Woman Refutes Noam Chomsky's Equating Lenin With Stalin

[Rakhmetov]

Chomsky's logic is destroyed regarding Lenin with Stalin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI&NR=1

[bailey_187]

why are there so many threads on this video?

Stalin upheld the banner of Marxism-Leninism. good.

[scarletghoul]

Chomsky comes out on top in this video. It's true that Leninism is Stalinism, but Chomsky is wrong in his view that this is a bad thing

[Das war einmal]

In this video, Chomsky claims that Lenin along with the bolsheviks where the ones that destroyed the soviets and that this was one of the first things they did when they took power in 1917. Now I expect a lot of people to think 'that evil Lenin he discredited socialism' but I wonder how Lenin and the bolsheviks where able to pull this off. After all the bolsheviks themselves where workers and farmers so what benefit would they gain? It doesnt make an ounce of sense. Furthermore I have not seen any sources yet on how Lenin or Stalin for that matter destroyed the soviets.

[bailey_187]

If the revolution had followed the course Chomsky would like to have seen it would have just been the Paris Communne part 2.

Theres a reason why anarchists only support short lived revolutions.

[Lenin II]

And now, the ultimate quote refuting the "Good Lenin, Bad Stalin" theory.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x01.htm


We all know who that internal enemy is. It is the capitalists, the landowners, the kulaks, and their offspring, who hate the government of the workers and working peasants-the peasants who do not suck the blood of their fellow-villagers.
A wave of kulak revolts is sweeping across Russia. The kulak hates the Soviet government like poison and is prepared to strangle and massacre hundreds of thousands of workers. We know very well that if the kulaks were to gain the upper hand they would ruthlessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of workers, in alliance with the landowners and capitalists, restore back-breaking conditions for the workers, abolish the eight-hour day and hand back the mills and factories to the capitalists.
That was the case in all earlier European revolutions when, as a result of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks succeeded in turning back from a republic to a monarchy, from a working people’s government to the despotism of the exploiters, the rich and the parasites. This happened before our very eyes in Latvia, Finland, the Ukraine and Georgia. Everywhere the avaricious, bloated and bestial kulaks joined hands with the landowners and capitalists against the workers and against the poor generally. Everywhere the kulaks wreaked their vengeance on the working class with incredible ferocity.


There is no doubt about it. The kulaks are rabid foes of the Soviet government. Either the kulaks massacre vast numbers of workers, or the workers ruthlessly suppress the revolts of the predatory kulak minority of the people against the working people’s government. There can be no middle course. Peace is out of the question: even if they have quarrelled, the kulak can easily come to terms with the landowner, the tsar and the priest, but with the working class never.


Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! Hatred and contempt for the parties which defend them-the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and today's Left Socialist-Revolutionaries! The workers must crush the revolts of the kulaks with an iron hand, the kulaks who are forming an alliance with the foreign capitalists against the working people of their own country.

[KC]

And now, the ultimate quote refuting the "Good Lenin, Bad Stalin" theory.

I don't really see your point.

[Pogue]

In this video, Chomsky claims that Lenin along with the bolsheviks where the ones that destroyed the soviets and that this was one of the first things they did when they took power in 1917. Now I expect a lot of people to think 'that evil Lenin he discredited socialism' but I wonder how Lenin and the bolsheviks where able to pull this off. After all the bolsheviks themselves where workers and farmers so what benefit would they gain? It doesnt make an ounce of sense. Furthermore I have not seen any sources yet on how Lenin or Stalin for that matter destroyed the soviets.

Firstly they were not workers and farmers. many members of the government were from the middle class intelligensia who gained a strangehold on the party. Theres 'democratic' centralism for you. Secondly, almost 50% of the members of the Bolshevik state were ex-officials in the Tsarist state. lenin and Trotsky, having never been workers themselves, were happy to abuse workers, for example with the miltiarisation of labour policy and the supression of strikes. There was clearly a clear class divide between the Bolshevik state and the working class, destroying the myth it was a 'workers state'.

[Andy Bowden]

The Kulaks* were hated and eliminated as a class not by Stalin in the 30's but by ordinary Russian peasants after the October Revolution.

*Kulaks being Russian Peasants who were wealthy enough to exploit labour, have farmhands etc, not the catchall term used in collectivisation which was not well defined to say the least.

[Revy]

From "Role and Functions of the Trade Unions under the New Economic Policy", Lenin, 1921:

"In particular, a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control, are now being permitted and are developing..."

[Pawn Power]

This video is so old and has been posted numerous times. The women in the clip doesn't "destroy" anything because she doesn't really say anything. She just say something about doing a disservice and making assumptions- nothing of substance. Chomsky then goes on to outline history and facts which back up his claims.

I think people just like the clip because the person in the video is passionate and articulate, despite the fact that no real argument was made.

[Glenn Beck]

this video sucks and Chomsky's invocation of the 'orthodoxy' of the Second International and its effluvia as some kind of holy mantle is just ridiculous

[Jimmie Higgins]

Firstly they were not workers and farmers. many members of the government were from the middle class intelligentsia who gained a stranglehold on the party.This is a little upside-down. The radical movement has always been predominently people from upper classes - especially in countryies with a less developed working class - so this is a poor way to tell what class interests were being put forward.

So the bolsheviks were small but gained more workers around the time of the revolution. If the intellignecia had a stranglehold, then why would Stalin and the ex-Tsarist "bolsheviks" (who came later by the way) needed to re-stranglehold the party later?


Theres 'democratic' centralism for you.:rolleyes:Do you have a political analysis or was going into radical politics just a surrogate for joining a football club? This isn't team sports.


Secondly, almost 50% of the members of the Bolshevik state were ex-officials in the Tsarist state. When? In 1917 or later? So the Bolshevik's master-plan was to be an illegal party and enemy of the state all the while they were cutting deals with the old ruling class and saying, "once we forment a worker's revolution, we will slowly let you keep some of your old positions.

You're reading history backwards comrade. The Russian Revolution failed, you seem to think that failure was part of the plan all along.


lenin and Trotsky, having never been workers themselves, were happy to abuse workers, for example with the miltiarisation of labour policy and the supression of strikes. There was clearly a clear class divide between the Bolshevik state and the working class, destroying the myth it was a 'workers state'.Happy? Happy? Yeah, just like when Lincoln ordered the burning of Atlanta for no freekin' reason - he must have been an arsonist who enjoyed watching cities burn to the ground! Chicago strikers threw bombs at cops in Haymarket square for no reason - they must be crazy sociopaths. I think maybe... maybe context is necessary in order to understand many of these historical events including the Russian Revolution.

Let's be serious here comrades, half of you say that nothing Lenin did was ever wrong and the other half say that Lennin was sharpening knives for Stalin since the 1890s! I think the Russian Revolution was a genuine worker's revolution and we can learn a great deal of both what worked as well as what mistakes were made and how it ultimately failed.

I doubt any of these Revolutionaries were simply fakers or secret-capitalists (like Obama is a secret-socialist according to the right) even ones I disagree with in every way like Stalin. Sure after the revolution and civil war, fakers and careerists came in, but why would any careerist join any revolutionary party in 1910 in Russia? Can you imagine: "yeah their leaders are exiled or in jail, sure cops have spies in their organization, sure they get beat up all the time, sure they get fired from jobs or cut off from their families if they have wealth... but hey, in 20 years I'm going to be rolling in rubles!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

After all the bolsheviks themselves where workers and farmers so what benefit would they gain? It doesnt make an ounce of sense.

You think the high ranking party officials were workers and farmers? How can you possibly believe that the new leadership of a country has nothing to gain by consolidating power? I think it's pretty obvious myself.

[Das war einmal]

After the Russian Revolution, the new soviet state was very weak and immediately attacked by foreign powers. If the workers and farmers did not fully support the new state then the government would surely have fallen in no time.

By the way, I dont see any sources from Pogue claiming that 50% of the Bolshevik party consisted out of old tsarist officials. Its probably true that a decent number were former officials, like a few Cossack divisions who joined the Red Army, but the majority of the old Tsarist officials joined the white army.

I find these hollow claims like 'Lenin and the Bolsheviks destroyed socialism!' hard to believe

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If the revolution had followed the course Chomsky would like to have seen it would have just been the Paris Communne part 2.

Theres a reason why anarchists only support short lived revolutions.

As opposed to what, Vanguard parties taking controll, suppressing workers control and establishing a state-capitalist economy?