Dear Bolsheviks, Justify your existence in the 21 century after the colossal failure of all the manifestation of your political project.
Not only that failed to defeat the aspects of workers alienation, the worker in such regimes became nothing but a slave to the state having no power in the decision making process leaving that to the party to decide.
This belief in the few class woke individuals over seeing the development of the workers paradise already undermined the collective rule of laborers in that development, and thus it create a class of bureaucrats that the workers of such nations are ought "and forced" to collaborate with. This is the essense of red fascism, class collaboration masked by propaganda and lies removed from workers daily struggle
Here we can sight a naive hope that instead of two parties struggle against each other to win, a one party system will solve that problem and make a transition to socialism much easier. What happened in reality is that the political struggle toke another form, the form of in_party bureaucratic battles over seats of power from within the party itself that the parties wasted a lot of effort on leaving the country ignored. Many human catastrophes could have been avoided if this element of "socialist" states was abolished.
Western Capitalism did the same. Slavery in Rome did the same. Nazis in Germany did the same.
So are you going to defend the 3 above systems? So yeah, you promised socialism and you failed to give us that.
SMASH BOLSHEVISM AND SMASH FASCISM
How about instead we try to theorize a new political movement that take current day MLs, Stalinsts, Maoists etc.. political concerns and try to meet these concerns with legitimate alternative to Bolshevism?
I agree. You're one of my favorite posters, homoerotic muslamig gommie
I don't blame you though tankies and trots are both shit.
Heres is an idea, run a country for 50years before you invent another fantasy
. . .where is the argument
luv u 2 famrade
Idk if I oppose Bolshevism in a revolutionary context, as they showcased how efficient their organizational methods were for creating a viable revolutionary force. But I think when it comes to modeling a proper socialist/communist state they failed pretty hard, due in large part to the civil war they had to fight, the authoritarian bent of their leaders, and Lenin just straight up going braindead.
no, germany was already a powerful industrialised state and their power was unsustainable
the ussr was betrayed from within by revisionists
leftcoms are going into the gulag, fyi
What about Mao's conception of a Mass Line?
anarchists justify how you get btfo's by outside forces every single time
not exactly, but I've been coming around to centralism recently so I wanna see if I'm just mistaken or if there's actually something to it. The failure of the soviet union seems to me to be much more the result of its isolation after an international revolutionary wave subsided. The failed revolutions in Germany and Italy were devastating blows to the soviet union. Lenin seemed to be aware of this fact from what I understand.
The problem is that socialism cannot, even for a moment exist in one region. If it does this society face scarcity such that it will have to exchange goods with other capitalist nations or suffer from Juche-like isolation. With the sort of scarcity that necessarily comes with autarky, each individual will have an interest to gain control over as much of a part of production as is possible for them by legal and/or illegal means. Their quality of life and their life itself would otherwise be at stake. To the extent that this hunger for certainty over quality of life translates into a hunger for power, you will have elements in your society seeking to gain control over the rest which must either be kept out of power, or will form a power of their own. A state will form out of this situation in one way or another.
Then the problem of borders. A society which borders capitalist society will have to defend its borders from attack. provided the revolution has stagnated outside the country and people have returned to work as usual within the society in question, we must defend the borders by raising a military somehow. A military does not produce anything, it only consumes and provides security in return, meaning its maintenance must come from the producing class. While in principle this maintenance could be voluntary, in all likelihood, an arms race with capitalist nations combined with the aforementioned scarcity within the nation mean that this nation in question could only defend itself through exploitation or be destroyed. It seems that scarcity and competition resulting from and greatly reinforcing said scarcity creates the incentives for domination and the seeds of failure for any revolution.
It seems in my opinion that we've arrived at two problems which are insurmountable for any form of organization: a stagnant local revolution will always devolve into state capitalism or be destroyed by the combined pressure of internal and external forces.
Where do we turn from here? spontaneous global revolution must be our answer. A revolution resulting from global capitalist crisis. A party, then from its inception, must attempt to channel mass consciousness toward communism rather than nationalist responses to crisis or others through propaganda and support of more advanced portions of the proletariat. The party must be able to coordinate revolutionary efforts internationally and must take control of the MoP and other goods once again to facilitate coordination. Once there remains no power to defend against, and the abundance of goods and production already in existence today is expropriated and brought under the control of a proletarian state, the state will no longer have any incentive to dominate the larger society provided the needs of its members are taken care of and its position is secure and it will rather become a mere administrator of things. Of course goods can be produced and distributed at a local level whenever global coordination is not necessary, but there will always be an organization equipped with the means of communicating and coordinating according to current productive capacity and demand.
Decentralization simply seems like more trouble than its worth. It would lead to coordinational problems as well as fragmentation.
I'm a former anarchist so I am very much open to criticism here as I'm not exactly dead-set on this idea yet.
I know read bordiga is kind of a meme here, but his "fundamental principles of revolutionary communism," as well as "the state and revolution" and this article as well leftcom.org/en/articles/2003-08-01/stalin-and-stalinism seemed pretty helpful to me. It seems to me that we cannot organize our new society around an absence of power as power will always be a fact as long as there is conflict. We must rather organize society around minimizing conflict
I was going to basically going to make some of the same agruments you did but I saw your posts and you did much better than I could've. Interestingly I'm also a Christian and former anarchist moving towards a sort of Leninism I guess.
Yuck, that's disgusting sectarianism. I don't even like Leninists, but turning on your allies with the same vigor with which you turn on your greatest enemies is insane.
Power is power, get fucked, kulak.
:) it's nice to hear that there's still plenty of christcoms on this board
This is the essense of red fascism, class collaboration masked by propaganda and lies removed from workers daily struggle *The belief that the proletariat does not gain class consciousness as a rule and that an organic part of the working class should lead them.
I am not advocating for anarchy. See:
Then learn from their experience the mistakes and move on.
Eh from what i read your position is more of a LeftCommunist Yeb, that what led Lenin to State capitalism phase the NEP, and don't forget the farmers markets in Russia posing an economic problem from within, This dual economies narratives in one nation is what led the party to first propose the idea of "voluntary collectivization" were only few of the weakest farmers joined, and then to sadly Stalin did the act of "forced collectivization" costing many lives, all of that because they couldn't settle down for market socialism for farmers maybe like only prohibiting the use of serfs or employing workers for your farm and only allowing self employment or Co ops. You yourself confirmed this here:
It can only if and only if that region is geographically self sufficient in energy, agriculture, and mineral wealth, But even then it will run into problems if it tried to start socialism in one country. A two folds tactic can be employed here one is the militancy of labor force, the other is forcing the military to participate in labor. Only in this way you can insure the survive of your revolution both from outside forces and from inside revisionism, hell this tactic actually counter revisionism, if the head of the one state party decided to go capitalists, no other power is able to counter his decision. And even if you somehow you abolished capitalist states around you, what stops the party from manufacturing enemies to cling to power justifying it existence?
Here i disagree with you, as pancake man said: "The old labor movement is organized in parties. The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working class; therefore we avoid forming a new party—not because we are too few, but because a party is an organization that aims to lead and control the working class." "the classes are groupings according to economic interests. Class membership is determined by one's part in the process of production; party membership is the joining of persons who agree in their conceptions of the social problems. "
How does it feel to be stupid?
Word play that but reality as its enemy, where is the justice of privatizing only some of the working class and commanding them to lead the rest?
Then answer this:
He is a nice guy but closet leninist, will read the link thx famrade
Yeah, being a capitalist state means you failed
Military might is always in the hands of the state
Whoever has advantage in military might is the state. Contrary to liberal conceits, their little tea-time sinecures have ro inherent right to existence or respect.
Explain the capitalist, imperialist states immediately invading in 1918
but consciousness must be channeled, yes? I mean we could say the rise of right-populism today is the result of a certain consciousness that has mainly affected rural workers and people working in dying industries. The class is divided against itself at the moment. The democrat-republican split has actually divided it pretty effectively in the US. yes that's true. I'm a former anarchist though. I've been moving toward something like the Italian left's position.
I would appreciate if you could clarify what exactly your second point is. I agree that centralization in itself means nothing. the moment the international revolution failed, I argue, Russia was doomed to devolve into a harshly repressive state-capitalist society. Well I'm in favor of an armed working class, but you'd be stuck in a sort of arms race if you simply maintained your borders it seems to me. The capitalist nation would be a lot more effective at these arms races than voluntary militia. It seems to me that the only way the proletarians could properly compete is if the revolutionary wave extended past the borders of one nation. That is, the surrounding capitalist nations would have to be destabilized from within. I suppose my original point is that they would have no incentive to do so. If those within the party feel that their quality of life is relatively secure, they won't vie for power over the proletariat. This is true of individuals whether or not they are in the party. What matters is a degree of well-being and security. I'm gonna read more on him in the future, but this need for power seems to me an issue which cannot be solved by diffusing it and making impotent, decentralized organizations. Only through incentives. So long as people have the incentive to dominate over others, they will look for a way to do so. If they find themselves in an organization that cannot dominate the mass of the proletariat, some other organization will. So long as a revolution does not destroy the whole of capitalist society it will either be dominated from without (due to the impotence and disorganization of its internal structure) or from within (by a dominating class seeking to protect itself from outside forces and reestablish order from within).
Right wing populism is an example of false consciousness. Keep in mind, this is a rule not the exception. There's a reason the vanguard was conceived and why you can find textual support for the idea of a vanguard in Marx and Engels. They were under no utopian notions selling newspapers would lead to revolution.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but the Marxist class analysis observation that the proletariat don't gain class consciousness, merely trade union consciousness is as true today as it was in 1917. Keep fighting it though, I'm sure you'll reach communism in no time :^).
Literally who? The Russian Revolution was in 1917, kid.
You're confusing a very broad movement with Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism.
Kautskyist/Leninist, ftfy. There is no concept of class conciousness in Marx's writing.
wouldn't lead to revolutions of course, but could perhaps influence them in one way or another. What I'm saying is that for a worker when a crisis hits and living gets more difficult they'll think to themselves "something's wrong with society what can I do to make ends meet again/even further improve my quality of life." Agitation and propaganda are not everything. Crisis comes first and is most important above all, but if a crisis comes, it seems entirely possible to me that proles would turn towards solutions other than communism if they seemed more viable or well-known to the workers. Our last crisis seemed to simply turn sectional proletarian interests against each other. At least in the US. The growth of a socialist movement seemed to gain a lot more ground after various political events ("Bernie's tragic fall," Hillary shitting all over the dems and then losing to Trump) which functioned like propaganda. Maybe I'm misreading recent events here, but that's what I saw.
Do you mean this? If so what i mean here is that there will be no need to trade with other nations, but it will reduce itself into north Korea tier isolation to combat imperialism, political reparations and state paranoia will be the order of the day.
Yeah a workers movement is internationalist movement no question, but here you reduce the military to "armies" and that is wrong, the military has a huge in house industrial backup of manufacturing everything from guns to ration, my idea of the second fold of the tactic is that this exclusive industrial base is to be shared with the citizens in times of peace. i claim it will not if you rewrite your military doctrine to suite this valuable huge influx of logistical support either to endure long campaigns or maybe to establish self sufficient behind the enemy lines posts that could last months with no need to resupply etc…
In short bring your army to serve the worker, not the other way around, like in the USSR.
And yet you guys didn't move from the 19/20th century at all. You know it means Marxism_Leninism and all isms that followed ML
You're not a closet Leninist if you openly identify yourself as a Leninist.
No sorry I meant You yourself confirmed this here… I'm not sure if that was an argument against my position or simply clarifying a historical event. Also This is an interesting point actually. do you have any further reading on this or is it more your own idea?
While the term was never "formalized" by Marx, I think Engels introduction of false consciousness establishes it as an already existing dichotomy in Marx's writing. Marx instead, used the term "class for itself". Also, Lenin and Kautsky were both Marxist? They made use of Marx's scientific method.
I know what you meant by this. I think this idea that things must get worse before they get better is destructive for many reasons. It opens up the proletariats' attention to be co-opted by an actual fascist. This is a much more likely scenario than the alternative, which is that the proletariat chooses to back a strong socialist party (if that party were to exist when said crisis hit). What we saw with Bernie was not class consciousness. They proletariat who supported Bernie (mostly white college kids in State notorious for their petty-bourgeois character) were not opposed to "class", they were not aware of their place in societies production process. Rather, this is an excellent example of the "trade union consciousness" the Marxist of antiquity referred to. The idea was to push for minor reforms, to quench short term material self interest.
Oh. That was narration of the Russian revolution by Stephen Kotkin It wasn't against your position.
I read the basics on a book about the desert storm 1991 logistics when i was like 7, it talked about the challenge of Saudi Arabia small industry and how that effected logistics of warfare can't remember the name of the book, but the idea is my own.
Are you the comrade that posted here, and said you lived among the Saudi bourgeoisie for some time?
This tbh. Again, there is nothing wrong with sectarianism.
That movement is called Communalism, now create a reading circle to form the core of a new Communalist organisation in your area.
put the yaoi in the bag
We are all communist, even the anarkiddies, so no state communism need rethinking outside and away from MLism and all 20th century isms from the ground up
RPD " Raccoon City Police Department" is here, DROP YOUR FUCKING GUN ON THE GROUND NOW. plz user~
The fact that they needed to establish a "communist state" make apparent how ideologically retarded these people are.
Says the pancake advocate.
Nice infantile disorder you got there. Next time we'll decentralize and let the Whites and imperial expeditionary forces win. That'll teach 'em.
that's interesting. how exactly do you think class consciousness will come about? if not a crisis or the classic "educate, agitate, organize" meme, what causes it?
2/10 for nice shopping on the meme, but completely dead praxis.
I've never read Pannekoek. But if he pisses all over Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Bordiga) then I will love to read what he has to offer. What do you suggest I start with?
"Theory and Practice: Practice is the beginning and end of the knowledge cycle which moves from initial perception to abstraction to action and reflection. The effort toward unity of theory and practice, praxis, is the test which distinguishes dialectical materialism from other philosophical visions which, finally appeal to faith. Theoretical anti-racism is impossible in the absence of anti-racist practice."
It's possible for a crisis to cause it. I'd say the workers were class conscious during the Russian revolution, hence why the Bolsheviks dominated among the workers during the Constituent Assembly. Honestly, the left needs to ditch nonsense like Black Bloc and Occupy and engage in coherent party politics. I think that's the first step, beyond that I'm as clueless as anyone else. The "meme" is a good plane but nothing is guaranteed.
Isn't "Bolshevism" kinda gone for good.
No Communists today really say "I'm a Neo-Bolshevik" or something.
I'm sure it just means Leninism or Marxism-Leninism