Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 263

Thread: Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    67
    Organisation
    Ministerium für Staatssicherheit
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    I think anarchism is ignorant of class character and does not really want change it therefore alienates potential leftist sympathizers. While Marxism-Leninism is actively bringing workers into the proletarian struggle, it is also the science of proletarian revolution, as it has many successful revolutions in history. The facts speak for themselves.
    Wachregiment "Feliks E. Dzierzynski" - Schild und Schwert der Partei

    Under Lenin's banner, forward to victory!

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    12,120
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The material reality of Bolshevism is reaction and counter-revolution to worker democracy;

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    It was forced-centralization, and *not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    So your entire defense for the actions of the totalitarian pigs who murdered millions is simply saying, and I quote "*not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control"

    No, I've *never* defended the excesses of totalitarianism -- you're going off on a tangent regarding the conclusion from these empirical events.

    What I'm *trying* to do with this portion is to *show* that there's a clear distinction between left-wing and right-wing, so that you'll cease conflating Bolshevism and Stalinism, with fascism. The clear distinction can be seen in the active policies regarding private property, as with the example of dekulakization, which was definitely *anti*-private-property, and therefore generally left-wing, and *not* 'fascist'. It will always be negligence on your part, or anyone's, to flippantly ignore the 'ends' ('ideology'), to focus only on the 'means'.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    And yet that is 100% exactly what they did and intended to do from the get go...


    Thus we find Lenin in 1917 continually repeating the basic idea: "The Bolsheviks must assume power." The Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own hands." He raised the question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover, "a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity offers."

    So -- ?

    Again, you're overly concerned with 'means' alone, and you ignore what it's *for*. Of course I'll acknowledge that the history didn't work out so great, but it wasn't for lack of a left-wing *aim* (which is *not* 'fascism'). (What *you* mean is that you're going to flippantly conflate any *means* of totalitarianism or fascism as being equivalent, when the two are actually distinctly *different* in their *ends*.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Not to mention the murder of Millions at the hands of the government after he succeeded in his plan to seize total power for his gang.

    Well, not quite 'murder', because all of those millions of deaths were due to *bad policy* -- it was far beyond any conscious *intention* for such masses of deaths.

    I see the basic flaw as being the shift in perspective, from the urban proletariat, to the agricultural countryside, same as with Maoism.

    But at the same time the urban proletariat *required* foodstuffs from rural agricultural production, so the collectivization of agricultural production was a *prerequisite* for an empowered urban working class.

    The material conditions following the successful repulsion of the invasion of the Whites, were simply *inadequate*, before industrialization, to make any kind of sustained 'soviets' possible. You continue to not-appreciate this objective empirical situation.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    Collectivization is the *opposite* of privatization, and collectivization is *not* anti-communist.

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Yes but you define collectivism as state ownership. However if you understand that government is simply a tool to maintain the capitalist control of the people;

    Even with '[forced top-down] collectivism' being 'state ownership' / state-control, there was *no* capitalism there, aside from Lenin's temporary 'New Economic Policy'. You ascribe nefarious motives to a period of history that was *trying* to make the best of a bad material situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    then nationalizing industry is not collectivizing; it is privatizing control in the hands of a ruling class; a class above the law.

    I understand, and have-addressed your point, but your terminology is incorrect and misleading -- 'privatization' inherently implies 'private property', which did not exist, long-term (post-1920s Russia).


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Collectivism in Russia was Nationalism; no different from the Nazi control over Germany's industry.

    No, this is too facile a comparison -- again you're only looking at 'means', and not 'ends'.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    They where even collectivized in the same manner; the whole sale slaughter of workers by the military.

    Fascism does *not* collectivize -- it *expropriates*, to the holdings of private-concern ownership.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Collectivism; as "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." To an anarchist this means that everyone (each and every individual) has the >SAME< right to administer their own use of the collectivized resource's (free access). Only by managing Industry with its own internal democracy by its own workers; can be considered collectivism;

    Yes, this would be far preferable to what actually happened historically.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Any ownership by a governing nation is privatization

    No, you continue to gloss-over the distinction between collectivism, versus privatization.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    as the INDIVIDUALS who run the government gain a capitalistic ownership vie their position as rulers of the nations. The same relation between King and serf; Boss and Employee exists within the nationalist framework of a political state.

    You're describing the *class division* (private ownership of the means of production, versus those who sell their labor for daily subsistence) -- post-revolutionary Russia did *not* have this kind of class division.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    A working class revolutionary overtaking of bourgeois government would render it inert with the nascent revolutionary 'worker democracy' bursting-through to supplant it, and the only thing it *could* do then would be to *wither*.

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Except we see proof of the opposite in every case. Russia being the prime example. A totalitarian state dead set of stopping worker democracy and willing to commit genocide to prevent it.

    You continue to blithely ignore *external* factors to revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia, so as to concentrate all blame on the country and the Bolsheviks -- this is an *inappropriate*, inaccurate summation of history, or *bad scholarship* on your part.

    It wasn't 'murder' or 'genocide' because there was no *intention* of such, unlike what *fascists* do.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    So you are either admitting the premise of your argument is wrong and that a workers state will act prevent worker democracy

    No, I'm not admitting anything of the kind, and you're *overgeneralizing* based on one historical outcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    as a threat to the ruling administrator; or you are admitting Lenin was not a working class revolutionary but a reactionary dictator who managed to co-opt an entire revolution and make himself ruler.

    Your myopic 'Great Man' approach to history again....

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    67
    Organisation
    Ministerium für Staatssicherheit
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    If an international competition was held today to determine which political group liked repeating Nazi propaganda the most, do you think Nazis would be able to beat anarchists for first place?
    Wachregiment "Feliks E. Dzierzynski" - Schild und Schwert der Partei

    Under Lenin's banner, forward to victory!

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,802
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OnFire View Post
    If an international competition was held today to determine which political group liked repeating Nazi propaganda the most, do you think Nazis would be able to beat anarchists for first place?
    You mean like "the Bolsheviks are the biggest threat to humanity in world history and we must exterminate them?"

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,802
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    S
    Yes fascism is reactionary (right wing); I am saying that people who support government institutions are not leftists (in any sense) but right-wing reactionary's.
    So, you want to go from a government with the size and power of a capitalist state like the US, to a socialist, non-government, free association of workers, overnight?

  6. #226
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    264
    Organisation
    Red Army Faction Reunited
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OnFire View Post
    If an international competition was held today to determine which political group liked repeating Nazi propaganda the most, do you think Nazis would be able to beat anarchists for first place?
    That's rich coming from someone who defends the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And the Third Partition of Poland.
    An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World

    The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels

    While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs


  7. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    So, you want to go from a government with the size and power of a capitalist state like the US, to a socialist, non-government, free association of workers, overnight?
    Of course not that would be ridiculous. However when you understand that "Government" is nothing more than a violent tool for oppression and has not a single redeeming quality; supporting the state becomes an act of reaction and an ideological attack on socialism. Support for capitalism in its most egregious form; that of a mass murdering & slave owning totalitarian corporation.

    Their is nothing revolutionary about "State-socialism" It is simply capitalism under a false name. Obedience for the benefit of the elite classes and their private agendas.

    We can prove that without the government and its police; capitalism (which is nothing but an act of systemic extortion) CAN NOT SURVIVE. This reality has been shown time and time again; every where their has been a lack of government there has existed a worker democracy that has been attacked by government thugs who can not allow a challenge to their sole authority to enforce the rules over the workers; *See Leninism.

    The Irony of the "Stateless capitalism" that some argue for, is that if it where to occur; that a area existed without any government "support"; the capitalists would almost assuredly fall to the united action of a new Labor Movement. Even the most "Leftist" governments; even so called "socialist" governments bend backwards to protect capitalism. Without the state; the workers would be free to remove the capitalist class as violently; or as easily as the capitalists; Without the government to protect them; make it for themselves.

    The simply reality of our situation is that capitalism is not our problem as revolutionary's
    ; capitalists are small scale; they are NOTHING without the protection of the government thugs and their law. It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for their extortion and no military support to protect it from the workers.

    Anarchy is the act of destroying what destroys you; The state (even the so called socialist ones) are/is what maintains capitalism.
    Without the state; the workers can form their own democracy's and replace the states monopoly on violence with Anarchy; the law of communism.

    The only people who have no cause to create Anarchy are the exploiting classes.
    Rules and laws created ONLY to protect your extortion with militarized violence!
    If you are exploited; then you are under the rule of some form of government; be it nationalist or cooperate; both are just legitimized extortion.

    The Praxis for abolishing the state and replacing it with free-association is some form of Unionism; Not trade Unionism but Class Unionism. The direct-action (violence against the state of things) of a united (and free from need for governance) working class; seeking its liberation from extortion.

    The job of vanguards is not to lead us to a glorious revolution by taking command; it is to educate the masses to be self-sufficient so that we no longer need governments to control our economic actions. To plan and create WITHOUT capitalism and its thuggery; that is a revolution; not a political coup that simply replaces one set of populist tyrants with a new set of populist tyrants.

    You simply can not destroy capitalism without FIRST destroying the ONLY thing that has ever maintained it; the Working classes obedience to Governance.

    Because capitalism requires the government; Anarchy is the only praxis that destroys capitalism; It is our goal to wage a class war against our rulers.
    Last edited by (A); 21st March 2017 at 06:24.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    12,120
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for [its] extortion

    ---


    Florida prosecutors cover up murder of Darren Rainey, inmate boiled alive

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017.../flor-m21.html


    ---



    [A]ll the announcements were based on the proposition that the privatised electricity market—dominated by profiteering power generation, distribution and retailing companies—can rectify the economic and social disaster it has itself produced.

    During the September and February breakdowns, spare generating capacity was actually available but the owners of key plants kept their facilities offline as part of a systemic practice of driving up “spot” prices during peak demand periods.

    Several studies in recent years have documented this practice, which has generated huge spikes in short-term wholesale electricity prices, sometimes rising to $14,000 per megawatt hour from the usual figure below $100.

    A Melbourne Energy Institute study found 41 occasions in 2015 when the Snowy Hydro’s Angaston diesel generator in South Australia withdrew supply, pushing up spot prices. Combined, those 41 occasions delivered an additional $30.3 million in profit.

    This price manipulation is perfectly legal because the electricity market is designed to allow power-generating companies to decide whether or not to sell their electricity, depending on price. As a result, the adequacy of the electricity supply—an essential ingredient of modern life, especially during extreme weather—is determined by corporate profit, not social need.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,802
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    Because capitalism requires the government; Anarchy is the only praxis that destroys capitalism; It is our goal to wage a class war against our rulers.
    The state is part of the superstructure which is built on and emerges from capitalism. Destroying the state itself will have only a temporary effect on capitalism. The capitalists will simply erect a new state to enforce their exploitation. The Americans, French, and English did that in their revolutions.

    It's one thing to destroy the state, but another altogether to destroy capitalism.
    You say anarchy is the only praxis that destroys capitalism. Anarchy is unorganized, spontaneous, leaderless, undirected and random violence against an established state. The modern state is a massive, ordered, systematic, brutal, carefully engineered, expertly run, terrorist killing machine. It can bring unimaginable destruction at a second's notice against any opposing force anywhere.

    How can you seriously believe that anarchy can achieve anything against the modern state.? They will smash you like the proverbial bug on a windshield.

    The real question, in my view, is how best to educate the masses so that when the next crisis comes, and it will, they will at least know who is on their side. This is why socialist and communist education and public advocacy is so completely silenced by the state. Can you imagine what would happen if there were a TV channel devoted solely to the study of Marx and Lenin and revolution?

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedMaterialist For This Useful Post:


  11. #230
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    914
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    The simply reality of our situation is that capitalism is not our problem as revolutionary's; capitalists are small scale; they are NOTHING without the protection of the government thugs and their law. It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for their extortion and no military support to protect it from the workers.
    I think you're conflating 'state' and 'government'. Since you dismiss any ideas which aren't formed by self-proclaimed anarchists, here's Kropotkin: "The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government". The state itself emerges due to the class system - it is the systems and structures in place that arbitrate between the existing classes in favour and in the interests of the ruling class. Government is just a function and aspect of that class rule, it is largely administrative. If capitalism exists then the capitalist class and the working class exists therefore so does the state - existing governments might take differing forms, laws might be different, culture might be different but the fundamental aspect of it all is that the capitalist class will have processes in place to attempt to maintain its rule, whether concious or not.

    It's awkward to say 'the state and its support maintains capitalism', perhaps a better way of putting it might be 'the capitalist state reproduces the conditions needed to maintain the rule of the capitalists' just as a feudal state existed to maintain the rule of the nobility because that is the interests of the ruling class when that ruling class is a tiny sliver of society. The class system, through its very nature, necessitates a state to arbitrate between classes. You cannot simply get rid of the 'state' as an existing form without first abolishing the conditions within which it exists, namely the class system.

    You and I might have different understandings of what 'working class democratic rule' might be (although honestly without you wilfully misinterpreting what people have said, we're probably closer in how we conceive things than you might like to think) but the point still stands - the working class revolution will destroy the capitalist state and then there will be a period where the working class are 'in charge' but there still exists the remnants of a capitalist class, their allies and the last vestiges of their systemic rule just because we don't live in a fantasy where such things can be swept away instantaneously and things develop in an uneven and combined manner. The very existence of the working class and the remnants of the capitalist class implies a class system of sorts still exists and so emerges a state, but it will be a state organised in the interests of the working class - it will be organised with the goal of abolishing classes and establishing a society based on the principles of from each according to the ability and to each according to their need.

    You've used this term quite a lot recently but I don't think you really appreciate what it means because Marx and Engels conceived of this period of working class state rule as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The state and its functions would 'wither away' as the working class dismantle the last aspects of capitalism and set about reorganising society without any classes altogether and when that has been achieved we'll have reached the lower stages of communism.
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  13. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,802
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    Of course not that would be ridiculous. However when you understand that "Government" is nothing more than a violent tool for oppression and has not a single redeeming quality;
    That depends on who the government is oppressing. If it is oppressing and slowly strangling capitalism then that is its one, its only redeeming quality and its final historical purpose. Once the last remaining force of oppression and exploitation has been eradicated then the state as a coercing institution will have no reason to exist and it will wither away.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedMaterialist For This Useful Post:


  15. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    That depends on who the government is oppressing. If it is oppressing and slowly strangling capitalism then that is its one, its only redeeming quality and its final historical purpose. Once the
    Government; The physical embodiment of governance; is wholly exploitative; It is a system that maintains the relationship between ruler and ruled that is meant only for exploitation. As you said; Exploitation is linked to government and when their is no exploitation their will be no government... but how can you end exploitation without first destroying the systems (the mighty machine you fear so much) that maintains them?

    Whither away? this is an ass backwards stance that will simply never come to pass. You cant end capitalism while it is under the protection of the state.

    You say that state will have no reason to exists after their is no exploitation... yes this is absolutely true; However it will turn to fascism before it ever lets you end exploitation. Look at what Lenin did in Russia; He preserved with worker blood the instruments of capitalist oppression and destroyed violently ALL worker democracy in Russia and directly created the platform that would see the rise of the KGB as the fascist dictators of Russia.

    You've used this term quite a lot recently but I don't think you really appreciate what it means because Marx and Engels conceived of this period of working class state rule as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
    Please provide a source for this. I have yet to see one despite asking several times. I have never seen Marx specifically say that the capitalist system of government like that Lenin promoted (State-capitalism) was the dictatorship of the proletariat. You ASSUME that the worker state is a nation state and not simply the united efforts to abolish and replace the state with a worker democracy.

    Here IS a Marx quote.

    We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.
    I dont see how you can call yourself a communist unless you are directly trying to abolish the systems of capitalist exploitation.
    Recreating them for your personal use is not communism; it is state-capitalism and it is to be abolished and its supporters violently torn from their seats of power.

    As the black army put it
    "Death to all of who stand in the way of freedom for the working people!"
    Last edited by (A); 21st March 2017 at 18:00.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  16. #233
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    914
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    Please provide a source for this. I have yet to see one despite asking several times. I have never seen Marx specifically say that the capitalist system of government like that Lenin promoted (State-capitalism) was the dictatorship of the proletariat.
    Lenin didn't 'promote' a capitalist system, you're being more than a bit idiotic with such a statement. Regardless, here's a few quotes from Marx and Engels for you to consider.

    The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.


    - Marx, The Nationalisation of Land


    We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.


    - Marx, Apropos of Working-Class Political Action


    All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?


    Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.


    - Engels, On Authority


    As soon as they were faced with a serious revolutionary situation, the Bakuninists had to throw the whole of their old programme overboard. First they sacrificed their doctrine of absolute abstention from political, and especially electoral, activities. Then anarchy, the abolition of the State, shared the same fate. Instead of abolishing the State they tried, on the contrary, to set up a number of new, small states. They then dropped the principle that the workers must not take part in any revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the proletariat, and they themselves took part in a movement that was notoriously bourgeois. Finally they went against the dogma they had only just proclaimed -- that the establishment of a revolutionary government is but another fraud another betrayal of the working class -- for they sat quite comfortably in the juntas of the various towns, and moreover almost everywhere as an impotent minority outvoted and politically exploited by the bourgeoisie.


    - Marx & Engels, The Bakuninists at Work: An Account of the Spanish Revolt in the Summer of 1873


    Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.


    The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.


    Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


    - Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme


    Also worth looking at, Marx's notes about Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy', Engels' 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific', Marx's 'The Civil War in France' and Marx and Engels' 'Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany'. Marx and Engels came to these conclusions looking at the revolutionary events going on around them. In comparison, whenever you just throw in some random asinine quote at the end of your posts, as if that gives your utter bullshit some more weight, you look like someone play acting a revolutionary instead of taking the time to analyse the events around you and the course of history.
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin


  17. The Following User Says Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  18. #234
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Thank you that is what I was looking for.

    Why do you think Anarchists support national liberation struggles?
    We are Anti-nationalist and want to destroy all nations? Well it is because we do understand that national liberation is a step towards worker liberation. The problem with the "Marxist" process that we have seen is that you time and time again underestimate the speed at which capitalism is abolished. Before the civil war in Russia was even over the capitalist market was no longer needed. It was Lenin who forced his centralized capitalist market on workers who where already ready to assume command. The soviets said so themselves but Lenin in an act of reaction; did not believe that the workers could so quickly take up command of their own lives.
    It is this ideology; that the workers must be >Lead< to communism instead of it being the natural state of society.

    The flawed assumption is that capitalism is not a product of the state; that without the government... people would allow capitalism to exist.

    Its a chicken and egg dilemma. If capitalism was human nature or existed before nationalism; Marx would be right and we would need all the means to destroy capitalism.
    But capitalism is a creation of modern states. Capitalism is a byproduct of laws and systems put into place to benfit the minority. Without the world governments maintaining this control; capitalism has no teeth.
    No cops; no army; just private capital and maybe a few armed guards.
    If we want to seize the means we need to abolish the army and the police and the systems that protect private accumulation... how do we do that?
    After the systems are gone it is the workers who will deal with their own vengeance.

    Can we please just destroy the state please please please!


    The state is what creates and maintains the framework for exploitation. "Private" does not exist.... Every "Private" piece of Capital is only "private" because the state says so.
    Without the state; >ALL CAPITAL IS INSTANTLY SOCIALIZED< as their will be no more papers that say "This factory belongs to so and so"

    The question is not what to replace the state with; its how do we as the working class abolish the state so that we can assume control of our means.


    The "workers state" MUST be created by the workers and NOT by political party's or nationalist borders. The fact is "Russia" as a state should have ended and a new border less and ever expanding network of armed and active militias. I mean if we look at the national liberation struggle of Kurdistan we see that their collective interest is external to the nations that they are forced to obey. In this case the Kurdish people are attempting to create a new form of workers state; A Libertarian democracy created by the workers; a duel power inspired by Libertarian writer Murry Bookchin. Why do we need to create new states when we can simply organize external to national borders and centralized governments. The Kurdish people do not need a centralized government or a new nation state with laws and property; they need the Turkish workers and the Syrian workers and the Iraqi workers to also start combating their respective governments so that they will be forced to stop attacking just the Kurds and forcing them to create a new nation to defend their collective interests; One that could be a platform for a possibly worse Kurdish Nationalism. A new state will just become a new class based society.

    We dont want our own nations; we want to destroy the ones that exist so we can get to work fixing the world that they fucked up.

    The workers make the world run; Why cant we run the world the way we want? Why do we need to bow down to a "socialist" government instead of organize ourselves. If the spirit of Marx is to be honored; consider that he himself may have been fallible and criticize your own understanding of who we want to have the power and how.

    We have come so far in the past 100 years. Do you still believe that giving power to national governments like the People's Republic of China or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the "United soviets of America"(patent pending) will be able to abolish capital when every time it has happened in the past it has only ended in more capitalism and misery for the workers.

    Every worker must first become masterless; we must abandon the idea of government because the idea of government is what prevents the workers from organizing themselves according to their needs.
    Obedience to authority is what prevents us as a class from acting in our own collective interests. We dont need a new set of laws to make us work in our own class interests.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  19. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    To be clear what I want to convey is that the "socialist" phase of communism only lasts as long as our nation states exist.
    Only as long as their are governments can their be capitalism and as soon as we are free from the law; people naturally organize and create communism; We have seen it everywhere where government rule has ended.
    The only thing that stops communism from happening today is the support for the systems that rule us.

    We challenge and attack those systems so that the workers can free themselves from the laws that make them slaves to capital.

    Now is not the time to repeat history; Now is the time to take to take direct action in destroying not just the state of things; but the ideology's that supports them.

    No Gods, No Masters; All Cops are Bastards!
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to (A) For This Useful Post:


  21. #236
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    103
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Hi, I don't know a lot about the differences between Marxist-Leninists Parties (Stalinists Parties) and Trotskists Parties, but how ever from my own experience, I've noticed that most members of Trotskist organizations like the organization of marxist news World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/ is full of smart, well-read, intelligent people, but most of them are not too friendly, most of them are not humble and treat other leftists like trash and not with love, consideration and understanding. Many trotskists behave like middle class voters of The Republican Party. Many of them are even a bit ultra-nationalist.

    I remember a 68 year old female who writes comments in the WSWS site and she always defends with a passion the Medicare prorgram. These people who are a bit elitists they like hate capitalism, but at the same time love a little bit some of the features of the capitalist system. Many of them do not even side with the anti-imperialist left-leaning governments of the world. They have a personal hatred against Hugo Chavez. An irrational hate against Hugo Chavez.

    I think that there is a lot of narcissist-envy, group-narcissism within the trotskist left


    .


    Quote Originally Posted by OnFire View Post
    Troskyism, in the fight for working class, is to be exposed and fought against as an unscientific and reactionary thought. Leon Trotsky himself was an arrogant petty-bourgeois who was expelled from the Communist Party and the Soviet Union for attempting to form factions within Soviet society. As an ideology, Trotskyism is revisionism; it is the perversion of Marxism-Leninism to suit the needs of the exploiters as well as Leon Trotsky. Trotskyites claim that Lenin and Trotsky were comrades before the Russian Revolution who were very much in agreement with one another. Nothing can be further from the truth.

    Trotsky’s arrogance in his own claims of ideological superiority can be summed up by Trotsky himself the best:


    “Among the Russian comrades, there was not one from whom I could learn anything…The errors which I have committed . . always referred to questions that were not fundamental or strategic. . . In all conscientiousness I cannot, in the appreciation of the political situation and of its revolutionary perspectives, accuse myself of any serious errors of judgment”.


    “At the moment when it seized the power and created the Soviet republic, Bolshevism drew to itself all the best elements in the currents of Socialist thought that were nearest to it’. Can there be even a shadow of doubt that when he spoke so deliberately of the best representatives of the currents closest to Bolshevism, Lenin had foremost in mind what is now called ‘historical Trotskyism?’ . . Whom else could he have had in mind?” (Trotsky, 353).


    Lenin also saw through Trotsky’s arrogance:


    “Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky”
    “What a swine this Trotsky is — Left phrases and a bloc with the Right! He ought to be exposed”


    Trotskyism is not a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views like those that make up the world outlook of the working class. It must be asserted that the theory and practice of Trotskyism is diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views that make up the world outlook of the working class. It is a science of revolutionary transformation of the world, concerned with the laws that form the development of nature, society, thought and class society. It provides a guide to action to overthrow capitalism. It is the ideology that has had the only proven success to build socialism. It is a living and breathing theory, a theory forged from the experience of the struggle and creative actions of the masses, and an indispensable guide to action.
    Trotskyites do not uphold the the scientific theories pounded by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, nor do they hold onto any unity or principles, as can be shown in their political parties which are known and famous throughout the world for forming factions within factions. Marxist-Leninists, unlike Trotskyites, have never, at any point of history or today, recognized the Trotskyite “Fourth International” as a body of communists. Trotsky was extremely adventurist and his advocacy for spreading revolution by foreign intervention would have inevitably been to the detriment of the working class.


    His false political line against the socialist Soviet Union is echoed to this day by all reactionaries in the capitalist media, television and in the CIA and Washington. Even in the few short years after Trotsky’s counterrevolutionary scribbles were published it became fashionable for big capitalists to abandon open hatred of communism and instead adopt the position of Trotsky, or criticizing the Russian Revolution “from the left.” While the world faced the full onslaught of blitzkrieg and the genocidal bombing campaigns of the Nazi forces in World War II, and when the USSR with the guidance of the Communist Party and Joseph Stalin was almost single-handedly fighting this threat on behalf of all of humanity, the left-opposition led by the exiled Trotsky did all they possibly could to sabotage and wreck the USSR, even openly advocating terrorism and massive military attacks against the Soviet Union to destroy the Bolsheviks. Trotsky in his own public pronouncements openly called for the overthrow of the Soviet state and speculated that a foreign invasion might provide the catalyst for a takeover by himself. Yes, he wanted to ride to power on the back of German tanks.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to TomLeftist For This Useful Post:


  23. #237
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    12,120
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for their extortion and no military support to protect it from the workers.

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan View Post

    The very existence of the working class and the remnants of the capitalist class implies a class system of sorts still exists and so emerges a state, but it will be a state organised in the interests of the working class - it will be organised with the goal of abolishing classes and establishing a society based on the principles of from each according to the ability and to each according to their need.

    ---


    For the sake of clarification, I myself happen to think that *either* a purely bottom-up, worldwide-simultaneous successful proletarian revolution, *or* a rapid state-seizing and state-wielding proletarian vehicle could be used to then 'leverage' the remainder of the revolution worldwide, successfully -- but it would greatly depend on actual *conditions* at that time. So, in brief, I see these respective approaches to working class revolution as being revolutionary *strategies* that may or may not be deployed, depending on the objective circumstances:


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    If revolutionary society can get to the point where no 'state' of any kind is necessary (a communist-type gift economy), *very* quickly, then the whole transitional dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase could be skipped altogether. This would translate to a *very* broad-based revolutionary upheaval worldwide that is all on-the-same-page and simply swamps the elite and their goons within a short period of time -- a few months, and less than a year. This would be the *optimistic* possibility, of course.

    If that *doesn't* happen and something more along the lines of my scenario at post #4 takes place ('dotp'), I don't see how the workers state / apparatus *wouldn't* cease to exist after a finished, successful revolution, no matter how long it takes. (The historical facts of the unsuccessful Bolshevik Revolution and its devolving into Stalinism were due to invasions by the Whites.)

    In other words, 'Nothing succeeds like success.'

    A successful proletarian revolution would reach the point of generalization of socialized productive methods, and so the people and workers themselves would have the proper social environment in which to self-organize -- the workers state / dotp would become glaringly irrelevant in the absence of a continued class foe, and would have nothing further to do. (Consider that in terms of *numbers*, the formal workers apparatus would be a *subset* of all revolutionaries, and all revolutionaries worldwide would be lesser in numbers than all workers and people together.)

    My concern with your statement, and any similar line, is that it's too presumptuously *pessimistic* concerning the results of a workers state as a potential *strategy* for dealing with the bourgeoisie. If actual conditions objectively call for a monolithic-scale implementation of workers power then that's what's socially-necessary and anything *less* than that would be insufficient in the context of protracted battles with the forces of the bourgeoisie -- we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, and any concerns about the 'leadership' (for lack of a better word) would have to take a backseat to the need to confront bourgeois forces at a comparable-or-superior magnitude.

    The state.

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...74#post2877074

  24. #238
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    If revolutionary society can get to the point where no 'state' of any kind is necessary (a communist-type gift economy), *very* quickly, then the whole transitional dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase could be skipped altogether. This would translate to a *very* broad-based revolutionary upheaval worldwide that is all on-the-same-page and simply swamps the elite and their goons within a short period of time -- a few months, and less than a year. This would be the *optimistic* possibility, of course.

    If that *doesn't* happen and something more along the lines of my scenario at post #4 takes place ('dotp'), I don't see how the workers state / apparatus *wouldn't* cease to exist after a finished, successful revolution, no matter how long it takes. (The historical facts of the unsuccessful Bolshevik Revolution and its devolving into Stalinism were due to invasions by the Whites.)

    In other words, 'Nothing succeeds like success.'

    A successful proletarian revolution would reach the point of generalization of socialized productive methods, and so the people and workers themselves would have the proper social environment in which to self-organize -- the workers state / dotp would become glaringly irrelevant in the absence of a continued class foe, and would have nothing further to do. (Consider that in terms of *numbers*, the formal workers apparatus would be a *subset* of all revolutionaries, and all revolutionaries worldwide would be lesser in numbers than all workers and people together.)

    My concern with your statement, and any similar line, is that it's too presumptuously *pessimistic* concerning the results of a workers state as a potential *strategy* for dealing with the bourgeoisie. If actual conditions objectively call for a monolithic-scale implementation of workers power then that's what's socially-necessary and anything *less* than that would be insufficient in the context of protracted battles with the forces of the bourgeoisie -- we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, and any concerns about the 'leadership' (for lack of a better word) would have to take a backseat to the need to confront bourgeois forces at a comparable-or-superior magnitude.
    As we saw in Russia that is the case; The soviets were ready to internally abandon the capitalist market and replace it with a money-less economy before the Bolsheviks even seized power.
    Same as in Spain and basically everywhere where workers had been liberated from their state.

    It is this fact that makes state-socialism a flawed praxis. The workers are always ready to take power before the dust has even settled; where this has been the case the newly minted states becomes instantly redundant causing their very existence to become counter to the workers ability to self-manage their productive capability's and social relations.

    We need to create a praxis where the working class people are given total dictatorial authority over their own communal production and the ONLY role for active revolutionaries is in violently removing the political nation state system. A divide must exist between the Guerilla vanguards (professional revolutionary's) and the workers democracy. The vanguard must be the army that serves the workers; the sword of the proletariat; not a new set of rulers.

    The vanguard should not form a workers state; the workers should form their own rule independently of any revolutionary organizations.
    Why?
    Because revolution is an act of authoritarianism; And we dont want to be authoritarian against the workers; we want to be authoritarian against the institutions that are extorting and ruling them.
    Our job as revolutionaries; As killers, is to destroy the state; not to impose our violent authority over the workers.

    We can either be the sword OF the proletariat; Organizations created to destroy capitalism; or the sword raised above the proletariat; intended to violently enforce our authority over all the workers.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  25. #239
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    12,120
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    As we saw in Russia that is the case; The soviets were ready to internally abandon the capitalist market and replace it with a money-less economy before the Bolsheviks even seized power.

    You continue to place all blame on the Bolsheviks when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites that caused an objective need for consolidation of the nascent soviet society, for self-defensive combat.



    The army was established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution (Red October or Bolshevik Revolution). The Bolsheviks raised an army to oppose the military confederations (especially the various groups collectively known as the White Army) of their adversaries during the Russian Civil War.

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Same as in Spain and basically everywhere where workers had been liberated from their state.

    I would have to revisit the 'Spain' thing, which I'm open to doing -- it's been awhile....


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    It is this fact that makes state-socialism a flawed praxis.

    You keep making it sound like there would be a call from somewhere to *recreate* the USSR, when you're not realizing that the USSR was the undesired *outcome* of a materially-deprived, politically-isolated, and under-siege workers revolution, devolving into state socialism as a matter of empirical *necessity*.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The workers are always ready to take power before the dust has even settled; where this has been the case the newly minted states becomes instantly redundant causing their very existence to become counter to the workers ability to self-manage their productive capability's and social relations.

    Basically true, but you're still not accepting *reality*, that, due to the larger environment of capitalism any revolution has-been / will-become attacked from without, and having a 'buffer' bureaucratic-collective state apparatus is the best-possible option under such dire conditions when / if the revolution is unable to spread regionally and worldwide.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    We need to create a praxis where the working class people are given total dictatorial authority over their own communal production and the ONLY role for active revolutionaries is in violently removing the political nation state system. A divide must exist between the Guerilla vanguards (professional revolutionary's) and the workers democracy. The vanguard must be the army that serves the workers; the sword of the proletariat; not a new set of rulers.

    Why even make such a dichotomy to begin with, if at all avoidable -- ?

    Even *I* don't agree with this latest, vanguard-oriented formulation of yours, and I'm a self-declared 'vanguardist'. (Instead I conceive of a 'vanguard' as its conventional definition: )



    In the context of the theory of Marxist revolutionary struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies.

    In theory, the revolutionary vanguard is not intended to be an organization separate from the working class that attempts to place itself at the center of the movement and steer it in a direction consistent with its own ideology. It is instead intended to be an organic part of the working class that comes to socialist consciousness as a result of the dialectic of class struggle.[citation needed]

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The vanguard should not form a workers state; the workers should form their own rule independently of any revolutionary organizations.
    Why?
    Because revolution is an act of authoritarianism; And we dont want to be authoritarian against the workers; we want to be authoritarian against the institutions that are extorting and ruling them.

    I'll politely suggest that you may want to examine and reflect-on the *historical*, *societal* reasons for *why* a vanguard-type organization might *conceivably* 'go astray' and become authoritarian internally -- the standard 'mutation' nightmare.

    Given that all worker-revolutionaries would start-out with pure political intentions, under *what circumstances* would they *deviate*, to become internally repressive as we saw with the Bolsheviks, and *why* -- ?


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Our job as revolutionaries; As killers,

    This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.



    [L]enin never advocated for the physical extermination of the entire bourgeoise as a class, just the execution of those who were actively involved in opposing and undermining Bolshevik rule.[42] He did intend to bring about "the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie", but through non-violent political and economic means.[43] Ryan goes on to note that "to physically annihilate the bourgeoisie as a class was certainly not something that a Marxist could support".[42]

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    is to destroy the state; not to impose our violent authority over the workers.

    We can either be the sword OF the proletariat; Organizations created to destroy capitalism; or the sword raised above the proletariat; intended to violently enforce our authority over all the workers.

  26. #240
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    You continue to place all blame on the Bolsheviks when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites that caused an objective need for consolidation of the nascent soviet society, for self-defensive combat.
    You continue to spread false claims about the white Despite the fact that their "Impending invasion" was nothing more then Bolshevik propaganda to rally support against a perceived threat when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites was over before Kronstadt.

    You keep making it sound like there would be a call from somewhere to *recreate* the USSR, when you're not realizing that the USSR was the undesired *outcome* of a materially-deprived, politically-isolated, and under-siege workers revolution, devolving into state socialism as a matter of empirical *necessity*.
    While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.

    Basically true, but you're still not accepting *reality*, that, due to the larger environment of capitalism any revolution has-been / will-become attacked from without, and having a 'buffer' bureaucratic-collective state apparatus is the best-possible option under such dire conditions when / if the revolution is unable to spread regionally and worldwide.

    Yes of course all revolutions will be attacked by the government forces of that nation states. The stupid idea would be to plan to face the capitalist nations face to face; nation vs nation instead of internally.
    All you are doing is asking for a second cold war (at best; nuclear war more likely)

    We have to disarm the capitalists; the only way to do that is to abolish the worlds nation states internally and world wide.

    I'm a self-declared 'vanguardist'
    Where is your party? Where is your organization?

    You dont even fir your own definition of a vanguardist.


    This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.
    And we come to the flaw of neo-Vanguardism; Willing to Justify and support the "Necessary" deaths of millions of workers for your ideology but loath we talk about the real job task of revolution!
    Turning Musket and cannon against our oppressors in the most authoritarian of tasks.

    [L]enin never advocated for the physical extermination of the entire bourgeoise as a class, just the execution of those who were actively involved in opposing and undermining Bolshevik rule.
    "Yes fuck those communists and their fucking soviets; ALL POWER TO THE BOLSHEVIK Party and their Military dictatorship!"

    The soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule
    Communism demands the end of Bolshevik rule

    >Death to all those who oppose the party equals death to communists.<

    And goodness did he deliver on his promise to violently repress workers and instill a military dictatorship.

    Millions dead for a failed state.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

Similar Threads

  1. Was Trotsky a revisionist?
    By BolshevikOG in forum Learning
    Replies: 248
    Last Post: 16th April 2014, 19:40
  2. Views of Stalin as a person and his actions?
    By Always Curious J in forum Learning
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 26th May 2013, 09:00
  3. Stalin’s spy in the Fourth International
    By Small Geezer in forum History
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 7th May 2012, 09:15
  4. Do you support Stalin?
    By Comrade1 in forum History
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 12th May 2011, 10:04
  5. Hitler was a socialist - A good short essay.
    By Anonymous in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 25th February 2003, 22:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •