The Transition to Communism:
                                                                        Anarchism Vs Leninism

Firstly we shall define communism as the end-goal that is common to most Anarchists (Anarcho-Communists specifically) and Leninists. By Leninists we are referring to the general Leninist, be them Trotskyists, Stalinists, and so on. The topic at hand here is on the question of the transition to communism (how we are to achieve such a society, from the revolution to such a society). The issue is between these Anarchists (generally Libertarian Socialists, but specifically Anarcho-Communists) and Leninists. It is written from the Leninist point of view. This text has not been proofread, revised, or looked over at the time of posting, as such, I apologize for any mistakes.

 Anarchists generally believe in statelessness, anti-authoritarianism, reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, favor a direct transition to communism, reject the concept of a revolutionary vanguard party, believe that the people (not solely the proletariat) are fully and completely capable of starting, sustaining, pulling through, and organizing a Communist revolution and society themselves. Leninists believe that an educated revolutionary vanguard party must lead the proletariat, that communism cannot take place directly, that a transitional period is a necessary, that classes, money, the state, and even Capitalism cannot by any means be instantly abolished (note here that by instantly we do not mean it literally, of course), that the proletariat and the vanguard party must follow through the dictatorship of the proletariat, that they must use every means available to them to suppress and wrestle power from the clutches of the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, to pave a path to a proletarian society, they realize the necessity of a gradual, organized, and steady transition to communism, etc.

  The Anarchists follow a Utopian means and concept of revolution. They reject the basic foundations of Leninism such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the necessity of a vanguard party, the necessity of a gradual transition to communism, and even the use of a state to aid that transition. Let us then firstly start with the issue of the revolution. The masses (again, not even the proletariat) if they are to go through a revolution, are not guided by any revolutionary entity such as a vanguard. As such, is there anything that can ensure us that a revolutionary or even Anarchist ideology and methodology is chosen for the revolution and not another political revolution as in the case of Egypt, Tunisia, or any other revolution which failed to achieve a revolutionary communist society? What can ensure us that this unquided mass will not be lured and lulled by the bourgeoisie? What can ensure us that, unguided, the masses will not turn into an unorganized, confused, and pacified mass that does not have a specific goal as in the case of the Occupy movement? What can turn this unguided mass from modest or impossible reformist goals to revolutionary aims? What can ensure us that such a mass can know what is best for it, what way and theory is proper, etc. when it has not by the least even read a single work on Anarchism, Communism, Marxism, Economics, etc.? What can ensure us that the masses follow their goals and not turn to opportunism after experiencing the harsh difficulties and atrocities of a revolution such as in the case of famines, poverty, scarcity, and even death? Nothing. Nothing can ensure us that the masses, who are not even proletarians, can pull through a successful Anarchist or Communist revolution. A vanguard party, thus, must exist; it is a necessity.

  Then we have the issue of the dictatorship of the proletariat which many Anarchists ignorantly refuse. These Utopians cannot fathom nor comprehend the fact that the bourgeoisie, the ruling elite, the reactionaries, the anti-communists, the counter-revolutionaries, the fascists, the Nazis, the conservatives, etc. WILL NOT passively accept the revolution with open hands or stand by idly. No, they will in all their might and power attempt to crush the revolution. That is exactly why the dictatorship of the proletariat, authoritarianism, and coercion are necessary whether that is done voluntarily or involuntarily. Those who oppose and undermine the revolution must not be given the freedom to do so, that is suicide. Instead, these reactionary and counter-revolutionary elements of society must be silenced and dealt with properly however the revolutionaries may see fit. Those who reject this necessity clearly do not know what a revolution is and we redirect them to join a monastery instead of babbling about thing which they know nothing about.
 From the dictatorship of the proletariat comes the question of the Utopian and mythical concept of “anti-authoritarianism”. Clearly, again, these people who support such a concept know nothing about a revolution at all. Authority and authoritarianism are two specters that will always exist as long as human social relations exist. A revolution necessitates the use of force and authority as the masses (or proletariat) impose their views, ideologies, ways, policies, beliefs, and desires on every single individual in such a society. Not everyone will accept the revolution or the changes made. They will oppose them even through the use of physical force. These people need to be dealt with using the utmost of authoritarian and merciless methods. Not all counter-revolutionary elements of society will leave as soon as the revolution takes places, they would not even want to or can leave. They will resist and they must be dealt with to secure and defend the revolution. Authoritarianism will still exist even in a post-revolutionary society. A parent will hold a position of authority over his child, a commune will hold authority over an individual, a group will hold authority over a member, judicial entities (whatever their form) will hold authority over the accused, etc. Anti-authoritarianism, thus, is a Utopian myth that only exists in the minds of the fanciful daydreamers. All social relations demand the use and existence of authority in one form or another.

  Then we arrive to the issue of the abolishment of classes, money, and the state “instantly” without a gradual “revolution” and transition to communism. Anarchists tend to believe that these “evils” will be “instantly” abolished through a swift action or declaration on part of the revolutionaries. They believe that classes, money, and the state can be abolished as if utilizing magical wands. Firstly, we will start with the issue of classes. They cannot be abolished “instantly”. The bourgeoisie will still have an enormous influence in a revolution, and even post-revolutionary, due to mainly the continued existence of the bourgeoisie and predatory countries in the world. The means of production after having been expropriated cannot lead to the “instant vanishing” of the bourgeoisie and their ilk. Just as an unemployed worker is still a proletarian, so will a temporarily propertyless bourgeois still be considered so. With the revolution, bourgeois mindset, culture, influence, ways of thought, etc. are not done away with. In fact, such a society, to quote Marx, “[…] emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”. Such a society is then still stamped with the birthmarks of bourgeoisie society. Then we arrive to the question of money, it also cannot be abolished in a few days, months or ever years. Even the Anarchist communes generally did not abolish money (save a few). A moneyless gift economy cannot be established when scarcity still exists, when the means of production and society are as of yet unorganized, not function at their full capacity, and when homelessness, starvation, war, thirst, unemployment, etc. still exist. For a gift economy to properly function, it requires a society that is not based on scarcity, but abundance. For such a society and economy to exist, stability, peace, organization, and the basic necessities of life must already exist. Such qualities cannot exist in a time of revolution, war, or a society that directly came out of such conditions. Lenin had stated the following, “indeed, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such change”. Thus the necessity of a Leninist transitional statist phase known as “socialism” or the “lower-phase of Communism”. This then brings us to the questions of the state, the major issue and point of contention between Leninists and Anarchists. We will start by quoting Lenin on the state:

“Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism, suppression is still necessary; but it is the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority... A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitory state.”

“Finally, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed – “no one” in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population.”

“This fully expresses the basics idea of Marxism on the question of the historical role and meaning of the state. The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled. And conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable."

"According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it creates "order," which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collision between the classes."

 As we can see here the state arises out of the existence of classes. The state is a tool used by one class to assert its dominance and to suppress the other classes. The state cannot be abolished as long as classes exist, the need for suppression exists, capitalists and capitalist nations exist, and especially when the revolution is isolated and in a state of war. Anarchists desire to abolish the state and replace it with an alternative system such as Proudhonist federalism, workplace democracy, and even achieve (directly_ a communist system on the spot. We ask them, why abolish or avoid the use of a workers’ state? Here, they will come up with various reasons and claims such as “oppression”, “authoritarianism”, “dictatorship”, and “the dictatorship of the party”, etc. We will reply to these claims in a brief manner. When Anarchists peak of oppression and authoritarianism as reasons to reject the use of a workers’ state, we can simply tell them, no, remind them, that they know nothing about a revolution. We will quote Engels on this matter, "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?” A revolution thus necessitates the use of not only violence, but oppression, suppression, and authoritarianism to defend the revolution and ensure that the revolution does not fail. Then we ask the Anarchists, would the Spanish Revolution “had lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people” against the bourgeoisie and their ilk in order to defend itself? The suppression of the bourgeoisie is necessary for any revolutionary scenario. Deny that and you deny the very basic concept of revolution. The Anarchists then speak of dictatorship and the dictatorship of the (vanguard) party. What these individuals do not understand is that there is no dictatorship in the traditional sense of the world, but it is the “dictatorship” of one class over another. That is to say, the rule and dominance of the previously exploited majority over the exploitive and privileged minority. In such a system it is no longer the dictatorship one person, of a minority, working against the interests of the downtrodden majority, but the exploited majority freeing itself through the use of force from its oppressive rulers. If this very concept is objected to and refused, then those who object would be acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie and the exploiters, the slave owners and not the slaves. Here we would have certain people (anti-authoritarians, etc.) tell us that in this way the exploited majority becomes the exploiting majority. To such a claim we say: So what? This “new exploitation” is in no way similar to the exploitation and atrocities exercised by the minority on an a constant daily basis nor is it in any way similar to the revolutions and suppressions exercised by that minority. The minority uses, abuses, rapes, exploits, robs, and lives off of the labor of the downtrodden majority, how then can we deny and even resist the “natural” ambitions of this exploited majority as a result of the actions of the exploiters? The exploited majority is forced into its position, while the minority is not. The majority cannot be changed, reformed, or rendered useless, but the minority can. That is to say, a capitalist need not exist for an economy to function, but a laborer must exist for any economy to function. When the majority suppresses the minority, it is an act of liberation, the end of the exploitation of that majority, and the fight for an equal society. Such a revolution is akin to a slave being freed from his master. A worker cannot escape from the bourgeoisie in a bourgeois society. As such, the worker is forced to resort to whatever means he has at his disposal to free himself from such a society.

  After that very basic issue has been dealt with, we move on to the claim of the dictatorship of the party over the proletariat. Of course, again, these people who would put forward such a claim have never learned how the Soviets actually functioned and the very nature of the vanguard party. In my other text, “On the Necessity of the Vanguard Party”, I had explained why the vanguard party represents the actual interests of the proletariat. If this professional and academical representation is a dictatorship then I fear for the accuser’s sanity. There is no dictatorship of the party as long as democracy exists, the party is not assigned from above, the vanguard is democratic, and the workers have a say in the policies and organization of society. We do not desire the repeat the mistakes of Stalinism. The proletariat must not be removed from power to be replaced by a privileged bureaucracy. The Anarchists here would propose that we utilize a non-hierarchical direct democratic method of organization. They think that such a method of organization is a viable revolutionary and transitional means to transition from the current system to the next. Our objection here would be the existence of factions, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, etc. that would not be suppressed and would be as of yet existent. These elements can and will be able to deviate from the revolutionary Communist cause. It would be an indirect hijacking of the revolution. Such a method of organization, furthermore, can lead to the a bourgeois revolution or become reformist. Those can and will occur as a “non-hierarchical” method of management will include every single element of society, be them reactionaries or even anti-communists. Unguided, that is without a revolutionary vanguard, such a revolution cannot be safeguarded from the reactionary and reformist elements of society. What such Anarchists do not realize is that not everyone iwl lbe come a revolutionary and especially not become Anarchist or Communist. The only thing that such an organization will lead to is the failure of the revolution without having the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries even raise a fist! With that being said, the Anarchists can thus not even ensure the success of their own revolution even in theory! A revolutionary vanguard is then not only necessity, but a crucial entity for any revolution. If the Bolsheviks did not demand and pull through a second revolution (the October Revolution) and resorted to the most violent actions then Russia et al. would have become bourgeois countries as the opportunists at the time had desired.

  Leninists believe that a workers’ state is necessary to organize and manage the transitional society. For it is necessary to organize and safeguard such a society with the dictatorship of the proletariat. The counter-revolutionary elements of society must be suppressed and silenced. The economy must be organized and change so as to be able to suit function utilizing a socialist mode of production and socialist relation of production. Many Anarchists deny the need for planning, organization, etc. ad instead believe in the Utopian vision that instantly out of Capitalist the workers are not only capable of but will by themselves resort to the creation of a society organized non-hierarchically in an anti-authoritarian fashion, without a state, ad even be based on the concept of the Kropotkinist mutual aid. All this and at the same time they believe in abolishing money in all its forms in favor of an overnight gift economy. Such an impossible Utopian vision is actually believed in by many Anarchist daydreamers. Leninists , on the other hand, refuse such a Utopian daydream and instead utilize practical and realistic methodologies. Leninists know that a moneyless, classless, non-hierarchical, equal, and stateless society (communism) cannot be achieved overnight, in a few months, or a few years. That is why Leninists support the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism, a transitional period, a state, the use of money, and even the existence and necessity of the use of force and suppression at the disposal of the proletariat. We are not Utopians nor do we desire to be so. That is why we speak of a transitional period prior to communism, and that is exactly why we speak of the use of the state.

  The isolation of the revolution is another fatal and decisive issue that Anarchists and Leninists speak of. An Anarchist society or “country” cannot [properly function or even survive in isolation A revolution will not take place simultaneously or instantaneously all over the world at once. Thus such a society which is in isolation cannot sustain, defend, or even stand its own ground against numerous powerful predatory imperialist bourgeois powers. It can be easily infiltrated by reactionary elements, invaded, economically and militaristically pressured, etc. etc. An Anarchist revolution must be international; a communist revolution must be international. If that cannot be met then we need not even speak of success. A socialistic country, on the other hand, can be able to incite revolutions in other countries, hold its own against bourgeois imperialist powers, and even be powerful enough to compete in the world market. This is empirically true as we have seen throughout history with even quasi-socialist (not even socialist!) countries as in the case of the USSR for instance. This socialist country can instigated, agitate, and aid revolutionaries all over the world while an anarchist divided society cannot even hold its own against internal threats.

Most Anarchists do not believe in an instantaneous revolution indeed, but many others do. It is actually purely because most Anarchists do not believe in an instantaneous overnight transition that they inevitably support a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which they constantly and outrightly deny. A transitional phase is necessary and during that transitional phase a strong state is necessary to defend the revolution and the post-revolutionary society. Organization of production, rebuilding, defence, suppression, repression, and the ability to spread the revolution are vital for any revolutionary and post-revolutionary society, all of which is nearly impossible or highly disatrous without centralized organization akin to the state which would allow such organization to be coordinated, instantaneous, and effective when compared to having to sieve decisions over a multitude of numerous meetings over several days. It is because of the necessity of this transitional phase that we state that the revolutionaries will assert their authority, might, and newly found privileges over the bourgeoisie, the Fascists, the Nazis, the Capitalists, and their ilk lest all that they fought for would be destroyed. By creating such an armed authoritarian resistance (yes authoritarian as you are imposing your will, ideology, ways, and system through the use of coercion and force) you then essentially form a Dictatorship of the Proletariat without the use of a state (unless of course you're one of those populist free-for-all Anarchists). Based on Marxist class analysis, there exists two main antagonistic classes in bourgeois society, all history has been dependent on classes and class conflict. Each instance of history and its respective system had a dictatorship by one class over another, that's basic Marxism. Currently what we have is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. When you have a revolution, you topple that dictatorship and replace it with the dictatorship of the class that overthrew it. There is essentially no other alternative. You cannot do away with classes overnight, a day, a week, a few months, nor a few years, you need decades, especially when speaking of this on an international level. The same applies to money, the state, and eventually communism. Now, the defence of the revolution inherently becomes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (if the proletariat is the revolutionary class of yours). There is no avoiding that, just as there is no avoiding the use of authority to impose your society and system on the opposition.



                                                         The Vanguard Party and its Necessity

  The proletariat cannot act as sole revolutionary body of a revolution. The proletariat cannot successfully follow through a revolutionary scenario unguided. The proletariat requires the existence of a vanguard party formed of professional, educated, and revolutionary individuals who can successfully and consciously be capable of guiding the proletariat. The proletariat, constant under the oppression and time-consuming nature of capitalism, cannot comprehend the basics of works as in the case of Das Kapital and other such academic works. The proletariat simply does not have the time for such “trivialities” between working 8 hours or more a day to trying to put food on the table. The proletarian need not even have attended any education, let alone be capable of understanding such works. The proletariat is not a conscious, determined, and inherently educated mass. The proletariat would rather soon give up its efforts and cause towards a revolution when faced by the ravages of war, hunger, thirst, homelessness, poverty, scarcity, and the temptations put forward by the bourgeoisie to return them to a time of “stable prosperity of a functioning system”. No, the proletariat requires the guidance of professionals who know what they are doing and exactly why. Revolutionaries who have read the many works on Communism, revolution, theory, economics, sociology, history, Socialism, and who can manage the economy, revolutionaries who are educated, wise, intelligent, class conscious, and ever determined to the cause are more than capable of guiding and leading the proletarian mass towards a communist society. Without such a guiding entity as that of a revolutionary vanguard party, the revolution will fail, the proletariat will succumb, and communism will be not achieved. For how can the proletariat, even when class conscious of the class struggle, know the proper method or system to follow, be it communism or otherwise. There is no assurance that the proletariat will follow the communist road and not simply turn to opportunism and the creation of yet another bourgeois democratic system as in the case of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Without a revolutionary vanguard, there can be no revolutionary movement. The proletariat, if we are to claim this for the sake of argument, is capable of achieving a communist class consciousness, can they know how best to manage such an economy? Can’t they know their way around the economic calculation argument? Can they run a successful economy? If so, how? Will they lead the management of the transitional economy properly? Will they avoid the utilization of market economy? There can be no assurance that the proletariat can know what is best for it, especially in the long-term, neither will there be any assurance that the proletariat can turn to communism.

  By itself the proletariat is as insecure, clueless, and fallible as an infant child. A revolutionary vanguard is the only assurance that the proletariat can move on the path of communism, revolution, and socialism. The proletariat does not take part in academic debates, study, and theory but a vanguard party does and as such can and does in fact know what is best for the proletariat. In fact, the vanguard party is formed by the most revolutionary, intelligent, active, and class conscious individuals of the proletariat. How can the necessity of this vanguard be rejected? The rejection comes two-fold, either due to theoretical differences (Anarchists for instance) or a false presumption that a vanguard party implies a bureaucratic organization. The Anarchists naturally reject any social hierarchical position, and as such, they will out rightly deny the necessity of a vanguard party on that basis alone. Then we have the other rejection, which is more valid and to be carefully considered: the rise of a bureaucracy must be prevented. The degeneration of the revolution and the vanguard party must also be prevented. As such, bottom-up popular democracy a la Soviets is a necessity. Workplace organization and management by the workers is a necessity. We cannot stress this enough; we must not repeat the mistakes of the USSR. Democratic Centralism means two things, as Lenin stated, “freedom of discussion, unity of action”. Without a bottom-up democracy on all levels, bureaucratic centralization would become an inevitability.

The working class is not a "diverse" group as they have simple interests when it comes to collective analysis (such as the Marxist class analysis). Workers rationally do not want to be exploited. Workers also tend to be much less educated on the question of Communism, revolution, Socialism, Anarchism, etc. etc. than a devout Communist, revolutionary, Socialist, Anarchists, etc. That is a truism. Workers cannot by any means comprehend Das Kapital for instance. What needs to be kept in mind is that in the fields of sociology and economics as well as general theories we do not care about individual exceptions. The radicals among the working class turn into Vanguard party members, which is one of the principles of the Vanguard party, and I quote: "The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."The Vanguard party hosts the most read, educated, militant, determined, and radical tiers of the working class. The radicals within the working class tend to automatically join labor unions and parties, these would in turn be part of the Vanguard party or in fact simply be the Vanguard party.

A vanguard party can and will typically include elements of the revolutionary intellegentisia, be them bourgeois or otherwise. The academic intellectuals are NOT a class, the academic intellectuals do not have a class-based interest or an interest hinging on money or prestige. The foremost Socialists, Anarchists, and Communists of the 19th and 20th century were academic intellectuals. They were not workers, they were academic intellectuals ranging from Engels, Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Trotsky, Malatesta, Karl Radek, Karl Liebnecht, Karl Kautsky, to Vladimir Lenin, Anton Pannekoek, etc. etc. etc Need I go on? No. The best and most educated Communists, Anarchists, and Socialists were academic intellectuals or originated from "middle-class" or even bourgeois origins and families. None of them were interested in money nor prestige. Look for some proletarian intellectuals, they are an extremely few minority. The academic intellectuals have NO incentive to stick to the status quo, in fact, these academic intellectuals have overthrown the status quo and written invaluable material on how to do it and were some of the most radical revolutionaries. Workers do not have the same privileges as the academic intellectuals, namely on the question of education, background, material wealth, security, time, and leisure. Workers tend to focus on REFORMS due to their short-sighted nature that bases itself on immediate changes in their lifestyle. Notice how when reforms are implemented by the government the labor movement dies down while the academic intellectuals continue agitating and putting forth theories and propaganda. Workers, also, tend to follow labor unions. The interests of the workers generally MAKE THEM loyal to the status quo, not the rebellious academic intellectuals. Weird, eh? Not really. Workers already working with a low wage have to feed their families, have to secure their future, and have to constantly pay off the bills. If these workers strive for a revolution or a general strike then they are DIRECTLY affected by the outcome of such actions. Even Kropotkin himself, if I remember correctly, spoke of this: the risk faced by the worker when it comes to the question of the risky revolution that will change his whole life and even lead to him being killed.

  A vanguard party is the only means by which a revolution can be successfully guided towards a revolutionary Communist path. To claim that “the people” themselves can do so is not only Utopian, but short-sighted. Without a vanguard, we would end up with another failed Occupy movement-esque disaster that has no specific goal, purpose, viable alternative, or organization. We do not want that.