Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Anarchy vs Communism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Probe, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    I think ungovernable was referring the system of soviet working/prison camps used to isolate dissidents and criminals alike from the soviet society. Solschenizyn wrote his "A Day In The Life of Iwan Denissowitch" (bad spelling?) or in cyrillic Один день Ивана Денисовича. I'm sure you know what I mean - "goulags" is the most common western term for this system.

    But I think the bolsheviks just continued to use the system already developed by the tsaristic regime, Bakunin and Kropotkin were deported/banned to siberia 'cause of their activity opposing the tsaristic state - like many others.

    In germoney the 1st of may (international labour day) was invented as an official celebration day by the nazis -they called it "Tag der Arbeit" - "Day Of Labour" and it was just a fake to appear "worker-friendly" - while the gestapo and the sa was busily annihilating the leftwing opposition including the Anarchist FAU at the same time...
    Struggling for the betterment of workers rights may mean nothing - especially if you forget about revolution 'cause you become a "well off" worker dwelling in your gains.
    I think lenins gigs outside Russia were just a strategy to get at least a little support and consense on the out side.

    He should have called the north europeans to unite and oppose capitalism in their countries, instead of supporting their social betterment, but I think he feared to have a bad reputation being called a "Red Revolutionary Exportist" again.
    But "betterment" is never enough...
     
  2. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,318

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    @punkmar77 : the article you posted also said the attack failed and the killer was someone sent by stalin... i did a little research on google and i couldnt find the version about someone other Rhan ramon Mercander... But maybe i'm wrong, i'm not an expert on the subject

    It's just too bad that it's not an anarchist from Kronsdadt, Petrograd or Ukraine's makhnovtchina who killed him :p

    Gulags, sorry wrong spelling. Forcer work camp in siberia and russia, similar to the death camps of the nazis. Millions of people died in the gulags under leninism and stalinism - including a lot of anarchists declared counter-revolutionnaries or ennemies of the state by the URSS Politburo - and dozens of millions of people were imprisonned there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

    Yes Trotsky also did that because he was a strong internationalist... But the only thing both of them wanted is to annex those countries to the URSS :p

    Oh i didn't know that, thanks for the info ! But unfortunatly they have influenced a lot of people with these ideas and i seen national-bolchevics in France and other european countries
     
  3. SenI

    SenIExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    237

    1

    10

    Oct 4, 2009
     Russian Federation
    Really o_O ??? WOW! Oh my God :o ... I'm shocked, fuck. I don't know what this shit so much impact on Europe.
    You can give me links to websites of European national-bolchevics? Give me please :) . I'll be very grateful to you for that. I want to looking at all of this horror and laugh at it :D .
     
  4. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Either way, at least the prick is dead. Now can someone help me with his fucking followers! :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs:
     
  5. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    I think the very special nature of the nazi-german death/extermination camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmo, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek make it necessary and important to see them as a unique atrocity against humanity.
    I don't want to justify the gulag, it's not possible to justify the stalinist crimes, but the nazi-extermination plans reached a truly different dimension.

    The gulags were meant to exclude the prisoners from the society, to isolate and to use them to the advantage of the society/the soviet system, building up infrastructures in the less developed parts of the country, like the white sea/baltic canal.
    Too many prisoners of the gulag died because of starvation and overexertion and the stalinist officials refused them the necessary food, equipment and machinery - "because the convicts don't deserve it" - but the bolsheviks/stalinists never planned a "final solution" to exterminate the prisoners convicted "for crimes against the soviet system".

    The german nazis stigmatisized "subhumans" like Jews, Slavic people, Asians, Orientals and Africans - irrespective of age, social status, political opinion/opposition to nazism or individual criminal deeds.
    Etnical lineage, skin colour, cultural heritage outside the "masterrace" was enough to become a victim, and the nazis did plan the final solution i.e. the final extermination of the whole stigmatisized populations.

    After the mass execution of Jews in Poland and the german occupied western parts of the soviet union became more and more problematic, the nazis developed the industrial scaled extermination in the death camps, finally using gas chambers with zyklon B to kill the majority - and "extermination through work" for the minority strong enought to last at least three months of exploitation mainly in war-important industries.

    The "usability" of this group was the matter of research by the ss-scientists to determine the best result between the efford spend on the camps and the profit they made avaliable - and the percentage of the selected number of slaves was conneted directly to the actual needs of the industries involved.
    The expoitation was ultimate, the nazis robbed even the dead, ripping out dental gold, using shaved hair for the industry, using the ashes of the cremated victims on the farming fields. They seriously researched other opportunities for the use of bones and body parts as mechanical components, some perverts used human skin for decoration with lamps or wall hangings.

    And the nazis wouldn't have stopped with the extermination of the Jews, the Slavic people would be next, then the Orientals, the Africans, the Asians... everything was planned just in case the ongoing war would give the opportunitiy to reach the next group of victims.

    I think this sickening industrial "processing" of whole populations without any reason except "not to be of the masterrace" to cover up the victims' degrading to nothing more than a resource for economical exploitation is the ultimate stage of capitalism.

    It's true that the stalinist gulag system (1917 - 1989) killed more people than the nazis did - but thankfully the nazis just weren't allowed the time to top the number of the gulags victims,(October 1939 - May 1945) but the plans were concepted and already waiting in the drawers to be executed...
     
  6. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    There aren't many left, we have two of this rare species in the neighborhood, always gifting poor me with their magazines - very helpfulf for digestion problems - I read them sitting on the toilet...
     
  7. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Maybe where you are, these fucks are almost a hegemonic force in Leftist politics where i live. :ecouteurs: Those fucks'll be first against the fucking wall. Look up the 'Socialist Alternative' in Australia :ecouteurs: (the alternative to socialism as us clever fucks like to say :lmao: :ecouteurs: )
    Fuck they give me the shits, as you mention, lol, help to keep me regular.
     
  8. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    funny thing is, one of our local exemplars would make a more than average jehova witness, waving all the time with his magazines... he even tries to look like ol' leo...
    He's really notorious and he has two teen daughters who are contributing to our neighborhood net. He ordered them to distribute his paperstuff and they do it with obvious emberassment, so people feel sorry for them.
    The girls really love babysitting my daughters, who are natural experts in converting people to the cause of rebellious antiauthorianism and self management - I guess they already succeeded with the trotzkists girls too, 'cause both of them asked me for Bakunin's books and begged me not to tell their dad...
    He still don't know about, but the story is already becoming a running gag in the scene, so the girls get showerd with books and zines, some people started seaching for an ice pick to give it to the girls to help them fulfilling their dad's role in history... take the trotzkists bowling!
     
  9. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,628

    135

    673

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Well Ungov having not been there myself I'm no expert either, and the only reason I question the 'Official' version of Trotsky's murder is because Siqueiros himself has 'confessed' the truth...but he could have been lying, although I doubt it with his track record.
     
  10. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    Marx criticism was good on capitalism - when it comes to his idea of history, i've only been educated in school about it, not read much myself. Though, his idea of class war was accurate, and i still believe that it is relevant, even in todays society, with less clear, yet still existing, classes.

    Maybe Lenin died to early to do much, maybe his presence and speaking for furthering "communism" was one of the reasons for socialism to be as big a movement as it was on that time - I can't really say. I believe Lenin was important, but I have doubts that he was ready to give up authoritarian control of the country.

    But all that you write is very interesting. I think it's obvious that the authoritarian systems were in control, and that the peoples so called democratic decision to have socialism, was really forced upon them. Yet i'm no expert in this, so i'm reading eagerly.

    I agree. When someone is in charge of the revolution, they often become the hierarchy they wish to avoid. It's a dilemma, since it seems people are to apathetic to do anything unless someone is in charge, yet when someone is, the hierarchy is created.

    I've been to Berlin multiple times (it's my favorite city, i might move there some day), and interested myself a lot in the cold war. I find it all interesting.
    But yes... I know people who lost their entire heritage in the russian revolution. Their entire family wiped out, and now only left with a fake surname.
     
  11. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: thanks, great story!
    [​IMG]
     
  12. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    hi shuei,
    I think class war is mainly relevant 'cause of the economic system - we still have to suffer capitalism i.e. the minority/ bourgeois class of people owning the means of production, banking system and money trade, is exploiting and - to do so - suppressing the majority/ working class without any means of production except themselves.
    The class war is resulting out of the obvious/necessary conflict between the bourgeois defending their hegemony and privileges against the working class struggling against exploitation, unequality of opportunities, repression ect., that are imminent to capitalism - 'cause the bourgeois use them as tools to keep on ruling.
    Marx' theory ended with the inevitable victory of the majority/ the working class and the result would be the dictatorship of the proletariat, to transfer economy and society to the final stage: the classless society - the happy end for everybody.

    Anarchists see the danger/the risk of replacing one ruling class with another ruling class - 'cause this is not the final end of the class war and with this believe we oppose marx - even if the dictatorship of the proletariat is meant to last temporarly only - but there is no proof that the proletarian dictators will give up their rule and end the class war - Bakunin saw the danger of corrupting power and privilege.
    Looking at the authorian communist example in Russia - the risk is too great, so no dictatorship for no-one.

    You're right, the picture of class war today isn't that clear - but this is another complex story, maybe we should start a new topic to discuss it, I would like to hear other opinions concerning the lack of class consciousness today - or the tendency of late capitalism to use the more or less liberal state for it's security and survival. I think it's an important matter, but it's off topic and too complex for here and now.

    And sorry, but I have to correct your picture of ol' wladimir iljitsch again:
    Lenins theorie following marx "dictatorship of the proletariat" was the major reason for the bolsheviks dangerous trait that resulted in messing up the revolution, 'cause he called for an avantgarde/ elite of professional revolutionaries and he convinced the majority ( = Bolsheviki) of the exiled russian revolutionary movement of this mistake, only a minority ( = mensheviki) of less radical social democrats and social revolutionaries opposed him. (general congress of the social democratic workers party of russia in London, I think in the year 1903)
    We know how this elite/ avantgarde of professional revolutionaries acted - we wrote already about it.

    Cold war would make another interesting topic, when I was a bit younger my studies concerning the time after 1945 made me so furious about the western aggression and propaganda - that I became a marxist/leninist -
    thanx punk that I got wiser than I was...

    Berlin is again the german capital - a really expensive trendy graveyard full of government zombies - you should have seen it way back in the 80ies, brimming with punks, squatters, militants, radicals, draft resisters doing their thing against all authority...
     
  13. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Don't mention - we'll have a meeting tomorrow and he will attend it too - I'll show him the picture - at least for Kronstadt...
     
  14. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    Yes, class war is a product of capitalism - and part of Marx's criticism and analysis of capitalism. Which still to this day remains relevant as i mentioned.
    But the class war was also used in his historical systems, as he believed that the oppression of lower classes was significant all the way through history.
    These theories are, to me at least, still relevant! I'm no marxist, but i agree with his criticism on these points.

    And to the Anarchist it's much of the same we struggle for - a classless society.

    Yes, the power corrupts. Even so called "socialist parties" that now embraces capitalism to gain votes and personal benefit is an example of this! Any real socialist knows that capitalism equals classes and that classes equal fights.
    A big difference between anarchists and socialists is the view on power. Socialism often tend to believe, that people will give up power, if they know how it is to not have power - that is not the case, as we can see in capitalism, when poor people become rich.
    Anarchist's believe that power corrupts, and must be totally destroyed in society.

    Both tend to see power as a certain amount that can be spread amongst a certain amount of people and then it will be gone. May be my over interpretation, but i believe that it's the danger of power - to assume that it will remain stable, if it gets any chance to develop, it will. Which socialism doesn't prepare for.

    I agree. I made an assignment for my final exams about class war today, and the relevance of Marx theories (though i'm obviously not as well informed as you on that point).
    We can take it in another forum - It's the thing about this forum, things tend to go off-topic ;)

    Yes, i know, he called for these professionals, but already before the revolution, he and other of the exiled revolutionary leaders from Russia had become the hierarchy of the revolution. And it resolved in the oppression of other revolutionary forces, through these professionals. Already long before the revolution actually happened, there were hierarchy amongst socialist's, and new leaders were indirectly chosen (Lenin for example).

    I think we all have been so aggressive against western society propaganda that we have opposed it ;) I mean... Western Society propaganda is terrible, and the western world is full of corruption - But the alternatives just aren't much better, if we see Soviet or North-Korea.

    I would have love to see Berlin in the 80's! I love Berlin, i've been there many times, only few weeks ago i hanged out in the large squat Køpi and all... It's a fantastic city.
    I would have love to be around in 80's punk Rebellion, but since i am 18 years old it's a little hard ;)
     
  15. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    shuei,
    well, concerning class war, I just tried to make the difference between it's relevance for economy and politics and it's relevance on the society more clearer.
    Class war isn't the specific product of capitalism, class war is resulting/the product (out) of the unequality of classes in history in general.

    According to Marx' theories about history (dialectical historism)
    the stage of development of the means of production and the control of surplus production
    defined the social classes of every society in history.
    Marx wrote:
    "The history of every society until todays is the history of class wars."
    (communist manifest - Bakunin translated it to russain - so it's ok. to qoute it)
    Taking the "stage of development" as a tool to define the succession of relevant societies marx made up this list:

    1. Ancient/primitive society - not much production, no surplus, no classes, no class war - paradise without internet...

    2. (classical) antiquity - different stages of agriculture from small farms up to plantations, handicraft, trade - surplus production define classes: Farmers and handiworkers, traders, landlords, feudals - class war between the competeting classes appears in history for the first time. The already rich fight the poor to get even richer, (accumulation of wealth) the competition between feudals and non-feudals result in the development of democracy and republics like the greek city states or the roman republic. Slaves become a class of their own because they become an important part of the economic, resulting in uprisings and serious warfare - remember Spartacus...

    3. Feudal society - same production as 2.) - but more sophisticated, trade gets more important, first appearance of guilds and trader companies, banking system, the pre-bourgeois class gains importance and struggles against the feudals that competete against each other and loose power - resulting in imperialism.

    4. capitalism - same production as 2.) and 3.) but even more sophisticated, industrial revolution - a new class appears: the working class opposed to the bourgeois who gain complete control over production/trade and start the political struggle against the imperialists who try to control the burgeois. The Burgeois abuse liberal theories to get support from the growing working class - burgeois finally succed in overthrowing or conversion of the Imperialists - and start to struggle to keep control over the working class - "our" class war rages...

    I've tried to keep it short, there's much more details to fill in - please feel free to correct or complete my point of view.
    But enough marx's for today, I don't want anybody to feel the urge to kick my poor ass for praising him - he's only helpful in getting the picture, but he failed badly... in general.

    And I think it's important to realize that our repression isn't the only relevant point - quoting marx again:
    WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE - YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE - BUT EVERYTHING TO GAIN.
    (Now it's really enough...they will call me a authorian troll...)

    For me, as an Anarchist - opposing the authorian communists of every kind/orientation -
    this is our most important aim:
    To gain everything, an equal share of power, equal rights and opportunities for everybody living on this planet, regardless of ethnic, culture or whatever natural difference - and without anybody left to claim petty privileges, leadership or more power than anybody else.
    The power is ours, the whole planet an it's opportunities to live on it are ours by natural right and we struggle against it's denial to us regardless which authority is claiming whatever privilege or demand.
    We oppose authority and capitalism 'cause we realized their consequences - corruption, unequality, repression, denial of the right to think, act and live like we want - so no dictatorship of whoever - we will destroy the abuse of power, ending the denial of power to everybody - and nobody will give power to anybody else than himself/herself.
    No professional revolutionaries, no professional activists, functionaries, leader or charismatic prophet, no more heroes - just a community of equals - isn't it easy?

    Cold war and east-west conflict - I think propaganda is always bad, 'cause it's meant to cover up "our" systems crimes by blaiming the other systems side of being criminal, but I felt more ashamed about the crimes the western side did - because they claimed to do everything for "me"/ or in "my" name.
    That's why I mentioned my grandfather who was killed as a soldier in the fascist army when the nazis attacked the soviets - he wasn't a victim of the soviets, first he was a slave for - and second a victim of nazi germany.

    Berlin - oh, it wasn't only the punk thingie, it was... everything... pre-taste of revolution, Anarchy, autonomy, people organizing collectives, social living, music and culture and defending this little paradise against the cops if necessary, today you can't spit on the pavement without being charged by the cops...
    ok, it didn't last that long, but it was really something to see...
     
  16. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    Someone asked earlier what I meant by communism (Authoritarian,Leninism etc..) well what I meant was Marxism...

    Another thing, up to this point I thought that Leninism IS pretty much "the real thing" but after I read some of your answers and some other stuff I realized I was wrong. What did he do wrong?
     
  17. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,318

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Actually i would say libertarian communism is "the real thing" and the only form of communism that can be acceptable. But it's Karl Marx who started the idea of communism. Leninism is shitty communism, it is definatly not following Marx theories. URSS wasn't representative of marxism, neither was china communism, cuba, cambodgia, etc... Basically communism as described by Marx was never applied.

    The big difference between anarchism and marxism is the authoritarian nature of the Dictatorship of the proletariat. Like i said previously i don't believe there is many similarities between marxism and anarchism except anti-capitalism. There would still be a state in marxism, except it would be managed by proletarians but as Bakunin said those proletarians wouldn't be proletarians anymore as soon as they touch the power. There is a dictatorship in marxism but it's supposed to be temporary. I'll quote Bakunin again on this, all dictatorship are meant to stay the longest time possible... We can't trust a dictatorship, temporary or not, and it's very dumb that someone as intelligent as marx thought it was possible (to quote Bakunin again)....

    Marx believe the proletarians need to take back the State and use it as the main weapon of their revolution. Anarchists believe the State is a tool of authority and repression and it must be abolished at all cost and replaced by self-organisation of the masses.

    There are also many other differences in the economy and the structure of the society but i won't get into it all, would be too long...

    Marx didn't like anarchists - and anarchists didn't like Marx. Not surprising all revolutions inspired by marxism ended up to the repression against anarchists.

    I know Marx isn't to blame since all communist revolutions weren't real marxism, but just look at all the bad revolutions that were inspired by marxism, look at all the deaths, the repression against anarchists, etc.... On the other side, anarchism never inspired revolutions that ended up to the deaths of millions of persons and the repression against libertarians who wanted more freedom and more equality...
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,318

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
  19. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    ha, actually we have a discussion about this topic "in real live", after another clash with local trotzkyist, and one of my mates came up with a really good practical compression of the matter:
    If marx' wrote the operating manual for the steamroller, lenin drove the machine and never left the driver's seat, but instead tried to build up a new house still using the steamroller - he must fail with this...

    In other words, "leninism is the real thing" - the main reason why Anarchists have to oppose authorian communism.

    The main difference between marxism and leninism is the difference in their impact on reality/history.
    To keep it short, marx was a bit of a scientist only, except for his very ambitious action at meetings of the international movement, he never took part personally in an actual important struggle in real life - unlike Bakunin, who often joined uprisings and revolts taking his place behind the barricades.

    Marx argued with Bakunin about the "authorian" aspect and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" thingie - not only because the authorian aspect:
    At the time of this debate, only England had an important working class, all other countries were still at early stages of industrial development, so they lacked a strong working class.
    Realizing this fact, Bakunin opposed marx's theorie about the elitist/avantgarde character of the working class - seeing the danger imminent to an elite/avantgarde, the authorian aspect - and in real life the lack of numbers to make a real revolution with the actually small and weak working class only.
    Marx couldn't beat Bakunins arguments, so he used his informal influence in the international movement to isolate Bakunin first and then to kick him out of the Internationale.

    Lenin followed marx'ens theories almost completely, only correcting it according to the actual situation, but:
    Tsarist Russia was still an more agricultural than an industrial economy - Lenin ignored the fact that the working class in Russia was still weak, he followed marx' theorie to the point and ignored the arguments of his fellow russian countryman Bakunin calling for a general basis of all suppressed people regardless their social status to make a successful revolution.

    Most of the russian revolutionary movement worked in exile because of the repression in russia. and to make up for the lack of influence in Russia, Lenin called for the development of "professional revolutionaries" to make the movement more effective/successful - bad mistake from the Anarchist point of view.
    I might be wrong with calling this group of professional revolutionaries a new "class" in relation with the "class war" - but their impact in the history of the russian revolution was very much that of a new class, fighting for it's own interests only.
    (but always remember that the definition of "class" is more economical than sociological...)

    Lenin succeded with his theorie, the exiled russian revolutionary movement divided into "bosheviki" following lenin, and "mensheviki" - the minority that opposed lenin.
    Suppressed by the repression in Russia and the fact that the russian proletariat was still weak, the bolsheviki didn't succeed in gaining important influence and when the time for the revolution arised 1917, because of the crisis of the first world war, most of the bolshevik movement including the "professionals" was still in exile, and their influence in the russian revolutionary movement was still very small.

    Tired of the war and fighting the growing repression in russia the people were rising up against the tsaristic regime 1917 - without real leadership, only influenced by Anarchists, social revolutionary and a few bolshevik/menshevik groups which had survived the repression in Russia.

    I like to mention that the Anarchists did their very best helping to organize people and they often gave more than brave inspiring examples by fighting always in the front lines and many of them died for the revolution.
    But they always refused "to lead" the revolutionary peoples movement, even if asked for leadership - Volin gave some reports about it in his books about "The Unknown Revolution" - read it!
    (Trotzky gave his famous respects for the Anarchists by saying: "The Anarchists are good for making a revolution - but when it's done, they should be returned to where they belong to - the garbage heap of history")

    Lenin and his core of bolsheviks were actually still living in exile in Switzerland when the revolution started,
    they agreed with the german military (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) to be taken to Russia and take part in the revolution.
    i. e. the germans used the bolsheviks to destabilize the tsarist regime by "supporting" the revolution and the bolsheviks agreed, traveled to Russia and arrived too late - the most of the fighting was already done, the tsar was captured and his regime was abolished.

    Jumping on the already moving train and following marx's theorie and his own authorian character, Lenin tried hard to gain more influence on the revolution with the open declared ambition/aim to lead the revolution towards the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat - serious big, unacceptable, fucking dangerous and messing-up-everything-mistake - he may roast in the communist department of hell for this... from the Anarchist point of view.

    The bolsheviks succeeded in corrupting the system of soldier- and workers councils by forcing their own people in, they took over the tsarist's suppression tools like the secret police, the system of gulags, not only to fight the conter-revolutionaries but also the leftwing/Anarchist opposition, they used the red army not only to defend the revolution, but to suppress rightful critisizm and opposition like the soldiers council in Kronstadt or the machno-movement in the Ukraine.

    I don't have enough detailed knowledge about lenins personal responsibility in messing up the russian revolution, but I think he was the declared initiator and leader of the authorian bolsheviks movement and so he is responsible for the corruption and general failing of this great chance in history, turning the revolution of the people into a fucking dictatorship.
    He never questioned marx' authorianism, he never questioned the "dictatorship of the proletariat", but he initiated a "professional" class of functionaries who took over the lead - and never gave up their leadership.

    Sad but true, marxist-leninist movements always end up in repressive regimes...
     
  20. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    But you must admit, that no matter what, capitalism will lead to class war, as capitalism is build on a foundation of exploitation. Capitalism uses the lower classes to produce for a higher class who owns the means of production.
    But it's true, there was classes always, even when it was a feudalistic society with kings and church.

    But yes, what you wrote i can agree on. I've always found that Marx, as an observer and analyzer, was great. His ideas of class war and his criticism of capitalism is important to this day i believe. So i can agree with the criticism, not the alternative proposed.
    But this is why capitalism will always lead to class war. It wouldn't if it wasn't for accumulation of wealth, but have we seen any example in history where it didn't lead to that?

    Makes me happy to read your description of anarchism. Of course i can only agree on that one.

    The problem is that propaganda exists to this day. Parliamentarian leaders with professionals telling them how to lie. We see on the news everyday how the political parties fight each other - analysts tells us on the news "they propose this, to gain control of that" or "to be able to pressure the other part right now" and all that shit. It's incredible that people let them self be lied too, well aware that they are being lied too, yet still believe they live in a democracy.

    I would have wished to see it! Sadly, it's the same we try to create today, but i haven't seen it happen yet.
     
Loading...