What is Luxemburgism? As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with its namesake. Sort of like "Marxism-Leninism," but for anticommunist social democrats.
Results 1 to 20 of 139
Leninism or Leftism?
For those who are on the 'Left Communist' end of the spectrum, why do you reject Leninism? On the inverse, those who are Leninists, Trotskyist or Marxist-Leninist, what would you say about why you reject the 'Orthodox Marxist' position and support the Leninist line?
I'm personally between Luxemburgism and Trotskyism at the moment, so I thought I'd ask this question for my own edification.
What is Luxemburgism? As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with its namesake. Sort of like "Marxism-Leninism," but for anticommunist social democrats.
It shouldn't be hard to piece together. And I'm not here to debate, just to learn.
I think you are confusing learning with something else, perhaps choosing flavors at an ice cream shop?
The best thing is that you can mix them. One scoop of this, once scoop of that. And then imagine if flavors were words: the possibilities are nearly endless!
Don't identify; read, learn and educate yourself.
I won't speak for stalinists or trots but Lenin was an Orthodox Marxist.
This is not some irrefutable proof but it demonstrates what was his opinion on this.Originally Posted by Lenin
I find it hard to see how the "Leninist line" could be seen as opposed to Orthodox Marxism, unless by that you mean stalinists and maoists which are hardly "Leninists".
I find "Leninism" a somewhat vague and problematic (if sometimes useful) category since I'm sure he himself would've rejected it. Wasn't "Leninism" created as a term by stalinists to legitimize their tendency?
I don't believe all Left Communists reject "Leninism" or the Bolsheviks entirely, some do, others don't. Some even uphold him in one way or another.
On Trotskyism, I'd highly recommend you read Trotsky while staying the fuck away from Trotskyism at the same time.
I found these articles pretty insightful on Trotsky and Trotskyism back when I first read them:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm
Last edited by Radical Atom; 21st March 2017 at 17:18.
Lenin definitively broke from social democracy (what some Internet people call "Orthodox Marxism" ha ha ha!) and became a revolutionary communist between 1914 and 1917. The lecture series Lenin and the Vanguard Party published in 1977-78 in Workers Vanguard, back when it stood for Trotskyism, is the definitive treatment of the subject. Also deals with Luxemburg vs. "Luxemburgism".
Council and Left Communists are not social democrats. And Rosa Luxemburg didn't support Bolshevism. She supported the Revolution, not the ideology of Lenin and Trotsky.
luxembourgism doesn't really exist outside wikipedia, tbh.
um, i reject the idea that revolutionary consciousness must come from outside the proletariat from members of the petty bourgeoisie.
i reject the orthodox marxist notion of stagism, which is present in marxism-leninism and trotskyism. regardless of whether it was necessary in russia 1917, it certainly isn't today.
the idea that capitalism and socialism are only a matter of organization is probably the worst of orthodox marxism. eliminate the parasitic bourgeoisie, and poof! socialism as state- or worker-owned capital! the law of value still reigns supreme, but distribution is a little better. through state-led investment, Capital becomes a how-to manual.
the "ruthless criticism of all that exists" becomes blind support for state leadership, "marxism" turned on its head.
Last edited by Sewer Socialist; 4th October 2016 at 05:20.
Sous les paves, la merde!
I couldn't agree more.
Many seem to take the 'transitional period' (DOTP) as *dogma*, and neatly abstract this logistical possibility into a stagist *given*, away-from any and all consideration of actual present-day material conditions. (Similarly, too, there is some people's *moralistic* approach to the question of post-capitalist liberated-labor, while current prevailing conditions are of the existence of greatly-labor-leveraging machine processes, for unprecedented amounts of material productivity.)
In other words the *goal* should be to get to a communist-type 'free access' and 'direct distribution' (no currency / exchanges) as quickly as possible, which is far more materially-logistically possible today than it was 100 years ago.
Soft-left conceptions and assumptions doom it to a constrained *localism* in approach -- that's the tell-tale sign of leftism, since those types become more preoccupied with matters of bourgeois-type 'governance' than with workers worldwide self-organization and social production.
EDIT: I realize the orthodox Marxist notion of stagism is that bourgeois capitalist developments in a country are a 'prerequisite' to later revolutionary-socialist developments.
Last edited by ckaihatsu; 5th October 2016 at 12:58. Reason: see 'EDIT'
Yah building a massive state capitalist welfare state... such a huge break from social democracy.
14595748_10210726135894581_147674526940411457_n.jpg
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
The DotP is not an abstract dogma but a real transition period that any and all revolutions will pass through simply because they are revolutions, i.e. moments of revolutionary break with the past and the construction of a new future.
It doesn't matter much how fast we vanquish the capitalist mode of production. We are building socialism with people that lived their whole lifes in capitalism, with petit-bourgeois and bourgeois elements everywhere, especially in key positions and areas.Originally Posted by Lenin in Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder
Last edited by ketplaz; 6th October 2016 at 02:32.
well, the dictatorship of the proletariat, if we understand it to be nothing more than the proletarian negation of the negation, is not necessarily the orthodox marxist "workers' state". it could refer to a revolution by the proletariat; its own abolition, the abolition of value by those who produce it and are exploited by it.
importantly, it does emphasize a violent break with the capitalist order; it clearly rejects any sort of evolutionary socialism or class collaboration.
Sous les paves, la merde!
Understood, but I mean to point out that present-day material conditions -- capacities for production -- are far more advanced than they were 100 years ago.
Also, in previous times the revolution may have empirically *needed* the actual expertise and labor power of the '1%' / counter-revolutionaries, necessitating re-education and such towards that end. Today, with far larger populations, it may turn out to be more a matter of either being with the revolutionary vanguard, or else *forfeiting* one's political voice / activity, if sufficient mainstream revolutionary momentum is underway.
---
Yes, I would say that it *does* matter, as with all similar 'variables' of physical space, time, participation, etc. -- the sooner that a revolutionary upsurge can establish its own 'internal' forms of organization, by the workers, the sooner such a workers society can begin to *displace* bourgeois rule and economics, in favor of *communist-type* social order and material-economics.
In other words would someone want to continue to put forth their labor for the sake of conventional markets and others' private profits, or would they rather work-for and receive-from the *common good*, if such was adequately established and was actively providing for people's needs -- ?
Sure, but you're not factoring-in the aspect of *initiative* -- if a worldwide revolutionary movement *establishes* itself as predominant over social production it would *overshadow* conventional market-faith-based forms of social organization, being a 'no-brainer' of a choice for most due to its superiority in facilitating everyone's everyday life-path practicalities and pragmatics.
Agreed -- no argument.
Yah lets just give up on our movement because other people think they know best and we should just listen to them and join their cause.
Such a liberal notion; not surprising its coming form a vanguardist.
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
To be on topic and give a short answer, from a left com, Leninism (and all of its descendants) is generally doomed to result in what we now call Stalinism, or dictatorship. Why? The ideology of Lenin (and Trotsky) was that of an elevated (rather than what would be more of an integrated) 'vanguard', which created a a vacuum between the party and the workers it claimed to represent. The logical course of this would be the consolidation of power in the 'vanguard' and ultimate power in what they deem to be 'in the interests of the working class,' when in reality their view of the 'working class' is generally themselves and other party members.
Plus, some of us (myself included) have surmised that the national liberation struggles they advocate are inherently divisive and ultimately create new sectarianism, if not outright handing more power to national bourgeois. The theory of 'weakening imperialism' has not proven to actually weaken the bourgeois overall at all, in fact it strengthens them, empowering this concept of 'national identity,' which generally subverts the actual workers struggle. National sectarianism has resulted in the worker's subversion to populism, seen in the US with Sanders and Trump, and in Britain with Brexit, among countless others
"If you consider an outcry against Stalinist mass murder and its justification a "dramatic moralist outcry" then how about an undramatic, unmoral outcry: "Fuck you!""-Red Dave
Do you think everyone is going to automatically become revolutionaries once the revolution is solidly underway to displace the bourgeoisie -- ?
Do you think everyone, 100%, is even going to be *politicized* with a partial or fully-successful proletarian revolution -- ?
While I would *like* for everyone to be political, and to be revolutionary, I don't think it's necessarily going to happen, to every last (most-recent) person, nor does it necessarily *have* to. I think *some* degree of substitutionism is inevitably going to happen, for this reason, and there's nothing wrong with anyone saying 'I don't want to be political, I just want to live my life, hopefully under relatively humane conditions.' We shouldn't want to *force* political participation, we should be able to do things right and usher in a socialist/communist society that will be beneficial to all.
Note that I am *not* saying or implying 'Let's give up on our movement', nor am I saying or implying 'Let's follow the liberals' -- you're just making that up out of nowhere.
There's nothing *liberal* about a revolutionary vanguard, as much as you attempt to contend so.
Similarly to my previous post, I don't think anyone can do anything to *prevent* or *preclude* a vanguard-type organization -- it's an empirical inevitability regardless of specific historical conditions, because some in the class struggle are simply going to be more knowledgeable, current, and involved than others.
No, I don't think that the vanguard / party necessarily always needs the quickness that a formal organizational hierarchy can confer, but *at times*, in prevailing conditions of fierce, protracted worldwide class battles, the working class very well *could* benefit from a more-formal party-type structure to be calling the shots in the workers' best interests. It's unfortunate that so many on the far left get jittery at this notion and think that such would *inevitably* consolidate into a class-type section with altogether separatist socio-material interests.
What is Liberal besides your entire ideology of building a workers republic where the authority over the means of production is in the hands of the state and not directly controlled by the workers is the idea that
The idea that the left should unite behind another Vanguardist because its "mainstream".
If anything the state socialist movement is the minority now. Even large Marxists-Leninist movements are becoming more and more Libertarian; See Kurdistan.
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
There are two problems with this assertion:
First, the idea that "Orthodox Marxism" is Kautskyite social democracy as opposed to revolutionary communism. Marx was a revolutionary. Read what he wrote of the first workers revolution in Paris, 1871. Kautsky found a different place for himself when confronted with a besieged workers revolution.
Second the quote that is adduced for "proof" is Lenin writing in 1905, in Two Tactics of Social Democracy.
Indeed, in 1905, Lenin saw himself as an orthodox disciple of Kautsky and Bebel.
The experience of 1914-1917 and beyond changed this. Some things happened, things that Stalinists and "Orthodox Marxists" (ha!) would like to forget.
Like World War I, and the Russian Revolution, for instance.
Let the "Orthodox Marxists" (ha!) and the Lars Lih idiots read what Lenin had to say about Kautsky after 1914....
Let them read Lenin's own admonishment to those who stuck by his "Two Tactics" in 1917, in his April Theses and other works.
All your arguments rest on Internet Idiocy.
Could you please express yourself without flaming people?
- - - Updated - - -
What has Leninism achieved? Bureaucratic state despotism where capitalist relations still prevail?
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
