Non-Leninist Marxism

[Starkadder]

Do you know the difference between soviet-communism and any other forms of communism?

Yes I do, and I know of no branch of socialism or communism that didn't result in disaster, to varying degrees, wherever it was attempted.

There is a reason it's consigned to the dustbin of history, it has a horrific track record, in every form.

The British Welfare State was social-democratic (socialist) and it
sent nobody to prison camps.It was quite successful.

I mentioned Guy Debord, the Non-Leninist leader of the
Situationists...fans of
punk will know the punk movement was full of Situationist-inspired
graphics and lyrics (the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Gang of Four, the
Pop Group,etc.).

[Unbeatable South Derry]

Do you know the difference between soviet-communism and any other forms of communism?

Yes I do, and I know of no branch of socialism or communism that didn't result in disaster, to varying degrees, wherever it was attempted.

There is a reason it's consigned to the dustbin of history, it has a horrific track record, in every form.

Well saying as the soviet model was the first to gain power this isn't surprising is it?! As I've already said any communist movement since has been basically taken over by those who followed the soviet method, leading to the movement's downfall. Early optimism is was soon destroyed when soviet "advisers" arrived on the scene, removing those who supported other forms. Do some research, the list is endless.

[Starkadder]

In my opinion it wasn't Lenin who corrupted communism but Stalin. Had Stalin not driven Trotsky into exile perhaps the Soviet Union would not have become a failure. It's also worth noting that many communist uprisings across the world failed because of Soviet "military advisers" forcing purges against any Trotskist, anarchist or left-communist members within the ranks of the rebel movements. Lenin's model was open to corruption from the very beginning, especially the centralisation policy, but it was after Lenin's death that Stalin began the corruption.

That's interesting, but I'd say several of Lenin's ideas were seriously
flawed from the start. For a start, Lenin advocated the idea of the vanguard party-
that the Communist Party can rule on behalf of the whole
working class. But Marx said most of the working class needed to
educated and ready for revolution, not represented by
an elitist vanguard party. Also, Lenin's rivals, the Mensheviks,
may have be correct when they said Russia was too backward
industrially for a genuine Marxist proletarian revolution.Marx
said the revolution would probably happen in industrial nations
like the UK and Germany.

Incidentally, don't confuse the Left Communists with
Leon Trotsky and his followers. Trotsky was still
a Leninist vanguardist.

[Universal_001]

Do you know the difference between soviet-communism and any other forms of communism?

Yes I do, and I know of no branch of socialism or communism that didn't result in disaster, to varying degrees, wherever it was attempted.

There is a reason it's consigned to the dustbin of history, it has a horrific track record, in every form.

The British Welfare State was social-democratic (socialist) and it
sent nobody to prison camps.It was quite successful.

I mentioned Guy Debord, the Non-Leninist leader of the
Situationists...fans of
punk will know the punk movement was full of Situationist-inspired
graphics and lyrics (the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Gang of Four, the
Pop Group,etc.).

As any real socialist will tell you, social democracy just puts a band aid on the capitalist system, it does not change the economic power structures fundamentally

Well saying as the soviet model was the first to gain power this isn't surprising is it?! As I've already said any communist movement since has been basically taken over by those who followed the soviet method, leading to the movement's downfall. Early optimism is was soon destroyed when soviet "advisers" arrived on the scene, removing those who supported other forms. Do some research, the list is endless.

There are fundamental flaws in the entire concept, tinkering with different spins on it, will change nothing, the majority of the world knows this, which is why the entire left is seen as dead, and why the world is charging to the right, or neoliberal model, not because it's so fantastic, but because even though it's a crappy system, the alternatives are downright scary.

[Unbeatable South Derry]

I don't see Trotsky as either a Leninist or a left communist. His ideas on a global revolution were different than that of Lenins.

Don't forget also that the formation of the vanguard was essential in winning the war against the white army. And Lenin in effect was no longer fit to govern after the civil war due to his health anyway, leading for the struggle for power which would eventually destroy the state.

[Unbeatable South Derry]

There are fundamental flaws in the entire concept, tinkering with different spins on it, will change nothing, the majority of the world knows this, which is why the entire left is seen as dead, and why the world is charging to the right, or neoliberal model, not because it's so fantastic, but because even though it's a crappy system, the alternatives are downright scary.

The entire left? The recent voting patterns in Latin America would say different.

[Starkadder]

What is wrong with the "neoliberal model"? It removes power from democratic
governments and places it in the hands of multi-nationals. I don't remember voting
for Tony O'Reilly or Denis O'Brien: do you? Yet look at the power they have.

To quote the late Steve Kangas:

"The term 'free market' is really a euphemism. What the far right
actually means by this term is 'lawless market.' In a lawless market,
entrepreneurs can get away with privatizing the benefits of the market
(profits), while socializing its costs (like pollution). Uncomfortable
with the concept of a lawless market? The far right will try to reassure
you with claims that the market can produce its own laws, either as a
commodity bought and sold on the market, or through natural market
mechanisms like the "invisible hand" or the Coase theorem. But it is
interesting to note that even if the entrepreneurs don't take the more
likely shortcut of creating their own state, this type of law removes
the creation of law from democratic legislatures and gives it to
authoritarian business owners and landlords. And since you get what you
pay for, "purchased law" will primarily benefit its purchasers. Society
might as well return to aristocracy directly".

[cactus flower]

In Ian Adams & R.W Dyson’s book, Fifty Major Political Thinkers, the entry on V.I.
Lenin states “it was Lenin’s particular interpretations & extensions of Marx’s theory,
known as Marxist-Leninism that became the official doctrine of the Soviet union as of all subsequent
Communist regimes”. The article goes on to note Lenin’s key ideas of “democratic centralism” where
the Communist party controls all social activities (hence the dictatorship found in all Communist countries) and the idea of the “vanguardism”,
where the Communist Party purports to rule on behalf of the working class.
Dyson & Adams note Lenin’s interpretations of Marx have challenged
by elements of the Left since the 1960s.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrating the
failure of the Leninist model, interest has grown in those thinkers who
have rejected the Leninist model, such as Amadeo Bordiga and Anton
Pannekoek (often referred to as the “Left Communists” or “Council
Communists”). Some of the sixties “New Left” leaders, such as
Guy Debord (the leader of France’s famous Situationist
Movement) and Maurice Brinton described themselves as Left Communists.
Because of her criticisms of Lenin and Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg
is regarded as part of the “Left Communist” tradition as well,
her thought influencing such socialists as René Lefeuvre.

There’s a review of a book on “Non-Leninist Marxism” by Fintan Lane here:
http://www.irishsocialist.net/publicati ... rxism.html

The review is hosted by the Irish Socialist Network, whose member Colm Breathnach
states the ISN are a “non-Leninist” Marxist group.

So what do you think? Was the “Marxism” practiced by Lenin a wrong turn, and are the ideas of Left Communists worth thinking about?

I have not come across "50 great thinkers" but if it presents as inarguable fact that it was Lenin’s particular interpretations & extensions of Marx’s theory, known as Marxist-Leninism that became the official doctrine of the Soviet union as of all subsequent Communist regimes” it may indeed be as lightweight and unreliable as it sounds. The small matter of Stalinism is not mentioned. Stalin's peaceful road to Socialism, doctrine of socialism in one country, pact with Hitler and so on did not have anything to do with Leninism. Thus the collapse of the Soviet Union after 70 years did not tell us a whole lot about Leninism. And whether you agree with him or not if you are in any way serious about looking at Marxist theory post Lenin then you need to look at Trotsky's concepts of the permanent revolution.

Haven't got around to reading your link yet but will give it a go and might comment later.

[Binx]

What is wrong with the "neoliberal model"? It removes power from democratic
governments and places it in the hands of multi-nationals. I don't remember voting
for Tony O'Reilly or Denis O'Brien: do you? Yet look at the power they have.

Communism also removes power from democratic governments and places it in the hands of people who have no incentive to do anything except hold on to that power. At least multi-nationals create jobs and wealth an while comparing a CEO's salary and that of the average worker may produce objectively ludicrous results, its better than them both being poor.

In relation to your point above about "if stalin had not forced trotsky into exile, communism might have worked". Thats the problem. Communism/authoritarianism is a mechanism for strong personalities to take power and hold onto it. To say that if stalin had not come along, communism would have worked, therefore we should give it another go is madness. If it wasn't stalin, it would have been someone else who had the
personality and the ambition to grab the power that was waiting to be taken advantage of.

You are assuming that humans act in the best interests of society, when in fact there people in power in various countries who would be tyrants if they had the opportunity, the current U.S administration, especially Cheney, being one example. The communist system was initiated by very well intentioned people like yourself, but either they became corrupt or corrupt people seized power from them. And the working class are oppreesed anyway.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
-Winston Churchill

[Starkadder]

Hmm. I read the "Communist Manifesto" in University,: I am mainly familiar with
Lenin's ideas through Robert Service's biography, and I once read Trotsky's
"The Revolution Betrayed". So I have only a basic knowledge of Marxist texts. However,
the fact that Lenin's ideas had differences from Marx's is undeniable.

As for whether Stalinism (and Maoism) was a betrayal of Leninism, or its logical
conclusion, is an interesting debate. I should look at Trotsky's ideas in
more detail, although as I said he isn't a "Left Communist".

By the way "Fifty Key Thinkers" is an excellent introduction to political
thinkers across the spectrum.