From the perspective of an Anarcho-Communist do the Bolsheviks derserve any praise?

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm currently reading Alexander Berkman's ABC of Anarchism. Today I finished the passage where he discusses the Bolsheviks. He contends that the Bolsheviks led to the ruination of the Russian Revolution. I agree with this premise, but feel that though the Bolsheviks and Lenin made countless mistakes they deserve some credit. Here's my question: as an anarcho-communist is there anything about the Bolsheviks or Lenin that I should regard in a positive light?

[Optiow]

Removing Russia from World War One, and encouraged revolution all over Europe. There is This article here (http://www.marxist.com/wage-differentials-under-lenin-and-the-bureaucracy.htm) is something I just finished reading, and it talks about how the Bolsheviks lived at the same level as the people.

I don't doubt they did other good things, but the other posters will cover them better than me.

However, it is important to note that it was the Bolsheviks who crushed the Free Territory in the Ukraine, as well as crushing the anarchists in Russia, and for any anarcho-communist these are things that can never be forgiven.

[Susurrus]

In the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were supported by the anarchists as they were the farthest left of the major parties and it was expected that the Bolsheviks would surrender power to the soviets(as per their slogan "all power to the soviets!"). This would have been perfectly fine by the anarchists. However, this was not the case.

Also, although I have not read it yet, I've heard that State and Revolution differs significantly from Lenin's actions, and that it is somewhat anarchistic in nature.

EDIT: I HIGHLY recommend Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth, his account of his time in Russia. Very good book, I would advise other tendencies to read it too.

[Dave B]

In Lenin’s own state and revolution, circa 1917, he described or defined ‘socialism’ as the lower phase of communism as outlined in Karl’s Gotha programme with its labour vouchers etc etc.

Actually sections of the Bolshevik party in 1917 wanted to introduce this, Lenin was opposed to the idea and went on later to advocate the introduction of state capitalism instead.

Thus;




Strictly speaking, a mere glance at the resolution passed by the Bolshevik Conference held from April 24 to 29, 1917, reveals that the Bolsheviks, too, recognise the impossibility of immediately “introducing” socialism in Russia.

What is the argument about, then? Why the fuss?

By the hue and cry against the “introduction” of socialism in Russia, some people are sustaining (many of them unwittingly) the efforts of those who are opposed to the exposure of plunder of the state.

Let us not quibble over words, citizens! It is unworthy of "revolutionary democrats" and, indeed, of grown-ups in general. Let’s not talk about the “introduction” of socialism, which “everybody” rejects. Let’s talk about the exposure of plunder.


Everybody agrees that the immediate introduction of socialism in Russia is impossible.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/22.htm



They evade these specific issues by advancing pseudo-intellectual, and in fact utterly meaningless, arguments about a "permanent revolution", about “introducing” socialism, and other nonsense.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm




15. Under no circumstances can the party of the proletariat set itself the aim of “introducing” socialism in a country of small peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.

But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind “near-Marxist” catchwords, can deduce from this truth a justification of the policy of postponing immediate revolutionary measures, the time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states, and which are absolutely indispensable in order to combat impending total economic disorganisation and famine.

Such measures as the nationalisation of the land, of all the banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, etc., over them—measures which do not in any way constitute the “introduction” of socialism—must be absolutely insisted on, and, whenever possible, carried out in a revolutionary way. Without such measures, which are only steps towards socialism, and which are perfectly feasible economically, it will be impossible to heal the wounds caused by the war and to avert the impending collapse; and the party of the revolutionary proletariat will never hesitate to lay hands on the fabulous profits of the capitalists and bankers, who are enriching themselves on the war in a particularly scandalous manner.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htm





The Soviets must take power not for the purpose of building an ordinary bourgeois republic, nor for the purpose of making a direct transition to socialism. This cannot be. What, then, is the purpose? The Soviets must take power in order to make the first concrete steps towards this transition, steps that can and should be made . In this respect fear is the worst enemy. The masses must be urged to take these steps immediately, otherwise the power of the Soviets will have no meaning and will give the people nothing.

I shall now attempt to answer the question as to what concrete measures we can suggest to the people without running counter to our Marxist convictions.

Why do we want the power to pass to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies?

The first measure the Soviets must carry out is the nationalisation of the land. All the peoples are talking about nationalisation. Some say it is a most utopian measure; nevertheless, everybody comes to accept it, because landownership in Russia is so complicated that the only way out is to remove all boundary lines dividing the land and make it the property of the state. Private ownership of land must be abolished. That is the task confronting us, because the majority of the people are in favour of it. To accomplish it we need the Soviets. This measure cannot be carried out with the help of the old government officials.

The second measure. We cannot be for “introducing” socialism—this would be the height of absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small farmers who can have no idea of socialism. But what objections can they have to a bank being set up in each village to enable them to improve their farming? They can say nothing against it. We must put over these practical measures to the peasants in our propaganda, and make the peasants realise that they are necessary.

Quite another thing is the Sugar Syndicate. This is a clear fact. Here our proposal must be direct and practical: these already fully developed syndicates must be taken over by the state. If the Soviets intend to assume power, it is only for such ends. There is no other reason why they should do so. The alternative is: either the Soviets develop further, or they die an ignominious death as in the case of the Paris Commune



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/24c.htm


What the Anarchists and council communists types eg Berkman/Goldman (who were on the Bolshevik state capitalist payroll) and Sylvia Pankhurst’s lot (who happily rushed to publish, translated into English, Lenin’s manifesto for state capitalism- the ‘Chief Tasks of our Times’ in 1918) were thinking I do not know.


.

[deadsmooth]

The Bolsheviks put an end to Russian Imperialism (using the word in its strict sense, namely government by inheritance), and eliminated/damaged other Imperialist systems as well. This should not be overlooked or underestimated by Anarchists.

The danger of success by the counter-Revolutionary Imperialists was the primary driving force behind Bolshevik anti-Anarchism, at least at first.

[CHE with an AK]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/x1.gif
"WHAT! ... these whiny ... anarcho-perfectionist-douchebags!"





:blink: Ok, anti-Stalin and anti-Mao revisionism is somewhat understandable (even though I don't agree with most of it), and siding with Trotsky over Stalin is at least a respectable position - but if the anarcho-perfectionists are going to start even denouncing the Bolsheviks and Lenin, then they might as well just glue some teabags to their balaclavas and join the AynRand-RonPaulBots at some right-wing-moron.com message board, because they certainly aren't revolutionary leftists.






Perhaps this cartoon is sadly more true than I originally thought ... :confused:

http://cdn.imgfave.com/image_cache/1250122484634716.gif

[Susurrus]

:blink: Ok, anti-Stalin and anti-Mao revisionism is somewhat understandable (even though I don't agree with most of it), and siding with Trotsky over Stalin is at least a respectable position - but if the anarcho-perfectionists are going to start even denouncing the Bolsheviks and Lenin, then they might as well just glue some teabags to their balaclavas and join the AynRand-RonPaulBots at some right-wing-moron.com message board, because they certainly aren't revolutionary leftists.


Oh yes, because we should certainly side with this fellow who imprisoned and executed our comrades en masse, seized power from the people, created a secret police as brutal as the Tsar's, caused mass starvation, and paved the way for a new ruling class. Anyone else is a perfectionist.



http://www.punkerslut.com/pictures/lenin.jpg

http://libcom.org/files/images/library/Kronstadt_poster%5B1%5D.jpg

[CHE with an AK]

this fellow (Lenin) who imprisoned and executed our comrades en masse, seized power from the people, created a secret police as brutal as the Tsar's, caused mass starvation, and paved the way for a new ruling class.

Ok, Susurrus, you've officially gone off the reactionary deep end and unless you are trying to be ironic, I would remove the Trotsky and Che quotes from your sig.

Plus from your image, I also take it that you are against Marx? Then what the fuck are you doing calling yourself a revolutionary leftist? So I take it you are also then against anarcho-communists as well? :confused:

This, coupled with your anti-Soviet Gulag Archipelago propaganda images from a white supremacist site yesterday makes me think that you now meet the criteria for restriction - and possibly are a capitalist troll having fun acting as a leftist sockpuppet.

[Susurrus]

Ok, Susurrus, you've officially gone off the reactionary deep end and unless you are trying to be ironic, I would remove the Trotsky and Che quotes from your sig.

Plus from your image, I also take it that you are against Marx? Then what the fuck are you doing calling yourself a revolutionary leftist? So I take it you are also then against anarcho-communists as well? :confused:

This, coupled with your anti-Soviet Gulag Archipelago propaganda images from a white supremacist site yesterday makes me think that you now meet the criteria for restriction - and possibly are a capitalist troll having fun acting as a leftist sockpuppet.

I put quotes on my sig based on their merit, not the merit of those who said them. If it were good enough, I would even put a Stalin quote on it.

No, I am not against Marx, I am against Lenin's attempts to oppress the working class by interpreting Marx to his own ends. I am a revolutionary leftist and an anarcho-communist as well, and consider opposing Lenin's actions to be part of that.

By that reasoning, your use of a political cartoon published in capitalist newpapers obviously proves that you are a capitalist. I used the Gulag Archepelago image simply because it was a picture of conditions in a gulag, and the other photo I found via google images, not by looking at the white supremacist site, as I explained in that thread.

[electro_fan]

i don't agree with anarchism but i'd disagree that they weren't revolutionary leftists (at least some of them). they have the same class analysis as marx but just disagree about the nature of the revolution and what will come after it.

i oppose anarchism because i think it's totally contradictory and won't fucking work, not because i somehow doubt their left-wing credentials

[electro_fan]

i don't even oppose anarchism that much, i'd rather have anarchists in power than stalinists, at least they wouldn't really be able to fuck anything up

that said, the kronstadt obsession some of them have is slightly ridiculous :D

[Nox]

i don't even oppose anarchism that much, i'd rather have anarchists in power than stalinists, at least they wouldn't really be able to fuck anything up

that said, the kronstadt obsession some of them have is slightly ridiculous :D

You serious?

Firstly there's no such thing as a 'Stalinist', secondly Stalin didn't fuck anything up, infact he did quite the opposite :laugh:


From the perspective of an Anarcho-Communist do the Bolsheviks derserve any praise?

There's an unusual calm before the storm... of Ultra-leftists

[Susurrus]

that said, the kronstadt obsession some of them have is slightly ridiculous :D

Well, it really is more or less a perfect example of Bolshevik oppression and how they had become divorced from the original principles and aims of the October Revolution.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotskyists, left coms,and anarchists actually have much more in common with each other as opposed to Stalinists.We share the same revolutionary heritage and the opposition to the hideous bureaucratic deformation of the worker's state under Stalin.

Victor Serge was an anarchist who worked with Trotsky in the Bolshevik government. His Memoirs of a Revolutionist is a masterpiece.

[CHE with an AK]

I put quotes on my sig based on their merit, not the merit of those who said them.
Oh it's more than obvious lately that you don't care about your sources. :rolleyes: You're becoming a broken record of all the anti-communist greatest hits from every right-wing hack on the internet.




I am a revolutionary leftist and an anarcho-communist as well, and consider opposing Lenin's actions to be part of that.
It seems to me that you are closer to being a supporter of the pro-Romanov reactionary ultra-nationalist Black Hundreds, especially with your "Kronstadt rebellion" poster.




I used the Gulag Archepelago image
Solzhenitsyn was a racist, Slavo-ophile nationalist, and revisionist anti-communist propagandist who supported the murder of 4 million Vietnamese by American forces.

[Susurrus]

Oh it's more than obvious lately that you don't care about your sources. :rolleyes: You're becoming a broken record of all the anti-communist greatest hits from every right-wing hack on the internet.




It seems to me that you are closer to being a supporter of the pro-Romanov reactionary ultra-nationalist Black Hundreds, especially with your "Kronstadt rebellion" poster.




Solzhenitsyn was a racist, Slavo-ophile nationalist, and revisionist anti-communist propagandist who supported the murder of 4 million Vietnamese by American forces.

When have I quoted a rightist?


RESOLUTION

OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921

Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.

PETRICHENKO, President of the Brigade Meeting
PEREPELKIN, Secretary

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the entire Kronstadt garrison.

Does that look Tsarist to you?

Do you deny that that picture is of a person in a Gulag? That was the sole reason I used it.

[CHE with an AK]

Trotskyists, left coms,and anarchists actually have much more in common with each other
Trotsky was Lenin's "right-hand man" during the revolution and a Bolshevik.




Victor Serge was an anarchist
... who joined the Bolsheviks.

[Susurrus]

... who joined the Bolsheviks.

...and criticized them on many issues.

[CHE with an AK]

When have I quoted a rightist?
You posted photos from Solzhenitsyn's propaganda (he would be a "rightist")




Do you deny that that picture is of a person in a Gulag?
I am skeptical of anything from Solzhenitsyn and especially white supremacy sites. And if that image was actually from a gulag then I would question the context of the images as well (i.e. showing dead bodies with the implication they were killed in mass, showing an execution without the reason for the sentence etc).

[CHE with an AK]

...and criticized them on many issues.
You mean Himself. He was one!

[Susurrus]

You mean Himself. He was one!

Yes, and he criticized the actions of the Bolshevik party many times.

[L.A.P.]

This such a horrible and incoherent sectarian argument. Arguing with pictures, seriosuly guys? Susurrus and Che with an AK, if this is how you present your arguments with non-leftists then you're in some serious trouble.

[Thirsty Crow]

This such a horrible and incoherent sectarian argument. Arguing with pictures, seriosuly guys? Susurrus and Che with an AK, if this is how you present your arguments with non-leftists then you're in some serious trouble.
You never heard of that old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"?
Now, imagine what super duper argument, containing two thousand words, comes out of posting two pics!

[CHE with an AK]

To clarify, the anti-communist pictures we are "discussing" is from this thread yesterday (post #13) ...


http://www.revleft.com/vb/life-ussr-t159755/index.html

[Susurrus]

This such a horrible and incoherent sectarian argument. Arguing with pictures, seriosuly guys? Susurrus and Che with an AK, if this is how you present your arguments with non-leftists then you're in some serious trouble.

We also put words, I hope you can read them.

[Luc]

In the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were supported by the anarchists as they were the farthest left of the major parties and it was expected that the Bolsheviks would surrender power to the soviets(as per their slogan "all power to the soviets!"). This would have been perfectly fine by the anarchists. However, this was not the case.

Also, although I have not read it yet, I've heard that State and Revolution differs significantly from Lenin's actions, and that it is somewhat anarchistic in nature.

EDIT: I HIGHLY recommend Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth, his account of his time in Russia. Very good book, I would advise other tendencies to read it too.

Yes the State and Revolution is fucking amazing! I love reading the book even though I am an Anarchist and hate Lenin. He only mentions the Vanguard once! (by my count) I think it is mostly about Marx's view of the State.
You (anyone) can find it here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

To OP: There really isn't much but they are important: End of Tsarism, better Woman rights, ending of jewish pogroms and other forms of racism, idustrialisation, and of course the end of WW1.

[Art Vandelay]

I consider myself an anarcho-communist and I think that both Lenin and Trotsky deserve credit for much; Stalin as well, but to a much lesser extent. To begin with both Lenin and Trotsky have contributed major theoretical marxist works, and all three lead to the establishment of the first ever socialist society. While I believe that Lenin and Trotsky's actions differed from their words at times, their contribution to marxism are tools we've inherited to further the cause. As for Stalin he helped defeat the nazis which can not be overlooked.

However there is much to also detract from these guys reputation: Authoritarian and repressive regime, lead to capitalist restoration, purges (Stalin), Gulags (Stalin). We all know the history so I do not feel the need to go into detail. So to answer your question yes they deserve merit, more so in the case of Lenin and Trotsky in my opinion. In particular with the later while I do not agree with all of their opinions and many of their actions they still have to be seen as positive characters in the history of the working class.

[Tim Finnegan]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/x1.gif
"WHAT! ... these whiny ... anarcho-perfectionist-douchebags!"





:blink: Ok, anti-Stalin and anti-Mao revisionism is somewhat understandable (even though I don't agree with most of it), and siding with Trotsky over Stalin is at least a respectable position - but if the anarcho-perfectionists are going to start even denouncing the Bolsheviks and Lenin, then they might as well just glue some teabags to their balaclavas and join the AynRand-RonPaulBots at some right-wing-moron.com message board, because they certainly aren't revolutionary leftists.






Perhaps this cartoon is sadly more true than I originally thought ... :confused:

http://cdn.imgfave.com/image_cache/1250122484634716.gif

Why do all of your posts look like late '90s webpages?

[Desperado]

The (imperfect) improvements for women and increase in education of the 20s is something progressive I note the Bolsheviks bringing about. They also brought about an increase in anti-capitalist rhetoric and hope to the proletariat of the world, although this is counterweighted by them severely tarnishing it, Marx and "communism" with their actions.



The danger of success by the counter-Revolutionary Imperialists was the primary driving force behind Bolshevik anti-Anarchism, at least at first.

Debatable. The danger of success by the counter-Revolutionary Imperialists was also a driving force behind anarchist pro-Bolshevism, at first. A bit contradictory, no?

[DaringMehring]

If an anarchist can't see the achievements of the Bolsheviks, they've got some serious sectarian blindness. If you know anything about combined and uneven development, or the Bolshevik battle to spread the revolution to Europe, or the impossibility of socialism in an underdeveloped peasant country in capitalist encirclement, or really anything about anything, then you'd be able to see the heroism of the Russian revolution and its leading Party.

I mean, criticize Lenin for "being driven in a Rolls Royce," at the same time as lining up to vote for Kerry because Chomsky said so...

[Tim Finnegan]

If an anarchist can't see the achievements of the Bolsheviks, they've got some serious sectarian blindness. If you know anything about combined and uneven development, or the Bolshevik battle to spread the revolution to Europe, or the impossibility of socialism in an underdeveloped peasant country in capitalist encirclement, or really anything about anything, then you'd be able to see the heroism of the Russian revolution and its leading Party.
And then they murdered the Kronstadt sailors. Which kinda fucked all that up.

[CHE with an AK]

I just love the contrasts of these 3 statements ... :blink:


I am an Anarchist and hate Lenin


(Lenin's) State and Revolution is fucking amazing! I love reading the book


they (Bolsheviks under Lenin) are important: End of Tsarism, better Woman rights, ending of jewish pogroms and other forms of racism, idustrialisation, and of course the end of WW1
So do you usually "HATE" authors of books you love to read who you credit for ending Tsarism, increasing women's rights, ending Jewish pogroms, racism, industrializing a nation, and ending a World War? :confused:




Why do all of your posts look like late '90s webpages?
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? Is it a lame attempt at whit, an esoteric joke for internet geeks, or a compliment to late 90's nostalgia? Do bold fonts vex you?




them severely tarnishing it, Marx
You think the Bolshevik's "tarnished" Marx. If anything, one could argue that they unleashed the wisdom of Marx to the entire world and rescued him from potential obscurity. What % of the World do you think even knew who Karl Marx was before the October Revolution, versus after?

[CHE with an AK]

If an anarchist can't see the achievements of the Bolsheviks, they've got some serious sectarian blindness.
:reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA:
zvlWSnLxrrc
:reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA: :reda: :star: :blackA:

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? Is it a lame attempt at whit, an esoteric joke for internet geeks, or a compliment to late 90's nostalgia? Do bold fonts vex you?
It's a combination of the bold font, eccentric formatting, and incessant sloganeering, yeah.

[Susurrus]

You think the Bolshevik's "tarnished" Marx. If anything, one could argue that they unleashed the wisdom of Marx to the entire world and rescued him from potential obscurity. What % of the World do you think even knew who Karl Marx was before the October Revolution, versus after?

A large part of it. Britain, Germany, and even America had large Marxist parties, and many other countries had a significant presence of Marxism. For the working class back then, communist was a positive term.

[Luc]

So do you usually "HATE" authors of books you love to read who you credit for ending Tsarism, increasing women's rights, ending Jewish pogroms, racism, industrializing a nation, and ending a World War? :confused:

Not sure if its rhetorical or for laughs so ignore this if they are:lol:

No. Lenin's The State and Revolution is the only book I love by a person I hate so I can't say "usually";). Perhaps to put some reason behind that:
1. Lenin is an authoritarian
2. The events of during the civil war and Revolution; executions for example.
3. The book seemed to be more about Marx's view of the state instead of Lenin's view of the state. The book could of been written by anyone, from what I can remember it doesn't have much to do with Lenin.
4. I only hate Lenin for his actions and his statism, Otherwise I would like him. I heard he has a good critique of Capitalism but I haven't read it so I don't know:lol: I might even agree with that.

I like some of his words, I hate his actions. Since actions outweigh words; I hate Lenin.

[L.A.P.]

We also put words, I hope you can read them.

You mean your one-liners? Obviously I've been proven wrong.

[Red And Black Sabot]

I'm an anarchist and a communist.
I don't find a single thing admirable about Lenin or his party.

CHE with an AK, DaringMehring etc.
Yall can go cry about it. It makes no difference to me.

[eyeheartlenin]

I think State and Revolution is an essential work for anyone to read. Many errors could have been avoided if what Lenin wrote there were taken seriously. The bottom line, as I remember it, is that bourgeois rule must be overthrown. Short of that, there is no possibility of socialist reconstruction of a society, so that Chavez' whole project, the Bolivarian "Socialist" Republic, is whacked, to take a random example. No socialism is possible, this side of the overthrow of the exploiting class. I'm sure this is obvious to everyone, which is why I cannot understand the popularity of someone like Chavez, 12 years in power, and the bourgeoisie continues its rule, or why virtually the entire US left backed pro-war millionaire Obama, thereby voting against the interests of working people. It's all a meaningless distraction, as long as the exploiters are in power.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think State and Revolution is an essential work for anyone to read. Many errors could have been avoided if what Lenin wrote there were taken seriously. The bottom line, as I remember it, is that bourgeois rule must be overthrown. Short of that, there is no possibility of socialist reconstruction of a society, so that Chavez' whole project, the Bolivarian "Socialist" Republic, is whacked, to take a random example. No socialism is possible, this side of the overthrow of the exploiting class. I'm sure this is obvious to everyone, which is why I cannot understand the popularity of someone like Chavez, 12 years in power, and the bourgeoisie continues its rule, or why virtually the entire US left backed pro-war millionaire Obama, thereby voting against the interests of working people. It's all a meaningless distraction, as long as the exploiters are in power.
In what sense are these uniquely Leninist lessons? They sound like Revolutionary Socialism 101 to me.

[CHE with an AK]

I'm an anarchist and a communist.
I don't find a single thing admirable about Lenin or his party.

You can call yourself a "flying unicorn" for all I care (semantics are flexible) - but if you were an actual "communist" in what the term really means - then you would find many things admirable about Lenin.

Basically you are a quasi-rebellious "no parents/no curfews" RonPaulian-libertarian-anarchist without $ and who doesn't like the "right" for their douchey-ness, or capitalism (until at least you can get some of the spoils) - so you try to cling to the "left" for "coolness". Hey, the world is your oyster, but try not to blatantly display your ignorance about Lenin so openly around actual Marxists and communists - it only blows your cover. :)

[No_Leaders]

Okay so as an anarchist I can say Lenin did some great writings. There are some things he did good, but once the revolution happened that's where things go down hill. Look at the suppression of the free soviets. Not to mention sending Trotsky and the Red Army to crush the Ukrainian Anarchists, and attempt to arrest and kill Nestor Makhno. How about the formation of the Cheka? The rounding up of Anarchists, and others who advocated free communes? He simply used the slogans that sound nice but in reality power was concentrated again in the hands of the few. Of course there's the other issues with Communists stabbing Anarchists in the back again(Spanish Civil War) or May 68' uprisings. I think the real issue is that anarchists are against hierarchy, and the state, along with capitalism. Once you have someone who aims to bring worker control but feels they need to create a secret police (the cheka)and still dictate orders onto others thats when we realize we're trading one form of oppression for another. Not to mention the crushing of anarchist movements. I'm all for workers self management in the work place, but i don't want a "party" or a few people delegating how we should move forward. Rather these things need to be decided collectively by everyone.

[Tim Finnegan]

You can call yourself a "flying unicorn" for all I care (semantics are flexible) - but if you were an actual "communist" in what the term really means - then you would find many things admirable about Lenin.

Basically you are a quasi-rebellious "no parents/no curfews" RonPaulian-libertarian-anarchist without $ and who doesn't like the "right" for their douchey-ness, or capitalism (until at least you can get some of the spoils) - so you try to cling to the "left" for "coolness". Hey, the world is your oyster, but try not to blatantly display your ignorance about Lenin so openly around actual Marxists and communists - it only blows your cover. :)
I find it very hard to take somebody call "Che with an AK" seriously when he lambastes others for their alleged radical-chicism. :glare:

[eyeheartlenin]

Without agreeing with anything that Susurrus wrote, and joining Che with an AK in objecting to the top cartoon, the second poster in Susurrus' message, red and blue on a white background, simply says, "Long live the vanguard of the Revolution, the Red Fleet," referring, I would guess, to the role played by the crew of the "Aurora" wasn't it?, in the October revolution. The blue and red on white poster certainly looks like a Soviet-era work, and there is nothing counter-revolutionary about it.

With communist greetings,
ProvFT

[eyeheartlenin]

In response to Tim Finnegan, with his very funny subtitle, "Marxist-compulsive," which is IMHO a fine way to be: I came to understand the real nature of the state, thanks to a paperback I bought in college, back in the roaring sixties, that contained What Is To Be Done, State and Revolution, and one other Lenin composition I do not now recall. I believe that Lenin recovered Marx's understanding of the state, after social democrats had obscured what Marx actually thought about the state, and yes (I think thanks to Lenin) the Marxist understanding of the state is rev soc 101, Finnegan is right about that.

[CHE with an AK]

I find it very hard to take somebody call "Che with an AK" seriously when he lambastes others for their alleged radical-chicism.
That's ok, because you obviously haven't been able to take Marxism or revolutionary leftism seriously either. :)

But hey, I like Che and shooting an AK, so it works for me, got that Timmaay!

As for alleged "radical chicism", far from it, if anything most people who know me think I need to be far less radical in my real-life actions (most of which I sadly can't share on here, although I'd love to).

[No_Leaders]

lol sectarianism at it's best. The only thing i fear is what would happen during a revolution? Would we be purged like history has shown is the case.

[Susurrus]

In response to Tim Finnegan, with his very funny subtitle, "Marxist-compulsive," which is IMHO a fine way to be: I came to understand the real nature of the state, thanks to a paperback I bought in college, back in the roaring sixties, that contained What Is To Be Done, State and Revolution, and one other Lenin composition I do not now recall. I believe that Lenin recovered Marx's understanding of the state, after social democrats had obscured what Marx actually thought about the state, and yes (I think thanks to Lenin) the Marxist understanding of the state is rev soc 101, Finnegan is right about that.

It's not so much Lenin's writings that are to be criticized, but his actions after the October Revolution.

[No_Leaders]

It's not so much Lenin's writings that are to be criticized, but his actions after the October Revolution.
Exactly. His writings weren't what the problem was but really his actions.. Trade one authoritarian for another? No thanks.