A simple question

[commie kg]

I have heard alot of Marxist-Leninists say that they do not strive for full communism, because they believe that it will never happen. This has come from both sides of the Leninist coin.

Let me ask; what is the point then? Full communism is what we want, not a suspended dictatorship of the proletariat. Even by Marx's own definition there cannot be freedom until full communism is established.

So, tell me, why will a stateless and classless society never exist? Why is striving for "utopia" such a negative thing to some people?

[redstar2000]

Leninists don't (normally) say that communism will "never come". It's just something that won't happen until "the whole world is socialist". Some Maoists go on to add that global socialism must be developed "equally" across the entire planet before the transition to communism can "begin".

So for Leninists, "communism" is something that can't even be attempted for "many centuries" after the revolution...it resembles the "second coming of Christ".

In practical terms, Leninists propose the exchange of one form of class society for another.

It's really no surprise to see that working people have largely rejected Leninism in the "west" -- it's just another version of what we already have now.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

It's really no surprise to see that working people have largely rejected Leninism in the "west" -- it's just another version of what we already have now.

Will you ever stop with these rants? The working people of the west have largely rejected any left politics other than social democracy. You'd swear that an army of anarchists were assembling the way you whine every time Leninism is mentioned.

I have heard alot of Marxist-Leninists say that they do not strive for full communism, because they believe that it will never happen. This has come from both sides of the Leninist coin.

I never heard any real Leninist say that without becoming completely disillusioned with socialism entirely and if they haven't I wouldn't consider them a communist.

So for Leninists, "communism" is something that can't even be attempted for "many centuries" after the revolution...it resembles the "second coming of Christ".

Are these actual quotes or just another whine of yours? Have you ever read Lenin's "The Tasks Of The Youth Leagues"? I suggest you do and look for the part where he discusses the role of the revolutionary youth in building the communist society (the next generation), as opposed to the older generations being the generation that will crush the old society and implement socialism. The last time I checked the time period between generations was not centuries.

[redstar2000]

Will you ever stop with these rants?

No.

The working people of the west have largely rejected any left politics other than social democracy.

Understandable, considering the available alternatives.

You'd swear that an army of anarchists were assembling the way you whine every time Leninism is mentioned.

I'm afraid you're being too subtle for me. What does "an army of anarchists" have to do with my opposition to your Lenin cult?

I would say exactly the same things even if I were the only person in the whole world to say them.

I suggest you do and look for the part where he discusses the role of the revolutionary youth in building the communist society (the next generation), as opposed to the older generations being the generation that will crush the old society and implement socialism. The last time I checked the time period between generations was not centuries.

That was then; this is now.

Lenin's pep talk to the kids notwithstanding, those same kids grew up to live under Stalin...when any actual talk of communism would probably have been a criminal offense.

Modern Leninists do speak of a transition period measured in centuries...I'm not making that up.

You are certainly free to invent your own variant of Leninism in which the "transitional period" will be limited to a single generation.

But don't be surprised if you have difficulty finding people who will believe you.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

The question has not much to do with Lenin. Leninists can only say that Lenin only
defended the Marxist theory of state, if not in practice but in his famous work "The State and Revolution"

He defends Marx's emphasis from the 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'.
''Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. ''

The alternative given to us by the anarchists is bourgeois in character. It ignores what is needed for freedom. This is the bottom line definition of the word 'bourgeois'.
It is the eternal rant that power corrupts. It is a sinister view of human nature.
By concentrating on stalinist regimes it echoes capitalist ideology and rebukes the need for international socialim to be the dominant mode of production throughout the world.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Apr 10 2004, 05:13 AM
Leninists don't (normally) say that communism will "never come".

I've heard it alot. Stuff like "communism is a utopian dream." I take that to mean that they believe it will never happen. One member who I have heard say it specifically is Chairman Mao. Maybe I've misunderstood his meaning.

I've seen this from Stalinists and Trotskyists.

[BOZG]

Well then they're not Leninists.

[peaccenicked]

There are Leninists and there are Leninists, which part of the 44 volumes of his collected works do they need to pay allegiance too.

[Kurai Tsuki]

I would prefer to live in a country that has a mixed economy, like the UK. But unfortunately I'm stuck here in the free-market cesspool known as the united states.

[redstar2000]

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Even if this "made sense" in the light of late 19th century material conditions, does it still make sense?

Further, even if it does, does that imply the dictatorship of a "communist" party?

And finally, even if the first two assertions are true, does that "also" imply the dictatorship of a party of the Leninist type -- that is, a self-appointed and self-designated elite that rules without accountability of any kind?

The alternative given to us by the anarchists is bourgeois in character. It ignores what is needed for freedom. This is the bottom line definition of the word 'bourgeois'.

It is the eternal rant that power corrupts. It is a sinister view of human nature.

What exactly is "bourgeois" about the goal of the autonomous self-determination of the working class?

And if being truly determines consciousness, then what is objectionable in the idea that "power corrupts"? If your social role is one of "boss" then why would you not, after a while, think like a boss? Indeed, how could you possibly avoid that?

Good intentions?

There is nothing "sinister" in the view that humans behave according to the material conditions in which they find themselves...indeed, it's a basic proposition of Marxism. The error of bourgeois ideology in this context is that it makes the bourgeois conception of "human nature" universal. Because accumulation is the engine of capitalist motivation, the bourgeois asserts that "all humans at all times are acquisitive by nature".

One reason that we always have at least one "human nature" thread going on this board is the easy (and wrong) assumption that humans as they are now have "always" been like that and "will always" be like that.

As to "what is needed for freedom", the Leninist paradigm asserts that submission to a new "authority" is "required".

Permit me to disagree. What is "needed" for freedom is liberation.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

What exactly is "bourgeois" about the goal of the autonomous self-determination of the working class?

Was not the bourgeoisie that paraded the slogan "liberty, equality and fraternity"?
It is easy to state noble goals but when one ignores the means of achieving them that is bourgeois.

To decreee a stateless society is necessary is simply not good enough.
To insist apon the ludicrous idea capitalism can be replaced overnight by communism without a period of transition, is tantamount to avoiding the problems that capitalism has thrown on to the laps of the working class.
A stateless society is a truly free society without need for police, soldiers or money,
not only that it has to be world wide and truly universal. It is for everyone.
Only a 'moralistic' bourgeois mentality would refuse the tasks of oppressing those evils which survive from capitalism. The nature of uneven development throughout the world makes the task of spontaneous instant statelessness utterly impossible.

A majority in favour of socialism will not wait for every single form of oppression to end before they actually want to do something to end capitalism physically.
To call Anarchism utopian would be unkind to utopians, because anarchism is an organised ideological apparatus that serves to replace 'moralistic' religious rebellion
with a safety valve for rebellion against capitalism. 'Theoretical' anarchism (as opposed to 'militant&#39 is thouroughly bourgeois in form but unfortunately proletarian in content, as is the congregation of State religion.

The villification of 'Leninism' is rooted in the villification of Marx, it has no other real purpose but to turn class politics into a rejection of all authority. Reduce Scientific Socialism to a religous dogma were authority of any kind is the devil incarnate.
The greatest irony is that modern day 'Marxists' are moving closer to old fashioned theoretical anarchists and that modern day militant anarchists are moving closer to classical Marxism.
(Perhaps they realise that battling with the capitalist State machine is part in parcel of a very emryonic workers State)

What is "needed" for freedom is liberation

Yes. liberation from bourgeois ideology, even that which is embraced by libertines
of every left variety who merely declare and decree that they can be trusted because they trust no one not even themselves, they trust you to organise yourself
so long as you dont lead others into the temptation in defeating the capitalist state and not giving power back to it immediately.
It is sheer borgeois nonsense.

[El Che]

Everytime you *suspend* accountability it will result in disaster. It will serve not to maintain resolve, direction and purpose but to pervert the nature of the revolution and ultimately the movement. That is what the bourgeoisie did, they perverted 'liberty, equality and fraternity' with masked authoritarianism. Marxism is about exposing these fallacies not repeating the same mistakes even if with good intentions.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by commie kg@Apr 10 2004, 04:22 AM


Let me ask; what is the point then? Full communism is what we want, not a suspended dictatorship of the proletariat. Even by Marx's own definition there cannot be freedom until full communism is established.

we should always be fighting and struggling for pure communism.

however a transition stage is inevitable, which is what occured in Russia and they never surpased. i wouldent go as fare to say it was a dictatorship and i deffinatlly wouldent say it was of the proletariat

[peaccenicked]

Accountability is mobile. Sometimes it can be adopted as a matter of formal procedure, that depends largely what stage one is at in the development of formal procedures. A group forming is not the same as one which has ratified its constitution with its members. Next there is accountability in the arena of public institutions, this depends largely on how far the bourgeois revolution has developed in particular countries. Then there is accountibility during a revolution, that has all the disadvantages of formation. I think that it is very important for modern revolutionaries to establish checks and balances that regulate the conduct of all levels of administration, that even other parties who dont pose a violent threat of return to the old system are included in building an uncoerced general consensus on what tasks are needed to defend and both spread the influence of the revolution abroad.
Disaster is isolation in a world market, no matter how well intentioned the leadership and the people themselves are, the holding operation will break down,
nationalism will take over from internationalism. Even democratic social planning
would be brought into choas by the disequilibrium of external and eventually internal counter revolution, and the myriad of bureaucratic disorders would multiply thus accountability becomes less and less, thus strangling the living soul of the revolution to the whims of demagogues playing on the fears and rolling crisis of a revolution in its onset.

That is why revolution has to surpass national boundaries, and begin where Marx first suggested in the most advanced nations.
It is not merely a matter of wishful thinking but historical necessity.
As Hegel said "Freedom is the consciousness of necessity"
It is at least so till we leave what Marx terms as the 'realm of necessity'

[Pawn Power]

i am sorry about my last post
i made an error that i did not see until after i posted it

i did not mean to say the temporary transition stage was not a proletariat because it was most deffinatlly ruled by the working class.
i stll stand by what i said in that i would not call it an absolut dictatorship

again i am soory for my typo
i hope nobody ripped their hair out when they read it

[redstar2000]

To insist upon the ludicrous idea [that] capitalism can be replaced overnight by communism without a period of transition, is tantamount to avoiding the problems that capitalism has thrown onto the laps of the working class.

"Overnight" is the key word there. No one argues that communism is an "overnight" achievement. There will clearly be a transitional period between capitalism and communism.

The question is the nature of that period and its characteristics. Most particularly, is it "necessary" that the revolutionary proletariat set up its own centralized state apparatus? Or should the "first phase" of building communism include the permanent dismantling of the state apparatus?

A stateless society...has to be world wide...

That's a pretty good rationale for putting off the abolition of the state indefinitely. Even if the advanced capitalist countries had successful proletarian revolutions more or less "all at once", there would remain large parts of the world that were still in the early stages of capitalist development and some that were still pre-capitalist. Therefore, we "must wait" for all these places to evolve through all the stages of capitalism until, finally, they too have proletarian revolutions.

Meanwhile, our own "revolutionary" states have plenty of time to evolve new ruling classes (as we have already seen).

To delay communism until it can be implemented on a global scale is a recipe to delay communism forever.

The nature of uneven development throughout the world makes the task of spontaneous instant statelessness utterly impossible.

I don't see why it should. Specifically, it seems quite reasonable to me that the EU could form the geographic site for a stateless society. It is large enough, developed enough, rich enough, etc.

The vilification of 'Leninism' is rooted in the vilification of Marx; it has no other real purpose but to turn class politics into a rejection of all authority.

Well, isn't that what we should want? Is there something "sacred" about "authority" as such? If we reject the legitimacy of capitalist authority, what authority are we "bound to respect" without limits?

Again most particularly, why are we "vilifying Marx" when we refuse to recognize the "authority" of a self-designated elite of "professional" revolutionaries?

It's really as if I were to say that if you reject my "authority" over you, that means you must be "bourgeois". (!!&#33 Wouldn't you (or anyone with any sense) react with laughter and scorn?

If such a proposition is absurd on its face with regard to an individual, is it not equally absurd with regard to a party?

The greatest irony is that modern day 'Marxists' are moving closer to old fashioned theoretical anarchists and that modern day militant anarchists are moving closer to classical Marxism.

I see nothing "ironic" about this at all.

The differences between Marx and Bakunin were never as large as the protagonists made them out to be...and turned largely (in my opinion) on what those guys thought was possible given the level of consciousness of the proletariat of that particular time.

The modern proletariat is far more knowledgeable than its great-grandparents were...and far more (potentially) competent in the construction of post-revolutionary society. I see no reason for the historical trend in that direction not to continue.

Thus the merger of Marxist and anarchist theory on the state makes more and more sense as the proletariat develops a more advanced level of consciousness. The old idea of a small "conscious elite" directing society "in the interests of the proletariat" is more and more superfluous.

Why have a "proletarian state" if it's no longer needed?

That militant anarchists should be attracted to Marx's historical materialism is also no surprise. Much of classical anarchist theory is (again, in my opinion) largely moral in its appeal; it really has no theory of social change beyond "it happens when enough people want it to happen".

But confronting a phenomenon like globalization reveals the inadequacy (to say the least) of "moral analysis". Who, if not Marx, should they turn to for an analysis of class struggle against imperialism?

(Besides, there was always a fairly strong class-struggle thread in anarchist movements historically...all that crap about "petty-bourgeois anarchism" was pretty much a Leninist-inspired canard anyway.)

Although it will probably take awhile, I expect an eventual merger of the best ideas of Marx and of the anarchists into a new revolutionary synthesis.

After the split in the First International, it is said that Bismarck's comment went something like: "The red and the black have gone their separate ways, and woe to us if they should ever unite again."

Yeah!

Yes, liberation from bourgeois ideology, even that which is embraced by libertines of every left variety...

Libertines? That's a word normally used to suggest sexual "immorality". Exactly what do you mean by it in this context?

Do real (anti-Leninist) Marxists "have sex with the capitalist class"?



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

Hmm, redstar2000, I think peaccenicked's main concern is that a libertarian approach to power, a democratic grip on power -that is a grip on power that is dependant, in everything (its existence not least), on the support it draws from the working class- is more vulnerable to bourgeois counter-revolutionism.

I don't know if you'd care to address that but the way in which I would address it is the following. Firstly, that it is true. If power is based on support and if support is liable to erode -and certainly fluctuate- then power is in a precarious position. Secondly, and to the point, that it is the only option open to us. This because what interests us is not power in and of its self but power as a means to an end. End, which, can only be achieved if power is maintained in precarious position. The working class must be the driving force. If it wavers and falters let it because the next time around it will come stronger and more determined (and not least because the remedy against this will remedy nothing&#33. I'm convinced only when there has developed true class consciousness among the working class masses can progress be made. Attempts at 'short cuts' will have the fait they deserve. Democracy is a value in and of its self. That is what Marxism is about because there can not be true democracy while there is no economic democracy. Those who put it aside, just for a moment, just to achieve x goal, will in due course find out exactly wherein lies its value.

[peaccenicked]

If a single person in the world armed with a spear went loose on an unarmed Stateless population. We would need a State to cope with that.
It would not matter to me that much if the State had only function for one person
but we have the State function in tact. A free society would not need any State functions or any potential State functions.

The problem of when the State withers away seems to me, the way RedStar puts it that
there will be those with a vested interest in keeping the workers state in tact.
I would think these people need repressed or the interest they have in keeping
the state in tact has to be nullified.

Reaching a place in future history where the worlds major political problem is
the creation of the conditions of true freedom for all: A place where we can put all of our resourses into it; is the place that 'truly' human history begins-according to Marx. I see absolutely no need for unnecessary delays and we may make mistakes that will be costly. Let us make these mistakes rather than maintain
a permanent transition.

Authority is either neccesary or not, only mental slavery would be blind to the need for rational questions. Chomsky goes into this somewhere{authority has to be rational}. Authority has to be open to rational questions. There are exceptions, there are reasons why people are asked not to speak to bus drivers when the bus is moving.

There is no blueprint for socialism, we can draw lessons from the past but we are still without any real experience of revolution in an developed industrialised nation.
We aint seen nothing yet.
Somewhere in Marx's correspondence, he says our first attempts will be futile even useless. He even forsaw something of the nature of "crude communism" in the ''Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts''. 'The age old tyranny that makes for human tears' as Connolly puts it, has plenty yet to throw at us. That is the nature of war.
I think El Che has given us the spirit of this.

The isolation of any part of the world to its combined development can be dangerous. It might become a hiding place for the old order. It might not.
We have to wait and see.

Class politics is not equal to the rejection of all authority. The recognition that the
workers state as an authority is a necessary evil.
To recognise that majority rule oppresses the minority even if that minority is one person, is to recognise an necessary evil.

As Marx put it the ''free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
Not the other way around....

[redstar2000]

If a single person in the world armed with a spear went loose on an unarmed Stateless population, we would need a State to cope with that.

It would not matter to me that much if the State had only function for one person
but we have the State function in fact. A free society would not need any State functions or any potential State functions.

I think this is a very idealist way of looking at the matter.

Do you really think the crime rate will be zero in 500 years or 5,000 years? That absolutely no one will kill or rape at some time in the distant future?

Whatever apparatus that exists to stop that from happening or to apprehend the perpetrator and stop him (in some fashion) from doing it again -- you are calling that a "state".

But you know that's not the Marxist view of the state at all, much less the Leninist view.

We hardly need a centralized and powerful state apparatus under the control and direction of a self-designated elite to stop some guy with a spear...or a serial rapist.

The Leninist paradigm asserts the need for a powerful centralized state apparatus (rich in both prisons and police) for a number of reasons:

1. That the defeated bourgeoisie will organize a powerful and vigorous counter-revolutionary resistance which will take tremendous efforts to suppress.

2. That other imperialist powers will invade or threaten to invade the post-revolutionary society, necessitating a powerful traditional army, complete with a professional officer corps.

3. That most of the working class will be too backward, ignorant, or short-sighted to see the "big picture"...the necessary though painful steps that must be taken in order to "clear the way" for communism.

If these "reasons" are invalid -- as I think they are -- then the "need" for the Leninist "workers' state" totally collapses and there's nothing standing in the way of proceeding forthwith to communism.

I have no doubt that there will be some or even many "state-like" functions performed by a complex variety of local and regional bodies. They will be "functional groups" concerned with "the administration of things", not people.

What there will not be is a "political center of gravity" where a potential new ruling class could gather and bring things "under their control".

The recognition that the workers' state as an authority is a necessary evil.

But suppose it is no longer necessary?

Then it's just evil, period.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[GUTB]

Obviously, there is a need for authority in the transitional period of the revolution. For example, the authority to target counter-revolutionary forces for destruction. The authority to move the policies of a socialist nation towards world revolution. And so on.

The critical thing, however, is that it must be the authority of the working class. It can't be a national beuracracy with a couple of revolutionaries handing out dictates from a central office -- that's a counter-revolution waiting to happen. It's fine for there to be authority as long as it remains authority exersized on behalf of the working class by the working class. How does one defeat the interests of the power structure to perserve itself and become counter-revolutionary? Well first of all, the revolution has to succeed in an advanced nation that already has the productive forces to feed and cloth itself. I am also highly suspicious of centralized, institutionalized forms of power, such as legislatures and exectuve offices bedacked with flags and champaign services. In fact, I would say such things are almost coubnter-revolutionary in and of themselves. Those who exersize authority must never forget their identidy in the class struggle. I would be far, far more comfortable with seeing the revolutionary leadership conduct business from the inside of roving busses and fishing boats using radio networks then from some central parliment or "people's hall". I enormously distrust anything that seperates the leadership from the rank-and-file worker.