Leninism: A right-wing, totalitarian deviation? [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

15th May 2009, 23:04

wikipedia summary of Lenin's "What is to Be Done"I don't think that's actually a very accurate summary of what Lenin wrote in WITBD, or what Lenin actually believed. Lenin certainly did not believe that the revolution should be organized or carried out by a group of "full-time" revolutionaries, if by "full-time" you mean people who spend the whole of each working day being a party functionary, printing leaflets and doing all of the other boring tasks that you would expect a party functionary or bureaucrat to spend their time doing, instead of being a worker in a factory or equivalent workplace. The "vanguard party", as it is generally known, is not an elite that draws its members from the intelligentsia and seeks to rule over the rest of society - it is an organization that is based on the most politically advanced and militant section of the working class, and seeks to raise the general level of consciousness and forge a revolutionary movement by taking on a leading role in workplace struggles, whereby revolutionaries can demonstrate that our strategies and not any reformist methods can allow the working class to liberate itself from capitalism and establish a more democratic society. WITBD does seem to suggest at points that Lenin's understanding of the party was actually more authoritarian than people who see themselves as followers of Lenin's ideas generally claim, and the main reason for this is that the book was written in a specific historical context. It was written in response to other "socialists" like Bernstein of the SPD who downplayed the importance of revolutionary theory and believed that the problems of capitalism could be resolved through reforms within the framework of the existing system, and not through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the bourgeois state, as Lenin and his comrades were advocating.

A more measured and contextual account of WITBD: Hal Draper, The Myth of Lenin's Concept of the Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)

As for the accusations of authoritarianism, the problem with anarchist or bourgeois accounts of the Russian Revolution is that they tend to present it as a rather simple moral conflict between the forces of "good" on one side, i.e. the working class, and the forces of "evil" on the other, in the form of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as well as Stalin, who is alleged to have continued Lenin's legacy by using the same political methods, albeit to a greater degree. This is problematic firstly because it is based on a series of false assumptions about the way the Bolsheviks operated as a party, as well as the events that led to the Bolsheviks being the only party in government. The Bolsheviks were a democratic organization, such that Lenin could not pass any of his decisions simply by virtue of the fact that he was the leader and had the respect of many of his party comrades - he had to gain the support of the majority, both within the central committee, and at the annual party congress, and there were indeed several cases where Lenin failed to get his ideas passed, as during the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, when the initial decision was to continue the war against Germany. In connection with this, the Bolsheviks were able to form the majority of delegates in the major urban Soviets because they were elected, and not because they had forced their way into those positions, and it was ultimately due to the decisions of other parties - such as the Left SRs, who chose to withdraw from the government after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was ratified by the All-Russia Congress Of Soviets in March 1918 - that the Bolsheviks ended up being the only party in government, and not Lenin's alleged plan to seize power all for himself. Lenin was, of course, elected as chairman of Sovnarkom, just like Trotsky had been elected as chairman of the St. Petersburg Soviet in both 1905 and 1917, as in both cases those leaders knew how to make sense of the demands and experiences of the working class.

This of course raises the question of why the revolution ended up as it did. The anarchist account, as suggested above, is in many ways similar to the Stalinist account, as well as the bourgeois account, in that it asserts a basic continuity between what happened under Lenin, and what would later happen under the rule of Stalin, as well as subsequent leaders, because, so the argument goes, the Bolsheviks never had any concern for workers democracy and all the rest of it. This ignores the role of material conditions, which, for anyone with a progressive understanding of history, should be vital. The Civil War, which arose from the isolation of the revolution, following the failure of the revolution in Germany, led to the proletariat being completely disorientated and fragmented, as large numbers of proletarians including the most militant individuals were either killed at the front or forced to return to their peasant villages in search of food, and it was this, more than anything else, that led to the Soviets ceasing to be effective organs of government, and power passing to bureaucrats within the state and party, many of whom had been former Tsarist officials who were hired as an emergency measure. Trotsky attempted to retain the democracy through his activity within the Bolshevik party as leader of the Left Opposition, but to no avail, as he was defeated by the rising bureaucratic forces, under the leadership of Stalin. This isn't to say that Lenin didn't make mistakes - the Ban on Factions in 1921 during the 10th Party Congress was a huge mistake, in my opinion - but his poor decisions were precisely that - mistakes - and not pre-meditated attempts to establish absolute power. The success of the Russian Revolution depended on its ability to become a global international revolution, as Lenin and Trotsky had argued all along, and it was its defeat in that regard that led to Stalinism.

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 23:07

The Hitler comparison is unnececary

Why? The fascists were product of the workers' movement, used anti-bourgeois rhetoric, and identified themselves as socialist.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:11

I don't think that's actually a very accurate summary of what Lenin wrote in WITBD, or what Lenin actually believed. Lenin certainly did not believe that the revolution should be organized or carried out by a group of "full-time" revolutionaries, if by "full-time" you mean people who spend the whole of each working day being a party functionary, printing leaflets and doing all of the other boring tasks that you would expect a party functionary or bureaucrat to spend their time doing, instead of being a worker in a factory or equivalent workplace. The "vanguard party", as it is generally known, is not an elite that draws its members from the intelligentsia and seeks to rule over the rest of society - it is an organization that is based on the most politically advanced and militant section of the working class, and seeks to raise the general level of consciousness and forge a revolutionary movement by taking on a leading role in workplace struggles, whereby revolutionaries can demonstrate that our strategies and not any reformist methods can allow the working class to liberate itself from capitalism and establish a more democratic society. WITBD does seem to suggest at points that Lenin's understanding of the party was actually more authoritarian than people who see themselves as followers of Lenin's ideas generally claim, and the main reason for this is that the book was written in a specific historical context. It was written in response to other "socialists" like Bernstein of the SPD who downplayed the importance of revolutionary theory and believed that the problems of capitalism could be resolved through reforms within the framework of the existing system, and not through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the bourgeois state, as Lenin and his comrades were advocating.

A more measured and contextual account of WITBD: Hal Draper, The Myth of Lenin's Concept of the Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)

As for the accusations of authoritarianism, the problem with anarchist or bourgeois accounts of the Russian Revolution is that they tend to present it as a rather simple moral conflict between the forces of "good" on one side, i.e. the working class, and the forces of "evil" on the other, in the form of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as well as Stalin, who is alleged to have continued Lenin's legacy by using the same political methods, albeit to a greater degree. This is problematic firstly because it is based on a series of false assumptions about the way the Bolsheviks operated as a party, as well as the events that led to the Bolsheviks being the only party in government. The Bolsheviks were a democratic organization, such that Lenin could not pass any of his decisions simply by virtue of the fact that he was the leader and had the respect of many of his party comrades - he had to gain the support of the majority, both within the central committee, and at the annual party congress, and there were indeed several cases where Lenin failed to get his ideas passed, as during the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, when the initial decision was to continue the war against Germany. In connection with this, the Bolsheviks were able to form the majority of delegates in the major urban Soviets because they were elected, and not because they had forced their way into those positions, and it was ultimately due to the decisions of other parties - such as the Left SRs, who chose to withdraw from the government after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was ratified by the All-Russia Congress Of Soviets in March 1918 - that the Bolsheviks ended up being the only party in government, and not Lenin's alleged plan to seize power all for himself.

This of course raises the question of why the revolution ended up as it did. The anarchist account, as suggested above, is in many ways similar to the Stalinist account, as well as the bourgeois account, in that it asserts a basic continuity between what happened under Lenin, and what would later happen under the rule of Stalin, as well as subsequent leaders, because the Bolsheviks never had any concern for workers democracy and all the rest of it. This ignores the role of material conditions, which, for anyone with a progressive understanding of history, should be vital. The Civil War, which arose from the isolation of the revolution, following the failure of the revolution in Germany, led to the proletariat being completely disorientated and fragmented, as large numbers of proletarians including the most militant individuals were either killed at the front or forced to return to their peasant villages in search of food, and it was this, more than anything else, that led to the Soviets ceasing to be effective organs of government, and power passing to bureaucrats within the state and party, many of whom had been former Tsarist officials who were hired as an emergency measure. This isn't to say that Lenin didn't make mistakes, but his poor decisions were precisely that - mistakes - and not pre-meditated attempts to establish absolute power. The success of the Russian Revolution depended on its ability to become a global international revolution, as Lenin and Trotsky had argued all along, and it was its defeat in that regard that led to Stalinism.

Emphasis mine. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why one man, Lenin, making mistakes, ever had the possibility to cause the failure of a whole country. If there was democracy in Russia, how was this the case?

Furthermore, the fact there ex-Tsarists in the state seems to indicate that there is sometihng altogether wrong with the Leninist dream of a 'workers state' in the first place.

I think its also important for comrades to note the concrete decision Lenin made to take control of workplaces away from workers councils and give them to state beurecrats. The man was a authoritarian hypocrit who loved his state more than socialism.

BobKKKindle$

15th May 2009, 23:18

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why one man, Lenin, making mistakes, ever had the possibility to cause the failure of a whole countryThe "failure of a whole country" didn't occur as a result of Lenin's decisions, it occurred as a result of the isolation of the revolution. Lenin was aware that once the Bolsheviks had seized power (following a decision that was made by the St Petersburg Soviet, as you know) the future of the revolution was essentially out of their hands, in that it depended on what revolutionaries in other European countries such as Germany did, and whether they could, through the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of proletarian states in their own countries, render support to the Bolsheviks, who had carried out a revolution in an underdeveloped country with a large peasant population, and were therefore in a very vulnerable situation. However, if Lenin hadn't introduced the Ban on Factions (his reasons for doing so were understandable, albeit flawed) then it might have been possible to retain democracy within the party, at least for some period of time, even whilst bureaucracy was taking control of the state, and arm the party for the task of a second proletarian revolution once the 1917 revolution had been defeated. On the issue of bureaucrats, it wasn't exactly possible to train workers to become expert generals and managers during a civil war that was threatening to totally destroy the revolution and introduce a military dictatorship under the control of the Allied powers, especially in light of the fact that the higher education system had almost broken down, and so the government, which was led by the Bolsheviks, had to decide whether they would use the Tsarist officials to defend the revolution, whilst detaining their family members as a precautionary measure, or not to use any officials at all and to rely on sheer spontaneity, or good luck. They chose the former, and, despite the difficulty of the decision, I think it was the right choice. The point here, however, is not whether the Bolsheviks made the right choices - you and anarchists assert that their decisions were made on a conscious desire to monopolize political power for their own purposes, which isn't something you've justified.

On the last point - workers power - could you reference that? I know what you're talking about, and the argument is wrong, but I think it would be good to clear up the context and details before we tackle that issue.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:21

The "failure of a whole country" didn't occur as a result of Lenin's decisions, it occurred as a result of the isolation of the revolution. However, if Lenin hadn't introduced the Ban on Factions (his reasons for doing so were understandable, albeit flawed) then it might have been possible to retain democracy within the party, even whilst bureaucracy was taking control of the state. On the issue of bureaucrats, it wasn't exactly possible to train workers to become expert generals and managers during a civil war that was threatening to totally destroy the revolution and introduce a military dictatorship under the control of the Allied powers, especially in light of the higher education system had almost broken down, and so the government, which was led by the Bolsheviks, had to decide whether they would use the Tsarist officials to defend the revolution, whilst detaining their family members as a precautionary measure, or not to use any officials at all and to rely on sheer spontaneity, or good luck. They chose the former, and, despite the difficulty of the decision, I think it was the right choice.

But I don't think Lenin did make the right choices. When Lenin robbed Russia of any Socialism, he made the Civil War and any struggle in Russia futile - what point is there starving or dying for another form of capitalism? At least if he'd have kept the workers councils, people wouldn't have suffered for a new, capitalist dictatorship, but for something more worthwhile and representative of their interests.

BobKKKindle$

15th May 2009, 23:30

But I don't think Lenin did make the right choices. When Lenin robbed Russia of any SocialismWhat do you mean by Lenin "robbing the country of socialism"? You keep forgetting that Lenin was not an omnipotent dictator - he was democratically elected to a position of power, chairman of Sovnarkom, because he was the leader of an organization that commanded the support of the vast majority of Russian workers - the Bolsheviks. The power of that body was counterbalanced and checked by other institutions that made up the embryonic Soviet state, most importantly the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which was elected by the former as the highest legislative body of the state. The decisions of every national institution including Sovnarkom could only be carried out with the compliance of regional and local Soviets. I think this indicates that characterizing Lenin as an absolute dictator is far too simplistic - you need to explain why you think that Lenin was able and willing to personally wreck a revolution despite the mass opposition of the Russian proletariat, which had seized power through its vanguard with the aim of destroying capitalism forever and constructing a socialist society. You haven't yet expressed any opinion on how the Civil War - which effectively began as soon as the revolution took place - impacted the course of the revolution, if at all.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:34

What do you mean by Lenin "robbing the country of socialism"? You keep forgetting that Lenin was not an omnipotent dictator - he was democratically elected to a position of power, chairman of Sovnarkom, because he was the leader of an organizations that commanded the support of the vast majority of Russian workers - the Bolsheviks. The power of that body was counterbalanced and checked by other institutions that made up the embryonic Soviet state, most importantly the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which was elected by the former as the highest legislative body of the state. The decisions of every national institution could only be carried out with the compliance of regional and local Soviets. I think this indicates that characterizing Lenin as an absolute dictator is far too simplistic - you need to explain why you think that Lenin was able and willing to personally wreck a revolution.

Most people recognise this is a myth. Puppet democracy does exist, believe it or not. I'd liken Lenin's power to of bourgeois demcoracy - rubber stamping and all that. Did the people vote on NEP? Did the people elect the state beurecrats who took over from the democratic workers councils in the factories?

If there was such wonderful democracy, why did the revolutionaries at Kronstadt rebel, asking for democracy and freeing of left wing political prisoners? And why did Lenin feel a need to put down such a revolt when it was calling for democracy?

Stranger Than Paradise

15th May 2009, 23:36

What do you mean by Lenin "robbing the country of socialism"? You keep forgetting that Lenin was not an omnipotent dictator - he was democratically elected to a position of power, chairman of Sovnarkom, because he was the leader of an organizations that commanded the support of the vast majority of Russian workers - the Bolsheviks. The power of that body was counterbalanced and checked by other institutions that made up the embryonic Soviet state, most importantly the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which was elected by the former as the highest legislative body of the state. The decisions of every national institution could only be carried out with the compliance of regional and local Soviets. I think this indicates that characterizing Lenin as an absolute dictator is far too simplistic - you need to explain why you think that Lenin was able and willing to personally wreck a revolution.

Well I don't think that the soviets were perfect and they don't give a great example of communism in practice in my opinion, someone posted a great critique of them recently, might've been socialist. Not sure. Anyway my point is I don't think we can exactly say Lenin was elected truly democratically at the same time as recognising that he was not advocate of authoritarian and bureaucratic policies.

Comrade Anarchist

15th May 2009, 23:40

true. lenin did nothing more than create a fascist regime that never let workers take control of production. he created a system that oppressed the people of russia. I agree with the hitler comparison because he took control in about the same way; by promising his people a better life just for selfish gains

BobKKKindle$

15th May 2009, 23:49

Most people recognise this is a myth. Puppet democracy does exist, believe it or not. I'd liken Lenin's power to of bourgeois demcoracy - rubber stamping and all that. Did the people vote on NEP? Did the people elect the state beurecrats who took over from the democratic workers councils in the factories?If "most people" think it was a myth then it would be nice to see some sources of some kind, such as a selection of books, or essays, because I don't think it's sufficient to assert that "most people" happen to believe that something is true (which, you also assume, means that it must be correct, even though I could just as easily assert that "most people" in the world today do not accept the need for the overthrow of capitalism, despite the objective validity of that position) without offering any evidence to back up your assertion. It's clear that Lenin was not simply a "rubber stamper" from the fact that his policy preferences were routinely rejected or passed by only a very small majority, as we can see from the case study of Brest-Litovsk, which I referred to in one of my previous posts. As for workers control, it's worth pointing out that the extent to which the democratic management of factories was replaced with varying degrees of authoritarian control through one-man management was tied to the needs of the civil war, such that in Petrograd in 1920, only 31% of factories employing more than 200 workers were under one-man management, with the figure for 1919 being even lower at 10.8%.(1) The decision to enact stricter industrial discipline was closely tied to an earlier decision that had been made at the first All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions whereby it was agreed that the factory committees should be merged with the trade unions in order to enhance central planning and economic stability, given the unorganized and spontaneous way in which nationalization and factory seizures were being carried out, with both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks voting in favour of the decision, and only six delegates out of the entire congress voting against. This indicates that the changes to the functioning of enterprises were not only an emergency response to the civil war, but also commanded the support of the workers who had been elected to make decisions on behalf of their comrades at various national congresses.

(1) S A Smith, 'Red Petrograd', 1983, pp222-223

Someone else can deal with the other mistakes, or I'll deal with them another time.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:53

If "most people" think it was a myth then it would be nice to see some sources of some kind, such as a selection of books, or essays, because I don't think it's sufficient to assert that "most people" happen to believe that something is true (which, you also assume, means that it must be correct, even though I could just as easily assert that "most people" in the world today do not accept the need for the overthrow of capitalism, despite the objective validity of that position) without offering any evidence to back up your assertion. It's clear that Lenin was not simply a "rubber stamper" from the fact that his policy preferences were routinely rejected or passed by only a very small majority, as we can see from the case study of Brest-Litovsk, which I referred to on one of my previous posts. As for workers control, it's worth pointing out that the extent to which the democratic management of factories was replaced with varying degrees of authoritarian control through one-man management was tied to the needs of the civil war, such that in Petrograd in 1920, only 31% of factories employing more than 200 workers were under one-man management, with the figure for 1919 being even lower at 10.8%.(1) The decision to enact stricter industrial discipline was closely tied to an earlier decision that had been made at the first All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions whereby it was agreed that the factory commitees should be merged with the trade unions in order to enhance central planning and economic stability, with both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks voting in favour of the decision, and only six delegates out of the entire congress voting against. This indicates that the changes to the functioning of enterprises were not only an emergency response to the civil war, but also commanded the support of the workers who had been elected to make decisions on behalf of their comrades at various national congresses.

(1) S A Smith, 'Red Petrograd', 1983, pp222-223

Someone else can deal with the other mistakes, or I'll deal with them another time.

Yeh yeh yeh. So you believe his decisions were neccesary - that doesn't take away from the fact they were counter-revolutionary and anti-socialist.

If it wasn't Lenin who took away the worker's control from the USSR, who did it and when did it happen? He favoured a centralised 'workers' state, it was integral to his authoritarian, right wing ideology. Its not as though he denied doing it. And the consequences was the death of socialism and the 80 years of chaos that followed.

mikelepore

16th May 2009, 06:49

Black Sheep

16th May 2009, 13:10

well in 9:10 you can certainly find a serious clash between trotskyism and leninism.
According to marx, the revolution in a global scale will 'begin','start', at a powerful course when an andvanced industrial capitalist country revolts (germany,in the video), and the elimination of soviet control and factory committees,says in the video, was some kind of 'holing action', in order to wait for germany, the anticipated backbone of the socialist revolution, to revolt.
(i also suspect diamat in this... further suppress democracy,so the opposites can collide)

Applying trotsky's Permanent revolution, USSR (a backwards agricultural country), should do ok on its own, the russian workers should seize power and aid the revolutions internationally.

SecondLife

16th May 2009, 16:36

Working-class can't be leading power of revolution and also later, after revolution, owner and leader of state. I don't know how in your country, but here most workers are nationalists and conservatives. They just don't want any revolution, socialism or communism. They all supports bourgeoisie and capitalism. Moreover, if to give them power, then begans global killing of other nation persons. Now only law stops this, law that was set up from bourgeoisie parties, elected by the same working-class. Altough we have also legal communist-party, but nobody vote it.
There is nothing help from elucidation work, they just don't want socialism, regardless that they are all poor and not satisfied. About 8x poorer than in example Scandinavia.
Second question is who is working-class? We can classify working-class as all people who in current moment aren't private owners. But this means also bourgeoisie parties members. They are also just bureaucratic workers whos work is lead state. They say "we are just the same kind of workers as you" and they are right. But they are all bound to bourgeoisie and private ownership.
You say that in nowadays socialist countries exist nomenclature and corruption.
So what? Nomenclature and corruption exist in capitalist countries many times more.
Remember how much capital accumulates in very few time period into capitalist nomenclature after collapse of ussr. How much capital is now in hands of bourgeoisie nomenclature who own capital in previously colonized countries.
And finally, if working-class owns and leads state, then actually who it owns and leads? If there don't exist any bureaucrat. You?..or..You?..or..You? Maybe you want just power and put capital into your own pockets? You can even use for this legal elections and your fascist workers friends. Exactly as Boris Yeltsin, to bring to working-class the freedom.

Stranger Than Paradise

16th May 2009, 16:39

SecondLife

16th May 2009, 16:49

What are you saying, that workers are mostly nationalists and fascists and are incapable of thiking for themselves? That's what you sound like.

You can come visit me and see themselves. Or you can also fly to Saudi Arabia and look how things are there.

Black Sheep

16th May 2009, 17:23

Stranger Than Paradise

16th May 2009, 17:40

You can come visit me and see themselves. Or you can also fly to Saudi Arabia and look how things are there.

But we don't expect a revolution to occur in an environment like the one you describe: of low class consciousness. If we were to carry out a coup on behalf of the workers it would not be a revolution. The workers have to emancipate themselves and at the moment the conditions are not right.

SecondLife

16th May 2009, 18:07

If we were to carry out a coup on behalf of the workers it would not be a revolution. The workers have to emancipate themselves and at the moment the conditions are not right.
I know this, but its anyway better than nothing. Personally I like legal coup, like in Venezuela. Coups can be set up steps by steps. Altough Venezuela is not good example because there working-class is high consciousness. I don't believe into revolution in nowadays, world is not long time the same as it was in 1917.

ZeroNowhere

16th May 2009, 19:10

I know this, but its anyway better than nothing. Personally I like legal coup, like in Venezuela. Coups can be set up steps by steps. Altough Venezuela is not good example because there working-class is high consciousness. I don't believe into revolution in nowadays, world is not long time the same as it was in 1917.
The more prominent issue with the Venezuela example is that Venezuela is in no way socialist, nor is there any revolution going on at the moment. As for not believing in revolution, I do believe that that is a restrict-worthy offence.

SecondLife

16th May 2009, 21:55

The more prominent issue with the Venezuela example is that Venezuela is in no way socialist, nor is there any revolution going on at the moment.

Makes this any difference for you? You can anyway sleep well in home.

commyrebel

16th May 2009, 22:06

Ok what the hell are saying first of all democracy is not a right or left way of running a government and it is far better than a republic because in a republic you take away a very important part of modern communism the government for the people not a certain class

Bright Banana Beard

16th May 2009, 22:44

Wikipedia is such a awesome source, this is why I have to give you a rep! :laugh:

Ismail

17th May 2009, 12:06

I'm not even going to get into the Leninism debate, I'm just going to touch on why calling Lenin a fascist or "right-wing" is retarded.

Why? The fascists were product of the workers' movement, used anti-bourgeois rhetoric, and identified themselves as socialist.The Fascists were not the product of the workers movement, at least not primarily. They gained mass support through the workers movement (via syndicalism) but once in power abandoned it (except as a reformist tool to prevent rebellion) and practiced what is known as state capitalism. And no, they were actually anti-socialist and anti-capitalist. (As I said though, they were "anti-capitalist" in an idealistic sense and due to their petty-bourgeois nature were destined to act as capitalists) You're thinking of the National Socialists (Nazis) who upheld an anti-Marxist, racially-based version of socialism which, in practice, was also state capitalism and also relied (mainly early) on the workers' movement for mass support. The "left-wing" of that movement, led by types like Ernst Röhm and the Strasser Brothers were purged in 1934, the only major figure of the "left-wing" of the NSDAP to survive in a high place was Göbbels who aligned himself fully with Hitler thereafter. The "right-wing" of the NSDAP (Hitler was in this wing) was supported by many bourgeois figures like Fritz Thyssen and didn't take the word "Socialist" in the party's name seriously, whereas the "left-wing" did.

Secondly, how was Lenin "right-wing"? Especially in relation to his enemies (the Tsars, the social-democratic Mensheviks who allied with the Whites in Georgia, the terroristic Social-Revolutionaries, etc. Only one on the list not reactionary was Makhno who was an incompetent leader beyond military affairs and who lacked any real movement among workers in favor of uniting with peasants) who were clearly far, far worse. In this case people like Chávez and Morales must be Hitler-incarnates.

true. lenin did nothing more than create a fascist regime that never let workers take control of production. he created a system that oppressed the people of russia.He managed to unite peasants and proletarians to destroy the aristocracy, the reactionary military, and the reactionary church. He granted autonomy for all nationalities in a new, Soviet Union in 1922 as opposed to the colonial-like system used under the Russian Empire. He fought antisemitism (which the aristocracy loved to use as a scapegoat), etc. If Lenin oppressed Russians, then the equivalent is the Tsar being the worst mass murderer in the universe.

AvanteRedGarde

17th May 2009, 14:27

Lenin wasn't a true leftist, and according to Chomsky, he was in fact a proponent of the utter destruction of socialism, with the interest of the elite in mind (youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI).

Thoughts?

That's great and all but i don't see an alternative to Lenin's mostly correct method. Can you name a revolution which occurred as you would like? Of course not. Your type of revolution is restricted to fantasy. With this in mind, it's easy to call Lenin a rightist or whatever.

Stranger Than Paradise

17th May 2009, 15:20

That's great and all but i don't see an alternative to Lenin's mostly correct method. Can you name a revolution which occurred as you would like? Of course not. Your type of revolution is restricted to fantasy. With this in mind, it's easy to call Lenin a rightist or whatever.

So your saying the USSR model is all we can expect to achieve in a revlution and anyone proposing anything else is being utopian.

NecroCommie

17th May 2009, 15:28

ZeroNowhere

17th May 2009, 15:46

Lenin was a salvation to russian jews, gays, ethnic minorities and poor people. Besides, I have not seen any anarchist society doing such radically progressive steps in their revolutions... Wait, how many anarchist revolutions have actually succeeded?
The Spanish Revolution had far more 'radically progressive steps' to do with socialism, though the bolshie revolution was more "progressive", which is irrelevant to this discussion, as Alexander Hamilton was not exactly a socialist. Also, there haven't been any successful proletarian revolutions, so it would appear that we're all living in a world of fantasy. The difference is that ours is Dunsanian and yours is somewhere out of 'Eragon'.

Makes this any difference for you? You can anyway sleep well in home.That's good to know.

#FF0000

17th May 2009, 16:04

Lenin was a salvation to russian jews, gays, ethnic minorities and poor people. Besides, I have not seen any anarchist society doing such radically progressive steps in their revolutions... Wait, how many anarchist revolutions have actually succeeded?

By now, you should see this response coming, but the Spanish Anarchist communes were pretty radically progressive. :mellow:

SecondLife

17th May 2009, 16:06

The Spanish Revolution had far more 'radically progressive steps' to do with socialism,

Are you sure that this was socialism? If state don't exist anymore, then who prevent me to become capitalist, private owner, owner of means of production or at all mafia godfather. Maybe I have just more weapons, more relations and if you don't like this then I can just kill you.

ZeroNowhere

17th May 2009, 16:15

Are you sure that this was socialism? If state don't exist anymore, then who prevent me to become capitalist, private owner, owner of means of production or at all mafia godfather. Maybe I have just more weapons, more relations and if you don't like this then I can just kill you.
Anarchism 101: 'No ruler' does not mean no rules.
Marxism 101: Without class rule, there is no state. "We shall either have Socialism -- and that means that the State shall have vanished; or we shall preserve the State, and then we shall have no Socialism."

NecroCommie

17th May 2009, 16:18

Stranger Than Paradise

17th May 2009, 17:00

I agree that the anarchist Spain was progressive, if not more so than the USSR, but then again... Where is it now? Besides, as I understand anarchist Spain was not a creation of anarchists alone.

Yes yes, I know that the USSR does not exist anymore either, and that it lost its progressive tendencies at an early age. One must anyways recognize the impressive track record of Marxism-Leninism at getting things done. Not only in history, but in the form of modern parties too.

You cannot judge Anarchism upon the strength of the Spanish Revolution. Which stayed true to libertarian princinples throughout it's existence. I don't see how Marxist-Leninism has got things done, I cannot see any Marxist Leninist states, and when there were they were authoritarian state capitalist regimes.

Pogue

17th May 2009, 17:02

SecondLife

17th May 2009, 18:09

Anarchism 101: 'No ruler' does not mean no rules.

Yes, I know this. I just meant those rules are too weak to prevent to be mafia godfather.

Marxism 101: Without class rule, there is no state.

Why not? In communism there aren't classes at all. Means this that there aren't also state? To grant any kind of social guarantees, to guarantee laws, to guarantee classless society, to plan economy,there must exist bureaucrats who work with documents. And if exist bureaucrats, then exist also state. They aren't also class, because there isn't difference, works human with documents or with hammer, they just work. In USSR there wasn't also classes. All just work and thats all.
Nomenclature isn't also class, because corruption is criminal and criminals can't be class.

NecroCommie

17th May 2009, 18:10

We don't measure the merits of an ideology by what it 'got down', but to what extent its tactics have led to a worker run society.

In this case it is measured, as marxism-leninism and communist anarchism do not differ on goals. Only by the means through which those goals should be achieved. And so far Marxist-Leninist organizations have proven their capability to actively fight for the working class, instead of just waiting for the revolution. Not saying that anarchists could only wait for the revolution.

As to what ideologies eventually lead to communism: I'd say that considering the nature of class war, we need democratic centralism and perhaps even vanguard parties. In a political vacuum almost any communist ideology has a chance of creating communism world wide, but since we dont live in a political vacuum...

Stranger Than Paradise

17th May 2009, 19:07

Well this should descend into Anarchists Vs. Leninists in no time.

Ismail

17th May 2009, 20:31

Well this should descend into Anarchists Vs. Leninists in no time.How is it not already? The very first post is an anarchist criticizing Lenin. The entire thread is literally Anarchism vs. Leninism, or rather such a debate only (some of) the anarchists got hit in the head with something and started comparing Lenin to Hitler.

NecroCommie

17th May 2009, 21:15

I can understand if someone critizises Leninism to be too authoritarian, or if its too statist. But to suggest it is right-wing deviation is madness!

Revy

17th May 2009, 21:30

If there is any ideology that is worthy of the title of "right-wing, totalitarian deviation" it is Stalinism, not Leninism in general.

Stalin engaged in hideously conservative policies, making homosexuality illegal for the first time since the Revolution, banning abortion, co-opting the Orthodox Church, increasing the bureaucracy and crushing any kind of workers' democracy.

so yeah....Stalinism is the real "Revisionism".

Agrippa

17th May 2009, 22:24

Yeah, calling Leninism "right-wing" is really off-base. It seems like an attempt to white-wash the history of "left-wing" movements.

ZeroNowhere

18th May 2009, 02:16

You cannot judge Anarchism upon the strength of the Spanish Revolution. Which stayed true to libertarian princinples throughout it's existence. I don't see how Marxist-Leninism has got things done, I cannot see any Marxist Leninist states, and when there were they were authoritarian state capitalist regimes.
It most certainly did get 'things' done.

Yes, I know this. I just meant those rules are too weak to prevent to be mafia godfather.
Who says we want to prevent the mafia godfather?
Anyways, I see no argument for why this is true. All that I do see so far is the assertion that a load of bureaucrats are necessary to stop people from getting taken over by a mafia godfather or working for a capitalist (hey guys, I've got an idea, let's work for a capitalist! This makes perfect sense!), and these bureaucrats will be nice enough not to kill people that disagree with them due to the fact that they presumably would have a monopoly on force.

In USSR there wasn't also classes.
In the same way that the US is 'classless', no doubt.

Why not? In communism there aren't classes at all. Means this that there aren't also state?
The 'state' is an agent of class rule. No class rule = No state.

To grant any kind of social guarantees, to guarantee laws, to guarantee classless society, to plan economy,there must exist bureaucrats who work with documents.
Why must there be bureaucrats to guarantee laws, again? Why can't the economy be planned democratically? And, again, why are they necessary to guarantee classless society?

Well this should descend into Anarchists Vs. Leninists in no time.
You're late.

SecondLife

18th May 2009, 07:50

In the same way that the US is 'classless', no doubt.

No, USA isn't classless, because private owners get profit. There is two classes - workers and private owners.

The 'state' is an agent of class rule.

I don't believe this. Prove it.

Why must there be bureaucrats to guarantee laws, again?

Because someone must work with documents. Because otherwise nobody even don't remembe what kind of laws workers council adopt.
If you example work in shop, then you haven't time for other job. And people usually call workers who work with documents and are public servant, bureaucrats.

Why can't the economy be planned democratically?

Where are you live? Now is year 2009. Because to make economic decisions, for this is needed highly specialized education. Not every worker can make those decisions. And if every single economic decision we become acknowledge in public meeting, then we never end this meeting.

benhur

18th May 2009, 15:37

Pogue

18th May 2009, 15:51

Not all workers are going to attain class consciousness at the exact same time. There will always be differences in intelligence, perception etc. There will always be bad apples spoiling the whole thing for other workers. So if we wait for ALL workers to become class conscious, then we'll have to wait forever. The revolution will be a dream, not a reality at any point in time.

Which means, workers control of MoP doesn't mean all workers will control MoP. This is due to three reasons: First, not all of them are going to be socialists at the exact same thing; that's impossible. Second, if everyone is in control, if a vast majority is in control, that can only breed mismanagement and its consequent chaos; decisions will never be made, everything will be delayed. Finally, working class is not some homogeneous entity. Some of them are efficient and have management skills, whereas others don't. Only the former is qualified for such a big task as running the economy or exercising political control.

Therefore, the most capable and class conscious segment of the working class must take control of MoP and guide other workers. That's the logical thing to do (and which Lenin did) unless one believes in miracles such as millions of workers becoming class conscious ALL AT ONCE, or that ALL workers have the exact same capability, vision, and so on.

Conclusion: Lenin was the greatest revolutionary to have ever lived.

Who decides who is the most capable segment? Who determines who is the most class conciouss?

Here we oncemore see the arogant Leninist assunption that somehow, due to some blessing from the revolution, or from Marx themselves, they are the ones to lead the working class. What gives them that right?

Why should some self-proclaimed 'revolutionaries' control thing following a revolution carried out by the class as a whole? Why should I not be able to run, along with my comrades in a democratic strucutre, my workplace? What right do the vanguard have over my life? Here you see the beginnings of the new class - the state class, the buerecrat class, the party class. And here you see you Lenin's emerge, your Trotskys, your Stalin's and Mao's. The top of the party - the 'pinnacle of class conciousness'.

Workers develop their conciousness and vision through struggle, not being indoctrinated by the vanguard. If you take power from them and give it to the vanguard or state you kill socialism and the revolution, as Lenin did. This is what you want to do and it completely betrays socialism and Marxism, as well as betraying the people. Hence, it is a right wing deviation from the idea of workers control.

Its the logical thing to do if you want to replace one ruling class with another. Its not at all logical if you desire socialism and freedom. Lenin corrupted socialism and the consequences of it were the USSR.

Conclusion: Lenin was the greatest revolutionary to have ever lived.

Why? He was in exile for most of the revolution. He came home, gave one good speech and criticised alot of people, wrote a good thesis and that was it. He was not the greatest revolutionary - there we go again, the cult of Lenin, Lenin worship, putting one man before the people who made the revolution - the people. He spent most of his time in exile.

Sure he was clearly an intelligent man and a skilled statesman and politician, but so were many people throughout history. Doesn't make them revolutionary. He hijacked a popular revolution and killed its spirit under the giuse of reinvigorating it, and thus we got what we got - the USSR, in all its state-capitalist glory.

AvanteRedGarde

18th May 2009, 16:18

Stranger Than Paradise

18th May 2009, 16:21

Anarchism has never gotten anything done. Marxism Leninism has in fact been a spearheading ideology for revolutions.

If real revolutions have never lived up to one's ideals, perhaps one is simply too idealistic.

We are too idealistic for wishing for a true communist revolution? Not ones that are bureaucratic, authoritarian and the antithesis of communism itself.

Pogue

18th May 2009, 16:37

Anarchism has never gotten anything done. Marxism Leninism has in fact been a spearheading ideology for revolutions.

If real revolutions have never lived up to one's ideals, perhaps one is simply too idealistic.

If anything Anarchism is a right-wing ideology since it has always led to dead ends.

And look where those 'revolutions' have ended up. The working class struggles, the Marx-Leninists take over, they create a state such as:

DPRK
East Germany
USSR PR China
Cuba

etc etc.

This state brutally represses a few people and puts other revolutions down in other parts of the world.

The funny thing is how you guys say 'anarchism hasn't done anything'. Maybe thats because anarchism isn't an entity like Marx-Leninists and their precious leaders and ideas they worship ad nauseum. The people make revolutions - the people 'get things done', like in Spain. Not 'anarchism'. The only things Marx-Leninism has got done are authoritarian state capitalist regimes which have turned counter-revolutionary.

It hasn't been the spreadheading ideology for revolutions, its been the sprearheading ideology for anti-democratic 'leaders' who create pseduo-revolutions as elaborate coups.

Wait, so I'm too idealistic because the USSR didn't live up to my ideals? I think I'll stay idealistic, and so I don't get executed for being idealistic by the next Marx-Leninist's state secret police.

I don't see a) How anarchism has led to dead ends
b) Marx-Leninism has succeeded anywhere (I don't see communism or revolutionary societies anywhere in the world at the moment)
c) How 'leading to a dead end', or 'not succeeding' makes your ideology right wing.

When we refer to Leninism as right wing, as in the context of the Chomsky video, we mean the right wing of the socialist movement. And it certainly was, by all accounts. It emphasis a strong full time state of beurecrats and politicians, state control of industry, a vanguard led revolution, etc. It's clearly left of centre in its demands but its on the right of the socialist movement. Anarchism is clearly on the left and saying it is right wing generally is absurd and baseless. Its clearly far-left in its aims, practice and goals.

Communist Theory

18th May 2009, 16:39

Fail
http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Quentin_Massys/ugly.jpeg
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
This is what I think of this thread.
:thumbdown:

Wanted Man

18th May 2009, 16:44

Without getting stuck in the age-old argument, I think Chomsky really dropped the ball when he said that the restoration of capitalism in the former eastern bloc was "a small victory for socialism". That kind of statement takes a special amount of estrangement from the real world.

Omi

18th May 2009, 16:50

You cannot judge Anarchism upon the strength of the Spanish Revolution. Which stayed true to libertarian princinples throughout it's existence. I don't see how Marxist-Leninism has got things done, I cannot see any Marxist Leninist states, and when there were they were authoritarian state capitalist regimes.

This is simply not true, as the CNT-FAI went into government. They participated in the state! That is not libertarian in any way possible.
Dont get me wrong, I am an anarchist too, but idolizing things while not recognizing their mistakes is the same thing zealous Leninists do with the USSR. They hide behind non-arguements like "well, this or that decision which prevented workers power was neccesary", or "Yeah he made mistakes but he did good things too." or even "That is bourgois propaganda you foul petty bourgois reactionary imperialist pigdog!"
We should try to avoid that, even when people post foolish garbage like "Anarchism never did anything for a revolution." Just because the Bosheviks hijacked the popular struggle in Russia doesn't mean they have a superior ideology of some sort.

Furthermore, Lenin is a right wing deviation of Marxism, because it stands in contrast with...... The marxist left! It should be understood that ring wing deviation in this sense does not mean that it is a right wing ideology, together with neo-liberalism, conservatism and fascism, no. It is right wing compared to lets say council communism, anarchism, or..... Left communism! You know why this is called so? Because there is also right communism, but they tend to cleverly disguise behind names of certain revolutionairies, so they can say they achieved something. You know why people say marxist-leninism achieved anything? Because Lenin did certain things in History. They achieved nothing but shit when you compare their actions with actual worker control over the means of production, but they did achieve to build a big empire large enough to contest the USA, and failed. That is why Leninists try to tell us they achieved anything. They did, but it had nothing to do with communism or even socialism for that matter. They didn't have a workers revolution, they had a coup that turned out into an opressive imperialist state.
Wow, Leninism 1, anarchism 0, wouldn't you think?:rolleyes:

AvanteRedGarde

18th May 2009, 16:58

We are too idealistic for wishing for a true communist revolution? Not ones that are bureaucratic, authoritarian and the antithesis of communism itself.

History does not progress at once. If that social and material forces for communism/anarchism are not there, they're not there.

Moreover, any revolutionary advancements on the part of oppressed peoples will be met with reaction. This will naturally produce a centralization of power, discipline etc amongst the revolutionary forces if it is too survive. It is infantile to expect anything different immediately after a revolution.

And that is why an "anarchist revolution" has so far been a myth.

Stranger Than Paradise

18th May 2009, 17:02

History does not progress at once. If that social and material forces for communism/anarchism are not there, they're not there.

Moreover, any revolutionary advancements on the part of oppressed peoples will be met with reaction. This will naturally produce a centralization of power, discipline etc amongst the revolutionary forces if it is too survive. It is infantile to expect anything different immediately after a revolution.

And that is why an "anarchist revolution" has so far been a myth.

That is not what I expect I am saying that the USSR is not the way we need to organise after a revolution... We need to progress towards our goal, doing things that will be completely antithetical to our goal post-revolution is idiotic.

AvanteRedGarde

18th May 2009, 17:23

And look where those 'revolutions' have ended up. The working class struggles, the Marx-Leninists take over, they create a state such as:

DPRK
Which was invaded by the U.S. during the course of its revolution

East Germany
Which prior to their 'revolution' was a fascist body waging war upon oppressed people, going to far as to systematical kill people, rely on forced labor, expropriating land from other nations (where do we see this precedent? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lost on Hitler.)

USSR
Went from a feudalistic monarchy to state-capitalism in a manner of a years. Even into the 60-and 70's, it still provided better basic welfare to the lowest members of its society than America treated its.

PR China
Ended foot-binding, arranged marriages, dowries and the de-facto ensalvement of bride to her husbands family as its first official act while in power. The second act was redistributing the land to those who tilled it.

Cuba
Arguably has a better health care sytem than America, high levels of literacy, today relies mainly on organic farming. Also sends doctors abroad. Like all the other countries, it has been subject of constant attacks and harasment from imperialism (include it's 'left')

etc etc.

This state brutally represses a few people and puts other revolutions down in other parts of the world.

Um... For decades the AK47 was a symbol and tool of revolutionary war. The USSR was the only country to give aid to Republican Spain. Cuba has trained and housed countless foreign revolutionaries.

The funny thing is how you guys say 'anarchism hasn't done anything'.

Well, what has it done. How has anarchism directly changed peoples lives or led to sucesses over the course of class struggle?

Maybe thats because anarchism isn't an entity like Marx-Leninists and their precious leaders and ideas they worship ad nauseum.

Oh, I get it. Since Anarchism is whatever to whoever, its not subject to criticism on whether or not it is a sucessful or even useful tools for class struggle today. That make so much sense.

The people make revolutions - the people 'get things done', like in Spain. Not 'anarchism'.

The forces of fascism won in Spain.

Wait, so I'm too idealistic because the USSR didn't live up to my ideals? I think I'll stay idealistic, and so I don't get executed for being idealistic by the next Marx-Leninist's state secret police.

Anarchism truley is a loser's mentality

I don't see a) How anarchism has led to dead ends
b) Marx-Leninism has succeeded anywhere (I don't see communism or
revolutionary societies anywhere in the world at the moment)

Marxism-Leninism never claimed that all contradiction would dissolve overnight. Additionally, social expereicne has given Marxism Leninism new insight into how revolutionary societies operate and how they can be defeated from within. What insight has been gained by anarchist revolutions?

c) How 'leading to a dead end', or 'not succeeding' makes your ideology right wing.

If you are simply reenforced and modifying the current status quo how is it not right wing?

When we refer to Leninism as right wing, as in the context of the Chomsky video, we mean the right wing of the socialist movement. And it certainly was, by all accounts.

Chomsky's an overrated social-dem.

It emphasis a strong full time state of beurecrats and politicians, state control of industry, a vanguard led revolution, etc. It's clearly left of centre in its demands but its on the right of the socialist movement. Anarchism is clearly on the left and saying it is right wing generally is absurd and baseless. Its clearly far-left in its aims, practice and goals.

This is all speculation and obfuscation. Lenin was on the wimming side of revolution. Due to preexisting conditions, his political and organization line was more succesfull. Anarchism, as I have said, is idealistic and does not fit with existing conditions.

Omi

18th May 2009, 17:26

History does not progress at once. If that social and material forces for communism/anarchism are not there, they're not there.

Yeah, like a relatively big proletariat, which Russia didn't have. Did Lenin give a fuck?:rolleyes: No, Anarchists understand this statement, and act on it. Leninists don't, thats why they resort to opressing the "counter revolutionairy elements".

Moreover, any revolutionary advancements on the part of oppressed peoples will be met with reaction. This will naturally produce a centralization of power, discipline etc amongst the revolutionary forces if it is too survive. It is infantile to expect anything different immediately after a revolution.

This is only so when one resorts to nationalist revolutions, not internationalist ones. Things don't naturally lead into a centralization of power, just as things don't lead into capitalism once it is abolished.

And that is why an "anarchist revolution" has so far been a myth.

Yeah, just like worker control and communism. What is your point?

You know how you Leninists always talk about revolutions like you do? Because you take 1917 as an example, and that was a coup. You talk about gaining state power, defending the revolutionairy forces etc etc, as if you are talking about a patriotist war. You are talking about taking power and shutting down dissent in a nation state. That is a military coup, nothing else, and is by no means a workers revolution.

Stranger Than Paradise

18th May 2009, 17:26

Anarchism truley is a loser's mentality

Very mature....

Chomsky's an overrated social-dem.

No, he isn't. He is an Anarchist.

This is all speculation and obfuscation. Lenin was on the wimming side of revolution. Due to preexisting conditions, his political and organization line was more succesfull. Anarchism, as I have said, is idealistic and does not fit with existing conditions.

But this 'revolution' was not a true workers revolution. It took power out of workers hands and put it in the hands of bureaucrats.

Pogue

18th May 2009, 17:40

Which was invaded by the U.S. during the course of its revolution

Never had workers control.

Which prior to their 'revolution' was a fascist body waging war upon oppressed people, going to far as to systematical kill people, rely on forced labor, expropriating land from other nations (where do we see this precedent? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lost on Hitler.)

Never had workers control.

Went from a feudalistic monarchy to state-capitalism in a manner of a years. Even into the 60-and 70's, it still provided better basic welfare to the lowest members of its society than America treated its.

Workers lost control when Lenin rose to power.

Ended foot-binding, arranged marriages, dowries and the de-facto ensalvement of bride to her husbands family as its first official act while in power. The second act was redistributing the land to those who tilled it.

No workers control.

Arguably has a better health care sytem than America, high levels of literacy, today relies mainly on organic farming. Also sends doctors abroad. Like all the other countries, it has been subject of constant attacks and harasment from imperialism (include it's 'left')

etc etc.

No workers control.

Um... For decades the AK47 was a symbol and tool of revolutionary war. The USSR was the only country to give aid to Republican Spain. Cuba has trained and housed countless foreign revolutionaries.

Do some history. Mexico aided the Republic too. The USSR also carried out a counter-revolution and killed revolutionaries in Spain.

Well, what has it done. How has anarchism directly changed peoples lives or led to sucesses over the course of class struggle?

'It' done? Anarchism isn't an arogant omnipotent political force like Marx-Leninism. Its an practice. Wherever workers take control themselves in a free, socialist manner, thats anarchism. It doesn't 'do' anything to workers the same way Marx-Leninism kills them, robs them of their unions or sends them to forced labour camps because its the workers themselves, which you don't seem to be able to realise.

Oh, I get it. Since Anarchism is whatever to whoever, its not subject to criticism on whether or not it is a sucessful or even useful tools for class struggle today. That make so much sense.

Idiotic ramblings. I never said that, you did. Stop trying to set up strawmen.

The forces of fascism won in Spain.

I know alot more about Spain than you. There was still a revolution in Spain. Like every workers revolution in history it was defeated, but it was the most genuine revolution to ever happen.

Anarchism truley is a loser's mentality

What a convincing argument.

Marxism-Leninism never claimed that all contradiction would dissolve overnight. Additionally, social expereicne has given Marxism Leninism new insight into how revolutionary societies operate and how they can be defeated from within. What insight has been gained by anarchist revolutions?

The only experience 'revolutions' hijacked or started by Marx-Leninists have given us is the safe knowledge that Marx-Leninism is contrary to the interests of the working class.

If you are simply reenforced and modifying the current status quo how is it not right wing?

You completely made this up. Why would I respond to an argument you literally plucked out of the air? How can a political ideology which opposes the state and capitalism in favour of a society run collectively and democraticlaly ever be right wing? Your arguments here are nearly as bad as your drivvle about first world workers being exploiters. You could do with lessons in how to write less shit.

Chomsky's an overrated social-dem.

Since when did social democrats call for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class and the establishment of a classless, stateless society? Jesus, your ignorance is astounding.

This is all speculation and obfuscation. Lenin was on the wimming side of revolution. Due to preexisting conditions, his political and organization line was more succesfull. Anarchism, as I have said, is idealistic and does not fit with existing conditions.

Lenin clearly failed with his right wing, anti-democratic tactics. 'Anarchism is idealistic' is one we've heard many times from desperate cases like you who, after writing a page of unsubstantiated bullshit, feel a need to deliver some coup de grace with a meaningless statement procured from their arse. In summary, you talk shit.

NecroCommie

18th May 2009, 18:56

But this 'revolution' was not a true workers revolution. It took power out of workers hands and put it in the hands of bureaucrats.

Yeah, thats what the bolsheviks were all about. A vile plot to use communism as a scapegoat to rule russia, and eventually take over the entire world from their secret volcano lair.

More seriously: Bakunin: I know you are not a crazy conspiracy geek, so would you dare to elaborate this point more thoroughly. Do you really see us M-Leninists as some dominating masterminds, or is it some exact point of theory that flaws our ideology? Or what?

benhur

18th May 2009, 19:44

Never had workers control.

Never had workers control.

Workers lost control when Lenin rose to power.

No workers control.

No workers control.

What do you mean by workers control? If the party representing the workers controls MoP, then workers control it is. Or, do you believe that 40m or 100m workers (or whatever the number) would 'control' MoP together, in which case how will authority be shared amongst such huge numbers? What about devolution of powers? Who's gonna be the decision-maker and why? Who's gonna set production targets and based on what? Who will lead and who will follow when a huge number takes control of MoP? Or, if they all have equal power, how will decisions ever be made when everybody might well have different ideas on the same issue?

Pogue

18th May 2009, 20:02

What do you mean by workers control? If the party representing the workers controls MoP, then workers control it is. Or, do you believe that 40m or 100m workers (or whatever the number) would 'control' MoP together, in which case how will authority be shared amongst such huge numbers? What about devolution of powers? Who's gonna be the decision-maker and why? Who's gonna set production targets and based on what? Who will lead and who will follow when a huge number takes control of MoP? Or, if they all have equal power, how will decisions ever be made when everybody might well have different ideas on the same issue?

Its called communism, genius. You know, factory workers councils and the like? The goal of the socialist movement?

If the party that 'represents' the workers control the means of production, the party controls the means of production, not the workers. Your parroting typical Orwellian propoganda - the workers are in power, because its a workers state! Utter rubbish, only if the workers are deciding through direct democracy in workers councils are they controlling the means of production.

Omi

18th May 2009, 20:02

Ever heard of direct democracy? It's some stupid sectarian thingy we anarchists base our middle-class lifestyle on, you know, to impress girls and piss off teachers...

Oh yeah and you can run production on that method aswell, almost forgot!

NecroCommie

18th May 2009, 20:15

Well now that we are being so smart asses, why dont we look at what M-Leninism is. We believe, that if you try to impose communism immediately upon the revolution, the capitalists and imperialists of foreign lands come and force the laws of capital upon the newly freed populace. In order to fight this post-revolution imperialism we need to organize and unite! Only then we stand a chance against vile imperialist scum.

It is because of this post-revolution class war that the anarchist spain and USSR dont exist anymore.

Omi

18th May 2009, 20:23

Pogue

18th May 2009, 20:33

Sure, we need to defend ourselves, but we don't need representatives or a state to do that, for such a system is mroe of a threat to the revolution than any external capitalist aggression.

NecroCommie

18th May 2009, 20:38

First of all, you can not "impose" any kind of economic system "on a revolution". This shows a lack in fundamental understanding of how revolutions, not coups, revolutions, occur.

Secondly, Anarchist spain didn't fall because of post-revolution imperialism, it fell because it was created in the midst of a civil war, and was backstabbed by every conceivable "ally" except the POUM and a number of left communist groups.

You know perfectly well that I use a different definition of revolution.

Sure, we need to defend ourselves, but we don't need representatives or a state to do that, for such a system is mroe of a threat to the revolution than any external capitalist aggression.

Well, here we disagree, and here it becomes a matter of oppinion/educated guess. I'd say that we need a wide organization to defend ourselves. Not a state, but then again, your definition of state differs from mine so...

Stranger Than Paradise

18th May 2009, 21:23

Yeah, thats what the bolsheviks were all about. A vile plot to use communism as a scapegoat to rule russia, and eventually take over the entire world from their secret volcano lair.

More seriously: Bakunin: I know you are not a crazy conspiracy geek, so would you dare to elaborate this point more thoroughly. Do you really see us M-Leninists as some dominating masterminds, or is it some exact point of theory that flaws our ideology? Or what?

No Necro, I don't have a dislike for Marxist Leninists. I don't like the idea of a Vanguard party that's it.... Also I am sure Lenin, at one point may have had good intentions but what happened in Russia is no example of Communism as some have been trying to say.

Omi

18th May 2009, 21:29

You know perfectly well that I use a different definition of revolution.

What is your definition of revolution and where does it differ from mine?

NecroCommie

19th May 2009, 11:45

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revolution
Whether it is a working class revolution is a totally different topic. You see something as a revolution if it abolishes state immediately... Or?

Omi

19th May 2009, 18:05

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revolution
Whether it is a working class revolution is a totally different topic. You see something as a revolution if it abolishes state immediately... Or?

Wikipedia links and suggestive counter questions, good job there. You made the claim our definitions differ, you are supposed to back it up. And you can't, clearly. Now that is out of the way, we can have a pint and actually have an educated conversation on what Leninism is. Without the "your revolutions are diffrent from ours" and "you Anarchists didn't achive anything" bullcrap.

Thank's in advance.:wub:

NecroCommie

19th May 2009, 19:30

Well we must have different definitions of revolution, since I define the october revolution as revolution, yet I remember you saying it was more of a coup. Besides, wiktionary is accurate enough for this purpose I would say.

I did not say that anarchists did not achieve anything. I actually think that it would be cool if anarchists still achieve something big, which they propably do. My problem is with keeping those achievments alive. A task in which I think we need democratic centralism and vanguards. D-Cism and Vanguards also should make achieving revolution easier, which is a bonus.

mykittyhasaboner

19th May 2009, 20:00

I think this whole thread is a load of bollocks, and of course has turned into a kind of mob court for accusing "Leninism" of this and that; as well as Anarchism vs 'Leninism' debate number 34563928. "Leninism" was "to the left" of every other tendency in Russia at the time (or at least the tendencies that had a chance at power).

There is nothing to suggest that the Bolsheviks, nor Lenin, were guided by some "right-wing, totalitarian deviation", except for Chomsky's pitiful criticism of the Soviet Union. Try reading more than Chomsky before coming to this conclusion.

Pogue

19th May 2009, 20:10

mykittyhasaboner

19th May 2009, 20:33

They said that they were left wing, promised left wing things, then went further to the right than anyone who has ever called themselves a socialist before. Bolshevism is a right wing deviation from the socialist movement, as Chomsky said.

What a specific and well thought out argument: "they said they were this, they promised that, but they went to the right instead. So they must be a right-wing deviation!!"

HLVS, if you want to debate then please do so by actually trying. Don't just reply with the first thing that comes to your mind, and expect to get anywhere; that is if your not even going to challenge yourself to build an argument based on your research of the topic. I'm not interested in any petty finger pointing and vague claims like "they did this and were that, but were just liars". That is what your argument amounts to, and is unconvicing.

The Bolsheviks were the only party calling for the unconditional overthrow of bourgeois rule. Its so common to find anarchists supporting the February revolution, saying thins like:

Workers lost control when Lenin rose to power.This is probably the thinest piece of crap argument ever! How in the world can you come to a conclusion, that the government instituted as a result of the February revolution qualifies as a worker's government! What limited worker's council's and political representation that worker's had, was ultimately useless and futile when you have a bourgeois republic tied to imperialism. Worker's ownership and control would come with the October revolution, but not surprisngly you think otherwise. Of course you'll bring out the usual accusations of "state-capitalism" and how worker's didn't have control; but really all this is substantiated on what? Your word?

"State-capitalism" in essence, really isn't capitalism at all. If you equate capitalism with commodity production and market mechanisms, than your just incorrect. Capitalism, historically, requires private ownership of the means of production: in the USSR there was no private onwership (when overlooking all of the property that had been, so far, apporpriated by the worker's state) besides small scale cooperative farms during the NEP. After the NEP, private onwership lost all role in economic production, and the cooperation between the working class and peasants developed along primarily publicly, and cooperatively owned enterprises. Any kind of "capitalism" that was practiced from the October revolution, till the end of the NEP was due to the backwardness and petit-bourgeois nature of the Russian (mostly peasant based) economy, and was controlled and wielded by the working class and peasants in cooperation towards developing their economy; not fattening the pockets of capitalist owners and investors. This is how socialist Russia developed, from an emerging "capitalist" economy, under the control of the worker's and peasant's state.

Pogue

19th May 2009, 20:51

What a specific and well thought out argument: "they said they were this, they promised that, but they went to the right instead. So they must be a right-wing deviation!!"

HLVS, if you want to debate then please do so by actually trying. Don't just reply with the first thing that comes to your mind, and expect to get anywhere; that is if your not even going to challenge yourself to build an argument based on your research of the topic. I'm not interested in any petty finger pointing and vague claims like "they did this and were that, but were just liars". That is what your argument amounts to, and is unconvicing.

The Bolsheviks were the only party calling for the unconditional overthrow of bourgeois rule. Its so common to find anarchists supporting the February revolution, saying thins like:

I don't think anyone is denying the Bolsheviks were on the right of the Socialist movement. They represented an emphasis on a small vanguard not seen before, and their ideas on the state were not in line with the mainstream of the movement, which was, as I said, further to the left. As I said, yes, they called for left wing things, such as 'All power to the soviets' and an end to the war. And yes, they did end the war. But they didn't give power to the soviets, they gave it to the state. They claimed to be more left wing than everyone else, but didn't act this way, instead acting in a manner alien to the left wing socialists in Germany, and elsewhere.

This is probably the thinest piece of crap argument ever! How in the world can you come to a conclusion, that the government instituted as a result of the February revolution qualifies as a worker's government! What limited worker's council's and political representation that worker's had, was ultimately useless and futile when you have a bourgeois republic tied to imperialism. Worker's ownership and control would come with the October revolution, but not surprisngly you think otherwise. Of course you'll bring out the usual accusations of "state-capitalism" and how worker's didn't have control; but really all this is substantiated on what? Your word?

"State-capitalism" in essence, really isn't capitalism at all. If you equate capitalism with commodity production and market mechanisms, than your just incorrect. Capitalism, historically, requires private ownership of the means of production: in the USSR there was no private onwership (when overlooking all of the property that had been, so far, apporpriated by the worker's state) besides small scale cooperative farms during the NEP. After the NEP, private onwership lost all role in economic production, and the cooperation between the working class and peasants developed along primarily publicly, and cooperatively owned enterprises. Any kind of "capitalism" that was practiced from the October revolution, till the end of the NEP was due to the backwardness and petit-bourgeois nature of the Russian (mostly peasant based) economy, and was controlled and wielded by the working class and peasants in cooperation towards developing their economy; not fattening the pockets of capitalist owners and investors. This is how socialist Russia developed, from an emerging "capitalist" economy, under the control of the worker's and peasant's state.

The last part is simply false. The state controlled everything and paid wages. Thats why it was state capitalism. It's well documented how Lenin made moves to take control of workplaces out of the hands of workers councils and into the hand of state representatives, under the guise of it being a 'workers state'. It was Lenin's state, not the worker's state.

mykittyhasaboner

19th May 2009, 21:11

I see your still sticking to your usual style of debating, pity.

I don't think anyone is denying the Bolsheviks were on the right of the Bolshevik movement.
Is this a typo? Because I don't know what your trying to say.

They represented an emphasis on a small vanguard not seen before, and their ideas on the state were not in line with the mainstream of the movement, which was, as I said, further to the left.And how exactly where the SR's, Left SR's, Menesheviks, Kadets, etc to the left of the Bolsheviks?

As I said, yes, they called for left wing things, such as 'All power to the soviets' and an end to the war. And yes, they did end the war. But they didn't give power to the soviets, they gave it to the state. They claimed to be more left wing than everyone else, but didn't act this way, instead acting in a manner alien to the left wing socialists in Germany, and elsewhere.Yeah, those socialists who were crushed; being the main point of why a centralized state is needed to defend a worker's state, as well as to develop a society (like Russia) in order to develop socialism. Direct worker's control was possible in Germany, (maybe even in the Hungarian soviet republic, though more so in Germany) because their economic development was past such primitive methods as practiced in Russia. To apply such decentralized worker' control as you idealistically advocate would have mean certain doom for the worker's movement in Russia, as the material conditions for it simply didn't exist; for fucks sake Russia was still working on primitive capital accumulation. Based on these conditions, the degree of worker's control and ownership was grand and significant, especially since it was the first seizure of power by the working class.

I think you simply expect to much by not looking at what was practical and realistically doable in Russia at the time.

The last part is simply false. The state controlled everything and paid wages. Thats why it was state capitalism. It's well documented how Lenin made moves to take control of workplaces out of the hands of workers councils and into the hand of state representatives, under the guise of it being a 'workers state'. It was Lenin's state, not the worker's state.If it's so well documented, why have you not taken the liberty of posting some of this documentation?

Pogue

19th May 2009, 21:36

I see your still sticking to your usual style of debating, pity.

By now I have worked this out to represent the whinging of Leninists when someone challenges their views, and so will treat it as such. You don't like being proven wrong, essentially.

Is this a typo? Because I don't know what your trying to say.

yeh sorry, should read 'Socialist movement' not 'Bolshevik movement'.

And how exactly where the SR's, Left SR's, Menesheviks, Kadets, etc to the left of the Bolsheviks?

I said movement. I mean socialist movement, which was worldwide. The Bolsheviks had the most left wing rhetoric in Russia, sure, but they didn't implement it. This is what Chomsky is saying too - Bolshevism represented the right wing of the socialist movement because, whilst talking of the same things, i.e. communism, internationalism, etc, it a vanguard party to lead the revolution into a state. I'd say the Mensheviks and SR were social democrats, reformists at this ponit, so not part of the socialist movement.

Yeah, those socialists who were crushed; being the main point of why a centralized state is needed to defend a worker's state, as well as to develop a society (like Russia) in order to develop socialism. Direct worker's control was possible in Germany, (maybe even in the Hungarian soviet republic, though more so in Germany) because their economic development was past such primitive methods as practiced in Russia. To apply such decentralized worker' control as you idealistically advocate would have mean certain doom for the worker's movement in Russia, as the material conditions for it simply didn't exist; for fucks sake Russia was still working on primitive capital accumulation. Based on these conditions, the degree of worker's control and ownership was grand and significant, especially since it was the first seizure of power by the working class.

Yeh, those socialists were crushed, but they were still socialists. The difference is the workers were crushed by those who called themselves the bourgeois in Germany, in Russia they were crushed by the people who called themselves 'socialists', i.e. Lenin and Trotsky.

A centralised workers state can defend a new regime, certainly, but it can't defend socialism, because if its a centralised state like Russia, its not socialism. At best its social democracy being implemented by a party dictatorship. What authoritarian socialists such as yourself believe is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks could have taken power on behalf of the working class and then implemented socialism on the workers. This Neo-Blanquist approach ignores Marx's writings and the fundamental tenant of socialism - i.e. the workers doing it themselves. Sure, the centralised state could defend the new state in Russia, but in doing so it destroys socialism by sucking it of its lifeblood. Sometimes you have to guard against counter-revolution from within too.

What your basically saying to me is that because Russia had certain conditions, it was impossible for socialism to work. I'd disagree with that - there'd be problems which would have needed to be tackled, certainly, but that is no excuse for Lenin's barbaric stifling of socialism and democracy. Lenin used a centralised state to carry out a bourgeois revolution in Russia, which industrialised it and developed it but didn't put the workers in control. I think such measures were unnecesary and futile. Workers control could have remained alongside developement, and anything other would basically make Lenin the new bourgeois leader of an authoritarian capitalist country, which is what the USSR became. Undoubtedly industrilisation and developement needed to happen, but Lenin made it happen by using an iron fist, thus making Russia no different from any other country in the world at the time. In his attempts to protect the 'workers state' against capitalism he completely snuffed out any socialism that existed in Russia.

I think you simply expect to much by not looking at what was practical and realistically doable in Russia at the time.

I think I have a right to have expected workers control following what was supposedly a workers revolution. As I said, the assumption that it was neccesary for Lenin to take power on behalf of the working class is an anti-socialist one, and if you hold it I'd certainly question your attitudes towards how socialism will be organised!

If it's so well documented, why have you not taken the liberty of posting some of this documentation?

The Russian Constituent Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly) was shut down during its first session 19 January and the Bolsheviks in alliance with the left Socialist Revolutionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party) then relied on support from the soviets. The Bolsheviks had formed a coalition government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government) with the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries. However, their coalition collapsed after the Social Revolutionaries opposed the Brest-Litovsk treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest-Litovsk_treaty), and joined other parties in seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government. Lenin responded by a policy of wholesale persecution, which included jailing some of the members of the opposing parties.
From early 1918, Lenin campaigned for putting a single individual, accountable to the state, in charge of each enterprise. Workers could ask the state for measures, but would have to obey this individual until this was changed by the state. This was contrary to most conceptions of workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), but essential for efficiency and expertise, according to Lenin. Most proponents of self-management argued that this move was intended to strengthen state control over labour, and that the failures of self-management were mostly due to lack of resources — a problem the government could not solve, as proved by Lenin's licensing for a month of all workers of most factories. As S.A. Smith wrote: “By the end of the civil war, not much was left of the democratic forms of industrial administration promoted by the factory committees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_committees) in 1917, but the government argued that this did not matter since industry had passed into the ownership of a workers’ state.”

mykittyhasaboner

19th May 2009, 22:10

By now I have worked this out to represent the whinging of Leninists when someone challenges their views, and so will treat it as such. You don't like being proven wrong, essentially.
You haven't done any proving; and by all means prove me wrong! I want to discuss others' perspectives on historical situations, especially one as trivial and controversial as the October revolution. It's just a shame when you reduce your argument to "the state controlled everything and paid wages, so it was state capitalist", (ecause that does not necessitate bourgeois capitalism, first; and second because it does nothing but spread an unsubstantiated claim.

I said movement. I mean socialist movement, which was worldwide.OK, but what does the world wide opinion have to do with this? A communist from the US in 1917 wouldn't know how the Russian economy should be developed so that socialism can be established, same with German left-communists. Each country has different conditions; something which is greatly ignored by proponents of a simultaneous global revolution or otherwise opponents of socialist development in Russia. Would Bolshevism had been the right formula to apply to Germany in 1917, absolutely not. The same goes for the other way around.

The Bolsheviks had the most left wing rhetoric in Russia, sure, but they didn't implement it. The October Revolution set forth the most "left-wing" path of development, anywhere in the world at the time.

This is what Chomsky is saying too - Bolshevism represented the right wing of the socialist movement because, whilst talking of the same things, i.e. communism, internationalism, etc, it a vanguard party to lead the revolution into a state.Bolshevism may have represented the "right-wing" of the socialist movement because of the conditions that Bolshevism was intended to implemented in. As if it is accurate to judge different worker's movements coming from completely different countries on a left-right basis; it is more accurate to place movements on a left-right scale, in accordance to the other tendencies in said country. So the Bolsheviks were the most "left" in Russia, that's really all that matters.

I'd say the Mensheviks and SR were social democrats, reformists at this ponit, so not part of the socialist movement.
Correct.

A centralised workers state can defend a new regime, certainly, but it can't defend socialism, because if its a centralised state like Russia, its not socialism. At best its social democracy being implemented by a party dictatorship. What authoritarian socialists such as yourself believe is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks could have taken power on behalf of the working class and then implemented socialism on the workers. This Neo-Blanquist approach ignores Marx's writings and the fundamental tenant of socialism - i.e. the workers doing it themselves.This is just a huge straw man you've created. Lenin and Trotsky, like all Marxists, recognized that the working and peasant classes must carry out revolution as classes; not by a vanguard (which by it's very definition implies class participation and leadership in a revolution) independent of the classes, "doing it for them".

Sometimes you have to guard against counter-revolution from within too.Ever heard of combating revisionism and opportunism? Don't worry, us "authoritarians" have this part covered.

What your basically saying to me is that because Russia had certain conditions, it was impossible for socialism to work. I'd disagree with that - there'd be problems which would have needed to be tackled, certainly, but that is no excuse for Lenin's barbaric stifling of socialism and democracy. No, I'm saying its not as simple as: "ok we've just won our revolution, so now lets have worker's control", which is what your saying.

The Russian Constituent Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly) was shut down during its first session 19 January and the Bolsheviks in alliance with the left Socialist Revolutionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party) then relied on support from the soviets. The Bolsheviks had formed a coalition government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government) with the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries. However, their coalition collapsed after the Social Revolutionaries opposed the Brest-Litovsk treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest-Litovsk_treaty), and joined other parties in seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government. Lenin responded by a policy of wholesale persecution, which included jailing some of the members of the opposing parties.
From early 1918, Lenin campaigned for putting a single individual, accountable to the state, in charge of each enterprise. Workers could ask the state for measures, but would have to obey this individual until this was changed by the state. This was contrary to most conceptions of workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), but essential for efficiency and expertise, according to Lenin. Most proponents of self-management argued that this move was intended to strengthen state control over labour, and that the failures of self-management were mostly due to lack of resources — a problem the government could not solve, as proved by Lenin's licensing for a month of all workers of most factories. As S.A. Smith wrote: “By the end of the civil war, not much was left of the democratic forms of industrial administration promoted by the factory committees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_committees) in 1917, but the government argued that this did not matter since industry had passed into the ownership of a workers’ state.”Pasting something from Wikipedia doesn't count as documentation, as there are no credible sources given for this excerpt you took (from what page might I ask?)

Besides, Bob already provided credible information suggesting that the one-man management technique wasn't used by the majority of industry by as late as 1920.

As for workers control, it's worth pointing out that the extent to which the democratic management of factories was replaced with varying degrees of authoritarian control through one-man management was tied to the needs of the civil war, such that in Petrograd in 1920, only 31% of factories employing more than 200 workers were under one-man management, with the figure for 1919 being even lower at 10.8%.(1) The decision to enact stricter industrial discipline was closely tied to an earlier decision that had been made at the first All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions whereby it was agreed that the factory committees should be merged with the trade unions in order to enhance central planning and economic stability, given the unorganized and spontaneous way in which nationalization and factory seizures were being carried out, with both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks voting in favour of the decision, and only six delegates out of the entire congress voting against. This indicates that the changes to the functioning of enterprises were not only an emergency response to the civil war, but also commanded the support of the workers who had been elected to make decisions on behalf of their comrades at various national congresses.

Pogue

19th May 2009, 22:25

You haven't done any proving; and by all means prove me wrong! I want to discuss others' perspectives on historical situations, especially one as trivial and controversial as the October revolution. It's just a shame when you reduce your argument to "the state controlled everything and paid wages, so it was state capitalist", (ecause that does not necessitate bourgeois capitalism, first; and second because it does nothing but spread an unsubstantiated claim.

Of course its capitalism. A state version of it. What else could it be? Its certainly not socialism!

OK, but what does the world wide opinion have to do with this? A communist from the US in 1917 wouldn't know how the Russian economy should be developed so that socialism can be established, same with German left-communists. Each country has different conditions; something which is greatly ignored by proponents of a simultaneous global revolution or otherwise opponents of socialist development in Russia. Would Bolshevism had been the right formula to apply to Germany in 1917, absolutely not. The same goes for the other way around.

What your asking me is 'What does socialist ideology have to do with Russian socialists!'. Well alot. Lenin saw what socialism was it and 'adapted' it to a ideology more suited to him, which was essentially Blanquist and certainly authoritrian. The point is his ideas betrayed and contradicted socialism. I don't see how 'Bolshevism' could be the 'right' formula to apply anywhere, because its not socialism, which is my point.

The October Revolution set forth the most "left-wing" path of development, anywhere in the world at the time.

As I said, it wasn't really that radical when you got down to it. Workers still did not control their lives, they still lived in rubbish conditions, they still had low wages and oppressive undemocratic leaders.

Bolshevism may have represented the "right-wing" of the socialist movement because of the conditions that Bolshevism was intended to implemented in. As if it is accurate to judge different worker's movements coming from completely different countries on a left-right basis; it is more accurate to place movements on a left-right scale, in accordance to the other tendencies in said country. So the Bolsheviks were the most "left" in Russia, that's really all that matters.

What a ridiculous line. Socialism is a movement, its international, and Bolshevism is on the right wing of that movement, which is what I said. Simple as.

Correct.

In which case, the Bolsheviks were not the most left wing socialists of the time, they were the only socialists around in Russia at the time, contrary to what you argued, thus proving my point that whilst calling for things which seem left wing (despite then not implementing them), the Bolsheviks were on the right of the socialist movement.

This is just a huge straw man you've created. Lenin and Trotsky, like all Marxists, recognized that the working and peasant classes must carry out revolution as classes; not by a vanguard (which by it's very definition implies class participation and leadership in a revolution) independent of the classes, "doing it for them".

Ah, so thats why Lenin took power form factory committees and gave it to state beurecrats! And thats why Lenin and Trotsky supressed a revolutionary revolt in Kronstadt! And thats why Lenin and Trotsky established a party dictatorship in order to assume and maintain power!

As I said, Lenin said one thing, and then did another.

Ever heard of combating revisionism and opportunism? Don't worry, us "authoritarians" have this part covered.

No, you don't. Because consistently throughout history you have represented the counter revolution, or simply controlled the workers from the begining by masquerading it as a revolution. So I suppose you'd call Kronstadt, Hungrary and Prague 'revisionism' and 'opputunism' then?

No, I'm saying its not as simple as: "ok we've just won our revolution, so now lets have worker's control", which is what your saying.

No, I'm saying what Marx said, i.e. that its only a revolution if we have workers control. Something Lenin and now yourself ignored, thus leading to a new class of rulers who call themselves socialists. If you don't think a revolution involves or leads directly to workers control then I personally think your out of place on this forum. Your more of a social democrat who likes dictatorship and coups.

Pasting something from Wikipedia doesn't count as documentation, as there are no credible sources given for this excerpt you took (from what page might I ask?)

Besides, Bob already provided credible information suggesting that the one-man management technique wasn't used by the majority of industry by as late as 1920.

Ah, my favourite Leninist tactic! Your sources are not credibly and can always be doubted, but mine are always correct and automatically prove yours wrong.

Basically what your saying is that because Bob, a Trotskyist and so Leninist, posted those 'facts', and I, an anarchist, posted others, Bob must be right because he is a Leninist. Nice one, sherlock!

SecondLife

19th May 2009, 23:43

Usually all sees that party becomes "right-wing", revisionists, corrupted, capitalist roaders etc. But there is not logic. It just happened in this way, but anyway there is not logic. Example in addition to party exist also trade-unions or workers council.
The same tendencies can happen also with them. If non-communists becomes members of communist-party, then they can also become members of workers council. The question isn't in names of organisation. I see there should be three solutions to prevent this:
1) to increase workers awareness (not so easy and this may revert in next generation)
2) to make constant status of revolution (very slippery road like Cultural Revolution)
3) to make social structure so complicated that it holds socialism and the same time prevents someone hegemony (this should be something unprecedented new)

....but classless society itself don't prevent dictatorship because new classes can be arise in future.

el_chavista

20th May 2009, 00:52

...but classless society itself don't prevent dictatorship because new classes can be arise in future.
The aggravation of class struggle can only take place in a transition society (socialism). The working class got to do it's revolution but its ideological limitations and the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie put obstacles in its way. What is, for instance, the AFL-CIO but a right wing mafia alienating the workers' interests?
On the other hand, according to Bakunin's "curse", a vanguard tends to become a new social layer that replaces the former ruling class, spoiling the vanishing of classes in the socialist society.
So, why loosing our time blaming one another if the revolutionary theory seems to be incomplete yet?

SocialismOrBarbarism

20th May 2009, 01:48

"State-capitalism" in essence, really isn't capitalism at all. If you equate capitalism with commodity production and market mechanisms, than your just incorrect. Capitalism, historically, requires private ownership of the means of production: in the USSR there was no private onwership (when overlooking all of the property that had been, so far, apporpriated by the worker's state) besides small scale cooperative farms during the NEP. After the NEP, private onwership lost all role in economic production, and the cooperation between the working class and peasants developed along primarily publicly, and cooperatively owned enterprises. Any kind of "capitalism" that was practiced from the October revolution, till the end of the NEP was due to the backwardness and petit-bourgeois nature of the Russian (mostly peasant based) economy, and was controlled and wielded by the working class and peasants in cooperation towards developing their economy; not fattening the pockets of capitalist owners and investors. This is how socialist Russia developed, from an emerging "capitalist" economy, under the control of the worker's and peasant's state.

So did the workers control the state in the USSR?

mykittyhasaboner

20th May 2009, 01:50

Of course its capitalism. A state version of it. What else could it be? Its certainly not socialism!

What is your definition of capitalism then?

I would define it as a society dominated by bourgeois rule, namely privately owned means of production; which is intern enforced by a state which protects private property and the "rights" of the owners. With the basic forms of social economy classes, the bourgeoisie (as the ruling class), the petit-bourgeoisie (mainly the peasantry) and the proletariat. This type of social organization is represented by places like England, Germany, France etc; where the bourgeoisie have developed significantly more than colonial states, or other 'weak-links' of imperialism. Like Russia for example.

In Russia the bourgeoisie had developed marginally, and had been restricted to the feudal land mostly consisting of small commodity production with little drive (nor intent from the landowners) to develop a large industrial base. The bourgeoisie, in this weak character of there's didn't really make to much of a difference when the monarchy was abolished in the February Revolution; namely by continuing imperialist war, which only strained the already flailing peasant-commodity based economy. But in October (or November; they switched calendars at some point) of 1917 private ownership of land was abolished, and the bankers, factory owners, and landowners were expropriated, and management of factories, farms and railways were claimed by the workers; effectively defeating the bourgeoisie. Now how can you have capitalism (even a "state version of it") when the capitalist state has been smashed and replaced by a worker's state; effectively implementing the DOTP, which implies ownership and control by the worker's and peasants. When worker's and peasants own the means of production, they aren't working for any capitalist, nor are they working for the state; they are working for themselves and the rest of society collectively. You claim that the evil man Lenin controlled everything, and that society worked for him and the rest of the state, but that is a load of bullshit; because the state was comprised of representatives eleted by worker's mass organizations and Soviets. Even if the "state simply controlled everything", there are no capitalists in the state as no offical (or as you would certainly put it 'beureacrat') profited or benefited personally from the exploitation of others. The October Revolution effectively put the working classes in power, with a new state organized by and for their democratic control, as well as the cooperative development of the Russian economy.

What your asking me is 'What does socialist ideology have to do with Russian socialists!'. Well alot. Lenin saw what socialism was it and 'adapted' it to a ideology more suited to him, which was essentially Blanquist and certainly authoritrian. The point is his ideas betrayed and contradicted socialism. I don't see how 'Bolshevism' could be the 'right' formula to apply anywhere, because its not socialism, which is my point.
Lenin saw socialism as the goal for the proletariat and peasantry in Russia and ultimately the whole world; you again paint him as a ruthless power driven dictator who simply used the October Revolution to consolidate power. But of course this is to be expected, since you've done it in every single post and you don't seem to have any other concrete way of arguing your idealistic position. His ideas can't betray socialism, because his ideas don't matter outside of his head, and whoever else wants to listen. No matter how bad you think his ideas were, there were actual actions and material accomplishments made by the October Revolution; and Lenin (along with his ideas of course) played a significant part in it. Bolshevism was the correct ideology in regards to tactics and organization, that led the proletariat and peasants to power in the Soviet Union, so yeah it was the 'right' formula to apply in Russia, because it put the working class in power; which last time I checked was socialism.

As I said, it wasn't really that radical when you got down to it. Workers still did not control their lives, they still lived in rubbish conditions, they still had low wages and oppressive undemocratic leaders.Claims, claims, more claims, no facts. The basic form of organization adopted by the Bolshevkis were Soviets (worker's councils), these were introduced all through out Russian industry as a result of the seizure of power in October.

What evidence do you have that they lived in "rubbish" conditions? What do you expect, a industrialized super power to develop in a land of peasants immediately? In fact, the new worker's state made the improvement of public health a priority, as disease was common in a country as underdeveloped as Russia. (source (http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=h1470563k3092248&size=largest))

What a ridiculous line. Socialism is a movement, its international, and Bolshevism is on the right wing of that movement, which is what I said. Simple as. Right, socialism is international in ideology, but the conditions of which socialism is meant to be implimented is different in almost every country. Why do you refuse to recognize this? If the workers and peasants succeeded in Germany or Hungary, than Russia would not have to use such primitve methods of development. But when all other socialist revolutions fail what are you going to do, accept defeat?

In which case, the Bolsheviks were not the most left wing socialists of the time, they were the only socialists around in Russia at the time, contrary to what you argued, thus proving my point that whilst calling for things which seem left wing (despite then not implementing them), the Bolsheviks were on the right of the socialist movement.There were many other socialists in Russia, despite later convulsions towards social democracy and reformism, the Bolsheviks weren't the only party in Russia. Here's (http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/revolt.html) a source covering elections in which the Bolsheviks and others participated in, showing the diversity of the movement as a whole.

I'm not even going to bother aruging your claims about the Bolsheviks not implementing left-wing, revolutionary gains and changes that put worker's in power; because your simply choosing to refuse that this happend, despite facts being pointed out to you.

Ah, my favourite Leninist tactic! Your sources are not credibly and can always be doubted, but mine are always correct and automatically prove yours wrong.

Basically what your saying is that because Bob, a Trotskyist and so Leninist, posted those 'facts', and I, an anarchist, posted others, Bob must be right because he is a Leninist. Nice one, sherlock!Your quite the sectarian; what Bob posted was from an actual source as he posted, whereas the paragraph you posted doesn't give any cited references (like any real information on Wiki does) but you didn't even tell me what page it was from.

mykittyhasaboner

20th May 2009, 02:05

So did the workers control the state in the USSR?

Yes, workers were organized into Soviets and trade unions, delegates were elected by each local Soviet to participate in the Congress of Soviets; which then in turn elected officials for the Sovnarkom, or Council of People's Commisarrs. The working class was the ruling class in the Soviet Union, in alliance with the peasantry. A good text to read is the constitution (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/) itself.

PRC-UTE

20th May 2009, 02:07

"Lenin argued that the proletariat can only achieve a successful revolutionary consciousness through the efforts of a vanguard party composed of full-time professional revolutionaries. Lenin further believed that such a party could only achieve its aims through a form of disciplined organization known as democratic centralism, wherein tactical and ideological decisions are made with internal democracy, but once a decision has been made, all party members must externally support and actively promote that decision." - The wikipedia summary of Lenin's "What is to Be Done"
That's taking power out of the hands of the people. It's a republic. Lenin wasn't a true leftist, and according to Chomsky, he was in fact a proponent of the utter destruction of socialism, with the interest of the elite in mind (youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI). Stalin called his activities socialist on the most superficial level, capturing the spirit of the movement, while incorporating none of the content. It's interesting to note that another mass murderer, Adolf Hitler, did the same thing.

Thoughts?

That's not very accurate, the wiki quote. Lenin wrote his polemic WITBD in response to economist trends within the workers movement and he was against promoting the work outside of Russia. Most communist parties were or sought to be mass workers parties as the Bolsheviks were during the Revolution. The Bolsheviks were not a party of professional cadres in 1917, and they weren't especially that disciplined. Most of the discipline later arose during the Civil War.

Most of that was dealt with here very well: http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

I highly recommend reading that. It's actually a very sound study of the Bolsheviks and the revolution they led based on scholarly accounts. Chomsky doesn't make a lot of sense when he talks about Lenin.

SocialismOrBarbarism

20th May 2009, 02:11

Yes, workers were organized into Soviets and trade unions, delegates were elected by each local Soviet to participate in the Congress of Soviets; which then in turn elected officials for the Sovnarkom, or Council of People's Commisarrs. The working class was the ruling class in the Soviet Union, in alliance with the peasantry. A good text to read is the constitution (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/) itself.

Well your post was also dealing with the period after the NEP, so I guess I should have also asked how long workers control existed.

Pogue

20th May 2009, 02:16

What is your definition of capitalism then?

I would define it as a society dominated by bourgeois rule, namely privately owned means of production; which is intern enforced by a state which protects private property and the "rights" of the owners. With the basic forms of social economy classes, the bourgeoisie (as the ruling class), the petit-bourgeoisie (mainly the peasantry) and the proletariat. This type of social organization is represented by places like England, Germany, France etc; where the bourgeoisie have developed significantly more than colonial states, or other 'weak-links' of imperialism. Like Russia for example.

In Russia the bourgeoisie had developed marginally, and had been restricted to the feudal land mostly consisting of small commodity production with little drive (nor intent from the landowners) to develop a large industrial base. The bourgeoisie, in this weak character of there's didn't really make to much of a difference when the monarchy was abolished in the February Revolution; namely by continuing imperialist war, which only strained the already flailing peasant-commodity based economy. But in October (or November; they switched calendars at some point) of 1917 private ownership of land was abolished, and the bankers, factory owners, and landowners were expropriated, and management of factories, farms and railways were claimed by the workers; effectively defeating the bourgeoisie. Now how can you have capitalism (even a "state version of it") when the capitalist state has been smashed and replaced by a worker's state; effectively implementing the DOTP, which implies ownership and control by the worker's and peasants. When worker's and peasants own the means of production, they aren't working for any capitalist, nor are they working for the state; they are working for themselves and the rest of society collectively. You claim that the evil man Lenin controlled everything, and that society worked for him and the rest of the state, but that is a load of bullshit; because the state was comprised of representatives eleted by worker's mass organizations and Soviets. Even if the "state simply controlled everything", there are no capitalists in the state as no offical (or as you would certainly put it 'beureacrat') profited or benefited personally from the exploitation of others. The October Revolution effectively put the working classes in power, with a new state organized by and for their democratic control, as well as the cooperative development of the Russian economy.

Wow, how patronising and useless. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production based on a system of profit accumulation by the exploitation of labour by a ruling class. State capitalism would be when this function is performed by a state, made up of politicians, buerecrats, army generals etc. This is what we saw in Russia.

If you'll seriousy follow the line that th USSR was democratic then you'll believe anything. Lenin took away all democracy, even from the soviets, when they stopped doing what he wanted. He suppresed opposition such as the SRs and Kronstadt rebels. There was no democracy and even other Marxists recognised this, such as Luxembourg. I think this is the sort of laughable propodanrised drivvle the Leninists do best. The Kronstadt rebels rebelled in demands for democracy - and were denied. As I said, Lenin took control of the means of production away from the workers councils, putting it into the hand of individual and isolated state beurecrats, surppresed opposition, etc. This was no 'workers democracy'. The working class was not in power, Lenin and his state was.

Claims, claims, more claims, no facts. The basic form of organization adopted by the Bolshevkis were Soviets (worker's councils), these were introduced all through out Russian industry as a result of the seizure of power in October.

What evidence do you have that they lived in "rubbish" conditions? What do you expect, a industrialized super power to develop in a land of peasants immediately? In fact, the new worker's state made the improvement of public health a priority, as disease was common in a country as underdeveloped as Russia. (source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=h1470563k3092248&size=largest))

Doubtless some gains were made. It was still not socialism though, and there was brutal repression. Lenin systematically set about destroying the Soviets, which is why they no longer functioned by the end of 1921. Who decided on the direction of Russia? Lenin. Who introduced NEP? Lenin. Who suppresed Kronstadt? Lenin and Trotsky. Who set up a statist secret police? Lenin. This was a permanent state, and the soviets were destroyed. Power did not come from the Soviets, it came from Lenin and Trotsky's self-proclaimed 'party dictatorship'. They made no secret of this - they were Neo-Blanquists, its what they did.

Lenin saw socialism as the goal for the proletariat and peasantry in Russia and ultimately the whole world; you again paint him as a ruthless power driven dictator who simply used the October Revolution to consolidate power. But of course this is to be expected, since you've done it in every single post and you don't seem to have any other concrete way of arguing your idealistic position. His ideas can't betray socialism, because his ideas don't matter outside of his head, and whoever else wants to listen. No matter how bad you think his ideas were, there were actual actions and material accomplishments made by the October Revolution; and Lenin (along with his ideas of course) played a significant part in it. Bolshevism was the correct ideology in regards to tactics and organization, that led the proletariat and peasants to power in the Soviet Union, so yeah it was the 'right' formula to apply in Russia, because it put the working class in power; which last time I checked was socialism.

I think the empricial evidence of what Lenin actually undermines whatever you believ ehis motivations were.

Why do you lot constantly rattle on about Bolshevism working? As I said, from a coup point of view, sure, they were succesful. But did they succesfully create socialism? No, they created state capitalism and became the new ruling class. You guys measure success by the fate of the party, I do it by the fate of the working class. And the working class were not in power.

Christ, and you call it socialism. How was it socialism? As I told you, the workers councils were destroyed, in place of state burecrats. There was no workers militia, but a permanent army and police. There was no voting - Lenin did it for you. And look where it ended up. Stalin just continued Lenin's shit, its not as if he took a perfect society and corrupted it entirely, he just made something Lenin had already mutated and destroyed much worse. In that respect Stalin was the extreme continuation of Lenin's policies, and they were both authoritarians who worshipped the state over the class. There was no point when the working class were in power, and this was most definatly not socialism. You need to learn history beynd what the party forces down your throat to justify absurd political positions.

Right, socialism is international in ideology, but the conditions of which socialism is meant to be implimented is different in almost every country. Why do you refuse to recognize this? If the workers and peasants succeeded in Germany or Hungary, than Russia would not have to use such primitve methods of development. But when all other socialist revolutions fail what are you going to do, accept defeat?

Socialism will happen sligtly differently in different places, sure, but what Lenin did wasn't socialism, it was Bolshevism, a small group of 'revolutionaries' seizing power and implementing reforms whilst claiming to represent the working class. You can't have a permanent, beurecratic state and have socialism. Lenin didn't create socialism, he created state capitalism.

There were many other socialists in Russia, despite later convulsions towards social democracy and reformism, the Bolsheviks weren't the only party in Russia. Here's (http://www.anonym.to/?http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/revolt.html) a source covering elections in which the Bolsheviks and others participated in, showing the diversity of the movement as a whole.

I'm not even going to bother aruging your claims about the Bolsheviks not implementing left-wing, revolutionary gains and changes that put worker's in power; because your simply choosing to refuse that this happend, despite facts being pointed out to you.

Firstly its irrelevant because the Bolsheviks still represented, in word and action, the right wing of capitalism.

Secondly, sorry mate, but saying 'Your wong' doesn't cut it in an argument. I'm pointing out facts to you too, you choose to ignore them so as not to shatter your fragile bubble of Lenin worship. Its not my problem.

Your quite the sectarian; what Bob posted was from an actual source as he posted, whereas the paragraph you posted doesn't give any cited references (like any real information on Wiki does) but you didn't even tell me what page it was from.

Its on the page about Lenin. And yes, its a source. It refers to a historian. Its just as valid as Bob's account, and fits into history.

How can I be sectarian? I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, I'm not being sectarian when I rightly attack people who support the creation of a new ruling class in an oppresive state. You want power for the party and state, I want it for the working class. As far as I am concerned, our goals are opposite and so I cannot be sectarian against you when your political 'faction' is not the same as mine.

Pogue

20th May 2009, 02:17

Yes, workers were organized into Soviets and trade unions, delegates were elected by each local Soviet to participate in the Congress of Soviets; which then in turn elected officials for the Sovnarkom, or Council of People's Commisarrs. The working class was the ruling class in the Soviet Union, in alliance with the peasantry. A good text to read is the constitution (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/) itself.

Soviets with sham democracy, maniuplated, destroyed or ignores by Lenin, who made the changes he wanted and brutally crushed any opposition which called for democracy, such as the Kronstadt rebellion.

mykittyhasaboner

20th May 2009, 03:20

Wow, how patronising and useless. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production based on a system of profit accumulation by the exploitation of labour by a ruling class. State capitalism would be when this function is performed by a state, made up of politicians, buerecrats, army generals etc. This is what we saw in Russia.
What we saw in Russia was ownership of the means of production by the worker's and peasants. While management of the means of production and state affairs by worker's councils and mass organizations eroded as the Civil War ravaged the country, ownership of the means of production never changed. The bureaucratic management of the USSR didn't own the means of production, as they did not profit from it (the only profit based accumulation that was done in the USSR was during the NEP; in order to develop the economy/and after the revisionist economic reforms of 1965, which splintered the successful Soviet socialist economy into a profit based system).

I think the empricial evidence of what Lenin actually undermines whatever you believ ehis motivations were.Oh what the fuck, now your accusing me of basing my positions on what I believe Lenin's motivations were? You were the one who claimed his ideas destroyed socialism.

Christ, and you call it socialism. How was it socialism? The worker's and peasants owned the means of production in the USSR, at least until after the economy as a whole was organized around profit-based production in the revisionist USSR. The workers controlled the majority of the means of production at least until 1920, but even with a lack of direct worker's control, there were still elections of officials by secret ballot (as outlined in the constitution of 1936) and development of socialist production based on public and cooperatively owned property; which resulted in a rapid development of increasing living standards as well as economic stability and security. This growth even continued after WW2, and only slowed down as the SU was set on a downward path.

There was no workers militia, but a permanent army and police.That doesn't really mean anything, worker's militas aren't a requisite for socialism. There were militias however during the Civil War, and WW2.

There was no voting - Lenin did it for you. That is false.

Stalin just continued Lenin's shit, its not as if he took a perfect society and corrupted it entirely, he just made something Lenin had already mutated and destroyed much worse. In that respect Stalin was the extreme continuation of Lenin's policies, and they were both authoritarians who worshipped the state over the class. There was no point when the working class were in power, and this was most definatly not socialism. You need to learn history beynd what the party forces down your throat to justify absurd political positions.You need to get rid of thise crude and innacurate analysieis. All this nonsense about worshipping the state is simply absurd, you've never read anything by Lenin or Stalin, it rightly shows.

Socialism will happen sligtly differently in different places, sure, but what Lenin did wasn't socialism, it was Bolshevism, a small group of 'revolutionaries' seizing power and implementling reforms whilst caiming to represent the working class. You can't have a permanent, beurecratic state and have socialism. Lenin didn't create socialism, he created state capitalism.
FFS, the whole "professional revolutionaries" thing is such crap.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105660/index.html?t=105660

Firstly its irrelevant because the Bolsheviks still represented, in word and action, the right wing of capitalism.You haven't proven this, and I find it even more absurd that you claim they are the "right-wing of capitalism" now.

Secondly, sorry mate, but saying 'Your wong' doesn't cut it in an argument. I'm pointing out facts to you too, you choose to ignore them so as not to shatter your fragile bubble of Lenin worship. Its not my problem.Ha, what facts? "Lenin did this, he destroyed socialism, Lenin created state-capitalism", those aren't facts those are claims. It also doesn't help your 'factual' argument if you continue insulting and making hollow accusations against the person your debating? I thought you were a bit more mature, but it seems you can't refrain from calling me a Lenin worshiper. Why do you want to make the person your debating with, not want to debate with you? Which is what your doing by throwing out sectarian and irrelevant insults.

Its on the page about Lenin. And yes, its a source. It refers to a historian. Its just as valid as Bob's account, and fits into history.No, the paragraph you posted doesn't cite any sources for its information.

How can I be sectarian? I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, I'm not being sectarian when I rightly attack people who support the creation of a new ruling class in an oppresive state. You want power for the party and state, I want it for the working class. As far as I am concerned, our goals are opposite and so I cannot be sectarian against you when your political 'faction' is not the same as mine.Yet again, claiming I'm not for working class power, instead for the party dictatorship. But what the hell do you know about my intentions or what I want to come out of a proletarian revolution? Not that what I want really matters, what matters is the conditions of the struggle. Your sectarian because you claimed that I quoted the reference that Bob posted because he is a "Leninist", and that I disbelieved your "reference" because your an anarcho-syndacalist. Not only is that sectarian, but it's a straw man. I deny the paragraph you posted because its a crude analysis that doesn't give any sourced information. So what the hell am I supposed to believe? Your word? The writer of Lenin's wiki pages word?

SecondLife

20th May 2009, 07:15

So did the workers control the state in the USSR?

Yes, controlling the state is also work, very hard work. Or better, I think that in capitalist society there doesn't exists state at all. This is not state, its just illusion of state. State can exist only in socialist society.

SecondLife

20th May 2009, 07:24

I hope they didn't "work" as hard as our current corporate bosses.;)

Private owners (or current corporate bosses) don't work at all, they can just live from dividends. Also they haven't skills, because previous criminals haven't sometimes even high education.

Ismail

22nd May 2009, 13:00

Stalin engaged in hideously conservative policies, making homosexuality illegal for the first time since the Revolution, banning abortion, co-opting the Orthodox Church,Engels called a gay opponent an "ass-fucker" and Communists were by and large against homosexuality back then. I recall reading about a gay Trot who was forced to stay in the closet in the 40's and 50's because, well, Trots (like all Communists) simply didn't trust gays back then. Ironically, Hoxha was the first socialist leader to turn it somewhat progressive by linking homosexuality with male chauvinism (which isn't really accurate, obviously) and promoting lesbians as a way of enforcing complete unity in gender.

As for the Orthodox Church, Stalin co-opted it during World War II. He also encouraged the maintaining of Islam in Central Asia with the Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. If you oppose these, then you might as well agree that the Central Asian SSRs should have just left right there, since to them a socialism not merged with Islam was useless. Hell you might as well have said that the USSR should not have existed, Lenin should have just kept the Russian SFSR and forced the various ethnic groups and their faiths to stay under Russian chauvinism. Of course if Stalin went the Hoxha route and declared the USSR the world's first atheist state then a substantial number of peoples in the USSR would have pretty much abandoned the Soviets during WWII.

I prefer uniting with the religious progressives (it isn't like hardcore anti-communist clergy were backing Stalin) than shit like Communists talking about how "barbaric" and "backwards" Afghanistan was and how the glorious European Soviet Union was right to go in and "civilize" it from its Asiatic ways, which set back the Communist movement in Central Asia (and the Middle East) quite a few years and its effects still linger today.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 13:01

ALot of Trots and Leninists up to the 70s, and Maoists even up till the mid 2000s, saw homosexuality as 'bourgeois decadence'.

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 13:19

ALot of Trots and Leninists up to the 70s, and Maoists even up till the mid 2000s, saw homosexuality as 'bourgeois decadence'. I'd be interested in whether you can give a single example of a Trotskyist organization describing homosexuality in that way. I don't think it's actually particularly relevant because neither my party nor any section of the contemporary Trotskyist movement holds a reactionary position on homosexuality or any other issue concerning questions of gender or sexuality, and it's widely known that several prominent Anarchists definitely did hold reactionary ideas - if not on homosexuality then definitely on Jews. Nonetheless, I think you're spreading a slander that you can't substantiate, which is something you've done throughout this thread.

It's worth pointing out that HLVS and all of the other posters who see Lenin as a right-wing autocrat have not cited a single source in the form of a book or essay (take this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445248&postcount=18) post as an example of how this should be done - notice the book listed at the bottom of the post, and the argument it links to within the main body of text) to support any of their points - instead we've had a series of assertions that present the early history of the USSR as a simple moral conflict, based on the decisions of individuals and the evil machinations of the Bolsheviks, instead of considering the role of material conditions, as well as the fact that the Bolsheviks were faced with the task of building the world's first ever socialist state in an underdeveloped country with no prior experiences from which they could draw to navigate their way forward. Lenin was not an autocrat - he was elected as chairman of Sovnarkom and as leader of the Bolshevik party, and the Bolsheviks did not take power through a coup - they gained majorities through free and fair elections in all of the major urban Soviets and the revolution was organized through a committee of the Petrograd Soviet, containing not only Bolsheviks but also members of other revolutionary organizations such as the Left SRs. The major gains, including the establishment of workers power, only occurred after the October Revolution (because the February Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that did not smash the class rule of the bourgeoisie) and were more or less retained, as indicated by the source I cited earlier in this thread, despite a prolonged and brutal civil war.

Ironically, Hoxha was the first socialist leader to turn it somewhat progressive by linking homosexuality with male chauvinismWhat, you mean that homophobia was turned into something progressive? As far as I know both homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin in the USSR, and in "socialist" Albania. You can't explain this as resulting from ignorance, at least in the case of the USSR, because the Bolsheviks had legalized homosexuality and encouraged sexual freedom as soon as they came to power, and it was only later once the counter-revolution had taken hold that the state enforced conservative social policies.

Ismail

22nd May 2009, 13:27

What, you mean that homophobia was turned into something progressive?For women, yes. Hoxha's Albania did very good things for women's rights. 30% of the CC was composed of women, etc. Obviously the proposal was homophobic, but at least it had a silver lining of some sort that benefited women who, previously, were not even allowed to get a job and were of less value in death than men under tribal laws.

As far as I know both homosexuality and abortion were banned under Stalin in the USSR, and in "socialist" Albania.Mainly for birth rate increases. Under Hoxha, Albania had the highest birth rate in Europe.

You can't explain this as resulting from ignorance, at least in the case of the USSR, because the Bolsheviks had legalized homosexuality and encouraged sexual freedom as soon as they came to power,Actually there was a struggle between two lines within the party: the free love types and 'conservative' types. Lenin, although not as 'conservative' as Stalin, was critical of the free love movement.

and it was only later once the counter-revolution had taken hold that the state enforced conservative social policies.I wouldn't call women's rights increasing markedly (yes I know abortion was banned, it's regretabble and shouldn't have happened but in other fields womens rights did improve), fighting Russian chauvinism throughout the 20's and 30's, etc. being "conservative social policies."

We need to remember that geography and simply the fact that sexuality meant little to the Bolsheviks (or at least the main ones) played a part in attitudes. Lenin came from a more intellectual background, Stalin was educted in a religious institution, Hoxha's family were devout Muslims, etc. For Bolsheviks and many other Communist movements, sexual freedom was irrelevant (except, as noted, for types like Alexandra Kollontai) and sexuality in general subservient to class struggle. The more radical views of Marx and Engels on the family, etc. were experimented with in the Russian Revolution (so were things like prohibition under Lenin) but ultimately were impossible at the time such experiments were conducted, so they were abandoned.

It's no shock that the tide turned against homophobia in the West while in the East and South (East European, South America, Africa, Middle East, etc.) it remained basically the same. It isn't like gay rights were enshrined in the laws of nations across the world or anything in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

Led Zeppelin

22nd May 2009, 13:37

I recall reading about a gay Trot who was forced to stay in the closet in the 40's and 50's because, well, Trots (like all Communists) simply didn't trust gays back then.

Could you perhaps post a source for what you recall reading? I'd be interested in knowing which particular Trotskyist organization that occurred in, if any.

Also, if "back then all communists didn't trust gays", I'd like to know why homosexuality was decriminalized after the October revolution. Were the Old Bolsheviks not "communists"?

Ironically, Hoxha was the first socialist leader to turn it somewhat progressive by linking homosexuality with male chauvinism (which isn't really accurate, obviously) and promoting lesbians as a way of enforcing complete unity in gender..

Well, no, the Old Bolsheviks turned it into something entirely progressive, and not just "somewhat" like you claim Hoxha did by tying it to male chauvinism, which is not progressive at all in my view, but by decriminalizing homosexuality and allowing communists like Inessa Armand espouse and put forth their views of sexual freedom and liberation.

Sadly those policies were later reversed during the reaction.

Ismail

22nd May 2009, 13:41

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue46/Harrison46.htm (http://www.wpunj.edu/%7Enewpol/issue46/Harrison46.htm)

On the left, the whole pre-1930s tradition was simply forgotten. Even though most non-Stalinist socialist groups did not prohibit homosexuals from joining or expel those who were discovered (the U.S. Trotskyist group, the Socialist Workers Party, was one notable exception, retaining a Stalinist exclusionary policy until 1970), gay men and lesbians were often closeted within these organizations. Nor did democratic socialists even take up the essentially liberal cause of decriminalization, which is what makes the Socialist Party internal document uncovered by Christopher Phelps and discussed in his article in the previous issue of New Politics, so significant as an early portent of change.

Also, if "back then all communists didn't trust gays", I'd like to know why homosexuality was decriminalized after the October revolution. Were the Old Bolsheviks not "communists"?Was it actually explicitly decriminalized or were the laws on it ignored? Also I don't connect social issues (except in certain cases) with socialism. Gay rights are possible in both capitalism and socialism, whether a socialist was against homosexuality in an epoch which made it hard for him or her not to be is of little concern to me.

and allowing communists like Inessa Armand espouse and put forth their views of sexual freedom and liberation.They did speak, but Lenin still didn't really approve.

Writing-Reading the Sexual Revolution in the Early Soviet Union
Journal article by Greg Carleton; Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 8, 1997

Alas, the affection was not to be returned. In his celebrated interview with the German marxist Clara Zetkin, Lenin allegedly slammed his hands on the table when confronted with Zhenya-like thought: "The Revolution demands concentration. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions." 9 (http://www.questia.com/reader/action/gotoDocId/96428745#9) Time could not be wasted on such frivolous questions when the survival of the Soviet Union and the success of world revolution were at stake. Youth needed to discipline their bodies and minds through intellectual and physical (but not that one!) activity. For Lenin, attention to sex was counterrevolutionary. Women "who confuse their personal romances with politics" ( R, p. 49) or men "who run after every petticoat" could not be trusted to carry out the struggle. With Zetkin sitting in awe, wishing that "hundreds, thousands were present to hear his words," the party leader directly launched into Kollontai and the ill-fated "glass of water" theory that had become permanently attached to her name. To equate satisfying a sexual urge with reaching for a glass of water to quench one's thirst was simply "unmarxist." Worse, the theory's popularity had only "made our young people mad, quite mad.""Of course thirst must be satisfied," he countered, "but will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips

Published shortly after his death, Lenin's ex cathedra warning was heard by thousands as it circulated through myriad articles and decrees. But Kollontai's story was read by an equal number as well. And many officials were perplexed by youths' attachment to Zhenya's character and the possibility that they might see her as an example to follow. With Lenin's interview acknowledged as the final word, doctors, critics, and party elites launched a concerted assault against free-love promiscuity on three fronts. First, they declared that unbridled sexuality would only lead to a rise in sexually transmitted diseases and prostitution. Second, it would deprive women of the very independence and freedom that the revolution had ostensibly brought them. Once again, it was argued, women would find themselves victimized by "Don Juans" (since men would feel no responsibility for their behavior) and burdened by unwanted pregnancies. (Legalized abortion was not framed as a freedom of choice issue but as a dangerous, necessary evil that would disappear with the triumph of socialism.) Third, with the focus aimed at men, sexually active youth would be putting their maturing bodies in grave danger. Since bodily energy was believed finite, any expenditure needed to be carefully monitored and justified; otherwise, one's mental and physical faculties could be severely and permanently damaged. Using a metaphor that reappeared, notably, in Gumilevsky Dog Alley, A. B. Zalkind, one of the more prominent voices in this campaign and a self-styled "communist psychoneurologist," cautioned that sex was a "spider, greedily and mercilessly sucking out an enormous amount of the body's energy." Supporting the chorus of arachnophobes, Emelian Yaroslavsky, a member of the Bolshevik old guard, explained that this was why a promiscuous twenty-five year old can look "ready for the rest home."

A doctor, writing in Red Students, was more specific: early sexual activity robbed the male body of vital hormones, resulting by age thirty in atrophied testicles, loss of beard and moustache, a pale, weakened body, and, finally, impotence. The scare tactics of "do it now, pay later" predictably reached their peak with masturbation. It was of particular concern, for example, for the commissar of health, Nikolai Semashko, who on numerous occasions inveighed against this supreme evil, which was doubly marked because not only did it waste energy, but it was narcissistic and therefore anticollective

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 13:42

We need to remember that geography and simply the fact that sexuality meant little to the Bolsheviks (or at least the main ones) played a part in attitudes.You're right in saying that there were conflicts within the party but the fact that many of the party leaders had a conservative orientation on social issues did not stop a range of progressive policies on homosexuality, abortion, and divorce being implemented almost immediately after the October Revolution took place, and so clearly Lenin did not see any of those policies as being necessarily linked with "free love", or was willing to let other party members make decisions and recommend policies, because it was obviously not his main area of competence. The point is that these revolutionary gains were attacked and eventually destroyed, not by Lenin, but as part of a more general process of counter-revolution that took place during the 1920s and, in terms of how reproductive freedom was affected, culminated in the 1935 ban on abortions. For this reason, you can't explain the reactionary social policies under Stalin as resulting from ignorance or a lack of concern because if these were credible factors then we are faced with the need to explain why the Bolsheviks under Lenin were able to understand the significance of these issues and implement progressive policies.

For women, yes. Hoxha's Albania did very good things for women's rights. 30% of the CC was composed of women, etcI'm sure you would agree that a woman being elected to a position of responsibility in a bourgeois state apparatus does not represent a real gain for the female working class, so why would this be the case for Hoxha's government - even if we accept that Albania was a real socialist country? The fact that the government had a significant number of women and yet continued to enforce such reactionary policies (i.e. banning abortion and the distribution of contraception) suggests to me that these women were not actually able to exercise real power, because if they had been able to decide policy on issues that were highly relevant to women, including but not limited to abortion, they would not have allowed those reactionary policies to remain in place.

They did speak, but Lenin still didn't really approve.See above - regardless of whether Lenin "approved" or not, progressive policies were still implemented, because the Bolsheviks were still a progressive and revolutionary organization when they took power as the vanguard of the working class, and therefore recognized the need to combat the repressive policies that had existed under capitalism.

Mainly for birth rate increases. Under Hoxha, Albania had the highest birth rate in Europe.Do you think it's acceptable that governments should use their populations in this way - to the extent that women are seen primarily as producers of children - to achieve "collective" goals, like increasing the size of the population? This, to me, strikes at the heart of what socialism should be about - freeing each and every individual from constraints on their ability to develop their potential and be seen as an end unto themselves.

Gay rights are possible in both capitalism and socialism, whether a socialist was against homosexuality in an epoch which made it hard for him or her not to do so is of little concern to me.It may be possible for gays to gain rights under capitalism in a strictly legal sense, but the existence of homophobia - and the policies and behavior that derive from it - is rooted in capitalism because it is bound up with the nuclear family, which is a necessary component of capitalism due to its role as an entity that reproduces labour power at no financial cost to the bourgeoisie. More broadly, gay rights should be seen as part of socialism because we stand for liberation and the abolition of all prejudice.

Ismail

22nd May 2009, 13:49

You're right in saying that there were conflicts within the party.... you can't explain the reactionary social policies under Stalin as resulting from ignorance or a lack of concern because if these were credible factors then we are faced with the need to explain why the Bolsheviks under Lenin were able to understand the significance of these issues and implement progressive policies.There was actually opposition to these policies among the peasantry and some sections of workers. It isn't like Stalin woke up one day and decided to shut down the free love discussions and debates for no reason other than his own.

I'm sure you would agree that a woman being elected to a position of responsibility in a bourgeois state apparatus does not represent a real gain for the female working class, so why would this be the case for Hoxha's government - even if we accept that Albania was a real socialist country? The fact that the government had a significant number of women and yet continued to enforce such reactionary policies (i.e. banning abortion and the distribution of contraception) suggests to me that these women were not actually able to exercise real power, because if they had been able to decide policy on issues that were highly relevant to women, they would not have allowed those reactionary policies to remain in place.There was actually a point in time where women comprised of a larger section of the workforce than men did since the party went all out in telling mothers to not stay at home but to work. And yes, if a woman got elected to a bourgeois parliament in a totally tribal society, that would be pretty good from any point of view except the tribe's.

See above - regardless of whether Lenin "approved" or not, progressive policies were still implemented, because the Bolsheviks were still a progressive and revolutionary organization when they took power, and therefore recognized the need to combat the repressive policies that had existed under capitalism.Lenin could have done more to ensure their success though by actually supporting it. Once again, practical considerations and of course conservative views stifled these movements. Lenin wasn't alien to the concept of stifling progress for another time either, remember the NEP? (Not that Stalin wanted to revive the movement, just saying)

Do you think it's acceptable that governments should use their populations in this way - to the extent that women are seen primarily as producers of children - to achieve "collective" goals, like increasing the size of the population? This, to me, strikes at the heart of what socialism should be about - freeing each and every individual from constraints on their ability to develop their potential and be seen as an end unto themselves.Socialism is when workers have complete control over the state and means of production which are then collectively owned and operated. But yes, I never said that women should be viewed as 'baby-making machines' or anything like that. As I said, banning abortion was a bad move.

Led Zeppelin

22nd May 2009, 14:02

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue46/Harrison46.htm

He doesn't post a source for his claim. One Trotskyist organization, the most conservative one at that, is not really enough to base your opinion of the entire Trotskyist movement being anti-gay on, though.

Was it actually explicitly decriminalized or were the laws on it ignored?

It was explicitly decriminalized:

The Russian Communist Inessa Armand openly called for feminism and sexual liberation. The Russian Communist Party effectively legalized no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality, when they abolished all the old Tsarist laws and the initial Soviet criminal code kept these liberal sexual polices in place.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Pre-Stalin_Soviet_Russia)

Also I don't connect social issues (except in certain cases) with socialism. Gay rights are possible in both capitalism and socialism, whether a socialist hated gays in an epoch which made it hard for him or her not to do so is of little concern to me.

Then you need to prioritize your concerns regarding socialism.

Social rights are key, or at least should be key, to all communists. The right to healthcare and decent housing is just as important as the right to choose your partner regardless of their sex. If you are willing to focus on the one and not care about the other you're ignoring a section of the working-class which needs to be liberated socially just like the rest of the class needs to be.

You are then in effect being a reactionary to their social liberation.

They did speak, but Lenin still didn't really approve.

The fact that they were allowed to speak and espouse their views and even had a lot of their views put into law says enough about Lenin, who even while disagreeing with them on certain points submitted himself to the democratic process.

You can't say the same for the reaction that took power a few years later, and also not about Hoxha's regime.

SecondLife

22nd May 2009, 14:04

....., saw homosexuality as 'bourgeois decadence'.
No, just 'bourgeois culture' is instead against homosexuality and other morale aspects. Bourgeois culture makes rules in ethics, religion is also bourgeois culture, also nationalism. Anarchism (some anarchists like previous culture) or example some Ceausescu idiot who name itself communist, cant just make atheism, art or ethics without previously destroying old bourgeois culture. Ethics is itself borgeois fiction like also religion. Decadence is in many cases instead just some component of art.
Communism is not for making rules in art or in ethics, but instead destroying those rules, destroying ownership, nationalism and working with economy, but not with ethics as some idiot-communists.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Ismail

22nd May 2009, 14:13

He doesn't post a source for his claim. One Trotskyist organization, the most conservative one at that, is not really enough to base your opinion of the entire Trotskyist movement being anti-gay on, though.I still think that it really doesn't matter. I never intended to use "Trots disliked gays, too" as some sort of epic refutation of Trotskyism or its adherents. If Trots back in the 40's did approve of homosexuality, and if Trotsky himself even did, then that's all well and good but doesn't really matter since Trots are obviously supportive of homosexuality today and that's what matters in this epoch.

It was explicitly decriminalized:Okay.

Social rights are key, or at least should be key, to all communists. The right to healthcare and decent housing is just as important as the right to choose your partner regardless of their sex. If you are willing to focus on the one and not care about the other you're ignoring a section of the working-class which needs to be liberated socially just like the rest of the class needs to be.The working class needs economic liberation. Social liberation is pretty much a given after said economic liberation. Marxist movements in the West are almost all supportive of gay rights, etc. I'm certainly not against gay rights.

You are then in effect being a reactionary to their social liberation.If I were opposing gay rights (or any other social progress) then yes, but if I'm saying "in this epoch this sort of social progress took a backseat or was ignored/repressed due to the prevailing social views at the time that even the Communists shared" then that's just stating facts, it isn't saying "and thank god they did, the homosexualists must burn" or whatever.

The fact that they were allowed to speak and espouse their views and even had a lot of their views taken over by the state says enough about Lenin, who even while disagreeing with them on certain points submitted himself to the democratic process.The movement was seen as petty-bourgeois though, since proletarians and peasants (especially the latter) were seemingly against what the free love movement called for. Stalin came from a peasant family and before becoming General Secretary his job was basically to report to Lenin how awesome the Transcaucasian SSRs were doing. Lenin had criticisms of the movement (as noted) along the same lines of being influenced by petty-bourgeois values. Whether the movement was petty-bourgeois or not (I think that regardless it had no chance of widespread acceptance in the USSR beyond maybe Moscow) is another debate.

ZeroNowhere

22nd May 2009, 14:17

Ethics is itself borgeois fiction like also religion.Of course, religion and ethics didn't exist before the bourgeoisie.

Led Zeppelin

22nd May 2009, 14:24

I still think that it really doesn't matter. I never intended to use "Trots disliked gays, too" as some sort of epic refutation of Trotskyism or its adherents. If Trots back in the 40's did approve of homosexuality, and if Trotsky himself even did, then that's all well and good but doesn't really matter since Trots are obviously supportive of homosexuality today and that's what matters in this epoch.

Yeah, that's true, but it seemed as though you were excusing the reactionary viewpoint on this issue of some communists by pointing to the reactionary viewpoint on this issue of some other communists, so I was replying to that specifically.

I agree that what matters is this epoch though, and I'm glad we agree on this today.

The working class needs economic liberation. Social liberation is pretty much a given after said economic liberation.

I don't agree with this entirely. Economic liberation does not necessarily equal social liberation. I mean, you believe Albania and the USSR were economically socialist, right (at least up to some point)? So why then did total social liberation not follow from this?

I think it's necessary both pre and post-revolution to fight for total social liberation and prevent reaction from taking hold. Just like how economic liberation cannot happen overnight, social liberation cannot either.

If I were opposing gay rights (or any other social progress) then yes, but if I'm saying "in this epoch this sort of social progress took a backseat or was ignored/repressed due to the prevailing social views at the time that even the Communists shared" then that's just stating facts, it isn't saying "and thank god they did, the homosexualists must burn" or whatever.

I'm sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to you in the singular but the plural sense.

The movement was seen as petty-bourgeois though, since proletarians and peasants (especially the latter) were seemingly against what the free love movement called for. Stalin came from a peasant family and before becoming General Secretary his job was basically to report to Lenin how awesome the Transcaucasian SSRs were doing. Lenin had criticisms of the movement (as noted) along the same lines of being influenced by petty-bourgeois values. Whether the movement was petty-bourgeois or not (I think that regardless it had no chance of widespread acceptance in the USSR beyond maybe Moscow) is another debate.

I know Lenin had reservations on this, and in some respects he was right, but in most respect he was wrong, and a bit of a hypocrite I might add given his affair with Armand herself.

However, the fact that he allowed other communist to fight for their cause and enact laws which were socially progressive, even if he himself had some reservations about them, speaks to his commitment to the democratic process.

Because of this I don't really have any problems dismissing some of Lenin's conservative Victorian views on social matters. At least his views on social issues were way more advanced for his time and age than, say, Marx and Engels'.

Ismail

22nd May 2009, 14:33

I don't agree with this entirely. Economic liberation does not necessarily equal social liberation. I mean, you believe Albania and the USSR were economically socialist, right (at least up to some point)? So why then did total social liberation not follow from this?Hoxha himself said that the USSR and his own nation were in the process of building socialism, and that the USSR under Khrushchev reversed the road towards socialism in favor of a state-capitalist road. I'd classify Cuba and such as (and I hate to add more labels to Marxism) "representative socialism" because though workers do not directly control things (which is bad and for socialism to be victorious must obviously be done) they have "representatives" instead who have connections (of varying degrees) to the proletariat or peasantry and are receptive to them. Also private property does not exist or is insignificant and the state cannot be described as capitalist or state capitalist. This is why Hoxha technically said that his state was the only one in the world really upholding Marxism-Leninism, not "we're the worlds only socialist state." I'd say the USSR after Stalin was moving towards state-capitalism and achieved it by the 1960's and 70's. (I do encourage you to read the link in my sig, Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union for more info on this)

Obviously the biggest problem with "representative" socialism is when the "representatives" begin to live within the party or political body they are in, and their children live within it, etc. So they do not become workers, but bureaucrats and the drive for socialism becomes irrelevant as workers increasingly lose touch with their "representatives". This is what happened to every single state that claimed and still claims socialism. I do not blame Stalin for this, nor do I blame Lenin, since I believe they were genuine socialists. It was the first attempt ever to construct a socialist society that had this flaw in it, and led to its destruction.

So no, Albania (or Cuba, or any state ever) has not achieved socialism in the actual "workers directly control the state" sense of the term.

I think the debate is a bit too big to fit in this topic though.

I think it's necessary both pre and post-revolution to fight for total social liberation and prevent reaction from taking hold. Just like how economic liberation cannot happen overnight, social liberation cannot either.Well primarily if one views capitalism as being reactionary socially (and it is), that is because it is part of the superstructure, which is determined by its base (the economic, class structure of society, which is capitalist), so defeating the base and completely replacing it would thus necessitate a far less rocky road to social progress, especially since there would not be classes hinging onto their power by appealing to social issues or dominating society through cultural hegemony.

SecondLife

22nd May 2009, 15:21

Of course, religion and ethics didn't exist before the bourgeoisie.
Very good point. What kind of religion or ethics can be in apeman or reptile. Anarchy only. :laugh:

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 18:35

It's worth pointing out that HLVS and all of the other posters who see Lenin as a right-wing autocrat have not cited a single source in the form of a book or essay (take this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445248&postcount=18) post as an example of how this should be done - notice the book listed at the bottom of the post, and the argument it links to within the main body of text) to support any of their points - instead we've had a series of assertions that present the early history of the USSR as a simple moral conflict, based on the decisions of individuals and the evil machinations of the Bolsheviks, instead of considering the role of material conditions, as well as the fact that the Bolsheviks were faced with the task of building the world's first ever socialist state in an underdeveloped country with no prior experiences from which they could draw to navigate their way forward. Lenin was not an autocrat - he was elected as chairman of Sovnarkom and as leader of the Bolshevik party, and the Bolsheviks did not take power through a coup - they gained majorities through free and fair elections in all of the major urban Soviets and the revolution was organized through a committee of the Petrograd Soviet, containing not only Bolsheviks but also members of other revolutionary organizations such as the Left SRs. The major gains, including the establishment of workers power, only occurred after the October Revolution (because the February Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that did not smash the class rule of the bourgeoisie) and were more or less retained, as indicated by the source I cited earlier in this thread, despite a prolonged and brutal civil war.

Theres a whole pamphlet: http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 18:40

I'd be interested in whether you can give a single example of a Trotskyist organization describing homosexuality in that way. I don't think it's actually particularly relevant because neither my party nor any section of the contemporary Trotskyist movement holds a reactionary position on homosexuality or any other issue concerning questions of gender or sexuality, and it's widely known that several prominent Anarchists definitely did hold reactionary ideas - if not on homosexuality then definitely on Jews. Nonetheless, I think you're spreading a slander that you can't substantiate, which is something you've done throughout this thread.

I said alot of Trotskyists, I didn't say whole organisations. There was alot of views around the authoritarian left scene at the time which were homophobic, as detailed by amongst others, Martin Lux in his book 'Anti-Fascist'. On the issue of slander, I've provided the link to the pamphlet about Lenin.

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 18:51

Theres a whole pamphlet: http://libcom.org/library/the-bolshe...lidarity-group (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)I'm not going to buy a pamphlet so I can check the validity of your arguments, that's your job. I presume that if the pamphlet is of any political or intellectual value whatsoever then all of its argument should be references, in which case you should be able to get your copy (assuming you have a copy - if you don't then there's no reason for you to cite it as evidence because you wouldn't know anything about its usefulness as a secondary source) and open it up so you can look at what the references are, and hopefully cite some of them in this thread. Simply linking me to a pamphlet is not referencing - once again, look at the example of how it's done in the post that I linked to.

I said alot of Trotskyists, I didn't say whole organisations.That's irrelevant, then, because I can easily assert that individual anarchists have held homophobic views and you'd be extremely naive to believe that it's not true. Once again, some detail would be nice, instead of linking to an author who is listed in myspace...

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 19:22

I'm not going to buy a pamphlet so I can check the validity of your arguments, that's your job. I presume that if the pamphlet is of any political or intellectual value whatsoever then all of its argument should be references, in which case you should be able to get your copy (assuming you have a copy - if you don't then there's no reason for you to cite it as evidence because you wouldn't know anything about its usefulness as a secondary source) and open it up so you can look at what the references are, and hopefully cite some of them in this thread. Simply linking me to a pamphlet is not referencing - once again, look at the example of how it's done in the post that I linked to.

Its a link to a copy of the text online, genius.

That's irrelevant, then, because I can easily assert that individual anarchists have held homophobic views and you'd be extremely naive to believe that it's not true. Once again, some detail would be nice, instead of linking to an author who is listed in myspace...

Aha, so here we youur argument technique manifest itself - demand I source my claims, and when I do, say they are not good sources because the authorit is listed on myspace. Does being on myspace restrict you form being a worthy person now? :confused:

Yeh, its not particularly relevant, but its you who made the big issue out of it. And if you could tell me some anarchists who are homophobic, sure, I'll address that. I don't know any personally, so its not an issue for me.

I don't see why you referring to me some homophobic anarchists matters anyway, seeing as I don't feel as though I have to account for the behaviour or beliefs of anyone who calls themselves an anarchist, thats just absurd. Its used as a slur alot around here. Unlike Leninists we don't base our ideology on one person so you can't really attack our views by attacking the person who created them. I just see myself as a libertarian socialist and a anarcho-syndcialist so obviously an anarchist, I don't have to be repsonsible for whatever other anarchists have said. But I'd be interested to see who you come up with. I'd only be bothered if it was someone who I actually knew, i.e. someone I was active with, but I'm not active with anyone who is homophobic so you know.

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 20:27

Its a link to a copy of the text online, genius.Even so, it's not enough just to link to an entire pamphlet. You should at least be able to draw attention to a specific chapter within the pamphlet but if you want to have a good debate then it would be better if you can cite a page number as I did or even quote directly from the references that the pamphlet uses. That is how referencing is done, if you don't have that basic level of detail then you're just making assertions. To go back to the issue of workers control, when you asserted that Lenin had just abolished workers control from above for the sake of it, I pointed out that only a small proportion of factories were ever subject to one-man management, and the proportion that were controlled in this way was determined solely by the requirements of the civil war, such that, once it had become clear that the Bolsheviks were going to win, and as the forces of reaction were beaten back, this emergency measure was gradually withdrawn, despite the chaos that the civil war had caused. On the same issue I've also pointed out that the decision to place factories under state ownership was undertaken by the representatives of leading trade unions and was therefore an accurate reflection of what the working class wanted. You haven't responded to any of these arguments. Instead, you've consistently asserted that Lenin - a single individual who was in poor health from 1918 onwards - seized total power and crushed working-class democracy all by himself, indicating a view of history that sees the course of events as being determined by the arbitrary decisions of ambitious individuals, and paints Lenin as a monster, despite the fact that he was elected to all of his positions, and all government policies were passed through the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and VtsIK, both of which remained genuinely democratic organizations for the duration of the civil war, even when the Bolsheviks had been forced to become the only party in government. You also haven't expressed an opinion on the role of other countries in determining the fate of the revolution - i.e. the question of whether the revolution would ever have been able to survive and ensure a successful transition to socialism without revolutions throughout the world, and external support. This is a central question, because, based on a materialist analysis (i.e. not the Great Man type of history you promote - ironic, given you apparent distaste for people who worship individuals) the lack of productive development in Russia meant that international revolution was decisive, as both Lenin and Trotsky were aware.

If you feel like refuting these facts - supported with citations - here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445248&postcount=18)'s the key post, which, as mentioned before, shows how referencing is done.

demand I source my claims, and when I do, say they are not good sources because the authorit is listed on myspaceThat's not what I've argued at all. What I'm saying is that you haven't done any proper sourcing - all you did is assert that there have been some individual Trotskyists who are homophobic bigots, and when asked for some detail on who exactly these individuals are, and which organizations you belong to, you just directed us to a book, without giving any indication of where we should look inside that book if want to find out more.

Unlike Leninists we don't base our ideology on one person so you can't really attack our views by attacking the person who created them.There is no such thing as a "Leninist" and your accusation that "we" base our ideology on one person is totally unsubstantiated - like everything else you say. If someone asks me what kind of leftist I am then I would tell them that I'm a Trotskyist, because that's the most common term for people who celebrate the legacy of the Bolsheviks, agree with the theory of permanent revolution, and ruthlessly condemn Stalinism in all its forms - but that doesn't mean I agree with literally everything that Lenin or Trotsky said, in fact me and the rest of my organization firmly disagree with what some other Trotskyists see as Trotsky's most significant theoretical contribution - the notion that the USSR under Stalin was a "degenerated workers state" in which capitalism had ceased to exist, but political control had been seized by a bureaucratic stratum. So once again, you're wrong.

I don't see why you referring to me some homophobic anarchists matters anyway, seeing as I don't feel as though I have to account for the behaviour or beliefs of anyone who calls themselves an anarchist, thats just absurd.I agree, it's totally irrelevant, so what was the point of this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1450814&postcount=102) post?

PRC-UTE

22nd May 2009, 20:39

Do the people arguing that Leninism is a rightist deviation also hold the opinion that the Soviet state was not working class or a tool of working class struggle?

PRC-UTE

22nd May 2009, 20:43

Soviets with sham democracy, maniuplated, destroyed or ignores by Lenin, who made the changes he wanted and brutally crushed any opposition which called for democracy, such as the Kronstadt rebellion.

That's not an accurate summation.

The Bolsheviks had more support in the Soviets than any other faction.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 20:45

Even so, it's not enough just to link to an entire pamphlet. You should at least be able to draw attention to a specific chapter within the pamphlet but if you want to have a good debate then it would be better if you can cite a page number as I did or even quote directly from the references that the pamphlet uses. That is how referencing is done, if you don't have that basic level of detail then you're just making assertions. To go back to the issue of workers control, when you asserted that Lenin had just abolished workers control from above for the sake of it, I pointed out that only a small proportion of factories were ever subject to one-man management, and the proportion that were controlled in this way was determined solely by the requirements of the civil war, such that, once it had become clear that the Bolsheviks were going to win, and as the forces of reaction were beaten back, this emergency measure was gradually withdrawn, despite the chaos that the civil war had caused. On the same issue I've also pointed out that the decision to place factories under state ownership was undertaken by the representatives of leading trade unions and was therefore an accurate reflection of what the working class wanted. You haven't responded to any of these arguments. Instead, you've consistently asserted that Lenin - a single individual who was in poor health from 1918 onwards - seized total power and crushed working-class democracy all by himself, indicating a view of history that sees the course of events as being determined by the arbitrary decisions of ambitious individuals, and paints Lenin as a monster, despite the fact that he was elected to all of his positions, and all government policies were passed through the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and VtsIK, both of which remained genuinely democratic organizations for the duration of the civil war, even when the Bolsheviks had been forced to become the only party in government. You also haven't expressed an opinion on the role of other countries in determining the fate of the revolution - i.e. the question of whether the revolution would ever have been able to survive and ensure a successful transition to socialism without revolutions throughout the world, and external support. This is a central question, because, based on a materialist analysis (i.e. not the Great Man type of history you promote - ironic, given you apparent distaste for people who worship individuals) the lack of productive development in Russia meant that international revolution was decisive, as both Lenin and Trotsky were aware.

If you feel like refuting these facts - supported with citations - here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445248&postcount=18)'s the key post, which, as mentioned before, shows how referencing is done.

As the title suggests the whole pamphlet details Lenin and the Bolshevik's attacks on workers control, so citing one section is irrelevant. I gave it to you, its my source for my claims, you can refuse to read it if you want but I'll count it as denial.

That's not what I've argued at all. What I'm saying is that you haven't done any proper sourcing - all you did is assert that there have been some individual Trotskyists who are homophobic bigots, and when asked for some detail on who exactly these individuals are, and which organizations you belong to, you just directed us to a book, without giving any indication of where we should look inside that book if want to find out more.

You just brushed the book aside. Its my source, its a first hand account of such homophobia. It backs up the claim I made. Try reading it.

I agree, it's totally irrelevant, so what was the point of this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1450814&postcount=102) post?

Do not post personal information on the board- Bobkindles I'd at least expect you to have the attribute of intelligence even if social skills are not your best point - its a self-contained point, I was pointing out that alot of Leninists were homophobic. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 20:46

That's not an accurate summation.

The Bolsheviks had more support in the Soviets than any other faction.

Read the pamphlet is all I can say. They had alot of support initially yes. Then they destroyed democracy.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 20:46

Do the people arguing that Leninism is a rightist deviation also hold the opinion that the Soviet state was not working class or a tool of working class struggle?

I assume most of us would hold that view, yes. I do, and I can't see there being anyone who wouldn't.

PRC-UTE

22nd May 2009, 20:54

Marx-Leninism got things done? Sure, fascism got things done too. Capitalism got things done. All ideological systems got things done. We don't measure the merits of an ideology by what it 'got down', but to what extent its tactics have led to a worker run society.

I disagree.

Fascism was a failure: Mussolini nearly bankrupted his country by intervening in Spain and all of his campaigns failed, Hitler's 'economic miracle' was a sham that reduced living standards. Most the other fascist states jumped ship to the west or the Soviets as soon as they could. Only Spain's fascist state stayed intact (by becoming something of a comprador state) and this was plagued by guerrilla warfare that has yet to end.

Capitalism is a failure for most of the planet at this point who don't have access to clean water, adequate food and medicine, sanitation, education, or protection from exploitation. Capitalism is still shaken to its core by crisis and war.

Outside of the richest nations, only states building socialism have been able to look after the minimum needs of their people.

What you are doing here is fetishising one standard- "a worker run society" - regardless of context, and judging all successes and failures by this. Many Spanish militias were worker run, yet they did not have the ability to defeat fascism or even stop the tiny Stalinist party from repressing them. I would prefer that a society be worker run, and certainly a healthy democracy is necessary for a healthy socialism in the long run. HOwever I also acknowledge that having a healthy democracy is pretty difficult in circumstances of civil war, famine, invasion, complete economic collapse- all of which happened to the SU in its infancy. And that's leaving out the host of problems it inherited from the Tsarist empire.

It's good you have your principles, but most people aren't primarily concerned with just this one issue of society being worker run. They're more concerned with how the state delivers essential services, provides better access to clean water, food, healthcare, lifts their society out of backwardness to provide more opportunies and keeps them safe. Therefore it's appropriate for Marxists to say they did "get things done."

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 21:05

even when the Bolsheviks had been forced to become the only party in government

It's probably worth developing this point a bit more so you don't accuse me of lying. It's also quite interesting. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, the Left SRs voluntarily withdrew from Sovnarkom once the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had been democratically passed by the Congress of Soviets although they continued to retain their seats in the main legislative bodies of the Soviet state despite their growing animosity towards the Bolshevik-led government, such that, when the fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets was held in July 1918, the Left SRs accounted for 352 delegates, out of a total of 1,132, and were therefore a sizable minority. However, such was the level of debate and disagreement surrounding foreign policy, and in particular the policy that the government should adopt towards the German-controlled government in the Ukraine, only two days after the start of the Congress, two members of the Left SR carried out an assassination attack on the German ambassador to Soviet Russia, Mirbach, with the assassination being planned by Left SR members of the Cheka, and followed by attempts to seize power in Moscow, as well as a series of other important urban centers throughout the country, including Yaroslavl. This was political suicide as the Soviet republic was already surrounded by both internal and external opposition forces and so it would easily have been defeated if German forces in the Ukraine had decided to take military action. It was also have been irresponsible for the Bolshevik-led government to bow to the pressure of the SRs and declare war against Germany, because one of the three slogans that had enabled the Bolsheviks to come to power and lead the world's first socialist revolution was peace - i.e., they had promised to end the imperialist war as soon as possible, regardless of the territorial cost. In this context it would be incredibly naive to except the Congress, of which the Bolsheviks were the largest component, to allow the Left SRs to retain their places, and so they were promptly removed, resulting in the Bolsheviks being the only party in government, with the exception of a small number of independent delegates who had no political weight.

In other words, the Bolsheviks never planned to be the sole force in government - it was something they were forced into. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the Bolsheviks undertook a series of measures with the intention of bringing parties that had chosen to leave the government back into the fold so that they would not deteriorate and become undemocratic as a result of governing alone. On November 30 1918, VTsIK - the highest legislative body - passed a resolution canceling the policy of excluding the Mensheviks, which had been passed in June 1917, before the October Revolution, when a large number of Mensheviks demonstrated that they could not serve as a progressive force or legitimate representative of the working class by choosing to support Russia's participation in the imperialist war. The Left SRs received the same lenient treatment in February 1919 on the condition that "all groups which directly or indirectly support external and internal counter-revolution" would be excluded. These facts totally destroy the simplistic anarchist narrative of the Bolsheviks striving to became a hegemonic new ruling class. On the same theme, the repression that was exercised by the Cheka (which was a multi-party body, as implied above) was never as serious as many anarchists like to believe - despite the fact that the Kadets had been banned at the end of 1917 as the political manifestation of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois interests, the paper of that party, entitled Svoboda Rossii was still being published in Moscow in the summer of 1918 with no interference from the state, and, after being suppressed in February 1918 for its campaign of opposition to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Menshevik paper, Novyi Luch, was re-published from April 1918 onwards, albeit under a new name, Vpered, with the same being true of a number of minor anarchist journals. In fact, despite being excluded, the central committee of the Mensheviks were able to hold a five-day conference in Moscow at the end of October 1918. Thus, there was, to the credit of the Bolsheviks, given the difficult conditions in which operated, and the counter-revolutionary activities of many of these organizations, much political dissent, for the duration of the civil war.

Source for all of the above: E.H. Karr, The Bolshevik Revolution: 1917-1923, Volume One, pp170-190.

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 21:18

As the title suggests the whole pamphlet details Lenin and the Bolshevik's attacks on workers control, so citing one section is irrelevant.

Name a specific policy that was passed by the Congress of Soviets, or VTsIK. Just do something more than mindlessly repeating that the Bolsheviks and/or Lenin did all of these "evil" things.

mykittyhasaboner

22nd May 2009, 21:28

Name a specific policy that was passed by the Congress of Soviets, or VTsIK. Just do something more than mindlessly repeating that the Bolsheviks and/or Lenin did all of these "evil" things.

Why bother trying BK? HLVS has made it clear that Lenin and the Bolsheviks created state capitalism! He needs no proof because its true!!! The state owned and controlled everything so it was capitalist!!!! Lenin destroyed democracy!

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 21:32

I gave you a whole pamhlet worth of prove. Its not my fault you know that reading it would break your little bubble of denial. Its sad to find out your heros were scum but it happens.

Das war einmal

22nd May 2009, 21:49

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 21:55

Chomsky suggests in the provided video that Lenin crushed the Soviets from early on. I wonder how Lenin was able to do that, while the majority of the citizens were in fact workers and farmers. Certainly in a totally unstable time, where the Bolsheviks were completely surrounded by the white troops. You would have thought that Lenin and the rest of the Central committee would be overpowered by the workers themselves. It makes no sense to me, furthermore, if Anarcho-socialists would have been a much better way for socialism to be developed, then why did the Bolsheviks have more popularity? This all does not add up

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but surely I could ask if Bolshevism is the best way, why did it not happen in Spain, and also, why did Bolshevism degenerate into a new class society so quickly. Peronsally I think it has something to do with Lenin saying that revolutionaries must be full time, as opposed to being workers as well, and the emphasis on democratic centralism, which takes away accountability and true working class involvement. Hence, as Chomsky alludes and others have theorised, Lenin carried out a coup which was succesful because he lied and said he would give 'all power to the soviets' when he did the opposite. The games up guys, history proves your ideology wrong I am afraid.

mykittyhasaboner

22nd May 2009, 22:01

why did Bolshevism degenerate into a new class society so quickly.
There was no degeneration into a "new class society", because classes were never abolished. Classes aren't abolished in what we call socialism, or the transition from capitalism to communism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat; all of which are appropriate labels for Bolshevist Russia. In fact, the Russian SFR did more to abolish the difference between the city in country side, that is the difference between the proletariat, and petit-bourgeois (peasantry) than you like to admit.

Das war einmal

22nd May 2009, 22:09

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but surely I could ask if Bolshevism is the best way, why did it not happen in Spain, and also, why did Bolshevism degenerate into a new class society so quickly. Peronsally I think it has something to do with Lenin saying that revolutionaries must be full time, as opposed to being workers as well, and the emphasis on democratic centralism, which takes away accountability and true working class involvement. Hence, as Chomsky alludes and others have theorised, Lenin carried out a coup which was succesful because he lied and said he would give 'all power to the soviets' when he did the opposite. The games up guys, history proves your ideology wrong I am afraid.

A true Marxist would analyze every detail and come to the conclusion that several factors where to point out why the revolution of Spain had failed. Not only the fault of "unorganized anarchists" or "evil backstabbing Stalinists".
History proves that M-L movements have been the hardest combatant for capitalists imperialists.

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 22:12

I think it has something to do with Lenin saying that revolutionaries must be full time, as opposed to being workersWrong, and without any support whatsoever. I explain Lenin's understanding of the party and link to a longer essay on the subject in my very first post, particularly the first paragraph, to which you have not responded: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445191&postcount=9

Lenin carried out a coup which was succesful because he lied and said he would give 'all power to the soviets' when he did the oppositeWrong, yet again. I've already explained the relationship between workers control and the Soviet government in this this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445248&postcount=18) post, to which you have yet to respond, as well as the history of political repression in Russia after the October Revolution in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1451106&postcount=127) post, which has also gone unaddressed. All of my posts have been backed up with references to books that have been written by professional historians with no ideological affiliation whatsoever to Bolsheviks whereas the only thing we've had from you is a series of vague and simplistic generalizations, and a link to a pamphlet, without any explanation of how the content contained within the pamphlet supports any of your assertions. Unless you respond to my posts, it's clear that you've made a fool of yourself in this thread.

Lenin carried out a coup which was succesful because he lied and said he would give 'all power to the soviets' when he did the opposite.How could it have been a coup when the overthrow of the provisional government was sanctioned and carried out by the military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet, of which the Bolsheviks were only one component alongside several other parties, and the most meaningful economic and political changes, including the establishment of workers control, the implementation of laws controlling the length of the working day, and the extension of reproductive freedom to women and sexual minorities occurred after, and not before, the October Revolution? The October Revolution was a social revolution, i.e. the overthrow of capitalism and its political apparatus, as evidenced by the scale of the changes that followed, as well as the inspiring effect that it had on workers throughout the world, especially in Germany, where a revolution could have taken place. Again, historical facts come in handy.

The games up guys, history proves your ideology wrong I am afraid.

What kind of an argument is that? I could just as easily assert that the experiences of the Spanish Revolution "prove" that anarchism is "wrong" on the grounds that the revolution did not lead to the attainment of an international class society, but I don't do that, because, as a Marxist, with a nuanced and materialist view of history, I recognize that the course of historical events cannot be attributed to any one cause alone, and that the defeat of a revolution can derive from events (or a lack of events) that lie entirely beyond the control of those who carried out the revolution, and cannot be used as evidence that an ideology is "wrong". In the case of the Russian Revolution, it was international isolation that led to the revolution being defeated, because the effects of the civil war prevented the Soviets from functioning as effective organs of government and led to the bureaucracy within the party and state apparatus being able to increase its power, whereas if the revolution had spread to other countries, as it almost did, Russia would have never been forced to endure a civil war of such length and intensity, and could have received material support with which to advance its productive apparatus, and thereby solidify the social base of the revolution - the proletariat - which was always weak and fragile due to the underdeveloped condition of the Russian economy. It was not, for the last time, a case of "evil" Lenin coming to power through a coup and trying to destroy democracy just for the sake of it - it was a complex process that was fundamentally rooted in material conditions, and not the decisions of any individual, or even of the Bolsheviks as a political organization.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 22:38

Wrong,
and without any support whatsoever. I explain Lenin's understanding of the party and link to a longer essay on the subject in my very first post, particularly the first paragraph, to which you have not responded: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...91&postcount=9

"A worker-agitator" wrote Lenin, "who shows any talent and is at all promising should not work in the factory. We must see to it that he lives on Party support . . . and goes over to an underground status". (12) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-introduction#12)

Wrong, yet again. I've already explained the relationship between workers control and the Soviet government in this this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445248&postcount=18) post, to which you have yet to respond, as well as the history of political repression in Russia after the October Revolution in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1451106&postcount=127) post, which has also gone unaddressed. All of my posts have been backed up with references to books that have been written by professional historians with no ideological affiliation whatsoever to Bolsheviks whereas the only thing we've had from you is a series of vague and simplistic generalizations, and a link to a pamphlet, without any explanation of how the content contained within the pamphlet supports any of your assertions. Unless you respond to my posts, it's clear that you've made a fool of yourself in this thread.

The pamphlet documents Lenin and the Bolshevik's taking away workers pwoer. The whole pamphlet is a number of sourced sections done by date showing where Lenin took power away from the workers. I've linked that - I don't see what more I need to link. If you read it, you'll see the basis of my claims. To the contrsry your refusal to read this damning critique of Lenin shows that you are making a fool of yourself in denying facts in front of you and refusing to even read anything which goes against your own conception of Lenin. I've responded to your claims about Lenin with sources of my own and you don't like it, so you are trying to ignore that.

How could it have been a coup when the overthrow of the provisional government was sanctioned and carried out by the military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet, of which the Bolsheviks were only one component alongside several other parties, and the most meaningful economic and political changes, including the establishment of workers control, the implementation of laws controlling the length of the working day, and the extension of reproductive freedom to women and sexual minorities occurred after, and not before, the October Revolution? The October Revolution was a social revolution, i.e. the overthrow of capitalism and its political apparatus, as evidenced by the scale of the changes that followed, as well as the inspiring effect that it had on workers throughout the world, especially in Germany, where a revolution could have taken place. Again, historical facts come in handy.

And your facts are wrong. The Bolsheviks had the guns, thats how they gained power. Hence, this was a coup. And like with most coups, it set up a dictatorship which destroyed democracy and the independence of the working class. All this is outlined in the pamphlet which you refuse to read.

What kind of an argument is that? I could just as easily assert that the experiences of the Spanish Revolution "prove" that anarchism is "wrong" on the grounds that the revolution did not lead to the attainment of an international class society, but I don't do that, because, as a Marxist, with a nuanced and materialist view of history, I recognize that the course of historical events cannot be attributed to any one cause alone, and that the defeat of a revolution can derive from events (or a lack of events) that lie entirely beyond the control of those who carried out the revolution, and cannot be used as evidence that an ideology is "wrong". In the case of the Russian Revolution, it was international isolation that led to the revolution being defeated, because the effects of the civil war prevented the Soviets from functioning as effective organs of government and led to the bureaucracy within the party and state apparatus being able to increase its power, whereas if the revolution had spread to other countries, as it almost did, Russia would have never been forced to endure a civil war of such length and intensity, and could have received material support with which to advance its productive apparatus, and thereby solidify the social base of the revolution - the proletariat - which was always weak and fragile due to the underdeveloped condition of the Russian economy. It was not, for the last time, a case of "evil" Lenin coming to power through a coup and trying to destroy democracy just for the sake of it - it was a complex process that was fundamentally rooted in material conditions, and not the decisions of any individual, or even of the Bolsheviks as a political organization.

The age old Leninist argument that the problems associated to the USSR happened because of the war was what the pamphlet I produced was written to deal with. As I said, it covers the period of 1917-1921 documenting in detail with sources/references how Lenin and the Bolsheviks undermined workers power in the 4 years following the revolution. Its a convenient Leninist myth to blame the war, and this pamphlet dispels it wonderfully. Which is probably why you refuse to achknowledge it, because your scared of the truth it holds.

(12) Lenin. Sochineniya, IV, 441. (If you click the source link it takes you to libcom, where you'd have to quick the hyperlink again to find this source, so I pasted it right here, the whole pamphlet is visible on Libcom).

mykittyhasaboner

22nd May 2009, 22:43

And your facts are wrong. The Bolsheviks had the guns, thats how they gained power. Hence, this was a coup. And like with most coups, it set up a dictatorship which destroyed democracy and the independence of the working class. All this is outlined in the pamphlet which you refuse to read.

Coup huh?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105660/index.html?t=105660

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 22:44

Coup huh?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105660/index.html?t=105660

I don't suppose that article was written by a Leinist?

mykittyhasaboner

22nd May 2009, 22:45

I don't suppose that article was written by a Leinist?

Ha, OK. I see how you judge credibility. Two can play that game:

I don't suppose the pamphlet you posted was written by an anarchist? Since it's Libcom and all.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 22:47

Ha, OK. I see how you judge credibility. Two can play that game:

I don't suppose the pamphlet you posted was written by an anarchist? Since it's Libcom and all.

No, it wasn't written by an anarchist.

BobKKKindle$

22nd May 2009, 23:04

Originally Posted by Lenin
"A worker-agitator" wrote Lenin, "who shows any talent and is at all promising should not work in the factory. We must see to it that he lives on Party support . . . and goes over to an underground statusIf you actually investigate the source of that quote, you'll find that it's taken from WITBD, which, as I explained in my very first post in this thread, is a text that was written in a specific historical and political context, as a way of responding to those in the socialist movement who were arguing against a party based on the most militant and advanced workers, and did not believe that theory had an important role to play in the development of a revolutionary movement. The importance of this context means that the whole of the text should not be taken at face value, and ultimately an evaluation of the praxis, i.e. the actual activity of the party, instead of what one of its members wrote when he was still developing as a serious activist and political theorist in 1901, shows that the vast majority of the Bolshevik party were workers, who produced and fought alongside workers who were not members of the party, and the small minority who were employed full-time (keeping in mind that all sufficiently large party organizations require at least some full time staff - including the IWW) were always fully accountable to the rest of the party membership under the principles of democratic centralism, and could always be withdrawn at any party congress. If you really think that we can adopt an entirely superficial view of WITBD then you're going against the analysis of every single serious historian who has studied the history of the Bolsheviks and the European socialist movement. It is ultimately clear that the people who were involved in the overthrow of power in 1917 and the construction of a new society after that date were not all Bolshevik party functionaries - they were Russian workers and peasants, which is why the revolution obtained support from the Petrograd Soviet, instead of being a decision carried out by the Bolsheviks without any prior authorization.

And like with most coups, it set up a dictatorship which destroyed democracy and the independence of the working class. All this is outlined in the pamphlet which you refuse to read.If it "destroyed" democracy, then does that mean that "democracy" - whatever that means - existed before the October Revolution, under the provisional government? How could the society that existed before the social revolution in October have been in any way democratic, given that it was still based on market transactions and private ownership of the means of production, and the government of that society was waging a brutal imperialist war, conducted in the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, against the whole of the working population? Once again, you're adopting an entirely liberal conception of democracy, whereas Marxists, when told that a particular regime or system of government is "democratic" always ask - "democracy for which class?" - because we recognize that democracy cannot be understood independently of the economic structure of society, i.e. the question of which class is in power. More to the point, as I've already explained, the revolution was sanctioned by a body that was entirely distinct from the Bolshevik party - the military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet - which drew up plans for how the revolution would be carried out, and distributed weapons to those who would participate in the act of seizing power, a group which included - but was not limited to - members of the Bolsheviks. The revolution was, as the name suggests, a social revolution, because it involved the capitalist relations of production being toppled, whereas a coup is a political change that leaves the base intact.

The age old Leninist argument that the problems associated to the USSR happened because of the war was what the pamphlet I produced was written to deal with.The pamphlet is a timeline, comprised mainly of quotes from various individuals, without any attention to, say, the civil war. It's not my responsibility to pick through that long pamphlet, seeing if it refutes my arguments. If you know about this issue well enough, you should be able to respond the posts I linked to in my previous post - which totally demolish your argument that the Bolsheviks arbitrarily destroyed political opposition and workers power - but you haven't and you can't because you don't have a basic knowledge of the issues.

Pogue

22nd May 2009, 23:09

If you actually investigate the source of that quote, you'll find that it's taken from WITBD, which, as I explained in my very first post in this thread, is a text that was written in a specific historical and political context, as a way of responding to those in the socialist movement who were arguing against a party based on the most militant and advanced workers, and did not believe that theory had an important role to play in the development of a revolutionary movement. The importance of this context means that the whole of the text should not be taken at face value, and ultimately an evaluation of the praxis, i.e. the actual activity of the party, instead of what one of its members wrote when he was still developing as a serious activist and political theorist in 1901, shows that the vast majority of the Bolshevik party were workers, who produced and fought alongside workers who were not members of the party, and the small minority who were employed full-time (keeping in mind that all sufficiently large party organizations require at least some full time staff - including the IWW) were always fully accountable to the rest of the party membership under the principles of democratic centralism, and could always be withdrawn at any party congress. If you really think that we can adopt an entirely superficial view of WITBD then you're going against the analysis of every single serious historian who has studied the history of the Bolsheviks and the European socialist movement. It is ultimately clear that the people who were involved in the overthrow of power in 1917 and the construction of a new society after that date were not all Bolshevik party functionaries - they were Russian workers and peasants, which is why the revolution obtained support from the Petrograd Soviet, instead of being a decision carried out by the Bolsheviks without any prior authorization.

In summary, big paragraph saying: Although Lenin said it, it doesn't matter! Face it Bob, Lenin advocated and implemented a tactic which led to dictatorship.

If it "destroyed" democracy, then does that mean that "democracy" - whatever that means - existed before the October Revolution, under the provisional government? How could the society that existed before the social revolution in October have been in any way democratic, given that it was still based on market transactions and private ownership of the means of production, and the government of that society was waging a brutal imperialist war, conducted in the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, against the whole of the working population? Once again, you're adopting an entirely liberal conception of democracy, whereas Marxists, when told that a particular regime or system of government is "democratic" always ask - "democracy for which class?" - because we recognize that democracy cannot be understood independently of the economic structure of society, i.e. the issue of which class is in power. More to the point, as I've already explained, the revolution was sanctioned by a body that was entirely distinct from the Bolshevik party - the military-revolutionary commitee of the Petrograd Soviet - which drew up plans for how the revolution would be carried out, and distributed weapons to those who would participate in the act of seizing power, a group which included - but was not limited to - members of the Bolsheviks. The revolution was, as the name suggests, a social revolution, because it involved the capitalist relations of production being toppled, whereas a coup is a political change that leaves the base intact.

It destroyed Soviet democracy and the beginnings of socialist democracy expressed in the workers committees.

The "pamphlet" is a timeline, comprised mainly of quotes from various individuals, without any attention to, say, the civil war. If you know about this issue well enough, you should be able to respond the posts I linked to in my previous post - which totally demolish your argument that the Bolsheviks arbitrarily destroyed political opposition and workers power - but you haven't and you can't because you don't have a basic knowledge of the issues.

So here you are saying Lenin did undermine democracy and socialism, but your view is that he had to because of the war. I refer you to the Spanish Anarchists who continued fighting the war whilst having a society run by the workers right down to the militias, and didn't fight any worse for it. Face it, Lenin's authoritarian wars were not because of the war but because of his ideology.