On Marxism-Leninism

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, we already tried having a comedy Stalinist and it was boring.

 

[PTK]

It has been 107 years since the October Revolution when the Bolsheviks took power and eradicated most of the Tsarist government and its resistance from 1917 to 1923. The Bolshevik revolution is widely regarded as an example of a successful form of establishing socialism, in which the vanguard and the masses rebelled against the bourgeois government. In the 20th century, this was a success. However, to do such in the 21st century is very hard as not only the bourgeois have new technology to combat against the proletariat but also the leftism in the West has degraded and many are anti-proletarian leftists (liberals and social democrats) claiming that capitalism can be reformed and that we need a "healthy mix of capitalism and socialism". Marx, Engels, and Lenin warned about these liberal socialists whose aims were against the proletarian interests but sadly, no one wanted to stop the infantile disorder in the West which has resulted in a slew of liberal socialist movements literally calling for the abandoning of proletarian revolution in favor of "reforms".

What are your thoughts on Marxism-Leninism? Should we remind the leftists that only a revolution can truly bring socialism and emancipate the working class?

Here is a quote from Lenin.

"The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of the state in general, is impossible except through the process of “withering away"."

- The State and Revolution — Chapter 1

The ‘infantile disorder’ to which Lenin referred in 1920 was not liberalism or social democracy, it was a tendency within the newly-formed international communist movement.

 

[Yugoslav]

While I agree that only a revolution can truly bring socialism and emancipate the working class... Marxism-Leninism in its various forms has only ever brought, at best, a social democracy that even an old school fabian would have seen as fairly positive. At worst, it has brought the tyranny of the ultra centralised state, the workers' barracks, Taylorism and the brutal party dictatorship over the proletariat. In short, state capitalism.

And even if we are to address these mistakes, we do not just want to abandon Marxism-Leninism. Revisionists like Gorbachov, Deng Xiaoping, Kim Jon Il, and Pol Pot are not to be forgiven and applauded.

 

[Yugoslav]

The ‘infantile disorder’ to which Lenin referred in 1920 was not liberalism or social democracy, it was a tendency within the newly-formed international communist movement.

"The more muddle-headed of the syndicalists and anarchists in the Latincountries may derive “satisfaction” from the fact that solid Germans, whoevidently consider themselves Marxists (by their articles in the above-mentionedpaper K. Erler and K. Horner have shown most plainly that they considerthemselves sound Marxists, but talk incredible nonsense in a most ridiculousmanner and reveal their failure to understand the ABC of Marxism), go tothe length of making utterly inept statements."

- “Left-Wing” Communism in Germany

You sure that it was not an "infantile disorder" that Lenin was worried about? I'm pretty sure that Lenin's Bolsheviks were against liberals and anarchists.

"The Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ Dep aties decided yesterday,November 23, to reject the applica tion of the anarchists for representation onthe Executive Committee and on the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The ExecutiveCommittee itself has given the following reasons for this decision:“(1) Inthe whole of international practice,congresses and socialist conferences havenever included representatives of the anarchists, since they do not recognisethe political struggle as a means for the achievement of theirideals;(2) onlyparties can be represented, and the anarchists are not a party”."

- Lenin: Socialism and Anarchism (1905)

 

[ska invita]

As we discovered on their other thread, they don't properly engage with anything anyone writes.

or reality

 

[PTK]

"The more muddle-headed of the syndicalists and anarchists in the Latincountries may derive “satisfaction” from the fact that solid Germans, whoevidently consider themselves Marxists (by their articles in the above-mentionedpaper K. Erler and K. Horner have shown most plainly that they considerthemselves sound Marxists, but talk incredible nonsense in a most ridiculousmanner and reveal their failure to understand the ABC of Marxism), go tothe length of making utterly inept statements."

- “Left-Wing” Communism in Germany

You sure that it was not an "infantile disorder" that Lenin was worried about? I'm pretty sure that Lenin's Bolsheviks were against liberals and anarchists.

"The Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ Dep aties decided yesterday,November 23, to reject the applica tion of the anarchists for representation onthe Executive Committee and on the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The ExecutiveCommittee itself has given the following reasons for this decision:“(1) Inthe whole of international practice,congresses and socialist conferences havenever included representatives of the anarchists, since they do not recognisethe political struggle as a means for the achievement of theirideals;(2) onlyparties can be represented, and the anarchists are not a party”."

- Lenin: Socialism and Anarchism (1905)

You know not that on which you comment.

 

[PTK]

As we discovered on their other thread, they don't properly engage with anything anyone writes.

How can you engage when you are already promised to another, whose apples are sweeter than oranges?

 

[Yugoslav]

You know not that on which you comment.

You were trying to disprove the fact that Lenin was against liberals and social democrats. Need some more help?

"Opportunism today, as represented by its principal spokesman, the ex-Marxist Karl Kautsky, fits in completely with Marx's characterization of the bourgeois position quoted above, for this opportunism limits recognition of the class struggle to the sphere of bourgeois relations. (Within this sphere, within its framework, not a single educated liberal will refuse to recognize the class struggle "in principle"!) Opportunism does not extend recognition of the class struggle to the cardinal point, to the period of transition from capitalism to communism, of the overthrow and the complete abolition of the bourgeoisie. In reality, this period inevitably is a period of an unprecedently violent class struggle in unprecedentedly acute forms, and, consequently, during this period the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)."

- The State and Revolution — Chapter 2

 

[ska invita]

"Jesus Wept"
-Lenin's Response to Yugoslav: A Commentary

 

[Yugoslav]

"Jesus Wept"

“Left-Wing” Communism in Germany

I'll give you a point for comedy, Comrade.

 

[mojo pixy]

I'm a big fan of mccartney-lennonism

no wait

 

[stethoscope]

Is this Dwyer or Lynch have we yet established?

 

[Pickman's model]

Is this Dwyer or Lynch have we established?

Not Ernie. He was better than this, so much better

 

[PTK]

You were trying to disprove the fact that Lenin was against liberals and social democrats. Need some more help?

"Opportunism today, as represented by its principal spokesman, the ex-Marxist Karl Kautsky, fits in completely with Marx's characterization of the bourgeois position quoted above, for this opportunism limits recognition of the class struggle to the sphere of bourgeois relations. (Within this sphere, within its framework, not a single educated liberal will refuse to recognize the class struggle "in principle"!) Opportunism does not extend recognition of the class struggle to the cardinal point, to the period of transition from capitalism to communism, of the overthrow and the complete abolition of the bourgeoisie. In reality, this period inevitably is a period of an unprecedently violent class struggle in unprecedentedly acute forms, and, consequently, during this period the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)."

- The State and Revolution — Chapter 2

No, that is not what I am trying to disprove. Of course Lenin was opposed to liberalism. Prior to 1917 or 1918, he called himself a social democrat, then he abandoned this term in favour of “communist”, and the term “social democrat” was reserved in his writings for those who wished to reform capitalism rather than overthrow the bourgeois state.

What I am asserting as a fact that the “infantile disorder” to which Lenin referred was neither social democracy nor liberalism, and you would know that if you had read and understood “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder.”

 

[Yugoslav]

No, that is not what I am trying to disprove. Of course Lenin was opposed to liberalism. Prior to 1917 or 1918, he called himself a social democrat, then he abandoned this term in favour of “communist”, and the term “social democrat” was reserved in his writings for those who wished to reform capitalism rather than overthrow the bourgeois state.

What I am asserting as a fact that the “infantile disorder” to which Lenin referred was neither social democracy nor liberalism, and you would know that if you had read and understood “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder.”

The work was written in 1920, pretty much at the time when Lenin was a "communist".

 

[PTK]

The work was written in 1920, pretty much at the time when Lenin was a "communist".

And? Have you a point?

 

[Yugoslav]

And? Have you a point?

The point being that in 1920, Lenin saw both liberals and social democrats as "opportunist". Hence, the "infantile disorder" of the Western Left.

 

[Serge Forward]

And even if we are to address these mistakes, we do not just want to abandon Marxism-Leninism. Revisionists like Gorbachov, Deng Xiaoping, Kim Jon Il, and Pol Pot are not to be forgiven and applauded.

There's the expression, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Marxism Leninism has fooled millions repeatedly over the last hundred or so years. This is possibly one of the greatest crimes in the history of class struggle since the birth of capitalism, and has done more to damage revolutionary socialism in the minds of working people than anything the boss class could have ever dreamt up. On the plus side, M-L now only seems to fool a small number dickheads and cos players on the internet. Capitalism and the state, meanwhile, have a tighter grip than they ever had. We have a world to win, but barely fuck all will ever be won by reformism and parliamentarism on the one hand, and the dead hand of Lenin on the other.

 

[andysays]

And even if we are to address these mistakes, we do not just want to abandon Marxism-Leninism. Revisionists like Gorbachov, Deng Xiaoping, Kim Jon Il, and Pol Pot are not to be forgiven and applauded.

I don't think you'll find many people posting here who forgive and applaud revisionists like Gorbachov, Deng Xiaoping, Kim Jon Il, and Pol Pot.

If you're really seeking to challenge them, you'd be better off on Mumsnet...

 

[Yugoslav]

I don't think you'll find many people posting here who forgive and applaud revisionists like Gorbachov, Deng Xiaoping, Kim Jon Il, and Pol Pot.

If you're really seeking to challenge them, you'd be better off on Mumsnet...

Isn't that a parents website?

 

[danny la rouge]

This is possibly one of the greatest crimes in the history of class struggle since the birth of capitalism, and has done more to damage revolutionary socialism in the minds of working people than anything the boss class could have ever dreamt up.

This is my problem with the continuing presence of M-Ls: the damage they did to the term “communism” that the rest of us have to deal with. It’s a dead weight. Like a toppled Stalin statue tied around our necks.

 

[Yugoslav]

There's the expression, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Marxism Leninism has fooled millions repeatedly over the last hundred or so years. This is possibly one of the greatest crimes in the history of class struggle since the birth of capitalism, and has done more to damage revolutionary socialism in the minds of working people than anything the boss class could have ever dreamt up. On the plus side, M-L now only seems to fool a small number dickheads and cos players on the internet. Capitalism and the state, meanwhile, have a tighter grip than they ever had. We have a world to win, but barely fuck all will ever be won by reformism and parliamentarism on the one hand, and the dead hand of Lenin on the other.

Sounds like the infantile disorder of Western leftism has ruined the chances of a successful revolution in developed nations. But we still have other nations to take on with a workers revolution and build a socialism in the global south.

 

[A380]

The work was written in 1920, pretty much at the time when Lenin was a "communist".

Lenin? A communist?? Who knew???

 

[danny la rouge]

Sounds like the infantile disorder of Western leftism has ruined the chances of a successful revolution in developed nations. But we still have other nations to take on with a workers revolution and build a socialism in the global south.

Oh, here comes the recitation again.

 

[Serge Forward]

"The more muddle-headed of the syndicalists and anarchists in the Latincountries may derive “satisfaction” from the fact that solid Germans, whoevidently consider themselves Marxists (by their articles in the above-mentionedpaper K. Erler and K. Horner have shown most plainly that they considerthemselves sound Marxists, but talk incredible nonsense in a most ridiculousmanner and reveal their failure to understand the ABC of Marxism), go tothe length of making utterly inept statements."

- “Left-Wing” Communism in Germany

You sure that it was not an "infantile disorder" that Lenin was worried about? I'm pretty sure that Lenin's Bolsheviks were against liberals and anarchists.

"The Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ Dep aties decided yesterday,November 23, to reject the applica tion of the anarchists for representation onthe Executive Committee and on the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The ExecutiveCommittee itself has given the following reasons for this decision:“(1) Inthe whole of international practice,congresses and socialist conferences havenever included representatives of the anarchists, since they do not recognisethe political struggle as a means for the achievement of theirideals;(2) onlyparties can be represented, and the anarchists are not a party”."

- Lenin: Socialism and Anarchism (1905)

You might want to read the reply. Open Letter to Comrade Lenin

Gorter's mistake here was that he was still trying to build bridges with "comrade" Lenin. Anyway, I'm sure it'll all be water off a duck's back with you.

 

[Yugoslav]

Oh, here comes the recitation again.

"The only thing that does occur to the opportunist is what he sees around him, in an environment of petty-bourgeois philistinism and “reformists” stagnation, namely, only “municipalities”! The opportunist has even grown out of the habit of thinking about proletarian revolution."

- The State and Revolution - Chapter 3

 

[danny la rouge]

 

[ska invita]

Sounds like the infantile disorder of Western leftism has ruined the chances of a successful revolution in developed nations. But we still have other nations to take on with a workers revolution and build a socialism in the global south.

The scale of poverty in India, the scale of general strikes, the size of the ML left and the far right government that actually wins elections is a really interesting case study < I wish there was more writing about it

 

[PTK]

The point being that in 1920, Lenin saw both liberals and social democrats as "opportunist". Hence, the "infantile disorder" of the Western Left.

You are a fool

 

[Yugoslav]

You might want to read the reply. Open Letter to Comrade Lenin

Gorter's mistake here was that he was still trying to build bridges with "comrade" Lenin. Anyway, I'm sure it'll all be water off a duck's back with you.

"You should not do this, Comrade. We are only in the introductory stage yet, here in Western Europe."

- Open Letter to Comrade Lenin

100 years later
"Today this traditional paradigm, by varying degrees, has fractured or even collapsed in nearly every Western country as political parties of the left become enablers of the new economic order we call “globalization.”"

- https://thehill.com/opinion/finance...bandoned-the-working-class-for-globalization/