why do some people say lenin is a traitor to the revolution?

[Dimitri Molotov]

i have heard some people say that lenin is a traitor to the revolution, i am sorry, but i am not too familiar with lenin, i tried reading about him and i read about how he lead a revolution in russia, but i didnt catch anything obvious that said he was a "traitor". i must have misread something, can someone help me out please?:)

[Nolan]

Cuz krondstat bro

[x371322]

I think ultimately you'll find that it all comes down to differing opinions. There are always going to be some who think Lenin betrayed the revolution, some who think Trotsky betrayed the revolution, some who think Stalin betrayed the revolution, and so on and so forth. Tendency wars ensue. And the world keeps on a' spinnin'. All you can do is study, read, and learn all you can, and try to come to your own conclusions.

:thumbup1: Happy trails.

[fa2991]

For some, it's his "New Economic Policy." For some, it's his suppressive tactics. For some, it's his annoying reinterpretation of Marxism.

[The Red Next Door]

because they are idiots.

[Dimitri Molotov]

from what i just read about Kronstadt, there was a rebellion at some sort of naval base and the military just suppressed it rather than listen to it. but what do lenin or trotsky have to do with it?

[Nolan]

For some, it's his "New Economic Policy." For some, it's his suppressive tactics. For some, it's his annoying reinterpretation of Marxism.

Yeah we all know you libertarian types have a psychic connection to Marx. He'd totally side with you, your gut feeling can't be wrong.

We'll dance around the question and mumble something about Spain, but in reality we have no fucking idea what a socialist society will look like or how it will function from day to day or protect itself...BUT WE DO KNOW IT WONT LOOK LIKE BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA!!!!!!11

[NGNM85]

from what i just read about Kronstadt, there was a rebellion at some sort of naval base and the military just suppressed it rather than listen to it. but what do lenin or trotsky have to do with it?

Lenin was head of the Soviet government. A number of Anarchists, sailors, and civilians who revolted demanding free elections, for freedom of speech, and several other, fairly modest requests. The rebellion was brutally crushed by Bolshevik forces resulting in over a thosand dead, and as many or more imprisoned. I don't know if Lenin is a 'traitor' to 'the revolution' or not, but if this is the sort of revolution that is being proposed, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

[fa2991]

from what i just read about Kronstadt, there was a rebellion at some sort of naval base and the military just suppressed it rather than listen to it. but what do lenin or trotsky have to do with it?

I believe Trotsky gave the final go-ahead to suppress the rebellion. Emma Goldman speaks of it here: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Essays/trotsky.html



Yeah we all know you libertarian types have a psychic connection to Marx. He'd totally side with you, your gut feeling can't be wrong. Leninism deviated from the mainstream Marxism of its time and was met with opposition by many Marxists. It is most certainly a reinterpretation that would seem at least partially alien to Marx, though "annoying" is a judgment call on my part.


We'll dance around the question and mumble something about Spain, but in reality we have no fucking idea what a socialist society will look like or how it will function from day to day or protect itself...BUT WE DO KNOW IT WONT LOOK LIKE BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA!!!!!!11What a helpful comment. Thanks for that insight. :rolleyes:

[DaringMehring]

ANARCHISTS --- believe communists betrayed the revolution (vanguard party, state)

LEFT-COMMUNISTS --- believe Lenin(ism) betrayed the revolution (NEP, Kronstadt)

TROTSKYISTS --- believe Stalin(ism) betrayed the revolution (Party purges, downfall of Soviet democracy)

"ANTI-REVISIONIST" STALINISTS --- believe Khruschev et al betrayed the revolution (de-Stalinization)

KHRUSCHEV-BREZHNEV USSR LOYALISTS --- believe Gorbachev betrayed the revolution (perestroika, glasnost)

It's up to you to figure out where you think the truth lies...

[Adil3tr]

from what i just read about Kronstadt, there was a rebellion at some sort of naval base and the military just suppressed it rather than listen to it. but what do lenin or trotsky have to do with it?

The old workers of that naval base had gone off to fight the civil war, and new sailors were recruited from the peasantry. They protested grain being taken from peasants to feed the cities, the bolsheviks suppressed it to prevent collapse, but adopted many of the reforms asked for. By what I read, the suppression was not an easy choice, but one they had to make.

[Qayin]

Lenin was head of the Soviet government. A number of Anarchists, sailors, and civilians who revolted demanding free elections, for freedom of speech, and several other, fairly modest requests. The rebellion was brutally crushed by Bolshevik forces resulting in over a thosand dead, and as many or more imprisoned. I don't know if Lenin is a 'traitor' to 'the revolution' or not, but if this is the sort of revolution that is being proposed, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.
Elaborate?

Nice to know if a revolution happens you want nothing to do with it.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think he was saying he wants nothing to do with a revolution that would violently supress workers for asking for things like free elections.
And frankly, neither would I. I dont really trust people enough to support anything less than democratic institutions. And I dont think any kind of totalitarian state (other than the dictatorship of the proletariat, which really just says dictatorship of the masses, i.e, democratic) could ever achieve any real sense of socialism.

Democracy will lead to the actualization of socialism. It already is. As long as people continue to stand up, speak out, and get in the way of the elite, we will always tend towards more egalitarianism.

[Qayin]

(other than the dictatorship of the proletariat, which really just says dictatorship of the masses, i.e, democratic)
Whats the point of revolution then if we could just vote it in then?
Your not getting the point.
The Revolutionary Dictatorship is a means to suppress the Bourgeois, why would other parties matter if a party made up of the Prole in the interest of the Prole leads and successfully wins the Revolution?


Democracy will lead to the actualization of socialism. It already is. As long as people continue to stand up, speak out, and get in the way of the elite, we will always tend towards more egalitarianism.
Reformism cannot make Socialism

[Volcanicity]

Lenin was head of the Soviet government. A number of Anarchists, sailors, and civilians who revolted demanding free elections, for freedom of speech, and several other, fairly modest requests. The rebellion was brutally crushed by Bolshevik forces resulting in over a thosand dead, and as many or more imprisoned. I don't know if Lenin is a 'traitor' to 'the revolution' or not, but if this is the sort of revolution that is being proposed, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.
There was also the small fact of a civil war being fought.You make it sound as if the Bolsheviks were bullies.By all accounts the decision wasnt taken lightly,and it was also a question of timing they had to do it then before the spring came and melted the sea ice,which would of given the Kronstadt sailors a chance to join up with the white army.People really need to get over the fact that revolutions are violent,as is protecting what has already been acheived.

[Revolution starts with U]

Whats the point of revolution then if we could just vote it in then?
Your not getting the point.
The Revolutionary Dictatorship is a means to suppress the Bourgeois, why would other parties matter if a party made up of the Prole in the interest of the Prole leads and successfully wins the Revolution?


Reformism cannot make Socialism

Because not all workers think exactly the same? There will still be policy differences in any societies.
Reformism IS making socialism, so... i beg to differ.

[Qayin]

Because not all workers think exactly the same? There will still be policy differences in any societies.
Reformism IS making socialism, so... i beg to differ.
This is the home of the Revolutionary Left not the Social Democrats or Liberals.

[NGNM85]

Elaborate?

Nice to know if a revolution happens you want nothing to do with it.

First of all, we clearly subscribe to very different notions of 'revolution.'

Second, I was saying if this revolution is going to involve crushing dissent, censoring peoples views, destroying democracy, beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't follow the party line, etc., then it's morally and ethically bankrupt and I would be bound to oppose it. These tactics are authoritarian, and fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism. You know, a number of Anarchists were shot at Krondstadt, right?

I really think you've chosen the wrong tendency. It sounds like you'd be more suited to Marxist-Leninism, or something.

[Jazzhands]

Because not all workers think exactly the same? There will still be policy differences in any societies.
Reformism IS making socialism, so... i beg to differ.

Noooo.

Reformism does nothing but achieve "capitalism with a human face" if that's even possible. All that does is make more countries look like Scandinavia. Only revolution can achieve socialism because begging the rich for goodies-which is what reformism does-only keeps them in power.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really think you've chosen the wrong tendency. It sounds like you'd be more suited to Marxist-Leninism, or something. What the fuck? Marxist Leninism entails brutally suppressing people without reason except for total party loyalty?

Are you directly insulting us now with more of your liberal blather? I do not go around saying that all Anarchists are child like punks busting McDonalds windows with bricks, or want to kill religious people because some roving bands affiliated with anarchist murdered Priests during the Spanish Civil War. Nor do I say that Durrutti was an excellent writer/fighter but the anarchists sucked at preserving any sort of revolution!

No that would childish and ignore the historical record.

You do not know what you're talking about. The situation was way more nuanced than what your giving the Bolsheviks credit for.

You're trolling now, NGN. Seriously trolling.

You're on the wrong site, NGN. This is a forum for anarchists and MLs to work together, not piss the shit out of each other over the past.

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally Posted by Revolution starts with U http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1838114#post1838114)
Because not all workers think exactly the same? There will still be policy differences in any societies.
Reformism IS making socialism, so... i beg to differ.

Oh gosh, when will it end?

[Jazzhands]

Oh gosh, when will it end?

I'm actually starting to believe all your "LIBERALZ ON TEH BOARD GUIZE!" tirades.:thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm actually starting to believe all your "LIBERALZ ON TEH BOARD GUIZE!" tirades.:thumbup1:

http://th08.deviantart.com/fs39/300W/i/2008/330/c/2/iam_not_crazy_by_jump_button.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

The tendency for some people on here to say "you disagree with me, this isnt the site for you" is exactly why I support free speech rights, and abhor crushing political dissent. My way, or the highway will not create a populist socialism. It just leads to USSR style state capitalism.
I am not saying we dont need sudden revolution here and there; in fact I am saying the opposite. I am saying were it not for all the populist revolutions, and other revolutionary actions (strikes, protests, etc) the "capitalism with a human face" would never have developed. It would still be just "capitalsim in your face."
You can see that as the people in the states have scaled back on political dissent, corporatism has risen. I am not saying Democracy ~~> Socialism. I am saying Democracy + political activism +
threat of revolution ~~~~> Socialism.
Sure, you can call me a social democrat; i am a socialist who believes in democratic institutions. You can call me a liberal, I seek not to impose my views on others. It still doesnt mean I am not a revolutionary leftist.:thumbup1:

[Volcanicity]

First of all, we clearly subscribe to very different notions of 'revolution.'

Second, I was saying if this revolution is going to involve crushing dissent, censoring peoples views, destroying democracy, beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't follow the party line, etc., then it's morally and ethically bankrupt and I would be bound to oppose it. These tactics are authoritarian, and fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism. You know, a number of Anarchists were shot at Krondstadt, right?

I really think you've chosen the wrong tendency. It sounds like you'd be more suited to Marxist-Leninism, or something.
Good luck with your revolution where everybody sits down, chats and then shakes hands.I suggest you buy a telescope and start looking for reality because you are miles away from it. And if that bullshit you posted is what you think Marxism-Leninism is then you are offensive as well as a Liberal.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am saying Democracy + political activism +
threat of revolution ~~~~> Socialism.No it equals social democracy.


It just leads to USSR style state capitalism.Why do guys like you act like it was the worst possible place to ever live on the face of the earth in all of history? The USSR would've been a paradise to any third world peasant had he or she landed on their shores. Noam Chomsky admits this much.

Why is the USSR the standard to hate on when thinking of a society? The Western powers dominate the third world through imperial economic hegemony yet their values are taken at face value as symbols of strength while the USSR is cast out with the former fascist regimes. It wasn't a perfect society by any means but it wasn't the greater of two evils in terms of it's association with the US.


the "capitalism with a human face" would never have developed.Even with all the reforms that were tossed aside for neo-liberalism, politicians are still championing capitalism with a human face today, especially in the third world with all their PR glitz. There never was a capitalism with a human face, it was always in the face of some working class group.


It still doesnt mean I am not a revolutionary leftist.Look man, I am not telling you to "git outta heeya". I am saying stick around and learn, debate rationally, and take your time. Do not flip out and make accusations that we're the flip side of some authoritarian coin along with fascism. The historical record for most socialist countries was met with civil war, fascist onslaught, terrorism, imperialism, infiltration, Cold War, economic warfare, blockades, etc. They knew not one day of peace! Cuba still knows not one day of peace.

[Revolution starts with U]

Good luck calling everyone who disagrees with you names and hoping to have more than 1% of the population join in your failed revolution. You want succes, you want socialism, you need the people on your side. "You disagree on some minor point, you are the enemy" is just silly.
You know what I consider a success of socialism... Bill Gates wants to open, not even non proft, but negative profit companies with his own personal wealth dedicated to feeding and sheltering the poor in the 3rd world. To me that shows that socialism is taking hold even amongst the rich.
There will be no socialsim in a society where everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Bill Gates wants to open, not even non proft, but negative profit companies with his own personal wealth dedicated to feeding and sheltering the poor in the 3rd world. To me that shows that socialism is taking hold even amongst the rich.

The greatest robber baron since John D. Rockefeller? His philosophy is more of akin to Andrew Carnegie's.

Look I am not going to swipe any attempt by anyone to help the poor, but that does little to initially solve the problem. In fact it exasperates it making it seem like capitalism is a moral engine.

[Revolution starts with U]

No it equals social democracy.

Why do guys like you act like it was the worst possible place to ever live on the face of the earth in all of history? The USSR would've been a paradise to any third world peasant had he or she landed on their shores. Noam Chomsky admits this much.

Why is the USSR the standard to hate on when thinking of a society? The Western powers dominate the third world through imperial economic hegemony yet their values are taken at face value as symbols of strength while the USSR is cast out with the former fascist regimes. It wasn't a perfect society by any means but it wasn't the greater of two evils in terms of it's association with the US. [/;QUOTE]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying the USSR was neccesarily bad for Russia, I mean it took Russia from agrarianism to industrialism in just a decade at most. But it still is not any socialist paradise I would want to join.

[QUOTE=RadioRaheem84;1838447]Even with all the reforms that were tossed aside for neo-liberalism, politicians are still championing capitalism with a human face today, especially in the third world with all their PR glitz. There never was a capitalism with a human face, it was always in the face of some working class group.

Look man, I am not telling you to "git outta heeya". I am saying stick around and learn, debate rationally, and take your time. Do not flip out and make accusations that we're the flip side of some authoritarian coin along with fascism. The historical record for most socialist countries was met with civil war, fascist onslaught, terrorism, imperialism, infiltration, Cold War, economic warfare, blockades, etc. They knew not one day of peace! Cuba still knows not one day of peace.
But none of these countries have achieved what I would consider a true socialsim, the workers do not own the means of production. The party, acting on behalf of the the workers (at least in their mind) owns them. This is not the socialism I seek.
If socialsim = workers own means of production. And workers are by far the most populace group in society. And democracy = majority rule. Then obviously any kind of true socialism will be a democracy. Plain and simple.. imo anyway

[RadioRaheem84]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying the USSR was neccesarily bad for Russia, I mean it took Russia from agrarianism to industrialism in just a decade at most. But it still is not any socialist paradise I would want to join.I am no apologist for Stalin's rather autocratic rule, but the USSR was a source for many national liberation movements.



But none of these countries have achieved what I would consider a true socialsim, the workers do not own the means of production. The party, acting on behalf of the the workers (at least in their mind) owns them. This is not the socialism I seek.
If socialsim = workers own means of production. And workers are by far the most populace group in society. And democracy = majority rule. Then obviously any kind of true socialism will be a democracy. Plain and simple.. imo anyway What do you mean, owns them? That doesn't make any sense. And it's clear you did little research on it.

Why do you think that many of these nations end up in similar muck when it comes to preserving their revolutions? It has to do with the sea of imperialism around them that consistently wanted to derail their achievements. Yet, even with all that, they still maintained to give their people a decent standard of living.

Research Albania. While I wish their democratic record was more to my liking, I was impressed to read about their achievements, even with all of the enemies they made. I mean, I am talking about achievements that I could not picture any third world nation achieving, much less Albania achieving now with the road it took since the fall of Communism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Perhaps I should have said control. I view the two as synonyms really.
In the pure ideal of upper-stage socialism, such as that "communism" was/is supposed to be, the MoP are controlled by the workers production cooperative associations directly ~ Wikipedia; "Means of Production"

[RadioRaheem84]

Perhaps I should have said control. I view the two as synonyms really.
In the pure ideal of upper-stage socialism, such as that "communism" was/is supposed to be, the MoP are controlled by the workers production cooperative associations directly ~ Wikipedia; "Means of Production"


That would be ideal, yes, but you shouldn't just dismiss people like Lenin as these power hungry individuals who just usurped power for the hell of it and what ever else Chomsky erroneously says about many communists, MLs.

These leaders were caught in a whirlwind of opposition from all fronts, mostly hostile. I mean they were dealing with war at every turn.

Trust me, left anti-communism, anti-Bolshevism, anti-Marxist Leninism has been one of the biggest detriments on the left. Not that you have to agree with them, but that it's somehow a greater danger than imperialism is something that the right counts on.

[The Red Next Door]

The tendency for some people on here to say "you disagree with me, this isnt the site for you" is exactly why I support free speech rights, and abhor crushing political dissent. My way, or the highway will not create a populist socialism. It just leads to USSR style state capitalism.
I am not saying we dont need sudden revolution here and there; in fact I am saying the opposite. I am saying were it not for all the populist revolutions, and other revolutionary actions (strikes, protests, etc) the "capitalism with a human face" would never have developed. It would still be just "capitalsim in your face."
You can see that as the people in the states have scaled back on political dissent, corporatism has risen. I am not saying Democracy ~~> Socialism. I am saying Democracy + political activism +
threat of revolution ~~~~> Socialism.
Sure, you can call me a social democrat; i am a socialist who believes in democratic institutions. You can call me a liberal, I seek not to impose my views on others. It still doesnt mean I am not a revolutionary leftist.:thumbup1:


This is where you belong, now kick rocks http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[Die Rote Fahne]

People, you're taking criticism of the USSR and it's Leninist policies too seriously. They are critiques.

Nobody is saying that the USSR was some sort of hell hole, nor are they saying it was a socialist paradise. It was in bad times when the revolution occurred. Wars were being fought, there was famine, etc. Yes, the capitalist nations of the developing world were in bad shape and for the most part worse off than the USSR. The first world capitalist nations were doing fine in a capitalist sense, yes. The February revolution in Russia ended the Tsarist monarchy. Then the October revolution brought about a Bolshevik Russia. It led to the installation of secular policies and policies designed to improve the lives of the working class Russians. This includes legalizing homosexuality, extending the rights of women, shortened work days, higher wages, etc.

Problems with the Leninist policy include, but are certainly not limited to, the suppression of the Constituent Assembly, the support for the partition of the old feudal estates to the peasant communes, suppression of free speech and dissent and the policy of supporting the "right" of all national peoples to "self determination". The bureaucratization of Russia was NOT a good thing. What Lenin didn't do was put the power in the masses. He, instead, worked with the masses as a power head, giving the government power and not the people.

My point: Lenin's Russia was neither heaven nor hell. Lenin was no angel, and the Bolsheviks were no heavenly chorus, nor was Lenin a Devil nor the Bolsheviks demons. Were errors/mistakes made? Yes. Could/should things have been done differently? Yes. Would things have been better had those mistakes and errors been avoided? Certainly. However, the revolution was important, there is no denying that fact. Socialism was never reached. Nor was a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat". But what had occurred, a "dictatorship FOR the proletariat" was better than nothing. The Bolshevik's were not the revolution. They are two separate, although linked, entities.

[revolution inaction]

ANARCHISTS --- believe communists betrayed the revolution (vanguard party, state)


Not really, most anarchists are communists after all, and most of us don't consider leninists communist.



The old workers of that naval base had gone off to fight the civil war, and new sailors were recruited from the peasantry. They protested grain being taken from peasants to feed the cities, the bolsheviks suppressed it to prevent collapse, but adopted many of the reforms asked for. By what I read, the suppression was not an easy choice, but one they had to make.
No this isnt true, the overwhelming majority of the sailors joined the navy before the civil war.
the demands issued by the sailors, don't mention grain being taken fom peasents, but does new fee elections to the soviets, the equalisations of rations etc


1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.
2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.
3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.
4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.
5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.
6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.
7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.
8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.
9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.
10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.
11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.
12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.
13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.
14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.
15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.


i agree that the bolsheviks had not choice but to suppress the revolt if they wished to stay in power, but this had nothing tp do with defending the revolution.


There was also the small fact of a civil war being fought.You make it sound as if the Bolsheviks were bullies.By all accounts the decision wasnt taken lightly,and it was also a question of timing they had to do it then before the spring came and melted the sea ice,which would of given the Kronstadt sailors a chance to join up with the white army.People really need to get over the fact that revolutions are violent,as is protecting what has already been acheived.
its clear if you read non bolshevik sources thay the kronstadt sailors had no intetion of joining with the whites, and supresing them had nothing to do with defending the revolution, only defending the bolsheviks hold on power.




You're on the wrong site, NGN. This is a forum for anarchists and MLs to work together, not piss the shit out of each other over the past.

no its not, this is a forum for discussion between the "revolutionary left" not some "lets all get along" liberal bullshit.

[28350]

most of us don't consider leninists communist.

no its not, this is a forum for discussion between the "revolutionary left" not some "lets all get along" liberal bullshit.

Oh I guess we Leninists better leave then, since we're not actually communists.

[revolution inaction]

Oh I guess we Leninists better leave then, since we're not actually communists.

thats fine with me

[RadioRaheem84]

Not really, most anarchists are communists after all, and most of us don't consider leninists communist.*gasp* Oh noez, if we do not have the approval of the Black bloc, I don't know what I am gonna do!




its clear if you read non bolshevik sources thay the kronstadt sailors had no intetion of joining with the whites, and supresing them had nothing to do with defending the revolution, only defending the bolsheviks hold on power.So you subscribe to the bullshit premise that all the Bolsheviks wanted was power for powers sake?


no its not, this is a forum for discussion between the "revolutionary left" not some "lets all get along" liberal bullshit. Believe me, if you're looking for liberalism, you're pointing your guns at the wrong person. Perhaps you should address it to your Anarchist comrade, NGN.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you believe totalitarian style government is right and righteous in any way, I really fail to see how you are leftist at all. Who are you to say you know what is better for workers than they do. What a joke.
I am/will be on the front lines of revolution in the states, and will still push for democratic institutions.
Workers are the majority of society, democracy is majority rule (within reason). If you accept both of those, it should be obvious that any kind of socialism will be democratic (small d, open to the public).
Or you can keep pushing anyone who disagrees with you away. Have fun sustaining a revolution supported by only .05% of the population :thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

If you believe totalitarian style government is right and righteous in any way, I really fail to see how you are leftist at all. Who are you to say you know what is better for workers than they do. What a joke.
I am/will be on the front lines of revolution in the states, and will still push for democratic institutions.
Workers are the majority of society, democracy is majority rule (within reason). If you accept both of those, it should be obvious that any kind of socialism will be democratic (small d, open to the public).
Or you can keep pushing anyone who disagrees with you away. Have fun sustaining a revolution supported by only .05% of the population :thumbup1:


What the blunt are you jabbering on about?

There is that word again, 'totalitarian'. Why do you assume that describing the situation in it's historical context automatically translates into supporting "totalitarian" government?

Damn, does lofty idealism mess up your train of logic?

[Revolution starts with U]

Once again, that comment was not directed at the USSR or China, or any existing institutions. It is in your expression that the only rights people have are the ones you would dictate to them.

[RadioRaheem84]

It is in your expression that the only rights people have are the ones you would dictate to them.

Again, how do you gather this?

[RadioRaheem84]

I am just curious as to what people's opinions are of the Nepalese Maoists and the Indian Maoists?

Just curious. I will not post anything in return.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you believe totalitarian style government is right and righteous in any way, I really fail to see how you are leftist at all. Who are you to say you know what is better for workers than they do. What a joke.You know, there's a fatal flaw in your approach.
You don't consider real material conditions. One cannot grasp political decisions without first understanding the historical and material conditions that lie in their bases. For example, you don't even consider the claer-as-daylight fact that Russian workers' have been opressed on every step of their way for centuries prior to the October. Prior to 1905, there wasn't a "mass party" that could undertake educational work.
These kinds of conditions cannot and will not lead to a upsurge in workers' knowledge regarding the minutiae of managing an infant workers' state, which was surrounded by enemies bent on overthrowing the rule of the proletariat.
However, don't consider this criticism as an act of blind support for the Bolsheviks. Have a look at Propagandhi's post where you can see a neat little list of very dubious decisions and actions made by the Bolsheviks.

I am/will be on the front lines of revolution in the states, and will still push for democratic institutions.
For what kind of democratic institutions

[Revolution starts with U]

Look, I am not so naive as to think you wont have to confiscate property at the barrel of a gun. But you dont bring freedom and equality at the barrel of a gun. I cant point a gun at you and scream "DO WHAT YOU WANT!!" It is oxymoronic.
Either socialism will be supported and enacted by the vast majority of people, or it will be doomed to fail.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think the bourgoise and their supporters will gladly give up their position in society.

[Thirsty Crow]

Look, I am not so naive as to think you wont have to confiscate property at the barrel of a gun. But you dont bring freedom and equality at the barrel of a gun. I cant point a gun at you and scream "DO WHAT YOU WANT!!" It is oxymoronic.
Either socialism will be supported and enacted by the vast majority of people, or it will be doomed to fail.
Yes, I agree, but you haven't addressed what I said.
Freedom and equality are mental manifestations (in forms of words, or concepts) of real material conditions.
Buzt please, elaborate on these democratic institutions which would introduce these elements.
Again, I agree - there can be no revolution without mass support and mass participation. There can be no revolution without organs of class rule, i.e. workers' democracy.

[Qayin]

Where do I begin.


*gasp* Oh noez, if we do not have the approval of the Black bloc, I don't know what I am gonna do! Not Cool. I have been in many black bloc's back when Arizona's Anarchist movement was picking up, its died already it seems. I've had comrades arrested just for being in the bloc. I am a fan on this tactic at protests.


First of all, we clearly subscribe to very different notions of 'revolution.'Mine is based on reality, current and historic.
Yours has neither.


Second, I was saying if this revolution is going to involve crushing dissentWho's dissenting against the workers revolution?
Oh yeah the Ruling Class being overthrown.


censoring peoples viewsWorkers revolution becomes reality or becomes close.What happens historically?
Oh yeah, Fascism.
Supported by the Bourgeois and Petite-Bourgeois. For us to "censor" views of
counter-revolutionaries is not wrong at all, it is not in our interest for people to begin massacring us based on lies spread by the counter-revolutionaries


destroying democracyWhy are you so afraid for parties such as Republicans and Democrats and the parliamentary system being destroyed if your an anarchist? Fuck them all there two sides of the same coin.Workers Democracy in economic institutions such as workers councils, assemblies, centralized/decentralized vanguards, and other organs supported by the Revolutionary Proletariat are the only thing a revolutionary should care about and they are all possible under this "Authoritarianism" that even yes Anarchists have done in the past.


beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't follow the party lineNo one is talking about this, your paranoia is lulzy.


t's morally and ethically bankrupt and I would be bound to oppose itMorals and ethics are subjective to the individual.

Opposition to the workers revolution puts you on terms with the dis-empowered Bourgeoisie, fun to know eh?


These tactics are authoritarian, and fundamentally antithetical to AnarchismEven though Anarchists have done many of these things during revolutions. Go read about the Spanish Revolution/Civil War. Real anarchists knew revolution isn't some joke were the Bourgeois and there fascists roll over and its a great big party. Some things need to be done that are "authoritarian". Unless all the anarchists of the past are wrong and you know something they didn't.


You know, a number of Anarchists were shot at Kronstadt, right?Which was a mistake many ML's will agree with, its not the fucking early 20th century anymore. The Revolution in Russia war bigger and more important just to disregard because of this error.


I really think you've chosen the wrong tendency. It sounds like you'd be more suited to Marxist-Leninism, or something. Not exactly. Arizona's conditions don't need anymore fucking around with sectarianism, the Anarchists aren't doing shit while the PSL who are becoming a force just made a new chapter in Phoenix. The struggle is more important then tendency, personal beliefs aside.

[gorillafuck]

Cuz krondstat bro
I've constantly seen you just try to take any sort of criticism of anything you support and say it in a sarcastic manner to make idiots think your smart and clever while everyone else thinks you're just being an ass.

Anyway, anarchists generally think of Lenin as a traitor due to the krodstadt incident (which in my opinion is a ridiculous reason to formulate your whole view on because that is one event in an obviously extremely tough time) and because of things like the cheka. But bottom line, in my view, is that the Bolsheviks at the time were the only viable revolutionary working class party of the time period and despite mistakes (which I don't think the cheka was), they should have been given support or at very least critical support.

[Barry Lyndon]

Argument between John Reed and Emma Goldman in the movie 'Reds':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGxN-AJxN4

Personally I agree with Reed much more, but I'm sure many others disagree.

Oh, and please go away NGN. You insult the memory of Durruti and Bakunin with your capitalist ass-kissing lifestyle faux anarchist bullshit.

[The Red Next Door]

Look, I am not so naive as to think you wont have to confiscate property at the barrel of a gun. But you dont bring freedom and equality at the barrel of a gun. I cant point a gun at you and scream "DO WHAT YOU WANT!!" It is oxymoronic.
Either socialism will be supported and enacted by the vast majority of people, or it will be doomed to fail.

My head hurts now, listening to this shit.

[Svoboda]

Prior to 1905, there wasn't a "mass party" that could undertake educational work.

I hope you don't mean to define the Bolsheviks as a "mass party".


Argument between John Reed and Emma Goldman in the movie 'Reds':

mEGxN-AJxN4

Personally I agree with Reed much more, but I'm sure many others disagree.

Great movie, and I as I remember Reed in the end would agree Emma and would be completely disgusted with what the "revolution" had turned into.



Anyway, anarchists generally think of Lenin as a traitor due to the krodstadt incident (which in my opinion is a ridiculous reason to formulate your whole view on because that is one event in an obviously extremely tough time) and because of things like the cheka... (which I don't think the cheka was), they should have been given support or at very least critical support.
I believe I also recall John Reed at the end of Reds exclaiming that if you destroy dissent you destroy the revolution and that dissent is the revolution or something along those lines. And how was Cheka not a mistake? As far as I can tell they stamped out anyone who wasn't a Bolshevik instantly as a counter-revolutionary.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually really like the way that Murray Rothbard (oddly enough) described Lenin, who he described as the "supreme realist". I think that really sums up Lenin, personally...he was obviously a Marxist, but his "ideologue factor" was tempered by his moderation as seen in NEP and Bukharin, who was supposedly Lenin's favorite theorist and someone who some members here might describe as a liberal (gasp!) within the Bolshevik party. He was also a very skilled political force in how he managed and played the various factions of the Russian socialist movement...I think that Lenin, had he been born into different circumstances could have found great success in the bourgeois political scene. The anarchist criticisms against him (namely, that he persecuted them through the Cheka) find a good deal of sympathy from me (obviously), but to me they don't represent anything other than Lenin being a continuation of state power as it has been exercised since the state began: anarchists were threatening state power (including bombing the Communist Party HQ), and state power does not (and cannot) tolerate any defiance. He's a very interesting figure to me, much more so than some of the more "spirited" ideologues who have adopted the communist moniker (such as Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.)

[gorillafuck]

As far as I can tell they stamped out anyone who wasn't a Bolshevik instantly as a counter-revolutionary.
Stamped out all non-Bolsheviks instantly? That would be impressive if it was true.

[RadioRaheem84]

Read APL's review of Reds. Warren Beatty toned the movie down to fit his liberal sympathies. John Reed never turned his back on the Revolution. The scene where he complains about his speech being altered was one where Reed complains about simply being censored not about the content of what was censored.

Still a good movie though.

[fa2991]

Anyway, anarchists generally think of Lenin as a traitor due to the krodstadt incident (which in my opinion is a ridiculous reason to formulate your whole view on because that is one event in an obviously extremely tough time) and because of things like the cheka. But bottom line, in my view, is that the Bolsheviks at the time were the only viable revolutionary working class party of the time period and despite mistakes (which I don't think the cheka was), they should have been given support or at very least critical support.

Not to mention suppressing the anarchist press and allegedly jailing a lot of anarchists.

[gorillafuck]

Not to mention suppressing the anarchist press and allegedly jailing a lot of anarchists.
I disagree with suppressing anarchist press (it was unnecessary and involves punishing people who didn't really do much wrong), but I also disagree with cooperating with monarchists and Mensheviks. Everyone makes some mistakes, anarchists and Bolsheviks alike.

[McCroskey]

Nor do I say that Durrutti was an excellent writer/fighter but the anarchists sucked at preserving any sort of revolution!


Revolution in Spain, by anarcho-syndicalists and the POUM was violently crushed by Stalinist USSR, who made clear that the only option was the burguoise Spanish republican government, and that revolution had to be stopped.

[KC]

I hope you don't mean to define the Bolsheviks as a "mass party".

Uh, it was...

[Thirsty Crow]

Uh, it was...
As a matter of fact, I was reffering to the "elitist" concept of the vanguard as a clandestine organization of professional revolutionaries who are obliged to military-like discipline.
And then the uprising of the 1905 happened, and Lenin, as well as other former advocates of the elitist concept, changed their mind, rightfully so.
Now, I don't intend to argue that the Bolsheviks were organized as a mass party since, if I'm not mistaken, it was against the backdrop of German mass party social-democracy that Lenin formulated his, chronologicall firsat, concept of the organization of professional revolutionaries.
If one would argue so, that the Bolsehviks were organized at a mass party, he/she would have to do the following:

1) define what exactly the concept entails, providing a historical account of pre-war German SPD; or to provide an alternative definition and alternative historical examples and account

2) analyse the history of Russian revolutionary socialism (i.e. the history of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) from 1905 to 1917, keeping in mind the conclusion drawn from question(s) number 1

I haven't done so, so I cannot really decide on this issue.

[revolution inaction]

Not to mention suppressing the anarchist press and allegedly jailing a lot of anarchists.

and suppressing strikes and workers organistaions, and closing down soviats that voted agains the bolsheviks.

[robbo203]

Look, I am not so naive as to think you wont have to confiscate property at the barrel of a gun. But you dont bring freedom and equality at the barrel of a gun. I cant point a gun at you and scream "DO WHAT YOU WANT!!" It is oxymoronic.
Either socialism will be supported and enacted by the vast majority of people, or it will be doomed to fail.

This is spot-on. Its like the Communist Manifesto said:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

You cannot impose socialism from above; it has to be wanted and understood by the great majority. The very nature of a socialist (aka communist) society requires this. How else you can you operate a system of free access to goods and volunteer labour to produce these goods, without this mass understanding and support? The ends and the means must be in a harmony. A free and democratic society cannot be brought about means that are essentially unfree and undemocratic. That is simply a recipe for reproducing the authoritarian relationships of class society.

I tend to be deeply suspicious of those who react to this lline of argument by going on about how the capitalists are not going to relinquish their power willingly and how we need to use violent force to dispossess therm. I think this argument is naive on several counts. When the writing is on the wall there is little if anything our rulers can do; their power is based on our consent. Withdraw that consent and they have nothing.

Look at Eastern Europe. The state capitalist ruling class there largely gave up their hold on power peacefully apart from Romania (if I remember correctly) where about 2000 people were killed. The Bolshevik revolution althopugh it turned out to be no more than a capitalist revolution that established state capitalism in that country - precisely as Lenin advocated in the absence of mass socialist understanding - nevertheless demonstrates that even the armed forces are not immune to the spread of social ideas.

While you cannot rule out violence in the changeover to socialism you cannot base an entire revolutionary strategy on the use of violence. It is pointless, counter-productive and self defeating and works against the need for mass revolutionary consciousness without which socialism is impossible

[Svoboda]

Read APL's review of Reds. Warren Beatty toned the movie down to fit his liberal sympathies. John Reed never turned his back on the Revolution. The scene where he complains about his speech being altered was one where Reed complains about simply being censored not about the content of what was censored.

Still a good movie though.
No there is evidence that Jack Reed had a growing discontent with how the revolution was going, he was particularly annoyed by the growth of the party apparatus which was bossing him around against his will, this was presented by Eric Homberger in his biography of Reed.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No there is evidence that Jack Reed had a growing discontent with how the revolution was going, he was particularly annoyed by the growth of the party apparatus which was bossing him around against his will, this was presented by Eric Homberger in his biography of Reed.
It is more of the discontent with the party decision rather than the revolution.

[Svoboda]

It is more of the discontent with the party decision rather than the revolution.
Well here's the instance from Homberger's biography that brings up Reed's discontent towards the end.

http://books.google.com/books?id=L_HBAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=Eric%20Homberger&pg=PA210#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Rafiq]

i have heard some people say that lenin is a traitor to the revolution, i am sorry, but i am not too familiar with lenin, i tried reading about him and i read about how he lead a revolution in russia, but i didnt catch anything obvious that said he was a "traitor". i must have misread something, can someone help me out please?:)

Well, those people are just trying to dismiss all Marxists as Traitors to seem more Moderate. I understand Stalin and stuff, but Lenin? No way.