RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:41 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:07 am
Posts: 67
Has thanked: 65 time
Have thanks: 31 time
The things I mentioned have a lot to do with NEP and bureaucracy.
They were the last acts of a revolutionary Party that has been defeated by international counter-revolution. The school reform was soon destroyed by Lunacharskij because it was against the NEP's need for exploited working class, the women's congress i mentioned, was the last known congress that raised these points, since you know that stalinism brought back the gender issue almost to the zharist era.
Militiration of labour was meant to be a temporary solution for urgent needs, that could have brought to military defeat the soviet revolution. In 1920 when such needs were at the most ending, it should have ended: you should know that there was a big debate in bolscevic Party about such "ending". Lenin supported the end of militarization. Trotzky didn't.
This is the point.
As for Kronstadt, it is no tabu.
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2001 ... revolution
But we are at it: 1921 is the beginning of counter-revolution.

_________________
Without the revolutionary party, every revolt will exhaust itself within the system.” Onorato Damen

http://www.leftcom.org/en


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:46 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:18 am
Posts: 959
Location: Кронштадт
Has thanked: 503 time
Have thanks: 661 time
So, if revolution begin in 1921 what was Lenin's role in it? If he participated wasn't he a counter-revolutionary at that time?

_________________
The worst sin we commit is that we degrade our political and organisational tasks to the level of the immediate, “palpable”, “concrete” interests of the everyday economic struggle; yet they keep singing to us the same refrain: Lend the economic struggle itself a political character! We repeat: this kind of thing displays as much “sense for the realities of life” as was displayed by the hero in the popular fable who cried out to a passing funeral procession, “Many happy returns of the day!”
Lenin, What Is To Be Done?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:07 am
Posts: 67
Has thanked: 65 time
Have thanks: 31 time
It was the time of counter-revolution because revolutionaries were not anymore in control of events.

_________________
Without the revolutionary party, every revolt will exhaust itself within the system.” Onorato Damen

http://www.leftcom.org/en


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:03 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:18 am
Posts: 959
Location: Кронштадт
Has thanked: 503 time
Have thanks: 661 time
Ok, so if you're the one who's behind material force of counter-revolution (like Cheka or Red Army for example), if you're giving orders... what is your name? Mr. Counter-Revolutionary.

_________________
The worst sin we commit is that we degrade our political and organisational tasks to the level of the immediate, “palpable”, “concrete” interests of the everyday economic struggle; yet they keep singing to us the same refrain: Lend the economic struggle itself a political character! We repeat: this kind of thing displays as much “sense for the realities of life” as was displayed by the hero in the popular fable who cried out to a passing funeral procession, “Many happy returns of the day!”
Lenin, What Is To Be Done?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:09 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:07 am
Posts: 67
Has thanked: 65 time
Have thanks: 31 time
Nobody had control of events in order to turn back to revolution! Because not even with a 100000 times tougher Cheka they could have succeded. It was simply impossible because, counter-revolutionaries destroyed world revolution. Lenin knew that. Trotzky didn't, he believed that a militarized Soviet Union could have conquered the world.
Zealant voluntarist bolscevics turned out to be counter-revolutionary.
And the real elimination of all communist workers and bolscevics was something done by a state aparatus dominated by a new class, wich had nothing to do with the bolscevic party (it was simply other people mostly tecnicians and bourgeois opportunists seeking for power), who instead was quickly marginalized.
For exampe Kollontaj was a minister in the bolscevik provisional government in 1917, and later on an ambassador (?) in stalinist era.

_________________
Without the revolutionary party, every revolt will exhaust itself within the system.” Onorato Damen

http://www.leftcom.org/en


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:10 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:55 pm
Posts: 1315
Has thanked: 398 time
Have thanks: 938 time
Actually Lenin did support militarization until just a few months before the big party meetings [can't remember if it was the convention] in 1920, letting Trotsky absorb all the criticism for what had been their mutually agreed upon policy.

I would like to see a reference in Trotsky's writings supporting this assertion that Trotsky believed a militarized SU could have conquered the world, particularly as Trotsky was opposed to the whole notion of bringing about the revolution by bayonet point during the argument about attempting to take all of Poland during the civil war.

And FWIW, this:
Quote:
And the real elimination of all communist workers and bolscevics was something done by a state aparatus dominated by a new class, wich had nothing to do with the bolscevic party (it was simply other people mostly tecnicians and bourgeois opportunists seeking for power),


is 1. just ******** 2. one of the problems with the "new class" theory-- it ignores the limitations of the revolution itself, the "disenfranchisement," so to speak, of the class, the actions taken by the Bolsheviks themselves that sacrificed "world revolution"-- as in Turkey; in short, it is as ahistorical as the arguments by Mensheviks etc. that no proletarian revolution was possible in Russia; that the Bolsheviks were always usurpers.

You want to know why there's no "tent organization"? Because nobody gives a **** about historical materialism; everybody is selling an ideology, an epitaph for a corpse.

_________________
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?
That's what it is to live the life of a slave.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:43 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:39 pm
Posts: 63
Has thanked: 25 time
Have thanks: 32 time
I've never been particularly well-read regarding the Russian Revolution, but I'm reading a book currently that analyzes a lot of these policy issues (from a non-Marxist perspective) and I have to say that I've come to the conclusion that, while programs like NEP were troubling solutions, there just weren't a lot of good choices for the USSR at that time. Or any good choices, really. It did seem like Lenin and the Bolsheviks were constantly cursed by this seemingly paradoxical notion that socialist revolution had broken out in a country with a productive system that had not reached maturity yet. There was some significant development in the Russian Empire but it was definitely not on the level of certain other countries in Europe. And when the prospects of revolution happening in those countries failed to materialize, other options had to be considered. One such option was trying to develop the USSR into a modern economy like those of western Europe, and I suppose some wagered that a way to do this (in the midst of economic collapse following the revolutionary & civil war) was to use a state-dominated/state capitalist market mechanism of some sort, hence NEP. Inject a little capitalism and "free enterprise and trade" under the "political power of the proletariat" in order to build a good economic base to get to socialism off of, which Lenin thought could be built at the soonest in a couple decades.

There are some big problems with that. The obvious one is that you're constructing this entire edifice of capitalism and hoping that you'll get to socialism at the other side. I'm not sure that one can consciously construct something that was unconsciously built (or at least not built by people anxious only to create one system just to leap from into the "next stage") But at the same time I don't really know of many good options for the situation that would be in compliance with Marxist thought. It was a really bad situation and Lenin if nothing else was a pragmatist who was dealing rather reactively with the constant problems facing the USSR, so you got NEP.

There are still a lot of communists who seem to think ultra-industrialization was the way to go. Eventually it just became something that people thought was a matter of pure survival, though. This was Trotsky's belief and I guess Stalin's as well. But to me these beliefs vis-a-vis industrialism (ie, that an entity which is itself supposed to arise from a late stage, mature capitalist productive capacity, the communist party of the proletariat, can consciously construct the economic conditions for socialism/communism and have society not be hell on earth) always seems to run into these voluntaristic notions that of course reached their nadir under Stalin and Mao.

I'm still learning about these things but that's just my impression/opinion...


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:33 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 66
Location: New Jersey
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 101 time
I don't think you can do politics by counterfactual statements (if only the Bolsheviks had done "x" it would've been all right). That's kind of non-materialist, isn't it? The problem of the Russian revolution wasn't what the Bolsheviks did, it was the failure of the German revolution, which in turn doomed the Russian revolution no matter what the Bolsheviks chose. Even if they had dissolved the Cheka and put the factories under workers' control and renewed the Soviets (with direct suffrage and right of recall and no bureaucrats and really followed through on "All Power to the Soviets"), they couldn't have gone forward to the lower stage of communism described by Marx. The main premise of the Russian revolution was that a broader European revolution would follow; when that failed to happen, the question became how the revolution would die. The Bolshevik tenacity for power, which I think a lot of revolutionaries saw as a positive thing, meant that counter-revolution had to come through the Bolsheviks themselves.

Anyway, I don't think a "tent organization" at this point even makes sense; in this period when there is so much ideological work to be done, trying to jam everyone together for a common framework is a major distraction. What I think needs to happen are more tendencies based on fairly close analysis to form, to clarify their ideas and debate with others, and participate when they can in broader class movements. There seems to be a lot of distance within left communist ideas, and that needs to be analyzed and ruthlessly criticized before we can say "Okay, everybody should be in this group."

_________________
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx
graymouser has been thanked by:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:28 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:33 am
Posts: 95
Has thanked: 21 time
Have thanks: 13 time
gray mouser said: " There seems to be a lot of distance within left communist ideas, and that needs to be analyzed and ruthlessly criticized ..."

Is it at all possible for you to give an example of the "distance within left communist ideas" graymouser, I am intrigued?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't there a tent organisation for ultra-left
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:23 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:39 pm
Posts: 63
Has thanked: 25 time
Have thanks: 32 time
graymouser wrote:
I don't think you can do politics by counterfactual statements (if only the Bolsheviks had done "x" it would've been all right). That's kind of non-materialist, isn't it? The problem of the Russian revolution wasn't what the Bolsheviks did, it was the failure of the German revolution, which in turn doomed the Russian revolution no matter what the Bolsheviks chose. Even if they had dissolved the Cheka and put the factories under workers' control and renewed the Soviets (with direct suffrage and right of recall and no bureaucrats and really followed through on "All Power to the Soviets"), they couldn't have gone forward to the lower stage of communism described by Marx. The main premise of the Russian revolution was that a broader European revolution would follow; when that failed to happen, the question became how the revolution would die. The Bolshevik tenacity for power, which I think a lot of revolutionaries saw as a positive thing, meant that counter-revolution had to come through the Bolsheviks themselves.


I guess what I'm really wondering is if we're willing to accept the fact that NEP was "counter-revolutionary" (which I am), were there really any other "better" choices? I don't really have a problem with looking at this issue in hindsight. Was there really any point to the Bolsheviks after revolution in western Europe never materialized, and it became clear that Russia wasn't going to get "Prussian railroad efficiency" and "American technology" etc?

To put it in very simple terms: what is the role of the revolutionary after the revolution has failed?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred