Help me understand my tendency.

  1. Zanters
    Zanters
    So, some say why is it important to be apart of a tendency, and for me it is because it allows me to grow and specialize my study time. Right now, I have read most of the basic Communist literature. I could always reread and analyze it again, but I want to dive into something new, and expand myself. I got Marx and Engels down, feeling good about their theories and how well it clicks in my head.

    My problem is this, I have no clue what I am. I used to call myself a ML, but now I am not too sure. Let me tell you what I'm don't believe to be truth or right.

    I don't think the USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc were socialist. State capitalism make more sense.

    I don't think SIOC is possible, but I also believe there can be a DOTP within several nations (would they be nations?) that are unified. For example, enough to be totally self sufficient and defend their selves from imperialist. Obviously this is my most flawed opinion.

    I hate the cult of personality. This is politics, not a religion.

    I dislike the highschool "commie" that likes the USSR and everything about it. Tankie I think is what they are called.


    Okay, now more on what I do believe to be true about myself and my beliefs of what maybe truth.


    I agree with Lenin, but not Stalin, nor Mao. I agree a little with Trotsky.

    Communism can only be achieved after the DOTP is in place.

    I believe a vanguard is need to educate, but not rule. A guider but not a doer.

    I do not like reformism at all, I am a very antireformist.

    I am okay with a state, just because there is a DOTP doesn't mean it is stateless.




    I am starting to see myself as a left communist, with a focus on Lenin, but we can't apply his theories directly, that'd be silly. Russia had different material conditions.

    Am I a far left ML, or a rightist Left Communist that just needs to read? I figured I should ask here, as there are a lot of tankies in the forums that would tell me other wise.

    Maybe I am still a ML, just don't follow the main stream of it. Maybe I am a Leninist. Maybe just a plain damn Marxist. IDFK.
  2. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    Well, the main litmus test for the Communist Left is usually on the question of internationalism.

    What do you see the role of national liberation movements as being? You say you generally agree with Lenin but don't give many details. Do you think he was right about the rights of nations to self-determination? What should be the position of revolutionaries today on war and national liberation struggles?

    What about the Soviet Union and anti-fascist alliances? What was the correct line for revolutionaries to take in World War 2? Was it a genuine war between humanity and Nazi barbarism in which it was OK to ally with the democracies in order to defend the Soviet Union? Was it a war between different imperialist gangs, some with Nazi ideology, some with democratic ideology, and some with Marxist-Leninist ideology, but all committed to defending different national capitals?

    Elaborating a bit on these questions might get some positions into the open so we can discuss them.
  3. Zanters
    Zanters
    Well, the main litmus test for the Communist Left is usually on the question of internationalism.

    What do you see the role of national liberation movements as being? You say you generally agree with Lenin but don't give many details. Do you think he was right about the rights of nations to self-determination? What should be the position of revolutionaries today on war and national liberation struggles?

    What about the Soviet Union and anti-fascist alliances? What was the correct line for revolutionaries to take in World War 2? Was it a genuine war between humanity and Nazi barbarism in which it was OK to ally with the democracies in order to defend the Soviet Union? Was it a war between different imperialist gangs, some with Nazi ideology, some with democratic ideology, and some with Marxist-Leninist ideology, but all committed to defending different national capitals?

    Elaborating a bit on these questions might get some positions into the open so we can discuss them.
    While I do support some national liberation as a method of anti imperialism, it is still nationalistic. Workers have no borders and they must unite on a international level.

    I am highly critical of Lenin's opportunism and participation in parliment.

    As far as the USSR and WWII, while the fascist must be crushed, and an organized effort does help the cause of anti fascism, the capturing of land was not a communistic thing, and was rather imperialist. It is up to the united workers, the proletariat to control, not the soviet state which, while representing the workers, did not have a proletarian democracy.

    A socialist government cannot be built either, its construction is based entirely on revolutionary means. While communism can be built from the DOTP, socialism, as defined as the DOTP, cannot be built from a state capitalist government where so many forms of opportunism exist. I can't see a government controlled by the few to flip the polarity and be controlled by the many.

    As for SIOC, yes and no. The are must be completely self sufficient in order to not barter with capitalist countries, and it must be ruled eniterly by the proletariat. Maybe socialism in one continent.
  4. Leo
    Leo
    Well, so far you seem to have essentially Trotskyist positions with some left communist influence.

    Seeing national liberation as something opposed to imperialism and thinking that a state can represent the workers are certainly positions outside left communism and in line with Trotskyism. Being against participation in parliament and defining it as Lenin's opportunism is a position of the communist left.

    While I do support some national liberation as a method of anti imperialism, it is still nationalistic. Workers have no borders and they must unite on a international level.
    Maybe you can elaborate a little bit? Which national liberation struggles would you support concretely? How do you define imperialism?

    As far as the USSR and WWII, while the fascist must be crushed, and an organized effort does help the cause of anti fascism, the capturing of land was not a communistic thing, and was rather imperialist.
    So for instance would you support forming a united or popular front with social-democratic and/or left-liberal parties? Would you say the Soviet state in 1941 represented the workers?

    The are must be completely self sufficient in order to not barter with capitalist countries
    Is this possible? Conversely, is a peaceful-coexistance with the capitalist world possible for any dictatorship of the proletariat? Perhaps, in a more general level, do revolutions and class struggle in general, in the current epoch occur in countries alone or as interntional waves?
  5. Zanters
    Zanters
    SIOC, I have recently realized, is a very reactionary thing to believe in, and is idealist. To build socialism? Doesn't even make sense, because socialism is achieved through revolution. Prepping for socialism maybe, but that would be odd because the bureaucratic government is prepping for its own overthrow? I can see a vanguard being used to prep and organize the proletariat, set things up for revolution, but not be in direct command. If anything, they are the jump start and beating of the drums for the proles.

    National Liberation is tricky. If it is conducted by the workers, in the name of anti imperialism, it is okay. But to have one nationalist government destroy an imperialist, it is just the lesser evil.

    United fronts can be useful. They can be a tool to conquer a common enemy. But, one must keep in mind, that besides their struggles that they take on together, they are nothing more to each other than a tool. It will be a battle after the problem is solved between the groups. For example, the October revolution probably wouldn't have happened without the previous help of the menshiviks.



    The more I think about it, the more I feel like I am a Bordigaist, while haven't read any Bordiga.

    I do not like the concepts of anarchism, libertarian communism, or any other anarcho flair. It seems far to idealistic, and lacking a transitional stage seems fatal. I can see them holding truth if most of the world is Socialist, and there are only a few backwards areas/nations. But also keep note, I don't know much about libertarian communist, or council communists.