Anarcho-communism/syndicalism vs Authoritarian communism

[Искра]

Kontrrazvedka, I'd like to point out that in order to make a valid argument, you MUST give sources and examples.

I gave examples.

Here are sources.

Raya Dunayevskaya: Marxism & Freedom
Raya Dunayevskaya: Marxist-Humanist theory of State Capitalism

Both books can be found on amazon.com.

Here are also some of articles from second book:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society, 1941
An Analysis of Russian Economy, 1942
A New Revision of Marxian Economics, 1944
New Developments in Stalin’s Russia, 1946
The Nature of the Russian Economy, 1946

I believe that this is good enough.

Also, this is verry good book:
Chattopadhyay, Paresh: The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience

Anything else?

[Omsk]

Left Communism is too idealistic,for instance,Bordiga believed that a society in which money,buying,trading etc cant be considered socialist or communist,and the Left Communists who admire him have the same stance,and that is one of the things they put against the SU.I wonder if a teritory led by Left-Communists would actually be any better than the many states who claimed to be socialist or communist.Probably not.
But lets not go into hypothetical questions.

Another these ultra-leftists seem to completely condemn is the NEP.

I personally agree with Lenin on this one,it was a step backwards.

The NEP was needed,and if idealist left communists would rather see the Soviet Union perish and the class struggle grounded to a halt,so be it.It is obvious that the NEP was not something that was greated with joy among the Bolsheviks,even Lenin admited it was not something positive,in any way,but he made it clear that it was necessary.

The opposition forgot that Lenin,in his later articles,warned of the "rushing ahead too rashly and quickly," they forget the "better fewer, but better" These articles were completely ignored and forgoten.And still they act as if Lenin was responsible for everything that didnt go right in the SU.

Here are also some of articles from second book:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society, 1941
An Analysis of Russian Economy, 1942
A New Revision of Marxian Economics, 1944
New Developments in Stalin’s Russia, 1946
The Nature of the Russian Economy, 1946

All the articles you posted have a heavy emphasis on the the Soviet Union under Stalin,and are not worth much in the debate over the Leninist SU.

[Tim Finnegan]

But how can you say they were not "agents" of that movement?When they were,they completely changed Russia and a good portion of Eurasia.And if you cant accept that they changed it (I wont be specific) ,for the betterment of workers and people generally,than i really dont know how can we even discuss over this matter.

Everything you've just said is also true of Napoleon Bonaparte. So maybe think about that a bit harder.

I wonder if a teritory led by Left-Communists would actually be any better than the many states who claimed to be socialist or communist.Probably not.

The problem there is in thinking that putting territory under the control of ideologues of any stripe is a good idea. Hence "dictatorship of the proletariat" and and all.

[Rooster]

believed that a society in which money,buying,trading etc cant be considered socialist or communist

Why is it idealistic to believe that you have to abolish the conditions that maintain capitalism so that you can move on and create socialism?

[Искра]

If there's class society with commodity production and wedge labour it's called capitalism, Stalin or no Stalin in charge.

[Comrade Hill]

As I think you're trying to be reasonable about this I'm going to extend to you the same courtesy.

You have to realise that for Marxists who are not Leninists, even those from tendencies that supported the October Revolution (such as the Left Communists), Lenin was a revisionist of Marxism; his notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the same as the lower stage of Communism and that both could be equated with socialism were a revision of Marxism; the idea that communism was 'the soviet system plus electrification' was a revision of Marxism; his fusion of party and state was a revision of Marxism that led to the massacre of Kronstadt, on the anniversary of the Paris Commune no less - Lenin became Thiers, leader of a country that massacred its own revolutionary workers; his idea that 'socialisation' could occurr in Russia without the world revolution was a revision of Marxism; his institution of the NEP was a revision of Marxism; his call for a 'democratic republic of the workers and peasants' was a revision of Marxism.

My goodness, you make it sound like M-Ls are the ultimate revisionists.

Marx did not put forth any specific "revolutionary theory" or way of achieving communism. So the points you have made for the most part are moot.

And you claim Lenin became of a leader of a country whose workers died. Isn't that what happens during a revolution?

And who said that M-Ls were against world revolution? We fully support a world revolution. It's "permanent revolution" that has to happen all at once that we don't support.

Now, some of these revisions were due to trying to apply Marxist method in a situation unseen by Marx - the proletarait overthrowing the state in a large, majority peasant country but the revolution failing to spread. But we - non-Leninist Marxists - argue the majority of these revisions could be argued to be mistakes - massive tragic mistakes committed in a time of turmoil while the way ahead was not clear - and this is what the Left Communists tend to argue. But the point about mistakes is that one makes them once and never again, one does not hold up the mistakes as a great new policy.

These "revisions" you are talking about are not revisions, but the additional dialects that Lenin contributed to Marxism.

The peasantry was an oppressed class just like the proletariat, and the theory was to revolt against the Bourgeoisie and turn the peasantry against the bourgeoisie, and to the proletariat.

Albeit there were some slight problems with that, it wasn't "wrong" to support the peasantry at that time. Even Stalin has said that we should not support ANY form of peasantry regardless of the situation.

Of course the greatest rivisionism of Marxism was by Stalin with the theory of 'socialism in one country'. This seals the counter-revolution in the eyes of Left Communists; there is no way back from the adoption by the CI of 'socialism in one country' in 1927. Of course, the Bolsheviks had already lost the other Marxists, for instance the SPGB, long before that. Even the Trotskyists, who generally are regarded by Left Communists as far too tied to the Soviet state, regard 'socialism in one country' as a betrayal of Marxism.

Do you know how many times I've heard this argument?

Socialism in one country, again, is a dialectical and materialist contribution to Marxism.

And what is this "counter-revolution" you are talking about?

On to some of your assertions, there will be no 'profit motive' in socialism if your understanding of socialism is a Marxist one; Marx does not distinguish between socialism and communism, but Lenin does (and he doesn't distinguish between the lower phase of communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx does). So if you argue there will be 'profit' and 'commodities' under socialism, you aren't arguing as a Marxist, because 'profit' and 'commodities' are defining characteristics of capitalism. Capitalism is not socialism and vice versa. If you think that the state will control the economy as a giant industrial combine, then you are arguing for state capitalism, as Engels outlines in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, chapter 3: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...-utop/ch03.htm (1880) and Wilhelm Liebknecht argues in 1896 that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism - http://www.marxists.org/archive/lieb...r-congress.htm - so again, we have here a problem of Leninst revisionism of Marxism. Yes, we do refer to the Soviet Union as capitalism, as the working class in the USSR had their labour expropriated by a capitalist combine - the state capitalist USSR itself. It makes no difference if control of the combine is entrusted to a bank, a board or the state - if the working class is working for its labour to be expropriated it's capitalism, not socialism. That is a fundamental difference between Leninist and non-Leninist interpretations of Marxism, in which Lenin quite obviously used the word 'socialism' in a manner different to Marx, whereas Left Comms, SPGBers, Luxemburgists and other non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' in the same way Marx and Engels did.

You are arguing from a non-existant viewpoint that Marx supposedly held, that socialism is where profit does not exist, Marx did not say such a thing.

And also, the word "profit" can have different functions from how "profit" functions in a bourgeois republic.

Engels also says this:

Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.

That is what was taking place in the USSR. The typical work day in the Soviet Union was organized by SOVIETS, workers councils. Those factories then set their own hours and schedules to meet the central plan.

How is this state capitalist?

[Comrade Hill]

As I think you're trying to be reasonable about this I'm going to extend to you the same courtesy.

You have to realise that for Marxists who are not Leninists, even those from tendencies that supported the October Revolution (such as the Left Communists), Lenin was a revisionist of Marxism; his notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the same as the lower stage of Communism and that both could be equated with socialism were a revision of Marxism; the idea that communism was 'the soviet system plus electrification' was a revision of Marxism; his fusion of party and state was a revision of Marxism that led to the massacre of Kronstadt, on the anniversary of the Paris Commune no less - Lenin became Thiers, leader of a country that massacred its own revolutionary workers; his idea that 'socialisation' could occurr in Russia without the world revolution was a revision of Marxism; his institution of the NEP was a revision of Marxism; his call for a 'democratic republic of the workers and peasants' was a revision of Marxism.

InEngels says here that democratic governments set up by the proletariat can be elected directly or indirectly, indirectly meaning if the majority of the population is the peasantry, they can still join sides with the proletariat.

That idea is hardly revisionist at all, and Marx never specifically spoke out against that.

And how is the NEP revisionist? You are doing the same thing Kontrrazvedka is doing, you are making claims but you are not offering anything else.

Now, some of these revisions were due to trying to apply Marxist method in a situation unseen by Marx - the proletarait overthrowing the state in a large, majority peasant country but the revolution failing to spread. But we - non-Leninist Marxists - argue the majority of these revisions could be argued to be mistakes - massive tragic mistakes committed in a time of turmoil while the way ahead was not clear - and this is what the Left Communists tend to argue. But the point about mistakes is that one makes them once and never again, one does not hold up the mistakes as a great new policy.

Mistakes such as.....? Not enforcing the rule of socialist law? Allowing the kulaks to refuse to cultivate soil in the agricultural sector? Allowing some revisionists to have a say in the government? What mistakes are you talking about?

Of course the greatest rivisionism of Marxism was by Stalin with the theory of 'socialism in one country'. This seals the counter-revolution in the eyes of Left Communists; there is no way back from the adoption by the CI of 'socialism in one country' in 1927. Of course, the Bolsheviks had already lost the other Marxists, for instance the SPGB, long before that. Even the Trotskyists, who generally are regarded by Left Communists as far too tied to the Soviet state, regard 'socialism in one country' as a betrayal of Marxism.

You are not saying anything new here. What makes you think I don't know the position of Left-Coms and Trotskyists?

And are you sure the SPGB is Marxist? What exactly is the Socialist Party of Great Britain? What is their stance on revolution? I am looking on Wikipedia and it says they take in interest in using the ballot box. It also says they opposed War World II. They sound like a bunch of pacifists.

Do I even want to picture what could've happened to the Soviet Union, yet alone the whole world, if they refused to fight in WW2?

On to some of your assertions, there will be no 'profit motive' in socialism if your understanding of socialism is a Marxist one; Marx does not distinguish between socialism and communism, but Lenin does (and he doesn't distinguish between the lower phase of communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx does). So if you argue there will be 'profit' and 'commodities' under socialism, you aren't arguing as a Marxist, because 'profit' and 'commodities' are defining characteristics of capitalism. Capitalism is not socialism and vice versa. If you think that the state will control the economy as a giant industrial combine, then you are arguing for state capitalism, as Engels outlines in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, chapter 3: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...-utop/ch03.htm (1880) and Wilhelm Liebknecht argues in 1896 that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism - http://www.marxists.org/archive/lieb...r-congress.htm - so again, we have here a problem of Leninst revisionism of Marxism. Yes, we do refer to the Soviet Union as capitalism, as the working class in the USSR had their labour expropriated by a capitalist combine - the state capitalist USSR itself. It makes no difference if control of the combine is entrusted to a bank, a board or the state - if the working class is working for its labour to be expropriated it's capitalism, not socialism. That is a fundamental difference between Leninist and non-Leninist interpretations of Marxism, in which Lenin quite obviously used the word 'socialism' in a manner different to Marx, whereas Left Comms, SPGBers, Luxemburgists and other non-Leninist Marxists use 'socialism' in the same way Marx and Engels did.

Capital circulation was set up purtaining to the law of value in the USSR.

Workers worked for factories that were run by local Soviets, or worker's councils. They would decide the schedule and the hours for the day, which typically was 8 hours, however they were much longer during the industrialization period.

Commodities had a different function in the Soviet Union, they functioned according to plan for society as a whole. There was no alienation of labor because employment relied on a universal expansion of the means of production. That means that near full employment was required to keep the economy expanding.