Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

theblackcat wrote (edited )

Didn't Lenin kill all the anarchists and anyone that wanted actual (stateless) communism?

4

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Awfully simplified and simplistic statement and ill show you why.

ill preface this with I'm not a 'tankie' or Stalinist or 'genocide supporter' like one extremely simplistic and reductive moron has called me.

Short story: Anarchist thesis, analysis of Russias material conditions after the October revolution was fucking idiotic.

Don't believe me?

Long story:

The anarchists supported the bolsheviks in an uneasy alliance for the Oct revolution. In 1918 they split from the bolsheviks as they realise the bolsheviks aren't making stateless communism but a one party state.

Right: Why did the bolsheviks consolidate power? A collection of reasons being the White Army was conducting pogroms of jews and minorities, was backed by the capitalist nations and most importantly 14 countries have invaded russia for the next 4 years.

The Red Army over the course of the next four years is killing its way to victory (the alternative is to lay down and die for the white army). World war 1 starting in 1914 has now gone on for four years and ended.

The German revolution is bitterly crushed in 1918 with all the socialists, communists and anarchists murdered. The Bolsheviks are coming to the realisation that the international, at least european revolution, is not happening. The Irish rebellion is crushed the same year.

Despite these material conditions the anarchists are still calling for stateless commnism. They form a terror group called the black guard and are unsurprisingly put down.

Now, let us assume the bolsheviks had taken the anarchist position in 1918 and demanded stateless communism like the anarchists and lets go through a bit of history.

With 14 capitalist nations on ussr soil the anarchists and bolsheviks are wiped out. The revolution becomes something for anarchists to wax poetical about now its failed and everyones dead and capitalism is restored.

Lets say, a fictional but best case scenarios, that the 14 capitalist nations decide not to kill the red army and believe a 'peaceful coexistence' between cpaitalism and soviet anarchism/communism can exist.

They all go home and people form their own slow moving communes and Russians have achieved stateless commnism.

From the day the capitalist nations were expelled by the red army say, 1922, the USSR now has 16 years before the rise of fascism sees a Hitler in power invading the soviet union with the literal plan of exterminating the slavic race and settling the ussr with Germanic peoples. To quote the head of the SS the slavs should only three things, how to count to 10, who their master is (the german race) and I forget the third one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Have a read there.

Alternatively Stalin says in 1931 "we have to industrialise and achieve what the capitalist nations achieved in 50-100 years or we're finished". And lo and behold in 7 years the nazis are invading with plans to exterminate the slavic race.

Not only is anarchism a bad ideology: In this instance it would've cost the world the entirety of the slavic race. Russia now would be a german province with slavs living like native canadians/native Americans. A minority, probably getting tax cuts like native canadians/americans as an apology for wiping out their race whilst the remaining slavs live on reservations huffing petrol.

7/8 nazis were killed on the eastern front by the red army. Without a consolidated USSR its likely the nazis control the rest of europe for the entire of the 20th century.

I think not only was anarchist theory and analysis so fucking bad in 1918 when the german and irish revolutions had bitterly failed, their praxis was down right dangerous. The fact the anarchists terror group the "black guards" was put down is hardly surprising.

I don't like to say it cos Stalin was an evil ruthless shite but rather Stalin and his police state than an extermination of the slavs and unchecked nazi expansion

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

6

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

so basically, "anarchists existed so they deserved it"?

Na they started a terror group called the black guards trying to overthrow the soviets in the first year of a 4 year long civil war against the white army and 14 countries armies so they deserved it.

and basically, "nazis existed so we needed to commit genocide and be authoritarian"?

Here again with your non existent understanding of materialism and americentric view. I'm saying 8 years of war will make any country on earth authoritarian. They were a product of their material conditions.

so stalin is ok because he was "better" than nazis?

Are you a child? Do you view every topic in absolute black and white? Read what I wrote again and you'll have my opinion.

-2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

7

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

If you cant read for comprehension I cant help you. I suggest you buy a book on 'reading for comprehension' because everytime you reply you go

are you saying X because you said Y?

Its embarrassing.

You said that stalin was better than the nazis.

I'm absolutely saying Stalin was better than the Nazis. And before you go "does that mean u love genocide/stalin": No that doesn't mean I love stalinism or stalin or genocide

-1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

7

SpiritOfTito wrote

What makes you so different from stalin, you want to murder anarchsits in a non-authoritarian way

No,no. No I wouldn't.

Theres that reading for comprehension again.

I will have to assume you're a troll at this point. Either a troll or a moron. Either way I'd rather not interact with you further so have a nice weekend and maybe consider picking up a book at the library on learning to read for comprehension (its a brilliant skill which will honestly have you ensuring you've understood what someones written/said so you're not repeating back to people words you'd like to put in their mouths. Its also invaluable frankly when following instructions for building/creating/tinkering).

-3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

7

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Last message to you then frankly you're on your own. Reading for comprehension really is beyond you eh?

No, they share the same goals as communists

Just their theory and praxis is shit and if they'd be in power (like I've already explained) in 1918 the ussr would've been overrun and everyone murdered much like Catalonia 10 years later and forty years of fascism under Franco.

I consider non existent theory, their refusal to accept material conditions (IE. They can just have stateless, self directed communities whilst the rest of the globe is capitalist). Much like Lenin outlines.

Their utopianism is why every anarchist society is brutally crushed and the people suffer the yoke of fascism: Much like catalonia

5

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

I'll start with the below quotes from toward the end.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook. { Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1] Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.

Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism. (Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

The much loved and revered Chomsky (and he should be loved for his anti imperialist works) has a video where, quite typically in the anarchist tradition to praise every revolution but the successful ones, shits on the soviet union in what is a classic example of subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation politics.

"Lenin was a right wing fascist"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUNNSMQwTc

In the video Chomsky gets raked over the coals by a lady pointing out he does a huge disservice to history by equating Leninism to Stalinism at which point Chomsky quite eloquently goes on to rewrite history.

In this rewrite he insists that Lenin was a right wing deviation of Marxism and that he was part of this radical intelligentsia to "whip up the masses" and "seize absolute power".

In this seizure of power and someone of Lenins intellect this path would make him take the least resistance by being thrown out of university at 20 for socialist agitation, persecuted by the police, a brother hanged by the Czar for attempted assassination of the Czar, deported to Siberia and to take sides again and again with the groups of people in society who held no power in the Tzarist autocratic state.

To make himself and his entire country upon coming to power the sworn enemy of the advanced capitalist nations which were easily the most powerful in 1917: Western europe, north america and Japan (14 countries which invaded the ussr in 1917 and didn't leave until 1922).

To put himself at odds with every landlord, bourgeois intellectual and white army that wanted to restore capitalism that had the backing of the said 14 nations that invaded post world war 1 and make the alliance with peasants and workers, literally the least powerful people in the country to come to power.

During the horrific events of world war 1, the bolsheviks being (being the right wing deviation) the only party to promise the end of the Russias involvement in world war 1 had a huge influx of supporters.

This influc came about because the socialists that came to power in the February revolution continued world war 1 and even attempted the failed 'June offensive' which was essentially a huge push to try and win the war for Russia which failed miserably with loads of sorry bastards dying in trenches for bourgeois interests (remember, fhe Menshiviks were the left wing marxists).

The influx of support came to the bolsheviks came as a response for the government to end the war.

During this time he would write books, pamphlets and thesis in which he would describe in great detail the exact opposite of what he wanted, which was to cheat all the russian gullible idiots into giving him the power he craved.

One would imagine that if that was all he wanted he might as well just have finished his degree, got himself a job at some University, and join one of the many respectable organizations that advocated for reform but without antagonizing the existing structures too much and without having to go underground risking his life. He could even write a column for a prestigious newspaper condemning other revolutionaries for being too ruthless and only wanting power. With time the Tzar would probably have fallen or allowed a constitutional monarchy to exist, and surely an influential and smart fellow like him would have had access to an important and powerful position somewhere. Seems like the sane thing to do when you only want power for power's sake, no? It is, in fact, what fucking everybody who only wants power always does. It is fact what plenty of people in Russia did, people that Lenin and other actual socialists had to fight to death to obtain things like the end of world war or the land for the peasants (you know, not just power for themselves).

And, fwiw, Chomsky in fact is writing this years after having comfortably finished his degree, from his nice position at MIT (which receives tons of money from a building with five sides), and writing columns for the goddamn New York Times. I'll take any day someone that actually tried to fight and build a better society in his time, with all the mistakes and tragedies that revolutions always bring, over someone like Chomsky that will forever criticize any revolution that actually won because the people involved could not construct their socialism with dreams but with what reality gave them.

And that in the end is why Anarchism is a subordination to bourgeois politics by taking the position of negation of politics. If you read any anarchist ideas they profoundly rebuke the revolutions that succeeded while being attacked repeatedly by capitalist nations so they can take the intellectual armchair position of the beautiful soul.

Also Michael Parentis rebuke of him is absolutely brilliant

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1w0dtm/michael_parenti_another_view_of_chomsky/

Now to close : I'd never say that Lenin, Trotsky or the bolsheviks never made any mistakes. There are a few examples where they were just plain wrong in their decision making. Saying that this anarchist rewrite of every revolution that succeeds that isn't utopia divorces historical reality to an idealised set of conditions. Trump is currently president of the USA as a result of the US economy only growing by 1-2 percent over the last decade. During world war 2 Britain suspended democracy because of the war.

Russia in 1917 had just gone through a brutal world war and immediately on coming to power found themselves invaded by the usa, Germany, Czechia, Japan and France and the rest of the european nations that made up the 14 countries that invaded. I am under no illusion democracy would be suspended (let alone attempting to build socialism) in my country should 14 nations invade. And thats why Chomsky in this specific clip (and anarchists in general) typically divorce whatever revolution they're discussing (except the ones that failed) from their material and historical conditions, perhaps preferring their ideas are never tested so as to remain pure.

Chomskys position here is to take the side of the actual right wing Mensheviks of the time, while they can at least excuse their mistakes for not having the benefit of hindsight.

Its why he has been American leading intellectual for deacades: He represents a comfortable Americentric view of the world that doesn't threaten the bourgeois. He also represents the "despair" in anarchism Lenin alludes to for he never outlines his positions or stances beyond the utmost opague, vague and utterances of brevity when challenged on an alternative society, while fervently denouncing those that have changed the world.

6

zod wrote

The thing about Chomsky is he's old and comfortable in relative wealth and fame. He's unable to embrace the kind of action it would take to topple the system, because he's never really suffered under the system. Few radicals look to him for any kind of revolutionary inspiration.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

I just picked one example in a sea of many examples of the anarchist tradition of the malaise within anarchism Lenin identified at the time

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

This is my first time reading Lenin and I am not impressed :) I hope this is mostly because I don't know much about the historical context. I'm glad of the opportunity though and I will read some comments here.

6

SpiritOfTito wrote

Thats a crying shame. This is essentially a small musing from him long before he had fully developed his ideas. I'm upset your first reading of Lenin is this!

I submitted this as its pretty obscure and I had assumed people on f/communism would've already read his major works.

I would recommend Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism which is incredible.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

The guy loved to troll actual revolutionaries, making sure his adoring followers would shame them into submission (if he didn't gulag them first).

4

sudo wrote

Lenin hit the nail right on the head. I'd also add this section of State and Revolution.

3

ziq wrote

Are you looking for anarchists to contribute to this discussion, or just Marxists?

2

SpiritOfTito wrote

Its open to absolutely anyone. I expect anarchists as this site is mostly anarchists.

I must confess (what with the heavy anarchist prescence here) this is a friendly poke in the chest ;)

3

Gustavflowbert wrote

I'm going to attempt to continue a discussion here, as the responses to your comment succinctly presenting your beliefs viz. Anarchy seemed far too toxic.

I agree that prominent anarchists (rightly) do not look favourably upon the Bolsheviks, without taking to account the historical context that demanded certain sacrifices be made. But leaving mother Russia for a second, do you think that the means of the revolution can not, or should not, reflect the ends? Or do you believe that a socialist society should remain hierarchical?

2

Defasher wrote

As a postleftist, I think ancommunism and Leninism are both naive. Humans are much too diverse to be moulded into a singular collective the way communism demands.

4

Chomskyist wrote (edited )

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason you don't like the idea of collectivism is because you've been burned so much by liberal society and that's made you antisocial? Things would be different in a communist society where people aren't oppressed for being different.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

Yeah? Tell that to all the queers and anarchists sent to the gulags by Soviets to be worked to death for daring to not meet up to dear leader's ideals.

3

Chomskyist wrote

But the USSR isn't a good example of communism, they didn't even manage to abolish money. It's not fair to label the USSR as communist when it was just another authoritarian state that empowered a different set of rulers than the previous one.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

While I completely agree with your critique of the USSR, it doesn't do anything to prove that stateless communism would be any better. It would still marginalise the individual in favour of the collective. That's just how people are, they join a clique and then dig in and shun anyone outside it. Under anarcho-communism, the "good of the collective" would be a lot like our current "democracy for the majority" i.e. the needs of minorities or people that choose to go at it alone would be ignored.

If the ancom community decides they want to mine the woods and I live alone in those woods, I'm gonna be fucked.

4

sudo wrote

They don't demand that people be molded into a single collective. Individualism would still exist, and it would even flourish under communism.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

The USSR proves that's bunk.

The same goes for a lot of currents inside anarchism like anarcho-transhumanism, which would turn the world into nothing but megacities and wilderness areas where humans are banned.

Communism fails to understand basic human nature.

5

23i wrote

Communism fails to understand basic human nature.

well, failing to understand something that doesn't exist isn't that much of a problem.

3

Defasher wrote

My point was that human nature = humans are incredibly diverse and can't be all put in the same collectivist box. It forces us to rebel.

2

sudo wrote

The USSR proves that's bunk.

How?

The same goes for a lot of currents inside anarchism like anarcho-transhumanism, which would turn the world into nothing but megacities and wilderness areas where humans are banned.

Well, I'm not an anarcho-transhumanist, so I don't advocate for that.

Communism fails to understand basic human nature.

Are you sure you're not a liberal?

4

Defasher wrote

How?

Queers and anarchists being sent to gulags to be worked to death for dissenting.

Are you sure you're not a liberal?

Not being a communist doesn't make one a liberal. I'm a recovered communist who has realised that communism doesn't go far enough to fix our insurmountable problems.

1

ShapesInMist wrote

Postleftist. Is this site for left liberals or some shit? Cos Reading this thread is a fucking joke.

3

Defasher wrote

Post-left anarchists aren't left liberals. There's no such thing as a left liberal.

-1

ShapesInMist wrote

Serious question? Is this a site for liberals?

I usually don't bother to comment but this thread is reeking with liberalism.

4

Defasher wrote

If that's what it takes to get smug bastards like you to fuck off, sure.

-1

ShapesInMist wrote

Postleftist? Sure you're not a liberal?

5

Defasher wrote (edited )

I've never said this before, but open a fucking book. Marx isn't a god and the world needs a lot more than one dead white bloke's theories to survive the coming ecological collapse.

Why are you lot always so obsessed with one guy so much to even identify as (guy's name)ists? It's creepy. There are tons of revolutionaries, and all of them are just people. No better than you or me.

2

ShapesInMist wrote

Apologies man didn't mean to ruin your day.

You think your thoughts and I'll respect that. Take care. Cheers

-2

Chomskyist wrote

Isn't Lenin a huge tankie though?

3

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

This....doesn't make sense.

A tankie is a communist that supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary by saying "roll the tanks in!" to crush the revolution occuring.

Even if you're using it in its other sense (IE. A stalinist) Stalin doesn't come to power until after Lenins death.

And even if you were referring to Lenin as a stalinist this is again, wrong, because Lenin wrote on his death bed not to let Stalin near too much power and not to let him into leadership.

In short, what are you talking about?

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Lenin brutally destroyed any anti-capitalist idea or group not under the direct control of the Bolshevik vanguard party.

"Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" shows how absolutely petty, egotistical and totalitarian he was, and the way he crushed the Kronstadt rebellion demonstrates his flawed politics in action.

He was the creator of a form of state capitalism, NOT communism. His spearheading of the rapid industrialisation of Russia fucked over so many people that didn't want to spend their lives toiling in factories.

His insistence that the vanguard party was the end-all be-all revolution that could never be challenged, his treatment of any competing revolutionary factions as counter-revolutionaries that needed to be put to death, his secret police force who imprisoned and / or executed these anti-vanguard dissidents...

The guy was a proto dictator, pure and simple. He created the conditions that allowed Stalin to take power.

4

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Have you actually read Left wing communism : An infantile disorder?

In it he chides left communists that were refusing to take part in bourgeois elections as well as refusing to work within existing trade unions?

He was right of course. Cutting off working where the bulk of workers are (bourgeois parties/bourgeois trade unions) just leaves those instruments open.

Left wing communism was a fantastic pamphlet. I fail to see whats petty about it

1

Defasher wrote

He might have made some good points, but that doesn't make every point he makes right. That's what you MLs miss when you name yourselves after your idols. Humans are flawed and treating their words like gospel creates disaster.

0

ziq wrote

I appreciate Lenin's writing, even if his political accomplishments didn't ultimately match up to his ideas.

Glorifying Stalin is a bad trip and only serves to undermine the left, but being a proponent of Lenin's written work is logical I think. Even a lot of die-hard Marxists like leftcoms embrace much of Lenin's works.