lenin was a man of farce

[Comrade Anarchist]

lenin is revered by many communists as one of the few great men to apply communist ideas but i disagree. I think he was nothing more than a man seeking revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment. The Bolshevik Revolution in my opinion was nothing more than a FARCE and a grab for power by a few individuals. It set up an authoritarian government that oppressed people and put blinders on their eyes. It was not communism that he put in place not even semi-socialism but instead state capitalism and later on after his death became "red fascism" or Stalinism. So in lenins quest for power and revenge he betray the workers that supported him and betrayed Marx, Engels, and Communism itself.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Nice little story, I'll like it better if you add some historical accuracy.

[Dimentio]

lenin is revered by many communists as one of the few great men to apply communist ideas but i disagree. I think he was nothing more than a man seeking revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment and power. The Bolshevik Revolution in my opinion was nothing more than a FARCE and a grab for power by a few individuals. It set up an authoritarian government that oppressed people and put blinders on their eyes. It was not communism that he put in place not even semi-socialism but instead state capitalism and later on after his death became "red fascism" or Stalinism. So in lenins quest for power and revenge he betray the workers that supported him and betrayed Marx, Engels, and Communism itself.

I don't think Lenin was a farce even though I disagree with the preconclusions of leninism. I think that Lenin honestly wanted to destroy the tsarist regime because of revolutionary convictions. He wanted to destroy it so much, that he created a new form of party - the vanguard party - which was to be composed of a core of radical revolutionaries leading the masses towards the gates of the Winter Palace.

Yet, I do not think the Bolshevik Party really accomplished that much due to its structure, except gaining power. It failed to predict both the revolution of 1905 and the revolution of 1917.

[bellyscratch]

I'm not exactly a Leninist myself, but I don't have a clue where you have got your information about Lenin from because it seems to be pretty false from what I've read. Yes he made some mistakes imo, but he was still a dedicated revolutionary and has a lot of respect from me.

[Dimentio]

I'm not exactly a Leninist myself, but I don't have a clue where you have got your information about Lenin from because it seems to be pretty false from what I've read. Yes he made some mistakes imo, but he was still a dedicated revolutionary and has a lot of respect from me.

Sounds like Richard Pipes.

[Random Precision]

cool story bro.

Unless this develops into a fruitful discussion very quickly, I'm going to trash it.

[ComradeOm]

I don't think Lenin was a farce even though I disagree with the preconclusions of leninism. I think that Lenin honestly wanted to destroy the tsarist regime because of revolutionary convictions. He wanted to destroy it so much, that he created a new form of party - the vanguard party - which was to be composed of a core of radical revolutionaries leading the masses towards the gates of the Winter Palace.

Yet, I do not think the Bolshevik Party really accomplished that much due to its structure, except gaining power. It failed to predict both the revolution of 1905 and the revolution of 1917.Except that the Bolshevik party of 1917 looked nothing like the party of dedicated revolutionaries described in WITBD?. See my sig for details

As for the charge that the Bolsheviks "failed to predict the revolution of 1917", see this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/february-1917-question-t106507/index.html) for a quick summary of the crucial involvement of the Bolsheviks in the February Revolution

[Jimmie Higgins]

lenin is revered by many communists as one of the few great men to apply communist ideas but i disagree. I think he was nothing more than a man seeking revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment and power. The Bolshevik Revolution in my opinion was nothing more than a FARCE and a grab for power by a few individuals. It set up an authoritarian government that oppressed people and put blinders on their eyes. It was not communism that he put in place not even semi-socialism but instead state capitalism and later on after his death became "red fascism" or Stalinism. So in lenins quest for power and revenge he betray the workers that supported him and betrayed Marx, Engels, and Communism itself.

And Napoleon invaded Europe because he was short. And Lincoln ended salvery because his wife was depressed. And Hitler was a monster all because someone gave him a bad crit on one of his paintings and he thought - I'll show that bastard! Ha - how will he like modern art when I've conquered Europe, killed the commies and jews and outlawed modernist art!

[Pogue]

Lenin seized power in an armed coup. The next day the congress of soviets 'elected' him, but it was just a rubber stamp on what had already happened. Lenin and the Bolsheviks had weapons and the soviets were unlikely to say no. In my opinion, Lenin's arogance and misudnerstanding of what socialism is led to him destroying the soviets and thus revolutionary society and making everything gained disappear. The April Thesise had the right policies but they were not implemented or if they were, they were implemented in an awful way which meant they failed.

[ComradeOm]

Lenin seized power in an armed coupThis "armed coup" was in fact a series of skirmishes between the MRC - a body elected by the Petrograd Soviet - that started on the 21 October when the Petrograd garrisons voted to transfer their loyalty to the Soviet. The Provisional Government responded with an all out attack on the left and the Bolsheviks in particular. No doubt you wish they had succeeded. The Kerensky government seized control of revolutionary printing presses and the critical bridges over the Neva before being dislodged by armed workers and garrison soldiers. Rather than some pre-planned coup it was the workers' counterattack against the Provisional Government that culminated in the seizure of the Winter Palace and the arrest of the Kerensky ministers


The next day the congress of soviets 'elected' him, but it was just a rubber stamp on what had already happenedExcept that the Congress of Soviets had very real power. Declaring that it 'rubber stamped' the act implies that it had no choice or any alternative options. I deal with the issue of force of arms below but in other respects your charge is equally without basis. Instead of meekly accepting a fait accompli the Congress instead voted for a Menshevik motion demanding a ceasefire in the streets and the formation of an exclusively socialist government drawing from all Soviet parties. The Bolsheviks (amongst others) voted for this motion but no sooner had it passed than the counter-revolutionary Mensheviks and Right SRs walked out and renounced Soviet power. So there was a very real choice as to what direction Russia would follow but it was not Lenin who made it

Besides, the Bolsheviks relied exclusively on the Congress for legitimacy and were in no position to stage a unilateral rising (in Petrograd or throughout the empire). Indeed throughout the weeks following October there were very real negotiations (principally sponsored by Vikzhel) to form an all-Soviet government. Once again the rightist parties rejected compromise but this serves to demonstrate both Bolshevik weakness and their dependency on the Soviet power

Although your disdain for worker democracy is duly noted


Lenin and the Bolsheviks had weapons and the soviets were unlikely to say noActually no. The Revolution was carried out almost exclusively by soviet bodies. The Bolshevik organisations themselves were not involved. Bolshevik members were urged by the party to channel their efforts through the 'revolutionary centre of the Petrograd Soviet' (ie, the MRC). More importantly the whole process was universally perceived, by its participants at least, to be the act of transferring power to the soviets and not the establishment of some Bolshevik dictatorship. In short, they obeyed the soviets

In addition, the balance of power lay very much with the counter-revolutionaries - Krasnov's army lay on the approach to Petrograd and was more than willing (as was subsequently proven) to 'restore order' to the capital. So in no way was the Congress of Soviets bullied and nor did the Bolsheviks possess the means to do so

Your statement only holds true when you consider that the most revolutionary and militant sections of the proletariat, including the majority of the Congress, were Bolshevik or Bolshevik inclined

[Tower of Bebel]

It failed to predict both the revolution of 1905 and the revolution of 1917.What is this all about? A. do you want to make a certain point? B. have you ever seen an organization able to predict revolutions?

One thing must be recognized: the Bolsheviks, of all revolutionary factions of the working class (because they were a genuine part of it), were the best prepared to lead and guide the working class to power. It takes more than active support or correct ideas of how a revolution could look like to make sure that the working class takes power. It takes more than just arguing for soviets.

Of course they were unable to stop the revolution from degenerating. They were not perfect and the conditions also weren't perfect.

I'm doing this for your own good before Jacob Richter gives you a link to 2 or 3 chapters from Kautsky's The Road to Power where Kautsky addresses the subject of predictions and Marxist politics ;).

[bellyscratch]

Sounds like Richard Pipes.

How did it sound like Richard Pipes :confused:

I was responding to the OP...

[Die Neue Zeit]

It failed to predict both the revolution of 1905 and the revolution of 1917.

What is this all about? A. do you want to make a certain point? B. have you ever seen an organization able to predict revolutions?

One thing must be recognized: the Bolsheviks, of all revolutionary factions of the working class (because they were a genuine part of it), were the best prepared to lead and guide the working class to power. It takes more than active support or correct ideas of how a revolution could look like to make sure that the working class takes power. It takes more than just arguing for soviets.

Of course they were unable to stop the revolution from degenerating. They were not perfect and the conditions also weren't perfect.

I'm doing this for your own good before Jacob Richter gives you a link to 2 or 3 chapters from Kautsky's The Road to Power where Kautsky addresses the subject of predictions and Marxist politics ;).

You may have "owned" me with your initial yet profoundly true and important response, comrade, but only one link will truly suffice in countering Serpent's anti-Bolshevik argument:

Luxemburg vs. Kautsky on revolutionary periods (http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxemburg-vs-kautsky-t105061/index.html)

:D

The Bolsheviks may have "failed to predict" the revolution of 1905, and may not necessarily have been that prepared at that time, but 1909 was truly a landmark year, for the definitive prediction of revolution in 1917 was made during that year.

[gorillafuck]

I think he was nothing more than a man seeking revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment and power.
I'm certainly not one to defend Lenin, but I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Invariance]

Lenin seized power in an armed coup. The next day the congress of soviets 'elected' him, but it was just a rubber stamp on what had already happened.
How easy it is to write history to suit your own ideology!

You are completely wrong. The Soviets achieved a majority in the Petrograd Soviet on 31 August, 1917. They achieved a majority in the Moscow Soviet on the 5th of September. Please note, this was before they abolished the power of Kerensky and Co who were more than happy to prolong the war and attempt to shut down Bolshevik newspapers.


Lenin and the Bolsheviks had weapons and the soviets were unlikely to say no.

Except that they said yes.

Trotsky had been elected head to the head of the Petrograd Soviet since October 8. When the question of seizing power emerged, the Military Revolutionary Committee gave its assent.

[Dimentio]

You may have "owned" me with your initial yet profoundly true and important response, comrade, but only one link will truly suffice in countering Serpent's anti-Bolshevik argument:

Luxemburg vs. Kautsky on revolutionary periods (http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxemburg-vs-kautsky-t105061/index.html)

:D

The Bolsheviks may have "failed to predict" the revolution of 1905, and may not necessarily have been that prepared at that time, but 1909 was truly a landmark year, for the definitive prediction of revolution in 1917 was made during that year.

The revolution of october occurred under extraordinary times as well, it should be noted. Without an all-out war between tsarist Russia and the Central Powers, I doubt the bolsheviks would have gained power.

In fact, the marxist I think we should learn most from in term of a revolution today is not Lenin, but Gramsci.

[Pogue]

This "armed coup" was in fact a series of skirmishes between the MRC - a body elected by the Petrograd Soviet - that started on the 21 October when the Petrograd garrisons voted to transfer their loyalty to the Soviet. The Provisional Government responded with an all out attack on the left and the Bolsheviks in particular. No doubt you wish they had succeeded. The Kerensky government seized control of revolutionary printing presses and the critical bridges over the Neva before being dislodged by armed workers and garrison soldiers. Rather than some pre-planned coup it was the workers' counterattack against the Provisional Government that culminated in the seizure of the Winter Palace and the arrest of the Kerensky ministers

Except that the Congress of Soviets had very real power. Declaring that it 'rubber stamped' the act implies that it had no choice or any alternative options. I deal with the issue of force of arms below but in other respects your charge is equally without basis. Instead of meekly accepting a fait accompli the Congress instead voted for a Menshevik motion demanding a ceasefire in the streets and the formation of an exclusively socialist government drawing from all Soviet parties. The Bolsheviks (amongst others) voted for this motion but no sooner had it passed than the counter-revolutionary Mensheviks and Right SRs walked out and renounced Soviet power. So there was a very real choice as to what direction Russia would follow but it was not Lenin who made it

Besides, the Bolsheviks relied exclusively on the Congress for legitimacy and were in no position to stage a unilateral rising (in Petrograd or throughout the empire). Indeed throughout the weeks following October there were very real negotiations (principally sponsored by Vikzhel) to form an all-Soviet government. Once again the rightist parties rejected compromise but this serves to demonstrate both Bolshevik weakness and their dependency on the Soviet power

Although your disdain for worker democracy is duly noted

Actually no. The Revolution was carried out almost exclusively by soviet bodies. The Bolshevik organisations themselves were not involved. Bolshevik members were urged by the party to channel their efforts through the 'revolutionary centre of the Petrograd Soviet' (ie, the MRC). More importantly the whole process was universally perceived, by its participants at least, to be the act of transferring power to the soviets and not the establishment of some Bolshevik dictatorship. In short, they obeyed the soviets

In addition, the balance of power lay very much with the counter-revolutionaries - Krasnov's army lay on the approach to Petrograd and was more than willing (as was subsequently proven) to 'restore order' to the capital. So in no way was the Congress of Soviets bullied and nor did the Bolsheviks possess the means to do so

Your statement only holds true when you consider that the most revolutionary and militant sections of the proletariat, including the majority of the Congress, were Bolshevik or Bolshevik inclined

It still remains Lenin was only elected after he'd succesfully reached a position of power using armed force. Who is likely to say no to a man with all the weapons?

Your post doesn't actually refute the claim that Lenin wasn't elected prior to his armed seizure of power, or that the Soviet electing him was simply a rubber stamp. Do you think Lenin would have just accepted the decision of the Soviets if they had chosen someone else over him?

No one is denying that the Bolsheviks were revolutionary and had alot of support, and I never claimed that I wished the Petrograd government to continue. As you can see, I said I thought the April Thesis had the right ideas, and one of the main ideas was complete opposition to the illegitimate and weak Provisional Government, but I think the way Lenin envisiged implementing these was incorrect.

I think Lenin himself was testament to the failures of his policies because he ultimately directed the suppression of the Soviets, and this is best seen in him and Trotskys suppresion of the Kronstadt rebellion, which had as its primary aim:



Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propoganda.

[ZeroNowhere]

Oh, please. We have no idea what motivated Lenin, nor what he believed in the depths of his heart or whatever (though his supposed 'differences between Marxism and anarchism' leave a lot to be desired. Seriously, it's rubbish).Still, I respect the guy a hell of a lot more than Trotsky. Though I wouldn't be too surprised if the bolshies had a significant amount of support by November, being the only anti-war Party. Also, heh, Soviets.


It still remains Lenin was only elected after he'd succesfully reached a position of power using armed force. Who is likely to say no to a man with all the weapons?
Well, to be fair, it wasn't so much armed force as the fact that the army was getting fucked over completely in WWI, and the bolshies didn't really have to do much fighting until 1918, where their enemies hated each other as much as the bolshies.


One thing must be recognized: the Bolsheviks, of all revolutionary factions of the working class (because they were a genuine part of it), were the best prepared to lead and guide the working class to power
In short, not.


It set up an authoritarian government that oppressed people and put blinders on their eyes.
Not sure what the second part is supposed to mean, but yeah, the first part, sure.


It was not communism that he put in place not even semi-socialism but instead state capitalism and later on after his death became "red fascism" or Stalinism.
No, it just remained state capitalism, albeit with even less private capitalist elements.

[ComradeOm]

It still remains Lenin was only elected after he'd succesfully reached a position of power using armed force. Who is likely to say no to a man with all the weapons?As I pointed out above, Lenin did not "have all the weapons". Nor did the Bolshevik party. It was the organs of the Petrograd Soviet that held all the weapons

Now one could of course point out that the Bolsheviks held the majority in the Petrograd Soviet... except that they, along with the Left SRs, also held a majority in the Congress of Soviets, having been elected there on a democratic basis. Which makes one wonder just why Lenin would try to intimidate his own majority with a body that did not answer to him... :confused:

Oh, and Lenin was not in "a position of power" prior to the Congress. It was the MRC, again an elected body, that held the balance of power. Lenin had no role in this organisation and it was only during the Congress that he was elevated to an official position


Do you think Lenin would have just accepted the decision of the Soviets if they had chosen someone else over him?Yes. Why? Because he would have had no choice

Interestingly enough, one of the conditions insisted upon by the Mensheviks during the Vikzhel negotiations, mentioned above, was that both Lenin and Trotsky be omitted from any new all-soviet government or at least occupy minor portfolios. The Bolshevik fraction in the negotiations, led by Kamenev, were open to these proposals and a preliminary compromise was reached on 31 Oct. Only when it became clear that the counter-revolutionary cadet uprising had failed, the army would not move on the capital, and that the Revolution was popular with the Petrograd proletariat, did the Bolsheviks break off negotiations


I think Lenin himself was testament to the failures of his policies because he ultimately directed the suppression of the Soviets, and this is best seen in him and Trotskys suppresion of the Kronstadt rebellion, which had as its primary aim:Are you suggesting that the soviets of October 1917 did not accurately "express the wishes of the workers and peasants"? Because if not I fail to see just what Kronstadt has to do with this. There are no doubt a 101 reasons as to why Soviet power degenerated but your absurd position (arguing that October was a coup or that Lenin masterminded the whole thing) precludes any worthwhile examination as to the real demographic and structural changes that took place in Russian society following 1917


In short, not.So who were better prepared? The Mensheviks? Socialist Revolutionaries? Kadets? Please

Only one party in 1917 was thoroughly in synch with the revolutionary proletariat and connected to it by a multitude of grassroot and union links. The Bolsheviks were unquestionably the party of the proletariat and a true vanguard party in the most positive sense of the term. To quote Sukhanov:

"The Bolsheviks were working stubbornly and without let-up. They were among the masses, at the factory-benches, every day without a pause. Tens of speakers, big and little, were speaking in Petersburg, at the factories and in the barracks, every blessed day. For the masses they had become their own people, because they were always there, taking the lead in details as well as in the most important affairs of the factory or barracks... The mass[es] lived and breathed together with the Bolsheviks"

[Pogue]

As I pointed out above, Lenin did not "have all the weapons". Nor did the Bolshevik party. It was the organs of the Petrograd Soviet that held all the weapons

Now one could of course point out that the Bolsheviks held the majority in the Petrograd Soviet... except that they, along with the Left SRs, also held a majority in the Congress of Soviets, having been elected there on a democratic basis. Which makes one wonder just why Lenin would try to intimidate his own majority with a body that did not answer to him... http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-man-farce-t106926/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

Oh, and Lenin was not in "a position of power" prior to the Congress. It was the MRC, again an elected body, that held the balance of power. Lenin had no role in this organisation and it was only during the Congress that he was elevated to an official position


It still remains that the Petrograd rising that put Lenin in a position of power were an armed uprising by Bolsheviks, not a mass workers uprising.

Obviously I don't oppose revolutionary uprisings but I do when its led by an elite group and consolidates power with one man in an all-pervading state, which is what the Bolsheviks and Lenin did. As I said, following this rising Lenin was effectively in control and so the Congress of Soviets ellecting him was merely a rubber stamp on what had already happened.

Hence why I described this as a coup. Although the workers had strikes, the 'revolution' was led by the Bolsheviks in an armed rising of Bolsheviks, who had acquired arms earlier when keresnky distributed arms to the Bolsheviks when he feared a right wing coup from Kornilov.



Yes. Why? Because he would have had no choice

Interestingly enough, one of the conditions insisted upon by the Mensheviks during the Vikzhel negotiations, mentioned above, was that both Lenin and Trotsky be omitted from any new all-soviet government or at least occupy minor portfolios. The Bolshevik fraction in the negotiations, led by Kamenev, were open to these proposals and a preliminary compromise was reached on 31 Oct. Only when it became clear that the counter-revolutionary cadet uprising had failed, the army would not move on the capital, and that the Revolution was popular with the Petrograd proletariat, did the Bolsheviks break off negotiations


He had a choice becuase he had weapons and a strong will, seeing himself as the only one able to lead Russia into socialism.


Are you suggesting that the soviets of October 1917 did not accurately "express the wishes of the workers and peasants"? Because if not I fail to see just what Kronstadt has to do with this. There are no doubt a 101 reasons as to why Soviet power degenerated but your absurd position (arguing that October was a coup or that Lenin masterminded the whole thing) precludes any worthwhile examination as to the real demographic and structural changes that took place in Russian society following 1917


Read what I said. I am saying that Lenin clearly didn't respect soviet democracy because he dismantled it, and put down a rising that opposed him dismantling it.

[ZeroNowhere]

So who were better prepared? The Mensheviks? Socialist Revolutionaries? Kadets? PleaseI never said nor implied that anybody was better.


He had a choice becuase he had weapons and a strong will, seeing himself as the only one able to lead Russia into socialism.
I don't think that we know this.


It still remains that the Petrograd rising that put Lenin in a position of power were an armed uprising by Bolsheviks, not a mass workers uprising.
You do realize that he'd probably just say that it's the same thing, and you'd end up not having got anywhere, right?


Obviously I don't oppose revolutionary uprisings but I do when its led by an elite group and consolidates power with one man in an all-pervading state, which is what the Bolsheviks and Lenin did.
Don't you mean 'all' revolutionary uprisings? Just saying. Because I can.

[Tower of Bebel]

In short, not.
The rest walked away while the left-Socialist Revolutionaries were unable to organize themselves independently from their opportunist colleagues on the right. Many anarchists supported the Bolsheviks. Even though it was not the Bolshevik party as an organization separated from the rest but the soviets which did most of the work, the Bolsheviks were still fermly rooted in these bodies. This gave them the advantage not only to be a genuine part of the vanguard of the working class but also to analyse the situation a lot better than the other socialist parties.

[Invariance]

It still remains Lenin was only elected after he'd succesfully reached a position of power using armed force. Who is likely to say no to a man with all the weapons?

Well firstly, Lenin didn't have 'all the weapons' as ComradeOm has consistently pointed out. The MRC had a monopoly of the armed forces. You're trying to make it seem (trying to distort) it as if Lenin pulled a dirty trick of contriving power, 'hoodwinking' the Soviets, whom were then too scared since evil Lenin now had 'all the weapons.'

Let's cut through your nonsense; the Soviets elected the Bolsheviks, Lenin was the most promient Bolshevik, one of the very few who called for insurrection against the Provisional Government, and hence Lenin was elected to whatever fancy title he was elected to. There was absolutely nothing undemocratic about this process. There was absolutely something undemocratic about Kerensky being in power, particularly after the Kornilov affair after which he formed a 'five person directory' and essentially had a wide range of civil and military powers.

The Soviets could have, of course, rejected Lenin's call for an insurrection. And indeed, that was what they originally did - even against the call of the workers.

In the July Days, 60-70,000 workers demanded that all power be given to the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets. That very same power rejected the demonstration as counter-revolutionary and denounced the Bolsheviks for trying to 'dictate with bayonets' the policy of the Soviets. At that time the Soviets still had a majority of SRs and Mensheviks, and was protected by Kerensky (who on the 21st of July persuaded the Kadets to form a second coalition) who sent in armed forces against the protesters.

Yet when Kornilov turned against Kerensky, after his sacking, it was Kerensky whom turned to the Soviets. Kerensky was now isolated from the SRs and Mensheviks since they would not cooperate with the Kadets. Which is why Kerensky's third coalition failed to win the ratification of the Soviets.

When Kerensky ordered that half the garrison be moved out of the capital to prevent the advance of the German army, the Soviets saw this as an attempt to rid the capital of its most revolutionary element. Hence, the MRC was formed on the 9th, led by Trotsky. The government gave the order on the 20th to move out troops, which the MRC refused. On the 23-24 Kerensky ordered the Bolshevik press to be shut down as a move against the MRC. On the 24th military units, backed by workers - Red Guards, occupied bridges, stations, and other areas. The following morning the Winter Palace was bombed, whilst the Second Congress of Soviets opened, of which the useless Mensheviks and SRs walked out from, where Trotsky is known to have said ‘You are miserable bankrupts your role is played out. Gowhere you ought to be: into the dustbin of history.’

There is no other way to it - the Bolsheviks, the Soviets, were compelled to overthrow Kerensky, otherwise they would have lost a significant portion of revolutionary soldiers. The alternative would have been allowing those soldiers to be sent off to defend against Germans, to die for the Provisional Government.

The Bolsheviks were completley justified in their actions, and only someone who is apologetic of imperialism, or apologetic of liberalism could claim otherwise.


Your post doesn't actually refute the claim that Lenin wasn't elected prior to his armed seizure of power, or that the Soviet electing him was simply a rubber stamp.

I know, how dare the Soviets elect someone after they have seized power!

What opportunism is this?

Lenin had been in hiding right up until the day where he proclaimed the Soviets had overthrown the Provisional Government. Do you think he should have 'popped up' prior to then for the sake of bourgeoisie legality in being elected to the Soviet PRIOR to it being the sole source of authority?

Well then clearly you are dreaming; he was a wanted man, had been in exile for the better part of his life. He would likely have been jailed or put on trial had he appeared prior to then.

Excuse him if he didn't want to risk being imprisoned (like many Bolsheviks were in the July days) for the sake of your concept of legality and proper revolutionary conduct!

Besides, its well documented that Lenin faced continuous opposition within his own party, that he threatened to resign several times. This wasn't a situation of being 'rubber stamped' it was a situation of Lenin clearly articulating the best position which the Bolsheviks and Soviets could take. He was right, and they recognised him for that.


Do you think Lenin would have just accepted the decision of the Soviets if they had chosen someone else over him? Who the hell knows?! I don't dabble in personality or speculative history. He had previously argued for all power to the Soviets even when it was dominated by other parties. It seems you are obsessed with labelling Lenin as some sort of maverick. Let's deal with historical facts and situations.


As you can see, I said I thought the April Thesis had the right ideas, and one of the main ideas was complete opposition to the illegitimate and weak Provisional Government, but I think the way Lenin envisiged implementing these was incorrect.

As an anarchist, no doubt you would! Here's what Lenin had to say:
Marvellous! Form up in Soviets, you proletarians and poor peasants! But, for God’s sake, don’t you dare win! Don’t even think of winning! The moment you will and vanquish the bourgeoisie, that will be the end of you; for you must not be “state” organisations in a proletarian state. In fact, as soon as you have won you must break up!

[ComradeOm]

It still remains that the Petrograd rising that put Lenin in a position of power were an armed uprising by Bolsheviks, not a mass workers uprisingHave you read my posts at all? It was not an uprising and it did not involve Bolshevik organisations. It was a popular revolution sparked by a confrontation between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet. This involved the mobilisation of thousands of armed workers, mutinying soldiers, and revolutionary sailors all operating under the direction of a body elected by the Petrograd Soviet. And yet you denigrate this revolutionary tide, which equals or surpasses anything seen in the West, as a "coup"?

That the Bolsheviks were at the forefront of this movement is because they had long been the staunched supporters of Soviet power and were most in tune with the grassroots workers' organisations


Obviously I don't oppose revolutionary uprisings but I do when its led by an elite group and consolidates power with one man in an all-pervading state, which is what the Bolsheviks and Lenin didExcept that the Bolsheviks were not "an elite group". They were by far and away that largest party in Petrograd (and the Congress of Soviets) and the vast majority of their members had joined following the February Revolution. They were not particularly centralised and nor did they possess an 'iron discipline'. What they were however was extremely popular amongst the working class and possessing a revolutionary programme for transferring power to the soviets

And this programme was largely followed, in an ad hoc manner, after October. Rather than "consolidating power with one man" (stupid - Lenin never occupied an extra-constitutional role and was regularly outvoted in both the CC and Sovnarkom) or creating "an all-pervading state", the immediate aftermath of October saw virtually all local powers devolved to district soviets. These were the bedrock of Soviet rule for the early years. In contrast the Bolshevik party organisation, rather than becoming some ruling apparatus, was 'emasculated' as its members were drawn in soviet work. It was not until late 1918 that the local Bolshevik structures began to tentatively interfere in the work of the soviets, about the same time that the state began to take on a more centralised form. So if Lenin always intended to create some 'dictatorship of the party' its funny that he actually waited years to do so. But then that's what you get for ascribing to some 'great man' version of history that ignores social currents in lieu of building up or tearing down a single political figure

Besides, as an example, your "all-pervading state" had almost half a dozen levels of economic oversight in Petrograd 1918 alone. You have the district soviets, the City Soviet, the Petrograd Labour Commune (PTK), the Northern Commune (SK SO), and finally the Supreme Council for the National Economy (VSNKh). That's not even including factory committees, unions, or executive committees. Each of the above bodies was established in haste and without any prior plan. Rather than furthering some monolithic Bolshevik programme they were often in competition/conflict with each other, included non-Bolshevik members, and were democratically controlled (less so as you go up the scale). Yet for some reason the image persists of the Bolsheviks just sailing in and creating this monolithic totalitarian "all-pervading state" out of nothing


As I said, following this rising Lenin was effectively in control and so the Congress of Soviets ellecting him was merely a rubber stamp on what had already happenedClearly you have not been reading my posts. I have described why this statement is false in above posts (twice)


Hence why I described this as a coup. Although the workers had strikes, the 'revolution' was led by the Bolsheviks in an armed rising of Bolsheviks, who had acquired arms earlier when keresnky distributed arms to the Bolsheviks when he feared a right wing coup from KornilovArms obtained by the workers came from two sources - those distributed to the proletariat (not just the Bolsheviks) by Kerensky and those funnelled to the MRC by workers in the city's sizeable arms works. In both cases they went to the most militant and active workers (ie the Red Guards and MRC) and not the Bolshevik party organisaton. Obviously the other forces involved in the October Revolution - the Baltic sailors of Kronstadt and Helsinki, and the Petrograd garrison itself - possessed their own arms and were certainly not puppets of the Bolsheviks


He had a choice becuase he had weapons and a strong will, seeing himself as the only one able to lead Russia into socialismCould Lenin fly as well? What with his "strong will" that is apparently able to overcome all material obstacles :rolleyes:

I've dealt with both the weapons and relative measures of strength above. Read my posts

[ZeroNowhere]

Marvellous! Form up in Soviets, you proletarians and poor peasants! But, for God’s sake, don’t you dare win! Don’t even think of winning! The moment you will and vanquish the bourgeoisie, that will be the end of you; for you must not be “state” organisations in a proletarian state. In fact, as soon as you have won you must break up!
Eh, I suppose that I should give out a tip here. When it comes to anarchism, the more you quote Lenin, the less impressive your argument is. Why? "The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish the state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this." :rolleyes:
Still, HLVS is an anarcho-syndie, who most probably wouldn't even utter, "Form up in Soviets, you proletarians and poor peasants!"


‘You are miserable bankrupts your role is played out. Gowhere you ought to be: into the dustbin of history.’
To be honest, it would be far more ironic and pleasing if that happened to a certain egotistical asshole. Ehm, anyways.


That the Bolsheviks were at the forefront of this movement is because they had long been the staunched supporters of Soviet power and were most in tune with the grassroots workers' organisations
Sure, the fact that they were basically the only anti-war Party didn't come into it.

[ComradeOm]

Sure, the fact that they were basically the only anti-war Party didn't come into it.As I said, they were the "most in tune with grassroots workers' organisations". Their opposition to the war was just one aspect of this deep connection with the proletariat

[Die Neue Zeit]

In fact, the marxist I think we should learn most from in term of a revolution today is not Lenin, but Gramsci.

Why Gramsci? I know he wrote good stuff on hegemony and what not, but he bought into the mystical and extremely anti-Kautsky Kool-Aid of Lukacs. Lenin merely applied the organizational strategy of August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and especially Karl Kautsky - the SPD model in short - to Russian conditions.

[Angry Young Man]

Wow... Lenin wanted revenge on the Czar. Never heard it put like that before, at least by a rational person. And so what if there was a vengeance motive? It's not like it became consumptive. I daresay there's always an element of vengeful thinking when class consciousness raises. I quote (loosely) Harry Pollitt: 'I knew that one day the proletariat of Britain would pay out the same justice to the capitalists that they had in Russia.'

[PRC-UTE]

It still remains Lenin was only elected after he'd succesfully reached a position of power using armed force. Who is likely to say no to a man with all the weapons?

You're confusing Lenin with Makhno.

The Bolsheviks including Lenin and Trotsky won army units over to their side. They didn't form the Red Army till later.

[Dimentio]

Wow... Lenin wanted revenge on the Czar. Never heard it put like that before, at least by a rational person. And so what if there was a vengeance motive? It's not like it became consumptive. I daresay there's always an element of vengeful thinking when class consciousness raises. I quote (loosely) Harry Pollitt: 'I knew that one day the proletariat of Britain would pay out the same justice to the capitalists that they had in Russia.'

Richard Pipes, a bourgeoisie historian, is the one who claims the "revenge" motive. :laugh:

[Dimentio]

How did it sound like Richard Pipes :confused:

I was responding to the OP...

Well, his theory that Lenin organised the Bolshevik Party out of a need for "revenge agains the tsar". He also claimed that Stalin became a bolshevik because he was spanked when he was a little boy.

[Angry Young Man]

Freudian.

[bellyscratch]

Well, his theory that Lenin organised the Bolshevik Party out of a need for "revenge agains the tsar". He also claimed that Stalin became a bolshevik because he was spanked when he was a little boy.

But i was disagreeing with the OP and never said anything about revenge...

[Communist Theory]

lenin is revered by many communists as one of the few great men to apply communist ideas but i disagree. I think he was nothing more than a man seeking revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment. The Bolshevik Revolution in my opinion was nothing more than a FARCE and a grab for power by a few individuals. It set up an authoritarian government that oppressed people and put blinders on their eyes. It was not communism that he put in place not even semi-socialism but instead state capitalism and later on after his death became "red fascism" or Stalinism. So in lenins quest for power and revenge he betray the workers that supported him and betrayed Marx, Engels, and Communism itself.
I can't wait until you overthrow your government and implement your form of Communism. Also how did his death affect the choices Stalin made of the Soviet government? If you know anything about the end of Comrade Lenin's life he condemned Stalin and his ideas. He asked for Stalin not to be put into power after his death but was ignored. You obviously put no thought into this thread and were just trying to get a reaction out of the members.

[Dimentio]

But i was disagreeing with the OP and never said anything about revenge...

You asked from where he got his ideas. My guess is Pipes.

[bellyscratch]

You asked from where he got his ideas. My guess is Pipes.

Oh right, was a bit confused there :lol:

[skki]

Lenin was a very typical politician. He lied about his political convictions to gain support, sought above all else to seize power, and once there sought only to maximize it.

A good example of his fraud is his book, 'State and Revolution', which he wrote shortly before taking power. It was very much in line with traditional Marxist thought. Stressed the need for soviets and workers control over production, democracy, state transparency etc. But once he took power he immediatley destroyed the existing workers control over production, replacing it with a state hierarchy. Then along with Trotsky he set about re-defining socialism as a society where workers submit entirely to the state, and simply trust that the higher ups know what's best for them.

We tend to forget that Lenin's ideas were very heavily attacked by the mainstream Socialists of the time. The great thinkers like Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, basically every member of Rosa Luxemburg's Marxist party, even Trotsky before he eventually joined, were strongly critical of Leninism.

Robert Service's biography of Lenin is a recommended read for anyone with an interest in an objective view of Lenin from an accredited, impartial historian.

[skki]

I can't wait until you overthrow your government and implement your form of Communism. Also how did his death affect the choices Stalin made of the Soviet government? If you know anything about the end of Comrade Lenin's life he condemned Stalin and his ideas. He asked for Stalin not to be put into power after his death but was ignored. You obviously put no thought into this thread and were just trying to get a reaction out of the members.

Not quite. Lenin suggested that “comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post” because his rudeness would become “intolerable in a Secretary-General”.

Lenin tried to remove Stalin because he insulted his wife during his last conversation with Lenin. Not because of any apparent ideological differences.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The idea i put forth is not new im saying that yes lenin may have had the mind of communism but he didn't create it and instead shamed it. He started this revolution for ideas of revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment. Power and revenge were his objectives and he achieved them and slandered communism

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

This thread is shit. On one hand you have people whom think Lenin was the forerunner to every shit action movie hero ever and one the other you have people whom think Lenin had a medical condition that caused sun rays to shine from his arse.

Both are fucking moronic.

[Led Zeppelin]

lenin is revered by many communists as one of the few great men to apply communist ideas but i disagree. I think he was nothing more than a man seeking revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment. The Bolshevik Revolution in my opinion was nothing more than a FARCE and a grab for power by a few individuals. It set up an authoritarian government that oppressed people and put blinders on their eyes. It was not communism that he put in place not even semi-socialism but instead state capitalism and later on after his death became "red fascism" or Stalinism. So in lenins quest for power and revenge he betray the workers that supported him and betrayed Marx, Engels, and Communism itself.

So a guy who's out for revenge can gather up a couple of other people and overthrow an autocratic monarchy, fool workers into setting up councils to facilitate their plan, and then establish a red fascist regime to top it all off...

And you say Lenin betrayed the ideas of Marx, Engels and communism?

I suggest you read some of their works, perhaps you might learn a thing or two. Something nice to know would be their writings on historical materialism and their method of analysis.

[Black Dagger]

Moved to Learning.

[ZeroNowhere]

The idea i put forth is not new im saying that yes lenin may have had the mind of communism but he didn't create it and instead shamed it. He started this revolution for ideas of revenge for his brother's execution and his imprisonment. Power and revenge were his objectives and he achieved them and slandered communism
Prove it.


A good example of his fraud is his book, 'State and Revolution', which he wrote shortly before taking power. It was very much in line with traditional Marxist thought.
That's not especially flattering towards traditional Marxist thought, I must say. Still, whether he was using his libertarian streak in that work to persuade people to support him or he was earnest is something that we don't know, but hey, "People who boasted that they had made a revolution have always seen the next day that they had no idea what they were doing, that the revolution made did not in the least resemble the one they would have liked to make. That is what Hegel calls the irony of history, an irony which few historic personalities escape."
Or, alternatively, to quote Lenin instead, "The machine refused to obey the hand that guided it. It was like a car that was going not in the direction the driver desired, but in the direction someone else desired; as if it were being driven by some mysterious, lawless hand, God knows whose, perhaps of a profiteer, or of a private capitalist, or of both. Be that as it may, the car is not going quite in the direction the man at the wheel imagines, and often it goes in an altogether different direction. This is the main thing that must be remembered in regard to state capitalism. In this main field we must start learning from the very beginning, and only when we have thoroughly understood and appreciated this can we be sure that we shall learn."
Or, hell, to quote Grant attempting sarcasm to some degree and actually making more sense than he did when serious, "If Cliff’s argument is correct, one could only conclude that the same thing happened with the Russian as with the French Revolution. [...] Lenin and Trotsky were the Robespierres and Carnots of the Russian Revolution. The fact that Lenin and Trotsky had good intentions is beside the point, as were the good intentions of the leaders of the bourgeois revolution. They merely paved the way for the rule of the new state capitalist class."

[Dimentio]

So a guy who's out for revenge can gather up a couple of other people and overthrow an autocratic monarchy, fool workers into setting up councils to facilitate their plan, and then establish a red fascist regime to top it all off...

And you say Lenin betrayed the ideas of Marx, Engels and communism?

I suggest you read some of their works, perhaps you might learn a thing or two. Something nice to know would be their writings on historical materialism and their method of analysis.

Everyone knows Lenin was a satanic vampire :lol:

No, seriously. Warped information I must say.

I agree that Lenin and the bolsheviks were ruthless and opportunistic to some degree. They needed to be so, given the situation they were in. But in the same time, I don't see Lenin as a cult leader. He had trouble managing the many strong wills in the party leadership, like for example Trotsky. Lenin had to compromise.

We should not look at Lenin but at the bolshevik party, its composition and its role in the revolutions, as well as its surroundings to get a better understanding of the situation. Richard Pipes and those alike focuses everything on Lenin, imagining him as absolute ruler of both the party and Russia.