Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

an Anarchist's critique of Leninism



I would like to write down some thoughts regarding Leninism as a historical and theoretical position. I am writing to those who are willing to listen in hopes of refining a critique of authoritarian socialism. I do not have delusions that this short essay will convince anyone of something drastically outside of what they already believe or, at least, that is not my intention.


 Recently, there has been much debate on list servs and social media sites about an upcoming "Bash Lenin Pinata Party" being hosted by some local Atlanta anarchists. In response to this, Leninists and other authoritarian socialists (including Maoists from other parts of the country) have responded with vitriol, homophobic slanders, and multitudinous critiques of anarchy, "sectarianism", and "trolling." I am writing this because I believe that anarchists and anti-authoritarians in other parts of the country have had similar encounters with Leninists. The responses I have seen are usually limited to poking fun or reverting to listing-off  familiar historical bloodbaths of the Leninist project. I hope to bring a humble contribution to the discussion with the intention of increasing our capacity to meaningfully engage in ideological debate with the Party of Order - be it Leninists, bosses, police, liberals, misogynists or anyone else who seeks to impose discipline on our bodies.


For a wild, uncontrollable, rebellion without object or measure.
For anarchy!





It is almost never the case that serious disagreements stem from simple miscommunication. With that said, I would like to avoid misunderstandings stemming from an imprecise lexicon.

            •           Authority: The difference between your mother or your kindergarten teacher and a police officer or party hack is that the first kind of authority undermines the basis for its own existence over time and the second kind creates the material and social relations which discipline your body and mind in a self-duplicating relationship of domination, or attempt to do so. When anarchists talk about "authority", we are nearly always disparaging the domination of the latter. Marxists following the Leninist tradition are often intentionally unclear about their definition of authority, bouncing back and forth between the two listed above when it is expedient for them. Some Leninists even go as far as to say that they don’t even know what the word “authority” means. Here, I have laid bare a coherent, nuanced definition that I believe reflects the lived experiences of contemporary human reality. Note: an "Authoritarian" is simply someone who believes that authority-as-domination is necessary, desirable, or inevitable. This includes the "authority of the majority" espoused by democrats (lower-case "d").

            •           Autonomy: The freedom to decide for oneself about things involving ones own body (See also: "Individual"). The limits of autonomy under capitalism are clear - it's not enough for us to simply negotiate a peace treaty with Power, we must attack! Regardless, most anarchists see autonomous self organization as an absolute prerequisite to any emancipatory project.

            •           Discipline: It is always rewarding to accomplish a goal or to overcome an obstacle in one’s life. More often than not, this requires patience and dedication or, some would say, discipline. There is obviously nothing wrong with this undertaking. When I talk about "discipline" in this piece, I am referring to the historical, social, and institutional use of force, guilt, and coercion to conform human behavior to existing social morals or expectations while subsequently pathologizing or imprisoning all behaviors or biologies that do not fit the values of the social order. For anarchists, the problem of prisons, asylums, and courts is not only a problem of administration but of the entire world order attached to their development and application.

            •           Individual: Throughout the text, I may refer to the social category of the "individual." In liberal Enlightenment philosophy, the individual was a free roaming monad who entered equally into voluntary contract with other free persons and developed mechanisms of ensuring security, even at the expense of autonomy and freedom. In anarchist philosophy, as in the Marxist tradition, "individuals" do not truly exist outside of the context they are socialized in. Many anarchists are avid readers of the Postmodern and Poststructuralist marxists (i.e. Critical Theory, Autonomia, "post-68" literature, etc.) who offer accurate and meaningful critiques of the metaphysical "individual" described in classical liberal thought. However, it is important to account for the real subjective experience of memory and the body as continuous nodes of interaction with other persons, places, and systems over time (meaning that all people experience themselves as singular organs of sense experience in space-time). The individual is a being in the world who experiences itself in a limited social context and who shapes its destiny in an ongoing creative process, one way or another.

            •           The State: For Marxists, the State is a centralized tool of class oppression. For Marx, the State is simply a compulsory apparatus for maintaining class distinctions. It is never really defined too strictly, which benefits anyone who wants to be in power. A useful definition of the State is either “a body which maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force” or “a body which maintains a monopoly on legitimate decision-making.” The economist definition of a State put forward by Marxists doesn’t really tell us anything about how states have worked. Instead, it simply locates the State in its role in a market. It is possible, however, to conceive of governing bodies which do not impose themselves as economic actors, but simply exercise disciplinary control over human bodies. Such is the domination of the concentration camp.

I am going to begin with a few thoughts on anarchists and our collective inability to meaningfully respond to the theoretical maneuvers of Leninists. I believe most of these critiques are obvious to those inside and outside of the anarchist space. Since my intention with this piece is to contribute to anarchist critique of Leninism, with my intended audience being anarchists, I feel like it may be tasteful to begin with some humble self-criticism.


It has been my experience that many anarchists have regularly and compulsively presented themselves as victims of a global historical conspiracy. By and large, the anarchist space rejects the logic of submission and victimization often expressed by liberals and activists on the Left. We prefer to see ourselves as active partisans in a social clash waged inside of societies or between worlds. It is surprising, then, that anarchists would be so reluctant to critically analyze the historical failures of anarchism. Of course, we have faced off tyrants, capitalists, and political opportunists of the Left; we have fought wars against fascism; we have made ourselves the enemies of rapists and homophobes. In short: we have declared war on the Existent and find ourselves with few comrades. Because of this, we stand against tremendous odds. However, anarchists have not simply failed because of outside forces. If this is the case, we must analyze the significance of this reality and develop holistic strategies for defense. It is not enough to be the purest ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

In the last two decades, anarchists and others have written countless essays and pamphlets critiquing the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune, as well as other mis-steps within the anarchist current. Still, many anarchists are unfamiliar with these critiques or have not developed their own theory regarding the events.

This brings me to my next point: anti-intellectualism in the anarchist space. This is a problem that has influenced nearly every human grouping since the dawn of symbolic thought. I don't care about most of those groups-- I want to talk to anarchists for a moment longer. It seems that Marxism, as an essentially idealist philosophy from the Hegelian tradition (despite all claims to the contrary), has primarily produced an endless cast of academics, intellectuals, published authors, professors and other paid thinkers. On the other hand, anarchism has developed primarily as an evolving practice of revolt. The existential differences between Marxism and anarchism are not by chance and are not without consequence. In light of these differences, and perhaps in a sense of arrogance or even resentment, anarchists have not often meaningfully engaged with theoretical texts. Worse, many anarchists have avoided useful insight published by those pushing hardest at the barricades! Explicitly anarchist independent distribution networks of all sizes exist internationally, and that is beautiful. There are anarchist study groups and publishers. Still, the role of engaging with strategic or tactical considerations, let alone theoretical engagements, has been somewhat specialized in the anarchist space. This is unacceptable. We must develop a culture of praxis in the anarchist space-- not so that we can abstractly bloviate on panels or in the university, but so that we can effectively spread social rebellion and disorder!

In recent years, the problem of anti-intellectualism has become less and less relevant. The crisis has given rise to several waves of anarchist activity all over the country – particularly on the west coast. In the current climate, even more so after the spontaneous developments of the #Occupy movement, anarchist networks have sprung up where they were previously lacking, including here in Atlanta. This is a perfect opportunity for many to begin with a proper footing.

With that said, let us begin…



"And since commodity production is less developed under bureaucratic capitalism, it too takes on a concentrated form: the commodity the bureaucracy appropriates is the total social labor, and what it sells back to the society is that society’s wholesale survival. The dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice because it has had to make all the choices itself, and any choice made independently of it, whether regarding food or music or anything else, thus amounts to a declaration of war against it. This dictatorship must be enforced by permanent violence. Its spectacle imposes an image of the good which subsumes everything that officially exists, an image which is usually concentrated in a single individual, the guarantor of the system’s totalitarian cohesion." 
-The Society of the Spectacle, Thesis 64

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot…

Many people associate Leninism, or even Marxism generally, with the type of totalitarian cult of personalities surrounding the leaders of nearly every "successful" socialist regime. Leninists typically respond that, sure, cults of personality exemplify an obvious cultural shortcoming in the nation-states in question, but the leaders themselves usually did their best to actively combat obsession.  According to the Leninists, critiques that reference the pattern of cults of personality lack a historical materialist understanding of the conditions surrounding the culture. Thus, the beloved leader's hands are washed of the cult surrounding them. Although some such critiques are obvious results of American propaganda, there is still a clear issue of obsession over leadership within the Leninist tradition-- and not every critique can or should be reduced to its "McCarthyist" or "rightist" origins.

Socialism seeks to radically reform the legal regime of property (more on this later). A part of this process involves what leftists, including some anarchists, call "seizing the means of production." By this, Leninists mean something like "universal nationalization of wealth" or "socialization of all resources and industries." I could say this another way-- I could call this "concentrating the power to distribute goods and food into the hands of a small group of people."

It is simply intellectually lazy to critique cults of personalities without addressing the material conditions out of which they developed. Marxists should be very familiar with this process.

I would argue that any regime or government that consolidates forces of production and distribution into a single apparatus (whether Party or People's Army) is only able to reproduce slavish citizens. The centralization of production holds everyone dependent, against the alternative of certain war and famine, on the central apparatus. This daily existence in bureaucratic state capitalism, of the Leninist persuasion, can only reproduce itself. The citizen-worker-subject is trapped in an infinite cycle of subjectivization.  Outside of this process stands only the sovereign: the patriarch who represents everything that could ever be free, the only thing that could ever meaningfully impact reality, the only individual left in a sick, dead world of work, poverty, misery, and obsession. Production, distribution, trade, security, Nation, and then dependence are wrapped up in a single concentrated spectacle: the Big Brother who accounts for all of one's needs.

Security and dinner came with Stalin's face branded on the packaging, so to speak.

In this way, the Leninist strategy of "seizing state power" had to have a Stalin.

In contemporary American society, with its integrated spectacle, all of life is reduced to the consumption of competing, fluid and meaningless images that only specialists can understand. Americans create and participate in their own becoming-false. They are alien in their own bodies and see themselves as reflections of images. Under bureaucratic state capitalism, however, this was not so. Since all commodity circulation was centralized, the images of those commodities were also centralized. Everything was mediated by the image of the leader who was the only real actor in the entire social factory. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen again every single time production is organized this way.



**I am not going to address the famines caused by forced industrialization or forced collectivization. It must be mentioned, however, that the centralization of power destroyed the Russian ecosphere and caused millions of deaths over several decades from famine and drought. Many Leninists today still view industrialization as good and view the reluctance of the peasants/sailors to send all of their food to Moscow for War Communism and redistribution to have been “individualist.” This comes, I believe, from a profound disregard in the Leninist tendency to consider environmental devastation as well as rampant authoritarianism. I am also not going to discuss Stalin’s forced labor and extermination camps because most Leninists understand that Stalin was a horrible bastard.**

I'd like to spend the least time here because I think many people are aware of the deaths dealt at the hands of Lenin and other Leninist dictators. Of note is the suppression of the Kronstadt Commune and the Ukrainian Black Army. Both of these groups helped to overthrow the Tsar and collaborated with the Bolsheviks for years leading up to their deaths. Also noteworthy is the Stalinist repression of the Spanish anarchists and the Maoist beheadings of anarchists during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

Leninists are often frustrated when anarchists bring these things up, and for good reason. Leninists (whether as strict Marxist-Leninists or as Maoists or Trotskyists) identify with a very particular historical moment. They see themselves as reflections of these leaders. They locate themselves in the theory, behaviors, and lives of these Great Men. To question the legitimacy of this his-story calls into question how they see themselves. Although they would argue that they are not dogmatic followers of their leaders, it is yet to be illustrated that they wouldn’t follow similar orders to maim and kill political opponents if they were made today. After all, there were many smart, independent, comrades who gladly persecuted political opponents under socialist governments.

When Leninists are confronted with the betrayals of the Kronstadt, don’t they always justify it? "It was a historical necessity." If it’s not a divine/objective necessity, like the colonization of the New World was thought to be, then it’s the fault of the anarchists. Why weren’t they sending grain to Moscow? Why weren’t they submitting to the orders of the Bolshevik leadership? Why did they oppose class collaboration with the national bourgeoisie? These excuses mimic the justification for virtually every imperialist or totalitarian venture in history.

The most insidious justification is that it was a sad thing that had to happen. This way, modern Leninists are able to distance themselves from behaviors that they see as wise and, besides being unfortunate, completely legitimate. They can maintain airs of radicalism while preserving their loyalty and commitment to the Party-line.

The final justification they offer is some form of disassembling. They insist that “Lenin wasn't a superhero” who could just do whatever he wanted. This is dishonest in full. Aside from the fact that the Bolshevik party was totally hierarchical and Lenin could have literally retracted the order to murder if he wanted, it is also an inconsistent distribution of agency. They laud Lenin for the good thing he does and divert blame for the bad things. Furthermore, anarchists know the problem wasn’t just Lenin. We are very much aware that the problem was totally structural. That is why we are against the State. People shouldn’t have the authority to make decisions like that. When people are able to dominate others, they usually do. Lenin could have been anyone…and that’s what scares us about his followers.

One thing I’d like to bring up before moving on is some context and appropriate understanding of anarchist temperament. Anarchists are not innocent activists and in none of these circumstances were they quietly trying to build up State power. Anarchists are rebels and in most of these circumstances they were actively moving forward with revolutionary maneuvers against domination. Because the Leninist Strategy of "seizing State power" involves establishing a new "revolutionary government", an equivocation is made whereby the "State" is substituted for "Revolution" and the phrase "enemy of the revolution" is subtly transformed into the Hobbesian/monarchist "enemy of the state." It is no surprise that enemies "on the right as well as the left" are opposed with tyrannical force. The State is to blame for anarchist deaths. That much is clear. This was not the oppression of legitimate citizens in an otherwise quaint society. The anarchists killed by Leninists and Maoists were casualties in a social war.



"Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement....and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy."
-"What Is To Be Done?", “The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats”

Perhaps the defining characteristic of Leninism as a distinct political philosophy is his revolutionary strategy developed in his text What is To Be Done?, published in 1901. In the text, Lenin describes the repressive conditions of the political situation in Tsarist Russia at the turn of the century and the potential vectors of revolt at that point, from his perspective (which, it turns out, is "objective" and "scientific"! How lucky!). The text describes a backward feudal society completely controlled by the Tsar and his police. Surveillance is near total and any attempts at economic blockades or even passive demonstration are met by brutal repression by the royal police force. Furthermore, there was little to no revolutionary momentum or theory coming from Russia at the time, outside of the Nihilist movement.

Lenin proposes that the spontaneous self-organization of the working class has as its limit "trade union consciousness" which can only negotiate conditions inside of market society and cannot develop the force necessary to overcome it. The only solution to this problem, Lenin believes, is to form secret, conspiratorial bands which will intervene in the struggle of the working class to beat back liberalism and to help develop an insurrectionary fervor. These groups, called cadres, would be federated with nuclei in the factories. Cadres would report back to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party, which would consolidate the information brought back and decide the strategic course of action at that point. When an insurrection begins, the Party will team with the advanced layers of the working class and their most revolutionary organizations and groups to "seize state power" with which to launch a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Remember that the State, according to Lenin, is simply an instrument of class oppression. Thus, once it is used by the Party to obliterate class distinctions, state functions will become totally redundant. The State will "wither away," bringing us to full Communism.

I do not believe that I have straw-manned the position of Lenin, although it is likely that I am inaccurate about some of the details. I have not thoroughly read What is to be Done?, but I have read several sections and I've discussed the text with self-described Leninists many times. Furthermore, I have read online overviews and watched short introductory videos. In short, I do not claim to be an expert-- so excuse any inaccuracies. Regardless, I believe this to be the basic position Lenin holds.


Cadres vs. Affinity Groups: Similarities and Differences

A cadre is a tight-knit group of professional revolutionaries who intervene in social movements and working class organizations according to the needs and recommendations of the larger coordinating body (i.e. the central committee). While cadres have relative autonomy because they are federated, they are not expressions of legitimate self-organization. Their membership guidelines preclude free association, while the party structure that governs them enforces ideological hegemony and conformity. Although in "democratic centralism" debate is encouraged, individuals are expected to go along with the majority decision. How this is distinct from contemporary bourgeois democracy is unclear to me.

In the post-Soviet socialist movement, many cadres do not attach themselves to central committees or parties at all. In either event, they have no first-person political development. They still see themselves as actors in a revolution "for the people". Cadres, I am attempting to establish, see themselves as separate from the rest of the population, in the service of the interests of the population (but not necessarily the desires.)


Affinity Groups
The affinity group is the basic unit of most anarchist organizing, especially from currents directly or indirectly influenced by Italian and North American insurrectionary anarchism. Affinity groups are essentially small, closed, informal groups of people who share a common goal, common knowledge and who have come together to directly achieve their goals. "Common goals" can be anything from "smash the windows out of the Niketown" to "make some leaflets before the march" to "hold the banner together." Affinity groups coordinate and organize themselves autonomously. They intervene however they see fit, but usually with some level of consideration for the plans of larger formations. "Common knowledge" means that each person in the affinity group has a general idea of everyone else's expectations, temperament, and how they will feel about the action they take following its execution, especially in the event of repression or failure. Affinity groups are normally between 3 and 10 people and come together only for a particular set of actions (i.e. informally).

Affinity is developed through discussion and shared experience. Affinity is not short-hand for "friendship," although it is often the case that people form affinity groups with those they are closest to socially. There are certainly limits to affinity-group organizing, especially in periods of open insurrection when it may be necessary to involve upwards of 100 people in infrastructural attacks (as happened in the December 2008 uprising in Greece), but they are still the basic unit of an autonomous uprisings. Organizing by affinity allows wide sectors of the population to develop critical thinking skills, the confidence to take initiative, and higher capacity to organize and coordinate combative activity, as well as providing for each person's material and emotional needs.

Self-Organization vs. Substitutionism
Anarchist affinity groups, and affinity groups in general, are expressions of autonomous self-organization. They do not seek to represent the "interests" of any group of people and they act purely according to the desires of those involved.  Affinity group organizing does not seek to over-determine the field of legitimate human activity, nor does it succumb to the liberal traps of democracy or formalism. Affinity groups are formed any time groups of people come together to act. This is the type of self-organization seen in Montreal 2011, France 2005, Italy 1977, Algeria 2001 and, of course, Seattle 1999.

On the other hand, cadre organizations see themselves as the legitimate agents of a social clash. They need to control, oversee, and defend the movement against capital which, unfortunately for them, is overrun with "unconscious" masses. Cadres seek to perform a specialized task so that they can substitute themselves for the revolting people. For cadres, unruliness and ungovernability are problems that must be overcome. Cadres must build up legitimacy in working class organizations, usually without revealing themselves, so that they can exercise disproportionate influence over decisions. In this way, they are authoritarian and destructive to any liberatory project.

We could say this another way: Anarchists, as anti-representational catalysts of destabilization and revolt, experience themselves as forms of life incompatible with all domination. The cadre sees itself as the touched-up image of a revolting populace in the theater of political life.


A Few Thoughts on "Armed Struggle"

One particular strategy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, especially popular in the 1970s, is the strategy of the “armed vanguard.” The idea is essentially that a nuclei or cadre will arm itself, go underground, and levy armed clashes with the State. This specialized activity cannot be done by most sectors of the population and will, therefore, nurture awe and respect for the “Revolutionary Organizations.”


This strategy is a strategy of substitutionism, like many Leninist projects. As has been mentioned elsewhere, “the force of insurrection is social, not military.” The question is not quantitative, as in how much damage was done to capitalist infrastructure or how many were killed, but rather qualitative: How deep has the practice of revolt spread in society? Anarchists do not seek to constitute ourselves as a counter-subject, a counter-state, which will wage war with the existing State and eventually overcome it. Anarchists seek to create a livable and endless state of exception whereby society has made itself completely unrulable.


In recent years, anarchists in some places have adopted the urban guerrilla strategy, language, and aesthetic of the Maoists. They insist they are not a vanguard, but words are not enough. Much has been written on the subject and I will not go further into it here.


"Seizing State Power"
The State exists for its own reasons. Leninists and most Marxists make the argument that the State is simply a tool of the bourgeoisie and that its functions should be taken over by the Party to repress their political opponents.

Let's be absolutely clear about what this means, because Leninists always try to avoid the facts about this situation:

In order the repress the bourgeoisie or the "enemies of the revolution/state" - including anarchists and other "infantile" ultra-leftists - the Party wants to become the government. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" needs very specific things to exercise its control:

            •           Police to round up perceived class enemies,

            •           courts to judge them in,

            •           prisons to hold them in,

            •           and a centralized military to defend from outsiders.

It is common for Leninists to critique "the capitalist state", "racist police," and the "privatized prison system." These phrases have the appearances of radicalism. The terms "capitalist", "racist" and "privatized" seem to be modifying the nouns "state", "police", and "prison." But that couldn't be further from the truth. They are using distinct nouns. Leninists are not against the State, like anarchists are. They are against this state. They are not against police. They are against these police. They are against these prisons. The problem of the State, for Leninists, is an administrative question. In their eyes, the wrong regime holds power. In this light ,we can see them for what they are: the most extreme social democrats for a drastically reformed state. The mode of this reform is revolution. That is perhaps the most profound difference between Leninists and Scandinavian-style social democrats who believe in the vote.

In any case, "seizing state power" is an obscene idea in today’s world. The State is no longer the primary impetus of domination in today’s Empire. To add to the directory of "independent countries" only contributes to our current asphyxiation. The enemy today confronts us as a set of governing practices dispensed in a permanent state of global counter-insurgency, not just as a class of dastardly expropriators. The entire project of constructing People's governments failed miserably in every single attempt. Even if it was simply the fault of outside forces, that reality is something Lenin's followers are going to have to account for.

“ The true contrary of the proletariat is not the bourgeoisie. It is the bourgeois world, imperialist society, of which the proletariat, let this be noted, is a notorious element, as the principal productive force and as the antagonistic political pole… To say proletariat and bourgeoisie is to remain within the bounds of the Hegelian artifice: something and something else. Why? Because the project of the proletariat, its internal being, is not to contradict the bourgeoisie, or to cut its feet from under it. This project is communism, and nothing else. That is, the abolition of any place in which something like a proletariat can be installed. The political project of the proletariat is the disappearance of the space of the placement of classes. It is the loss, for the historical something, of every index of class. ”
- “Theory of Worlds”, pg. 7





A critique of Lenin can't be made in a vacuum. Lenin is one of the most famous and respected socialists in the world. I'd like to take some time to shit-talk socialism as a political category and as a theoretical system. I'd like to make the case the socialism is not an alternative system to capitalism at all and that its proponents are not even communists. Socialism is a system of distribution inside of a capitalist economy. Socialism preserves the labor-capital relationship and the alienation of human labor. Socialism even preserves the value-form and the general M-C-M' formula of capitalism.

Socialization and the Legal Regime of Bureaucratic Capitalism

Capitalism is a set of social relations whereby wealth is extracted from human activity. The general formula for this relationship, one that is vague enough to account for many types of capitalist management and distribution, is Money-Commodity-More Money (M-C-M'). In this set up, everything is subjected to the demands of the economy. It's also important to remember that capitalism developed in the terrain of many other imbalanced social relations, including patriarchy, white supremacy, and heteronormativity. I am not going to go too much into the details about capitalism here, but others have offered compelling and full analyses of the revolutionary mode of production.

Capitalism as a mode of production is composed of different parts. The most obvious parts include the working humans and those who oversee the extraction of value from their behavior (these people almost always profit from that behavior, but I suppose that's not necessary). Capitalism is reproduced because people keep behaving in ways that produce value. This is, of course, a tautology. The community of capital is why there is capitalism. Everyday life under capitalism is capitalism. The only way to destroy capitalism is to destroy the value-form and all relations of exchange through the negative projects of collective self-negation and communization.

What does all of this mean?
First, let me back up.

Socialism as Radical Reformism

Socialism is a system of government that radically re-defines the legal regime of property (most obviously from "private" to "public"). Capitalists are no longer allowed to hold property and they are repressed for trying. The representatives inside of the Party control the property. But we know that there is a huge difference between "public property" and "no property."

Under socialism, the M-C-M' equation is preserved and the capitalists are replaced with bureaucrats inside of the Party. This is a well-known critique of socialism even amongst "ordinary people."

If we are still compelled to work by factors outside of our control where we are still producing wealth and value for others to enjoy, and we still must suffer the boredom and misery of industrial metropolitan society, aren't we still living under capitalism? Socialists (including Leninists and other authoritarians) are quick to point out the standard of living of the masses of citizens in socialists countries but this begs a question: is socialism simply a welfare state on steroids? Is this a quantitative question or a qualitative one? All things indicate to me that socialism is, in fact, capitalism in its nicest possible form.


Until it can be illustrated that socialism is something other than a redistribution of wealth, it should still be considered an element of capitalist accumulation and political-economy. Furthermore, it is an apparent strategy of authoritarian politics to equivocate the meanings of “the people”, “the state”, or “the party.” These key words are deeply coded, but they all mean the same thing: small groups of people controlling others, often by pretending to be on their side.

To quote from a particularly popular iconoclast, A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."



Anarchy and Leninism are distinct. There is an ocean between the tension of anarchy and the positive political program of Marxist-Leninism.

Anarchy is the destruction of all authority, the destabilization of all control, the unruly indulgence of lust and passion, the Dionysian explosion of Life and excess. The anarchist sprints forward infinitely past the tyranny of the "possible" and toward living life to the fullest. The anarchist seeks to develop the material solidarities to provide for one another's emotional, mental, spiritual and physical needs in the present tense, so that we may launch a counter-attack against everything that has made us ashamed of our bodies and our dreams and so that we may encounter worlds we never considered before.

The positive project of Marxism-Leninism seeks to impose a new world of Order. They seek to construct a reality of scientific coherence whereby the current categories of society may fully realize themselves. For the Leninist, life is always elsewhere. Although they speak of communism, they aim to build a new socialist government. The Leninist believes so little in the human capacity to self-organize and in the capacity of individuals to take their lives into their own hands, that they command strict adherence to a Party of technocrats and intellectuals.

In any case, the relative irrelevance and lack of traction amongst young people toward Lenin should be relieving for anarchists. In this context, we shouldn't trap ourselves into identitarian ghettos. Insurrection is a social event. In the coming years, we may find allies in strange places. That being said, we should collaborate with other groups on our own terms as distinct autonomous partisans with our own ideas about how struggles should move forward. Our collaboration with Leninists should be contingent and relative to our level of affinity with individuals on a limited scope for specific purposes. We should work with them informally whenever possible for the mutual gain of all. This general strategy, of course, rewards the anarchist spirit more than the Leninist tendency, as Leninists tend to hesitate initiating meaningful radical intervention in the social clash.

Although we should not back down from critiquing authoritarian socialists, we should recognize their relative weakness in the current context. It can be important for anarchists to establish the autonomous space for anarchy by distancing themselves from the Left. While that is important, we shouldn't focus too much energy on defining ourselves in a positive sense - the better to recuperate our efforts! There is an entire social terrain to find accomplices and friendships. We should focus on building those necessary complicities in anticipation of the social clash with domination. Once we have established the necessary distance between anarchist spaces and the Leninist Parties, we should shift to a general strategy of ignoring them completely, when it comes to organization, except for when we may be able to work together.



Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


You mention that you need to understand something to criticize it... I would suggest that you do the same for Anarchism.

The statements that you made prove that you don't understad or perhaps aren't aware of what Anarchism means and what anarchists want.

For the sake of my personal time I would simply suggest two pretty quick reads because I don't think I can do it justice in a comment anyways

Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos


Kropotkin on Anarchism

If you feel up to it and want to explore more the Anarchist FAQ helps to dispel some of the myths you seem to hold about anarchism

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


To be brief:

never assume you know who is writing something online. For instance, I have no clue who you are even though you signed your name. For sure, we've never ever met.

To address briefly your "concerns":

anarchists don't advocate any type of dictatorship. We believe in the autonomous self-organization of communes and shit. Marxists advocate a dictatorship of some sort of falsely cohered power-base. They have done it several times before. It sucks.


What are we for? Mutual aid, solidarity, autonomous self-organization, ecological sustainability, singular human relations free of gendered or racialized violence etc. etc. but these things don't help us know how to destroy the mechanisms of control, necessarily. That's why we talk less about them.

Anarchists believe in destroying the society that needs to be controlled by a government through the generalization of revolt and permanent conflict with domination. We want a world of unrullable communes. This won't happen overnight - nobody thinks it will. In either event, we have to start now to create the conditions for the next time there is a big break (i.e. a social movement, a big storm, a financial crash etc.)

As far as your little bit about "leaderless movements" go, I don't know that you can prove it. We can't encourage self-organization through false cohesion into large quasi-state organizations. If a group of people who are organizing together find that they need to formalize some roles so be it. Organization happens formally and informally for the anarchist. Nobody ever said the affinity group was the limit, it's the jumping off point!


Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Anarchism is authoritarian. The "dictatorship" Marxists refer to is that of the masses of people. The dictatorship advocated by many anarchists is quite literal: the unquestioned authority of a single human being to do whatever s/he wills. I understand that y'all are against state structures, but what are you for? What alternative do you offer? Do you think if the state disappears everyone will automatically treat each other respectfully and classes will fade away? What if what an individual desires is wrong? There are no structures in place to promote order. This is not a personal attack; I would really like some answers.

I would like to reiterate that you cannot have a group of one person, and you cannot have an organization without organization. I have become disenchanted with "leaderless" grassroots organizing. In my experience, leaders always emerge, and everyone ends up upset because there weren't supposed to be any leaders. Some leave because they don't want to be a part of what this happenstance leader is doing, and eventually either the leader leaves because s/he is tired of doing everything him or herself or the organization develops some formal structure. Often, the organization ends up irrelevant, harming everyone involved.

Perhaps the solution is to embrace that structure is necessary and that people will fill certain roles anyway. We might as well make it easier for those who would improve organizational function to fulfill their roles and grant them some legitimacy. Then we could choose who fills each of these roles rather than leaving it up to the prettiest speaker to take control. This does not have to create an hierarchy. Rather, everyone could be on the same level with named positions describing roles. For example, instead of naming a President and a Secretary, we would name a Media Contact and an Event Coordinator.

-ET Hennig

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

On Reading: YES, you need to read what you want to criticize before you can engage with the text in question. I read through all of your writing and the preceding comments (not all well-written either). YES, this includes Hitler's "Mein Kompf." We should be reading as much of possible of as much as we can. Otherwise, you never really know what the arguments you consider yourself an advocate or antagonist of really say.

On Affinity Organizing: Ignoring each other's politics cannot create unity -- certainly not for the long-haul. The strategy of engaging only in what each individual personally identifies with is effective only in a reformist context, which the anarchists supporting this article claim to be stark advocates against. Keeping everything to autonomy, you can only change yourself, not the structure outside yourself. Go on and live like an anarchist, but states will go on. I believe there is a time and place for affinity groups, but one cannot reduce all of his or her politics to autonomous actions, not if s/he wants to be effective. To create true unity, people must be unified in mind. Only then can the masses work together to create a new world.

A Big "Technicality": Not all Marxists are Leninsts, fyi.

"Masturbation": First, it is extremely anti-intellectual of certain anarchists to refer even to their own propaganda as mental masturbation. Second, those making crude remarks about Socialists and Leninists (who are really the same thing as each other and maybe Democrats as well) who keep demanding responses as they imagine victims licking wounds need a reminder that this website is dominated by anarchists. Therefore, those you intend to criticize are not even reading this. Maybe you should send some of your Leninist friends your critiques and ask for their response when you know they will see your article.

Not Anonymous: Everyone knows who you are anyway. I have to go now. I may write more later. If you would like to rant at me, you know who I am.

-ET Hennig

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

@1:45 maybe you're right my guess is

S1 made the decree

and the Lower tiered Leninists/Anarcha-Leninists did their best to carry out the wishes of their leader. Isn't that how it always goes?

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Who wants to build a park with me? i bet you we get it done before the Leninists finish the Howell Street Park. 

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


Hear Hear Children after much research and deliberation I have determined that this piece (or better yet compilation of words that you somehow put together) is not even worthy of a tier.

When creating the Tiers I sought to keep others from being able to tier themselves above me though I never anticipated that you infantile ne'er do wells could ever out do yourselves and need to be demoted beyond Tier 1. 

At this point you have achieved irrelevancy that ironically can only be regained by putting newspaper boxes into the street. (A Horrible Beauracratic error I have yet to correct)

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


Oh, wow! Someone formatted it! I wonder if it will be imposed for printing soon. Design looks great!

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Troll troll troll troll:

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Conspiracy Theory: Lenin was an anarchist and troll (almost interchangable at this point) who decided to guide the sheepish communists down a path of destruction to prove just how flawed the notion of a transitional state is.


Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I'm not waiting for any principled debate.  I don't think Marxists principled.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I am waiting for the principled debate the Leninist are always talking about. Someone let me know when they figure out how to get their jaws off the ground and their heads out of Lenin's ass. 

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

For Lenin, the State consists of

"...special bodies of armed men having prisons, etc., at their command."

This critique is right that Marx is very vague about how he defines the State, but Lenin is not. He knows exactly what he is wanting to do and so do his followers.

It is an intentional part of their (Marxist-Leninists) analysis to concieve of the State how it is described by Engel's and then Lenin in "State and Revolution."





Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I think what the previous post ("who are the real agents?") is trying to say is that many people on the Left fear being called racists and anti-semites by their friends in the Democratic party, so they do not critically engage the way the Left deals with issues like race and Palestine, and do not develop political positions on race that actually challenge the racist state in locations where people of color make up the ruling elite. Such as Atlanta. I dont think s/he was trying to say it is negative to have Jewish friends, just that the fear of being called an anti-semite by Jewish friends who are with the Dems and support Israel influences their willingness or ability to fight Israel.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


"These areas are neglected by broad layers of the Marxist and progressive Left because  to consistently follow through on them would undermine their friends -- the politicians in the Democratic Party, especially their Jewish and people of color friends within the party in major cities who are not against capitalism, imperialism, and zionism and whom believe dispropotionate incarceration and police brutality is primarily facilitated by Republicans." you're trying to say that Marxists are against Palestinian liberation because they are friends with 'Jewish' people in the democratic party?

What the fuck are you talking about?

What you have accomplished is an analysis that completely fails to understand the meaning of class contradiction on the ideological front (e.g. the struggles of revisionism; Lenin and Luxumburg vs Bernstein).


Who Are The Real Agents Among the Left? (Since It Was Raised)

Someone on this site argued that they are tired of all "the red baiting" young anarchists do.  Another objects to Hitler and Lenin being compared, because the former was a fascist, and the latter appeared to form a government where the working class' needs would try to be met.  Someone else shouts COINTELPRO? Anarchists who write critiques of Leninism are agents of the state and counter-revolution?

Let's be clear 90% of the Marxists, Black Power advocates, and environmentalists, and feminists in the United States are functionaries of the local or national Democratic Party.  There are many economic and political arguments within Marx and Lenin's writings which view capitalism and the state as "progressive." The task of social revolution is not to more efficiently run capitalism, and provide welfare provisions for all so "nobody is left behind."  Of course under the relations of wage labor and capital almost everybody is left behind and has their self-managing creativity and self-directed liberation suppressed -- and this has happened under every "Communist" nation-state the world has ever known.  One would know this about Russia, China, Cuba or Tanzania if one didnt just read statesmen's writings but numerous works that point out the diversity of socialist, communist and anarchist ideas and indepedent labor actions within freedom movement.

It has become fashionable by Marxist and progressive intellectuals (most recently within the Occupy Movement) to see Anarchists direct action as a plot by the state to disrupt progress.  Let us be clear. What is a Marxist who calls themselves a progressive and sides with capitalists and imperialists under the premise of "science" and "objectivity?"  Either they have read their socialist classics very well and assimilated the barnicles of what the texts actually say (and there are some devastating implications within the body of Marxist-Leninist thought) or THEY are the agents.  Why isnt a cultural front for capitalist politicians (from whatever party) not seen as agentry? That is because so many do it, that the subcultures of the Left need not be infiltrated at all. The counter-revolution is within their own political practice.  They are in dialogue with the managers of state and capital all the time.

One weakness of this article which could have been improved by the author would have been to draw out better the proper basis for coalition with other Leftists by anarchists -- though the implications are there.

Anarchists need not be in coalition with elite polic makers or economic planners of the state nor its capitalist politicians and progressive cultural workers.  Anarchists have worked with sincere Leninists on matters of direct action in anti-fascist work, copwatch campaigns, prisoner support work, and Palestine solidarity.  These areas are neglected by broad layers of the Marxist and progressive Left because  to consistently follow through on them would undermine their friends -- the politicians in the Democratic Party, especially their Jewish and people of color friends within the party in major cities who are not against capitalism, imperialism, and zionism and whom believe dispropotionate incarceration and police brutality is primarily facilitated by Republicans. There is not only one party of Big Business in the USA.

In Atlanta, DC, Detroit, LA, Oakland, New Orleans, the Black and Latino parts of Chicago and New York city, who is the state?  It is primarily people of color mayors and police chiefs and a growing majority people of color police force and women of color human resource professionals who suppress the working class and people of color.  Is this "agentry?" Is speaking plainly about 90% of Marxist-Leninists collaboration with the state and capitalists counter-revolution?

During World War II communists voluntarily and transparently joined the State Department and the CIA to fight Hitler (of course in Germany, where racism was found to be an exception in world developments there -- wink).  

Then during McCarthyism six years later these "progressives" were called un-American and their patriotism was questioned -- which was of course very wrong.  These people were loyal to the capitalist and imperialist state the whole time!  

Ever since, books come out speaking about how Marxists and progressives helped re-engineer the national culture toward multi-culturalism and equal opportunity to enter the rules of hierarchy.  How long will "revisionist" historians pat them on the back and say thanks and get out the vote for the ruling class (locally or nationally)?

There was a time when anarchists mistakenly, when they decided to be more "serious" about revolutionary organization, joined Marxist or Leninist parties. The future among the youth is clearly the other way around.  

This quality piece of writing shows that wisdom is plentiful among young anarchists to start to maintain quality revolutionary organizations of their own.  No article or essay is perfect or beyond principled discussion.  But I find the controversy this article will cause is consistent with the bankruptcy of Leninists and progressives and their inability to be consistent enemies of the state and instead not advocates of a new authoritarian state.  And of course when this effort fails they collaborate with the existing one -- and call it "dialectical."   




Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Excellent piece, and I am very happy to see it coming out of Atlanta. I especially liked the section on socialism as radical reform. The anger and vitriol in some of these comments shows how rattled people get when you do your homework...

I've also recently learned that a local independent press in Atlanta is coming out with a new edition of The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control by Maurice Brinton. This is a really cool book that documents the destruction of the Russian soviets (workers' councils) from 1917-1921 at the hands of the Bolshevik state and party. Those interested in these issues should look into this book.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

We have to take back the word communism from these statist socialist authoritarians. there can not be communism without freedom

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I think its interesting that you pointed this out. Maybe the author was pointing out through their writing style just how incomprehensible and confused Lenin was and how there is no rational argument to follow his works.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

That totally had paragraphs when I posted it, dang!

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

The central argument of this "article" cannot be refuted. That's because the "article" does not have a central argument. There simply is no argument to be found, in other words. There is, rather, a phantasmagoria of assertions about what other people belive, with very little evidence that the "writer" has bothered to ask those people what they believe. I'm not sure if that pre-emptive, "its not a strawman yall, really!"is evidence of the authors poor research or poor self awareness, but neither is a desirable conclusion. The closest thing you get to an argument in this expectoration of slogans is the following: 1) Some people fight the state by seizing state power rather than [implied, stated alternative] 2) Seizing state power *necessarily* results in a reproduction of state power (implied) 3) numbers 1) and 2) are known to those people who size state power. 4) These people are not only leninists but any person drawing from the Marxist history. Therefore: leninists and, to a lesser degree marxists are not only A) necessarily authoritarians but also B) desire to be authoritarians. When good thinkers make extraordinary claims such as these (and each and every of them is controversial) then they tend to try to prove them. I have not seen the slightest attempt to prove even a single one of these, not to mention that 3) would require actually talking to people outside of your comfort zone. Perish the thought. This article is rhetorically excellent. It is written with a persuasive style and an air of plausible research. That, combined with the awe inspiring emotional domination so characteristic of anarchist writing makes this article a piece of propaganda that I think Lenin would be proud of. But I really can't call it much more than masturbation, mutual masturbation at best.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Trolling is nothing new on this site.  I'd even call this trolling tame compared to some of the nasty/lulzy shit that is regularly posted.

The piece mentions in several places the authoritarian tendency to be weaselly when it comes to a number of things.  It mentions their tendency to be weaselly when it comes to lexicon, their posturing as being against police or states when they are not, etc.  They are also weaselly in replying, or not replying as the case may be, to criticism. 

Authoritarian socialists are whining about trolling now so as to avoid engaging with this piece on any level other than superficial.

I'd never seen that hierarchy of disagreement before, but there is some truth to it.  The one or two posts that did actually address the piece or the author are only in the bottom two Tiers of the chart.

All of this is so typical of Marxists.

We might have an authoritarian socialist chime in with their familiar talking points of "this isn't historical" or maybe "this piece is worthy of comment, but [insert a few pithy one-liners]".  What I don't expect to see is any engagement with the critique itself, that is, no attempt to refute its central argument.

I believe that the central argument of the piece is that Marxists are the most extreme liberals in that they just want to reform states and markets via the method of revolution.  That is such a sick fucking burn where could they possibly go from there?

TL;DR: The Marxists are overflowing with shit and shitty bread

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

"LOL I TROLL U" has long been the refuge of backpedaling, intellectual cowards for the express purpose of reproducing loyalty to the state or party; we call them things like "yellow journalists", "political cartoonists", and "Ann Coulter". If that's really your final answer, well, Scylla and Charybdis there, champ.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


also there is a thing called trolling/countertrolling

which some people take to mean posting comments and then posting an opposite comment to make it appear that conversations/debates are happening where they really aren't this is another way to keep people from posting too much on the internet

And remember:

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


I wouldn't take anything you read on here too seriously. Though people take these trolls to be serious there is an actual explanation behind why some people choose to troll. 

Trolling keeps people from entering into debates and saying to many things that (probably shouldnt be said over the internet) could be too personal/specific/could be used against them later.

Also its fun and it forces people to have these conversations with people and not internet anons.

don't take it too seriouslt i would say that most of the trolls are friends/comrades and not really as "petty and infantile" as they might appear to be via the internet.  

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I feel like a child watching my parents going through a divorce. Good thing I wasn't forming memories when my actual parents divorced; else I'd probably be just as embarrassed for them as I am for Atlanta, and myself.

I have never been so ashamed to call myself a radical -anything- as I have when watching the culmination of this clusterfuck over the last month. You bickering, counter revolutionary, obtuse, poor-listening, backstabbing, passive-aggressive, hypocrites.


Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism



Is that what you meant?

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I wish the self-righteous straight edge kids in Atlanta would save me from my terrible drinking habits. God, I know I can't communicate and have fun unless I'm plastered drunk! Please, wont you show me the strength? Why didn't I listen in high school health class like y'all? Maybe then I would be able to reiterate the rhetoric of pro-Jesus moralism on others I deem sinful.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

this can`t  be serious. All i see here is the same old mainstream bourgeois critique of leninism. i am glad the author acknowledges how damn lazy anarchist are, unfortunately  he or she ends the article with this:

``  I do not believe that I have straw-manned the position of Lenin, although it is likely that I am inaccurate about some of the details. I have not thoroughly read What is to be Done?, but I have read several sections and I've discussed the text with self-described Leninists many times. Furthermore, I have read online overviews and watched short introductory videos. In short, I do not claim to be an expert-- so excuse any inaccuracies. Regardless, I believe this to be the basic position Lenin holds.``

lazy, anti-intellectual and with time they will become what they have always been irrelevant.



Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

i think the lack of a response and the "good start" simply show that the leninists got their asses handed to them. WE ARE WINNING 

Anarchist Reading Group: Delirious Momentum of the Revolt

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


For the most part, this is an excellent piece. I'm glad that the author(s) decided to provide a very general outline of the debate instead of engaging with every skinny morsel of Leninist thought. However, I'm looking forward to concrete, detailed discussions in the future.



Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I was putting off reading this because it's clearly tl;dr.  I ended up reading it because it's clearly not tl;dgaf.

After reading it under a very kind tree on this unusually chilly morning I must proclaim: Hahahahahaha, what a sick fucking burn.

All yall Lenin lickers just got served a shit sandwich.  I'd ask you how it tastes, but it's clear that yalls throats were slit and shit sandwiches were stuffed STUFFED down yalls necks and now yalls headless and just overflowing with shit and shitty bread.  Gross.

Since the anon author of the tl;dr piece above somehow failed to mention how yall are incapable of any fun at all without drinking alcohol and how yalls so obviously and painfully sexually repressed, I'd just like to remind your sorry asses of that about yourselves.  We're going to maintain our illegitimate polyopoly on the force of joy by all means unnecessary.  Only anarchists are pretty and don't you try to forget it - WE'LL NEVER LET YOU.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

is a COINTELPRO scheme to get you ricktrolled. You've been warned.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Ever since Our Glorious Leader introduced to us plebs the indispensible political praxis of tiering people and thought I can't help but ask myself WHAT TIER IS THIS!?

This piece might be tier 1 because it slanders Leader Lenin. Then I think it may tier 3 because IT IS SO MANY WORDS and I don't know some of them. Tiering is confusing. It takes a great mind to really figure it out and even a greater mind to come up with tiers to begin with!

One thing is for sure: Whoever is using so many words should really step back and leave some words for the rest of us.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism


Anyone who thinks posting on the internet or beating a Lenin pinata is "redbaiting" should please read about the witch hunt going on in the Pacific Northwest.
Check the new issue of "Tides of Flame", Seattle's anarchist newspaper, for updates on Matt Duran and the situation in general or check out

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I am not sure if you did you research but this actually is written by McCarthy. A simple google search shows that this is one of his unreleased pieces during the red scare. Way to litterally redbait.

here is the link.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Desperately seeking tl;dr

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

No byline? Is that because this was written by the spirit of John McCarthy? Nice try COINTELPOLTERGEIST. Ghosts are scary. 

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninismñata-party

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

I wasn't cool enough to hang with the kids last night. - Cool Mom

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

 I am glad this debate is happening. Good start! - Your Glorious Leader

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

This is fantastic!
Thanks to whoever put this together.  No joke, this is a damn solid critique from an anarchist perspective and reds can deny deny deny, and deflect all they want because I am of the opinion that what I just read riped that sack of shit Lenin to shreads better than we did last night with that pinata.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

How dare you compare Lenin to Hitler. You don't have to read Mein Kompf to know that Hitler was a fascist murder. There is no comparison. Lenin sought to create a world in which the working class people of Russia could have their needs met and be delivered from the grasp of capital. Hitler was a hypocritical self hating fascist you sought to dominate people by other them along the lines of race and ethnicity.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the piece the conclusion is pretty good and im pretty sure it calls for basically an end of silly hostilities and that everyone should move to a strategy of "ignoring" each other politically except when we can work together.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

Herp derp you've never read Mein Kampf so don't critique Hitler.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

This is COINTELPRO. I am tired of all the redbaiting that you young anarchists do. I really am. Lenin is not to be mocked. He was a great leader that did a lot for the revolution. You all should seriously read him and you'll realize that these critiques are invalid.

Re: Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

haha. length won't make up for the fact none of you have read Lenin and your idiotic piece proves it. Makes our job of demolishing it easier THANKS!