Nope, let’s forget bolshevism, marx and start over…why did the early french socialists invent ‘socialism’….//Socialists Should Take the Right Lessons From the Russian Revolution

I have come to advocate simply deleting the Bolshevik, even the Marxist legacy, a less drastic resolution than it might seem. This fascinating article is however a reminder that no matter how many times I try to get the Bolshevik case straight, I fail and stand corrected by a new book, research or recalculation. I have thus learned the hard way that the post-Marx era leading into the era of Bolshevism is impossible to get straight. One must find a project to realize in the present, having started over.
One will do better to let it slide into the black hole that it is and to try and find a new set of categories along socialist lines. In fact this experience soon extends to the figures of Marx and Engels whose brilliant work belies the fact that they got mostly everything wrong (and a lot of things right). A core issue is Marx’s view of history and the useless historical materialism. The historical myth of feudalism, capitalism communism has confused every generation and is patently inaccurate and mythological. The idea that a Marxist group will rewrite culture using historical materialism is a futile hope, and looking closely see that socialism never gets off the ground, and that Bolshevism is mostly a distraction.
So what to do? It should suddenly work to take specific models and see how they might be realized. The idea of socialism is too abstract. But the moment we go from one-term systems to more specific constructions the whole past fantasy world of socialism starts to take form, finally.
The idea of democratic market neo-communism is an example. Suddenly the reality of a socialist, or here ‘neo-communist’ construct springs to life, because we have abandoned useless abstractions and moved to ask how we can realize a given model under the axioms of expropriation. This is not the reformist/revolution debate although that remains relevant: or model offers two interpretations, one for reformist, one for revolutionaries. You can have congress that could expropriate private property, or a revolution to top down our DMNC. In each case the core option is the lesson programmer’s learn: remorph what you have incrementally and then debug it. Here we start with a liberal system and remorph it into a neo-communism. That’s more than reformism, a different issue.

The point is that Marxism has made the whole subject impossibly complicated and dependent on an elite proposing to decipher Marx and then Lenin.

Our DMNC could be realized in a short period of time and be functional with a decent economy and political system. It is the recipe approach, not theory abstractions. We might just forget Marx and Lenin, and start to get practical.

Socialists have rightly taken inspiration from the Russian Revolution for generations, but many of the lessons drawn from it are wrong for our own time. To make change today, we need to take democratic socialism seriously as a theory and practice.

Source: Socialists Should Take the Right Lessons From the Russian Revolution

 DMNC and the puzzle of the russian revolution

Although we have adopted a critique of Marxism, and stand wary at ‘theory’ the issues in the history of the left present a set of puzzles for our new perspective. We have spoken to both reformist and revolutionary viewpoints, but the reformist stance is misleading: we can stage a revolution via reformist stance, however unlikely, if ‘reform’ can move to change a constitution and/or expropriate capital. The latter seems implausible but nationalizations actually occurred in the English Labor era, etc…The revolutionary path is equally tricky and this article on the issue of revolution, and the case of Lenin present, and warn of the immensely tricky steps to any kind of socialist/communist, in our case the neo-communism of our DMNC. Despite these differences we can in many ways simply substitute our model into the deliberations of the Lenin era. It is rare that anyone left or right can navigate this history of the Russian Revolution. Our stance is that ‘if only’ the Bolsheviks/marxists had had a better vision of a socialist outcome on the grounds of democracy, markets, planning, state capitalism/a Commons, and the relationship of a revolutionary party to a democratic party. All that said this by the book article by marxists shows how we need to be wary of socialist realizations, in the context of revolution. Another issue is that of the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin correctly/incorrectly took this notion to heart and he must have thought there was no contradiction in his claim to take the stance he represented the working class. At the start the mysterious constellation of factors seems to justify that but the whole game ended in failure. The term should be retired. But as this article makes clear a truly tricky set of factors were at play and Lenin, often accused of a coup, in fact moved in the context of working class thematics and in terms of the actual orgs thus in the working class ‘soviets’ to seize the moment. In the end our DMNC version would confront this tricky navigation though a complex chess puzzle. It seems that Lenin was successful but then the limits of the Marxist model moved to derail the remarkable revolutionary fait-accompli. But the Marxist package was anemic and the result in the end was hardly a working class soon again the exploited victim in the victim in the coming of Stalin.The democratic failsafe wasn’t there.

We have and again yesterday confronted the worsening crisis and noted how the justification for revolution starts to creep back into the reformist complacency. Revolution is becoming a duty having just watched a fascist wannabee liquidate 600,000 citizens. But the elder situation is far different: Russia simply fell apart as the army nearly dissolved as soldiers threw down their rifles and trekked home, in the horror of World War I which was the real ‘revolution’ by accident. The American military will sooner move to fascism than radicalize and the issue of ecology in the era of global warming moves swiftly past Marxist cliches to demand a whole new rethinking. The future here could be a fascist military, liquidation of the left, and bunkers in Sweden for the capitalist remnant. Capitalist mass murder can now move from six hundred thousand to a hundred million.
Capitalism has ceased to take humanity forward. It should long ago have been overthrown by the working class.

Source: The class, the party and the leadership: How to organize revolution

 DMNC and the puzzle of the russian revolution

Although we have adopted a critique of Marxism, and stand wary at ‘theory’ the issues in the history of the left present a set of puzzles for our new perspective. We have spoken to both reformist and revolutionary viewpoints, but the reformist stance is misleading: we can stage a revolution via reformist stance, however unlikely, if ‘reform’ can move to change a constitution and/or expropriate capital. The latter seems implausible but nationalizations actually occurred in the English Labor era, etc…The revolutionary path is equally tricky and this article on the issue of revolution, and the case of Lenin present, and warn of the immensely tricky steps to any kind of socialist/communist, in our case the neo-communism of our DMNC. Despite these differences we can in many ways simply substitute our model into the deliberations of the Lenin era. It is rare that anyone left or right can navigate this history of the Russian Revolution. Our stance is that ‘if only’ the Bolsheviks/marxists had had a better vision of a socialist outcome on the grounds of democracy, markets, planning, state capitalism/a Commons, and the relationship of a revolutionary party to a democratic party. All that said this by the book article by marxists shows how we need to be wary of socialist realizations, in the context of revolution. Another issue is that of the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin correctly/incorrectly took this notion to heart and he must have thought there was no contradiction in his claim to take the stance he represented the working class. At the start the mysterious constellation of factors seems to justify that but the whole game ended in failure. The term should be retired. But as this article makes clear a truly tricky set of factors were at play and Lenin, often accused of a coup, in fact moved in the context of working class thematics and in terms of the actual orgs thus in the working class ‘soviets’ to seize the moment. In the end our DMNC version would confront this tricky navigation though a complex chess puzzle. It seems that Lenin was successful but then the limits of the Marxist model moved to derail the remarkable revolutionary fait-accompli. But the Marxist package was anemic and the result in the end was hardly a working class soon again the exploited victim in the victim in the coming of Stalin.The democratic failsafe wasn’t there.

We have and again yesterday confronted the worsening crisis and noted how the justification for revolution starts to creep back into the reformist complacency. Revolution is becoming a duty having just watched a fascist wannabee liquidate 600,000 citizens. But the elder situation is far different: Russia simply fell apart as the army nearly dissolved as soldiers threw down their rifles and trekked home, in the horror of World War I which was the real ‘revolution’ by accident. The American military will sooner move to fascism than radicalize and the issue of ecology in the era of global warming moves swiftly past Marxist cliches to demand a whole new rethinking. The future here could be a fascist military, liquidation of the left, and bunkers in Sweden for the capitalist remnant. Capitalist mass murder can now move from six hundred thousand to a hundred million.
Capitalism has ceased to take humanity forward. It should long ago have been overthrown by the working class.

Source: The class, the party and the leadership: How to organize revolution

 

I think that’s a right-wing and very conservative if not reactionary impulse. Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution. Or as Trotsky put it, a river of blood separated Lenin from Stalin. The revolution was made by ordinary people in 1917 — first women, who then called workers into the streets. Eventually, the soldiers went over to the crowds, and you had a revolution. Tsarism was gone. In 1917, there was a euphoria of popular participation, committees, resolutions, and so forth.Ordinary people eventually have to go back home, make a living, take care of the kids, make dinner. Eventually, that democratic and participatory revolution was consumed by foreign intervention, the civil war, the breakdown of the economy, and the building, by the Bolsheviks, of a centralized, authoritarian state. If I write a second volume about Stalin, I’ll write about the period 1917 to the death of Lenin in 1924, about how the Soviet state was built, and how it turned from this more participatory, Paris Commune kind of ideal that you find in Lenin’s book State and Revolution into what eventually became a one-party state under Lenin, and eventually the Stalinist tyranny that destroyed most of the Leninist cadres in 1937.There should be no apology by people on the Left for Stalin. It’s true, of course, that he achieved many things: a forced, and quite crude, but successful industrial revolution, the literacy campaigns, the victory over fascism, the destruction of Nazism, the end of the Holocaust. But Stalinism was the nadir of the Soviet experiment. It was a bloody, ruthless period. It destroyed many of the important achievements that were won earlier. It made the country stupider by decapitating the party and decapitating the intelligentsia, and turning people into cogs, or little screws, as Stalin put it.Marxism and socialism are basically a democratic expansion of bourgeois liberal democracy. It’s the empowerment of ordinary people. Stalinism was the usurpation of power from the people, the decimation of the trade unions and the independence of ordinary people into a top-down dictatorship. Despite some of its achievements, it shouldn’t be celebrated.

Source: How Josef Stalin Became a Bolshevik

  Praise Lenin all you want, in the end he failed…

The anniversary of Lenin is a moment to reflect on history, the history of marxism, and its failures.

But the day after the birthday we need to move on from Leninism. The fascination with Lenin can forestall the need, necessity, of a new left with a new framework. A close look shows that Lenin’s moment was very distant from ours and the marxism he espoused should be upgraded to something better. In the final analysis his cadre despised liberalism and democracy, grew in the shadow of tsarism and gave that a kind of rebirth in the false view of communism that came to the fore.
Lenin must be seen in the context of the infamous Civil War that ended up spoiling everything and injected a terrifying and unreasonable violence by all parties, a factor suppressed from sentimental readings of history, and which cursed the whole of bolshevism throughout.
We need to be thinking in a different, which is the reformism versus revolution debate: we can take the revolutionary question in a different way, and in any case the issue of revolution is more to do with historical circumstance than the deliberate intention of revolutionaries. If the revolution comes a new system is going to be a difficult and tricky passage and needs to quite forget leninism….

Speaking a revolutionary socialist one can criticize Lenin and the bolsheviks if only because time has moved on and we are out of time to defend the failures of the marxist past. We confront a very…

Source:  The marxist obsession with Lenin and a failed legacy… – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 The marxist obsession with Lenin and a failed legacy…

Speaking a revolutionary socialist one can criticize Lenin and the bolsheviks if only because time has moved on and we are out of time to defend the failures of the marxist past. We confront a very different situation than that of Tsarist Russia the world of Lenin had to deal with.
That context is misleading to the left now and will lead to false conclusions.
We confront a stage of mature capitalism (mature to rotten, some might say), and not an industrializing monarchic armed with a hopeless muddle of theory about the need to industrialize first followed by Lenin’s (intelligent) refusal of such nonsense. The whole context of the early socialist world will mislead us now.
It is a mistake to constantly defend the past here. Drop the past and start over, time is short and Lenin is not our model.

150 years ago on 22 April, Vladimir Lenin, the great Marxist and leader of the Russian Revolution, was born. For over a century, there has been a sustained campaign to slander his name and distort his ideas, ranging from bourgeois historians and apologists to various reformists, liberals and assorted anarchists. Their task has been to discredit Lenin, Marxism and the Russian Revolution in the interests of the “democratic” rule of bankers and capitalists.

Source: In Defence of Lenin with Rob Sewell: LIVE 22 April (BST)

R48G: revolution, reform…?

As we used to say as kids playing cowboys/indians or mock battles, ‘We now take prisoners, beg for mercy’…That will have to pass for backslapping reformist ‘Comrades’ as salutation.

Our ‘Red Forty-eight Group’ is a leftist party group abstraction whose fundamental note so to speak reaffirms the revolutionary path but in a new way, and without as such rejecting the reformists. Like him or not Bernstein struck a dialectical chord that was unstoppable and in the end we can affirm revolutionary socialism and do nothing while the reformists busy beaver civil society’s mock socialism…so, can we evolve to socialism? as we said, ‘beg for mercy’. Continue reading “R48G: revolution, reform…?”

 Revolutions in action

This is an invaluable essay, yet one we should critique, because it actually attempts, after a fashion, to consider the actual process of social construction in the wake of ‘revolution’. As we see the whole subject suddenly stumbles into complexities of all kinds. Let us note to start in passing that ‘class struggle’ is not the motor of history. We always caution about statements about historical dynamics. Marxism got it wrong, along with most other attempts. This needs more discussion elsewhere.
The motor of history can only be approximated: our methods of the eonic model suggests a better approach…The macro transitions there are ‘revolutions’ after a fashion, but far more complex…
But we might reiterate our warning Continue reading ” Revolutions in action”