Log in

View Full Version : Anarchists stop telling lies



peaccenicked
26th August 2003, 12:25
Why not read Lenin and not the easy lies spread by anarchists
Prove to me Lenin was corrupt. Not by quotes but actions.
Who was the major player in the ending of WWI?
Who lead the soviet government against 22 invading armies?
Who stopped the Kronstadt rebellion in the middle of external war?
Who showed first the real connection between Hegel and Marx?
Who's brother was executed trying to assasinate the Tsar?

redstar2000
26th August 2003, 13:56
Why not read Lenin and not the easy lies spread by anarchists?

What "easy lies" and which "anarchists" are you speaking of?

Prove to me Lenin was corrupt. Not by quotes but actions.

I don't recall anyone (even rightists) ever suggesting that Lenin was personally corrupt.

Who was the major player in the ending of WWI?

The working class in Petrograd and other Russian cities in February 1917; the Russian peasant conscript soldiers who deserted from 1916 to 1917.

Who lead the soviet government against 22 invading armies?

Every time this particular subject is mentioned, the number of "invading armies" grows faster than the infamous "coalition of the willing". As far as I know, the "invading armies" were: Imperial Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States, Poland, plus a group of Czech pows that sided with the domestic counter-revolution.

I actually don't recall now who was the nominal head of the Soviet government then...but everyone knew that Lenin called the shots.

Who stopped the Kronstadt rebellion in the middle of external war?

Definitely Lenin...though it's not something to brag about. By the way, I don't think there were any active hostilities taking place elsewhere in March of 1921...the Red Army was being demobilized at the time.

Who showed first the real connection between Hegel and Marx?

Is that a serious question? Obviously, Marx himself showed that "connection" many times, repeatedly saying that he was indebted to "that mighty thinker".

Who's brother was executed trying to assassinate the Tsar?

Like many young nihilists in the late 19th century, Lenin's elder brother was involved in a small conspiracy to assassinate Czar Alexander III (father of the last czar, Nicholas II). The conspiracy was broken up by the secret police and Lenin's brother was one of the participants who was executed...he was the one, by the way, who provided the technical expertise to build the bomb.

What that has to do with anything, much less "anarchist lies" beats me...as does, in fact, the purpose of this thread.

What's the point here???

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

YKTMX
26th August 2003, 14:02
I agree, I think the point is missed with most of the examples that have been posted. I mean, even Orlando Figes wouldn't say Lenin was corrupt, far from it. He would probably say he was "driven by a harsh ideological zeal", haha.

commie kg
26th August 2003, 17:15
People who consider themselves "anti-Leninist," like myself, don't feel that way because thay think Lenin was "corrupt," they feel that way because of Leninism's track record for developing dictatorial regimes.
If I had been alive in the early 20th century, I'd probably have been a Leninist, but I think history has proven that Leninism will not create a communist society.

YKTMX
26th August 2003, 17:41
Originally posted by commie [email protected] 26 2003, 05:15 PM
People who consider themselves "anti-Leninist," like myself, don't feel that way because thay think Lenin was "corrupt," they feel that way because of Leninism's track record for developing dictatorial regimes.
If I had been alive in the early 20th century, I'd probably have been a Leninist, but I think history has proven that Leninism will not create a communist society.
No. People who proclaim Lenin as a hero and paint pictures of him, take the convieniet parts of Leninism and discard the rest will not create a communist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat remains the most practical way of creating Communism.

FistFullOfSteel
26th August 2003, 18:07
lenin rules :)

elijahcraig
27th August 2003, 00:03
A nice room of liberals and fools.


lenin rules

I agree. See my avatar for proof. :lol:

Xvall
27th August 2003, 00:17
Liberals and fools? You are aware that most of the people here are trying to stand in support of Lenin, right?

Urban Rubble
27th August 2003, 00:18
God, you're such a little *****. Seriously, you need to get over yourself. You think you're this enlightened political genius when 3 weeks ago you held beliefs that were completely opposite.

You make me sick you easily manipulated piece of shit.

elijahcraig
27th August 2003, 00:29
I was replying to the original poster, X is a fool and a liberal, RS is defensive of Lenin, yet I know he is against him really, etc,.

Rubble, I've already told you: if you want to fuck, we can, but this constant ass riding way you have of flirting is getting old. Now, bend over.

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/cwm/cwm/piss2.gif

lokigreeny
27th August 2003, 00:37
its good to know you can debate in such a mature, logical way.

elijahcraig
27th August 2003, 00:42
Of course. I think the ignorance of this thread is debate enough. "Prove to me Lenin wasn't corrupt." :lol: That's just pathetic, and anyone who isn't a moron will see it as PATHETIC.

Blackberry
27th August 2003, 10:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 11:56 PM
Why not read Lenin and not the easy lies spread by anarchists?

What "easy lies" and which "anarchists" are you speaking of?

Prove to me Lenin was corrupt. Not by quotes but actions.

I don't recall anyone (even rightists) ever suggesting that Lenin was personally corrupt.

Who was the major player in the ending of WWI?

The working class in Petrograd and other Russian cities in February 1917; the Russian peasant conscript soldiers who deserted from 1916 to 1917.

Who lead the soviet government against 22 invading armies?

Every time this particular subject is mentioned, the number of "invading armies" grows faster than the infamous "coalition of the willing". As far as I know, the "invading armies" were: Imperial Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States, Poland, plus a group of Czech pows that sided with the domestic counter-revolution.

I actually don't recall now who was the nominal head of the Soviet government then...but everyone knew that Lenin called the shots.

Who stopped the Kronstadt rebellion in the middle of external war?

Definitely Lenin...though it's not something to brag about. By the way, I don't think there were any active hostilities taking place elsewhere in March of 1921...the Red Army was being demobilized at the time.

Who showed first the real connection between Hegel and Marx?

Is that a serious question? Obviously, Marx himself showed that "connection" many times, repeatedly saying that he was indebted to "that mighty thinker".

Who's brother was executed trying to assassinate the Tsar?

Like many young nihilists in the late 19th century, Lenin's elder brother was involved in a small conspiracy to assassinate Czar Alexander III (father of the last czar, Nicholas II). The conspiracy was broken up by the secret police and Lenin's brother was one of the participants who was executed...he was the one, by the way, who provided the technical expertise to build the bomb.

What that has to do with anything, much less "anarchist lies" beats me...as does, in fact, the purpose of this thread.

What's the point here???


One wonders what happened to the real peaccenicked?



From Freedom and Revolution: The Bolshevik experience (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/freerev.html)

The Anarchists

On the 11th December Cheka and Lettish troops surrounded 26 anarchist strongholds in Moscow. The anarchists suffered 40 casualties and 500 were taken prisoner. On the 26th April similar raids were carried out in Petrograd. At this stage Dzershinsky (head of the Cheka) justified his action on the grounds that the anarchists had been preparing an insurrection and that in any event, most of those arrested proved to be criminal riff raff. He stressed that the Cheka had neither the mandate nor the desire to wage war on ideological anarchists. Yet documents(15) dating from the 13th June outlined that the department for counter revolution investigative section and intelligence unit had sections allocated to dealing with anarchists. The fact that 'ideological' Anarchists were under Cheka surveillance gives lie to the Bolshevik claim that they were only opposed to a 'criminal' element within the anarchist movement rather than anarchism itself.

While Leon Trotsky was saying in July 1921 "We do not imprison real anarchists. Those whom we hold in prison are not anarchists, but criminals and bandits who cover themselves up by claiming to be anarchists" (16), 13 anarchists were on hungerstrike in Moscow. Fortunately a French Syndicalist trade union delegation in the city heard of their plight and the prisoners were released (all but three were expelled from the USSR). Not so lucky was Fanyan Baron, a young anarchist woman, shot without trial, along with several others, on trumped up charges of counterfeiting Soviet bank notes (it was later proven that the counterfeiting was done by the Cheka itself). Unlucky also were the 30 or 40 anarchists living near Zhmirink who according to the soviet press in 1921 had been "discovered and liquidated". The last great mobilisation of anarchists occurred at the funeral of Kroptkin in February 1921 when 20,000 marched with placards and banners demanding, among other things, the release of anarchists from prison. From then on the suppression of anarchists became thorough and complete.

While there was opposition to the Cheka abuses from within the Bolshevik party, there was no institutional attempt to change its mode of operation. In any organisation, there is both a human and a structural element. Perhaps it could be argued that the abuses of Cheka were due to individual mistakes. If individuals are given unlimited power, including power over life and death, with no accountability, it's inevitable that a measure of excess and corruption will occur. Where this occurs it is up to the revolutionary organisation to make changes to prevent the same mistakes from being repeated. This is not what the Bolshevik party did. They continued to entrust individuals with unchecked power. They did not make any structural changes to the Cheka. Instead they occasionally rooted out the rotten human element, closing down certain branches, while leaving the edifice that engendered these abuses untouched.

Emma Goldman said, on escaping from Russia in 1921,

"I have never denied that violence is inevitable, nor do I gainsay it now. Yet it is one thing to employ violence in combat as a means of defence. It is quite another to make a principle of terrorism, to institutionalise it, to assign it the most vital place in the social struggle. Such terrorism begets counter-revolution and in turn becomes counter-revolutionary." (17)


Little wonder why anarchists are so hostile to Lenin and the Bolsheviks and other vanguardists, hey?

H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution"? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secH1.html#sech17)

H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secH3.html#sech33)

H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secH3.html#sech38)

The Bolsheviks and Workers Control 1917 - 1921: The State and Counter-revolution. (http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2163/bolintro.html)

Anarchism and the Russian Revolution. (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia_wsm.html)

H.8 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secH8.html)

There is several links there to keep you busy. 'Why do anarchists reject leninism and such?' should be answered.

I don't know how or why you want me to 'prove' that 'Lenin was corrupt'. I don't even know where you got the idea that anarchists actually claim that.


And for elijahcraig:

H.2.9 Do anarchists have "liberal" politics? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secH2.html#sech29)

peaccenicked
27th August 2003, 11:30
I have just lost my whole message to a computer gliche. I am so pissed off.
See you all when I get hold of a better terminal. Sorry.

YKTMX
27th August 2003, 11:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:29 AM
I was replying to the original poster, X is a fool and a liberal
I'd take offence to that, but I may as well hold out a while, next week you might think I'm a genuis.

Urban Rubble
27th August 2003, 14:59
"Rubble, I've already told you: if you want to fuck, we can, but this constant ass riding way you have of flirting is getting old. Now, bend over. "

No. Even if I was gay, I could find better ass than yours you brainwashed peice of scum.

"I'd take offence to that, but I may as well hold out a while, next week you might think I'm a genuis. "

That was fucking hilarious. And very true.

Xvall
28th August 2003, 01:45
That's the thing. No one said, 'Prove to me that Lenin wasn't corrupt'. They said 'Prove to me that Lenin was corrupt'.

Invader Zim
28th August 2003, 02:00
Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Aug 27 2003, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Aug 27 2003, 12:53 PM)
[email protected] 27 2003, 12:29 AM
I was replying to the original poster, X is a fool and a liberal
I&#39;d take offence to that, but I may as well hold out a while, next week you might think I&#39;m a genuis. [/b]
Nice, very nice.

So elijah, decided to read a book yet or are you still spouting nonsense why makes you look a fool.

Maybe we should vote whether Elijah or Stormin Norman is the biggest plonker about... I know who my moneys on...

But seriously Elijah with a brain like yours you could Run for presedent of the USA.

synthesis
29th August 2003, 07:28
Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Aug 26 2003, 05:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Aug 26 2003, 05:41 PM)
commie [email protected] 26 2003, 05:15 PM
People who consider themselves "anti-Leninist," like myself, don&#39;t feel that way because thay think Lenin was "corrupt," they feel that way because of Leninism&#39;s track record for developing dictatorial regimes.
If I had been alive in the early 20th century, I&#39;d probably have been a Leninist, but I think history has proven that Leninism will not create a communist society.
No. People who proclaim Lenin as a hero and paint pictures of him, take the convieniet parts of Leninism and discard the rest will not create a communist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat remains the most practical way of creating Communism. [/b]
The dictatorship of the proletariat isn&#39;t a Leninist idea. Leninism is the idea that the proletariat needs a vanguard to carry out its revolution due to proletarian ineptitude. Whether or not this vanguard-led dictatorship is actually a dictatorship of the proletariat is up for debate, and is probably the most-debated subject among the Left (perhaps not in those terms), but what must be examined now is the efficiency of Leninism.

The vanguard idea "worked" in developing, backwards nations like Cuba, Russia, and China. These nations were previously caught in a "stasis" between feudalism and capitalism; between agrarianism and industrialism. The West - Europe, America, and Japan - maintains this stasis for the purpose of keeping "subject nations" in order to increase their own profits.

What Leninism does, essentially, is to break this stasis; which is why most previously Leninist countries are converting "back" to capitalism... although, in truth, it is a step forward.

An elite, armed vanguard worked then... but with the military strength of industrialized America, Japan, and Europe, the only way to succeed is through mass class action, not through any sort of socialist coup.

Western Marxists will never successfully produce the dictatorship of the proletariat through Leninism. We must act as instigators, as agitators. Reformism won&#39;t work, but neither will the revolutionary vanguard. Class revolution is the only solution.

This ideology has a name: 21st Century Socialism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=15437)

Saint-Just
29th August 2003, 10:29
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 27 2003, 12:18 AM
God, you&#39;re such a little *****. Seriously, you need to get over yourself. You think you&#39;re this enlightened political genius when 3 weeks ago you held beliefs that were completely opposite.

You make me sick you easily manipulated piece of shit.
As far as I understand it elijahcraig has been a Leninist for a long time.

YKTMX
29th August 2003, 15:48
Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Aug 29 2003, 10:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Aug 29 2003, 10:29 AM)
Urban [email protected] 27 2003, 12:18 AM
God, you&#39;re such a little *****. Seriously, you need to get over yourself. You think you&#39;re this enlightened political genius when 3 weeks ago you held beliefs that were completely opposite.

You make me sick you easily manipulated piece of shit.
As far as I understand it elijahcraig has been a Leninist for a long time. [/b]
No, he was an Anarchist, then he was Leninist who discredited Stalin (a Trotskyist) now he&#39;s a Stalinist. He&#39;s a man of all trades. Look at the crimes of Stalin thread. He is critical at the start, and then RAF and Clay get their hands into his fragile little mind and it&#39;s all over for the common sense.

Bolshevika
29th August 2003, 18:43
No, he was an Anarchist, then he was Leninist who discredited Stalin (a Trotskyist) now he&#39;s a Stalinist. He&#39;s a man of all trades. Look at the crimes of Stalin thread. He is critical at the start, and then RAF and Clay get their hands into his fragile little mind and it&#39;s all over for the common sense

And? I agree that Elijah is doing some foolish things, but simply because he used to be an Anarchist and a Trotskyite does not mean anything.

I used to be a Liberal anti-authoritarian "Marxist" as well, until I opened my eyes and saw that Leninism and Maoism were the only ways to apply the ideas of Marx and Engels to common society.

You see, me and Elijah (I assume Elijah is younger than 17) are at ages were political stances change. I, a 14 year old, have grown out of the idealist phase and into the reality phase. I guess I can be considered a "Stalinist", but I try to be sensible. RAF and Cassius are both smart guys, who no doubt can easily win people over to there cause. So, if they managed to convince Elijah about our cause, good for the three of them.

YKTMX
29th August 2003, 19:39
Yes, lets embrace mass delusion. That&#39;s the way forward.

Bolshevika
30th August 2003, 19:30
I am 18 years old, first of all. I was an Anarchist before I had come into contact with Lenin or Marx. I later read Marx, became a Marxist. Then later read Lenin, became a Leninist. I have supported Lenin and Mao since then. I picked up on the typical Western perception of Stalin, and never read the man. I "naturally" chose Trotsky, why? Because I had never seen anyone put up a valid defense of Stalin, nor had I examined the issue very closely. I have heard the arguments of the Stalinists, and was convinced. Eventually, I became a Stalinist. This is typical evolution of theory. It&#39;s not hard to understand. I have now read Stalin, and studied it at length, with the help of fellow Stalinists. The attacks on me as a "sheep" or whatnot are rather strange, since only 20% or so of the members here are Stalinists. I have been a political radical since I was 13-4 years old, I have always been the most politically radical person I know, so the talk of "sheep" is really foreign to me. Are you that incompetent in a debate that you cannot understand a simple variation?

commie kg
30th August 2003, 19:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:30 AM
I am 18 years old, first of all. I was an Anarchist before I had come into contact with Lenin or Marx. I later read Marx, became a Marxist. Then later read Lenin, became a Leninist. I have supported Lenin and Mao since then. I picked up on the typical Western perception of Stalin, and never read the man. I "naturally" chose Trotsky, why? Because I had never seen anyone put up a valid defense of Stalin, nor had I examined the issue very closely. I have heard the arguments of the Stalinists, and was convinced. Eventually, I became a Stalinist. This is typical evolution of theory. It&#39;s not hard to understand. I have now read Stalin, and studied it at length, with the help of fellow Stalinists. The attacks on me as a "sheep" or whatnot are rather strange, since only 20% or so of the members here are Stalinists. I have been a political radical since I was 13-4 years old, I have always been the most politically radical person I know, so the talk of "sheep" is really foreign to me. Are you that incompetent in a debate that you cannot understand a simple variation?
That is how it went for me as well, except backwards.

I started as a Stalinist, and ended up as a Libertarian Communist/Anarchist.

Lardlad95
30th August 2003, 19:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:30 PM
I am 18 years old, first of all. I was an Anarchist before I had come into contact with Lenin or Marx. I later read Marx, became a Marxist. Then later read Lenin, became a Leninist. I have supported Lenin and Mao since then. I picked up on the typical Western perception of Stalin, and never read the man. I "naturally" chose Trotsky, why? Because I had never seen anyone put up a valid defense of Stalin, nor had I examined the issue very closely. I have heard the arguments of the Stalinists, and was convinced. Eventually, I became a Stalinist. This is typical evolution of theory. It&#39;s not hard to understand. I have now read Stalin, and studied it at length, with the help of fellow Stalinists. The attacks on me as a "sheep" or whatnot are rather strange, since only 20% or so of the members here are Stalinists. I have been a political radical since I was 13-4 years old, I have always been the most politically radical person I know, so the talk of "sheep" is really foreign to me. Are you that incompetent in a debate that you cannot understand a simple variation?
It sounds to me like you are just a young man who is bought by a good arguement.

Anyone can convince you of anything as long as it&#39;s presented the right way.

Now I may be wrong, and I don&#39;t want to insult you.

But the ease with which you changed ideology seems to be a little to fast.

Of course I&#39;m not you so i really can&#39;t know for sure

YKTMX
31st August 2003, 00:36
Ideology should less about people "convincing" you off things and more about your own gut instincts.

Hatchet
1st September 2003, 11:08
I have no problem with either Leninism or Anarchism, but its a bit hypocritical to be accusing Anarchists of betraying/backstabbing lenin, when he rose to power on the essentially anarchist slogan &#39;Absolute power to the Soviets(communes)&#39;, and then persecuted the liberal left.

apathy maybe
1st September 2003, 11:44
I didn&#39;t know much except that I was left. Then I read some more and then I was a archno-communist. Then I thought some more and now I am a archno-communist who believes the way forward is not through violence. That all over an eight year period from grade four (10 years of age) to now (18 years of age). My ideas are well thought through and I have read enough history and political theory to support my ideas.

Now back to the original questions

Who was the major player in the ending of WWI?
Here I was thinking it was the US entering it.
Who lead the soviet government against 22 invading armies?
Trotsky was the man. With out him they could not have done it.
Who stopped the Kronstadt rebellion in the middle of external war?
I think this was Trotsky again but it may have been Lenin. As redstar2000 said, It is nothing to be proud of.
Who&#39;s brother was executed trying to assasinate the Tsar?
Lenin&#39;s. Big deal heaps of people where executed during the reign of the Tzars.

synthesis
2nd September 2003, 08:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:36 AM
Ideology should less about people "convincing" you off things and more about your own gut instincts.
I disagree. What you are essentially saying is to throw away reason and logic in choosing one&#39;s political affiliation and to simply go with emotions. Choosing one&#39;s ideology should involve examining all data at hand.