Lenin's Marxism was flawed

[trivas7]

Lenin held a deeply mechanistic understanding of Marx whereby he would use any and every means to accomplish revolution in Russian society. There never was an clean phase to the revolution when once in power. The corruption and tyranny began at once. Despite Bolshevism's appeals to universal ideas of social justice, when Lenin called to turn the "imperialist war" (i.e. the First World War) into a "civil war", the writing was on the wall for anyone who wanted to see that it was the Bolsheviks' intention to tear Russian society apart, and not provide the people "peace, land and bread" as Lenin claimed (in order to get the naive to support his agenda for revolution).

Lenin never had any intention to improve the lives of the Russian people. At a time of mass famine during the "War Communism" repression at the time of the Civil War (after the October Revolution), the Bolshevik regime was sending millions of dollars out of the country in order to stir up revolutions in other countries while letting their own people starve. But Lenin was interested in political power leading to what he hoped would be "the permanent revolution". Everything was subordinated to the goal of the Party attaining and keeping power, and any deceit and violence was justifiable for these purposes. Ironically, Lenin's hopes proved impotent and w/ it any semblance of a "worker's state".

[Die Neue Zeit]

* Yawn *

The redistribution of land to the peasants, in spite of my sovkhozization objections (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-bolshevik-mistake-t59382/index.html), saved Russian society from being torn apart. The peace initiative also saved the country as a whole (and made it easier to crush the reactionary generals who started Civil War operations in mid November, contrary to anarchist and liberal-conservative propaganda blaming the Bolsheviks).

A more objective essay on the Bolshevik slogan found that "bread" was indeed the hardest promise to fulfill. One more thing: you forgot the industrial re-organization aspect of War Communism (which inspired GOELRO later on). You just don't like the fact that little bourgeois "individuals" were disenfranchised from voting - a Russian application of the collective class absolutism ("dictatorship") of the proletariat. :rolleyes:

[trivas7]

* Yawn *

The redistribution of land to the peasants [...] saved Russian society from being torn apart.
The brutalization and death of thousands of peasants at the hands of the Bolsheviks was an odd way to save Russian society IMHO.

http://libcom.org/library/third-revolution-nick-heath

[danyboy27]

.

[Kassad]

Absolutely no grasp of revolutionary socialism in the Soviet Union. Thanks to the oppressive rule of the Tsar and his complete and total failure to manage a war-time economy, Russia was deep in an impoverished state that would have inevitably lead to death, destruction and the imminent military occupation of Russia unless something was done to maintain and modernize the nation.

Lenin's Bolsheviks claimed power and ignited a revolutionary movement that reclaimed Russia's production in the name of the people, whereas it had been ruled by an elite oligarchy before the Revolution. Without some form of rebuilding, Russia and later the Soviet Union, would never have had the ability to properly care for its citizens. Lenin ended Russia's involvement in the imperialist war and turned his attention to the citizens of the Soviet Union. He focused the resources on the masses, instead of using it to make the Tsar and his cronies wealthy and powerful. Of course, with any third-world and under-developed country, you can't honestly expect a revolution to just sweep all the social problems away. This revolution had nothing to do with a party, really. The Bolsheviks had the most efficient means of attaining revolutionary goals and some of the immense problems Lenin faced could not be overcome until the Union was brought to the world stage by some form of industrialization and modernization. Lenin needed to be able to combat counterrevolutionary forces, because if his revolution failed in the infant stages, what would have happened? Mass turmoil, death and likely the disunification of Russia into many separate entities with no real economic power, which would likely fall back into capitalism and be oppressed by the tiny elite as it had before.

Lenin was required to combat some counterrevolutionary forces, as bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeos and conservatives were attempting to retain their control over the means of production. Do you expect the bourgeoisie elite to just sit down and forsake all their means of profit? Lenin took many unpopular actions to keep th Soviet Union unified; actions which were meant to be temporary, but growing threats in the West forced the Soviet Union into a hyper-industrialization that disregarded human life, since it was either sink or swim for Lenin and Stalin.

You're completely lost, my friend.

[danyboy27]

.

[Kassad]

so, what you are saying is, all those hanging and execution of unramed civilian where fully justified?
i am not trying to flame, just to understand your views, no sacasm intended.

Sources? I can address specific situations.

[trivas7]

i used to think lenin was a good guy you know.
Ditto.

Lenin's vanguardism, his disregard of democracy, and use of terrorism in order to prop up the Bolshevik regime would have been abhorrent to Marx.


Absolutely no grasp of revolutionary socialism in the Soviet Union.

On what Marxist basis did Lenin push for a socialist revolution? He understood full well that the proletariat was too weak, that Russia didn't have the material prerequisites of socialism.

[danyboy27]

.

[Kassad]

Citing Wikipedia? C'mon, man. Well, either way, 'executions' is a broad term. Who was executed? Innocents or criminals? Revolutionaries or counterrevolutionaries? You can't just say "executions happened!" I can't say I condone capital punishment, but were these men a danger to society? Were prisons overcrowded, cramped and unsanitary? I know that sounds inhumane, but if these people are a danger to society and there's no place to imprison them, I don't see what else you can do. I would not put people's lives in danger because of arrogance.

[danyboy27]

.

[Sam_b]

Spetnaz, your sole use of Wikipedia articles and lack of any critical thinking is telling.

[KC]

Trivas, stop trolling.


lenin hanging order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Hanging_Order (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Hanging_Order)

I think you missed this:

"A peasant revolt erupted in the Kuchkino Volost, of Penza Uyezd, on 5 August 1918, and soon spread to neighboring regions. The revolt was triggered by forceful confiscation of grain. By 8 August 1918, Soviet military forces had crushed the revolt, however the situation in the gubernia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gubernia) remained tense, and a revolt led by members of Socialist-Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party) erupted in the town of Chembar on 18 August. Lenin sent several telegrams to Penza demanding drastic measures in fighting these kulak, peasant, and Left SR insurrectionists."

Which in that case I fully support his order, although you probably missed this as well:

"Gubernia Executive Committee
Penza
Copy to the Gubernia Committee of the Communists
I am extremely indignant that there has been absolutely nothing definite from you as to what serious measures have at last been carried out by you for the ruthless suppression of the kulaks of the five volosts and confiscation of their grain. Your inactivity is criminal. All efforts should be concentrated on a single volost, which should be swept clean of all grain surpluses. Telegraph fulfillment"

It should also be noted that there is no evidence of this order being carried out.

And as for this:



sumarry executions

Executions (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment) took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_civil_war). After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver. Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were conveyed bound and gagged by lorry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorry) to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror#cite_note-18)

I think this review on Amazon says it best:

"

Significant errors are committed in Leggett's central argument concerning the Cheka's exercises. One does not have to be a Leninist to object to Leggett's characterization of Lenin as "the self-appointed Marxist Messiah," the Russian soviet government as "Lenin's state", or the Civil War in Russia as a "bitter class war of Lenin's making." Bitter it was, but to attribute the bitterness to Lenin's "manipulation of the lives of millions" is to cast workers and peasants in the role of mindless sheep. So keen is Leggett to demonstrate that mass "limitless terror" was the cornerstone of Bolshevism, springing full-blown from Lenin's head, that he never once entertains the degree of popular support for and participation in the activities in soviet state organs, accepts without qualification the not unbiased agitprop accounts of Steinberg, Melgunov, and others, and relies frequently on third-hand quotations in his attempts to condemn Lenin and Dzerzhinsky out of their own mouths. There is virtually no sense of a desperate struggle against foreign invaders, internal counterrevolutionaries, disease, or hunger. Leggett's allegation that the revolutionary Russian government wanted a civil war is impossible to reconcile with Lenin's optimism in the fall of 1917 on the likelihood of avoiding civil war. Following the peace treaty with Germany and the consolidation of soviet power in almost all of Russia, Lenin said on 23 April 1918: "It can be said with certainty that, in the main, the Civil War has ended." It was not until the following summer when large-scale civil war broke out in Russia with the Czech aggression, the Left SR revolt in Moscow, the Yaroslavl Revolt, the White Cossack invasion of Tsaritsyn, , and the Entente aggression in Baku, Vladivostok, and elsewhere. For Lenin to have said during a peaceful April 1918 that civil war had ended demonstrates that Leggett distorts Lenin's understanding of civil war.

In the closing appendix, Leggett attempts to arrive at the total number of executions carried out by the Cheka. With an absence of good faith Leggett finds it necessary to inflate the approximately 12,000 executions reported by the Russian Government to 140,000 plus an equal amount killed in armed revolts. These estimates, however, defy plausibility; in the single largest armed revolt at the Kronstadt military base casualties amounted to about 3000 rebels killed and wounded and an equal number of Red Army troops. The sources cited by Leggett to support his estimates are unimpressive. They consist primarily of Russian emigrant agitprop published in hostile countries during the 1920s and 1930s; even the fictitious propaganda of the Denikin regime is cited without the slightest skepticism. Even if Leggett's clearly inflated arithmetic is to be accepted, the worst of the Cheka cannot compare to the horrific atrocities carried out by the White Guard: in Finland with a population roughly equal to that of Moscow more than 20,000 people were shot or killed in concentration camps during and after that country's brief civil war; in Ukraine some 100,000 Jews were murdered by the bands of Denikin and Petliura; the Krasnov regime in the Don province meted out some 25,000 death sentences; in the Ekaterinburg the Kolchak regime shot some 25,000 people. And on and on.

More important, if it all comes down to Lenin's "cold political cruelty," then historians of the French Revolution, the civil wars in Hungary, Finland and other countries where both White and Red terror were practiced on a wide scale will have to quite a lot of revising. Leggett's work, while it contains a commendable depth of knowledge and research, does not address several difficult questions, suffers from a narrow focus, and remains largely unsatisfactory." Source (http://www.amazon.com/Cheka-Lenins-Political-Police/dp/0198228627)


i carefully choose the stuff i take from wikipedia, just to be certain that there is sources

I think it's quite easy to see that you really don't care about your sources as long as it looks like what you're arguing is credible.

[Dr Mindbender]

The brutalization and death of thousands of peasants at the hands of the Bolsheviks was an odd way to save Russian society IMHO.

http://libcom.org/library/third-revolution-nick-heath

It wasnt just at the 'hands of the bolsheviks'.

When any new nation industrialises in a short space of time, it inevitably results in loss of life as was the case with the british empire but it seems that cappies have a selective memory in that aspect.

also its arguable that if lenin hadnt put the policies in place that he did then the soviet union wouldnt have been able to fight the germans back later in ww2, meaning 5 million more nazi troops being deployed in france and perhaps even our own defeat in western europe.

[RGacky3]

I'd like to state off the bat, that I'm not a Leninist and I think the Russian revolution was betrayed by the Leninists, but anyway.


when Lenin called to turn the "imperialist war" (i.e. the First World War) into a "civil war", the writing was on the wall for anyone who wanted to see that it was the Bolsheviks' intention to tear Russian society apart, and not provide the people "peace, land and bread" as Lenin claimed (in order to get the naive to support his agenda for revolution).


Lenin did not turn the imperialist war into a civil war, the whites turned it into a civil war. The Bolshevik revolution had already happened and during the civil war the Bolsheviks were on the defensive.


Lenin never had any intention to improve the lives of the Russian people. At a time of mass famine during the "War Communism" repression at the time of the Civil War (after the October Revolution), the Bolshevik regime was sending millions of dollars out of the country in order to stir up revolutions in other countries while letting their own people starve.

Thats interesting, I never heard about those millions of dollars, care to back that up somehow?


But Lenin was interested in political power leading to what he hoped would be "the permanent revolution". Everything was subordinated to the goal of the Party attaining and keeping power, and any deceit and violence was justifiable for these purposes. Ironically, Lenin's hopes proved impotent and w/ it any semblance of a "worker's state".

I agree there, but Lenins goal was ultimately to gain total power for the party, and then to impliment socialism and improve everyones lives, but power does'nt work that way, never has never will.


I know that sounds inhumane, but if these people are a danger to society and there's no place to imprison them, I don't see what else you can do. I would not put people's lives in danger because of arrogance.

Danger to society is a very vague term, especially when there is no accountability for state punishment.


On what Marxist basis did Lenin push for a socialist revolution? He understood full well that the proletariat was too weak, that Russia didn't have the material prerequisites of socialism.

There are no material prerequisites for Socialism, thats a bunch of Marxist bull.

Had Lenin not been around, I think theres a good chance a real genuine socialist revolution could have happened, directly from the soviets themselves, without some central rulership. Now thats just hypothetical, even if thats not true, the ends don't justify the means, especailly since the ends were a tyrannical state that was a workers state in name only.

[Rawthentic]

man, Im glad rgacky was restricted.

I remember when he was one here and pretended to be a revolutionary with his anarcho syndicalist crap.

It made my day to see this.:)

[trivas7]

It wasnt just at the 'hands of the bolsheviks'.

When any new nation industrialises in a short space of time, it inevitably results in loss of life as was the case with the british empire but it seems that cappies have a selective memory in that aspect.

The difference is that is wasn't the avowed policy of the British government to make war on their own people. Your sanction of violence for the sake of a still-born revolution is deplorable.

[RGacky3]

man, Im glad rgacky was restricted.

I remember when he was one here and pretended to be a revolutionary with his anarcho syndicalist crap.

It made my day to see this.:)

Me being restricted had nothing to do with me being anti-leninist and anti-psudo-socialist.

[danyboy27]

man, Im glad rgacky was restricted.

I remember when he was one here and pretended to be a revolutionary with his anarcho syndicalist crap.

It made my day to see this.:)

and after people wonder why a huuge rate of flaming and trolling occur in the OI.

[danyboy27]

Spetnaz, your sole use of Wikipedia articles and lack of any critical thinking is telling.

telling what?

[Sam_b]

Telling that you base your argument on unreliable sources and have not read any theory or critical analyses of the subject at hand.

[danyboy27]

Telling that you base your argument on unreliable sources and have not read any theory or critical analyses of the subject at hand.

no i didnt read anything on the subject and i admit i should not have posted something here, for the good of all the community i am gonna erease the other post i made on this topic.

better now?
anyway, wikipedia should be closed, since its full of unreliable information.

[couch13]

On what Marxist basis did Lenin push for a socialist revolution? He understood full well that the proletariat was too weak, that Russia didn't have the material prerequisites of socialism.

This would be the belief that if they engaged in a revolution, revolutions would spring up in other, more industrialized countries. He was right, they did spring up. The most likely one to win was the German, but it failed by 1923. Had it succeeded then they would have supplied the Russians with the proper technology to quickly industrialize all of Russia.

[trivas7]

This would be the belief that if they engaged in a revolution, revolutions would spring up in other, more industrialized countries. He was right, they did spring up. The most likely one to win was the German, but it failed by 1923. Had it succeeded then they would have supplied the Russians with the proper technology to quickly industrialize all of Russia.
No, Marx never believed that a socialist revolution was viable in tsarist-ridden Russia, but that never deterred Lenin, did it?

[Kassad]

No, Marx never believed that a socialist revolution was viable in tsarist-ridden Russia, but that never deterred Lenin, did it?

I'm sorry, but we aren't dogmatic slugs here. Just because Marx says it, doesn't make it 100% correct. The Bolshevik Revolution was a workers revolution that was stifled only due to Western colonialism and corporate interests in Europe. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Revolutionary Youth]

I'm sorry, but we aren't dogmatic slugs here. Just because Marx says it, doesn't make it 100% correct. The Bolshevik Revolution was a workers revolution that was stifled only due to Western colonialism and corporate interests in Europe. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Agreed.

[trivas7]

I'm sorry, but we aren't dogmatic slugs here. Just because Marx says it, doesn't make it 100% correct.
Indeed, which makes the question all the more pointed: why did Lenin call for a socialist revolution based on Marxism?

[Hit The North]

Indeed, which makes the question all the more pointed: why did Lenin call for a socialist revolution based on Marxism?

By "socialist revolution" you are inferring that Lenin thought the Soviet Union was socialist, which is not true. At best he recognised it as a workers state with serious bureaucratic distortions and often argued this point at more "idealistic" members of the government.

Besides, what do you think the alternative was? The bourgeoisie were factually incapable of holding Russian society together.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

To those who say endlessly that Marx never predicted a revolution in an under-developed country like Russia this is incorrect.

Marx predicted in 1870 that France's defeat would lead it into the arms of Russia, and that the next war would cause the inevitable social revolution in Russia. Both of which were correct.

Just sayin.

[trivas7]

Besides, what do you think the alternative was? The bourgeoisie were factually incapable of holding Russian society together.
So were the workers incapable of holding Russian society together, as it turned out. Do you think that Lenin believed that this worker's state was socialist? I guess I'm arguing that Lenin's belief in socialism for Russia had in fact no material basis.

LSD makes a similar point elsewhere:


It was only Lenin's blind Russian nationalism that convinced him that within Russia lay the "weak link" of capitalism. Obviously everyone likes to think that their political scene matters, and the Bolsheviks really wanted to believe that they could be the "vanguard" for a "world revolution"; but the fact is they just weren't that important.

In the end, the masses of Europe didn't give two shits for what was going on in the Urals, and the European bourgeoisie didn't skip a beat when they (temporarily) lost the Russian market. And so, rather predictibly, Lenin was left with his "grand plan" in tatters, running an ostensibly "workers" party in charge of a country with virtually no workers in it!

Is it really any wonder that things turned out as miserably as they did?

And, incidently, there's something rather despicable in the way the Lenin saught to use the Russian people as a part of his large-scale "plan" for Europe. Being a reasonably intelligent person, he had to realize that the chances of a Russian coup d'état precipitating a "world revolution" was pretty fucking slim.

And yet he was willing to subject the Russian populace to year after year after year of brutal top-down "proletarian" rule, clinging to the faintest hope that it might "inspire" people thousands of miles away to imitate his example. To me, it sounds like he was putting his ideological ambition above the practical needs of the people he was ostensibly "representing".

Not, again, that that's anything new. The problem with Lenin, and all other revolutionary "leaders" throughout history, has always been the overwhelming temptation of power: the irresistable urge to use ones position to do "good", regardless of whether anyone below them actually wants said "good" done to them.

[couch13]

No, Marx never believed that a socialist revolution was viable in tsarist-ridden Russia, but that never deterred Lenin, did it?

Marx was only human. He was more than capable of making a mistake.

Also:
"The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development. "
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles 1882

Marx was unable to decide if Revolution could occur in Russia.

"To save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution is needed."
Karl Marx 1881

And here he toys with a Russian Revolution saving the peasants communally owned land and create communism from it.

[KC]

Marx opened the possibility of Russia "skipping" capitalism due to the historical pecularities and the unique developments (both subjective and objective) in Russia at the time. Narodism was incorrect at putting forth such an assertion, as by that time Russia was well on its way to developing capitalism and was, at that point, "too late" for it to "skip" capitalism.

By the time of the revolution Russia was already a very developed nation in terms of industrialization and capitalist development, and due to its combined development the possibility for proletarian revolution was there. As long as there is a proletariat, there is the possibility for proletarian revolution (very generally, of course).


In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed

[trivas7]

As long as there is a proletariat, there is the possibility for proletarian revolution (very generally, of course).
IMO Lenin knew that the proletariat was too weak to carry out a socialist revolution, ergo he had no business calling for one.

[couch13]

IMO Lenin knew that the proletariat was too weak to carry out a socialist revolution, ergo he had no business calling for one.

And you know Lenin thought this how? In what writing did he state this? Are you able to read dead men's old thoughts?

[Led Zeppelin]

And you know Lenin thought this how? In what writing did he state this? Are you able to read dead men's old thoughts?

Yeah, he thinks he can: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/open-letter-revolutionaryleft-t71910/index.html?p=1358521)

[synthesis]

Lenin held a deeply mechanistic understanding of Marx whereby he would use any and every means to accomplish revolution in Russian society. There never was an clean phase to the revolution when once in power. The corruption and tyranny began at once. Despite Bolshevism's appeals to universal ideas of social justice, when Lenin called to turn the "imperialist war" (i.e. the First World War) into a "civil war", the writing was on the wall for anyone who wanted to see that it was the Bolsheviks' intention to tear Russian society apart, and not provide the people "peace, land and bread" as Lenin claimed (in order to get the naive to support his agenda for revolution).

Lenin never had any intention to improve the lives of the Russian people. At a time of mass famine during the "War Communism" repression at the time of the Civil War (after the October Revolution), the Bolshevik regime was sending millions of dollars out of the country in order to stir up revolutions in other countries while letting their own people starve. But Lenin was interested in political power leading to what he hoped would be "the permanent revolution". Everything was subordinated to the goal of the Party attaining and keeping power, and any deceit and violence was justifiable for these purposes. Ironically, Lenin's hopes proved impotent and w/ it any semblance of a "worker's state".

Why would the Bolsheviks want to "tear Russian society apart"? No, seriously. Every governing body prefers a stable society - it's a lot less trouble, and there's not as much personal risk.

Here's the Lenin quote.

"During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government... A revolution in wartime means civil war; the conversion of a war between governments into a civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ("defeats") of governments; on the other hand, one cannot actually strive for such a conversion without thereby facilitating defeat."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm

I certainly agree with your title, as Lenin's Marxism was indeed "flawed," if that's what you want to call his adaptation of Marxism to Russian realities, and I think that Marx would have argued that Russia, China, and all the others were not economically advanced enough to create a tenable socialist system. But your explanation of why Lenin's Marxism was "flawed" doesn't really reveal any internal contradictions or any useful insight into the ideology - just the usual moral condemnations that never really advance the discussion.

[trivas7]

I certainly agree with your title, as Lenin's Marxism was indeed "flawed," if that's what you want to call his adaptation of Marxism to Russian realities, and I think that Marx would have argued that Russia, China, and all the others were not economically advanced enough to create a tenable socialist system. But your explanation of why Lenin's Marxism was "flawed" doesn't really reveal any internal contradictions or any useful insight into the ideology - just the usual moral condemnations that never really advance the discussion.
I believe Marxism while a useful analytic tool is flawed at its core, ergo there's nothing to advance.

[RGacky3]

ergo there's nothing to advance.

The discussion, explain why its flawed, i.e. find some contradiction, or something, no one cares what you believe unless you have some real reasoning to back it up.

[synthesis]

I believe Marxism while a useful analytic tool is flawed at its coreOK, so if you believe all interpretations of Marxism to be fundamentally flawed, including the original, why bother criticizing one particular strain for being flawed in its interpretation of Marxism? Isn't that just a waste of time?


ergo there's nothing to advance.OK, so again, why bother? You can criticize Lenin from a moral standpoint, sure, but that doesn't justify the title of the thread.

[trivas7]

OK, so if you believe all interpretations of Marxism to be fundamentally flawed, including the original, why bother criticizing one particular strain for being flawed in its interpretation of Marxism? Isn't that just a waste of time?

So sue me. :crying:

It's not Marxism I fault for Lenin's mistakes, but Lenin for attempting to implement a flawed idea.

[synthesis]

It's not Marxism I fault for Lenin's mistakes, but Lenin for attempting to implement a flawed idea.

Then you could have just said that, and it would be the same old debate. I'm mostly just disappointed - I thought you were going to contribute something of value.

[Kassad]

So sue me. :crying:

It's not Marxism I fault for Lenin's mistakes, but Lenin for attempting to implement a flawed idea.

Your ignorance towards Western colonialism is staggering. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik revolutionaries took control of a nation fragmented by war and poverty, thanks to none other than capitalistic and oppressive monarchy under the Czar. The bourgeoise manipulation formulated a war of greed, which the Czar was quick to plunge Russia deep into. You can also see the failure of capitalism in Africa and South America in just about... every single attempt at it. Capitalism fails without any intervention. Socialist fails once you send in the troops to destroy an impoverished and under-developed nation. It's incredibly that your eyes are sewn shut to such an extent that you ignorce such a factor.

The Soviet Union was incredibly successful and experiencing incredible economic growth, thanks to socialist reforms that put the resources of the Soviet Union in the hands of the people instead of the wealthy bourgeoisie elite that you seem so very fond of. This prosperity was halted by the threat of colonialism and Western aggression during World War II, which gave the Soviet Union under Stalin the choice to either industrialize rapidly or be crushed. Stalin chose industrialization and unfortunately, many lost their lives due to it. I see each and every death under Stalin due to industrialization (Great Purges are a whole different story, but they're irrelevant to the current discussion) as the direct result of American, German and other Western states and their threats towards the Soviet Union.

[trivas7]

Your ignorance towards Western colonialism is staggering. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik revolutionaries took control of a nation fragmented by war and poverty, thanks to none other than capitalistic and oppressive monarchy under the Czar. The bourgeoise manipulation formulated a war of greed, which the Czar was quick to plunge Russia deep into. You can also see the failure of capitalism in Africa and South America in just about... every single attempt at it. Capitalism fails without any intervention. Socialist fails once you send in the troops to destroy an impoverished and under-developed nation. It's incredibly that your eyes are sewn shut to such an extent that you ignorce such a factor.


The Communist takeover in Russia was a moral, economic and political disaster for the Russian people. The slaughters and persecution, especially during (but not limited to) the Stalin era are well documented. Bolveshiks created a crushing dictatorship that murdered 20 million of its own citizens, and eventually constructed an "iron curtain" around their territories, shooting those who wished to leave. One brief comparison highlights the relative difference in repression bt the tsarist monarchy and the Bolsheviks. For the entire period of 1825-1917, the total number of political prisoners sentenced to death in Czaritst Russia was some 6,300, of whom 3,932 were excuted. Under Lenin, by contrast, 10,000--15,000 political prisoners were executed in two months of 1918 alone. In the space of two weeks the Cheka had executed two to three times the number of people condemned to death by the tsarist regime over 92 years.

The terror unleashed by the Communists, including Party purges, the phony trials, the deliberate murderous famines, the persecution of the intellectuals and clergy, the vast gulag system, the alliance w/ the Nazis, the invasion of Poland, and the post-War conquest of E. Europe can no longer be denied.


The Soviet Union was incredibly successful and experiencing incredible economic growth, thanks to socialist reforms that put the resources of the Soviet Union in the hands of the people instead of the wealthy bourgeoisie elite that you seem so very fond of. This prosperity was halted by the threat of colonialism and Western aggression during World War II, which gave the Soviet Union under Stalin the choice to either industrialize rapidly or be crushed. Stalin chose industrialization and unfortunately, many lost their lives due to it. I see each and every death under Stalin due to industrialization (Great Purges are a whole different story, but they're irrelevant to the current discussion) as the direct result of American, German and other Western states and their threats towards the Soviet Union.The first point to remember is that in terms of natural resources, Russia is exceptionally wealthy. The country is blessed w/ extensive amounts of oil, coal, iron, manganese, copper, gold, asbestos, timber and some of the world's most fertile agricultural lands. It has mighty rivers to potentially generate hydro-electric power, and deep-water harbors on three oceans. The country had all the the natural resources conventionally associated w/ economic development and wealth.

Nevertheless, in 1920, after 3 years of Bolshevik rule, the economic conditions were desperate. H.G. Wells, a sympathetic observer, traveled the Russian countryside and reported: "an unparralleled example of civilization in state of complete collapse; the railway tracks were rusting and becoming gradually unusable, the cities were falling into ruins." Industrial production had dropped to 1/7th of the pre-war level. Factories stood abandoned and mine-shafts flooded. The state of the metal industry was disastrous, w/ the output of pigiron down to a mere 3 per cent of the pre-war total. The gigantic Russo-Baltic plant at Taganrog -- its furnaces, hammers, hydraulic presses and power stations as well as 2,000 machine tools -- idle since the revolutions inception in 1917.

In Moscow and St.Petersburg the economy had nearly stopped, the transport system had ground to a halt. Most of the factories were closed or working half-speed b/c of a lack of fuel, and food supplies to the cities were in danger of ceasing altogether. There was sever shortage of consumer goods, heating fuel and food. In the years bt 1917 and 1921 five million Russians starved to death.

Bt 1918 and 1922 Lenin attempted to run the country on the basis of "socialist self-sufficiency", extirpating all vestiges of private ownership and private enterprise. Bolshevik victories caused many of Russia's foreign engineers and technicians to leave the country -- and resulted in a similar brain drain of educated Russian, either abroad or to the countryside where food was easier to find. Men of technical ability were replaced by men of unquestioning Party loyalty. Across a broad range of industries, men ignorant of their respective businesses were elevated to authority.

Adhering to the belief that money is a capitalistic encumberence to be shunned in a socialist system, Lenin deliberately inflated the ruble in order to obliterate its value. The inflation instigated a collapse into a barter economy.

Political ideology undercut industry in other ways. An example was the Soviet steel mill built w/ contempt for all the details of expense. When engineers complained that raw materials had to be conveyed distance of 1250 miles, Party leaders responded that transportation costs were not a determining factor in a socialist economy. The collapse resulting from such policies was so complete that even Lenin was forced to recant this economic policy.

Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy in 1921. This involved a temporary repeal of certain controls, permitting once again private, profit-seeking ownership of small manufacturing, retailing and wholesaling companies. Regarding the failed socialist methods, Lenin remarked: "Our program was right in theory, but impractical."

So he turned to Western capitalism for salvation. He offered Western firms generous "concessions" in return for the rapid industrialization of the Russian economy. English, German, Italian, Swedish, Danish and American companies accepted, and hurried to provide the USSR w/ airfields, railroads, gold, copper, iron mines, oil refineries and much more.

But before Western industries could rebuild the shattered Soviet economy massive famine again swept the country, impelling the West to organize famine relief on a grand scale. Future U.S. President Herbert Hoover set up an international organization. The Quakers collected money, and the great Norwegian Artic explorer, Fridtjof Nanse, also organized relief. The figures for the full Western aid are lost, but it is known that the U.S. alone sent 7000 tons of foodstuffs.

While food from the capitalist nations arrived, scores of concessionary agreements were signed from the West. A concession was a contract in which the Soviet Union hired a foreign firm to open an operate a specific enterprise. The company gained no rights of ownership, but, in theory, was permitted to earn a profit for an alloted number of years, at the end of which all assets were to become Soviet property. Naive Western businessmen trusted the Bolsheviks and flocked to seize these "opportunities".

How did the Soviet Union pay for all of this "foreign aid"? One method was w/ grain. The Communists under both Lenin and Stalin followed a policy of "Starve, but export", shipping grain abroad to finance industrializaiton while millions of Russians starved to death. The Soviets employed other methods. Gold was one. Communists sent hundreds of thousands of slave laborers to work in the mines -- and, equipped w/ the latest U.S. mining technology, the Soviet gold operation began to produce. Each country contributed to the productive process in accordance w/ its own distinctive system and underlying philosophy: state-of-the-art technology, courtesy of American capitalism; slave labor, courtesy of the Soviet people.

Communists had other ways of raising hard currency: looting great works of art to foreign museums and stripping Orthodox churches of their historic treasures. In a letter to the Politburo on March 19, 1922, Lenin pointed out that b/c of the million who were currently starving, the moment was propitious to loot all church property; the masses, he argued, though religious, would support the Party if they believed the money would be used to purchase food.

While the people starved, Bolsheviks set up special shops in all major cities and sold food that could be purchased only for gold, silver, jewlery and foreign currency.
Further, as part of the unremitting class struggle, the state executed thousands of individuals for the crime of being bourgeois in the period of 1919-1921 alone.

The economic result of these policies? Throughout its history and continuing till its final days, chronic shortages existed of the most elementary consumer items. At various time is was impossible to find dish soap, kitchen spoons, toothpaste, towels, axes, locks, vacuum cleaners, kitchenware, hand irons, rugs, spare parts for devices from toasters to automobiles. Descent shoes were notoriously difficult to get at all times. Shortages of consumer goods were so chronic that Soviet shoppers raced to get in line on hearing of the availability of the most mundane items.

Nor were conditions appreciably better in Communist nations of the Soviet bloc. There, too, economic dependency on the West was insufficient to avert collapse. In 1970 Poland struggled to feed its own people and found it necessary to import enormous amounts of food from the West. It should be clear from all this that Communist economic development relied to a staggering degree on the the West.

So I ask you again, by what lunacy did Lenin believe that socialism could be built out the ruins of a tsarist monarchy fragmented by war and poverty?

[Robert]

I see each and every death under Stalin due to industrialization (Great Purges are a whole different story, but they're irrelevant to the current discussion) as the direct result of American, German and other Western states and their threats towards the Soviet Union.

Every one of them, eh? Wow.

Do you feel the same about death of peasants by starvation under Mao?

Now tell us about those purges.

[Kassad]

Do you honestly think that modern Marxist-Leninists like myself think that Stalin's suppression, genocide, book burning, murder, imprisonment, destruction and death were justified or in any way conceivably sound? Do you think modern Bolshevik supporters think Stalin was furthering Marxism, Leninism or the Bolshevik Revolution through his purges? Is that ignorant bubble you live in truly so soundproof that you don't see factual information clearly anymore?

Why don't you observe Joseph Stalin's rule over the Soviet Union. With consistent threats from Western colonialism in the face of the United States, England and Nazi Germany, what was the Soviet Union to do? They were nothing short of a third-world country with atrocious infant mortality, illiteracy and poverty, along with a decimated military and a lack of social stability. With no form of industrialization, since the Czar allowed Russia to be manipulated by corporate powers and hegemony, there was a lot of work to be done. None of the things Stalin did in the form of industrialization would have ever been necessary if the people did not fear the West. With pressing imperialism, which came in the face of World War II through Nazi invasion of the western Soviet Union, Hitler's forces would have torn through the countryside and left well over a hundred million dead, in the face of military casualties, starvation and lack of resources. Industrialization was forced by these colonialist threats.

As usual, Bolshevik criticizers spout of statistics about Stalin. "Stalin killed him," "Stalin suppressed this," "Stalin caused this." Good morning, detective. We're talking about Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution. Stay on topic. 'Kay? Kay.

You don't have any real comprehension of revolutionary takeover, do you? The bourgeosie class rules every nation of the world, with very few exceptions. This elitist class has spent well over 5,000 years constructing a system that benefits them. In the face of the monarchy, the bourgeoisie democracy and the elitist oligarchies that have controlled not only nations, but entire societies as a whole, the elite has worked tirelessly. As time progresses, their systems often fail, due to revolution or a lack of modernization, which is when they have to update their system. When their elitist monarchies failed in Europe, they were forced to manipulate resources to implement bourgeoise democracies, which in total honesty, are still ruled by the exact same class that were thrown out of power so long ago.

This isn't about the execution of political prisoners. If you observe the bourgeoisie system, it's obvious that they have many safeguards. The educational system raises children to embrace blind submission through faith and patriotism and they are falsely raised on ideas of capitalist consumerism. When Lenin's Bolsheviks took control, the system was disenfranchised. Society, as a whole, had to be unified and entirely rebuilt. The bourgeoisie and conservatives who were kicked out of power -- where did they go? Did they tip their hats to Lenin and give him a nice 'thumbs up?' No. They incited rebellion. They created propaganda; falsifying Lenin's tyranny and oppression. They rallied counterrevolutionary forces. Lenin was left with either the choice of countering those who sought to reject his rebellion, in which the counterrevolutionaries sought bourgeoisie democracy and capitalist tyranny, or saving the revolution and working for a people's state; a proletariat state.

Those he "suppressed" were usually counterrevolutionaries who were either capitalists, conservatives or former ruling class themselves or instigated by that class. The Soviet Union did not have the proper ability to imprison all of these people who sought violent destruction of the revolution in the name of capitalism and tyranny. They were executed after their crimes were comprehended, since imprisoning all of them would not have been feasible. Is that the most ideal thing? No, but it's better than launching the proletariat back into wage slavery; ruled by a tiny minority.

I mean, you can sit here and list all of the things that were 'bad' under the Soviet Union, but you're incredibly narrow-minded when you assume that everything happened under the Soviet Union. The transportation system was decimated? Thank the Czar. The agricultural system was not producing enough food? Thank the Czar for using that money to fuel the war effort. Unstable roads? Infrastructure? Well, now. What if the Czar had spent the money from World War I, which was nothing but imperialist-based, on the people themselves? Rebuilding, modernizing and industrializing Russia?

Lenin came to power under a system completely devastated by years of imperialist elitism, thanks to the Czarist capitalism. Lenin had little resources to work with, but his revolutionary socialist reforms sustained the economy of the Soviet Union which was on the brink of collapse due to colonialism and the Czar's policies. Russia would have collapsed long before this if the Bolsheviks had not taken power.

Sorry that the world is not ideal. I know your kind take pride in blaming socialism for capitalism's recessions, destruction and disease, but we logical thinkers know better than to spout your party lines and propaganda. You can consistently blame Lenin for the bad condition the Soviet Union was in, but in all honest truth, each and every problem could have been traced back to capitalism and bourgeoisie reformism, mostly due to the war effort.

[Kassad]

Every one of them, eh? Wow.

Do you feel the same about death of peasants by starvation under Mao?

Now tell us about those purges.

Industrialization, detective. Industrialization under Stalin is different than the purges under Stalin.

[danyboy27]

well, kassad, try to understand us, we got our load of russian purges apologist since a month, people telling us we should kill million of unarmed capitalists in order to achieve communism. its like when people like you enter in the OI section and accuse us to be a bunch of evil capitalist pig beccause 1 or 2 of our member got radical thinking about communism.

[danyboy27]

Industrialization, detective. Industrialization under Stalin is different than the purges under Stalin.

well, a lot of credits goes to the shitload of free labor stalin had.

[Robert]

Do you honestly think that modern Marxist-Leninists like myself think that Stalin's suppression, genocide, book burning, murder, imprisonment, destruction and death were justified or in any way conceivably sound?


Not exactly "justified." More like ... inevitable.

And under a Stalin, or a Mao, or a Pol, I agree.

[Kassad]

Not exactly "justified." More like ... inevitable.

And under a Stalin, or a Mao, or a Pol, I agree.

I have never heard someone say the purges under Mao or Stalin were inevitable. I suppose when you factor in an impoverished nation that needs to either industrialize or fade away, along with colonialist threats from a military superpower like the United States, you're pretty much asking for trouble. As I said, though Stalin and Mao may be responsible for their actions on some accounts, I believe that American threats and imperialism were the direct reasons for the deaths of those who perished due to rapid industrialization. Truth hurts, but there's no other logical way to comprehend it.

[danyboy27]

I have never heard someone say the purges under Mao or Stalin were inevitable. I suppose when you factor in an impoverished nation that needs to either industrialize or fade away, along with colonialist threats from a military superpower like the United States, you're pretty much asking for trouble. As I said, though Stalin and Mao may be responsible for their actions on some accounts, I believe that American threats and imperialism were the direct reasons for the deaths of those who perished due to rapid industrialization. Truth hurts, but there's no other logical way to comprehend it.

i highly doubt that the us would have even tried to invade this place, its was physicly impossible, too much ground to cover.

rapid industrialization dosnt mean mass killing of innocents, the us became a industrial powerhouse in less than a year during ww2 and they didnt had to kill their own folk for that.
just sayig.

[Kassad]

i highly doubt that the us would have even tried to invade this place, its was physicly impossible, too much ground to cover.

rapid industrialization dosnt mean mass killing of innocents, the us became a industrial powerhouse in less than a year during ww2 and they didnt had to kill their own folk for that.
just sayig.

The United States was hostile towards Russia's developing socialism. Does the Red Scare not ring any bells? I mean, it didn't start in the 1950's. It started as soon as the Bolsehvik Revolution was a success and the people of the world were in fear of revolutions in their own backyard. Not to mention the fact that Nazi Germany would attempt to invade the Soviet Union during World War II.

Your second point is completely baffling. The Soviet Union was a third world country; ravaged by elitism and bourgeoisie manipulation. It had no real industrial power and the little industy, military and money it had was mostly used and destroyed on the war effort during the first World War. The United States did not industrialize from an impoverished nation. It had consistent technological and social development. The Soviet Union had none of this and they were forced to rapidly industrialize even faster than the United States, due to Western aggression.

[danyboy27]

well, i agree that a rapid industrialization was needed, and i dont think nobody here contest that, but i seriously dont know in what executing bourgeois hostages help to industrialize, but i can understand that using million of people has slave could help.

still, there is not only 2 options to a problems, it would be simplistic to say that the only choice they had to industrialize was mass executions, slavery and dictatorship.

[Yazman]

Lenin held a deeply mechanistic understanding of Marx whereby he would use any and every means to accomplish revolution in Russian society. There never was an clean phase to the revolution when once in power. The corruption and tyranny began at once. Despite Bolshevism's appeals to universal ideas of social justice, when Lenin called to turn the "imperialist war" (i.e. the First World War) into a "civil war", the writing was on the wall for anyone who wanted to see that it was the Bolsheviks' intention to tear Russian society apart, and not provide the people "peace, land and bread" as Lenin claimed (in order to get the naive to support his agenda for revolution).

Lenin never had any intention to improve the lives of the Russian people. At a time of mass famine during the "War Communism" repression at the time of the Civil War (after the October Revolution), the Bolshevik regime was sending millions of dollars out of the country in order to stir up revolutions in other countries while letting their own people starve. But Lenin was interested in political power leading to what he hoped would be "the permanent revolution". Everything was subordinated to the goal of the Party attaining and keeping power, and any deceit and violence was justifiable for these purposes. Ironically, Lenin's hopes proved impotent and w/ it any semblance of a "worker's state".

Trivas7, we are in total and utter agreement here.. although our conclusions as a result of this differ (I am still a dedicated marxist). I do not feel there was ever any legitimate revolutionary intent on the part of Leninists, and the totalitarian state that arose and eventually resulted in gangster capitalism is testament to this.. we as marxists really should be moving past the "old shit" that is Leninism and its derivatives.

[trivas7]

Trivas7, we are in total and utter agreement here.. although our conclusions as a result of this differ (I am still a dedicated marxist). I do not feel there was ever any legitimate revolutionary intent on the part of Leninists, and the totalitarian state that arose and eventually resulted in gangster capitalism is testament to this.. we as marxists really should be moving past the "old shit" that is Leninism and its derivatives.
Cool, dude. :)

Which Marxist(s) IYO get it right?

[RGacky3]

where did they go? Did they tip their hats to Lenin and give him a nice 'thumbs up?' No. They incited rebellion. They created propaganda; falsifying Lenin's tyranny and oppression. They rallied counterrevolutionary forces. Lenin was left with either the choice of countering those who sought to reject his rebellion, in which the counterrevolutionaries sought bourgeoisie democracy and capitalist tyranny, or saving the revolution and working for a people's state; a proletariat state.


Many were killed, many left the country, the rest did'nt really have the power to do much, especially when stalin was around, why? Because they wern't Capitalists any more, why? Because they did'nt have the Capital anymore.

The fact of the matter is, most of the people Lenin and especially Stalin killed were not into putting Capitalists back in power, they were not into restorying Czarism, the fact is they were people who did not want to be ruled over by the Bolsheviks.


No, but it's better than launching the proletariat back into wage slavery; ruled by a tiny minority.

hehehe, so what exactly happend after the revolution?


Lenin came to power under a system completely devastated by years of imperialist elitism, thanks to the Czarist capitalism. Lenin had little resources to work with, but his revolutionary socialist reforms sustained the economy of the Soviet Union which was on the brink of collapse due to colonialism and the Czar's policies. Russia would have collapsed long before this if the Bolsheviks had not taken power.


Poverty and a ruined infostructure does not in anyway equal mass murder and dictatorships, there is no cause and effect between the 2.

[Yazman]

Cool, dude. :)

Which Marxist(s) IYO get it right?

There are two aspects to my views on this. Without getting into a lengthy rambling post suffice it to say that if you want to get an idea of my view on this, I believe that technocratic marxism/anarchism is the way forward for us as a movement. It is up to date yet compatible with marxist concepts; a modern take on an old ideology if you want to put it that way.

Essentially I feel that for the sort of post-capitalist society many of us speak of we need to focus on post-scarcity economics with technology being the primary route towards such an economic system. If you want to get a good idea of the sort of society I advocate I suggest you look into the American technocracy movement, the Network of European Technocrats, or the Venus Project. There are quite a few marxists who agree with this view and I think that due to its grounding in the modern world and its compatibility with (non-Leninist) Marxist and anarchist ideas provides a good basis for a broad movement. This is also not to mention there is very little that is "hazy" or "mystical" so to speak about our views for post-capitalist society. There is a very clear picture and method of establishing such a system and most of us do not really agree with the idea of "transitionary states."

I am of course critical of each of the movements I listed in various ways as I am with any established movement or ideology, however I believe that they "get it right" as you put it.