Results 1 to 20 of 109
Why I rejected Leninism, and why Anarchism makes sense...
Long story short. When I was young, I was a Leninist. A few years passed, and now I'm Anarchist.
The reason is simple....Anarchism is democracy. I've learned that the elites worldwide fear ONE THING and one thing only........democracy. They know that if real democracy exists (not republics with public relations firms, etc) the population would use their voting power to undermine the rich, and we would move ever so closer to a just society.
Also I actually read Lenin. He was a tyrant. He didn't like democracy because he thought the population was stupid. No coincidence, elites worldwide don't like democracy, and many don't like it for the exact same reasons.
But even as an Anarchist, I also work for re-form WHILE ALSO trying to build a real democratic society. I fight to maintain Social Security. I fight to get workers better wages or more benefits. I work to protect schools from being privatized, etc.
Just my two cents.
Originally Posted by Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade KautskyLenin hated democracy. Yeah.Originally Posted by Lenin, The State and Revolution
Also, I don't think there is such thing as 'Leninism'. He was just a Marxist who analysed the Russian situation. To do that, and to some extension, he analysed capitalism of his time.
What about his works on party-structure, insurrection, revolutionary-war and economic policies?
Some would argue that the notion of a vanguard was already in the Manifesto and that (following Lars Lih, maybe? Just a guess, I have no access to his book) democratic centralism is not so different from German Social-Democracy's own structure.
Economic policies were a result from the concrete analysis of the Russian/Soviet situation, as were the others.
I mean, afaik, he did not come up with theories such as PPW, or the Mass Line, which are additions, something really new.
No because the dotp, a workers' state, is a democracy.
The Soviet government did become bureaucratic and authoritarian, but Lenin was not a tyrant.
There was no democracy because of the Civil War and constant fear of counter-revolution. An unjustified reason for a lack of democracy yes but it was not simply because he thought people were stupid.
Lot of rhetoric above, no real substance. Anarchism is not "democracy". You can't pin down anarchism as just one thing. Class struggle, internationalism, "freedom", "equality", "solidarity", and a lot more goes into anarchism.
I'm guessing from the next couple things you say you actually haven't read Lenin.
How so? Obviously when the Bolsheviks came to power there wasn't a "flowering of freedom" but this had much more to do with the fact 14 different imperialist powers invaded Russia with the goal of destroying the Bolshevik state, counter-revolutionary sabotage culminating into civil war, famine, etc. etc. etc. Obviously things such as war communism and the Cheka weren't something the revolutionaries were looking forward too, but they were inevitable within the material conditions present in Russia at the time. This can be seen by the fact that even the anarchists in the Ukraine under Makhno had there own secret police and intelligence agency similar to that of the Cheka.
You're the one making the claim. Prove it. I don't recall Lenin saying "Democracy sucks because people are dumb" in The State and Revolution, What Is To Be Done, and his other writings. Rather, I remember him calling for the rule of the exploited against the exploiters. The revolution did start to degenerate before the end of Lenin's rule and eventually did solidify the capitalist degeneration with Stalinist rule, but that has much more to do with the failure of the revolution to spread than Lenin supposedly thinking people suck.
So you're a non-revolutionary anarchist? You fight for social democracy and welfare capitalism in the short run, which is nothing more than another form of capitalism. Nothing revolutionary about it. Most anarchists would disagree with you on this point completely.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
Well, actually...anarchism is democracy too, but in a more direct way, i guess. The DotP-democracy is still democracy till the doorstep. After that it is the chosen ones' voice and choice (and therefore no demcracy anymore, since democracy means "rule of the people" and states are always directly ruled by a few).
Still, i think it is not fair to claim democracy to anarchism alone.
"But we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselfs" - Errico Malatesta ("Anarchism and Organization")
"It is very well imaginable that man can get a communist dictature, which takes care that the needs of the stomach are provided, but that thereby freedom still by far isn't for everyone. That's why the struggle shouldn't just be against private property, but against authority too." - Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis ("Van christen tot anarchist ")
I think he meant that he supports revolutionary anarchism but also supports reforms that temporarily help the working class within capitalism.
Then by that definition Marxists don't want a state.
I disagree with the idea that the proletarian dictatorship is a democracy, even a workers' democracy. I think the proletarian dictatorship is exactly that, a dictatorship. It's not the dictatorship of one man, but the dictatorship of a large section of the population, the working-class. The bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, etc. should and would be excluded from the decision-making process under the dotp by the way the soviets, party, etc. and other organs of working class rule operate naturally. Democracy is the rule of the people, all people, and consequently all classes. Democracy is not possible in a society stratified and divided by classes. Such terms as "workers' democracy" seem to be a contradiction then.
Democracy, as in the idea that the majority is right, isn't that great of a decision-making tool either. Continuous debate will bring about the best decision. Democracy is a good tool for quick or rapid decision making but debating a subject as long as needed will bring about the best choice.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
This is not true. The Marxist conception of the proletarian dictatorship has always placed great emphasis on the direct participation or the proletariat within the state apparatus, not the rule of a few individuals.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
'All power to the soviets' is totally undemocratic
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
I disagree with the idea that democracy is the rule of all people. Even in communism, people will lock up murderers, rapists, etc. and they will not have any power or total freedom. In any case, the dotp is the rule of the majority of the people, and hopefully it will have rights to protect minorities (ie capitalist supporting workers) from severe oppression.
In the etymological sense, Democracy means the power of all people.
Murderers and rapists would be excluded from decision-making and power in any society. That is not a valid argument.
Capitalists cannot support workers, they can only exploit them. All capitalists will be suppressed and, eventually, abolished, under the proletarian dictatorship.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
Yes, thus not all people have power, making no society a democracy. Thus, I dislike that definition of democracy.
I'm referring to workers who still support capitalism (like the majority of people today). I don't like the idea of having a literal dictatorship of the majority oppress them. I'm not saying we don't let them do anything physical to harm the dotp, but I say let them speak their minds in an open and democratic environment. It'd be easier to "convert" them so to say that way rather than forcing the majority view on them. In time, they will turn.
You've taken the obvious exception to the rule as the main premise of your argument. Just because you don't like such a definition does not mean it doesn't exist.
I don't like the somewhat quasi-religious tone of "they will eventually convert" but yeah I agree with what you're saying.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
Hmmm. One wonders which texts of Lenin you found him saying this in. It sounds more like a stereotype than any kind of informed opinion.
I personally just don't support the vanguard policy. I think it is flawed. However I do not believe Lenin ever said democracy was a bad idea because people were stupid. I am not positive, but that just wouldn't make sense.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
So does that mean we can only have democracy when 100% of the people agree with the system? In democracy, the majority rules but the rights of the minorities are still protected to an extent. Also, if that is an exception, why is the dotp not?
Yeah that's why I put convert in quotation marks.
Anarchists and libertarian Marxists tend to have different definitions on what constitutes a state.
You can basically believe everything an anarchist does, but still believe in a state if you're a Marxist who just defines the state as an organ of class rule.
At some points it gets down to whether or not you recognize the state's existence determines what tendency you are, even if your beliefs are pretty much identical otherwise. It's really divisive, honestly.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
And that is one of the reasons why the entire concept of "democracy" is useless; it's a vague amorphous thing that you ascribe properties you think ideal to; we wonder, then, how should we define democracy? A tyranny by majority would be a democracy, with no protection whatever for the minority opinion, would it not? You seem to base this assumption of "protecting the minority" on the legalist U.S. "Democracy".
But the point is, the decision cannot only be taken by the majority, or even simply the majority of the working class; but a near unanimous decision would have to be worked out through debate and discussion and wide participation and so-on-so-forth, especially as regarded more important questions; one cannot leave it at cheap impulse, populism and some fleeting trend, it must vibrate through the walls of all society. Not to mention that our current conceptualisation of democracy is too mired in the current era, and it differs too from the original use of the term.
Thus we should reject "democracy", as it is a meaningless term, an abstract and pointless liberal proclamation without any real basis.
The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.
ex. Takayuki
