anti-leninist marxist writers

[Blasphemy]

are there any marxist/socialist writers that oppose(d) lenin and leninism? if you know of any, please write their names. i would be grateful.

[Ian]

Eugene Debs had his criticism of Lenin, but mostly because Lenin denied freedom of speech and re-instituted execution. I doubt you will find many other Marxist writers AT THAT TIME who criticised Lenin.
After Lenin's death I'm sure there were a few and recently some may have been written as well.
If one counts that fuckwit Kautsky as a marxist he may have written a bit.

[Blasphemy]

i don't need only people from that time, but also historians.

[new democracy]

Roza Luxemburg was a critic of lenin, and some materials from the left-communist parties(which were attacked by lenin)could help you.

[suffianr]

Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia (1923).

Frigid *****. Oops, shouldn't be dissin' dead people, now should we? ;)

[man in the red suit]

just take your pick of any republican senator during the 1950's and there is also Stefan t. Possony from Georgetown university he is super anti Marxist.

[Revolution Hero]

Any "marxist" who criticizes Lenin and his teaching is not a TRUE MARXIST, but opportunist, revisionist or simply disguised capitalist. Don't you ever listen to those bastards!

[WalterBennet]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 7:22 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
Any "marxist" who criticizes Lenin and his teaching is not a TRUE MARXIST, but opportunist, revisionist or simply disguised capitalist. Don't you ever listen to those bastards!


Why?Can't someone just agree with Marx/Engels and disagree with Lenin?Do I sense a dogma?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from WalterBennet on 3:42 am on Dec. 31, 2002

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 7:22 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
Any "marxist" who criticizes Lenin and his teaching is not a TRUE MARXIST, but opportunist, revisionist or simply disguised capitalist. Don't you ever listen to those bastards!


Why?Can't someone just agree with Marx/Engels and disagree with Lenin?

I see that you are smart one. Try to find an example of Lenin contradicting to Marx and Engels. Go ahead and waste your time!

[WalterBennet]

I have never read anything by Lenin,so I have no idea if he ever contradicted Marx/Engels.That's why my post was a question not a statement.

[BOZG]

RH,
There's a difference between actions and words. Seeing as Marx or Engels were never in power in a socialist country, it is very easy to be an anti-Leninist and a Marxist at the same time.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 6:11 am on Dec. 31, 2002
RH,
There's a difference between actions and words. Seeing as Marx or Engels were never in power in a socialist country, it is very easy to be an anti-Leninist and a Marxist at the same time.

This is very interesting.
Please, tell me what were the differences between Lenin’s practice and Marxist theory…

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 12:59 am on Jan. 1, 2003

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 6:11 am on Dec. 31, 2002
RH,
There's a difference between actions and words. Seeing as Marx or Engels were never in power in a socialist country, it is very easy to be an anti-Leninist and a Marxist at the same time.

This is very interesting.
Please, tell me what were the differences between Lenin’s practice and Marxist theory…


Lenin had a tendency of distorting Marxism in order to make it more easily applicable to soviet society. the biggest example of this would be how he started the revolution before the people were ready. Overall, Lenin was noteworthy for modifying principles and adding new ones which orthodox Marxist did not necesarily agree with 100% of the time. Lenin was basically a revisionist.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 6:21 pm on Jan. 1, 2003

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 12:59 am on Jan. 1, 2003

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 6:11 am on Dec. 31, 2002
RH,
There's a difference between actions and words. Seeing as Marx or Engels were never in power in a socialist country, it is very easy to be an anti-Leninist and a Marxist at the same time.

This is very interesting.
Please, tell me what were the differences between Lenin’s practice and Marxist theory…


Lenin had a tendency of distorting Marxism in order to make it more easily applicable to soviet society. the biggest example of this would be how he started the revolution before the people were ready. Overall, Lenin was noteworthy for modifying principles and adding new ones which orthodox Marxist did not necesarily agree with 100% of the time. Lenin was basically a revisionist.

Quote:” Lenin had a tendency of distorting Marxism in order to make it more easily applicable to soviet society.”

If you had read Lenin’s works, you wouldn’t have said such ignorant words. Your “proof” which you presented as “the biggest example of Lenin distorting Marxism” has no right on existence, just like any other proof of this sort.

Quote:” the biggest example of this would be how he started the revolution before the people were ready.”

Lenin considered social-political situation of Russian empire before the start of the revolution. The situation was truly revolutionary. People of Petrograd supported the revolution and Bolsheviks had no problems in capturing the state power. People of all Russian empire supported Petrograd’s revolutionary government. The results of the civil war are the best proof to it.

Quote:” Overall, Lenin was noteworthy for modifying principles and adding new ones which orthodox Marxist did not necesarily agree with 100% of the time.”

Lenin didn’t modify principles set by Marx, but he creatively developed Marx’s theory. Orthodox Marxists are dogmatists, who don’t see nothing new happening. But Marxism is not a dogma and it has to be developed.
Lenin developed Marx’s theory considering the last stage of capitalism, which is imperialism. Marx could not write about imperialism, as capitalism was not developed to such extent during Marx’s time.
Lenin was true Marxist and a great revolutionist.

Quote:” Lenin was basically a revisionist”

Don’t say it if you can’t prove it.

[Raztro]

I agree with RH...Lenin went into detail to bring people more knowledge of Marxism...

[RedComrade]

Wow this has gotten a bit off subject but Karl Kautsky spoke out against Lenin check his work out on the marxist internet archive good stuff...(www.marxists.org)

[Edelweiss]

Rosa Luxemburg critisized Lenin and Trotzky as they deserve it, in a respectfull way, check out http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/index.htm
especially The Russian revolution - Democracy and Dictatorship (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/works/1918/rus-rev/ch08.htm), truely a masterpiece.
And RH, it's really funny that you are complaining about dogmatic Marxists, because you are so dogmatic and conservative with your Marxism-Lenism as hardly anyone else on this board. It seems you were stored in a ice bloc during the last 50 years. :)
Yeah, I'm already hearing you yelling "reviosionist" :)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from RedComrade on 9:45 pm on Jan. 8, 2003
Wow this has gotten a bit off subject but Karl Kautsky spoke out against Lenin check his work out on the marxist internet archive good stuff...(www.marxists.org)


I advice to read Lenin's "Proletarian revolution and renegade Kautsky" after.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Malte on 10:08 pm on Jan. 8, 2003

And RH, it's really funny that you are complaining about dogmatic Marxists, because you are so dogmatic and conservative with your Marxism-Lenism as hardly anyone else on this board. It seems you were stored in a ice bloc during the last 50 years. :)
Yeah, I'm already hearing you yelling "reviosionist" :)


LOL
REALLY FUNNY INDEED.

You say that I am dogmatic and conservative, but you can't prove it. You can say that any of my post is a proof for it, but it will not be correct answer.
Just tell me when I was conservative and dogmatic ; or would you say that all Marxist-Leninists are dogmatic? If you are then it will not be correct answer either.

Unfortunately thephora doesn't work yet. Be sure to check Kryuchkov's "two tier economy" thread in the " Socialist Paradise", when the forums will be recovered. Also you can check his thread " Lessons of the USSR" in the same forum. You'll see how
" dogmatic" marxist-leninists are.

[red jon]

Any "marxist" who criticizes Lenin and his teaching is not a *TRUE MARXIST, but opportunist, revisionist or simply disguised capitalist. Don't you ever listen to those bastards!

Anyone who calls them selves a Marxist and still follows Lenin is deeply confused. Leninism is a dogmatic cult of personality around a man who perverted Marxism and also by the way failed in his so called revolution which was pretty reactionary realy.

[red jon]

*I see that you are smart one. Try to find an example of Lenin contradicting to Marx and Engels. Go ahead and waste your time!

Lenin brought back the death penalty wich Marx was entirely opposed to. Also he thought the party not the workers should lead the revolution. Marx said many times the overthrow of capitalism needed to be caried out by the workers themselves. I think you need to put down the leninist shit and actually read some Marx and Engles if your that confused.

[manic expression]

In the general period of the Russian Revolution: most of the Second International, for various reasons, opposed Lenin: Jaures, Bebel, Kautsky, Bernstein, the Mensheviks, etc. The majority of them (with the possible exception of Kautsky) were unabashed traitors of Marxism and the working-class movement, so I wouldn't take them very seriously outside of academic curiosity.

You could also look into George Orwell, but I don't consider him a Marxist, either.

[manic expression]

Lenin brought back the death penalty wich Marx was entirely opposed to.

Not so. Marx hardly raised a protest when the workers of Paris carried out executions during the Commune. To the contrary, Marx's few criticisms of the Communards boiled down to them not being bold enough in their overthrow of the capitalists. Marx said that capital punishment is barbaric, and it is, but then again we live in barbaric times and thus barbarism may be necessary in some cases.


Also he thought the party not the workers should lead the revolution. Marx said many times the overthrow of capitalism needed to be caried out by the workers themselves.

Lenin not only thought that the workers should lead the revolution, but he put it into practice successfully for the first time in human history. Just because Lenin proposed that workers organize themselves into a disciplined political force doesn't mean he proposed militantly communist workers stop being workers. The vanguard party is simply a reiteration and development of what Marx started when he wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Partyin 1848.


I think you need to put down the leninist shit and actually read some Marx and Engles if your that confused.

Lenin's works draw extensively, indeed exhaustively, from both. "Controversy with the Anarchists" in The State and Revolution, for instance, is essentially a long quotation of Engels with some notes by Lenin; other sections of the work are similar in substance.

[New Tet]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Erich Fromm.

Fromm was an avowed Anti-Leninist.

But, more than an "anti", Fromm was pro-love, pro-humanity, pro-science, pro-socialism and pro-working class kind of guy.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm

Despite the sexist language imposed (largely) by Wallace, this video is useful to illustrate Fromm's ideas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPw5prYLc5w

[Manifesto]

Holy Shit, how do you people dig this stuff up?

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the general period of the Russian Revolution: most of the Second International, for various reasons, opposed Lenin: Jaures, Bebel, Kautsky, Bernstein, the Mensheviks, etc. The majority of them (with the possible exception of Kautsky) were unabashed traitors of Marxism and the working-class movement, so I wouldn't take them very seriously outside of academic curiosity.

You could also look into George Orwell, but I don't consider him a Marxist, either.

1) Kautsky degenerated from a renegade to a scab by the early 1920s (as late as 1924).

2) Bebel, who was the same ideologically as pre-war Kautsky, died before WWI, so how could he be a "traitor"?

3) Jean Jaures, while further from Marxism than Bernstein, got killed for his (albeit pacifist) opposition to French participation in WWI.

[ZeroNowhere]

Huh. Well, if we're going to be keeping this around, I suppose I'll recommend Paresh Chattopadhyay's 'The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience', which is brilliant. He also has some articles online, which you can find on Libcom. For example, this one (http://libcom.org/library/socialism-marx-early-bolshevism-chattopadhyay) on the bolshies.

[manic expression]

1) Kautsky degenerated from a renegade to a scab by the early 1920s (as late as 1924).

I didn't know that, what made him a scab?


2) Bebel, who was the same ideologically as pre-war Kautsky, died before WWI, so how could he be a "traitor"?

"If Germany is attacked, you can expect every Social-Democrat like me to shoulder a rifle and march to the front lines to protect the Fatherland."

(Paraphrased)


3) Jean Jaures, while further from Marxism than Bernstein, got killed for his (albeit pacifist) opposition to French participation in WWI.

Yes, but he had the opportunity to get that collaborationist Bernstein out of the 2nd International but instead engineered a "compromise" between the Revisionists and the moderates. Plus, he essentially doomed the 2nd International's anti-war efforts to failure because he refused to lay the groundwork for a general strike...or ANYTHING that could have had a chance to throw a wrench in the imperialist slaughter that followed. He talked a good game, but of course, it came to nothing.

[x359594]

Anton Pannekok was a very astute Marxist critic of Lenin. Pannekok was also an astronomer and criticized Lenin's Materialism and Empirico-Criticism (published 1908) for its positivism and and failure to cope with the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg that overturned all previous conceptions of matter. Lenin never revised the philosophical conclusions he promulgated in 1908 in light of new scientific descriptions of the material universe.

Other contemporary Marxist critics of Lenin include the aforementioned Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch, Sylvia Pankhurst, Otto Ruhle and Hermann Gorter.

[Ventadv]

Anton Pannekok was a very astute Marxist critic of Lenin. Pannekok was also an astronomer and criticized Lenin's Materialism and Empirico-Criticism (published 1908) for its positivism and and failure to cope with the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg that overturned all previous conceptions of matter. Lenin never revised the philosophical conclusions he promulgated in 1908 in light of new scientific descriptions of the material universe.

Other contemporary Marxist critics of Lenin include the aforementioned Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch, Sylvia Pankhurst, Otto Ruhle and Hermann Gorter.

Lenin, in turn, also criticised Pannekuk and sights of the left communists in his book "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder".

Interesting criticism of Leninism from outside the left communists are books of Gilles Dauvé.

[MarxSchmarx]

Holy Shit, how do you people dig this stuff up?

Red Jon, in the future please don't necro threads.

There's some useful stuff here, so I'm letting it run its course again.

[RHIZOMES]

Anyone who calls them selves a Marxist and still follows Lenin is deeply confused. Leninism is a dogmatic cult of personality around a man who perverted Marxism and also by the way failed in his so called revolution which was pretty reactionary realy.

Adapting revolutionary theory to the real world = reactionary.

[x359594]

...Leninism is a dogmatic cult of personality around a man who perverted Marxism and also by the way failed in his so called revolution which was pretty reactionary realy.

While "Leninism [may be] a dogmatic cult of personality around a man who perverted Marxism", Lenin did not make the Russian Revolution so he can hardly be accused of failing to carry it out.

The October Revolution took place because of the failure of the Kerensky government to meet the needs of the people; Lenin's party was the only party with the organizational ability and popular support needed to assume control of the country (for better or worse.) Nor was the Bolshevik program reactionary insofar as it sought to free Russia from neo-colonial domination by the West.

While Lenin didn't deliver socialism to Russia, his last political writings show that he contemplated a long period, lasting generations, perhaps, in which backward Russia would grow into socialism. This protracted period of socialist construction required, above all, peace between the peasants and the towns (this was the function of the NEP.) It would also call for the moral regeneration of party members which Lenin seems to have believed possible right to the end of his days.

[x359594]

Lenin, in turn, also criticised Pannekuk and sights of the left communists in his book "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder"...

And 40 years later Danile Cohn-Bendit answered with Obsolete Communism: The Left Wing Alternative.

(Thanks for the refernce to Dauve.)

[Mike Russell]

Lenin denied freedom of speech

Is this the thread where people talk out their ass and make things up?

Lenin didnt do anything by himself. It was a workers' government. Not lenin's government. And having the press not be restricted by money is a socialist, even anarchist demand. If it wasnt, them the amount of money someone had would reflect how much "freedom of the press" they had. Do everyone a favor and dont get your history lesson from fox news.

[x359594]

...It was a workers' government. Not lenin's government. And having the press not be restricted by money is a socialist, even anarchist demand...

While the Soviet government wasn't Lenin's government it's open to debate as to whether it was a worker's government.

Oppositional newspapers of the left were in fact suppressed starting in 1918 and after, and this press wasn't in the pay of capitalists.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Luxemburg was not pleased with Lenin.

[Mike Russell]

While the Soviet government wasn't Lenin's government it's open to debate as to whether it was a worker's government.

Oppositional newspapers of the left were in fact suppressed starting in 1918 and after, and this press wasn't in the pay of capitalists.

Its obvious that you havent dont the research. and by the way, the only press that was banned was papers advocating terrorism against the bolshevik/left SR government. I assume your an anarchist with a rightwing statement like the press not being 'in pay' of capitalist. By why would your anarchist comrades IN the government also vote to ban papers that called for a war against the workers governments.

an how was it not a workers government. the power was with the committees and councils, 'soviets'.

rewriting history doesnt change history.

[x359594]

Its obvious that you havent dont the research...By why would your anarchist comrades IN the government also vote to ban papers that called for a war against the workers governments...an how was it not a workers government. the power was with the committees and councils, 'soviets'...rewriting history doesnt change history.

As for doing the research, let me refer you to The Bolsheviks and Workers Control by Maurice Brinton, The Russian Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg, Open Letter to Comrade Lenin by Hermann Gorter, The Secret Police in Lenin's Russia by Lennard D. Gerson, The Russian Revolution: A Study in Mass Mobilization by John Keep, The Russian Revolution by W. H. Chamberlain (2 volumes,) and The Bolsheviks in Power by A. Rabinowitch. Also useful is E. H. Carr's multi-volume history of the Soviet Union.

Comrade, I have no connection with anyone in any government, so I can't answer your question about why anarchists in government would call for the banning of newspapers.

As to power residing in the hands of the committees and soviets (Russian for council,) when Otto Ruhle toured the Soviet Union as a delegate to the Second Congress of the Communist International, he reported that the soviets were mere tools of the ruling Bolshevik Party, and "were not councils in a revolutionary sense." Instead, he concluded that the Bolsheviks were ruling through "bureaucracy, the deadly enemy of the council system."

There’s really no place in anything that Marx wrote for the notion of the party of the proletariat exercising political power after a successfu1ly accomplished revolution. Indeed, such a conception is inconsistent with his entire philosophy of society and revolution. Marx saw the revolution as the culminating point in the development of' the struggle, and therefore of the consciousness of the working class: the revolution puts an end to the division which exists between society and the state, and thereby brings about the transcendence (Aufhebung) of classes and of the state itself. Conversely, a seizure of power effected by a party in the name of an abstraction called socialism, before the social conditions for it exist can only result in a change from one form of oppression to another, a charge repeatedly made by Marx- against the Jacobins of the French Revolution.

Lenin came up with the idea of an elite party acting in the name of the proletariat and played havoc with Marx's original paradigm. Even so, in The State and Revolution, written on the eve of' the seizure of power, he could still speak of the state beginning to "wither away" (Engels' phrase, never used by Marx) on the day after the revolution, and of harmonious and easy fellowship and co-operation over the administrative chores taking the place, before very long, of all coercion.


As time went on, the realities of power left little room for easy optimism about withering away, and faith in the ever-receding transition to socialism had to be sustained by increasing devotion to the myth that party and proletariat were indissolubly one and the same. Since the state had not been transcended and the proletariat had not achieved the social consciousness which in theory should have preceded the revolution, ever new duties had to be thrust upon the party: it hunted out enemies in increasing numbers, harried political opponents, waged war on the bourgeois peasants, stiffened the new Red Army, dominated the Soviets and the trade unions, tried to shore up ruined industry. By 1921 Lenin had created a one-party state, in which a monopolistic party claimed in theory the right to run every aspect of public life.


Lenin's last political writings show that he contemplated a long period, lasting generations, perhaps, in which backward Russia would grow into socialism. This protracted period of socialist construction required, above all, peace between the peasants and the towns (this was the function of the NEP.) It would also call for the moral regeneration of party members which Lenin seems to have believed possible right to the end of his days. Lenin recognized that it was reversing the order of Marx to try to achieve social consciousness after the revolution and not before, and he justified this by the claim that the necessity of seizing power in October 1917 had been forced upon the Bolsheviks.

If, as some have suggested, the regime established at the Tenth Party Congress was only intended as a temporary, emergency measure - though Lenin did not say so - it was certainly true that the emergency did not abate during Lenin's lifetime; and there was therefore at no time an opportunity open to Lenin for modifying the regime. In fact many have argued that the foundations for the machine erected by Stalin for his tyranny were already laid by Lenin. There is much force in this argument, and much evidence to support it. But it may also be true that Lenin was struck down at a time when his work was still unfinished.

[Mike Russell]

As to power residing in the hands of the committees and soviets (russian for council,) when otto ruhle toured the soviet union as a delegate to the second congress of the communist international, he reported that the soviets were mere tools of the ruling bolshevik party, and "were not councils in a revolutionary sense." instead, he concluded that the bolsheviks were ruling through "bureaucracy, the deadly enemy of the council system."


this is one case of one man's opinion. hardly a sufficent case against the nature of the soviets.



there’s really no place in anything that marx wrote for the notion of the party of the proletariat exercising political power after a successfu1ly accomplished revolution. Indeed, such a conception is inconsistent with his entire philosophy of society and revolution.

I think your misunderstanding what an 'accomplished' revolution is. 'accomplished' revolution leads me to believe that you have a very formalistic conception of what a revolution is. A revolution is not a single act of storming the gates of the capitalist. it is the process of the working class becoming politcal through experiance. drawing the political lessions, not from books, but from living in a revolutionary environment

also, marx didnt think that a revolution would be 'complete' in any one country. hence, his internationalist organizing(IWMA).



Marx saw the revolution as the culminating point in the development of' the struggle, and therefore of the consciousness of the working class:

agreed. but are you saying this isnt what happend? that line leads me to believe you think the revolution was a coup. your singing the song of the right wing again.



The revolution puts an end to the division which exists between society and the state, and thereby brings about the transcendence (aufhebung) of classes and of the state itself.


your again misunderstanding what marx meant and the flow of human consciousness. we all live in a capitalist society. just because the working class becomes the ruling class doesnt mean it sheads off its old idology from the capitalist class completely in five minutes. the russian revolution proved this.



lenin came up with the idea of an elite party acting in the name of the proletariat and played havoc with marx's original paradigm.


im not even going to humor this.




Since the state had not been transcended and the proletariat had not achieved the social consciousness which in theory should have preceded the revolution,

again with your algebaric understanding of what the state is.
the state is simply the ruling class with guns. You completely neglect to bring up the civil war. russia was invaded by 21 different armies on 14 front. why would the state not be need 'after' the revolution?





lenin's last political writings show that he contemplated a long period, lasting generations, perhaps, in which backward russia would grow into socialism.


sorry man, but this is pure bullshit. he never said this. but i know where you got this from. Stalinist.

ok im done with this. im not readin the rest.

[x359594]

...sorry man, but this is pure bullshit. he never said this. but i know where you got this from. Stalinist...

Apology accepted Mike. We all have a lot to learn.

I summarized various non-Leninist critics of Lenin's theory and practice of revolution from sources cited throughout this thread. (I presume Stalinist is a description of your position, it certrainly isn't mine.)

[Mike Russell]

Apology accepted Mike. We all have a lot to learn.

I summarized various non-Leninist critics of Lenin's theory and practice of revolution from sources cited throughout this thread. (I presume Stalinist is a description of your position, it certrainly isn't mine.)


But thats the sad part about it. you slavishly regurgitated what youve been told about leninism. I really like your sources. your best one was "the Russian Revolution" by rosa luxemburg.
I can tell you didnt read the book. I think ill quote from the first chapter.
"Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism."

And why would you presume that im a stalinist. Did you read what i wrote?

[Mike Russell]

And you know, i thought that you wrote weird. You copy and paste. you double pasted twice on the second tab of the thread. your post:

"While Lenin didn't deliver socialism to Russia, his last political writings show that he contemplated a long period, lasting generations, perhaps, in which backward Russia would grow into socialism. This protracted period of socialist construction required, above all, peace between the peasants and the towns (this was the function of the NEP.) It would also call for the moral regeneration of party members which Lenin seems to have believed possible right to the end of his days."

where did you copy this from?