US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Organizing
Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
10 Dec 2005
Historically, there have been three major forms of socialism -- Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism), Authoritarian Socialism (Marxist Communism), and Democratic Socialism (electoral social democracy). The non-Anarchist Left has echoed the bourgeoisie’s portrayal of Anarchism as an ideology of chaos and lunacy. But Anarchism, and especially Anarchist-Communism, has nothing in common with this image. It is false and made up by it's ideological opponents, the Marxist-Leninists.

It is very difficult for the Marxist-Leninists to make an objective criticism of Anarchism as such, because by its very nature it undermines all suppositions basic to Marxism. If Marxism and Leninism (its variant which emerged during the Russian Revolution) is held out to be the working class philosophy and the proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but the Communist Party, it is hard to go back on it and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority over it. Lenin came up with the idea of the transitional State, which would 'wither away' over time, to go along with Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat." The Anarchists expose this line as counter-revolutionary and sheer power-grabbing, and over 75 years of Marxist-Leninist practice have proven us right. These so-called Socialist States produced by Marxist-Leninist doctrine have only produced Stalinist police states, where workers have no rights, and a new ruling class of technocrats and party politicians have emerged, and the class differential between those the State favored over those it didn’t created widespread deprivation among the masses and another class struggle. But instead of meeting such criticisms head on, they have concentrated their attacks not on the doctrine of Anarchism, but on particular Anarchist historical figures, especially Bakunin (Marx's main opponent in the First International).

Anarchists are social revolutionaries who seek a stateless, classless, voluntary, cooperative federation of decentralized communities based upon social ownership, individual liberty and autonomous self-management of social and economic life.

The Anarchists differ with the Marxist-Leninists in many areas, but especially in organization building. They differ from the authoritarian socialists in primarily three way: they reject the Marxist-Leninist notions of the vanguard party, democratic centralism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Anarchists have alternatives for each of them. The problem is that almost the entire Left (including some Anarchists) is completely unaware of Anarchism's tangible structural alternatives of the catalyst group, Anarchist consensus, and the mass commune.

The Anarchist alternative to the vanguard party is the catalyst group. The catalyst group is merely an Anarchist-Communist federation of affinity groups in action. The catalyst group, or revolutionary anarchist federation, would meet on a regular basis or only when necessary, depending on the wishes of the membership and the urgency of social conditions. It would be made up of representatives from the affinity group (or the affinity group itself), with full voting rights, privileges, and responsibilities. It would both set policies and future actions to be performed. It would produce both Anarchist-Communist theory and social practice. It believes in the class struggle and the necessity to overthrow Capitalist rule. It organizes in the communities and workplaces. It is democratic and has no authority figures like a party boss or central committee.

In order to make a revolution, large-scale, coordinated movements are necessary, and their formation is in no way counter to Anarchism. What Anarchists are opposed to is hierarchical, power-tripping leadership which suppresses the creative urge of the bulk of those involved, and forces an agenda down their throats. Members of such groups are mere servants and worshippers of the party leadership. But although Anarchists reject this type of domineering leadership, they do recognize that some people are more experienced, articulate, or skilled than others, and these people will play leadership action roles. These persons are not authority figures, and can be removed at the will of the body. There is also a conscious attempt to routinely rotate responsibility and to pass on these skills to each other, especially to women and people of color, who would ordinarily not get the chance. The experience of these persons, who are usually veteran activists or better qualified than most at the moment, can help form and drive forward movements, and even help to crystallize the potential for revolutionary change in the popular movement. What they cannot do is take over the initiative of the movement itself. The members of these groups reject hierarchical positions (anyone having more official authority than others), and unlike the Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties, the Anarchist groups won't be allowed to perpetuate their leadership through a dictatorship after the revolution. Instead, the catalyst group itself will be dissolved and its members, when they are ready, will be absorbed into the new society's collective decision-making process. Therefore, these Anarchists are not leaders, but merely advisors and organizers for a mass movement.

What we don't want or need is a group of authoritarians leading the working class, then establishing themselves as a centralized decision-making command. Instead of "withering away", Marxist-Leninist States have perpetuated authoritarian institutions (the secret police, labor bosses, and the Communist Party) to maintain their power. The apparent effectiveness of such organizations masks the way that revolutionaries who pattern themselves after Capitalist institutions become absorbed by bourgeois values, and completely isolated from the real needs and desires of ordinary people.

The reluctance of Marxist-Leninists to accept revolutionary social change is, however, above all seen in Lenin’s conception of the party. It is a prescription to nakedly seize power and put it in the hands of the Communist Party. The party that Leninists create today, they believe, should become the [only] Party of the Proletariat in which that class could organize and seize power. In practice, however, this meant personal and party dictatorship, which they felt gave them the right and duty to wipe out all other parties and political ideologies. Both Lenin (along with Trotsky) and Stalin killed millions of workers and peasants, their Left-wing ideological opponents, and even members of their own Bolshevik Party. This bloody and treacherous history is why there is so much rivalry and hostility between Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist parties today, and it is why the "worker's states", whether in Cuba, China, Vietnam, or Korea, are such oppressive bureaucracies over their people. It is also why most of the Eastern European Stalinist countries had their governments overthrown by the petty bourgeoisie and ordinary citizens in the 1980's. Maybe we are witnessing the eclipse of State communism entirely, since they have nothing new to say and will never get those governments back again.

While Anarchist groups reach decisions through Anarchist consensus, the Marxist-Leninists organize through so-called democratic centralism. Democratic centralism poses as a form of inner party democracy, but it is really just a hierarchy by which each member of a party -- ultimately of a society -- is subordinate to a higher member until one reaches the all-powerful party central committee and its Chairman. This is a totally undemocratic procedure, which puts the leadership above criticism, even if it is not above reproach. It is a bankrupt, corrupt method of internal operations for a political organization. You have no voice in such a party, and must be afraid to say any unflattering comments to or about the leaders.

In Anarchist groups, proposals are talked about by members (none of whom have authority over another), dissenting minorities are respected, and each individual’s participation is voluntary. Everyone has the right to agree or disagree over policy and actions, and everyone’s ideas are given equal weight and consideration. No decision may be made until each individual member or affiliated group that will be affected by that decision has had a chance to express their opinion on the issue. Individual members and affiliated groups retain the option to refuse support to specific federation activities. In true democratic fashion, decisions for the federation as a whole must be made by a majority of its members.

In most cases, there is no real need for formal meetings for the making of decisions, what is needed is coordination of the actions of the group. Of course, there are times when a decision has to be made, and sometimes very quickly. This will be rare, but sometimes it is unavoidable. The consensus, in that case, would then have to be among a much smaller circle than the general membership of hundreds or thousands. But ordinarily all that is needed is an exchange of information and trust among parties, and a decision reaffirming the original decision will be reached, if an emergency decision had to be made. Of course, during the discussion, there will be an endeavor to clarify any major differences and explore alternative courses of action. And their will be an attempt to arrive at a mutually agreed upon consensus between conflicting views. As always, if there should be an impasse or dissatisfaction with the consensus, a vote would be taken, and with two-thirds majority, the matter would be accepted, rejected, or rescinded.

This is totally contrary to the practice of Marxist-Leninist parties where the Central Committee unilaterally sets policy for the entire organization, and arbitrary authority reigns. Anarchists reject centralization of authority and the concept of the Central Committee. All groups are free associations formed out of a common need, not revolutionaries disciplined by fear of authority. When the size of the working groups (which could be formed around labor, fundraising, anti-racism, women’s rights, food and housing, etc.) becomes cumbersome, the organizations can be decentralized into two or more autonomous organizations, still united in one large federation. This enables the group to expand limitlessly while maintaining its anarchic form of decentralized self-management. It is (sort of) like the scientific theory of the biological cell, dividing and re-dividing, but in a political sense.

However, Anarchist groups aren’t necessarily organized loosely; Anarchism is flexible and structure can be practically non-existent or very tight, depending on the type of organization demanded by the social conditions being faced. For instance, organization would tighten during military operations or heightened political repression.

Anarchist-Communists reject the Marxist-Leninist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and a so-called "worker's state," in favor of a mass commune. Unlike members of Leninist parties, whose daily lives are generally similar to present bourgeoisie lifestyles, Anarchist organizational structures and lifestyles, through communal living arrangements, affinity groups, squatting, etc., attempt to reflect the liberated society of the future. Anarchists built all kinds of communes and collectives during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's, but they were crushed by the fascists and the Communists. Since the Marxist-Leninists don’t build cooperative structures (the nucleus of the new society) they can only see the world in bourgeois political terms. They want to seize State power and institute their own dictatorship over the people and the workers, instead of crushing State power and replacing it with a free, cooperative society. They insist that the party represents the proletariat, and that there is no need for them to organize themselves outside of the party. Yet, even in the former Soviet Union, the Communist Party membership only represented five percent of the population. This is elitism of the worst sort, and even makes the Capitalist parties look democratic by comparison.

What the Communist Party was intended to represent in terms of worker’s power is never made clear, but in true 1984 doublethink fashion, the results are 75 years of political repression and State slavery, instead of an era of glorious Communist rule. They must be held accountable politically for these crimes against the people, and we must reject their revolutionary political theory and practice. They have slandered the names of Socialism and Communism.

We reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is unbridled oppression, and the Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists must be made to answer for it. Millions have been murdered by Stalin in the name of fighting an internal class war, and millions more were murdered in China, Poland, Afghanistan, Cambodia, and other countries by Communist movements which followed Stalin’s prescription for revolutionary terror. We reject State communism as the worst aberration and tyranny. We can do better than this with the mass commune.

The Anarchist mass commune (sometimes called the Worker's Council, although their are some differences) is a national, continental, or transitional federation of economic and political cooperatives and regional communal formations. Anarchists look to a world and a society in which real decision-making involves everyone who is involved with it -- a mass commune -- not a few discipline freaks pulling the strings on a so-called proletarian dictatorship. Any and all dictatorship is bad, it has no redeeming social features, yet that is what the Leninists tell us will protect us from counter-revolution. While Marxist-Leninists claim that this dictatorship is necessary in order to crush any bourgeois counter-revolutions led by the Capitalist class or right-wing reactionaries. Anarchists feel that this is itself part of the Marxist school of falsification. A centralized apparatus, such as a state, is a much easier target for opponents of the revolution than is an array of decentralized communes. And these communes would remain armed and prepared to defend the revolution against anyone who militarily moves against it. The key is to mobilize the people into defense guards, militias, and other military preparedness units.

The position by the Leninists of the necessity for a dictatorship to protect the revolution was not proven in the Civil War which followed the Russian Revolution; in fact, without the support of the Anarchists and other Left-wing forces, along with the Russian people, the Bolshevik government would have been defeated. And then true to any dictatorship, it turned around and wiped out the Russian and Ukrainian Anarchist movements, along with their Left-wing opponents like the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, and even ideological opponents in the Bolshevik Party were imprisoned and put to death. Millions of Russian citizens were killed by Lenin and Trotsky right after the Civil War, when they were consolidating State power, which preceded Stalin’s bloody rule. The lesson is that we should not be tricked into surrendering the grassroots people’s power to dictators who pose as our friends and leaders.

We don't need the Marxist-Leninists' solutions, they are dangerous and deluding. There is another way, but to much of the Left and to many ordinary people, the choice has appeared to be Anarchic chaos or the Marxist Communist parties, however dogmatic and dictatorial. This is primarily the result of misunderstanding and propaganda. Anarchism, as an ideology, provides feasible organizational structures, as well as valid alternative revolutionary theory, which, if utilized, could be the basis for organization just as solid as the Marxist-Leninist (or even more so) only these organizations will be egalitarian and really for the benefit of the people, rather than the Communist leaders.

Anarchism is not confined to the ideas of a single theoretician, and it allows individual creativity to develop in collective groupings, instead of the characteristic dogmatism of the Marxist-Leninists. Therefore, not being cultist, it encourages a great deal of innovation and experimentation, prompting its adherents to respond realistically to contemporary conditions. It is the concept of making ideology fit the demands of life, rather than trying to make life fit the demands of ideology.

Therefore, Anarchists build organizations in order to build a new world, not perpetuate domination over the masses of people. We must build an organized, coordinated international movement aimed at transforming the globe into a mass commune. Such would be a great overleap in human evolution and a gigantic revolutionary stride. It would change the world as we know it and end the special problems long plaguing humankind. It would be a new era of freedom and fulfillment.

LET'S GET ON WITH IT,
WE'VE GOT A WORLD TO WIN!
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
11 Dec 2005
Nice fiction. You missed a few cliches and did not stereotype quite often enough. I thought your overall tone of consensus and compromise between the "groups" really proved your antiauthoritarian nature. Since you now convinced us all to abandon our individual thoughts and accept your ideology completely, the revolution should be over, right?
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
11 Dec 2005
Lorenzo: Thanks for your piece. It did a great job of comparing these two ideologies around three areas of importance in organizing.

Brad: nice vague critique. How about backing up your claims of "cliches" and "stereotypes" so that there can be a discussion on what you feel rather than just proclaiming it with no back up evidence. I actually liked what Lorenzo had to say and feel that he made valid points throughout. And the whole idea of abandoning our individual thoughts is absurd. Everyone has an ideology whether it's named, explicit, implicit or not. An ideology is a set of ideas one has about a number of principles, issues, etc. Of course no one thinks exactly the same, but identifying a set of common principles or identifying with a common historical tendency as close to your own thought is not abandoning your individual thought. And I think that he's clearly calling for building an organized, coordinated international movement not that a revolution occurs through persuasion and discussion alone.

Get over your arrogance Brad. If you have real criticisms, then put them out there instead of hiding behind vague proclamations.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
11 Dec 2005
Ok, I'll start with the cliche of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." I think both the author and t@g should read Marx before making sweeping statements based on polemical hyperbole. If you actully open a book and read Marx you will find immediatly following the oft missunderstood quote on the dictatorship of the proletariat that he goes on to call the ruling elites of his time the dicatorship of the bourgiousis. This is meant to express the fact that the country was being ruled by a very small percentage of the population, like today but much more extreme, it was meant to represent a democratic system where the majority had input into it. Some of the presission gets lost in the translation. Marx's vison of a society is not one based on a strong state, infact Marx often wrote of the disolving of the state in a communist society. His vison, as he explicity states, is that of the Paris commune.

What Lennin and later Stalin did with Marx is the extreme bastardization and abandonment of Marxism. Marx's vison of a classless society makes the soviet union a gross abandonment of his theories. As anyone even remotely knowlegeable with his text would know.

So, the red baiting, russian stereotyping, gross overgeneralizing of Marxism as authoritarian is utterly rediculous and intellectually lazy and juvenile. Not all Marxists organizations are politically hierarchical, in fact any true marxist group could by definition not be. Because, Marxism rests on equality and elimination of not just economic but social classes.

Is this specific enough or do you want actual quotes? Can you even begin to think beyond your ideologically narrow world view to appresiate the complexity of Marxist thinkers? Or is Lenin and russia as far as your brain can venture?
I would suggest you read alitle before you make such broad sweeping expressions of such an illogical and idiodic nature. It would be nice if Anarchists come down from their black horses long enough to discuss not differences but simmularities between the movements for social and economic equity.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
11 Dec 2005
I agree with Brad on the need to "get back to Marx" , but Lorenzo seems to be talking specifically about Marxist-Leninism, so I'm not sure why Brad is jumping down his throat... seem like good points to discuss anyway....
Structure, Process, Content
12 Dec 2005
"... some people are more experienced, articulate, or skilled than others, and these people will play leadership action roles.... There is also a conscious attempt to routinely rotate responsibility and to pass on these skills to each other, especially to women and people of color, who would ordinarily not get the chance. "

I like that because it brings up that "leadership" traits are a product of our society and culture that delegates to, educates and empowers some but not others. Leadership is a bad inheritance. Its something you do to people not with them.

"In Anarchist groups, proposals are talked about by members (none of whom have authority over another), dissenting minorities are respected, and each individual’s participation is voluntary. Everyone has the right to agree or disagree over policy and actions, and everyone’s ideas are given equal weight and consideration. No decision may be made until each individual member or affiliated group that will be affected by that decision has had a chance to express their opinion on the issue. Individual members and affiliated groups retain the option to refuse support to specific federation activities. "

I really like that.

"In most cases, there is no real need for formal meetings for the making of decisions, what is needed is coordination of the actions of the group. Of course, there are times when a decision has to be made, and sometimes very quickly. This will be rare, but sometimes it is unavoidable. The consensus, in that case, would then have to be among a much smaller circle than the general membership of hundreds or thousands. But ordinarily all that is needed is an exchange of information and trust among parties, and a decision reaffirming the original decision will be reached, if an emergency decision had to be made. Of course, during the discussion, there will be an endeavor to clarify any major differences and explore alternative courses of action. And their will be an attempt to arrive at a mutually agreed upon consensus between conflicting views. As always, if there should be an impasse or dissatisfaction with the consensus,..."

Consensus IS a formal process.
The exact same processes of opression, coercision and totaltarianism we battle in the world exist informally in the very room you are meeting in and in every relationship with in a hundred miles of you. Informally capitalist and other power and wealth consolidating culture kids will revert to competitive and individual processes.

A clear and formal consensus process is the best foundation on which to build a just and persecution free world.
Thanks for empahising that the process works best in small groups specifically >>five people<<<.

Ultra Quick affinity group decision making while the gas and battons are flying mearly requires... Prior, proper, action planning.
Clear and intelligent: Backround/ history, action intention, Place of focus(target), goals, secondary goals, audience, communications, mobalizations, logistics, exit strategy( If..., then we.../ If they..., then we... and analysis.
Pratice and expierence with facilitated consensus (training/skill share).
The assumption of affinity group roles (facilitator, documenter, timekeeper, vibes watcher, spokesperson).
a understanding of consensus manipulating activities such as one man armies, suprises, dishonesty, threats of exclusion or withdrawal, deriding disenters, fait acomplies, fixsolutioning concerns, pulling rank, filibusters, slanted facilitating and of course information hogging.

"a vote would be taken, and with two-thirds majority, the matter would be accepted, rejected, or rescinded."

Not a good idea, voting is inheriently competitive and authoritarian thus disempowering.
.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
12 Dec 2005
Yeah, Brad, I'm an anarchist and I was a little perturbed that he sometimes used "marxism" interchangeably with "marxism-leninism." There's a BIG jump between the writings and actions of those two men.

The funny thing, though, is that when you say he's "russian stereotyping" in his argument, you show yourself to be just as ignorant of pre-Bolshevik workers' movements as you claim Lorenzo is of Marxism. The big irony is that one of the major tensions that erupted within the First International was that Bakunin was organizing in Russia and Marx felt that he was in error because Russia wasn't an advanced capitalist nation. Read the following outraged letter from Marx to Engels on the topic:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_15.htm

Fifty years later, Marx's closest political descendents, the social-democratic pole of the Second International, were still making the argument that the workers' movement should concentrate its energies on the capitalist core in Western Europe; the heretic Bolshevik position on revolution in one country (and in a largely feudal one at that) actually echoed the Bakuninists' opinion on the matter.

Whatever your disagreements with Lorenzo's argument, he's not taking the "russian-stereotyping", Social Democratic, cosmopolitan etc. position when he describes the Russian revolution as authoritarian. He's just calling a shovel a shovel.

If one were to meticulously replace his references to Marxism with Marxism-Leninism--which was beyond any question THE communist pole within most 20th-century popular movements--would you find this article as offensive? In your reading of him, would Marx have specific problems with the "anarchist" strategy and vision described in this essay? Better yet, do you?
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
12 Dec 2005
The form of "communism" that arose in lenninist and later stalinist russia was the farthest thing from communism ever produced on earth. It was state capitalism, with all of its hierarchical bureaucracy maintanied through exploitation and dominance. It can be called many things, but, it should never be called maxist.

I myself do not participate in any movements that are not consensus based and non authoritarian. So, yes I agree with the tactics expressed in the article, except for a few problems I see.
The first is the issue of the state crushing any movement that does not dismantle or take it over. As my freinds in Argentina tell me (who used to be anarchists but no look towards marx) horizontal movements will be crushed by the state and fail if they don't remove the threat.

The second is the polemical and ideological tone of the text. Yes, I agree that russia was authoritarian , and I see no problem with calling it as such. Trying to tie marx with lennin and russia is an old trick, yet it seems to return in the darndest places. Even in "radical" circles. As you prove with your inept analysis of the stuggle with in the international between bakunin and Marx. Which you and others have proven that marx was right. Without the advanced individual liberty socialized through capitalism, any attept to push society into communism is doomed to fail. Furthermore, anymovement that rejects the role of the state in helping to organize society is also doomed to fail.

A third critique of the text is that unlike what is implied by the auther, Marx never laid out the organizing structure of a communist society. Trying to say that Marxism lead to lenninist russia is akin to saying that peanut butter leads to bowling. As I said above, any movement that leads to social hierarchy is by definition not marxists.

Marxist theories strength lies in its ability to consolidate a movement against captialism. By providing in detail the many ways captialism leads to social ruin, Marx laid out for all the path to class consciousness which will lead to liberation.

The ability of some to classify Marx and Marxism as authoritarian is as much the fault of marxists inability to overcome this presupposition as it is anarchists and others who make the distorted claim.

I hope I do not come across as too vitriolic, I just think we need to strike the ignorance from our ranks, setting aside sectarian differences and unite together to build a stong human emancipatory movement.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
12 Dec 2005
I'm going to reiterate my questions:

"In your reading of him, would Marx have specific problems with the "anarchist" strategy and vision described in this essay? Better yet, do you?"

I really don't understand why you're being so hostile in arguing against me. I love reading Marx and agree with most of what you just wrote.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
12 Dec 2005
Was I hostile? I think I answered that question. I agree with most of the essay, except for the points I made. I think the rift between anarchists and marxist is mostly posturing anyway. The two have much more in common than differencs. The essay, I feel, started with a harsh tone. And for the most part miss represented marxism.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
12 Dec 2005
Only when it misrepresented Marxist-Leninism as "Marxism."

I agree that the marxism//anarchist rift is overstated. I mean, I'm pretty much an autonomist Marxist who, being in the USA, mostly hangs out with anarchists.

I think it was hostile to call what I wrote "an inept analysis" without explaining why you disagreed with it.

I do have one question though... You say, "Without the advanced individual liberty socialized through capitalism, any attept to push society into communism is doomed to fail." Are you therefore generally against the politics of "anti-imperialism", or do you just think that anti-imperialist revolutions in the periphery should take the form of bourgeois revolutions? Those are the two main conclusions I've seen drawn from such a staunchly stagist theory of development, and I'm curious to hear which route you'd prefer.
Anarchism is petit-bourgeois, yo!
13 Dec 2005
Yo this be MC Trotsky gettin' on tha mike
Gonna kill your bullshit with an iron spike
Peasants raise your sickles if you love me
Workers raise your hammers for Lev Trot-sky

You talkin anarchist pies up in your sky
Stacked on a tower of redbaiting lies
If you fetixshize process, go join the Quakers
But us Bolsheviks be the movers and shakers

The russian revolution of 1917
Was the greates victory humanity's seen
Then all you fake-ass anarchist bores
Were lining up with the feudal landlords

So much for democracy you slick-talkin slimer
All power to the Soviets -- we made that the primer
So next time anarcho talks about "liberty"
Say "you just a lyin' petty bourgeoisie"

You don't got democracy, just a clique
Run by a third rate discount ideologue and his freaks
Democracy ain't doin whatever you want, maybe
It's the rule of the majority you political baby

You can't have deomcracy without centralism,
And that don't please the dilettantes who like anarchism
But forget this wack debate, we got a struggle to win
Don't wait to see whose ass tha anarchist's head's stuck in (Theodore Roosevelt)
MC Trotsky Out!
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
13 Dec 2005
"Gonna kill your bullshit with an iron spike"

Well that a bit ironic coming from someone using Trotsky as a IMC handle.
Funny jokings
13 Dec 2005
Ho ho ho, that last post make even Stalin giggle.

There is joke in Russian schoolyard: rock beat scissor, scissor beat paper, paper beat rock, but icepick always beat Trotsky.
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
13 Dec 2005
Fess up bearded one! Do you only post the Stalin jokes or do you post the Avakian shit too? lol
Re: Anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist Thought on the Organization of Society
13 Dec 2005
Was I hostile? I think I answered that question. I agree with most of the essay, except for the points I made. I think the rift between anarchists and marxist is mostly posturing anyway. The two have much more in common than differencs. The essay, I feel, started with a harsh tone. And for the most part miss represented marxism.