Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheezy the Wiz, Nov 8, 2013.
The POUM screwed themselves.
And I've certainly no intent to revive it. But, the POUM called themselves "Leninists" too, so we at least owe them that slight distinction from their assassins.
I can't find a table of contents for the Lenin Anthology, but if it's a collection of shorter works like the M&E Reader then I'm sure it's good. I would get both? The Essential Works has 4 very important, longer works that aren't likely to be included in their entirety in the Anthology.
In addition to the 4 in the Essential Works, I consider more essential Lenin to be:
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy
The Emancipation of Women
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (warning, this one is kinda hard and philosophical)
Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
Also, since you [didn't] ask, Selected Works of Mao Zedong and Four Essays on Philosophy will provide great coverage for Mao.
I don't think there is a decent anthology for Stalin. The important Stalin works are:
Anarchism or Socialism?
Marxism and the National Question
Foundations of Leninism
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)
Economic Problems of the USSR
EDIT: There does seem to be a Selected Works on Amazon, but I cannot discern its contents. It's certainly no longer in print anyway.
We wouldn't have to kill anarchists if anarchists didn't keep trying to destroy socialism. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
A distinction Trotskyists also make. It means nothing.
I do have to laugh at the word "assassins" though, as if the POUM did not purposefully pick that fight.
I have two questions.
The silly one: Who are communists endorsing for the 2016 US presidential election? Would I be correct in assuming you all are supporting the Green Party ticket/Jill Stein?
Which is the better LA band? Linkin Park or No doubt?
Depends on the communist but generally seems to be either SAlt or nobody, no, and No Doubt, respectively.
Anarchists are the ones who build socialism, Leninists insist we paint capitalism red and call it socialism.
The CPUSA, which has by now discarded any semblance of leftism, is endorsing the Democrats. We regard this as among the highest levels of betrayal. They've had a line for many years now about "lesser evilism" based on a perverted understanding of the Popular Front. I actually had to write a specific polemic against this, which you can find published here.
I'm not 100% sure if Socialist Alternative is endorsing Stein or not, but I would expect such a statement at some point. I don't think they have their own candidate.
We, however do.
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), also running as the candidate for the Liberty Union Party in Vermont and the Peace and Freedom Party in California.
Soltysik/Walker - Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
Moorhead/Lily - Workers World Party (WWP)
If I vote it'll be for Gloria La Riva most likely. Jill Stein is a welfare capitalist and I don't like her problematic positioning on issues like vaccinations and autism (which to her credit she does not link, but has separately bad positions on).
Before you ask, the purpose of such campaigns is propaganda. It's an opportunity to spread our political message to a much wider audience than normal, and at a time when everyone's minds are very keenly political. The real fight has nothing to do with the elections at all.
No Doubt, no contest. Although early 2000s me would've had a very different answer.
When you're capable of better analysis than puerile one-liner sectarianism, come back and see me.
Moderator Action: This is trolling. In case anybody has forgotten the prefix on this thread:
The irony of this statement is tremendous particularly given that you published an essay denouncing CPUSA for not being left-wing enough because they endorsed the Democrats
They have. I am curious what they would have done if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee. Their position towards his campaign made strategic sense, I thought, but it would have put them in a really odd position.
Soltysik/Walker is also on the Natural Law Party ballot line in Michigan.
What you call "picking a fight" they would have called "revolution".
I'm guessing this is because you think a polemic criticizing the actions of the largest left-wing party in the country, that has served for a long time as the standard-bearer of the radical left, is puerile and sectarian? I can't imagine how a person could arrive at such a conclusion, unless they have no concept of what a Correct Line is and just think that criticizing people while rejecting one-liner insults is somehow hypocritical...which again, I dunno how someone could arrive at such a conclusion.
They can call it whatever they like; the point is, the POUM started the violence with the """""""""Stalinists"""""""""" and got what they deserved. If they didn't wanna get killed then maybe they should have spent some more time supporting the rest of the United Front and less time murdering Papists and raping nuns and being sectarian with the rest of the Left in Spain as if they were just as bad as the Nationalists. Actions have consequences, and stupid actions have bad consequences. Who knows, maybe if the POUM hadn't screwed the pooch maybe the fascists wouldn't have ruled Spain for 40 years?
No, it's specifically the criticism of them for working with the Democrats that I think is puerile and sectarian. Refusing to work with the democrats marks one out in my eyes as a sectarian; refusing to work with the Communists because they'll work with the Democrats is, like, next-level sectarian. And imo left-sectarianism is puerile. Maybe you can afford to hold out for a revolutionary movement of sufficient purity to completely overthrow capitalism and usher in a golden utopia, but poor people here in the US are hurting and they can't wait forever (that's how long it will take for "the revolution" to happen), they need help now and the best way to do that is by working with the actually-existing political formations to try to effect whatever degree of positive change is possible.
No revolution is going to happen while putting our support behind imperialists and liberals. Of that you can be sure.
If we support leftists who support the Democrats, then we are supporting the Democrats ourselves. It's like if your mom gives you money for gas, and you use that money to buy gas and then use the money you saved from that to go buy alcohol...then mom just bought you alcohol.
The revolution will only come when we have a correct line that differentiates us from the people causing their problems. It's impossible to claim to oppose someone that you're supporting, if that person would in no circumstances ever be on your side. And the Democrats will never, ever, ever be on our side.
With a situation like the British Labour Party, things get a bit more iffy. But I'm not a British citizen and I don't have to worry about that gray area and the associated tactical concerns.
If you're talking about a Leninist revolution, it will never happen in the United States, period, end of story. If you're talking about an actual Marxist revolution, a revolution in the wider society rather than a "revolution" of self-proclaimed revolutionaries taking over the state and murdering everyone who disagrees with them, it's been in the process of happening since the twenties. Capitalism's internal dynamics are destroying it from within as we speak, and have been for decades.
I agree. It must be hard for communists when the dictatorship of the poopeepot is out to get you. Perhaps you can relate to this:
It starts with
One thing I don't know why
It doesn’t even matter how hard you try
Keep that in mind, I designed this rhyme
To explain in due time
All I know
Time is a valuable thing
Watch it fly by as the pendulum swings
Watch it count down to the end of the day
The clock ticks life away
It’s so unreal
Didn’t look out below
Watch the time go right out the window
Trying to hold on but didn’t even know
I wasted it all just to watch you go
I kept everything inside and even though I tried, it all fell apart
What it meant to me will eventually be a memory of a time when...
I tried so hard
And got so far
But in the end
It doesn't even matter
I had to fall
To lose it all
But in the end
It doesn't even matter
Moderator Action: Neither toilet humour nor spammed lyrics are welcome in this thread.
Revolution is over. Now join the "Allahu Akbar" ISIS revolution.
From a cold, calculated point of view of political analysis, ISIS took exactly the position what Lenin has taken 100 years ago
I have always maintained that Leninism is a sort of apocalyptic cult, much like ISIS.
Moderator Action: I'm a little surprised that this needs to be said, but please stay away from comparisons between other posters' political beliefs and those of ISIS.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I didn't realize this had become a "soapbox against Marxism-Leninism" thread. Either ask a question or get out.
I think I might agree, but could you clarify why the Labour Party is "iffy" in a way the Democrats aren't?
Well Labour (and all social-democratic parties), as a party consciously of the working class, is capable of exerting political force, at times, in ways that benefit the working class despite it being a welcome presence in bourgeois parliaments. Those measures, while obviously reformist in their nature and aim, can also have the effect of increasing the political activity of the working class by giving them room to organize and "victory morale" from the successful implementation of those reforms.
However, like all social-democratic parties, Labour has a twofold nature. Here were arrive at the most important modern divide between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists, though. Trotskyists see Labour as good socialists who are mistaken; MLs see Labour as the left-wing of liberalism. On the one hand, it represents a formation of working class people acting, ostensibly, in their own interests, conscious as a class. On the other, it is undoubtedly a welcome presence in the bourgeois parliamentary system, where it has been more than happy, on every occasion in history, to manage the affairs of the bourgeois state with all the tenacity of any other bourgeois party. It is run through and through with bourgeois ideology and thus, while its members might be swayed to change their minds and abandon the party, the party itself is beyond salvation as far as we are concerned because it was never capable of being salvaged. Its role has always been to provide left cover for capitalism in its late stages, and this is why social democracy is really only seen in the imperial core, and why social democracy is referred to by some Marxist-Leninists as "social fascism" because its failure to rally the proletariat in a revolutionary, militant way gives rise to a violent conservative reaction in the form of fascism, which comes to be embraced by many of those same proletarians as they become disillusioned, and at the same time the parliamentary tactics of social democracy leave no room for the kind of militant street organization required to confront fascism with force. The German SPD saw this mistake play out in the worst way possible: they split the working class between them and the KPD (communist party), and believed that Hitler was going to be a short-lived phenomenon whom they would quickly replace ("after Hitler, then our turn" was the slogan). The Nazis were of course neither a short-lived phenomenon nor kidding around, and 11 months after their seizure of power both the SPD and KPD had been completely obliterated. Other European socialists countered this by forming United Fronts and Popular Fronts, and jointly stopping the rise of fascism by confronting it in the streets until that, too, was sabotaged by liberals.
Which brings us back to the previous topic of the POUM, and the infantile ultra-leftism that comes from breaking a United Front with other socialists against fascism in favor of sectarianism, and how all it accomplishes is making everybody dead.
Trotskyists, on the other hand, tend to see any party or social movement containing a large working class continent as being inherently proletarian and good. This leads them to support all manner of nonsensical actions, from embracing the "Euromaidan" movement in Ukraine and the Free Syrian Army in the Syrian Civil War, to the famed "French Turn" aka the birth of Entryism, in which the French Trotskyists joined the Socialist Party en masse in 1934 to try and "convert it from within" and radicalize it. Needless to say, this did not work.
So in some situations, supporting social-democrats on very specific initiatives can be beneficial, but blindly embracing liberal parties of any type will lead you to ruin as they pull you into parliamentary, reformist ends until they can destroy you outright.
Featured image: And SPD poster advertising rejecting cooperation with the Communists against fascism.
Separate names with a comma.