Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist adventures at Marxism 2001

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2001 @ 12:11 AM CDT

The above link to the PDF pamphlett was broken because it included the end bracked in the link address. Here is what it should have been:

http://struggle.ws/pdf/alternative_lenin01.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2001 @ 05:48 AM CDT

How inapt a name \"Marxism 2001\"...

I find it very intersting that the SWP call their event \"Marxism\" as I feel that Marx, more than anyone (OK maybe not anyone), realised that the State was actually a an articficial body that represented a society that was separated and alienated. The \"dictatorship of the proletariat\" means dicatorship be the WHOLE of the proletariat i.e. THE COUNCILS. Marx never mentioned the role of the party, let alone the centralised beauraucracy that is the SWP. This is not just an argument between anarchists and \"Marxists\", but an argument between psuedo-Marxists (SWP) and Marxists (in the Council Communist tradition).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 15 2001 @ 09:04 AM CDT

Just to raise the point that Marx talked
about \"socialist governments\" coming to
power -- hardly a \"dictatorship\" of the
whole class if there is a government...

also, of course, when Marx was writting
(and he admitted this himself) the
proletariat was a minority of the working
people in every country in the world, bar
the UK. He was advocating the dictatorship
of a minority of the population -- which
was part of Bakunin\'s criquite of the
concept.

But, yes, the SWP\'s use of \"Marxism\" is
wrong, as many libertarian marxists reject
the Leninist scheme of party power. I\'m
sure they, like Lenin, consider such
marxists as having an anarchist deviation...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 15 2001 @ 02:24 PM CDT

Personally, I believe that attacking Marx, Lenin and/or Trotsky is ...well... pointless. I\'m not a Trotskyist, nor do I agree with everthing he, Lenin or Marx said. Mainly the subject of the vanguard. However, most of what they said, I can agree with. Many people mistake what Lenin said as that the government would be something of Democratic Centralism. This view is simply incorrect. When people reger to Leninism, they are usually thinking of Maoism. Mao and the RCP are the Democratic Centralists that are so commonly thought of as Leninists. Lenin led a very powerful struggle against the Soviet burrecracy, as I could logically assume Trotsky, Lenin\'s right-hand guy, also did. I believe that had they been alive longer, they would have personally taken the Bolsheviks out of power because of the rising level of burrecracy. Remember that the Russian revolution lasted past the death of Lenin. Not only that, but you had foreign armies attempting to destablize the new Soviet government. C\'mon people! Give them a brake! They were doing their best to hold Russia together against all the odds. The final blow was the Stalin coup, who then exiled the Bolsheviks which pretty much defeats the argument that Stalin and the Bolsheviks were ever buddies. And Lenin was not exactly fond of Stalin in the end. Check out http://www.leninism.org . That gives a slightly better version of what Leninism really is and Ben Seattle himself said that it identifies more with the anarchist movement more then anything else.

Now, what about Marx? Well Marx recognized the immorality of the state. In my opinion, he was an anarchist of a different type. One that simply suggested anarchy in stages to ensure that it would survive. Marxist theory is as solid as a rock -- for the most part -- but it has never really been given a fair chance. Of course, I\'ve come to the conclusion that anarchy can be achieved without the stages, but if one wanted to be cautious, he could institute these stages.

Yes, I am an anarchist. And there are all the reasons in the world to defend Lenin and Trotsky. Don\'t mistake these Trots today in groups or parties like the ISO, SL, or SWP as any kind of real Trots. They simply are not. Every Trot on the NewYouth.com mailing list seems to disagree with a single party leading the revolution and seem to think closer to the ideal that the empancipation of the working class will be carried out by the workers themselves.

So in conclusion, try and remember that Leninism is NOT Democratic Centralism forever. And it closes a few gaps in Marxist theory. It\'s a shame however, that the revolution was led in a backwards country like Russia as opposed to somewhere it would have flourished like America.

-eco

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 15 2001 @ 02:26 PM CDT

I apologize for the spelling and grammar errors. I\'m in kind of a hurry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 15 2001 @ 02:29 PM CDT

ok, I stand corrected, Leninsm.org actually DOES have a chapter of Centralism in which he seems to critique it but is rather ambigious about the whole thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 15 2001 @ 11:13 PM CDT

i pity the \'infantile disorders\' who talks of the \'glories\' of leninism.
agree? Or have you forget the purges of anarchists right during the revolution(http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws98/ws53_bolshevik.html), the purges of Nestor Makhno\'s anarchist army in the Ukraine including the attack on Kronstadt 1921 and of course, the implementation of the N.E.P!
And you call capitalism evil?!

It is absurd for anyone to think these \'marxists\' would ever come to the realisation of the great mistakes of their past gurus, as leninistic as they can get, held hardheaded to their ideals and as such, denies the truth to which they call it as \'malicious accusations, slanders and lies\' and call us as being \'bourgeios\'. But, unfortunately, the Soviet Union, is not that the truth?
The hundreds and thousands of Gulags must have been a hard work by Lenin(later Stalin) to inroduce \'socialism\' at a greater pace, to the fields and fulfill the norms! hahaaha
Must we see another Soviet Union to see these \'lies\'? When will, these \'petty-Bolsheviks\', will ever come to their consiousness? When, will see the rank and file of this \"democratic centralism\" leave behind their \'centralist\' Party bosses and truly \'work\' with the workers? How, much longer, must we hear this \'class struggle debate\' crap they still continue? The countless purges before and all the way after the revolution, have they, these \'petty-Bolsheviks\' realise, the power struggle(Lenin-Plekhanov, Stalin-Trotsky, Mao-Lin Piao) not workers, let alone class struggle they are brought into?

Stop this nonsense! Throw away that cloth-cap and act! Don\'t throw books at the workers, be with the workers and empower them!

Marx? the guys\'s dead. But the ideal we know are not. We hate the state, when will it be smash, or, wither away permanently? Russia failed and China, cloth-cap and McDonald, which is cool?

Our \'old debate\' has not ended due to the endless debates between the top but the down has always have to be the audiences while the workers outside this \'Hall of Politics\' still suffer the endless oppression of the state.

There on thing you \'marxist\' should learn from Corporation, if you boss can\'t make the cut to defend the workers, by all means fire him!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2001 @ 06:51 PM CDT

I\'m sorry, could you repeat that with a hint of sanity and logic? Well, I\'ll see what I could salvage out of that rhetoric above this comment...


\"i pity the \'infantile disorders\' who talks of the \'glories\' of leninism.\"

I never talked about any glory of Leninism, I simply said that Lenin and Trotsky are mis-understood in the eyes of we anarchists. And Marx is far to often attacked by anarchists when he is the primary reason the anarchist movement even exists today!


\"the purges of Nestor Makhno\'s anarchist army in the Ukraine including the attack on Kronstadt 1921 and of course, the implementation of the N.E.P!\"

Well, lets set a clear defenition of \"purge\" because what I mean by purge is that the Bolsheviks were defending themselves. What you mean by purge is something never happened. I\'m not denying there was some injustice in the Russian Revolution, but wasn\'t there some injustice in the Spainish revolution? After all, by your logic I could say \"but what about those poor Catholic folk who had their churches burned to the ground?\" (note: I\'m an atheist). The second issue I\'d like to raise is -- let\'s put you in the position of Lenin and/or Trotsky. Let\'s do a little roleplaying. Now the question is quite simple... What would you have done? You have all these forces attacking this revolution you\'ve dedicated your life to and your just going to let it die? I doubt it!

The N.E.P. - Well, I believe it was a necessary evil of sorts. I don\'t deny that Lenin made his mistakes, one of them was keeping the monetary system and any kind of market. If the circumstances had been different, I would have been laughing at the N.E.P. but due to the cirumstances, I could understand (though I might have just told the pesant \"go eat what you produce and trade with your neighbors for whatever else you want\" but I understand the situation to an extent).


\"It is absurd for anyone to think these \'marxists\' would ever come to the realisation of the great mistakes of their past gurus, as leninistic as they can get, held hardheaded to their ideals and as such, denies the truth to which they call it as \'malicious accusations, slanders and lies\' and call us as being \'bourgeios\'. But, unfortunately, the Soviet Union, is not that the truth?\"

For the most part, what anarchists say about the other left is just as bad as what the other left says about the anarchists. Stop criticizing the left and realize that anarchy is not the only answer. Open your eyes and add a dash of pluralism to your life. If you\'d like to know what the average working class person views the average anarchist as, here is a decent description... \"a bunch of white kids with to much free time\" ...that was directly from the mouth of a working class minority (true however, that they think the same of Marxists). And it does arouse a decent point. How many anarchists really are working class? And why do the majority of anarchist youth not understand anarchism? Why do I see so many \"anarchists\" walking around with gourmet coffee from Starbucks and GAP pants? I actually saw one or two members of the local Black Bloc with NIKEs on. Only one gave me a story that made any sense -- because it was a donation. I thought \"FINALLY! A working class anarchist!\" For clarification purposes, I\'d like to again state that I AM an anarchist, I am working class, and I do support the local Black Bloc (in fact, I\'m going to TRY to make it to DC this year).


\"Must we see another Soviet Union to see these \'lies\'? When will, these \'petty-Bolsheviks\', will ever come to their consiousness? When, will see the rank and file of this \"democratic centralism\" leave behind their \'centralist\' Party bosses and truly \'work\' with the workers?\"

Again, by your own logic I\'d say... \"must we see another Spain?\" After all, the revolution did become pretty lost in the end. However, your ending remarks in this paragraph identify something immediately that I had suspected... no, I had known as I read through your rhetoric. That is that you do not understand Lenin, Trotsky and probably very little of Marx assuming you\'ve read MORE then just the first 5 pages of the Communist Manifesto in history or english class. Finally -- for this paragraph -- I\'d like to point out a group of Trots that DO want to and DO work with the workers. That is the group of people on the NewYouth.com (YFIS) e-group list that compose a few of the members of the YFIS. Oh and looking into the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks from a point of view other then that of Infoshop.org\'s, you\'ll find that they did indeed work with the workers and that the entire Bolshevik movement was not even really brought to light until they were confident the workers and the unions supported the revolution so that it would NOT just be an elite few taking advantage of the failing government/monarchy.

\"Don\'t throw books at the workers, be with the workers and empower them!\"

I believe this statement right here proves your stupidity. \"Yeah! Let\'s not educate the workers! Let\'s pretend that this group of white petty-bourgeois ARE the workers!\" come come, be rational for once.


\"Marx? the guys\'s dead. But the ideal we know are not. We hate the state, when will it be smash, or, wither away permanently? Russia failed and China, cloth-cap and McDonald, which is cool?
Our \'old debate\' has not ended due to the endless debates between the top but the down has always have to be the audiences while the workers outside this \'Hall of Politics\' still suffer the endless oppression of the state.

Our \'old debate\' has not ended due to the endless debates between the top but the down has always have to be the audiences while the workers outside this \'Hall of Politics\' still suffer the endless oppression of the state.

There on thing you \'marxist\' should learn from Corporation, if you boss can\'t make the cut to defend the workers, by all means fire him!\"

I believe this is where the lunatic ranting really sets in. Please restate this if you\'d like a reply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 17 2001 @ 11:30 AM CST

This is an important aspect of anarchist theory: losing.

Anarchists claim they are the spirit of the revolution. They love the uprising and drama, but not the construction and alliances necessary.

If the high points of your movements history are defeat, it makes for a strange plan.

What is the anarchist plan to not get their ass kicked again? Strike one: Ukraine. Strike two: Spain. Strike three?

Decentralized theories always lose against centralized groups. It is the nature of human social organization.

I urge people to read diverse histories of Spain. And they will learn it was a lot more complicated than \"comunist subversion.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2002 @ 05:20 PM CST

Actually, if you read about the Ukraine and Spain,
you will discover that they had their successes.

They were defeated by external force rather than
degeneration after apparent \"successful\" use of
centralised groups.

I also would urge people to read diverse histories
of Spain -- they will learn that communist subversion
*did* play a key role in the defeat. That, and the
anarchists working in a \"centralised group\" (the
state) which occurred due to the desire to form
\"the construction and alliances necessary.\" So
strike one!

If the anarchists had stuck to their ideas and not
compromised them, who knows what may have happened...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 24 2003 @ 10:32 PM CDT

I think no one here (as is common pretty much everywhere I go) has a serious understanding of Marxism. Marxism isn\'t contained in any singular work of literature and therefore very few people understand it in it\'s proper context- the historical context it\'s works were written in. You can\'t fully understand Marx (tell this to most Marxists, they\'re just as woefully deficient as anarchists are in this manner) until you understand that his work was philosophical first, political later. Dialectical Materialism (Marx\'s philosophical method) is his significance, his politics were a by-product of that method. Most marxists are just doing one of three things:

1) Parroting the solutions one historical leader or another rightly suggested for thier country and time in the wrong country and wrong time (because they don\'t know how to use the dialectical materialist method, which is what was probably being done by whatever leader they\'re parroting)

2) Blindly opposing the capitalist agenda (Anarchists are worse about this, but not much). This is mostly due to a lack of revolutionary perspective in their theory.

3) Jockying for power (the ugliest manefestation of the moderm Marxist\'s failing ways).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 24 2003 @ 10:32 PM CDT

I think no one here (as is common pretty much everywhere I go) has a serious understanding of Marxism. Marxism isn\'t contained in any singular work of literature and therefore very few people understand it in it\'s proper context- the historical context it\'s works were written in. You can\'t fully understand Marx (tell this to most Marxists, they\'re just as woefully deficient as anarchists are in this manner) until you understand that his work was philosophical first, political later. Dialectical Materialism (Marx\'s philosophical method) is his significance, his politics were a by-product of that method. Most marxists are just doing one of three things:

1) Parroting the solutions one historical leader or another rightly suggested for thier country and time in the wrong country and wrong time (because they don\'t know how to use the dialectical materialist method, which is what was probably being done by whatever leader they\'re parroting)

2) Blindly opposing the capitalist agenda (Anarchists are worse about this, but not much). This is mostly due to a lack of revolutionary perspective in their theory.

3) Jockying for power (the ugliest manefestation of the moderm Marxist\'s failing ways).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 12:21 AM CDT

I shouldnt be replying to old threads. but. I agree with the marxist dude in comment #2. I\'m pretty much a dyed in the wool anarchist. To be sure, anarcho syndicalist with primitiavist sympaties.

But I think marx got a few things right. Particularly his ideas on alienation of labor.

This is where the leninist tradition really misses its own point. Having a centralised beaurocracy displaces labor for the wage bosses by labor for the party bosses. Theres no net loss in alienated labor here. My surplus value still goes to some prick in a suit.

Its a shame too, cos when talking about \"marxism\" in activisist circles one tends to mean leninism and all its freaky history.

And if thats marxism, I\'ll have no bar. But its a shame, cos the old beardface had a few good ideas.

[ Reply to This | # ]