Was Lenin a monster?

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I've heard some people saying this, and I was just wondering how. And please, no Stalinist flamewars.

[AK]

I'm sure he was a well-mannered and kind-hearted man.

[Reznov]

Why was he called a monster?

[S.Artesian]

Why was he called a monster?

Well, he did some monstrous things-- like actually organizing a state to expropriate private property; like mercilessly pursuing a civil war against reactionary, restorationist forces; like executing the Romanoffs.

I mean with depriving the bourgeoisie of property, military power, and a royalty isn't monstrous, I don't know what is.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've heard some people saying this, and I was just wondering how. And please, no Stalinist flamewars.
Yes, he was a monster. I heard he had a tail, which he kept hidden all the time, even from his wife, and he even had little horns he managed to make invisible by means of his evil black magic. Also, i think he had a second stomach, which can account for all the horrid murders and atrocities he committed.

[Catillina]

He ate babies. oh wait wasnt that Stalin?

[Manic Impressive]

lol :laugh:

I'm not a fan of Lenin but his contribution is extremely valuable. Calling him a monster is being extremely dramatic.

The court system (the Cheka) he set up by modern standards was pretty horrendous but it was no worse than the Czarist one that proceeded it. Many like me don't agree with the vanguard party theory and believe it to be a major re-writing of Marxism. Couple of other minor things like his political ruthlessness in his rise to power and the fact he was a hereditary nobleman and if he had followed Marx's example when it comes to taking positions of power he would have stepped aside for a proletarian to take charge and stayed in an advisory position. None of this makes him a monster. He's an important addition to communist theory just some people disagree with his methods.

[Widerstand]

He ate babies. oh wait wasnt that Stalin?

Both.

[NGNM85]

'Monster' is a rather emotive term. I'd say he was an authoritarian, a staunch opponant of socialism, etc., which is more than sufficient. Had he lived longer he probably would've earned the term, as Stalin did. It's perfectly justifiable to say Stalin was absolutely a 'monster,' but that is hardly a revelation.

[gorillafuck]

'Monster' is a rather emotive term. I'd say he was an authoritarian, a staunch opponant of socialism, etc., which is more than sufficient.
Say what you will about "authoritarianism" etc. but saying he was a staunch opponent of socialism is absurd.

[NGNM85]

Say what you will about "authoritarianism" etc. but saying he was a staunch opponent of socialism is absurd.

Not if you believe that democracy, and workers control over the means of production is a core principle of socialism, which was the majority view at the time, and to which many still subscribe.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, Lenin was not a monster.

I'm tempted to ask if Makhno and Bakunin were monsters now.

Seriously, "evil" and "monster" are subjective terms, and stalinism isnt really a theory.

Why was Lenin a monster? Is it because he kicked out the Kerensky government which was 'democratic'?

[The Red Next Door]

'Monster' is a rather emotive term. I'd say he was an authoritarian, a staunch opponant of socialism, etc., which is more than sufficient. Had he lived longer he probably would've earned the term, as Stalin did. It's perfectly justifiable to say Stalin was absolutely a 'monster,' but that is hardly a revelation.

typical anarchis....I mean Liberal Democrat Lifestylist dribble.

[Psy]

Not if you believe that democracy, and workers control over the means of production is a core principle of socialism, which was the majority view at the time, and to which many still subscribe.
The idea was to not let the Russian revolution make the mistakes the French Commune did and in that regard it didn't, the Bolsheviks was not snuffed out by a capitalist military force.

Even without the problem of running a war, the Bolsheviks had a much bigger problem the proletariat made up a minority in Russia and Russia not being industrialized enough to naturally support a workers state. And Lenin's basic long term strategy was basically to keep Russia in a holding pattern till workers in West Euroe came to their rescue, for example if Germany had a workers revolution naturally Germany would have became the vanguard of the world revolution and taken a lot of pressure off Russia.

[Apoi_Viitor]

typical anarchis....I mean Liberal Democrat Lifestylist dribble.

Yeh, you Typical Reactionary Capitalist Authoritarian Imperialist Fascist Nationalist Cappie Bourgeios Reformist Scum.

[Kuppo Shakur]

please, no Stalinist flamewars.
Your pleas fall on deaf ears, comrade.

[AK]

typical anarchis....I mean Liberal Democrat Lifestylist dribble.
"Look at me, I'm so fucking stupid I'm labelling anarchists as Democrats despite their fierce opposition to all social hierarchy and property rights."

Eat a baby, Stalinist.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Yes... A flying spaghetti monster.

[Rusty Shackleford]

"Look at me, I'm so fucking stupid I'm labelling anarchists as Democrats despite their fierce opposition to all social hierarchy and property rights."

Eat a baby, Stalinist.
he was calling NGNM a liberal and not an anarchist. lol.

[Klaatu]

Not if you believe that democracy, and workers control over the means of production is a core principle of socialism, which was the majority view at the time, and to which many still subscribe.

I have explained the workings of a socialist (worker-owned) business to certain conservatives, they actually seem to be keen to the idea! I am not kidding. I simply explain to them that (A) a successful business does not need to have a wealthy owner, and (B) because of this, the wages of the workers can easily double, even triple (through profit-sharing.) Who needs a ten-million dollar owner, when that ten million can be distributed among 100 to 1,000 workers... do the math... socialism is a vastly superior business model than capitalism.

Another possibility is that, since there is no $10 million windbag, prices can be lowered to the point that a socialist business can outsell a capitalist one. It's all fair competition: Laisse-Faire Socialism, rip the bleeding heart out of this archaic thing called capitalism... ;)

[Apoi_Viitor]

a successful business does not need to have a wealthy owner,

They do need a Revolutionary Vanguard and a Giant State Bureaucracy however.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Lenin was a hero of the working class and a great man.

In no way can he be described as a monster. His heart was with the working class and he led one of the most important events in history.

[NGNM85]

The idea was to not let the Russian revolution make the mistakes the French Commune did and in that regard it didn't, the Bolsheviks was not snuffed out by a capitalist military force.

The Tsarist autocracy was overthrown. On that much we can certainly agree. It was replaced by a different autocracy, with different institutions of oppression.


Even without the problem of running a war, the Bolsheviks had a much bigger problem the proletariat made up a minority in Russia and Russia not being industrialized enough to naturally support a workers state. And Lenin's basic long term strategy was basically to keep Russia in a holding pattern till workers in West Euroe came to their rescue, for example if Germany had a workers revolution naturally Germany would have became the vanguard of the world revolution and taken a lot of pressure off Russia.

That was the justification for it, yes. Of course, there was never any intention of having a democratic, or libertarian socialism, real socialism. Lenin made this perfectly clear, except in the April Theses and State and Revolution, where he came closer to the general consensus, the true socialist position, but this was merely pandering.

You completely ignore my point, that socialism, real socialism is democratic, it’s about power to the people. Otherwise it isn’t socialism.

Yes, that is also correct, Lenin did take the position until his death, that the USSR was just as you said a ‘holding pattern’ until the revolution that he believed was supposed to happen in Germany.

[NGNM85]

typical anarchis....I mean Liberal Democrat Lifestylist dribble.

I don't take criticism for a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist very seriously, especially, in this case, because I'm highly skeptical that you could define most or all of those terms.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Stalinist flamewars.
This probably didn't help the whole ''no flamewars'' attempt.

[NGNM85]

Lenin was a hero of the working class and a great man.

In no way can he be described as a monster. His heart was with the working class and he led one of the most important events in history.

I hope you're being sarcastic, but I don't think so. It's also puzzling considering your avatar.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Lenin was not a monster... ESPECIALLY compared to Stalin, who corrupted Lenin's dream and may have poisoned wife. Also, Lenin was tolerant of Kropotkin's presence, one of the founders/idealists of Anarcho-Communism and allowed anarchists and other leftists to assemble for his funeral- something that Stalin would have never done. Now did Lenin have his flaws? Yes, but if I had a choice of being ruled by any of the past Marxist leaders, Lenin probably would be my pick.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I hope you're being sarcastic, but I don't think so. It's also puzzling considering your avatar.

I'm not being sarcastic.

I admire Lenin.

I admire Chomsky.

I'm not a Leninist, and I'm my views do differ from Chomsky's.

What's the problem?

[thecoffeecake1]

Lenin layed the groundwork for an authoritarian Russia which governed under the label of "communism". If it wasn't for that Russia, people wouldn't even be able to view communism as evil or even negative in any way like they do today. Lenin certainly wasn't Stalin and certainly wasn't out to destroy everything that didn't fit into his ideal utopian Russia, but did he potentially slow the progress of society a few hundred years? Maybe. If Trotsky had had power, things would be much much different

[NGNM85]

I'm not being sarcastic.

I admire Lenin.

I admire Chomsky.

I'm not a Leninist, and I'm my views do differ from Chomsky's.

What's the problem?

I just would think those two would be mutually exclusive.

Even I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, but thats a pretty serious departure. Of course, I'm an Anarchist, so it's should be expected that I take a highly critical view of Lenin. I didn't mean to imply you had to agree with everything he says, or everything anybody says.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I just would think those two would be mutually exclusive.

Even I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, but thats a pretty serious departure. Of course, I'm an Anarchist, so it's should be expected that I take a highly critical view of Lenin. I didn't mean to imply you had to agree with everything he says, or everything anybody says.


Im a Leninist, i have a critical view of anarchism, but i like them.

not my politics but they sure are light years better than liberals.

anarchism and leninism have some(major) irreconcilable differences but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Weezer]

No, but he was a zombie.

http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff352/jpar345/Funny/LeninZombie.gif

[Apoi_Viitor]

If Trotsky had had power, things would be much much different

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

[Weezer]

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

Trotsky was not responsible for the suppression of the Rebellion.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1938/10/25.htm

Trotsky adds: “I never spoke of that question [Kronstadt 1921], not that I have anything to hide but, on the contrary, precisely because I have nothing to say...Personally I didn’t participate at all in the crushing of the rebellion, nor in the repression that followed.”

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've heard some people saying this, and I was just wondering how. And please, no Stalinist flamewars.His skin got all sparkly when exposed to sunlight, so he was most likly a sexy vampire:lol:.

[KC]

Lenin was a pretty cool dude.

[Nolan]

Not a monster, but a:

http://www.dj-tronic.com/dancefloormayhem.com/images/Logo_Monsta.jpg

[NGNM85]

Im a Leninist, i have a critical view of anarchism, but i like them.

I'll resist the impulse to refer to Krondstadt.


not my politics but they sure are light years better than liberals.

That word doesn't carry a lot of weight, here.


anarchism and leninism have some(major) irreconcilable differences but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

They are most certainly exclusive because they have irreconciliable differences.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTq8JDmeqiQ

Yeah... still can't get past the Lenin mummy/corpse phenomena... I still want to poke it with a stick :D

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't think he was a monster. He did what he actually believed was revolutionary for Russia and defended the revolution. To blame a single man for "misleading" the revolution is not how historical materialism works.

[Paulappaul]

Trotsky was not responsible for the suppression of the Rebellion.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1938/10/25.htm

Trotsky adds: “I never spoke of that question [Kronstadt 1921], not that I have anything to hide but, on the contrary, precisely because I have nothing to say...Personally I didn’t participate at all in the crushing of the rebellion, nor in the repression that followed.”

Frankly that's a pathetic excuse. And furthermore Trotsky was for the suppression of the Rebellion.

Take it from a member of the Left Opposition Victor Serge (http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1938/10/25.htm), Trotsky, the Bolshevik party paved then way to the bureaucratization of the party and the state.

Another good piece is Emma Goldman's "TROTSKY PROTESTS TOO MUCH (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Essays/trotsky.html)".

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'll resist the impulse to refer to Krondstadt.
you want fries with that waamburger?


That word doesn't carry a lot of weight, here.
Liberal? Anarchists are light years better than liberals. liberals pay a wee bit of lip service to the plight of the oppressed and working peoples but think charity is the way to solve it and that bourgeois democracy is the best thing in the goddamned world.

anarchists for the most part are class conscious and are working towards communism*

Liberal carries a hell of a lot of weight. a liberal defends capitalism and does all of what i had said a few lines before this.



They are most certainly exclusive because they have irreconciliable differences.
I will just reference my previous point about anarchists.


Also, on the topic of Krondstadt, i wasnt there, and i dont really care. im more pissed off about the failure of the KPD in germany and the spanish civil war fuck ups(on both sides).


they are not mutually exclusive. thy both have the same goal, for the most part, which is COMMUNISM.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have explained the workings of a socialist (worker-owned) business to certain conservatives, they actually seem to be keen to the idea! I am not kidding. I simply explain to them that (A) a successful business does not need to have a wealthy owner, and (B) because of this, the wages of the workers can easily double, even triple (through profit-sharing.) Who needs a ten-million dollar owner, when that ten million can be distributed among 100 to 1,000 workers... do the math... socialism is a vastly superior business model than capitalism.

Another possibility is that, since there is no $10 million windbag, prices can be lowered to the point that a socialist business can outsell a capitalist one. It's all fair competition: Laisse-Faire Socialism, rip the bleeding heart out of this archaic thing called capitalism... ;)
Eh, capitalist co-operatives being supported by capitalists and conservatives is hardly a novel phenomenon; it was observed by Marx back in the 19th Century, and the Tories more recently also jumped on the bandwagon. It's not much of a surprise, either, as, as Bordiga pointed out, "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

lol :laugh:

I'm not a fan of Lenin but his contribution is extremely valuable. Calling him a monster is being extremely dramatic.

The court system (the Cheka) he set up by modern standards was pretty horrendous but it was no worse than the Czarist one that proceeded it. Many like me don't agree with the vanguard party theory and believe it to be a major re-writing of Marxism. Couple of other minor things like his political ruthlessness in his rise to power and the fact he was a hereditary nobleman and if he had followed Marx's example when it comes to taking positions of power he would have stepped aside for a proletarian to take charge and stayed in an advisory position. None of this makes him a monster. He's an important addition to communist theory just some people disagree with his methods.

I 'liked' this post, but am quoting it for sincerity and truth in addition. I'm not sure I agree about his being a 'hereditary nobleman' meaning he should have stepped aside for a proletarian. I don't think it matters who leads the revolution as long as they are bona fide revolutionaries.

[gorillafuck]

Not if you believe that democracy, and workers control over the means of production is a core principle of socialism, which was the majority view at the time, and to which many still subscribe.
Lenin did believe in those things. Problem was he had to deal with reality, and reality involved a civil war, a small working class in Russia, and an invasion by 12 different countries at once.

[Obs]

Lenin did believe in those things. Problem was he had to deal with reality, and reality involved a civil war, a small working class in Russia, and an invasion by 12 different countries at once.
Of course, if Lenin had been a real socialist, everyone would have immediately been on his side, and the whole world would have been cuddling together under the warm blanky of Bakuninism within months.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Evry full moon he transformed to a troll who sabotaged the cc:s meetings and eate up cats.

Why are threads such as this one allowed?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Of course, if Lenin had been a real socialist, everyone would have immediately been on his side, and the whole world would have been cuddling together under the warm blanky of Bakuninism within months.

Bakuninism....? I think you mean Liberal Democrat Lifestylist dribble.

[Diello]

Why are threads such as this one allowed?

As simplistic as the original question was, I, as someone who knows next to nothing about Lenin, have found the responses somewhat informative. So this thread has had some value.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Was Lenin a monster?
I've heard some people saying this, and I was just wondering how. And please, no Stalinist flamewars.


The question is far frome clear and specific, I get that OP probably will learn if Lenin what Lenin did in his work and if the resultes was good. The impression you get of OP question is very unserious because of its shortness and the formulation, "was Lenin a monster?" you mean a warewolf? you see you have to at least try to make some effort in your questions, to make it clear and specific otherwise it will just develope into oftopic nonsense, as it has now.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

The question is far frome clear and specific, I get that OP probably will learn if Lenin what Lenin did in his work and if the resultes was good. The impression you get of OP question is very unserious because of its shortness and the formulation, "was Lenin a monster?" you mean a warewolf? you see you have to at least try to make some effort in your questions, to make it clear and specific otherwise it will just develope into oftopic nonsense, as it has now.
Sorry, for what it's worth... I was short on time. And yes, the thread has been very informative thank you very much.

[Psy]

The Tsarist autocracy was overthrown. On that much we can certainly agree. It was replaced by a different autocracy, with different institutions of oppression.

The Bolshivks saw the failure of the Paris commune caused by leadership of the Paris commune didn't give the military defense of the revolutionary top priority and was basically putting the cart before the horse. Dead workers can't build communism neither can workers busy fighting a war so just focus on winning the war, the war effort became the primary concern for the Bolsheviks during the civil-war as losing the war would mean the revolution will fail regardless of any advances in workers struggle in Russia. So during the civil-war you can't blame Lenin for concentrating everything towards not getting overrun by hostile armies.



That was the justification for it, yes. Of course, there was never any intention of having a democratic, or libertarian socialism, real socialism. Lenin made this perfectly clear, except in the April Theses and State and Revolution, where he came closer to the general consensus, the true socialist position, but this was merely pandering.

There was in the idea that revolutions in more advanced European nations would bring it to Russia.



You completely ignore my point, that socialism, real socialism is democratic, it’s about power to the people. Otherwise it isn’t socialism.

True but Lenin said he was just setting Russia up for a real socialist country to drag Russia into socialism. Basically Lenin position was that Russia had to become socialist through a external force as it was too weak to do on its own.



Yes, that is also correct, Lenin did take the position until his death, that the USSR was just as you said a ‘holding pattern’ until the revolution that he believed was supposed to happen in Germany.
And this is bad because?

If Rosa Luxemburg (and the KPD) succeeded in creating a workers revolution Germany that would mean Rosa Luxemburg (and the rest of the party) would be calling the shots for dragging Russia into Socialism and that was basically Lenin's plan. So if Luxembrug plan was to make Russia democratic that would actually have been more then fine with Lenin and even if it was not it was like Lenin would have been in any position to dictate terms of how the KPD brought socialism to Russia.

[Dire Helix]

Yes, Lenin was a monster, a British/German/Japanese spy, the head of the global Jewish conspiracy against the white christian civilization, a terrorist and a womanizer. That`s what Russian state media have led me to believe over the course of the past 20 years.

[EvilRedGuy]

Seriously, comparing peoples to monsters is kinda immature.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Seriously, comparing peoples to monsters is kinda immature.

So is executing peasants because they were sympathetic to Makhno and the Anarchists...

[EvilRedGuy]

So is executing peasants because they were sympathetic to Makhno and the Anarchists...

Bad things done by a person =/= Monster (fictional creature)

:rolleyes:

[Apoi_Viitor]

Bad things done by a person =/= Monster (fictional creature)

:rolleyes:

When someone categorizes Lenin as a 'monster', they are obviously referring to the fact that he's 80 feet tall and breathes fire.

[Psy]

When someone categorizes Lenin as a 'monster', they are obviously referring to the fact that he's 80 feet tall and breathes fire.
That would actually be really cool and have came in really useful in the civil-war. A mean that would make Lenin as bad ass as Godzilla, I wonder who would win in a fight Godzilla or a 80ft tall fire breathing Lenin :D

[#FF0000]

I don't like the question OP presents in the first place because what constitutes a "monster" is hella subjective and moralistic and kind of dumb.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The simple use of the term monster being attributed to any figure of the left creates an instant flame/troll thread.

[Rousedruminations]

Lenin was no monster but of course he was ruthless in taking down the bourgeosie, an imperative element in any class struggle where violence would be an inevitable outcome.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The simple use of the term monster being attributed to any figure of the left creates an instant flame/troll thread.Yeah, this kind of talk is needlessly polarizing and doesn't lead to an understanding of the pros or cons of different kinds of leftist political perspectives.

I think it's possible to ask were the results of certain policies or politics are monstrous, but even Stalin, for example who I think had monstrous politics, was not sharpening knives waiting to take over and murder people. IMO the "monstrous" acts done by Stalin were not done for the sake of being a tyrant for the sake of it or a monster for the sake of it, but because his politics substituted the politics of "socialism in one country" for the real goal of socialism and communism (worker's control of society) he had to do monstrous things to force a population to submit to plans from above designed to increase production rather than increase worker's power and control.

I'm saying this as my opinion as someone opposed to Stalin, I'm not trying to start a flame war about Stalin, he's just the example from my perspective. But for Lenin, the question of if his politics are monstrous or not depends of if you believe he was actually trying to accomplish something legitimate or not (and this would also be why modern Stalinist probably do not see Stalin's actions as monstrous whereas I do). So IMO, mistakes made by the Bolsheviks in the early years were generally the results of trying to keep together a revolution that was failing. People who think that the Bolsheviks were not interested in worker's power from the beginning, no doubt view anything they did as monstrous.

[EvilRedGuy]

I don't like the question OP presents in the first place because what constitutes a "monster" is hella subjective and moralistic and kind of dumb.

This is what i posted!!! Dammit!!!

[Amphictyonis]

Z0jYx8nwjFQ Lack of worker democratic control is a monster :)


IzTuz0mNlwU

And here we have the effects of hierarchy on the bottom of the equation.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Was Che Guevara a unicorn?

[EvilRedGuy]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2010/08/demon.jpgTrotsky and Lenin chilling.
http://pictures.linkmesh.com/dragons/imagenes/golden_demon-dragon.jpg

[Obs]

Was Karl Marx Santa Claus?

[Sir Comradical]

No, because most of the violence under Lenin was probably justified. Yeah sure the Cheka killed thousands of people, but who cares, it was during a civil war. Maybe you think he was a monster because he was actually errrm, successful?

[AK]

Yeah sure the Cheka killed thousands of people, but who cares
Oh wow.

[Il Medico]

Was Karl Marx Santa Claus?
Yes.

[gorillafuck]

So is executing peasants because they were sympathetic to Makhno and the Anarchists...
Do you think the anarchists and Nestor Makhno weren't authoritarian? That's absurd.

Makhno led a conscripted army which was ran by his officers, and the territories his army led had to adhere to that style of government. Sounds kinda, what's the word...authoritarian?

Edit: Also, I'm skeptical that the Bolsheviks just went and killed peasants who were sympathetic to Makhno. Is there proof of this?

[Sir Comradical]

Oh wow.

The extent of Chekist violence has been greatly exaggerated in the west owing to an over reliance on perfectly reliable white army sources. However that's how you defend a revolution from counter-revolutionary attack and imperialist invasion, you shoot people. A little violence never hurt anyone.

[Weezer]

Do you think the anarchists and Nestor Makhno weren't authoritarian? That's absurd.

Makhno led a conscripted army which was ran by his officers, and the territories his army led had to adhere to that style of government. Sounds kinda, what's the word...authoritarian?

Edit: Also, I'm skeptical that the Bolsheviks just went and killed peasants who were sympathetic to Makhno. Is there proof of this?

Of course there is! My latest copy of Anarchist Lifestyle published an article about it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I have explained the workings of a socialist (worker-owned) business to certain conservatives, they actually seem to be keen to the idea! I am not kidding. I simply explain to them that (A) a successful business does not need to have a wealthy owner, and (B) because of this, the wages of the workers can easily double, even triple (through profit-sharing.) Who needs a ten-million dollar owner, when that ten million can be distributed among 100 to 1,000 workers... do the math... socialism is a vastly superior business model than capitalism.

Another possibility is that, since there is no $10 million windbag, prices can be lowered to the point that a socialist business can outsell a capitalist one. It's all fair competition: Laisse-Faire Socialism, rip the bleeding heart out of this archaic thing called capitalism... ;)

Dude thats got nothing to do with socialism

[Obs]

Dude thats got nothing to do with socialism
Didn't you get the memo? Socialism is pretty much anything that isn't anarcho-capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

Of course there is! My latest copy of Anarchist Lifestyle published an article about it.
Combat ideas, don't just spout stereotypes.

[Amphictyonis]

Was Jesus a Mormon?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Was Stalin a cuddly lamb?

[Misanthrope]

There is no doubt that those under him or himself committed atrocities in the Russian Revolution. Were they for the greater good of the proletariat? That's your own discretion.

[Klaatu]

Eh, capitalist co-operatives being supported by capitalists and conservatives is hardly a novel phenomenon; it was observed by Marx back in the 19th Century, and the Tories more recently also jumped on the bandwagon. It's not much of a surprise, either, as, as Bordiga pointed out, "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step."

But then I wasn't thinking of capitalist-supported (in the sense that existing capitalists would approve) I was thinking more along the lines of a truly worker-dominated, utopian-style business-system. And with more and more of these organizations forming, and prospering, we might have a good shot at finally overturning the corrupt existing system in the USA.

Remember that a lot of things have happened since Marx's time: National health care, social security, unemployment insurance, and so forth. What I am saying is that, we do have a better shot at convincing the masses that change is needed, than our wise 19th century prophets could have hoped for (?)

[this is an invasion]

I mean with depriving the bourgeoisie of property, military power, and a royalty isn't monstrous, I don't know what is.
Subjugating the working class to the same life and conditions that the working class of "capitalist" countries would be in, while simultaneously telling them that they were liberating themselves.

[Lodestar]

Yes, he was a monster. I heard he had a tail, which he kept hidden all the time, even from his wife, and he even had little horns he managed to make invisible by means of his evil black magic. Also, i think he had a second stomach, which can account for all the horrid murders and atrocities he committed.

It is said on the 9th day of the 9th month, every 9 years, Vladimir Lenin would take a hammer and sickle to unwitting, innocent, reckless teenagers in slasher-film style.

Little known fact.

What's so monstrous about Lenin? That he used force?

[Lodestar]

Subjugating the working class to the same life and conditions that the working class of "capitalist" countries would be in, while simultaneously telling them that they were liberating themselves.

Can you elaborate?

I think it's fairly well understood among even right-wing historians that under Lenin, literacy increased, disparities decreased, women were empowered, and the old feudal system and its reactionary elements liquidated.

[M-26-7]

No, Lenin was not a "monster". He was a middle-class lawyer who was driven by a pathological hatred of the government that killed his brother to fanatically destroy the tsarist state. That's why he wrote State & Revolution all about dismantling the state completely and right away, but then proceeded to build up a totalitarian state in its place. Because he was never really against states in general, he was just against the state that executed his brother.

Bottom line, he wasn't a communist by any stretch. He was a middle-class son of a bureaucrat, and he laid the foundations for the most bureaucratic state in history. Every working class person should be opposed to him and his legacy.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, Lenin was not a "monster". He was a middle-class lawyer who was driven by a pathological hatred of the government that killed his brother to fanatically destroy the tsarist state. That's why he wrote State & Revolution all about dismantling the state completely and right away, but then proceeded to build up a totalitarian state in its place. Because he was never really against states in general, he was just against the state that executed his brother.

Bottom line, he wasn't a communist by any stretch. He was a middle-class son of a bureaucrat, and he laid the foundations for the most bureaucratic state in history. Every working class person should be opposed to him and his legacy.
im sorry but i dont buy the whole "he worked tirelessly for revolution to avenge his brother" scenario. thats just fucking ridiculous.

Also, why do you have a picture of Castro and Trotsky if you think lenin was not a communist?

Also, Marx and Engels werent from proletarian families.

[NGNM85]

No, because most of the violence under Lenin was probably justified. Yeah sure the Cheka killed thousands of people, but who cares, ..

This speaks volumes.


Maybe you think he was a monster because he was actually errrm, successful?

If the USSR is a success of Socialism what does failure look like?

[Psy]

If the USSR is a success of Socialism what does failure look like?

Salvador Allende, being overthrowing by Pinochet is a major failure especially when that wasn't the first attempted coup.

[M-26-7]

Also, why do you have a picture of Castro and Trotsky if you think lenin was not a communist?

In my signature, Castro and the Cuban flag represent state. Trotsky and the hammer/sickle represent hierarchy. I would have thought that was obvious.


Also, Marx and Engels werent from proletarian families.

I'm not a Marxist. I know, it must have been hard for you to tell, but I am actually an anarchist.

[KC]

This thread is fucking awesome.

[Rusty Shackleford]

In my signature, Castro and the Cuban flag represent state. Trotsky and the hammer/sickle represent hierarchy. I would have thought that was obvious.

i honestly mistook your sig as some sort of anarcho-statism or some weird trend that could not possibly be explained. thanks for clearing that up. :blushing:
Why are you named M-26-7 then? and what about your avatar?


I'm not a Marxist. I know, it must have been hard for you to tell, but I am actually an anarchist.
yes, i know you are an anarchist and not a marxist.

Bakunin, Kropotkin. both of aristocratic origin. and Proudhon was a petit-bourgeois socialist.

im just being an ass, but let me pain this picture for you(happy tress will of course be included).

yes, people of bourgeois origin have become communists and anarchists. class origin doesnt mean shit half the time if they rejected their class origin on their own and seriously worked their asses off for the working class.

Workers dont all have the time to write works like "The Philosophy of Poverty" "Capital" and "The State and Revolution" and much less time keeping up correspondence with a bunch of dudes in far flung parts of europe.

though they may have had non-proletarian origins or work-fields does not make them any less revolutionary. they acted on behalf and with the working class and oppressed peoples.

If people like Owen(who was a hopeless utopian) didnt make their attempts, then their position would have been filled at a later time by some other person with a similar position in society.

it just happened to develop that way.

[AK]

A little violence never hurt anyone.
Anyone else see the stupidity in this statement?

[NGNM85]

Salvador Allende, being overthrowing by Pinochet is a major failure especially when that wasn't the first attempted coup.

I wouldn't describe that as a failure, because that wasn't Allende's fault. I have only conducted a very superficial study of his Presidency, but I have read nothing that I found objectionable or worthy of criticism.

[AK]

Well, he did some monstrous things-- like actually organizing a state to expropriate private property; like mercilessly pursuing a civil war against reactionary, restorationist forces; like executing the Romanoffs.

I mean with depriving the bourgeoisie of property, military power, and a royalty isn't monstrous, I don't know what is.
That's your defence? The OP gave the impression that this thread was about communist (read: Marxist and anarchist) criticisms of Lenin (which would presumably be for his part in the subjugation of the soviets, etc.) - I don't think any communists have ever criticised Lenin for taking part in the expropriation of the Russian Bourgeoisie.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

While that's true, AK, I think he was being sarcastic.

At least I hope.

[ZeroNowhere]

But then I wasn't thinking of capitalist-supported (in the sense that existing capitalists would approve) I was thinking more along the lines of a truly worker-dominated, utopian-style business-system. And with more and more of these organizations forming, and prospering, we might have a good shot at finally overturning the corrupt existing system in the USA.Except that capitalist businesses are dominated by capital, whether they are self-managed or not. To complete the previous quote: "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step. [...] One of two things would happen [if bosses' enterprises were replaced with co-ops]: either the workers' cooperatives would try to operate other than as capitalist enterprises and as all the other conditions would remain bourgeois (links by the intermediary of the market) they would be swept aside; or, if they intended to survive, they would only be able to operate as capitalist enterprises with a money capital, wages, profits, a depreciation fund and capital investments, credit and interest etc. The competition between them would not be abolished, so neither would the system of commercial contracts, nor civil law and the state institution needed to uphold it."

Whether or not the establishment of co-operatives can help advance the unity and strength of the working class to the point where we can abolish capitalism is another question, and inasmuch as their establishment involves class struggle, such may well be utile. However, this does not make them any more 'socialist' than a workplace in which higher wages have been won through a strike.

[Psy]

I wouldn't describe that as a failure, because that wasn't Allende's fault. I have only conducted a very superficial study of his Presidency, but I have read nothing that I found objectionable or worthy of criticism.
Allende did nothing in preparation for the coming backlash even after the first attempted coup. Pinochet's forces was allowed to just march right into the capital and take over with no real opposing revolutionary army entrenched in the capital to make Pinochets forces pay dearly in blood for taking the city.

[ZeroNowhere]

Workers dont all have the time to write works like "The Philosophy of Poverty" "Capital" and "The State and Revolution" and much less time keeping up correspondence with a bunch of dudes in far flung parts of europe. While writing 'Capital', Marx was more or less staying awake until pretty damn late in the morning, and generally not practicing entirely healthy sleep habits. This being, among other things, because his main source of income was from writing for journals, which took up much of his other time. The relevance of his origins is that they gave him his impetus, inasmuch as they provided him with the early opportunity to study people like Hegel, Feuerbach, write his dissertation, etc. He was fairly proletarian at the time of writing 'Capital', though.


While that's true, AK, I think he was being sarcastic.

At least I hope.I believe that AK knew that, thus why he was addressing it as a 'defence' of Lenin.


Salvador Allende, being overthrowing by Pinochet is a major failure especially when that wasn't the first attempted coup.I'm not sure that it had much to do with socialism.


He was a middle-class lawyer who was driven by a pathological hatred of the government that killed his brother to fanatically destroy the tsarist state. That's why he wrote State & Revolution all about dismantling the state completely and right away, but then proceeded to build up a totalitarian state in its place. Because he was never really against states in general, he was just against the state that executed his brother.[citation needed]

[Psy]

I'm not sure that it had much to do with socialism.

Failure to have a class war understanding of the struggle thus failed to mobilize the proletariat into a revolutionary army in defense against the bourgeoisie.

[Kiev Communard]

Except that capitalist businesses are dominated by capital, whether they are self-managed or not. To complete the previous quote: "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step. [...] One of two things would happen [if bosses' enterprises were replaced with co-ops]: either the workers' cooperatives would try to operate other than as capitalist enterprises and as all the other conditions would remain bourgeois (links by the intermediary of the market) they would be swept aside; or, if they intended to survive, they would only be able to operate as capitalist enterprises with a money capital, wages, profits, a depreciation fund and capital investments, credit and interest etc. The competition between them would not be abolished, so neither would the system of commercial contracts, nor civil law and the state institution needed to uphold it."

It should also be noted that sooner or later some members of these co-operatives would have to assume specifically managerial functions because of the necessity of division of labour into organizational and menial ones in all class societies, and this would entail them becoming the effective owners of these enterprises.

[this is an invasion]

Can you elaborate?

I think it's fairly well understood among even right-wing historians that under Lenin, literacy increased, disparities decreased, women were empowered, and the old feudal system and its reactionary elements liquidated.
They were still wage slaves subjected to people who filled roles equivalent to managers and bosses.

[Os Cangaceiros]

i honestly mistook your sig as some sort of anarcho-statism or some weird trend that could not possibly be explained. thanks for clearing that up. :blushing:
Why are you named M-26-7 then? and what about your avatar?

Well, Camilo does have a reputation for being more "libertarian" than Che or Fidel (his parents were Spanish anarchists). Whether that reputation is justified or not is another story.

[Zanthorus]

No, Lenin was not a "monster". He was a middle-class lawyer who was driven by a pathological hatred of the government that killed his brother to fanatically destroy the tsarist state. That's why he wrote State & Revolution all about dismantling the state completely and right away, but then proceeded to build up a totalitarian state in its place. Because he was never really against states in general, he was just against the state that executed his brother.

Except that, when Bukharin suggested that the modern Imperialist state was no longer suitable for capture by the working-class, and would have to be destroyed completely, in 1915, Lenin rejected the idea. It was only in 1917 that he came round to the idea that the existing state regime would have to be 'smashed'. Further, he based the 'smashing of the state' idea on the writings of Marx and Engels (Reportedly, Kautsky also wrote a series of articles along the same lines as State and Revolution in 1903, Republik and SozialDemokratie in Frankreich) which he had reviewed, and the work was directed mainly as a polemic against Second International Marxism. If State and Revolution was motivated by any kind of revenge pathology, it was revenge on Kautsky and the SI for betraying their own supposed commitment to Internationalism and backing their respective states in the First World War. If the death of Lenin's brother ever clearly motivated any of Lenin's actions, it was Lenin's insistance that the kind of terrorist actions his brother had been caught in could not lead to the overthrow of the Tsarist state and the creation of the conditions for a modern working-class movement. Apart from that, what you have is abberant speculation with not a shred of evidence.

[Sir Comradical]

Anyone else see the stupidity in this statement?

That part was a joke, I have a dark sense of humour.

[Sir Comradical]

This speaks volumes.

I'm sure you have an infinitely more enlightened way of defending a revolution from counter-attack.


If the USSR is a success of Socialism what does failure look like?

To paraphrase Parenti - unfortunately this pure socialism myth is ahistorical and unfalsifiable. When you compare the imperfect reality with the imaginary ideal, the imperfect reality comes off second best.

[Weezer]

He was a middle-class son

Like every anarchist teenager.

[Klaatu]

If the USSR is a success of Socialism what does failure look like?

USSR ≠ Socialism

USSR = State Capitalism

[Weezer]

USSR ≠ Socialism

USSR = State Capitalism

USSR ≠ Socialism
USSR ≠ State Capitalism
USSR = Degenerated worker's state

[Klaatu]

USSR ≠ Socialism
USSR ≠ State Capitalism
USSR = Degenerated worker's state

But then was USSR ever a "workers' state?" (could have been, but no)

[Sexy Red]

I also heard Rosa was a succubus and Marx a troll.

[AK]

That part was a joke, I have a dark sense of humour.
Strange. I don't recall laughing.

Like every anarchist teenager.
I find it ironic that you try to be ageist when you're younger than me. Troll harder.

[Weezer]

Strange. I don't recall laughing.

I find it ironic that you try to be ageist when you're younger than me. Troll harder.


That's as hard as I can troll. :(

[Sir Comradical]

Strange. I don't recall laughing.

Stop drinkin' haterade, playa.

[ZeroNowhere]

To paraphrase Parenti - unfortunately this pure socialism myth is ahistorical and unfalsifiable. When you compare the imperfect reality with the imaginary ideal, the imperfect reality comes off second best.
Unfalsifiable? Of course a bloody definition is 'unfalsifiable'; that's a rather ludicrous argument.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To paraphrase Parenti - unfortunately this pure socialism myth is ahistorical and unfalsifiable. When you compare the imperfect reality with the imaginary ideal, the imperfect reality comes off second best.That's like saying that an aborted fetus is really just the imperfect reality of the ideal of a baby: oh it's just an ugly baby with some health problems.

Besides, it's a straw-man to say that Marxist and anarchist critics of the USSR had problems with it because it was not "pure" or meeting some abstract "ideal". First there really isn't a really such an ideal model that all critics are suggesting, so that part of the equation is false. Second, most critics aren't quibbling over this or that aspect of the USSR, they are against the whole basis that it operated on. Saying that "worker's direct control over society" is an "pure socialism myth" is like saying that in capitalism, private property is a nice ideal, but not essential.

[RedTrackWorker]

Allende did nothing in preparation for the coming backlash even after the first attempted coup. Pinochet's forces was allowed to just march right into the capital and take over with no real opposing revolutionary army entrenched in the capital to make Pinochets forces pay dearly in blood for taking the city.

I know it's off topic but since it's already been brought up: Allende did not just "not prepare." He appointed Pinochet. He signed off on a gun control law that was used to take guns from workers prepared to defend themselves from a coup. He tied the workers to a political coalition with the capitalists. In sum, he worked to politically and literally disarm the workers. All in the interests of "socialism" of course.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes... A flying spaghetti monster.

Lenin is God?

[nickdlc]

From reading debates similar to this thread between ComradeOm and libertarian socialists I've come to have a more of a sympathetic view of Lenin and the Bolshevik party, but that in no way means we should let him off the "hook". We should ask ourselves if the methods used by the the Bolshevik party and their leader were the best methods of achieving socialism.

It seems as if Eugene Debs's quote was quite true that if we rely on leaders to get us into socialism they can just as easily lead us out of it. So yes I admire the Bolsheviks for being the only party calling for Soviet rule and allowing Soviet rule to be a possibility but in what way is soviet rule state monopoly capitalism, supression of other socialist parties, the supression of the krondstat rebellion? I feel The Krondstat sailors turn towards Anarchism to be totally justified in the face of those sorts of policies.

He was no monster but a reflection of the "vangaurd"/soicalist elite thinking at the time which deffinately haunts us today. We should learn to be weary of these "great men" but no instead we see Leninists and even Anarchists for fucks sake lining up behind "great men" be it Lenin, Castro or Chavez.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The concept of a vanguard is not to say "im a better worker/socialist than you" but is just a term for a class conscious and active member of the working class movement, or someone who is fighting with the working class regardless of their class origin.

a vanguard is also a class conscious organization that actually is at the forefront of a working class movement/socialist/communist/revolutionary movement. that is actually a big part of being able to be defined as a vanguard.

the PSL, WWP, RCP, ISO, FRSO and so on are not vanguards because they are not at the forefront of a revolutionary movement because there is no mass revolutionary movement. only when there are tens of millions of workers and oppressed people fighting with any one of the aforementioned orgs does one of those orgs become a vanguard.


not all anarchists are anti-vanguard, and vanguard-ism is not unique to leninism.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Allende did nothing in preparation for the coming backlash even after the first attempted coup. Pinochet's forces was allowed to just march right into the capital and take over with no real opposing revolutionary army entrenched in the capital to make Pinochets forces pay dearly in blood for taking the city.

Why are you always so obessed with revolutionary armies and the like?

[Trigonometry]

no but I believe he was a selfless and truely progressive revolutionary of the prolertariat for the attaining the goal of socialism unlike some other revolutionary leader however with little practical ideas of how to achieve his goals, and his premature birth of Soviet Union has built up all the everyday rhetoric of communism doesn't work.

[Psy]

Why are you always so obessed with revolutionary armies and the like?
For starters you have to admit the thought of a revolutionary army bullying police with tanks will put a smile on many revolutionaries. Imagine riot police totally helpless against even the crudest tanks from worker occupied factories and how without firing a shot police will all of a sudden start running scared when their strongest rounds are totally ineffective against even the most basic armored vehicle.

The next is that if you want to keep occupied factories you are going to need a armed force that is capable of dealing with capitalist armies. Capitalists are not just going to let workers seize the means of production they are going to counter attack. The better defense militant workers have against capitalist the easier it would be to convince other workers to also overthrow their capitalist masters, since militant workers getting crushed by capitalists is very demoralizing to workers and make then less likely to want to revolt.