Smashing the Orderly Party: an Anarchists Critique of Leninism

an Anarchist's critique of Leninism







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










            •           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.




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.


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…



-The Society of the Spectacle, Thesis 64


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.





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













"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."





Cadres vs. Affinity Groups: Similarities and Differences




Affinity Groups


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.




A Few Thoughts on "Armed Struggle"



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"

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.


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.

- “Theory of Worlds”, pg. 7






Socialization and the Legal Regime of Bureaucratic Capitalism


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



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.



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.



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.




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





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





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!