Correct! We are discussing the means, and if the means are justified. This is where I disagree with the direction Lenin wants us to take, by creating a vanguard to lead on the behalf of the proleteriat.
Might not be your intention but you’re making a very benign concept that is essentially a necessity at any sort of scale (representative democracy) sound quite ominous. For any organisation of groups beyond a few people everyone voting on everything is simply unfeasible.
This is not even to get into the weeds of the uneven development of class consciousness, etc.
If you believe the perception of efficiency is better than the idea of autonomy then you are the type of person I would not want in a position of power over someone else.
Collecting 100’s of millions to billions of votes for every little decision is absolutely unfeasible. Even if the act of voting itself was instant the time lag for everyone to get informed to the degree they feel comfortable and then get around to voting alone would make it unworkable.
Would you not describe the strawman of your imagined ‘the left alternative to leninism is every every decision is a referendum’ as imefficiency?
It sounds like you have not read enough theory of the side you critisise friend.
Accusing me of “not studying theory enough” is plainly a dodge to not engage with an entirely reasonable idea that even anarchists and left communists generally agree with me on (that at some level and for many tasks when organising on a large scale some form of representatives(or delegates as anarchists would call them) are necessary (not to mind a huge portion of left communism is “council communism” where the representative structure is built directly into the name the elected councils)).
I have not erected any strawmen. My argument is based on an objective fact: in any large-scale social organization, some degree of representation is not only inevitable but also necessary. As long as we acknowledge the material limitations of large-scale cooperation, we must acknowledge the existence of representation mechanisms. This is not something ominous but rather an objective law and basic common sense governing the operation of large organizations. Your misinterpretation of me explaining this objective necessity as denigrating anarchism or left communism to “universal referendums on everything” is clearly simply a way of avoiding the essence of the problem, as I am not arguing against any tendency at this time.
Thus we return again to the actual point at hand; if representatives of some type are necessary (as is agreed by essentially every tendency) it is entirely ridiculous to act as if representative democracy is some ominous thing rather than the banal and necessary part of large scale organisation that it is.
Collecting 100’s of millions to billions of votes for every little decision is absolutely unfeasible. Even if the act of voting itself was instant the time lag for everyone to get informed to the degree they feel comfortable and then get around to voting alone would make it unworkable. There’s a reason even movements like the Zapatistas end up shifting towards some version of councils/representatives.
They were/are Socialist. Communism is an end stage that can only be achieved once the class struggle has been overcome on a global scale. Unfortunately since no button exists to make this happen instantly and perfectly a transitional period is necessary, and the most successful/best answer that has been put forth thus far on how to implement this is the proletarian state. This is what tankies (and communists more generally understand/believe).
I believe in a stateless system and that any system with a state is not communism.
Congratulations you believe the exact same thing as tankies in that regard.
Correct! We are discussing the means, and if the means are justified. This is where I disagree with the direction Lenin wants us to take, by creating a vanguard to lead on the behalf of the proleteriat.
Might not be your intention but you’re making a very benign concept that is essentially a necessity at any sort of scale (representative democracy) sound quite ominous. For any organisation of groups beyond a few people everyone voting on everything is simply unfeasible.
This is not even to get into the weeds of the uneven development of class consciousness, etc.
If you believe the perception of efficiency is better than the idea of autonomy then you are the type of person I would not want in a position of power over someone else.
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort
Would you not describe the strawman of your imagined ‘the left alternative to leninism is every every decision is a referendum’ as imefficiency?
It sounds like you have not read enough theory of the side you critisise friend.
Accusing me of “not studying theory enough” is plainly a dodge to not engage with an entirely reasonable idea that even anarchists and left communists generally agree with me on (that at some level and for many tasks when organising on a large scale some form of representatives(or delegates as anarchists would call them) are necessary (not to mind a huge portion of left communism is “council communism” where the representative structure is built directly into the name the elected councils)).
I have not erected any strawmen. My argument is based on an objective fact: in any large-scale social organization, some degree of representation is not only inevitable but also necessary. As long as we acknowledge the material limitations of large-scale cooperation, we must acknowledge the existence of representation mechanisms. This is not something ominous but rather an objective law and basic common sense governing the operation of large organizations. Your misinterpretation of me explaining this objective necessity as denigrating anarchism or left communism to “universal referendums on everything” is clearly simply a way of avoiding the essence of the problem, as I am not arguing against any tendency at this time.
Thus we return again to the actual point at hand; if representatives of some type are necessary (as is agreed by essentially every tendency) it is entirely ridiculous to act as if representative democracy is some ominous thing rather than the banal and necessary part of large scale organisation that it is.
It’s actually not unfeasible nowadays. Maybe back then.
Collecting 100’s of millions to billions of votes for every little decision is absolutely unfeasible. Even if the act of voting itself was instant the time lag for everyone to get informed to the degree they feel comfortable and then get around to voting alone would make it unworkable. There’s a reason even movements like the Zapatistas end up shifting towards some version of councils/representatives.
So we all agree that China and the USSR have never come close to communism, correct?
They were/are Socialist. Communism is an end stage that can only be achieved once the class struggle has been overcome on a global scale. Unfortunately since no button exists to make this happen instantly and perfectly a transitional period is necessary, and the most successful/best answer that has been put forth thus far on how to implement this is the proletarian state. This is what tankies (and communists more generally understand/believe).