Until you can prove that Cuba did not accomplish those key victories, yours is an assertion only. Until you can prove that Cuba never expropriated the capitalists, fundamentally changed property relations, overthrew the capitalist class, collectivized production and so on, the claim of state-capitalism is merely an empty statement with nothing behind it. This is the crux of the issue.


The communist left have historically understood the Soviet state post-revolution as being proletarian during a period of time. 1926 and the adoption of the policy of "Socialism in one country" definitively sounded the death knell of the Russian Revolution and its proletarian character, though this process began much earlier with the passing of the revolutionary wave in Western Europe after 1919.

The problem with this is that Stalin, for all his incredible faults, was never able to undo the achievements of the October Revolution. Private property was not reestablished and the capitalist class remained out of power. While it clearly had lost its proletarian character (as you call it), to call this situation capitalist is ludicrous for all the reasons I've mentioned. That theory asks one to believe in capitalism without a capitalist class, capitalism without private property and capitalism without a bourgeois state. In other words, it is contrary to the reality of the matter.


This is the claim I am more interested in. Would you care to elaborate on how the Cuban Revolution emulated and improved on the experiences of the Russian Revolution?

Well, the Cuban Revolution developed its state and economy based on the Soviet model. The electoral system reflected the local council-driven Soviet processes. I think it improved on the experiences of the Russian Revolution because it maintained working-class control and resisted over-bureaucratization. This is why the Cuban socialist state has continued to display internationalism at every turn, and that is why it has continued to sustain and improve its collective projects for education, healthcare, housing, social equality and otherwise. The achievements of the Cuban Revolution speak for themselves (you can view them in the link I posted, which cites very good sources for its claims, sometimes directly), and that is perhaps the most persuasive argument against the theory of state-capitalism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Does the dictatorship of the proletariat need to be on an international scale?

No, the dictatorship of the proletariat will naturally be first exercised on a given national scale. However, the idea that a single nation can withstand the onslaught of internal and external pressures for any given length of time is misguided. Rather ironically the example you mentioned, the Paris Commune, proves this point. The revolution must generalise itself or it is doomed to failure, either by crushing military defeat or a torturous, drawn out and agonising asphyxiation.

However, this is beside the point. In the above comment you are making a rather significant error, that is, you equate socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whilst socialism presupposes the dictatorship of the proletariat, the converse is not at all true.


That, again, is only an assumption and it has yet to be supported. If said "private property" is neither privatized nor privately owned, it is hardly private property.

The Cuban state is, on the world market, merely a competing firm analogous to any private company operating within a national market (but also necessarily the world market). Thus the means of production as property of the cuban state are most certainly private property, despite not being owned by an individual person.


If no one is privately owning the means of production, then there is no private property; collectivized property through a state is entirely different, that much is obvious. Is anyone directly employing workers? Is anyone owning stocks and bonds? Is anyone capitalist? No, no and no. Not only is your position essentially a tautology (the state is capitalist because property is only controlled by capitalists), it assumes that collectivized property is, in reality, private, contrary to a materialist analysis.


I think Cliff made a good analogy in relation to this point recently repeated by Random Precision in the thread “If we accept Maoists are socialists... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/if-we-accept-t89509/index7.html)” which I feel appropriate to quote here:


Whether property is collectivized or not doesn’t really matter. What matters are the fundamental property relations in a society. For example, in medieval Europe the Catholic Church owned huge amounts of land that were worked by peasants belonging to the Church, just as their brethren who worked on private estates belonged to their individual lords. No individual monk or priest or bishop or even the Pope had legal rights over the land or people owned by the Church. But just because that property was owned collectively, does that mean the Church became something other than feudal? Of course not, because for Marxists the relations of production are the primary consideration rather than the property’s owners.


You did not truly answer my question, because it revolved around worker control. Capitalism does not depend on entrance into a world market, this is scarcely a materialist analysis, capitalism depends on property relations, on production.

How does this logically follow? Cuba's “entrance into a world market” presupposes the production of commodities, something you say “capitalism depends on”.


A co-op has nothing to do with a worker state, a co-op has nothing to do with abolishing private property, a co-op has (practically) nothing to do with working-class struggles.

Precisely why I believe it to be a good analogy.


Until you can prove that Cuba never expropriated the capitalists, fundamentally changed property relations, overthrew the capitalist class, collectivized production and so on, the claim of state-capitalism is merely an empty statement with nothing behind it.

I think this has already been shown. Your claims on the other hand that “Cuba … expropriated the capitalists, fundamentally changed property relations, overthrew the capitalist class, collectivized production and so on” have not at all been proven, instead you have, to paraphrase Marx, used words as convenient replacements where thoughts are abscent.


The problem with this is that Stalin, for all his incredible faults, was never able to undo the achievements of the October Revolution. Private property was not reestablished and the capitalist class remained out of power. While it clearly had lost its proletarian character (as you call it), to call this situation capitalist is ludicrous for all the reasons I've mentioned.

Again I think it is essential here to draw out the distinction between socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I want to ask you a question. What mode of production do you think operated in Russian in 1918? If we agree that there existed at this time a dictatorship of the proletariat (of whatever given degree of health) does this necessarily imply that socialism also existed?

We would answer, no, of course not. The construction of socialism is a possibility only on an international scale. The proletarian revolution differs from all previous revolutions in that the economic power of the proletariat can not grow up inside the shell of the former, decadent mode of production, that is capitalism, due to the fact that contrary to previous revolutionary classes the proletariat possesses no economic basis of property. The proletarian political revolution on an international scale precedes the economic revolution in the mode of production. Thus to acknowledge the existence of capitalism in a given nation (as a necessary result of it's existence internationally) is not necessarily to condemn it as bourgeois, reactionary or anti-working class. To do this is to acknowledge the demise of the revolution and the complete loss of any proletarian character of a given state, as with Russia, or as with the case of Cuba and the other so-called “socialist states” to acknowledge it not having any to begin with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To sum up, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be given a second meaning: rule over capital. With this consideration, is it possible to extend the analogy of the bourgeoisie being unable to complete the "extreme democratic" tasks, such that the bourgeoisie is incapable of ruling capital-as-process itself (even if capable of obtaining surplus value)?


Socialism is the absolute political power of the working class and the conscious and planned production of use-values to meet the needs of society on the basis of the means of production held in common (that is, that abolition of the means of production qua property) on an international scale.

Regarding your usage of the phrase "planned production of use-values to meet the needs of society," how does that eliminate the role of M-C-M (even petty capital)? Various Second International programmes said something similar while implying the continuation of M-C-M, and a common slogan today would be "production for use, not for profit."

[Niccolò Rossi]

With this consideration, is it possible to extend the analogy of the bourgeoisie being unable to complete the "extreme democratic" tasks, such that the bourgeoisie is incapable of ruling capital-as-process itself (even if capable of obtaining surplus value)?

I'm afraid I do not fully understand what you mean by this.


Regarding your usage of the phrase "planned production of use-values to meet the needs of society," how does that eliminate the role of M-C-M (even petty capital)?

The "planned production of use-values" by its very definition given the products no longer take on the form of exchange value. The process is no longer mediated by money or the anarchy of the market but by the conscious will of men.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm afraid I do not fully understand what you mean by this.

Maybe I was babbling on. I was trying to extend the Bolshevik Social-Democratic position on the "democratic" tasks to economics. The mere existence of boom and bust cycles, even before considering Kondratieff crises like the current one, may illustrate an inability to rule capital-as-process itself (unless the cappies capitulate to Soviet-style planning or something more pervasive).


The "planned production of use-values" by its very definition given the products no longer take on the form of exchange value. The process is no longer mediated by money or the anarchy of the market but by the conscious will of men.

So care to explain the problem with the slogan "production for use, not for profit"?

[duffers]

Manic,

Management is not a class, agreed, but has no use in a communist society, not in the definition that we know it to be. The fact that the CP installed managers to manage the workers, rather than allow the autonomy to do it themselves is a basic violation of the freedom the society should entail.

I think that's very wishful thinking to suggest the leaders of Cuba live in that of a meager state.

The fundamental fact that there is a one party dictatorship flies in the face of your claims. So much so, that the deviation of thought from dictatorship of the proletariat in figurative terms, was dubbed Leninism and was made literal. No one bar the Communist Party can be made into the government. There is no councils, no grassroots control, no conduits for the workers, whatsoever. If they ever wish for the great revolution to come to an end, they'll have to do it by armaments.

Macho-Bolshevism, the assertion of anti-homophobic, physical, masculine might is right men leading the way to communism. Advocated in Cuba, such as when the police are taking a baton to someone's head in a club, for the crime of homosexuality. An archaic ironically homoerotic bastardisation of everything Marx stood for.

The will was discarded the moment the Party imposed its will, much like it occurred in Cuba. Leninism is Leninism, wherever it occurs. The workers were given the false sense of liberty, that they would be able to construct the means of society. When it came to the crunch, this belief was dispelled, the party was forced upon them, and control would not be relinquished. This is anti-communism at its finest, and it's absymal to have Leninism following Marxism. It is the antithesis of it.

[manic expression]

No, the dictatorship of the proletariat will naturally be first exercised on a given national scale. However, the idea that a single nation can withstand the onslaught of internal and external pressures for any given length of time is misguided. Rather ironically the example you mentioned, the Paris Commune, proves this point. The revolution must generalise itself or it is doomed to failure, either by crushing military defeat or a torturous, drawn out and agonising asphyxiation.

The Paris Commune, as Marx was quick to point out, failed because of reasons other than simply "the onslaught of internal and external pressures". In specific, the indecisiveness of the Communards proved fatal; they did not smash the machinery of the capitalist state. Your position does ignore the actual conclusions of Marx on the Paris Commune. Further, it is ridiculous and anti-historical to claim that revolutions which are not actively spreading are doomed. Most importantly, there is nothing but conjecture on your side while there are practical examples on mine.


However, this is beside the point. In the above comment you are making a rather significant error, that is, you equate socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whilst socialism presupposes the dictatorship of the proletariat, the converse is not at all true.

Please explain this. The dictatorship of the proletariat has been treated by many Marxist thinkers as the first stages of socialism, and therefore socialism. What line would you divide between them?


The Cuban state is, on the world market, merely a competing firm analogous to any private company operating within a national market (but also necessarily the world market). Thus the means of production as property of the cuban state are most certainly private property, despite not being owned by an individual person.

You're repeating the same critical mistake. The Cuban workers have, since conquering political power and abolishing capitalist relations, decided to open the products of their labor to the world market. Does this change the nature of Cuba? No. Does this undo the victories of the revolution? No.

Talking of Cuba as "analogous" to a private company is in complete denial of many key facts. First, Cuba is NOT a private company and is not in any practical way similar to such a firm; in terms of social relations there is no comparison. Second, so long as the Cuban workers are in control of the process, they could launch their sugar harvest into the center of the Sun without changing the fundamental nature of their society. Lastly, the commodity production that you so strongly attribute to Cuba does not match the reality. See my response below ("On this, it is important to be specific").

And the property of the United States is not owned by a single person, that's not the point. It's private property because it's owned as private property: it is held as stocks and bonds and it creates profit for the ownership. This is obviously not the case with Cuba. This just further underlines the absurdity of claiming that Cuba is capitalist.


I think Cliff made a good analogy in relation to this point recently repeated by Random Precision in the thread “If we accept Maoists are socialists... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../if-we-accept-t89509/index7.html)” which I feel appropriate to quote here:

Yes, that's not a bad point necessarily, but it's being misapplied. The question is collectivization by whom and under what circumstances. To compare collectivization in Cuba to monastic orders in the middle ages (not that you're doing that) is just silly. Using this line of logic, I could compare the free communes of the medieval epoch to the Second French Republic; the problem is that it ignores just about every material factor involved. The same holds true here.


How does this logically follow? Cuba's “entrance into a world market” presupposes the production of commodities, something you say “capitalism depends on”.

On this, it is important to be specific. What, precisely, is Cuba producing as a commodity? I think sugar cane, cigars and tourist services are the most major products that are produced as commodities. On the other hand, education, housing, the majority of foodstuffs, healthcare (including Cuba's expansive pharmaceutical industry), automobiles and transportation equipment, electricity and infrastructure, social services (child/elder care, etc.) and other industries are not commodities.

Marx referred to commodity production in capitalism as the economic cell of society. Cuba's most important (and most impressive) industries are not engaged in the production of commodities, and this clearly implies the absence of generalized commodity production in Cuba.


Precisely why I believe it to be a good analogy.

What, you think Cuba has nothing to do with class struggle? Do you know nothing of history?


I think this has already been shown. Your claims on the other hand that “Cuba … expropriated the capitalists, fundamentally changed property relations, overthrew the capitalist class, collectivized production and so on” have not at all been proven, instead you have, to paraphrase Marx, used words as convenient replacements where thoughts are abscent.

No, it has not, you have failed to bring forth any real evidence. There is a difference between merely saying Cuba is capitalist, as you have done, and proving it, which you have not.


Again I think it is essential here to draw out the distinction between socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I want to ask you a question. What mode of production do you think operated in Russian in 1918? If we agree that there existed at this time a dictatorship of the proletariat (of whatever given degree of health) does this necessarily imply that socialism also existed?

We would answer, no, of course not. The construction of socialism is a possibility only on an international scale. The proletarian revolution differs from all previous revolutions in that the economic power of the proletariat can not grow up inside the shell of the former, decadent mode of production, that is capitalism, due to the fact that contrary to previous revolutionary classes the proletariat possesses no economic basis of property. The proletarian political revolution on an international scale precedes the economic revolution in the mode of production. Thus to acknowledge the existence of capitalism in a given nation (as a necessary result of it's existence internationally) is not necessarily to condemn it as bourgeois, reactionary or anti-working class. To do this is to acknowledge the demise of the revolution and the complete loss of any proletarian character of a given state, as with Russia, or as with the case of Cuba and the other so-called “socialist states” to acknowledge it not having any to begin with.

While the dictatorship of the proletariat does not necessarily imply that socialism exists, socialism is built from the dictatorship of the proletariat, is it not? If a society becomes socialist, it becomes so through the victories and struggles of the DotP. To divide the two so starkly is a great mistake in the context of class conflict. Socialism, in short, is the victory of the proletariat over capitalism; the DotP is an integral part of this, the two are inseparable in both practice and theory. That's what's important here.

Second, socialism can be established and maintained without an international revolution, and yours is an argument that goes against materialist analyses and, more than anything else, the lessons of history. The experiences of the Soviet Union (for example) clearly show that the foundations of socialism, that is the abolition of private property (as well as the economic cell of capitalism), can be defended significantly in a country. In the USSR, labor-power only became a commodity AFTER the fall of the Soviet system; the workers' living standards dropped dramatically to horrific points as the bourgeoisie won back control. The left-communists, of course, imagined nothing had changed, despite the facts suggesting the contrary. The continued insistence that the USSR was capitalist is done without evidence or a coherent materialist analysis.

Cuba, for its part, has achieved this socialist economic basis while sustaining working-class democracy. That is why Cuba continues to be a healthy socialist country to this day.

[manic expression]

Manic,

Management is not a class, agreed, but has no use in a communist society, not in the definition that we know it to be. The fact that the CP installed managers to manage the workers, rather than allow the autonomy to do it themselves is a basic violation of the freedom the society should entail.

Well, that is true, but I'm not trying to convince you that the USSR or Cuba was/is a communist society. The point is that they were/are socialist, which does not preclude the existence of management whatsoever.


I think that's very wishful thinking to suggest the leaders of Cuba live in that of a meager state.

It's not wishful thinking, even Fidel's greatest enemies concede he does not live in excessive luxury. Have you seen any actual evidence that suggests Cuba's leaders live in such "splendor"?


The fundamental fact that there is a one party dictatorship flies in the face of your claims. So much so, that the deviation of thought from dictatorship of the proletariat in figurative terms, was dubbed Leninism and was made literal. No one bar the Communist Party can be made into the government. There is no councils, no grassroots control, no conduits for the workers, whatsoever. If they ever wish for the great revolution to come to an end, they'll have to do it by armaments.

It's not a fundamental fact because it's not a fact. The Cuban political process is strictly non-partisan: political parties have NO say in nominating candidates for elected office, and the PCC is no exception. Nominations are carried out in local public meetings by the residents of their respective neighborhoods and communities, and the candidate which carries the most votes is then subjected to a yes/no vote by the general public. It's all in the link I posted:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)
("Democracy and Cuba" on the left side, note the citations)

The entire Cuban electoral system is, in fact, based on local councils, on grassroots control, on conduits for the workers.


Macho-Bolshevism, the assertion of anti-homophobic, physical, masculine might is right men leading the way to communism. Advocated in Cuba, such as when the police are taking a baton to someone's head in a club, for the crime of homosexuality. An archaic ironically homoerotic bastardisation of everything Marx stood for.

On what are you basing these quite bizarre charges? I guess it's time to hit the books again:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNEvZ0xh8Da4rbKP16Z_azAiamyQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7441448.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2007-02-26-opcom_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7784234.stm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1083/is_/ai_n18630584
(Yeah, Cuba's so macho, the government goes out of its way to promote ballet, which everyone knows is no different from Monday Night Football and pro-wrestling)

I think the above articles speak for themselves.


The will was discarded the moment the Party imposed its will, much like it occurred in Cuba. Leninism is Leninism, wherever it occurs. The workers were given the false sense of liberty, that they would be able to construct the means of society. When it came to the crunch, this belief was dispelled, the party was forced upon them, and control would not be relinquished. This is anti-communism at its finest, and it's absymal to have Leninism following Marxism. It is the antithesis of it.

Yeah, sure, OK. Read the links I've posted and get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

[Cumannach]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the possession of state power by the proletariat. State power is the means of enforcing the relations of production on society. The will of the proletariat is to abolish the old relations of production, and enforce new relations which benefit them and society at large.

Unless you believe the proletariat can consciously act contrary to it's own will, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely equivalent to socialism, which is the process of replacement of the old capitalist relations of production with new communist ones, and the transformation of society that implies.

[duffers]

The problem arises from this fictional 'socialism'. It is merely a synonymn for communism according to Marx himself. There is no such thing as a transitional period towards communism. But if that was the case, 50 years of CP rule in Cuba with no end of transition in sight. Nonsensical.

I've not seen anything contrary to that either. I'm certain he's not living like some Cubans do, homeless in rags on the street.

Your much touted link echoes the things I'm saying; one party rule which has been branded a "different form of representative democracy". Fundamental wrong of state capitalism, no matter how it's dressed up. Grass roots is mentioned, by differs largely from communist meaning of that phrase; referring to direct democracy and organisation of workers themselves. What we've confirmed, with your help, that it is CP rule, one way or another, all in the name of ant-imperialism, of course, wink wink.

A handful of articles aren't going to change the fact, that for decades, gay rights in a supposed communist society were null and void. The truth; http://www.petertatchell.net/international/cuba2.htm

We must force the break between Leninism and communism.

[manic expression]

The problem arises from this fictional 'socialism'. It is merely a synonymn for communism according to Marx himself. There is no such thing as a transitional period towards communism. But if that was the case, 50 years of CP rule in Cuba with no end of transition in sight. Nonsensical.

That's a laughably incorrect assumption.

First, this from the Manifesto:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Later, the experience of the Paris Commune provided further models on the specific form of this organization. Lenin talks about this here (note how he directly quotes Marx and takes into account their contexts):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm#s2

To suggest that Marxism has no place for socialism is just silly.


I've not seen anything contrary to that either. I'm certain he's not living like some Cubans do, homeless in rags on the street.

No, he's not, because homelessness has practically been eradicated in Cuba for the entire population. You might hold high your nose at the society the Cuban workers have built, but this patronizing attitude is moreover an ill-informed one. Cuba is a country where infant mortality is better than the US (and certainly every Latin American country), where life expectancy is just barely under that of the US, where housing, education and food are available to all without exception. Like I said, get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12kris.html

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B896B0DDE-8C40-4F84-B1E8-A016FE786F50%7D)&language=EN (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B896B0DDE-8C40-4F84-B1E8-A016FE786F50%7D%29&language=EN)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/25/content_8248453.htm


Your much touted link echoes the things I'm saying; one party rule which has been branded a "different form of representative democracy". Fundamental wrong of state capitalism, no matter how it's dressed up. Grass roots is mentioned, by differs largely from communist meaning of that phrase; referring to direct democracy and organisation of workers themselves. What we've confirmed, with your help, that it is CP rule, one way or another, all in the name of ant-imperialism, of course, wink wink.

Did you even try to read what I posted? The party has no role in nominating candidates, and many elected officials are not members of the PCC.

From a report by an American sociology professor who's traveled to Cuba and witnessed its electoral process:

The role of the Communist Party in the political process is very different from what I had previously thought. The Cuban Communist Party is not an electoral party. It does not nominate or support candidates for office. Nor does it make laws or select the head of state. These roles are played by the national assembly, which is elected by the people, and for which membership in the Communist Party is not required. Most members of the national, provincial, and municipal assemblies are members of the Communist Party, but many are not, and those delegates and deputies who are party members are not selected by the party but by the people in the electoral process.

http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html

What I've confirmed, with your help, is that you have a difficult time accepting facts.


A handful of articles aren't going to change the fact, that for decades, gay rights in a supposed communist society were null and void. The truth; http://www.petertatchell.net/international/cuba2.htm

They're not a handful of articles, they're government policies that are pro-homosexual.

Your article is about seven years old, for starters. More importantly, the time period it is talking about was in the 70's, and Cuban policy has changed radically since then. The fact that you used this as supposed proof of Cuban policy shows your inability to make a factual, reasoned argument. It would be tantamount to claiming that since Stalin carried out purges, the USSR in the 60's did the same: it's an incorrect argument based on hopelessly outdated material.

Further, Reinaldo Arenas wasn't imprisoned because he was homosexual, that's just slanderous. He was first jailed for smuggling information, and then after he tried to escape he was imprisoned. He was later released and was later still allowed to emigrate to the US (by the way, had he stayed in Cuba, it is unlikely he would have contracted HIV/AIDS). What did you think you were going to prove with this?

One of us posted news articles about Cuban policy today. The other posted a seven-year old article about a movie which portrays Cuba over thirty years ago. It's pretty easy to see which is more factually correct (here's a hint: you're not).


We must force the break between Leninism and communism.

Yeah, sure, ok. Just make sure you read what I posted next time, since you apparently didn't this time around. Thanks a bunch.

[duffers]

That simply describes the transformation of power from the capitalists to the proletariat. I don't appreciate a source of information being altered to suit your argument, whether it's from you or Lenin himself.

Homelessness doesn't refer to health care, infant rate nor life expectancy. But whilst we're on the subject, I thought it was admirable how one of the best medical services in the world quarantined AIDS sufferers, like common animals.

Yet the state, the state ruler, and the CP rule is not able to be disposed of. Why do you think that is? Do you require a link to articulate yourself, or can you manage?

It clearly mentions the 70's, along with the 80's and the 90's. Considering my statement was "a handful of articles aren't going to change the fact, that for decades, gay rights in a supposed communist society were null and void", that is infact true, as the article explains. Do you deny, in the 70's, there was blatant disregard of gay rights? Furthermore, I made no connection from the past to the current, only that homophobia is still rife, therefore your reference to Stalin's purges being applicable to post Stalin USSR are moot. Regarding Arenas, Leninist revisionist won't change the facts (that ironically, you claim to hold importance of and upkeep); he was imprisoned for ideological deviation and publishing abroad without consenting. Publishing his work was "smuggling information"? Wonder what "ideological deviation was". Not surprising you rush past the fact he escaped from prison, in a fucking tire indicating his desperation, after which he was placed in El Morro Castle, amongst rapists and murderers. I love the fact you say he was "still allowed" to leave, like he had done something wrong, or that it's compassionate to let him go. I'm sure, with the treatment of AIDS sufferers in mind, he took his life willingly, expressing no sentiment otherwise upon suicide.

What a fucking deplorable person you are. It isn't a wonder people fear communism, with you and your legions of links heralding fascist states as our accomplishments.

[manic expression]

That simply describes the transformation of power from the capitalists to the proletariat.

Exactly, which is not a classless society. This, the period in which the proletariat has conquered power but has not yet eliminated class conflict altogether, is the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a "transition period", as you call it.


I don't appreciate a source of information being altered to suit your argument, whether it's from you or Lenin himself.

If you'd like to show HOW it's altered, be my guest.


Homelessness doesn't refer to health care, infant rate nor life expectancy. But whilst we're on the subject, I thought it was admirable how one of the best medical services in the world quarantined AIDS sufferers, like common animals.

Again, if you can find numbers proving substantial Cuban homelessness, you're more than welcome, but I suspect that you won't, because you can't. How many children go to sleep on the streets of Cuba? Not a single one. Homelessness has basically been eradicated on the island, much to the dismay of imperialist apologists.

On the treatment of HIV/AIDS, Cuba is quite a success story. Those who were at risk were not quarantined in inhumane conditions at all, and they were given quite reasonable quarters during the quarantine. Saying they were treated like animals is simply untrue and slanderous. Cuba's quick response to the threat of HIV/AIDS saved many lives, especially those in the gay community, and as such Cuba has an extremely low HIV/AIDS rate. People who disparage the revolution like yourself instituted opposite policies and ignored the problem while many, most especially members of the gay community, died. Cuba found an excellent solution to a tough problem.


Yet the state, the state ruler, and the CP rule is not able to be disposed of. Why do you think that is? Do you require a link to articulate yourself, or can you manage?

It's probably because the Cuban people support the PCC, and have consistently demonstrated this by voting for their leaders on many occasions.

For your information, articulation and evidence are not inversely proportional; your posts would suggest that in your case, the two correlate in value quite closely, as to be nothing.


It clearly mentions the 70's, along with the 80's and the 90's. Considering my statement was "a handful of articles aren't going to change the fact, that for decades, gay rights in a supposed communist society were null and void", that is infact true, as the article explains. Do you deny, in the 70's, there was blatant disregard of gay rights? Furthermore, I made no connection from the past to the current, only that homophobia is still rife, therefore your reference to Stalin's purges being applicable to post Stalin USSR are moot. Regarding Arenas, Leninist revisionist won't change the facts (that ironically, you claim to hold importance of and upkeep); he was imprisoned for ideological deviation and publishing abroad without consenting. Publishing his work was "smuggling information"? Wonder what "ideological deviation was". Not surprising you rush past the fact he escaped from prison, in a fucking tire indicating his desperation, after which he was placed in El Morro Castle, amongst rapists and murderers. I love the fact you say he was "still allowed" to leave, like he had done something wrong, or that it's compassionate to let him go. I'm sure, with the treatment of AIDS sufferers in mind, he took his life willingly, expressing no sentiment otherwise upon suicide.

First off, the article is about something that happened three decades ago. That's what the subject matter is. Trying to ignore that isn't going to get you too far. Secondly, Cuban policy toward gays in that time is not what you're making it out to be: Reinaldo Arenas was not thrown in prison because he was gay, that's just an anti-historical statement that has more to do with your pre-determined Castrophobia than any facts.

Your assertion that you made no attempt to connect the present with the past is absolutely absurd. You brought up an incident that happened in the early 70's and tried to pass it off as proof of present Cuban policy, which it simply isn't. You continue to say that "homophobia is still rife", but you've made not a single effort to prove this.

The fact that Arenas wanted to escape means he was in haste to live in a capitalist society. There was little against him being a publishing homosexual writer in Cuba, especially by the late 70's when the Mariel Boatlift occurred. The problem was that he was sending materials to other countries which were hostile to the revolution (which isn't innocent given the circumstances, circumstances you have no grasp of), and so he was detained, his attempted escape was actually the bigger issue. And in spite of your facetiousness, it was quite reasonable to let him emigrate. It is unfortunate, though, because if he had stayed in Cuba, it is far less likely he would have contracted HIV/AIDS.


What a fucking deplorable person you are. It isn't a wonder people fear communism, with you and your legions of links heralding fascist states as our accomplishments.

I seem to have touched some sort of anti-socialist nerve. But you're right, because my "legions of links heralding fascist states" come from Stalinist propaganda outlets like the BBC, the AFP, the New York Times, USA Today and Dance Magazine. :lol:

Anyway, again, let me know when you're ready to make a mature and reasoned argument with relevant evidence.

[Dave B]

Having to say first that Cuba bashing is not my favourite subject as there are plenty of other more egregious capitalist states to have a pop at. But it isn’t communism either and for that matter even a democratic or a ‘free’ society as far as freedom of speech is concerned.


Presumably we can wait for a response to the above post from ordinary dissident working class Cubans with some interest, and patience.

Cuba - Amnesty International Report 2007

Human Rights in REPUBLIC OF CUBA


Freedom of expression and association



Severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association persisted. All print and broadcast media remained under state control. There was a rise in the harassment and intimidation of independent journalists and librarians. People suspected of links with dissident groups or involved in promoting human rights were arrested and detained. There was an increase in arrests on charges of "pre-criminal dangerousness". Access to the Internet remained severely limited outside governmental offices and educational institutions.

Journalist Guillermo Fariñas staged a seven-month hunger strike to obtain access to the Internet, without success.

• Armando Betancourt Reina, a freelance journalist, was arrested on 23 May as he took notes and photographs of evictions from a house in the city of Camagüey. He was charged with public disorder. Armando Betancourt was reportedly held incommunicado for a week at the police station before being transferred to Cerámica Roja prison in Camagüey on 6 June. He was awaiting trial at the end of the year.


And from the BBC, Saturday, 24 January, 2004, not totally unbiased admittedly.


The Cuban Government is tightening its control over internet access.



A new law coming into force on Saturday makes it impossible for many Cubans to dial up the internet from their home telephone lines.
The move has been criticised by the human rights group Amnesty International.
Cuba says that, given its limited resources, it needs to ensure that the internet is primarily used for the social good.

The move clamps down on the thousands of Cubans who illegally access the internet from their homes.
From now on, it will not be possible to dial up the main government server from most domestic phone lines.
Only lines which are paid for in dollars will have direct access. These are usually restricted to foreigners.
Amnesty International says this is an attempt to shield Cubans from alternative views.
All news media in Cuba is rigorously state-controlled and supportive of Fidel Castro's government.

'For the common good'

But the Cuban government has reacted angrily to suggestions that the change amounts to censorship.

It says it is doing nothing more than preventing overused internet connections being clogged up by people borrowing, or selling each other passwords.

The internet should be for the common good, it says, pointing out that it will still be available in schools and workplaces.

Dissident groups have expressed doubt that the authorities here can control the internet as much as they might wish.

It is true that whenever a new law comes into effect here, Cubans - who are famed for their inventiveness - tend to find a way around it.



Even Lenin knew what communism was, and what it wasn't, from an economic perspective anyway, and ignoring the issue of putting marxists 'up against the wall' etc

V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New


April 11, 1920






Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.


As was state capitalist Russia and is state capitalist Cuba.

Even Leon ‘The Windbag’ Trotsky surprisingly enough knew what socialism was, no kidding.


The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State.




"The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life's goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion.
Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider
such a really modest perspective "utopian."

Capitalism prepared the conditions and forces for a social
revolution: technique, science and the proletariat. The communist
structure cannot, however, immediately replace the bourgeois
society. The material and cultural inheritance from the past is
wholly inadequate for that.

In its first steps the workers' state cannot yet permit everyone to
work "according to his abilities" – that is, as much as he can and
wishes to – nor can it reward everyone "according to his needs",
regardless of the work he does. In order to increase the productive
forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage
payment – that is, to the distribution of life's goods in proportion
to the quantity and quality of individual labor."

[manic expression]

Having to say first that Cuba bashing is not my favourite subject as there are plenty of other more egregious capitalist states to have a pop at. But it isn’t communism either and for that matter even a democratic or a ‘free’ society as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

Presumably we can wait for a response to the above post from ordinary dissident working class Cubans with some interest, and patience.

Cuba - Amnesty International Report 2007From what I've been able to tell, while Amnesty International can be a good source (and I'm not saying it isn't necessarily in this instance, but it's important to look at the circumstances), it oftentimes uses right-wing sources on Cuba, people who have an axe to grind and oftentimes a material incentive to lie. Amnesty International is, after all, ideologically opposed to socialism (that is, revolutionary socialism, although the two should be synonyms) in all its forms. However, leaving that aside because it's not a sufficient argument on its own, let me address some of the charges made.

1.) To say that there is no diversity in news or press is really untrue. I've talked to people who have listened to CNN news with a simple radio in the middle of Havana. The Cuban government, it should be noted, has the ability to jam radio frequencies (and oftentimes does when it comes to American imperialist propaganda), but it does not for such news sources.

2.) Internet access is limited because last I checked, there isn't a single fiber-optic cable connecting Cuba to the rest of the world. You can thank the US embargo for that little achievement. What Cuba has done has been to push internet access in schools and community centers first and foremost, and of course maintaining internet access in governmental offices, merely due to necessity. When it comes to the internet, Cuba is making the most of what it has, and for that it should be congratulated.

3.) The arrests of "journalists" and "dissidents" is not so unjustified when you look at recent events. The US interests section in Havana has been funneling right-wing Miami exile funds to Cuban "dissidents" for some time now, and these connections, which link Cuban "dissidents" to Alpha 66 and other reactionary terrorist groups.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-05-19-cuba-diplomat-terrorist_N.htm

It's perfectly reasonable for the Cuban government to take such steps to defend the revolution from reactionaries who have no problem murdering hundreds of innocent people just to make a point.


And from the BBC, Saturday, 24 January, 2004, not totally unbiased admittedly.

The Cuban Government is tightening its control over internet access.

That's fair, but I'll raise you one from the same unbiased source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm

That's an openly anti-Castro meeting right in Havana that was allowed to go on in public without any real police interference. And if you read closely, you'll see that none other than George W Bush himself called into the meeting to express his support. This was a man who created a special federal office with the stated aim of overthrowing the government of Cuba. And he got to talk to dissidents in Havana. If that's not tolerance for dissent, I honestly don't know what is.

In terms of the dissidents in Cuba, there's also Oswaldo Paya, a quite well-known dissident in Cuba who has been allowed to personally travel to France to receive awards for his stance against "tyranny" (dum dum dum) by the state he criticizes. From what I've seen, he's almost never spent any time in prison, I vaguely remember finding a source that said he was held for one night and released soon after, but that was awhile ago and I can't be bothered to look again. What's interesting is that Paya has criticized "dissidents" for taking money from exile and American sources, he says it cheapens the voice of Cubans who aren't taking funds from imperialists (and frankly I think he's right). If you want to know more about him, check at the Varela Project.

Lastly, there are the Ladies in White, who are very much against the socialist government and quite vocal about it. They don't get arrested, they simply encounter lots of pro-socialist people at their demonstrations because they're marching for people who secretly took money from the US government in order to overthrow the government of Cuba.


Even Lenin knew what communism was, and what it wasn't, from an economic perspective anyway, and ignoring the issue of putting marxists 'up against the wall' etc

V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New

As was state capitalist Russia and is state capitalist Cuba.

Communism and socialism are not the same thing. I don't know why it's become in vogue to say this all of a sudden, but it's just not true by any measure. Lenin was recognizing the fact that Russia was a long, long way from communism. Does that mean it was state capitalist? Not at all (by the way, Lenin DID say the Soviet Union was developing state capitalism, but he meant it in a completely different way than anti-Bolsheviks use it today, as he meant it in the context of the NEP).


Even Leon ‘The Windbag’ Trotsky surprisingly enough knew what socialism was, no kidding.OK, that's fine, but I don't think that passage relates directly to what we're talking about. And if you're going to deputize Leon Trotsky in this discussion, then allow me to do the same:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1

Anyway, I think you've brought up some important points about Cuba, but the situation at hand shows us that the Cuban government's actions and policies are more than understandable and in fact necessary.