description of Leninist ideology.
But, Hearse asserts, "revolutionary marxists see workers' power being exercised through the self-rule of the workers... not through dictatorship of a particular party."
Does this mean that Lenin and Trotsky were not "revolutionary marxists"? According to Lenin, "when we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party... we give us a call. I want to join Socialist Resistance Youth Name... Address. Mobile. Student rate f6 a term. Cheques payable to Resistance
Yet massive strike waves against the Bolsheviks were a common feature of Lenin's Russia. A non-existent proletariat hardly needs martial law and lock-outs to tame it. The Bolsheviks suppressed the workers to remain in power. As Trotsky explained, the party was "entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy." If you agree with what you see in this supplement and want to get involved, why not join us? Simply fill in the form and send it to us - or
Email If you use telephone banking, our Acc. No. is 7018629700 Sort code: 08 02 28 Or send a cheque to us at PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU Tel: 0208 800 7460. www.socialistresistanceistance.net. [email protected] opposition to vanguardism means rejecting "the need for the organisation and leadership role of the most consistent revolutionaries." Anarchist disagree and form anarchist groups to influence the class struggle. However, unlike Leninism, we do not see these groups as seizing power on behalf of the masses.
Equally, anarchists are well aware that an ideal socialist society will not be created Published by Socialist Resistance, PO Box 1109 London N4 2UU. Printed by East End Offset, London E3 The anarchism debate is getting a bit tedious Ideas are only important if they help to change the world, we can all quote extensively from sacred texts, but that in itself won't solve the problems posed by capitalism.
Poverty, war and racism are real issues which affect people's lives today, that has to be the starting point. The real debate between anarchists and Marxists is over the form of organisation which is most effective in getting rid of capitalism.
Some of the big anticapitalist mobilisations in recent years have been led by anarchist or autonomist groups; the carnival against capitalism in 1999, Genoa 200l, and more recently, the May Day demonstrations in London.
But none of them have survived the long haul. The May Day Collective disbanded itself before this year's protests, saying the police were repressing individual activists, and Reclaim the Streets vanished into thin air after organising the 50,000 strong J18. Why?
I think there are two reasons for this Firstly, it is easier for the police to round up small groups of activists symbolically targeting multinationals. Brave as it may be to kick in the windows of McDonalds, it doesn't fundamentally challenge capitalism. That's why Marxists always emphasise mass movements and the central involvement of the working class.
Secondly, organisations aiming to over. throw capitalism have to be up to the task Loose, heterogeneous federations based or consensus tend to fracture very easily.
lain McKay misunderstands what democratic centralism means. It doesn't involve being ordered from above, it means unity of action through common agreement.
Organisations which don't allow debate may be centralist, but they are not democratMarxists often get targeted by the state for organising against the system. When they do we organise campaigns to defend them within the revolutionary movement, and the mass movement too. It may not be foolproof, but it's better than disbanding, and often it works
We don't want to wait another 100 years talking about revolution. Mass movements and well organised revolutionary parties within them are the best way to change the world
Karen O'Toole, London
page 15 of the scan
America's military defeat in Fallujah, the growing scandal over torture and the stalemate of Israel's repressive policies in Palestine signal a massive crisis for US militarism. Is it the end for the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld strategy? asks PHIL HEARSE.
Perhaps 700 Iraqis died in the battle Por Falujah, most of them non com.batants. Over 100 US soldiers also died, which explains the frustration and frenzy of the US bombardment of the town. Some global justice campaigners (by no means all) note that these figures -indeed all the figures for deaths in the Iraq war and its aftermath- are tiny compared with the Third World's daily holocaust at the hands of poverty and disease. Is not the left obsessed with US militarism and the ongoing Iraq war?
The truth is that what is happening in Iraq and to a lesser extent Palestine is the cutting edge of the whole imperial system of global injustice, which lies behind global poverty. What is happening there has repercussions for the whole system.
American marines lost the battle of Fallujah, politically as much as militarily, but that in itself hardly threatens the US Empire. What it does threaten is the Bush-CheneyRumsfeld way of running the empire. And stresistance May 2004 15 International Resistance
There is one decisive similarity with Vietnam - already the US has lost the political battle in the country itself, decisive and irreversibly. This means that - at differing tempos over time - the insurgency will continue.