What would you call me?

[Cynical Observer]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

[h0m0revolutionary]

I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

Might wanna remove that profile picture of yours :cool:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

What do you think that? Has a benevolent dictator ever existed?

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-call-t106167/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif


Well that contradicts your avatar just a little, wouldn't you think? ;)

Anyway, give me some specifics. Are you talking about there being a revolution and then the vanguard party becomes the ruling party or what? Please elaborate.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

Why do you believe this is necessary? How would this benefit the working class in ruling society?

To me, socialism is impossible without democracy and real democracy isn't possible without socialism.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

Maybe you can qualify for a Marxist-Leninist if this "small council" you have in mind is the "vanguard of the proletariat" organized/taken into/from a cadre/party (specifically the CP)/etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well that contradicts your avatar just a little, wouldn't you think? ;)

Anyway, give me some specifics. Are you talking about there being a revolution and then the vanguard party becomes the ruling party or what? Please elaborate.

Holy crap! Another Lego Trotsky! Awesome!

Lego Trotsky: "building an opposition in Lego Stalin brick by L-shaped brick."

[Brother No. 1]

Lego Stalin: ice picking Lego Trosky with a lego pic axe.


Still a benevolent Dictator? has one such existed and besides a Dictator is the last thing you would find in Socialism. Socialism and Communism=Democray comrade.

Unless you mean by "benevolent dictator" a vangurad or something onlong the line of a party guideing the Revolution.

[commyrebel]

well many believe anarchy will happen after years off a free communist state has been in power and advancing towards a lawless(maintained by the people, no formal law) society.

I believe this will happen when people begin to learn that we do not need any sought of hierarchy and learn that there is a moral boundary that we won't cross no mater the circumstances. Also that we will learn to do are part to have the perfect society (this point will be the last on the evolution of society). But only after a a few hundred years of that Communist state.

[Kassad]

Well, how do you align with socialist revolutuonaries? Joseph Stalin? Vladimir Lenin? Leon Trotsky? Fidel Castro? Do you reject all leaders? Do you believe a political party is needed to organize the working class?

These are questions that will decide what ideological viewpoint you align with.

[Hoxhaist]

The first decision is between anarchism and communism, then kautsky versus Lenin, trotsky versus Stalin, revision versus Anti-Revision, mao versus Hoxha. Hopefully comrade you will follow the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha Path!!!

[Kassad]

The first decision is between anarchism and communism, then kautsky versus Lenin, trotsky versus Stalin, revision versus Anti-Revision, mao versus Hoxha. Hopefully comrade you will follow the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha Path!!!

Well, no. Anti-revisionists like Tupac Amaru II and myself don't continue past Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, as we see that the primary socialist theory and ideological application ended after their theoretical contributions. In truth, socialist Albania had absolutely no international impact, and though I commend Hoxha's revolutionary application in Albania and the revolutionary reforms that came from it, one does not have to continue past Marx if they see it fit. In truth, one does not have to subscribe to anyone's philosophy! There are many Marxists on here who despise Lenin, thus your theory is fallible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lego Stalin: ice picking Lego Trosky with a lego pic axe.

Ouch!

Makes me think that a French Revolution Lego set would be fun... a little guillotine, a little bathtub for Lego Marat to be assassinated in, and little Lego Sans-culottes with little pikes. Build the Lego Bastille... tear it down!

[Brother No. 1]

I have some lego communist pics if you want them.

Besides Lego Stalin > lego Trosky.

[Hoxhaist]

I accept your correction because you are right, Hoxha would call his policy a faithful application of the MELS path. Thanks!!

[Brother No. 1]

Hoxha was a faithful Anti-Revisionist so i can expect no less from the leader. He helped Albania and tried to keep the Revisionism of Nika,Tito, and Deng out of his country. He is a leader that is to be recomended by his actions.

[AvanteRedGarde]

neo conservative?

[Cynical Observer]

my pic is there because i like the ideal behind anarchism i just don't think it will work (also i just created the profuile and haven't yet found a preferable picture). I think a dictator or (researched vanguardism and it seems to fit) a vanguard party is necessary because i see how inefficient democracy is; the more people that have a say in how a nation is run, the more problems that nation has. I don't see capitalists relinquishing control willingly and if they are still living in the nation after the revolution (I believe an armed revolution is also necessary) and have a vote, they will greatly inhibit the metamorphosis of the state. Also i'd say i agree more with Lenin and Trotsky.

[teenagebricks]

It does sound like you're leaning towards Leninism, you didn't mention whether or not you agree with the theory behind a permanent global revolution. Trotsky was a staunch proponent of the workers' state, which may differ from your views on dictatorship.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Technocracy?

[Jack]

If you beleive in equal distrobution of bunkers, you may be a Hoxhaist.

[Pogue]

Lego Stalin: ice picking Lego Trosky with a lego pic axe.


Still a benevolent Dictator? has one such existed and besides a Dictator is the last thing you would find in Socialism. Socialism and Communism=Democray comrade.

Unless you mean by "benevolent dictator" a vangurad or something onlong the line of a party guideing the Revolution.

You say this but then you worship Stalin?

[Brother No. 1]

You see him as a Dictator. Anti-Revisionists see him as a leader.

(quote)worship Stalin?(Quote)


What am I a personality Cultist to you?

[Cynical Observer]

It does sound like you're leaning towards Leninism, you didn't mention whether or not you agree with the theory behind a permanent global revolution. Trotsky was a staunch proponent of the workers' state, which may differ from your views on dictatorship.
Yes i'm for a global revolution since every nation's economy is connected, and i'm imagining a state geared towards the proletariat but led by one leader, don't know if this could still be considered a worker's state.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes i'm for a global revolution since every nation's economy is connected, and i'm imagining a state geared towards the proletariat but led by one leader, don't know if this could still be considered a worker's state.

It seems like you have a mix of different views. If you support a vanguard becoming the ruling party that's Leninism and if you support the idea of permanent revolution that's Trotskyism. You could be a Leninist-Trotskyist? :lol: Haha! Also, it's not a worker's state unless the workers are in control. "Dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Kassad]

It seems like you have a mix of different views. If you support a vanguard becoming the ruling party that's Leninism and if you support the idea of permanent revolution that's Trotskyism. You could be a Leninist-Trotskyist? :lol: Haha!

Last time I checked, Trotskyists claimed to be Leninists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Last time I checked, Trotskyists claimed to be Leninists.

We are. We support vanguardism as well.

[Kassad]

We are. We support vanguardism as well.

So then, wouldn't the term 'Leninist-Trotskyist' assume that Leninism is separate from Trotskyism, in your opinion? I mean, I'm an anti-revisionists and I see Lenin's line as a continuation of Marxism, whereas most Trotskyists claim that Trotsky's theories are not so much the continuation of Leninism, as much as it is the proper ideological application of Leninism, as opposed to Stalin's theories. What you're stating with the term 'Leninist-Trotskyist' is that Trotsky's line of theory is a continuation of Lenin's, which I don't usually see Trotskyist's claim. I don't know, I don't really understand Trotskyists half of the time in the first place.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes definitely Vanguardism. Can you tell me, why do you believe that one leader should lead the revolution?

[LOLseph Stalin]

So then, wouldn't the term 'Leninist-Trotskyist' assume that Leninism is separate from Trotskyism, in your opinion? I mean, I'm an anti-revisionists and I see Lenin's line as a continuation of Marxism, whereas most Trotskyists claim that Trotsky's theories are not so much the continuation of Leninism, as much as it is the proper ideological application of Leninism, as opposed to Stalin's theories. What you're stating with the term 'Leninist-Trotskyist' is that Trotsky's line of theory is a continuation of Lenin's, which I don't usually see Trotskyist's claim. I don't know, I don't really understand Trotskyists half of the time in the first place.

I think you misunderstood me. I put it as Leninism-Trotskyism as to combine the two ideas since the person asking the question seems to have Leninist and Trotskyist beliefs. I didn't put it as to indicate that Trotsky's ideas are a continuation. It was really just an invented term on my part.

[Jimmie Higgins]

my pic is there because i like the ideal behind anarchism i just don't think it will work (also i just created the profuile and haven't yet found a preferable picture). I think a dictator or (researched vanguardism and it seems to fit) a vanguard party is necessary because i see how inefficient democracy is; the more people that have a say in how a nation is run, the more problems that nation has. I don't see capitalists relinquishing control willingly and if they are still living in the nation after the revolution (I believe an armed revolution is also necessary) and have a vote, they will greatly inhibit the metamorphosis of the state. Also i'd say i agree more with Lenin and Trotsky.

I don't think the number of people having decision making power in society causes nations to have problems. Voting once every few years between a couple of representatives who share variations of the same ruling class political view, is not having much influence on the running of the nation. This is how it is in the US and the US has lots of problems.

I believe that in order for the working class to overthrow capitalism and rule society itself, it will take mass action and decision making among the people and groups in the working class movement and that will require more democracy and popular decision making than we can even really conceive of. This process will teach workers and radicals alike many of the best ways to run society and help unite other people in society behind the workers. On the other hand, you seem to believe that change of all of society has to come from the top of society: a group of wise leaders or individuals. If you believe this then that goes a long way to finding out what political tradition you are closest to. It sounds like you would probably be most attracted to Stalinism or Maoism.

But I would urge you to consider that revolutionary times have a habbit of forcing large numbers of people to confront their old assumptions about the way society works and radicalize. These will be the people that make revolution possible because they will convince their friends and family and co-workers and organize them for general strikes or workplace takeovers or defense against counter-revolution if necissary. I beleieve this can only happen through a huge ammount of mass decision-making and democracy is the best way to do this.

[Cynical Observer]

Yes definitely Vanguardism. Can you tell me, why do you believe that one leader should lead the revolution?
maybe after a stable regime is established democracy can be instituted, but i think that while the government is new it takes decisive leadership and consistency to strengthen the nation, and i don't think people are capable of achieving the kind of unity of purpose that requires. If one selfless person makes the majority of the decisions then theres less conflict. Also i don't have much faith in the majority of people's interest in politics or even there intelligence, so i don't want them having to much control over what happens in the nation. (This stems from living in the U.S. and watching Bush get elected twice; it shook my faith in democracy)

[Sam_b]

Why the need to define yourself?

[Jimmie Higgins]

maybe after a stable regime is established democracy can be instituted, but i think that while the government is new it takes decisive leadership and consistency to strengthen the nation, and i don't think people are capable of achieving the kind of unity of purpose that requires. If one selfless person makes the majority of the decisions then theres less conflict. Also i don't have much faith in the majority of people's interest in politics or even there intelligence, so i don't want them having to much control over what happens in the nation. (This stems from living in the U.S. and watching Bush get elected twice; it shook my faith in democracy)

Hmm, well you may not be a marxist at all. I would suggest starting by reading the "Communist Manifesto" if you generally feel that you agree with the main points there, then try reading some other Marxist writers and you will be able to see what kinds of ideas you are drawn to.

I don't believe that elections in the US are done democratically in any meaningful sense. Pro-war Kerry or pro-war Bush is not a real democratic decision; not to mention, the electoral college, and so on.

[Cynical Observer]

I don't think the number of people having decision making power in society causes nations to have problems. Voting once every few years between a couple of representatives who share variations of the same ruling class political view, is not having much influence on the running of the nation. This is how it is in the US and the US has lots of problems.

I believe that in order for the working class to overthrow capitalism and rule society itself, it will take mass action and decision making among the people and groups in the working class movement and that will require more democracy and popular decision making than we can even really conceive of. This process will teach workers and radicals alike many of the best ways to run society and help unite other people in society behind the workers. On the other hand, you seem to believe that change of all of society has to come from the top of society: a group of wise leaders or individuals. If you believe this then that goes a long way to finding out what political tradition you are closest to. It sounds like you would probably be most attracted to Stalinism or Maoism.

But I would urge you to consider that revolutionary times have a habbit of forcing large numbers of people to confront their old assumptions about the way society works and radicalize. These will be the people that make revolution possible because they will convince their friends and family and co-workers and organize them for general strikes or workplace takeovers or defense against counter-revolution if necissary. I beleieve this can only happen through a huge ammount of mass decision-making and democracy is the best way to do this.
But after the revolution has ended will people still retain the ability to make decisions together? Or will it dissolve into a frenzy of parties all vying for power and demolishing the steps forward that their predecessors accomplish? I don't doubt people's ability to unite when it's absolutely necessary, history has shown us that they can, but once out of times of crisis unity tends to dissolve.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

maybe after a stable regime is established democracy can be instituted, but i think that while the government is new it takes decisive leadership and consistency to strengthen the nation, and i don't think people are capable of achieving the kind of unity of purpose that requires. If one selfless person makes the majority of the decisions then theres less conflict. Also i don't have much faith in the majority of people's interest in politics or even there intelligence, so i don't want them having to much control over what happens in the nation. (This stems from living in the U.S. and watching Bush get elected twice; it shook my faith in democracy)

So you're a fascist essentially.

[Hoxhaist]

Do you believe that the revolution can be secured in a single country and socialism built in one country while helping other groups in other areas engaged in revolutionary struggle?

[Cynical Observer]

I've read the communist manifesto. But the problem is that beyond that and some study of the basic philosophies of some marxist leaders, i don't know enough to really find one group that i agree with completely. I want to know which system i would most agree with, because i'd like to continue studying this and expand my ideals (they are still rudimentary at best) and i'm trying to find which line of thought i will embrace the most according to what i already believe.

[Cynical Observer]

Do you believe that the revolution can be secured in a single country and socialism built in one country while helping other groups in other areas engaged in revolutionary struggle?
No, i think as many nations as possible should undergo a revolution and unite before solidifying what they've created, otherwise it will promote isolationism.

And i don't consider myself a fascist, because i don't believe in cultural repression, military expansion, nationalism, or restriction of civil liberties.

[Hoxhaist]

No, i think as many nations as possible should undergo a revolution and unite before solidifying what they've created, otherwise it will promote isolationism.

And i don't consider myself a fascist, because i don't believe in cultural repression, military expansion, nationalism, or restriction of civil liberties.

to me that sounds Trotskyite, although I could be wrong...

[Kassad]

No, i think as many nations as possible should undergo a revolution and unite before solidifying what they've created, otherwise it will promote isolationism.

And i don't consider myself a fascist, because i don't believe in cultural repression, military expansion, nationalism, or restriction of civil liberties.

to me that sounds Trotskyite, although I could be wrong...

To me, that sounds like someone with an ignorant concept of Soviet history, although I could be wrong.

Wait, no. I'm never wrong.

[Brother No. 1]

Really when will people become less ignorant on Soviet histroy?

[Cynical Observer]

No, i just don't agree with the "Socialism In One Country" approach. Trotsky's theories are more appealing to me than Stalin's. I don't think Stalin staid true to Marxist and Leninist principles when he promoted Socialism in One Country because it promotes nationalism and inhibits the revolutions that were to "spread like wild fire"

[LeninBalls]

Socialism in one country was never really a theory that was supposed to lodge into Marxist practise, and by no means is it sill.

It was just a more or less a placeholder, to strengthen a backwards poverty stricken nation for the inevitable fascist hordes of Nazi Germany and the global scale, when revolution in Europe had clearly failed and wouldn't get back on it's feet for a while, until socialism can be spread again (in this case post ww2)

Don't let the Trots get to you!

[griffjam]

A fascist

[LeninBalls]

Anarchists can leave now if they want, we've established the idea he's a Marxist.

[Brother No. 1]

Socialism in one country basicly helps the country up with socialist bulidng and bulidng up the primary things to make this Socialist state. If Socialism in one country was not allpied and Premeant Revolution was well..lets just say we wouldnt like this future more then that one.

[Cumannach]

No, i just don't agree with the "Socialism In One Country" approach. Trotsky's theories are more appealing to me than Stalin's. I don't think Stalin staid true to Marxist and Leninist principles when he promoted Socialism in One Country because it promotes nationalism and inhibits the revolutions that were to "spread like wild fire"

You can 'disagree' with Socialism in one country if you like, but you should realize it originated with Lenin, not just Stalin.

[Hoxhaist]

Socialism in one country is absolutely possible, nation can become self-sufficient and strong industrially and militarily and ideologically united and run by the workers' vanguard. This theory made the USSR into a superpower, permanent revolution would have quickly drained the USSR of needed supplies to resist the Nazis and counter-revolution

[LOLseph Stalin]

Socialism in one country basicly helps the country up with socialist bulidng and bulidng up the primary things to make this Socialist state. If Socialism in one country was not allpied and Premeant Revolution was well..lets just say we wouldnt like this future more then that one.

Actually it's the opposite. Socialism in one country brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union. Obviously an isolated Socialist economy that large was no longer able to keep up with the competing Capitalist countries. I hate to say it, but out of the two(assuming they're both applied at the same time) I would have to say Capitalism is more suitable for building up a powerful economy although it means there's exploitation. Like look at the arms race. The Soviet Union went pretty much bankrupt because of that.

[Brother No. 1]

(quote)Actually it's the opposite. Socialism in one country brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union. Obviously an isolated Socialist economy that large was no longer able to keep up with the competing Capitalist countries. I hate to say it, but out of the two(assuming they're both applied at the same time) I would have to say Capitalism is more suitable for building up a powerful economy although it means there's exploitation. Like look at the arms race. The Soviet Union went pretty much bankrupt because of that.(quote)


Sure Stalinism brought the downfall of the CCCP and Revisionism never existed in it.:rolleyes:

Also how is the Premeant Revolution theory going to help the S.U. at time because didnt most of the Revolutions fail and the S.U. was un-industrialized, not that good in military,didnt have much infulence, and plus the crops werent good.

[Post-Something]

I think Cynical Observer just sounds a bit naive. Read a bit more about the state, think things over, and come to your own conclusions. At the moment you just sound like a fascist, because no Marxist would realistically advocate for what you have stated, other than stalinists would may argue that such a society would be necessarry before socialism could actually be achieved.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I think Cynical Observer just sounds a bit naive. Read a bit more about the state, think things over, and come to your own conclusions. At the moment you just sound like a fascist, because no Marxist would realistically advocate for what you have stated, other than stalinists would may argue that such a society would be necessarry before socialism could actually be achieved.

Yeah I totally agree. Personally I don't think it's possible to make any judgement with regards to socialist thought until you reconnect with proletarian history.

Ultimately I think it's not about grand theories or beardy men who wrote things decades ago. It's about values. I'm an anarchist because I believe people are capable and willing manage their own lives. I find that this is consistently reinforced by my experiences as a waged worker and my everyday interactions in my community.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No, i just don't agree with the "Socialism In One Country" approach. Trotsky's theories are more appealing to me than Stalin's. I don't think Stalin staid true to Marxist and Leninist principles when he promoted Socialism in One Country because it promotes nationalism and inhibits the revolutions that were to "spread like wild fire"

I don't think someone promoting a workers state that isn't led by workers has any room to talk about people staying true to Marxist principles..


maybe after a stable regime is established democracy can be instituted, but i think that while the government is new it takes decisive leadership and consistency to strengthen the nation, and i don't think people are capable of achieving the kind of unity of purpose that requires. If one selfless person makes the majority of the decisions then theres less conflict. Also i don't have much faith in the majority of people's interest in politics or even there intelligence, so i don't want them having to much control over what happens in the nation. (This stems from living in the U.S. and watching Bush get elected twice; it shook my faith in democracy)

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and I wouldn't expect any communist to have faith in a republic. The whole point of communism is establish democratic control of the means of production.

[Kassad]

No, i just don't agree with the "Socialism In One Country" approach. Trotsky's theories are more appealing to me than Stalin's. I don't think Stalin staid true to Marxist and Leninist principles when he promoted Socialism in One Country because it promotes nationalism and inhibits the revolutions that were to "spread like wild fire"

Well, let's break this down. When do you think the Soviet Union began to fail at applying socialism? What do you think the reason behind this failure was? Should the workers state suppress capitalists who threaten the revolution? What is your opinion of China, during Mao and post-Mao? Cuba?

These questions will help dictate what ideological classification you would match best.

[Cynical Observer]

Well, let's break this down. When do you think the Soviet Union began to fail at applying socialism? What do you think the reason behind this failure was? Should the workers state suppress capitalists who threaten the revolution? What is your opinion of China, during Mao and post-Mao? Cuba?

These questions will help dictate what ideological classification you would match best.

The Soviet Union broke away from true socialism precisely with socialism in one country. Marx clearly calls for the progress of the revolution to spread to at least one capitalist nation before it can be completed, Lenin and Trotsky espoused this as well, i'm unsure of why there's hostility to a permanent revolution if it's what originally called for in marxist ideaology. I could be mistaken, which is why i posted it in the learning forum, this is just what i believe currently i'd love to be convinced otherwise though. as for my belief in a dictatorship, that's a personal bias based on pragmatism, and i was wondering if there were any factions that agreed as they would probably interest me the most.

[Dimentio]

What do you think that? Has a benevolent dictator ever existed?

http://www.dvdverdict.com/images/reviewpics/rome03.jpg

[LeninBalls]

The Soviet Union broke away from true socialism precisely with socialism in one country. Marx clearly calls for the progress of the revolution to spread to at least one capitalist nation before it can be completed, Lenin and Trotsky espoused this as well, i'm unsure of why there's hostility to a permanent revolution if it's what originally called for in marxist ideaology.

No it didn't and no he didn't; from Lenin -

"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously." (Lenin, Political Report of the CC to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP, March 7 1918, Collected Works, Vol 27).
‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time’. (V. I. Lenin: C. W. Russ. Ed. Vol. 19; p.325)."

Like said earlier, socialism in one country through Stalin's eyes (the "pioneer" of it), was only a temporary measure to pump up the USSR until revolution is ripe again. I mean, you might as well industrialize and strenghten your socialist country for the time being until socialism is ready to be released again like post WWI, right?

""For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"

[Revy]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

I'd say a Stalinist, but their dictators could not be possibly be called benevolent.

Castroist, maybe? :)

[teenagebricks]

Yeah there was nothing benevolent about Stalin. Stalinism would probably be too isolated, the belief in worldwide revolution which would automatically place Cynical Observer closer to Trotsky.

[Pogue]

You see him as a Dictator. Anti-Revisionists see him as a leader.

(quote)worship Stalin?(Quote)


What am I a personality Cultist to you?

He was a dictator. He was unelected and brutal. He didn't lead the people of the USSR, he exploited and murdered them.

Socialism isn't about 'leaders' of the working class anyway, something you dictator idologising types fail to grasp after years of pathetic politics.

[Cynical Observer]

No it didn't and no he didn't; from Lenin -

"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously." (Lenin, Political Report of the CC to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP, March 7 1918, Collected Works, Vol 27).
‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time’. (V. I. Lenin: C. W. Russ. Ed. Vol. 19; p.325)."

Like said earlier, socialism in one country through Stalin's eyes (the "pioneer" of it), was only a temporary measure to pump up the USSR until revolution is ripe again. I mean, you might as well industrialize and strenghten your socialist country for the time being until socialism is ready to be released again like post WWI, right?

""For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"
that actually makes sense, considering the adversity the USSR was facing, but didn't Lenin reverse his stance on this before his death?

[Mowgli]

What's with all this "name tagging". Jezus christ...

-"Yeah I think you're a curly wurly"

-"No he's a doodle bag"

-"no, more of a doodle wurly"

...

[Cumannach]

He was a dictator. He was unelected and brutal. He didn't lead the people of the USSR, he exploited and murdered them.

Socialism isn't about 'leaders' of the working class anyway, something you dictator idologising types fail to grasp after years of pathetic politics.

Wrong on all accounts.

[Hoxhaist]

Stalin was one of the few leaders of the 20th century to come the closest to building a socialist state but he didnt live long enough and his work was undermined

[Kassad]

Stalin never promoted the ideology of 'socialism in one country' to mean that socialism would only be created in one country and that each revolutionary struggle would be disunified; the working class struggles being inconsistent with eachother. There's no source to support such a claim. Stalin and Lenin both realized that, contrary to Marx's theory, socialism would not take hold in industrialized nations and spread from nation to nation at the same general time. Revolutionary struggles, as history has shown us, vary based on national characteristics and the general ripeness and organization of the working class to forge revolution.

Socialism in one country does not mean that a socialist state would be isolated from other international revolutions. To the contrary, it means that each socialist country must develop and industrialize as if it would be the only socialist revolution. A nation must be prepared to defend itself from reactionary counterrevolution, as well as imperialism that attempts to undermine the struggle in favor of corporate and bourgeois interests. All workers struggles are united, but each struggle is unique based on industrial development and the preparation of the revolutionary vanguard.

A modern example would be Cuba. Cuba is not isolated from revolutionary struggle, as it collaborated with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to maintain the workers state. Regardless, due to revisionism in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba is currently left to fend mostly for itself; standing defiantly in the face of the United States' military threats and imperialist exploitation. Fidel Castro, a supporter and advocate of Marxism-Leninism, did not attempt to seclude Cuba from other socialist nations, but instead, united with them and prepared Cuba for a time in the future in which it may need to swim on its own. That time has come and thanks to the proper ideological application of socialism in one country, Cuba manages to maintain universal healthcare, education for all, housing for all its citizens and proper food and water distribution. Had Cuba not worked towards inner strength, it would be rational to say that the island would have embraced revisionist policies and likely fallen back into the hands of Western colonial states; forced under the hand of bourgeois democracy and manipulation.

As I have said, all workers struggles must unite, regardless of borders. Regardless, each workers state must properly industrialize and maintain its strength, for revolutions are not fool-proof. Revisionism has brought down many revolutions that have been ignited by the working class, but the proper application of Marxism-Leninism can secure that socialism will thrive and continue, whether united with other nations or forced into isolation. One must not misread Stalin and Lenin's statements, as both of them rationally explain why socialism must spread to bring about world revolution, but we realize that the world is not surreal. Revolutions do not happen at the same time and often times, revisionism will bring economic turbulence or a rift between socialist states. Only through internal strengthening of the workers state can revolution hope to flourish.

[StalinFanboy]

maybe after a stable regime is established democracy can be instituted, but i think that while the government is new it takes decisive leadership and consistency to strengthen the nation, and i don't think people are capable of achieving the kind of unity of purpose that requires. If one selfless person makes the majority of the decisions then theres less conflict. Also i don't have much faith in the majority of people's interest in politics or even there intelligence, so i don't want them having to much control over what happens in the nation. (This stems from living in the U.S. and watching Bush get elected twice; it shook my faith in democracy)
Are you aware of how flawed this argument is? You don't have faith in peoples' intelligence, but you want to put some people in power over the rest of us. lol k

[Patchd]

The first decision is between anarchism and communism, then kautsky versus Lenin, trotsky versus Stalin, revision versus Anti-Revision, mao versus Hoxha. Hopefully comrade you will follow the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha Path!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. ^ Good joke mate :p

But yeh, to stay on topic, the idea of a "benevolent dictator" is contradictory in itself. Dictatorships are not benevolent in the slightest as it restricts political freedom, and thus socio-economic freedom for society too. It's like the idea of a "benevolent God", as if there can be such a thing.

What happens when society no longer wants the dictatorship? They rise up? What happens if they rise up? The Dictator would most likely suppress them in order to maintain their own power.

[pastradamus]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

Due to the fact your a newbie. I would say your views were much the same as mine when I first joined. More to the point, having read your profile, I would describe you as a COMRADE and due to the fact your interested in Martial Arts, Cool! Nice one for joining revleft my man.:D

[pastradamus]

I'm unsure of what my personal beliefs would be labeled as.
I'm basically a socialist, but i think that a benevolent dictator (or possibly a small council) is necessary at the head of the state.:confused:

Also, I would like to state your an individual. You have formed your own opinions and keep that individuality you created from you own mind. Dont go out of your way to fit a certain faction of the left. I've been here since 2002 and I still dont know how to exactly describe myself. Though I use the title "marxist" I have problems with Marx. Though I admire aspects of Lenin and Trotsky and Bakunin I have numerous problems with their ideals and philospohies. So keep it independat. Be your own master and never let anyone tell you what to do.