Are you a marxist but not a member of a marxist organisation?

[The39thStep]

The Bolsheviks were opposed on a mass scale. They just happened to have won. They were opposed by the Government which they overthrew, naturally, and also by supporters of the Tsarist regime, landowners, the Church etc. But also by many on the left. Some anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported them at first, but later were purged or changed their minds. There were widespread revolts by Left SR's, Mensheviks, anarchists, 'Green' movements , Kronstadt rebels etc. The Bolsheviks inherited much of the apparatus of the state, including much of the army, so that gave them a great advantage. They were also very lucky. Their opponents were divided and weak.

Another thing which gets overlooked. Half the population were not ethnically Russian and became subjects of the Russian empire by conquest and subjugation. Most of them resented their Russian overlords, Tsarist or Bolshevik, in the same way that colonised peoples do the world over. Again, they were in no way any kind of coherent movement, nor could they be. That didn't stop widespread ethnic or religious anti-Bolshevik and anti-Russian activity for decades.

So on one hand they ‘just happened to have won’ or on the other hand they won because their opponents were divided ( worth exploring in itself as to why you think that was) and they ‘inherited’ the state army apparatus ( ie they had politically won over large sections of the army and navy) and had support in the soviets .

I’m not a great fan of how the revolution turned out but I think we need an honest appraisal as to why the Bolsheviks led the revolution and not the greens, anarchists , Mensheviks etc and why these forces were unable to pursue a second revolution .

 

[Pickman's model]

Why were the anarchist methods insufficient to overcome the stalinists? Why will this be any different in the future? If you cant beat the stalinists, how are you gonna beat the bourgeoisie? Yes, the Stalinists were and are viciously oppressive, but so were the Tsarists.

Sorry, but 'the big boys didn't let us' isn't really much of an answer.

The Bolsheviks were opposed on a mass scale. They just happened to have won. They were opposed by the Government which they overthrew, naturally, and also by supporters of the Tsarist regime, landowners, the Church etc. But also by many on the left. Some anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported them at first, but later were purged or changed their minds. There were widespread revolts by Left SR's, Mensheviks, anarchists, 'Green' movements , Kronstadt rebels etc. The Bolsheviks inherited much of the apparatus of the state, including much of the army, so that gave them a great advantage. They were also very lucky. Their opponents were divided and weak.

Another thing which gets overlooked. Half the population were not ethnically Russian and became subjects of the Russian empire by conquest and subjugation. Most of them resented their Russian overlords, Tsarist or Bolshevik, in the same way that colonised peoples do the world over. Again, they were in no way any kind of coherent movement, nor could they be. That didn't stop widespread ethnic or religious anti-Bolshevik and anti-Russian activity for decades.

and then the stalinists killed all the auld bolsheviks. and quite a few stalinists too.

 

[Pickman's model]

So on one hand they ‘just happened to have won’ or on the other hand they won because their opponents were divided ( worth exploring in itself as to why you think that was) and they ‘inherited’ the state army apparatus ( ie they had politically won over large sections of the army and navy) and had support in the soviets .

I’m not a great fan of how the revolution turned out but I think we need an honest appraisal as to why the Bolsheviks led the revolution and not the greens, anarchists , Mensheviks etc and why these forces were unable to pursue a second revolution .

shurely third revolution, feb being 1 and nov being 2

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

So on one hand they ‘just happened to have won’ or on the other hand they won because their opponents were divided ( worth exploring in itself as to why you think that was) and they ‘inherited’ the state army apparatus ( ie they had politically won over large sections of the army and navy) and had support in the soviets .

I’m not a great fan of how the revolution turned out but I think we need an honest appraisal as to why the Bolsheviks led the revolution and not the greens, anarchists , Mensheviks etc and why these forces were unable to pursue a second revolution .

The most fundamental reason was that the Bolsheviks were against the war. So were the vast majority of the population, so that gave them their immediate support. Once they had that they proceeded to destroy their opponents and their erstwhile allies. The opposition was fragmented for a whole heap of reasons, not least being ethnic and geographical diversity. The SR's were initially divided by attitudes to the war, the anarchists were numerically weak outside the Ukraine and at first few appreciated just how ruthless the Bolsheviks could be. And they were lucky. Luck plays a much bigger part in history than we often think.

 

[Peter Painter]

And that is something Spanish anarchists could probably discuss till the cows come home... and still not have a definite answer.

Ha, yes, well, counter-factual speculation and all that!

Although I'm sure I once heard Paul Preston say that had the Spanish Republic survived the entire Second World War could have been averted.

I'm unsure if he'd still think that or not if you replaced, "Spanish Republic survived" with "social revolution been successful"...?

 

[Serge Forward]

Oooh... and there lies a grand idea for a Philip K Dick style alternative history

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I can only speak for the SPEW because that's the only one I'm involved in

I knew you were Trot. Thankyou for finally admitting it.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Anarchism has yeilded fuck all for example

What were you saying about people posting in bad faith?

It is not true that the anarchists achieved 'fuck all'. You only have to look at the collectives during, say, the Spanish revolution, to know that they had some success. And that's just one example.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

The Leninist vanguard party is based on the idea that the working class, by itself, can only ever achieve trade union consciousness at best. So the role of the vanguard party is to shepherd the proles towards their party, and once in the party and under the firm guidance and discipline of the vanguard party's fully class conscious and infallible leadership, then the workers will be led to the promised land.

It's role is not to spread class consciousness but loyalty to a party that has substituted itself for the class.

A good post Serge. Shame it was completely ignored and not replied to by glitch hiker. Not the first time that's happened either.

 

[glitch hiker]

Yes, the main reason it failed is because it's something to do with the nature of bolshevism/marxist lenininsm/state socialism (state capitalism).

As for the other aproaches (i.e. anarchism that "yielded fuck all"), when such alternatives were in with a chancethey tended to get crushed by bolsheviks. For examples, see here Voline, The Unknown Revolution, here The Cuban Revolution, here The dossier of subject no.1218 : a Bulgarian anarchist’s story by Alexander Nakov [Review], here Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution and here Homage to Catalonia and many more.

Oh and check out Jessiedog's regular posts for updates on what the seriously fucked up CCP are up to in Hong Kong.

No marxist I know advocates for that kind of behaviour.

I can't speak to those other events but anarchists always bring up Kronstadt as an example of oppression, but I'm not convinced by that either

 

[glitch hiker]

What were you saying about people posting in bad faith?

It is not true that the anarchists achieved 'fuck all'. You only have to look at the collectives during, say, the Spanish revolution, to know that they had some success. And that's just one example.

I have a lot of time for anarchism, but if we're criticising MLism for not delivering the goods then surely all other ideas have to equally scrutinised no?

Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.

 

[Pickman's model]

I have a lot of time for anarchism, but if we're criticising MLism for not delivering the goods then surely all other ideas have to equally scrutinised no?

no

 

[Pickman's model]

No marxist I know advocates for that kind of behaviour.

I can't speak to those other events but anarchists always bring up Kronstadt as an example of oppression, but I'm not convinced by that either

no anarchists don't always being up kronstadt as an example of oppression

 

[Serge Forward]

No marxist I know advocates for that kind of behaviour.

I can't speak to those other events but anarchists always bring up Kronstadt as an example of oppression, but I'm not convinced by that either

Do you know any Marxist Leninists whose vanguard party has achieved political power? If not, then you're answer is no surprise. Ask a "Marxist" who has been in such a position and you'll be amazed what they'll justify.

By the way, your dismissal of Kronstadt tells me all I need to know.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.

Success at creating a brutal totalitarian police state, yes.

Here is some material to back up what I was saying about the Spanish anarchists:

With the Peasants of Aragon

Augustin Souchy With the Peasants of Aragon Libertarian Communism in the Liberated Areas 1982 With the Peasants of Aragon: Libertarian Communism in the...

theanarchistlibrary.org

Collectives in the Spanish revolution - Gaston Leval

Detailed account of worker-controlled agriculture, industry and public services in revolutionary Spain during the civil war.

libcom.org

I also posted the documentary Living Utopia in the anarchist and breadtube videos thread the other day, it's worth checking out.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I have a lot of time for anarchism

I'm not convinced you do. You seem to be saying that we are liars, aswell as people who have achieved "fuck all".

You have just come across as sectarian and dogmatic so far.

 

[belboid]

Success at creating a brutal totalitarian police state, yes.

Here is some material to back up what I was saying about the Spanish anarchists:

With the Peasants of Aragon

Augustin Souchy With the Peasants of Aragon Libertarian Communism in the Liberated Areas 1982 With the Peasants of Aragon: Libertarian Communism in the...

theanarchistlibrary.org

Collectives in the Spanish revolution - Gaston Leval

Detailed account of worker-controlled agriculture, industry and public services in revolutionary Spain during the civil war.

libcom.org

I also posted the documentary Living Utopia in the anarchist and breadtube videos thread, it's worth checking out.

they lost. They allied with the bourgeoisie (as did the rest, of course) and ended up supporting a bourgeoise led coup in Madrid. Some nice ideas and a very short-term success. If that's the best you can come up with, it is grossly insufficient.

 

[glitch hiker]

I'm not convinced you do. You seem to be saying that we are liars, aswell as people who have achieved "fuck all".

You have just come across as sectarian and dogmatic so far.

Can I take my hand out of the box now?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I have a lot of time for anarchism, but if we're criticising MLism for not delivering the goods then surely all other ideas have to equally scrutinised no?

Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.

Some movements fail because they get squashed. Marxist Leninists so often failed because they ended up becoming the exact opposite (more or less) of what they purported to believe in.

As for Lenin, he only ever became special in retrospect because when he died his followers, and Trotsky's as well, could blame it all on Stalin.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Can I take my hand out of the box now?

I have no idea what that means

 

[AmateurAgitator]

they lost. They allied with the bourgeoisie (as did the rest, of course) and ended up supporting a bourgeoise led coup in Madrid. Some nice ideas and a very short-term success. If that's the best you can come up with, it is grossly insufficient.

I am aware that they lost, which is stating the obvious. I think some of them did effectively side with the bourgeoisie. I think the spanish anarchists were probably divided into factions of moderates (who merged with the state side and effectively abandoned the revolution) and militants (who were truly anti-state and wanted to take the revolution further). But that doesn't mean it was a total failure, that there was no achievements in anarchist liberated areas. And it doesn't mean that we can't learn from past mistakes.

But atleast we were not brutal, cynical totalitarians like the Leninists (wether trots or stalinists).

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

no anarchists don't always being up kronstadt as an example of oppression

Not every day, no.

 

[belboid]

I am aware that they lost, which is stating the obvious. I think some of them did effectively side with the bourgeoisie. I think the spanish anarchists were probably divided into factions of moderates and militants. But that doesn't mean it was a total failure, that there was no achievements in anarchist liberated areas. And it doesn't mean that we can't learn from past mistakes.

But atleast we were not brutal, cynical totalitarians like the Leninists.

No, instead you are failures.

The anarchists dumped their principles in Spain, they helped run a state despite opposing all states, the left wing communists in Germany had the majority of the party members for a short while after their split, but rapidly collapsed almost straight afterwards. What's the point of a political philosophy that you can never implement?

I dont see any learning here, just the same old repeat what we always did, same as far too many trots and tankies try to do.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

No, instead you are failures.

The anarchists dumped their principles in Spain, they helped run a state despite opposing all states, the left wing communists in Germany had the majority of the party members for a short while after their split, but rapidly collapsed almost straight afterwards. What's the point of a political philosophy that you can never implement?

I dont see any learning here, just the same old repeat what we always did, same as far too many trots and tankies try to do.

'The anarchists' joining the state is an inaccurate generalisation. As I posted, and that you completely ignored, some anarchists sided with the state - and others stayed true to revolutionary anarchist principles.

And, as I also said, and that you totally refused to acknowledge, the anarchists did manage to successfully implement an egalitarian collectivism (which is detailed in those links I posted).

Fucking hell it's annoying having to repeat myself like that. I think I know exactly how Danny La Rouge feels now. You trots just come across as blind dogmatists and sectarians who just listen to yourselves and no one else. There's no point in having an 'exchange' with you. It's not an exchange, it's a frustrating waste of fucking time.

 

[belboid]

Anyway....Marxism isn't just bloody Stalinism, so no good reason to get stuck on that. I have little doubt the man himself would have rejected their claims to be followers of his ideas.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Anyway....Marxism isn't just bloody Stalinism, so no good reason to get stuck on that. I have little doubt the man himself would have rejected their claims to be followers of his ideas.

Seriously you might aswell just have a 'conversation' with yourself. It's effectively what you are doing anyway.

 

[belboid]

'The anarchists' joining the state is an inaccurate generalisation. As I posted, and that you completely ignored, some anarchists sided with the state - and others stayed true to revolutionary anarchist principles.

And, as I also said, and that you totally refused to acknowledge, the anarchists did manage to successfully implement an egalitarian collectivism (which is detailed in those links I posted).

Fucking hell it's annoying having to repeat myself like that. I think I know exactly how Danny La Rouge feels now. You trots just come across as blind dogmatists and sectarians who just listen to yourselves and no one else. There's no point in having an 'exchange' with you. It's not an exchange, it's a frustrating waste of fucking time.

Good thing no anarchist ever repeats the same old points time and time again!

The six to nine months of the Aragon collective were matched by various other parties in other regions, so they dont really show anarchism as being a superior way of making revolution, do they?

Which anarchists are you saying remained 'true to anarchist principles'? Why were they able to do so when the others didn't? What did they achieve?

Because results are what matter. There's little point staying 100% true to your principles if they just get you shot and leave the class under fascism.

 

[belboid]

Seriously you might aswell just have a 'conversation' with yourself. It's effectively what you are doing anyway.

well, I'm certainly not getting any coherent responses from you

 

[belboid]

(fact is, we've all done these discussions dozens of times and can pretty much predict the next move, just like in chess. So, yes, they can be quite boring when we all just respond to the Lenin Gambit with the Spanish Gambit (Aragon variation). Sorry if you think you are saying something bold and new, you're not. And, no, I know I'm not either.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Good thing no anarchist ever repeats the same old points time and time again!

The six to nine months of the Aragon collective were matched by various other parties in other regions, so they dont really show anarchism as being a superior way of making revolution, do they?

Which anarchists are you saying remained 'true to anarchist principles'? Why were they able to do so when the others didn't? What did they achieve?

Because results are what matter. There's little point staying 100% true to your principles if they just get you shot and leave the class under fascism.

Indeed. Or leave the class under autocratic state capitalism.