Crypto-fascism within the left

[PhoenixAsh]

Leninism is considered a counter revolutionary force by Anarchists and Left-Communists.

Saying that pre-1917 Bolshevism is counter revolutionary would be a step too far, but the pre-revolutionary Bolshevism had in it the inevitability of internal counter revolution. Simplistically said the notion that socialism is capitalism minus ownership is flawed from the outset and will lead to the creation of a new class over the working class when the state is not dissolved but turned over to a minority party without direct democracy.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

They can potentially be explained in part by social psychology - although not in a way that offers much utility to us - but they cannot be explained by you explaining social psychology. I don't mean in general, I mean you, specifically, can't explain it as such, not in any coherent or meaningful way.

I haven't attempted to explain anything, duh, did you miss the part where I said I was lazy? I guess you did.

You're just tossing around psych 101 buzzwords until either something sticks or it's so broad that it can apply to basically anything; it's the astrological approach to political analysis.

Or, you specifically, don't grasp what I'm saying because I'm being fairly straight forward even if I'm generalizing. I was offering you a possible hypothesis of the whys on an individual basis to which I quoted. That was all. Obviously other fields I study and methods of analysis are relevant however specifically what I'm talking about, I don't see how social psychology wouldn't provide a sufficient enough answer. I'm sure this was probably a zinger for you but for me it falls flat and is a pretty shit critique of anything I've said.

[synthesis]

I haven't attempted to explain anything, duh, did you miss the part where I said I was lazy? I guess you did.

What I meant is that at the present time, even if you did experience some surge of motivation that would allow you to be "un-lazy" to the point where you could articulate what you're trying to say to your own satisfaction, it would still be completely meaningless relative to the subject at hand, owing to your clearly shaky grasp on the concepts you're trying to apply to this discussion.

You say "other fields you study" - what do you mean by "study"? Are you taking online classes on social psychology, are you pursuing a degree, or are you just surfing Wikipedia? Because it really comes across as though it's the latter.

[fugazi]

You say "other fields you study" - what do you mean by "study"? Are you taking online classes on social psychology, are you pursuing a degree, or are you just surfing Wikipedia? Because it really comes across as though it's the latter.

implying that Academia is somehow 'better' than Wikipedia is bourgeois

[Thirsty Crow]

implying that Academia is somehow 'better' than Wikipedia is bourgeois

It is. The articles posted at Wikipedia are introductions basically.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What I meant is that at the present time, even if you did experience some surge of motivation that would allow you to be "un-lazy" to the point where you could articulate what you're trying to say to your own satisfaction, it would still be completely meaningless relative to the subject at hand, owing to your clearly shaky grasp on the concepts you're trying to apply to this discussion.

Aside from ad hominem snaps you offered nothing in terms of explanation, critique, or counter-argument. I am wrong because I am wrong therefore I am wrong. Is essentially what you're saying. You've yet to articulate how and why the concepts mentioned aren't applicable to the situation or are suitable for analyzing the subject.

You say "other fields you study" - what do you mean by "study"? Are you taking online classes on social psychology, are you pursuing a degree, or are you just surfing Wikipedia? Because it really comes across as though it's the latter.

By other fields of study I obviously meant there is more than way to analyze something. Also, if you really must know, I have taken several classes in psychology, including this semester, none of which have been online, all paid for out of pocket, thank you. Either way, it's of no consequence. As you stated, it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. If you really feel the need to be so rude we're done here, thank you. Have you taken any courses in psychology? Anything past psych 101? Hmm?

[Tim Cornelis]

Rothbardianism says that it doesn't exclude workers forming organs of workers' power either, they always point out how in their system people could have organize voluntary socialism. Having in mind that they espouse non-aggression, something that leninism doesn't, and that leninism has historically exterminated anarchists, destroyed organs of workers' power and destroyed or participated in destruction of the only two worker managed societies that existed, rothbardianism has more to do with socialism then [sic!] leninism.

I should've been more clear. What I meant was that Leninism is not contrary to organs of workers' power, and Lenin actively pursued the creation of organs of workers' power as becomes clear from his writings, wherein he advocates the establishment of a 'commune-state' in place of parliamentarianism. As such, the ideology of Leninism is not inherently contrary to the self-emancipation of workers. Historically, Bolshevism and Stalinism have attacked anarchists, but these grew out of the historical circumstances that were rather unique to the Russian revolution and experience, and is not inherent to Leninism -- in fact, your equation of Leninism with Stalinism is inaccurate. The same goes for destroying organs of workers' power, this was the result of the historical circumstances and is not advocated by Leninism inherently.

Leninism is considered a counter revolutionary force by Anarchists and Left-Communists.

Left communists? I don't think so.

Saying that pre-1917 Bolshevism is counter revolutionary would be a step too far, but the pre-revolutionary Bolshevism had in it the inevitability of internal counter revolution. Simplistically said the notion that socialism is capitalism minus ownership is flawed from the outset and will lead to the creation of a new class over the working class when the state is not dissolved but turned over to a minority party without direct democracy.

I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such. The notion that Leninism advances the notion that 'socialism is capitalism minus ownership' is inaccurate as well -- but I'm going to sleep now.

[synthesis]

By other fields of study I obviously meant there is more than way to analyze something. Also, if you really must know, I have taken several classes in psychology, including this semester, none of which have been online, all paid for out of pocket, thank you. Either way, it's of no consequence. As you stated, it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. If you really feel the need to be so rude we're done here, thank you. Have you taken any courses in psychology? Anything past psych 101? Hmm?

Well, yes, I did, but more importantly I'm not the one making broad and meaningless claims about irrelevant bullshit and then defending them by saying I won't be defending them, but somehow doing it in a really patronizing way that just reinforces the meaninglessness of the earlier claims. Or maybe I am.

[PhoenixAsh]

Left communists? I don't think so.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists

I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such. The notion that Leninism advances the notion that 'socialism is capitalism minus ownership' is inaccurate as well -- but I'm going to sleep now.

We will wait till tomorrow.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, yes, I did

When I asked if you had any classes in psychology, I meant that you actually passed.

but more importantly I'm not the one making broad and meaningless claims about irrelevant bullshit

Actually, for example, I mentioned 'groupthink.' Groupthink is a very plausible explanation of how such things occur within Leftist groups. Not mentioning that nothing I've said is really that irrelevant or off topic or bullshit. Again, it's not my fault if you don't get what I'm saying.

and then defending them by saying I won't be defending them,

Because I don't see the need too.

[fugazi]

It is. The articles posted at Wikipedia are introductions basically.

and if you read the references associated with the articles?

[fugazi]

does anyone know where the whole Trotsky allegation comes from?

[PhoenixAsh]

does anyone know where the whole Trotsky allegation comes from?

what Trotsky allegation?

[Left Voice]

Presumably the allegation that he's a crypto-fascist.

[synthesis]

stuff (fucking quote function)

For the record, and I am aware that this is completely off topic, I wasn't intending the part about online courses as an attack, just the Wikipedia part. There are plenty of completely valid, top-notch online courses.

[bropasaran]

I should've been more clear. What I meant was that Leninism is not contrary to organs of workers' power, and Lenin actively pursued the creation of organs of workers' power as becomes clear from his writings, wherein he advocates the establishment of a 'commune-state' in place of parliamentarianism. As such, the ideology of Leninism is not inherently contrary to the self-emancipation of workers. Historically, Bolshevism and Stalinism have attacked anarchists, but these grew out of the historical circumstances that were rather unique to the Russian revolution and experience, and is not inherent to Leninism -- in fact, your equation of Leninism with Stalinism is inaccurate. The same goes for destroying organs of workers' power, this was the result of the historical circumstances and is not advocated by Leninism inherently.

Lenin was a vanguardist, just like Marx and Kautsky, only more authoritarian, and such centralist ideas are inherently anti-socialist, that is- contrary to workers' power.

Lenin and Trotsky instituted one man management in the economy, army and the party structure, Stalin only instituted it in the CC, it was a logical consequence. Party dictatorship and brutal oppression of dissidents no matter how small democratization they asked for- that also existed before Stalin. Those are all core leninist ideas, anti-socialist through and through.

Destroying socialism was the consequence of leninism being anti-socialist, not of any other circumstances, which is obvious to anyone who turns on his brain- if the historical circumstances really did preclude socialism then there wouldn't be in that time and place any socialists, socialist institutions, or a whole socialist society there, and thus no need to destroy any of them.

Also, Bolsheviks themselves didn't blame their actions on circumstances, Trotsky wrote in '35 that to look at bolshevik methods as applicable only to backward Russia and not to advanced lands is the "consoling illusion" of "incurable Fabians".

I consider Bolshevik practice to have been counter-revolutionary, but I do not consider Leninism as such.

Please tell us how being ruled by party managers is the same as managing one's work and life by oneself.

[fugazi]

For the record, and I am aware that this is completely off topic, I wasn't intending the part about online courses as an attack, just the Wikipedia part. There are plenty of completely valid, top-notch online courses.

I wasn't terribly serious about that first comment.

In regards to Trotsky, I thought that was a longstanding M-L insult (that he was a crypto-fascist/ collaborating with the fascists) ?

[Ismail]

does anyone know where the whole Trotsky allegation comes from?

The Moscow Trials, particularly the second and third ones.

You can see the three reports for yourself:
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...?usp=drive_web
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...E2cjFaYTg/edit
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...FRSnUwTW8/edit

For a summary of the charges see chapters XVI-XX of the following work: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...hHYl9BUEE/edit

As Stalin put it: "Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states."

After 1956 the Soviet revisionists ceased mentioning the Trials and dropped the claim that Trotsky had degenerated into a paid agent of fascism.

[Dialectical Wizard]

The Moscow Trials, particularly the second and third ones.

You can see the three reports for yourself:
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...?usp=drive_web
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...E2cjFaYTg/edit
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...FRSnUwTW8/edit

For a summary of the charges see chapters XVI-XX of the following work: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP...hHYl9BUEE/edit

As Stalin put it: "Our Party comrades did not notice that Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that it has changed from the political trend in the working class which it was seven or eight years ago, into a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states."

After 1956 the Soviet revisionists ceased mentioning the Trials and dropped the claim that Trotsky had degenerated into a paid agent of fascism.

Seriously Ismail, Trotsky who was an ethnic Jew and who dedicated an entire pamphlet on combatting fascism is somehow a secret fascist.

You can’t seriously believe that?

[PhoenixAsh]

Seriously Ismail, Trotsky who was an ethnic Jew and who dedicated an entire pamphlet on combatting fascism is somehow a secret fascist.

You can’t seriously believe that?

Did he say that? He answered a question.