Hi David;

Marx also wrote that the state would 'wither away' in the sense that the state was only supposed to exist as an engine for class rule. Today we can say that the state is about a lot more than this; and not all conflicts that need to be mediated are class conflicts. But Marx made it clear: he wanted the state "to wither away". So to pin Stalinism or even Bolshevism on him is not fair.

Much earlier than Lenin, mind you, Eduard Bernstein wrote that socialism was "the spiritual heir" to liberalism.

'Centrist' Marxists - writing and organising before practically anyone had heard of Lenin - were amongst the first to argue for free, universal and equal suffrage; as well as liberal rights of free speech, association, assembly etc.

And when the Russian Revolution did come - the most effective critics of Bolshevist centralism and terror were other Marxists - Kautsky, the Russian Mensheviks, Rosa Luxemburg.

Though it does seem a tad hypocritical that the same people who condemn the human cost of the Russian Civil War often have nothing to say about the human cost of the World War which gave the Russian Revolution of 1917 birth...

David; Here's a quote form Karl Kautsky on the Russian Revolution:

"Hitherto Social Democracy did represent to the masses of the people the object lesson of being the most tireless champion of the freedom of all who are oppressed, not merely the wage earner, but also of women, persecuted religions and races, the Jews, Negroes and Chinese. By this object lesson it has won adherents quite outside the circle of wage-earners.” But: “Now as soon as Social Democracy attains to power, this object lesson is to be replaced by one of an opposite character."

And one from Rosa Luxemburg as well:

democratic institutions” "[possess] a powerful corrective – namely the living movement of the masses, their unending pressure. And the more democratic the institutions, the livelier and stronger the pulse-beat of the political life of the masses, the more direct and complete is their influence – despite rigid party banners, outgrown tickets etc… (p 302)

Dear Tristan,

The First International broke up in 1871 in a dispute between the followers of Marx and the followers of Bakunin. Bakunin was perceptive enough to see that Marxism was a recipe for tyranny. Bakunin was an anarchist who had no use for the state or its apparatus. Marx tried to corral Bakunin's followers by his statement that the state would wither away. I favour many socialist ideas and would like to see a democratic socialism. However, I think the influence of Marx is horrendous. Apologists for Marx try to stigmatise Stalinism as a separate ideology. Stalinism is merely the application of Marxism by Stalin.

I consider the word, reactionary, to mean a tendency to retreat from what I regard as the positive aspects of society and restore what I regard as the negative aspects of the past. By that definition Marxism-Leninism is reactionary since it restricts freedom by censorship, secret police, concentration camps and other means. A counterrevolution seeks to undo the revolution and restore the past. The revolutionary government under Kerensky was overthrown by the Leninists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality

"Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality also known as Official Nationality was the dominant ideological doctrine of Russian emperor Nicholas I. It was "the Russian version of a general European ideology of restoration and reaction" that followed the Napoleonic Wars.

"The Triad" of Official Nationality was originally proposed by Minister of Education Sergey Uvarov in his April 2, 1833 circular letter to subordinate educators. It was soon embraced by Nicholas and his establishment and gained wide public recognition, vocally supported by intellectuals like Mikhail Pogodin, Fyodor Tyutchev and Nikolai Gogol."

Marxism-Leninism replaced Orthodoxy. Dictatorship replaced Autocracy. The Party replaced Nationality. With Lenin came the reactionary counterrevolution. Leninism is czarism reincarnated.

Dear Tristan.

You quoted Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein. I would remind you Bernstein took issue with Marx's predictions as things were not happening the way he predicted. Luxemburg had Bernstein expelled from the party. Marx was an idol, and one could not question an idol. Marx was a bigot as shown by his essay "On the Jewish Question." It could have been written by a Nazi. Marx was a compelling writer with a keen eye for the appropriate aphorism. Just as fundamentalists cherry pick what they want from the Bible many Marxists cherry pick what they want from Marx.

I am 88 years old. One of my uncles was a Bolshevik in Russia before the revolution and Lenin's counterrevolution. My uncle left Russia in 1921. Four years of Lenin cured him of any feeling for Lenin or Marx. My father lived in an anarchist commune in northern Manchuria. Unfortunately people in the western world still maintain illusions about Marx. Some people in the eastern world know better.

Hi again David;

The idea of 'the state withering away' was not an invention of Marx's to con the anarchists. In fact it originated with the French 'utopian socialist' Saint-Simon - who was also an radical advocate of meritocracy - around about the time of the French Revolution - way before Marx was writing.

Also you are talking about Marxism-Leninism - But 'Marxism-Leninism' is not the same as Marxism per se.

To start: I don't think Leninism was the same as Stalinism - because for Lenin the repressive measures were supposed to be a temporary emergency measure. Under Stalin they became permanent - and fused with the Cult of Personality, and rule by a bureaucratic caste under conditions of never-ending Terror.

But on the other hand Leninism created the conditions which enabled Stalinism to rise. That is: extreme centralism; the rise of a bureaucratic layer; the rise of pervasive Terror which bred fear and conformity... Similar in some ways to conditions which existed under the Jacobins leading the Bonapartist dictatorship. But much worse.

But again Lenin's greatest critics were Marxists themselves: Kautsky, the Mensheviks, Rosa Luxemburg... I urge you to read about these... 'Marxism-Leninism' as proclaimed by the Stalinists did become dominant. But it did not embody Marx's thought - where he argues for communists "to win the battle of democracy"... 'Winning the battle of democracy' was not/is not Stalinism. (arguably it's not Leninism either....)

Dear Tristan,

Lenin's repression was not a wartime or temporary measure. He introduced censorship in 1921 after the Bolsheviks had won the Civil War, and censorship was unnecessary. His censorship was to prevent any opposition. Kandinsky, Emma Goldman, my uncle and many others fled Russia as this time. Emma Goldman wrote "My Disillusion with the Soviet Union." Lenin's Cheka was an instrument of terror which imprisoned and executed people solely because of their social class. Generally we are born into a social class. To penalise people for their birth is similar to racism. Lenin ordered the first gulags built three months after he took power. Lenin ordered free elections in 1918 to give legitimace to his government. They were the first free elctions the Russian people had. However, when the Social Revolutionaries got many more seats then the Marxists Lenin disbanded the Duma by force.

Although I argue with religious believers it is really pointless. It is also pointless to argue with those who see Marxism as a force for liberation.

Lenin was neither bigoted nor paranoid as Stalin was. Lenin probably would not have instituted the Stalinist purges if he had remained in power - not because he was less ruthless but because he was less paranoid.

It is quite true that many Marxists were critical of Lenin. Many also joined the Fourth International of Trotsky which opposed Stalin. However, I think they were blind to the flaws in Marxism itself which as I pointed out in my article specified a totalitarian state in the Manifesto.