On April 22nd, 1870, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov “Lenin,” hero of the Russian Revolution, and architect of the world’s first Socialist state, was born. His contributions to the Marxist canon and to the revolutionary theory and practice of the proletariat throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of imperialism, the right of nations to self-determination, and revolutionary strategy have played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He also loved cats!
Some significant works:
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
I appreciate what other leftists are doing for the cause. As an anarchist, though, I have to interject.
The idea that a revolution needs to be carried out by a central authority is dangerous, as I’m sure plenty of you know. It doesn’t matter how red your new flag is. We leftists shouldn’t think of our state becoming a “better” state, but rather the abolition of the state altogether. Power concentrated in any form, no matter how well intentioned, inevitably reproduces hierarchy and domination. Our goal shouldn’t be to seize the machine, but to dismantle it and build something radically different: decentralized, cooperative, and rooted in mutual aid. Something we all can get behind.
I’d love to hear a marxist pov on this. <3
Anarchist movements can very easily be hijacked by bad faith actors. Billionaires are reading your literature. But not to become your friend.
As a Marxist-Leninist, the biggest distinction is that Marxists and Anarchists have different views of what the State even is, to begin with. As a consequence, what a society that has abolished the state looks entirely different for Marxists and Anarchists. We can’t all get behind the ideas you posited, specifically decentralization as the basis for the economy.
For Marxists, the state is an instrument of class oppression, and to eliminate it, you must eliminate class. An important note, class is not hierarchy. There exists inter-class hierarchy, such as bourgeois and proletarian, but also intra-class hierarchy, such as managers and workers. A fully publicly owned and planned global economy is what Marxists envision as “Communism.” Without any property distinctions, there is no class, and thus no need for special bodies of armed men to uphold property distinctions, no need for things like property rights, while things like administration remain.
This is because Marx’s view of Socialism is as it emerges from Capitalism. As Capitalism advances, large industry emerges, and with it cooperative production and increasing complexity in fewer and fewer firms. Marx therefore saw the Proletariat, growing greater in number and the bourgeoisie lesser and lesser as competition dies out, as taking control and directing this new economy in its own interests. It isn’t about reversing trends into decentralized communes, as in Marx’s eyes, this retains class distinctions, as each commune only owns itself, and thus there is no mechanism for equal ownership across communes, and therefore a necessity for a “state” in each commune to protect these rights and competition between communes for production and trade.
For Anarchists, the state is about hierarchy. Tackling this is the primary objective. This is why when Anarchists judge Marxists on their ability to abolish what Anarchists percieve as the state, they find Marxists invariably fall flat. However, when Marxists are judged on their own merits and own goals, we find Marxists to be quite successful.
As a side-note, the vanguard structure is a formalization of what already exists, the politically advanced among the revolutionary class. It isn’t distinct from the revolutionary class. I recommend reading The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
I over-simplified a ton, but I hope this helps! I can also answer any questions you may have. I used to be an Anarchist myself, so that helps smooth miscommunication.
interesting, thanks for writing it down like this.
If you allow the random question, is this persistence of class between communes also the reason you shifted from anarchism to Marxism? Because I think you do make a persuasive point and would like to know what changed your trajectory/mind.
No problem!
To answer your question, I believe the arguments presented by Marx concerning the ever-increasing complexity of production in large-scale industry paving the way for societal progression naturally towards a planned economy to be more than compelling enough for me to question my prejudice against the various existing Socialist states. That spurned on a lot of personal reading on the various Socialist states and more Marxist theory. Strategically, I find Marxism-Leninism has proven itself in theory and in practice, and it continues to get refined and shaped ever further.
Yes I get that. I‘m looking forward to reading the comment and article you have linked and thanks for the insightful perspective. I hope you have a lovely day
No problem! And you too, have a great day!
You should not confuse leftism as synonymous with anarchy and decentralization.
Decentralization does not work for large scale infrastructure that is needed to make a modern society function. Power concentrated invariably produces hierarchy, but you can still have power divided enough to combat that with a centralized system. Ranked choice voting, sizing your house correctly, and allowing many competing viewpoints to exist through campaign funding laws can stop most of the ills.
It’s a large mistake to assume that smaller groups of people will not still oppress others. Decentralization aids supremacy groups by allowing them to carve out areas where they have greater control, giving them a stronger foothold to take over society at large.
Well said. Anarchism has received horrible press at the hands of Big Democracy but many of our current problems are rooted in the concentration of power, money and influence that capitalist societies seem to produce. On the other hand, can we live without the many products and technology that require large scale effort? It feels like that would be a major challenge for any fledgling anarchic society.
Hey, I’ve argued this exact stance with my Marxist brothers a few times here and here. They seem sure of revolution and against market socialism. Anyways, I’ve created a community for us to talk more about it here - Collective Cake
And what a coincidence today being a Collective Cake day!
Cool, he says we can shoot him.
Is that a real trump tweet? That’s scary.
Whether a king is above the law or not is the difference between a democratic or absolute monarchy. He thinks he’s above the law, so I guess he’s shooting for absolute monarchy.
Fascism has no ideology. They will just take any varnish that makes them look acceptable in the short term. Just like fake tan, it’s just gold paint over a turd.
Fascism is best described as Capitalism’s mask. When the circumstances Capitalism finds itself in due to its own contradictions endanger the system, it dons the mask and does the dirty work necessary to perpetuate the system. From slaughtering minority groups to crushing worker movements, the inherently contradictory and irrational behavior found in fascism are there to ultimately save Private Capital.
Fascism isn’t a unique system, but Capitalism in decay.
Wouldn’t it be a derivative of oligarchy? Fascism doesn’t care about the free market, only the well being of those at the top. You could argue oligarchy is a derivative of capitalism, but I don’t think they’re synonymous.
Couple things, here:
-
“Oligarchy” is a nebulous, catch-all term for any system where only a few have any power. It could apply to many systems, but itself isn’t one. Nobody sets out to “do oligarchy,” nor is oligarchy itself a system in and of itself.
-
There’s no such thing as a “free market.” In Capitalism, the state is under the control of Capitalists. These Capitalists use the state as they wish, regulations in Capitalism are used primarily to empower the largest firms and shut out competition.
In analyzing those aspects, we need to analyze where the systems we think of as “fascism” arise. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, etc were all the results of dire crisis, and the state aligned with Private Capital in extremely brutal manners to root out opposition and protect itself. The conditions for arising and the system in place were all Capitalist in nature.
You using private capital as synonymous with powerful people? Rich people to tend to be powerful, but they’re not the only ones.
And are you saying the treaty of versailles and it’s fallout were part of the conditions for fascism, and were capitalist in nature?
I’m not using it as synonymous with powerful people, fascism has always been tied to private capital. As I already said, oligarchy isn’t really any one thing, just like economy isn’t. Fascism specifically is entirely a product of Capitalist decay, or, rather, is Capitalism when in decay and needs to rescue itself.
The inter-Ally debts causing the allies to squeeze Germany ever-further via reparations in order to pay their debts back to the US was a part of the rise of fascism, but not the only one. There was also rising labor organizing, a need for forced labor via colonial expansion, and more. It’s more complex and nuanced than that.
-
Quite simple, actually. If you want to do a thing that violates a law, you modify the law to allow the thing.
Case in point:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (13th amendment)
[…] implementation of the dictatorship [of the proletariat] was clearly defined by Lenin as early as in 1906, when he argued it must involve “unlimited power based on force and not on law,” power that is “absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever and based directly on violence.”
Leszek Kołakowski
Lenine is a huge theoricist, but beware of those idolizing him. Neither God, nor Caesar, nor Tribune.
We don’t need to dogmatically idolize, but I openly admire his contributions both to the Marxist Canon and to the working class movements in general. His contributions in theory and in practice have been vital for Socialism.
Never idolize anyone. I think the lack of certainty in the number of deaths Lenin was responsible for adds more horror to his decisions. No matter how pretty his ideas were, or how cute he looked with a cat, an oligarch is an oligarch, and as soon as a revolutionary acquires power, they become the oppressor.
The lack in certainty at the extent of the excesses in the Russian Revolution primarily stems from separating what actually happened on the ground, and what was reported in Western countries via anti-communist propaganda. Revolution is bloody business, and the Tsarists resisting the Russian Civil War fought hard against the newly Socialist society emerging, as well as 14 Capitalist countries that had invaded to shut down the revolution.
All governments are oppressive, what matters is which class is doing the oppressing. In the Soviet Union, the Proletariat had taken control, and wielded the power of the state to shut down fascists, Tsarists, and the bourgeoisie. The outcome was quite positive for the Working Class. Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, immense strides were made.
Free healthcare, childcare, and education were provided. Literacy rates tripled to 99.9%, life expectancy doubled from the 30s to the 70s, and the USSR managed to go from feudalism to space in half a century as a consequence. Women’s rights were expanded greatly. The Red Army also liberated the world from the threat of the Nazis, having been responsible for the taking of Berlin, and 90% of the total Nazi deaths. Wealth inequality shrank dramatically, while economic growth boomed. The USSR also supported national liberation movements against Colonialism and Imperialism, in countries like Cuba, Algeria, Korea, China, Vietnam, and Palestine.
All in all, Lenin indeed was an oppressor from the perspective of the bourgeoisie. However, from the perspective of the proletariat, he was a hero, and is celebrated as a liberator from the oppression of the Tsar.
In the Soviet Union, the Proletariat had taken control
Then why did they kill so many peasants and workers?
The outcome was quite positive for the Working Class.
Except for the ones who are dead.
Can you elaborate?
talking about Kulloks
“Peasants and workers,” I see.
For the record I was not saying they where but that is very clearly what the person you origionaly replied to was refering too… because Westerners
Yea, I was going along with you, lol
