Lenin, thoughts?

[Comrade Blaze]

Hi Comrades,

I Want to know everyone thoughts on the man who started the October revolution.

Post away please:thumbup1:

Comrade Blaze

[RTopol]

Hey Blaze,

Lenin was a pretty smart man(very harsh:D) and i really am grateful he existed cause the Soviet Union(i am Russian) was established because of him(well him and the other Bolshevik)....However,i don't like some facts about him(he hated smart people-well hate is not the right word but whatever-)...Anyways,smart man....



Whoever don't miss the Soviet Union has no heart,whoever wants it back is stupid-Vladimir Putin(he's right)

BTW,i am not a Communist but i also don;t like the other(Democrasy doesn't work,Capitalism sucks) ...Well got of topic sorry:rolleyes:

[Absolut]

Here I thought it was the Russian working class and peasantry that started the revolution. ;)

[scarletghoul]

Dont be silly, Lenin singlehandedly overthrew the tsar and all other reactionary forces with his magical lenin superpowers because he is a great man

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Lenin is my favourite person of all times.

[Pogue]

He was an opptunistic twat who played off of popular feeling before hijacking a revolution under the assumption that he could lead, completely ignoring Marx. He then went on to destroy worker's power in Russia thus killing one of the greatest moments in history with his beurecratic and authoritarian ideology. His view of the state was completely stupid and flawed, something his followers today refuse to grasp, the wallies.

[ComradeOm]

Here I thought it was the Russian working class and peasantry that started the revolution. ;)Don't underestimate the input of Lenin. Its an interesting scenario but despite being consistently outvoted within the Bolshevik Central Committee and geographically removed from Petrograd for most of the revolutionary period, the man nonetheless made two highly decisive interventions that can be said to have altered the course of the revolution. History today would look very different if Lenin had not been around in April or October 1917


Dont be silly, Lenin singlehandedly overthrew the tsar and all other reactionary forces with his magical lenin superpowers because he is a great manYou're thinking of Trotsky

[Nwoye]

Lenin was an authoritarian opportunist who manipulated a genuine communist uprising among the Russian proletariat and turned it into a bureaucratic, authoritarian, centralized state. He repeatedly suppressed worker movements, refused to hand over control of production to the workers (a rather elementary tenant of socialism), violently dealt with left opposition, introduced compulsory labor policies, and paved the way for Stalin's rule.

the same pretty much goes for Trotsky as well.

[Bilan]

He was an opptunistic twat who played off of popular feeling before hijacking a revolution under the assumption that he could lead, completely ignoring Marx. He then went on to destroy worker's power in Russia thus killing one of the greatest moments in history with his beurecratic and authoritarian ideology. His view of the state was completely stupid and flawed, something his followers today refuse to grasp, the wallies.

This is rather silly. To blame the degeneration of the Russian revolution on this balding revolutionary is beyond absurd. Lenin played his part, but he was not the deciding factor.

[Bilan]

Lenin was an authoritarian opportunist who manipulated a genuine communist uprising among the Russian proletariat and turned it into a bureaucratic, authoritarian, centralized state.

So, the isolation of the Russian revolution (largely caused by the crushing of the German revolution, amongst others), the Imperialist attacks on Russia, the under-developed economy - none of these are of any value in comparison to Lenin's opportunist and authoritarian tendencies?
What nonsense!



He repeatedly suppressed worker movements

He alone did this?



, refused to hand over control of production to the workers (a rather elementary tenant of socialism)

That's not a basic tenant of socialism. Workers seizing the means of production (Bourgeois charity isn't as desirable as one might think) is.

You have a rather elementary understanding of the Russian revolution. This isn't presumptious of me if it comes off like that: it's illustrated by your finger-pointing at Lenin, rather than realizing the more important events and issues.

[Pogue]

This is rather silly. To blame the degeneration of the Russian revolution on this balding revolutionary is beyond absurd. Lenin played his part, but he was not the deciding factor.

He played a pretty huge part, seeing as he functioned as essentially a dictator, and as such had a large degree of influence on events. Notice how when according to the Leninists, the USSR began to degenerate 'due to the war and loss of good revolutionaries', Russia looked nothing like worker's power.

[Nwoye]

So, the isolation of the Russian revolution (largely caused by the crushing of the German revolution, amongst others), the Imperialist attacks on Russia, the under-developed economy - none of these are of any value in comparison to Lenin's opportunist and authoritarian tendencies?
What nonsense!
The specific authoritarian tendencies I was referring to were listed in my original post. I don't see how the Bolsheviks circumstances excuse their refusal to grant power to worker movements, or the suppression of the left opposition. Hell, Lenin appointed Stalin to general secretary to deal with opposition within the party. I think that shows a certain line of continuity between the two leaders.


He alone did this?well no the entire Bolshevik party did this. I don't see your point.


That's not a basic tenant of socialism. Workers seizing the means of production (Bourgeois charity isn't as desirable as one might think) is. to be honest that's a trivial distinction. The working class must have control of production or the concept of alienation and ultimately class society remains.
Two possible situations come to mind. In one the working class (the collective producer) takes all the fundamental decisions. It does so directly, through organisms of its own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate (Factory Committees, Workers' Councils, etc.). These bodies, composed of elected and revocable delegates probably federate on a regional and national basis. They decide (allowing the maximum possible autonomy for local units) what to produce, how to produce it. at what cost to produce it, at whose cost to produce it. The other possible situation is one in which these fundamental decisions are taken 'elsewhere'. 'from the outside', i.e. by the State, by the Party, or by some other organism without deep and direct roots in the productive process itself. The 'separation of the producers from the means of production' (the basis of all class society) is maintained. The oppressive effects of this type of arrangement soon manifest themselves. This happens whatever the revolutionary good intentions of the agency in question, and whatever provisions it may (or may not) make for policy decisions to be submitted from time to time for ratification or amendment.

You have a rather elementary understanding of the Russian revolution. This isn't presumptious of me if it comes off like that: it's illustrated by your finger-pointing at Lenin, rather than realizing the more important events and issues.This thread is specifically about Lenin, and his actions. Now you're correct that these were policies pursued by Bolshevik governments as a whole, but Lenin was the end all be all of the party, and as such he had for the most part ultimate control of the party. I realize he was opposed to the NEP, which is why I held my criticism of that specific policy. If he actively opposed any of the examples I listed, then please point them out.

[Bilan]

He played a pretty huge part, seeing as he functioned as essentially a dictator,

What do you think allowed for that to happen? What circumstances created the groundwork for that form of political organisation?





Notice how when according to the Leninists, the USSR began to degenerate 'due to the war and loss of good revolutionaries', Russia looked nothing like worker's power.

Not the loss of good revolutionaries; due to it's isolation, and the imperialist attacks on the USSR.

[ComradeOm]

He played a pretty huge part, seeing as he functioned as essentially a dictator, and as such had a large degree of influence on eventsImpressive wordplay but I'm afraid that's not going to wash. You say that Lenin was "essentially a dictator" in an attempt to deflect attention from the unavoidable but simple fact that he was no such thing. Every decision that Lenin made was voted on - either by the Sovnarkom, Central Committees, CEC, or ultimately Congress of Soviets. Needles to say, he was often (most of the time pre-October) on the losing side of these votes. He occupied no super-constitutional role and his position was entirely based on the democratic will of the soviets. So no, Lenin was not a dictator or "essentially a dictator"

As for having "large degree of influence on events", you imply that this followed from his supposed position as a dictator. It wouldn't be possible that Lenin's central role in the Russian Revolution stemmed from the fact that he had devoted the previous three decades of his life to the revolutionary movement? Besides, as I note above, Lenin was consistently outvoted on a whole range of issues both before and after October 1917


Notice how when according to the Leninists, the USSR began to degenerate 'due to the war and loss of good revolutionaries', Russia looked nothing like worker's power.So you are accepting the (supposed) argument of the 'Leninists'?


I don't see how the Bolsheviks circumstances excuse their refusal to grant power to worker movements, or the suppression of the left oppositionHmmm? The Bolshevik government derived all its legitimacy from the worker movement and remained entirely beholden to the Soviets. It was the Congress of Soviets that "granted power" to the Bolsheviks

As for the "left opposition", do you mean the Mensheviks (allied with the Whites against Soviet power), the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (part of government until they embarked on a terrorist campaign), the 'workers opposition' (who were never "suppressed" but rather simply out-voted), or the 'left opposition' (arrayed against Stalin after Lenin's death)?

[Bilan]

The specific authoritarian tendencies I was referring to were listed in my original post. I don't see how the Bolsheviks circumstances excuse their refusal to grant power to worker movements, or the suppression of the left opposition. Hell, Lenin appointed Stalin to general secretary to deal with opposition within the party. I think that shows a certain line of continuity between the two leaders.

Yeah, again, philanthropic states aren't desired or a goal. Nor is this the reason why the USSR turned out the way it did. I'm not ignoring any of these things, especially not their treatment of the Left Opposition or the degeneration of the revolution. I'm merely highlighting the flimsy logic of your approach.



well no the entire Bolshevik party did this. I don't see your point.

You blamed it on Lenin. I called you up on it.



to be honest that's a trivial distinction.

No, it isn't. There is an important distinction between being given the means of production (absurd) and seizing the means of production. The former is the creation of idealists who imagine peace and the ruling class giving up (hence, give) their ownership of the means of production; the latter realises that revolution is an act of self liberation.



The working class must have control of production or the concept of alienation and ultimately class society remains.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

[Nwoye]

Hmmm? The Bolshevik government derived all its legitimacy from the worker movement and remained entirely beholden to the Soviets. It was the Congress of Soviets that "granted power" to the Bolsheviks
then why did the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular refuse to hand control of production over to the workers? And specifically, what is the justification of the suppression of the worker uprising at Kronstadt?


As for the "left opposition", do you mean the Mensheviks (allied with the Whites against Soviet power), the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (part of government until they embarked on a terrorist campaign), the 'workers opposition' (who were never "suppressed" but rather simply out-voted), or the 'left opposition' (arrayed against Stalin after Lenin's death)?
When I'm saying "the left opposition" i mean various leftists in soviet russia who opposed Lenin's actions and rule (the mensheviks being the exception), who were mostly either ignored, arrested or killed.

[ComradeOm]

then why did the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular refuse to hand control of production over to the workers?The obvious answer being that they were not syndicalists. Control over the means of production was to be exercised through political oversight provided by the soviets

You could of course claim that Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the Russian proletariat were mistaken in this course of action but I suspect that you are going much further than that. How dare those revolutionaries disagree with your conceptions of a post-revolutionary society; why they must not have been revolutionaries at all!


And specifically, what is the justification of the suppression of the worker uprising at Kronstadt?For some reason Kronstadt always pops up. Again there is an obvious answer - Kronstadt was no "workers rising" but a military mutiny that presented a direct challenge to the Soviet government. Had the sailors actually possessed a base of support amongst the Russian proletariat then I'm sure things would have been very different... but then in that case there would have been no need to mutiny in the first place


When I'm saying "the left opposition" i mean various leftists in soviet russia who opposed Lenin's actions and rule (the mensheviks being the exception), who were mostly either ignored, arrested or killed.Or joined the Soviet movement. The vast majority of those who ended up "suppressed" were those who maintained an opposition to the soviets and the very concept of workers democracy

[Nwoye]

Yeah, again, philanthropic states aren't desired or a goal. Nor is this the reason why the USSR turned out the way it did. I'm not ignoring any of these things, especially not their treatment of the Left Opposition or the degeneration of the revolution. I'm merely highlighting the flimsy logic of your approach.
If my "flimsy logic" was blaming the failure to achieve socialism all on Lenin, well let me apologize, as I wouldn't intentionally do that. But this thread is specifically about Lenin, and as such we're talking specifically about him. I'm of the opinion that his actions and theory really led to the organization of the state and the party, and their treatment of the Russian working classes. Are there other factors? of course. But Lenin was the figurehead and leader of the movement, and as such he absorbs much of the blame for the bad, and much of the praise for the good.


You blamed it on Lenin. I called you up on it. Was Lenin not in support of these measures?


No, it isn't. There is an important distinction between being given the means of production (absurd) and seizing the means of production. The former is the creation of idealists who imagine peace and the ruling class giving up (hence, give) their ownership of the means of production; the latter realises that revolution is an act of self liberation. You're clearly being caught up on grammar and semantics here. Of course seizing the means of production is a violent act, as evidenced by the violence and terrorism exhibited by the Whites during the Civil war. My point however was, that Lenin and his party members (the "vanguard party") got in the way of this process, both with their policy of war communism and their refusal to hand the management of production over to the workers.
"'Workers' power' cannot be identified or equated with the power of the Party - as it repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks. In the words of Rosa Luxemburg, workers' power must be implemented 'by the class, not by a minority, managing things in the name of the class. It must emanate from the active involvement of the masses, remain under their direct influence, be submitted to control by the entire population, result from the increasing political awareness of the people'. As for the concept of 'taking power' it cannot mean a semi military putsch, carried out by a minority, as it obviously does for so many who still seem to be living in the Petrograd of 1917. Nor can it only mean the defence - however necessary - of what the working class has won against attempts by the bourgeoisie to win it back. What 'taking power' really implies is that the vast majority of the working class at last realises its ability to manage both production and society - and organises to this end."
Instead of this, instead of organizing towards the basic goal of socialism, Lenin insisted on a vanguard party leading the way through centralized planning.

[Nwoye]

The obvious answer being that they were not syndicalists. Control over the means of production was to be exercised through political oversight provided by the soviets
Even though the economy and other administrative duties were centralized in the central committee.


You could of course claim that Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the Russian proletariat were mistaken in this course of action but I suspect that you are going much further than that. How dare those revolutionaries disagree with your conceptions of a post-revolutionary society; why they must not have been revolutionaries at all!
I'll post this quote again, as I think it nicely applies:

Two possible situations come to mind. In one the working class (the collective producer) takes all the fundamental decisions. It does so directly, through organisms of its own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate (Factory Committees, Workers' Councils, etc.). These bodies, composed of elected and revocable delegates probably federate on a regional and national basis. They decide (allowing the maximum possible autonomy for local units) what to produce, how to produce it. at what cost to produce it, at whose cost to produce it. The other possible situation is one in which these fundamental decisions are taken 'elsewhere'. 'from the outside', i.e. by the State, by the Party, or by some other organism without deep and direct roots in the productive process itself. The 'separation of the producers from the means of production' (the basis of all class society) is maintained. The oppressive effects of this type of arrangement soon manifest themselves. This happens whatever the revolutionary good intentions of the agency in question, and whatever provisions it may (or may not) make for policy decisions to be submitted from time to time for ratification or amendment.

For some reason Kronstadt always pops up. Again there is an obvious answer - Kronstadt was no "workers rising" but a military mutiny that presented a direct challenge to the Soviet government. Had the sailors actually possessed a base of support amongst the Russian proletariat then I'm sure things would have been very different... but then in that case there would have been no need to mutiny in the first place
Kronstadt was at the very least a call for Democratic Socialism and an end to war communism. That seems like a reasonable demand right? Well the Bolsheviks didn't feel that way, which is why those who participated in the uprising were killed or sent to labor camps.

btw, an opposition to war communism (and later to the NEP) was not uncommon among the proletariat.

[Pogue]

The point I was making was that Lenin and also Trotsky made decisions which caused the degeneracy of the USSR. They limited democracy and worker's power, this is documented. As I said, imperialism and isolation doesn't justify dismantling everything the workers created.

[ZeroNowhere]

Edit: blaming historical events on Lenin seems to be a classic case of a conspiracy theory:Which is irrelevant because conspiracies do take place.

[Communist Theory]

I did quite a few speeches and papers on him.
Truly a revolutionary spirit.
I like him.

[ComradeOm]

Even though the economy and other administrative duties were centralized in the central committeeIncorrect. There were a whole host of local and intermediate economic organisations in the post-revolution years. These ranged from city and district soviets to regional congresses (such as the Northern Commune) to national organs

Even if your assertion was true (assuming you obviously meant Sovnarkom, the Central Committee was not involved in economic discussions during those early years) the central government ruled only on the whims of the Soviets. The Sovnarkom was elected by, overseen, and ultimately responsible to the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the Congress of Soviets. In turn there, IIRC, at least two Congresses called a year and these were responsible for electing the CEC. So the idea, proposed by yourself and Haywood's Fingers, that Lenin was "essentially a dictator" or "refuse to hand control of production over to the workers" is simply false


I'll post this quote again, as I think it nicely applies:

Two possible situations come to mind. In one the working class (the collective producer) takes all the fundamental decisions. It does so directly, through organisms of its own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate (Factory Committees, Workers' Councils, etc.). These bodies, composed of elected and revocable delegates probably federate on a regional and national basis. They decide (allowing the maximum possible autonomy for local units) what to produce, how to produce it. at what cost to produce it, at whose cost to produce it. The other possible situation is one in which these fundamental decisions are taken 'elsewhere'. 'from the outside', i.e. by the State, by the Party, or by some other organism without deep and direct roots in the productive process itself. The 'separation of the producers from the means of production' (the basis of all class society) is maintained. The oppressive effects of this type of arrangement soon manifest themselves. This happens whatever the revolutionary good intentions of the agency in question, and whatever provisions it may (or may not) make for policy decisions to be submitted from time to time for ratification or amendment.
Which is a perfect example of the extremely fuzzy thinking that marks much anarchist writing about the Russian Revolution. There was a system of "organisms of [the proletariat's] own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate" - this is exactly what the soviet movement was. A network of worker councils established by the workers and run by the workers in the interests of the workers. Contrary to the quote provided, this was not incompatible or alien to THE STATE but rather the soviets were themselves the basis of the new workers state constructed by the Russian proletariat

So not only is your passage factually incorrect (and that's the least of my problems with that particular pamphlet) but it attempts to create an artificial and completely ahistorical division between the soviets (ie, the worker councils) and the state. The two were one and the same


Kronstadt was at the very least a call for Democratic Socialism and an end to war communism. That seems like a reasonable demand right? Well the Bolsheviks didn't feel that way, which is why those who participated in the uprising were killed or sent to labor campsSo the mutiny was crushed. Who would have thought that taking up arms against a Soviet state still embroiled in a civil war would have produced such consequences?

And secondly, in case you didn't notice, War Communism was ended shortly afterwards. The restoration of semi-capitalist relations to the Russian countryside must have been a big victory to the Kronstadt sailors. Who knows what they might have achieved if they had raised their concerns without taking up arms... :rolleyes:


The point I was making was that Lenin and also Trotsky made decisions which caused the degeneracy of the USSRWhy is it that you'll often accuse 'Leninists' of ascribing supernatural powers and omniscience to Lenin, yet in any half-serious discussion regarding the Russian Revolution you are the first to do the exact same?

[Nwoye]

Incorrect. There were a whole host of local and intermediate economic organisations in the post-revolution years. These ranged from city and district soviets to regional congresses (such as the Northern Commune) to national organs

Even if your assertion was true (assuming you obviously meant Sovnarkom, the Central Committee was not involved in economic discussions during those early years) the central government ruled only on the whims of the Soviets. The Sovnarkom was elected by, overseen, and ultimately responsible to the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the Congress of Soviets. In turn there, IIRC, at least two Congresses called a year and these were responsible for electing the CEC. So the idea, proposed by yourself and Haywood's Fingers, that Lenin was "essentially a dictator" or "refuse to hand control of production over to the workers" is simply false

Which is a perfect example of the extremely fuzzy thinking that marks much anarchist writing about the Russian Revolution. There was a system of "organisms of [the proletariat's] own choice with which it identifies itself completely or which it feels it can totally dominate" - this is exactly what the soviet movement was. A network of worker councils established by the workers and run by the workers in the interests of the workers. Contrary to the quote provided, this was not incompatible or alien to THE STATE but rather the soviets were themselves the basis of the new workers state constructed by the Russian proletariat

So not only is your passage factually incorrect (and that's the least of my problems with that particular pamphlet) but it attempts to create an artificial and completely ahistorical division between the soviets (ie, the worker councils) and the state. The two were one and the same

So the mutiny was crushed. Who would have thought that taking up arms against a Soviet state still embroiled in a civil war would have produced such consequences?

And secondly, in case you didn't notice, War Communism was ended shortly afterwards. The restoration of semi-capitalist relations to the Russian countryside must have been a big victory to the Kronstadt sailors. Who knows what they might have achieved if they had raised their concerns without taking up arms... :rolleyes:

Why is it that you'll often accuse 'Leninists' of ascribing supernatural powers and omniscience to Lenin, yet in any half-serious discussion regarding the Russian Revolution you are the first to do the exact same?
you've clearly done extensive research on this subject (much more than I), and at the current moment I'm just not prepared to continue the research necessary for this discussion. thanks for the interesting debate. I'm willing to chock this debate up as a loss, but I maintain that the Bolsheviks actions with regard to the Kronstadt rebellion were unnecessarily authoritarian and violent. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[ComradeOm]

you've clearly done extensive research on this subject (much more than I), and at the current moment I'm just not prepared to continue the research necessary for this discussion. thanks for the interesting debate. I'm willing to chock this debate up as a loss, but I maintain that the Bolsheviks actions with regard to the Kronstadt rebellion were unnecessarily authoritarian and violent. Thanks for the interesting discussion.If you're interested in further reading on the Bolsheviks, the Russian Revolution, and the immediate post-October aftermath then I'd highly recommend Rabinowitch's trilogy - Prelude to Revolution, The Bolsheviks Come To Power, and The Bolsheviks in Power. Excellent books that contain a wealth of in-depth detail and analysis that really goes some distance towards dispelling many of the myths that cloud this topic. They sketch out both the structure of the Bolshevik party in 1917, the driving forces behind the October Revolution, and the immediate structure (or lack of structure) of the Soviet state

Of course the most relevant myth in the context of this thread is the cult built around Lenin by both Soviet propagandists and Western detractors. He was a pivotal figure in history, no question about that, but his role in both the Bolshevik party and Soviet state is a lot less central than typically made out. The picture that emerges is one of a highly pragmatic politician/revolutionary willing to adapt to circumstances, and often wrong, rather than some infallible prophet making every decision of note

The Russian Revolution is not the easiest of topics to research but I'm a firm believer that its something that every communist or anarchist should study and learn from. And that means pushing past the well-worn myths that have been built up over the last century

[Nwoye]

thanks for the references.

[x359594]

...the most relevant myth in the context of this thread is the cult built around Lenin by both Soviet propagandists and Western detractors. He was a pivotal figure in history, no question about that, but his role in both the Bolshevik party and Soviet state is a lot less central than typically made out. The picture that emerges is one of a highly pragmatic politician/revolutionary willing to adapt to circumstances, and often wrong, rather than some infallible prophet making every decision of note

Well said ComradeOm. Lenin also had tremendous organizational ability and was a skilled agitator. He was also a fine polemicist.


...The Russian Revolution is not the easiest of topics to research but I'm a firm believer that its something that every communist or anarchist should study and learn from. And that means pushing past the well-worn myths that have been built up over the last century

I couldn't agree more. The Abramowitch books that you cite are indispensable. Also very informative is John Keep's The Russian Revolution: a Study in Mass Mobilization, about the how the revolution was carried out among the peasantry.

[Bilan]

If my "flimsy logic" was blaming the failure to achieve socialism all on Lenin, well let me apologize, as I wouldn't intentionally do that.

Well, okay then.




But this thread is specifically about Lenin, and as such we're talking specifically about him. I'm of the opinion that his actions and theory really led to the organization of the state and the party, and their treatment of the Russian working classes. Are there other factors? of course. But Lenin was the figurehead and leader of the movement, and as such he absorbs much of the blame for the bad, and much of the praise for the good.

Lenin is simply not that much of a defining factor - especially not of national organisation. There are bigger factors which come into play - much of which are related to the reaction of the revolutionary forces to their isolation and the imperialist attacks on Russia.
My problem is the way in which you put so much emphasis on him, rather than on the actual conditions which led to this organisation - the latter being the important factor.
Lenin's theory? What theory? State and Revolution? Certainly, you're not going to argue that this - perhaps one of his most important works - was what led to this?
Certainly, theoretical publications like Left Wing Childishness and Left Wing Communism indicate a shift to the right in Lenin's politics, and indicate the degeneration of the Russian revolution - and the clambering by the leaders to rescue it. But he was simply not responsible. He is not absolved of any responsibility, but he does not bare the mass of responsibility, any more than Bush does for the Iraq war. He played his part, his part wasn't the important part.



Was Lenin not in support of these measures?

I'm sure he was.


You're clearly being caught up on grammar and semantics here.

I'm not. These are important distinctions. The words have very different meanings.



Of course seizing the means of production is a violent act, as evidenced by the violence and terrorism exhibited by the Whites during the Civil war. My point however was, that Lenin and his party members (the "vanguard party") got in the way of this process, both with their policy of war communism and their refusal to hand the management of production over to the workers.

Yes, and you're ignoring what led to that, and focusing on it itself, which is utterly pointless.




"'Workers' power' cannot be identified or equated with the power of the Party - as it repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks. In the words of Rosa Luxemburg, workers' power must be implemented 'by the class, not by a minority, managing things in the name of the class. It must emanate from the active involvement of the masses, remain under their direct influence, be submitted to control by the entire population, result from the increasing political awareness of the people'. As for the concept of 'taking power' it cannot mean a semi military putsch, carried out by a minority, as it obviously does for so many who still seem to be living in the Petrograd of 1917. Nor can it only mean the defence - however necessary - of what the working class has won against attempts by the bourgeoisie to win it back. What 'taking power' really implies is that the vast majority of the working class at last realises its ability to manage both production and society - and organises to this end."

Is this Maurice Brinton?



Instead of this, instead of organizing towards the basic goal of socialism, Lenin insisted on a vanguard party leading the way through centralized planning.

A vanguard party is not counter-poised to proletarian self-emancipation. A vanguard is an organic part of the class struggle. It is too the spearhead of the revolution, it is not the revolution itself, nor is it the definitive factor in the revolution (especially if it degenerates due to issues outside and bigger than itself)

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I am getting sick from the pathetic attacks from so-called "left Communists" and anarchists against Lenin, who was the only man who ever started to make Communism a practical, existant force. Only the movement started by lenin actually achieved anything, while we're still waiting to see the first revolutionary thing ever to be realised by the "left Communists".

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I am getting sick from the pathetic attacks from so-called "left Communists" and anarchists against Lenin, who was the only man who ever started to make Communism a practical, existant force. Only the movement started by lenin actually achieved anything, while we're still waiting to see the first revolutionary thing ever to be realised by the "left Communists".
Yes, we should all thank Lenin for making Russia the glorious socialist paradise it is today. Oh, wait...

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

When Life gives you Lenin, make Leninade.

Actually, I don't like the guy.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes, we should all thank Lenin for making Russia the glorious socialist paradise it is today. Oh, wait...

Wait, it was Lenin? I thought it was the Soviet decision and not by Lenin. Stop fucking think that Lenin is everything and nothing. Your pathetic views explained why anarchism is not strong movement, it "ultra-leftism", it can't actually debate honesty but then go on insult it and use the fucking stupid slogan.

Anarkies: Lenin did it
OMFG IT A EVIL LENINIST: It was the congress.
Anarkies: LOOK AT SOVIET UNION! IT WAS EVIL
OMFG IT A EVIL LENINIST: *sigh*

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Wait, it was Lenin? I thought it was the Soviet decision and not by Lenin. Stop fucking think that Lenin is everything and nothing. Your pathetic views explained why anarchism is not strong movement, it "ultra-leftism", it can't actually debate honesty but then go on insult it and use the fucking stupid slogan.

Anarkies: Lenin did it
OMFG IT A EVIL LENINIST: It was the congress.
Anarkies: LOOK AT SOVIET UNION! IT WAS EVIL
OMFG IT A EVIL LENINIST: *sigh*
Have you actually read any of this thread? I actually agree with what Bilan's being saying in this thread, that the failure of the Soviet Union was due to greater forces and would've happened anyway without Lenin. I only mentioned Lenin by name in response to Wakizashi claiming that Lenin "was the only man who ever started to make Communism a practical, existant force". So do you want to explain to Wakizashi that Lenin wasn't that important?

[ComradeOm]

When Life gives you Lenin, make LeninadePersonally I've always preferred "When life gives you lemons, organise them into soviets" ;)

[Bilan]

I am getting sick from the pathetic attacks from so-called "left Communists" and anarchists against Lenin, who was the only man who ever started to make Communism a practical, existant force. Only the movement started by lenin actually achieved anything, while we're still waiting to see the first revolutionary thing ever to be realised by the "left Communists".

You should probably read what was said before you drool over the page. Lenin was "not the only man" who made communism a "practical, existent force". You've exposed your faux-Marxist tendencies quite clearly - considering your glued to 'Great Men History'.
Anyhow, this post is just unbelievably ridiculous, and if anything, just a poor attempt at slander.
Turn 12.

[Bilan]

Wait, it was Lenin? I thought it was the Soviet decision and not by Lenin. Stop fucking think that Lenin is everything and nothing. Your pathetic views explained why anarchism is not strong movement, it "ultra-leftism", it can't actually debate honesty but then go on insult it and use the fucking stupid slogan.


This is two ridiculous sectarian posts in a row by two poorly informed wanks.
Anarchism is not-not a strong movement because of it's views on Lenin. That is absurd. Not only that, but it's irrelevant. "Ultra-leftism"! Oh for heavens sake!

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

You should probably read what was said before you drool over the page. Lenin was "not the only man" who made communism a "practical, existent force". You've exposed your faux-Marxist tendencies quite clearly - considering your glued to 'Great Men History'.
Anyhow, this post is just unbelievably ridiculous, and if anything, just a poor attempt at slander.
Turn 12.
Dude really, stop pretending like you don't know what I mean.
Lenin's movement, the Bolshevist movement, was the first Communist movement that ever achieved anything, and all other achievements of Communism were based on the Bolshevist start.

[robbo203]

Dont be silly, Lenin singlehandedly overthrew the tsar and all other reactionary forces with his magical lenin superpowers because he is a great man


I think this is called the "great man theory of history" dubbed as such by Carlyle. There is an interesting pamphlet by Plekhanov called "The Role of the Individual in History" which debunks this view of history. But I assume you are being ironic...

Besides which most of what Lenin wrote was a load of crap anyway. He is grossly overrated as a theoretician in my view