Leninism:

[commie kg]

THE TITLE IS SUPPOSED TO BE Leninism: A Product of Russian Nationalism, not Leninism: A Product or Russian Nationalism. INVISIONBOARD WON'T LET ME EDIT THE TITLE.

I have been reading through some interesting articles on the rise of Leninism, and have run accross something that I find particularly interesting.
In Roy A. Medvedev's The Social Basis of Stalinism, he brings up the idea that Leninism and Stalinism were a product of Russian culture and nationalism. I have been reading similar pieces by Robert C. Tucker.
The similarities between Stalin and Ivan the Terrible are amazing. Stalin also cited Ivan as one of his greatest influences.
I think these two authors make a great case for Leninism being a product of the Russian cultural mentality.

Sorry I can't post a link, I am reading it in an actual book, so I don't know if these articles are around on the 'net.

Assuming you know what I'm talking about, what do you think?

[redstar2000]

I recall a passing remark that I made in some thread in History that Stalin would ultimately be remembered as a Russian nationalist who defeated the Germans...sort of like Alexander Nevsky.

But I'm uncertain as to how much Leninism can be considered a derivative of Russian nationalism.

For one thing, the Russian Empire of 1890-1917 was not really a "nation" in the "western" sense. The peasantry really had little sense of being "Russian"...they considered themselves part of their local village. The aristocracy actually despised "Russia" as a backward hellhole...they spoke French or German by preference and were oriented towards "western" culture; their loyalities were to their class and to the Czar.

I think the radical intellectuals--of which Lenin was one--shared much of that feeling; they thought that socialist internationalism was the high road to Russian enlightenment.

It could be argued that Leninism borrowed much from both nihilist and populist predecessors...and, in that sense, was "uniquely Russian".

But I don't think it would be fair or reasonable to characterize Lenin as a "Russian nationalist"...though you could certainly argue that Stalin was.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[commie kg]

But I don't think it would be fair or reasonable to characterize Lenin as a "Russian nationalist"...though you could certainly argue that Stalin was.

Of course, I should have clarified that a bit better.

What Medvedev and Tucker speak of in their articles is how the Russian people thought of Lenin as a "Russian nationalist". What I'm trying to say, is that the predisposition for dictatorial rule is almost ingrained into the Russian people's conciousness. All the years of Czars, and even before that, have gotten the Russian populace used to being "smacked around". The same can almost be said for the Germans.

Now, Stalin did think of himself as a Russian nationalist. Ivan the Terrible was one of his icons, and he commonly used the name "Ivan Vasilievich" (Ivan the Terrible's real name) in his communiques with the NKVD.

As Medvedev put it, Stalinism is "Czarist despotism with a communist lining"

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 21 2003, 12:54 AM
As Medvedev put it, Stalinism is "Czarist despotism with a communist lining"
That is a great quote!

[the SovieT]

i dont see how does Leninism has anything to do with Russian nationalism..

in fact, i dont know if by "leninism" you mean the post-Lenin´s death philosophy, or bolchevism..
because i urge to remember that it was Bolchevism (lather named leninism) that ended machism, nationalism and so on Russia..
in fact the bolchevics avoied making historical alusions to Czars and such..
this was ofcourse changed during the great patriotic war where the politbro decided to make alusions to old Russian heros such as Alexander Nevsky..

so in resume Bolchevism as litle if not nothing to do with russian nationalism..

(and may i remind you that the russian nationalism as we know it apeard during and after the great patriotic war, expecially during the nazi invasion...)

[commie kg]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 23 2003, 08:59 AM
i dont see how does Leninism has anything to do with Russian nationalism..

in fact, i dont know if by "leninism" you mean the post-Lenin´s death philosophy, or bolchevism..
because i urge to remember that it was Bolchevism (lather named leninism) that ended machism, nationalism and so on Russia..
in fact the bolchevics avoied making historical alusions to Czars and such..
this was ofcourse changed during the great patriotic war where the politbro decided to make alusions to old Russian heros such as Alexander Nevsky..

so in resume Bolchevism as litle if not nothing to do with russian nationalism..

(and may i remind you that the russian nationalism as we know it apeard during and after the great patriotic war, expecially during the nazi invasion...)
SovieT, I'm saying that alot of Russian people saw Lenin as a "new Russian nationalist."

There were alot of people who didn't understand what the revolution was about, and thought of Lenin as the next Peter the Great.

Stalin re-wrote the history books to glorify Russian monarchs of the past, and often compared himself to them. Especially Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible.

"I think it's mandatory for the master to move throught the party ranks from time to time, with a broom in his hands." -- Josef Stalin

That is straight out of the oprichnik's handbook..

[elijahcraig]

Stalin re-wrote the history books to glorify Russian monarchs of the past, and often compared himself to them. Especially Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible.

What is this nonsense? Please provide some sort of proof of such a nonsensical accusation.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 12:09 PM

Stalin re-wrote the history books to glorify Russian monarchs of the past, and often compared himself to them. Especially Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible.

What is this nonsense? Please provide some sort of proof of such a nonsensical accusation.
I can scan the pages out of this book. Problems in European Civilization: The Stalin Revolution.

But you would probably call it bourgeois propaganda. :rolleyes:

Nevertheless, I will do it. It may take a bit, the scanner is hooked to another computer.

[elijahcraig]

Let's see it.

[commie kg]

Damn "Umax" scanner isn't working, so I'll type it out, I guess.

From Robert C. Tucker's "A New Peter the Great"

... As of then, Stalin's published writings contained very little to which historians could look for guidance on how to re-organize the historical front. Concious of this, and of the challenge re-orginization presented, Stalin took it upon himself in 1934 to navigate history on it's anti-Pokrovsky new course. He did this by revising party policy on historical education in the schools. His views on historical education emerged little by little in a series of Central Committee directives. A decree dated 12 February 1934 established that school textbooks must be approved by the Commissariat of Education, and that "for each individual subject, there must exist a single mandatory textbook approved by the Commissariat and published by the Educational Publishing House." There followed, on 16 May 1934, three joint party-government decrees signed by Stalin as Central Committee secretary and by Molotov as chairman of Sovnarkom. One re-introduced a western-style school structure. The second criticized the teaching of geography for being too schematic. The third found history teaching in unsatisfactory shape and contained directives for new approaches in this field. Among those directives was the glorification of Russian historical figures, such as Ivan Vasilievich (Ivan the Terrible) and Peter the Great.

[elijahcraig]

Wow a book quote, not from Stalin, but from Tucker. Nice. :lol:

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:45 PM
Wow a book quote, not from Stalin, but from Tucker. Nice. :lol:
I see, it must come from the mouth of your God to be true?

That's narrow minded.

[elijahcraig]

Commie, you are a pedophile. It didn't come from you, but it could be true. Though I have no proof.

:lol:

[MikeyBoy]

Medvedev is a good writer. I will try to find that book sometime. It sounds like an interesting topic!

[tresa909]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 23 2003, 08:00 PM

There were alot of people who didn't understand what the revolution was about, and thought of Lenin as the next Peter the Great.

Stalin re-wrote the history books to glorify Russian monarchs of the past, and often compared himself to them. Especially Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible.

"I think it's mandatory for the master to move throught the party ranks from time to time, with a broom in his hands." -- Josef Stalin

That is straight out of the oprichnik's handbook..
commie kg, i could agree and think that leninism had little to do with russian nationalism, this is where both lenin and stalin were different only one should consider the roles of both to understand the differences. in the end, i believe they will be one of the same.

your right about the people not having a thorough understanding of the revolution, not even some of the members of the central committee. i think this is where trosky's role made such a difference as he was able to persuade the people with his sensationalism toward the revolutionary cause.

i am not quite sure what you are intending when you say that stalin re-wrote history books. my understanding is that he was too busy to be involved in reading and writing in these areas although he did pay close attention to the political personalities of leading writers, poets, scientists, and cultural figures. he used a lot of coercion in this area.

*there was a man named zamyatin who published an article in the leningrad journal "dom iskusstv" (house of arts) titled "i am afraid". it goes like this:

*"true literature only exists when it is created by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics, and not by reliable clerks just doing their jobs. i am afraid we won't have any genuine literature until the russian people are no longer looked upon as children whose innocence must be protected. i am afraid we won't have any genuine literature until we have been cured of this new kind of catholicism which is just as afraid of heresy as the old one was."

zamyatin was allowed by stalin to leave to france in 1932.

i will have to re-read your post again, i feel like i missed something. thanks again for sharing it though.

*the above was taken from the copyright book "stalin, triumph and tragedy by volkogonov 1988 pp. 129, para. 4

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 12:09 AM
Commie, you are a pedophile. It didn't come from you, but it could be true. Though I have no proof.

:lol:
please, elijahcraig i don't have the liberty to speak freely as you do so he is a small dedication of the feeling you arouse in others such as myself.

it is written by the intellectual zinaida gippius whom by the way was not accepting of bolshevism

*all is in vain: when the soul is blinded
we are destined for the worms and maggots
and not even the ashes remain
in the land of russian justice


* from the book "stalin, triumph & tragedy" by volkogonov 1988 pp. 125

[elijahcraig]

The homophobe strikes back like the jackass. :lol:

[tresa909]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 07:27 PM
The homophobe strikes back like the jackass. :lol:
IF i was capable of hating again, i would hate you!

you are impossible!

[elijahcraig]

http://familydoctor.org/healthfacts/036/cover.jpg

[commie kg]

Really, elijah, if you have nothing to say, just stay out of this thread.

Run along back to The Church of Stalin, son.

[Cassius Clay]

What we have here is a interesting thread. Shame that any credibility it had has been ruined by once again relying on lies of Stalin.

I think a better question would be how much did the Bolsheviks in Russia/USSR who were afterall whether you agree with it or not Leninists use nationalism to their advantage in setting about the tasks of building Socialism? As redstar has allready pointed out the average Russian peasant or other peasants from the rest of the Empire had little idea of belonging to a nation. When they marched of to WW1 they fought Germany was a real person and couldn't understand why they were fighting to protect this guy Serbia. Ironically enough there attidude probably made more sense than everyone else's in WW1. The common saying was from Generals was 'they would fight to the death to protect their village and towns. But for Russia'.

In comparision in the Second World War the Leninists were able to do so successfully what the Tsar had failed to do so miserably in WW1. That is appeal to the 'fight for the motherland' mentalitty and remembering Alexander Nevsky etc, etc. Also note that this was just the case for propaganda aimed at Russians, most western sources I've read agree that the Leninists had the common sense to appeal to seperate nationalities through different historical figures. Not to mention in the USSR each culture was promoted and languages taught. Clearly Socialism had bought the education and political understanding of the people of the Soviet Union up. It's a question of a very thin line, Ho Chi Minh for example was what could be described as a 'Good Nationalist' but in the end he united so much with the 'progressive' and 'anti-imperialist' landlords etc that Vietnam is the way it is today.

I believe also that a number of leading Bolsheviks in the war in 1920 with Poland noted that where as before they had concentrated on the class aspect of the war in propaganda that is Imperialists invading. When they made a appeal to 'defend Russia' they arroused a sense of 'patriotism' and successfully repulsed the invasion. But ironically enough the Poles rallied around a flag of nationalism and did not welcome a 'Soviet' Poland.