Sell me on marxism-leninism please

[The Jay]

I know that this could turn into a tendency war, but I'd like to ask the non-ml's to hold off until it gets more than 10 posts please :). I'm thinking that ml is what I'm more familiar with but that's not saying much. If it's possible could someone give me an intro to what it is and why it's the best before I read Lenin's various works? I'd really appreciate it.

[Comrade Marcel]

Channel fucking flippers. This isn't entertainment, it's ideology... oh, wait it's RLC.:lol:

[Revolutionair]

Even though I am not a Marxist-Leninist. I think the main points of Marxism-Leninism are:

Vanguardism, the part of the population that considers itself to be most class conscious should rule the new state apparatus.
Anti-power of a church. The church often sides with reactionary elements, most notably the catholic, orthodox and protestant church in Europe and Russia. It is of pracitcal importance to stop the power of the church.
Strategic anti-imperialism. (willing to help a national bourgeoisie if it weakens an imperialist power, 'left-wing' nationalism EG Irish republicanism)
The economy is along the lines of national-capitalism (ruled by the vanguard) with a social democratic distribution model.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[阿部高和]

No. It's not my job to educate you.

[promethean]

I know that this could turn into a tendency war, but I'd like to ask the non-ml's to hold off until it gets more than 10 posts please :). I'm thinking that ml is what I'm more familiar with but that's not saying much. If it's possible could someone give me an intro to what it is and why it's the best before I read Lenin's various works? I'd really appreciate it.
Lenin himself never claimed to be a marxist-leninist. This term was invented by the Stalinist bureaucracy to justify their rule over the Soviet working class. As such, marxism-leninism is more of a justification for the rule of bureaucracy than anything to do with Karl Marx. The best introduction to this theology is by Stalin in his work, The foundations of Leninism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html). Latter day anti-revisionist MLs claim Khrushchev to have been the revisionist fallen angel who betrayed the holy doctrine of prophet Stalin, thus instantly converting the Soviet Union into an infidel fascist country.

[Agent Equality]

Sorry O couldn't wait till post # 10. MLism is pretty much the gateway to leftist politics. Since it has so much history behind it (FSU, Eastern Bloc, Cold war, etc.) it gets the most attention the quickest. It starts off with fascination of Lenin, Stalin, WWII, The Soviet Union, etc. Then it progresses into curiosity about the ideas. Then you adopt those ideas as your own because you have not traversed very far into leftist ideas yet. Once people get a little bit more mature, they slowly realize the futility of MLism but use it as a learning experience to get into other leftist tendencies.

Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas should not be taken seriously. It has its history, and its history is not one of socialism. However, it has the mainstream appeal of the cold war and face of socialism etc. So thats what gets people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.

[Revolutionair]

Yes what promethean is saying is true. Marxism-Leninism is NOT Leninism. Rather it is Stalin's addition to what he deems to be the Marxist and Leninist tradition. Wether you agree with that is up to you. Personally I do think Stalin overlapped with Lenin (less with Marx) on a lot of issues.

[Revolutionair]

Sorry O couldn't wait till post # 10. MLism is pretty much the gateway to leftist politics. Since it has so much history behind it (FSU, Eastern Bloc, Cold war, etc.) it gets the most attention the quickest. It starts off with fascination of Lenin, Stalin, WWII, The Soviet Union, etc. Then it progresses into curiosity about the ideas. Then you adopt those ideas as your own because you have not traversed very far into leftist ideas yet. Once people get a little bit more mature, they slowly realize the futility of MLism but use it as a learning experience to get into other leftist tendencies.

Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas should not be taken seriously. It has its history, and its history is not one of socialism. However, it has the mainstream appeal of the cold war and face of socialism etc. So thats what gets people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.

Excellent post. Even though I reached my ideology through very weak left-libertarianism -> social democracy -> libertarian-socialism, Marxism-Leninism is the biggest gateway. Although that kind of MLism is usually based on the great man theory of history rather than the strange kind of dialectics real MLism is based on.

edit:
The strange dialectics is perhaps the most important part of MLism. I think it's best if you first get it explained from a ML, like Ismail, and then from me.

[Comrade Marcel]

Sorry, Stalin fought bureaucratic shit his whole life. The amount of bullshit on this site you would think it's a bunch of farmers not proles!

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

Stalin followed Marx and Lenin, no one goes around calling themselves a Stalinist, yet Trots identify as Trotskyist all of the time. Trotsky and Lenin had more differences than a bird and a fish, and this is can be seen easily by reading the writings of both; for example the years and years up to 1917 that Trotsky spent attacking Lenin and Bolshevism (and then years of trying to create splits in the party after he finally joined)! The fact that people still try to spout this about Trotsky and Lenin as nearly identical twins (or worse Lenin taking up Troskyism!) shit is hilarious.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Sorry, Stalin fought bureaucratic shit his whole life. The amount of bullshit on this site you would think it's a bunch of farmers not proles!

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

Stalin followed Marx and Lenin, no one goes around calling themselves a Stalinist, yet Trots identify as Trotskyist all of the time. Tortsky and Lenin had more differences than a bird and a fish, and this is can be seen easily by reading the writing sof both, or the years and years up to 1917 that Trotsky spent attacking Lenin and Bolshevism! the fact that people still try to spout this shit is hilarious.
What differences did Lenin and Trotsky have?

[The Jay]

Sorry, Stalin fought bureaucratic shit his whole life. The amount of bullshit on this site you would think it's a bunch of farmers not proles!

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

Stalin followed Marx and Lenin, no one goes around calling themselves a Stalinist, yet Trots identify as Trotskyist all of the time. Tortsky and Lenin had more differences than a bird and a fish, and this is can be seen easily by reading the writing sof both, or the years and years up to 1917 that Trotsky spent attacking Lenin and Bolshevism! the fact that people still try to spout this shit is hilarious.

For a "maoist" you sure seem to dislike farmers.

[Comrade Marcel]

For a "maoist" you sure seem to dislike farmers.

I didn't say anything about disliking farmers, and not all farmers are peasants living in serfdom. Since when did Maoists support kulaks, huh? :confused:

[Revolutionair]

Sorry, Stalin fought bureaucratic shit his whole life. The amount of bullshit on this site you would think it's a bunch of farmers not proles!

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

This is an excellent example of the great man theory of history.

[Comrade Marcel]

This is an excellent example of the great man theory of history.

lol why because I can show that Stalin HAD a certain position against bureaucratic tendencies in the party? Go put your red herring back in the fish tank, son.

[The Jay]

lol why because I can show that Stalin HAD a certain position against bureaucratic tendencies in the party? Go put your red herring back in the fish tank, son.

If you want to show me why ml is a good thing, great. Please do. If not, why do you want to start an argument over Stalin that's tangent to the topic?

[RED DAVE]

If you want to be sold, I can get it for you wholesale.

SELECTED WORKS OF STALIN, ONLY $237.78. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0898758491/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new)

only $200. :D

RED DAVE

[promethean]

lol why because I can show that Stalin HAD a certain position against bureaucratic tendencies in the party? Go put your red herring back in the fish tank, son.
You cannot show that. Stalin was a firm representative of the bureaucratic tendencies. His critiques of the bureaucracy were nothing more than the critiques of a welfare capitalist some critiquing big business leaders who "went too far" while maintaining the rule of capitalism over the working class. If Stalin was a big hero having positions against bureaucratic tendencies in his party, why was Khrushchev such a devious and unbelieving apostate revisionist when he critiqued the same bureaucratic tendencies?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I ask again, Comrade Marcel, what are the differences that Lenin and Trotsky had?

[promethean]

What differences did Lenin and Trotsky have?
To answer for Marcel, Lenin and Trotsky had several differences over their lives. For one, in 1905, Trotsky was the one who was present in Petrograd and was thus able to have a first-hand experience of the Petrograd Soviet which enabled him to form theories of workers councils as the new form of the workers struggle in a revolution. He was the first to see and propose a socialist revolution in Russia as a real possibility. He was ahead of Lenin and other orthodox Marxists, who followed the doctrines of Plekhanov which allowed only for a bourgeois revolution inside a majority peasant-dominated society. However, through his direct experience as a leader of the 1905 Petrograd Soviet, his studies of Marx, and the correct interpretations of Marxist doctrine, Trotsky was able to devise through deducing the theories of uneven and combined development, a theory of Permanent Revolution, which allowed for the proletariat to carry out the left-over tasks of the bourgeois revolution, left incomplete by the incompetent bourgeoisie. This is what prompts Trotskysists to proclaim that Lenin became a Trostskyist when he saw for a fact that Trotsky was right and a socialist revolution was on the cards for Russia than a purely bourgeois revolution. However ultimately, owing to the realities of the world situation which saw a defeat of the world proletariat in Germany and other places, Trotsky in the end became a loyal oppositionist to Stalinism and so did most Trotskyists, who along with Maoists, continued to be the loyal opposition within Stalinist bureaucratic rule over the proletariat.

[RED DAVE]

I ask again, Comrade Marcel, what are the differences that Lenin and Trotsky had?Lenin preferred Coke while Trotsky, having lived briefly in the US, preferred Pepsi.

RED DAVE

[Die Rote Fahne]

Lenin preferred Coke while Trotsky, having lived briefly in the US, preferred Pepsi.

RED DAVE
Of course, what a treacherous counter-revolutionary!

In all seriousness, this seems to me an integral question, that not even the most well versed Stalinist can actually answer with actual argument and source.

[promethean]

Of course, what a treacherous counter-revolutionary!

In all seriousness, this seems to me an integral question, that not even the most well versed Stalinist can actually answer with actual argument and source.
Like I alluded to earlier, Stalinists are similar to "creationists", who keep believing that the world was created in seven days in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[The Jay]

Well I'm convinced. I don't want to be associated with a filthy coke drinker.

[Die Rote Fahne]

6galA27h-TQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6galA27h-TQ&feature=related)

[Manic Impressive]

OP

Do you like capitalism?

Do you think society should be governed by a tiny minority?

Do you think that socialism can be created by a tiny minority of intellectuals rather than the working class as a whole?

If you answered yes to any of these questions then Leninism or Trotskyism may be for you.

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry O couldn't wait till post # 10. MLism is pretty much the gateway to leftist politics. Since it has so much history behind it (FSU, Eastern Bloc, Cold war, etc.) it gets the most attention the quickest. It starts off with fascination of Lenin, Stalin, WWII, The Soviet Union, etc. Then it progresses into curiosity about the ideas. Then you adopt those ideas as your own because you have not traversed very far into leftist ideas yet. Once people get a little bit more mature, they slowly realize the futility of MLism but use it as a learning experience to get into other leftist tendencies.

Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas should not be taken seriously. It has its history, and its history is not one of socialism. However, it has the mainstream appeal of the cold war and face of socialism etc. So thats what gets people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.
I couldn't disagree with this more. It may be the case for the few individuals but for the vast majority of people it's one of the biggest reasons why they would not look to the left. It's our biggest failure and our biggest embarrassment, basically a big shit stain on a red flag.

[Geiseric]

The thing about Marxist Leninists/maoists is that they more or less murdered or imprisoned anybody who didn't support national bourgeois revolutions in the 3rd world countries which could have been made into a socialist revolution, kinda like the russian revolution, and every country they ruled ended up as a mega capitalist country with poverty on a huge scale. They are nationalists, they don't believe in internationalism, they participate in bourgeois governments not for aggitation like Lenin did but to actually perform a government function. They have an astounding amount of cultism towards "great men" like Stalin, Mao, and when it suits them, Lenin. they are honestly as counter revolutionary as the mensheviks before the October revolution.

[ArrowLance]

Sorry O couldn't wait till post # 10. MLism is pretty much the gateway to leftist politics. Since it has so much history behind it (FSU, Eastern Bloc, Cold war, etc.) it gets the most attention the quickest. It starts off with fascination of Lenin, Stalin, WWII, The Soviet Union, etc. Then it progresses into curiosity about the ideas. Then you adopt those ideas as your own because you have not traversed very far into leftist ideas yet. Once people get a little bit more mature, they slowly realize the futility of MLism but use it as a learning experience to get into other leftist tendencies.

Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas should not be taken seriously. It has its history, and its history is not one of socialism. However, it has the mainstream appeal of the cold war and face of socialism etc. So thats what gets people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.

That is ridiculous, in fact the more I come into understanding, the more and more I support Marxism-Leninism. Of course that is hardly an argument for it and so your idea is hardly an argument against it.

What you are saying is nothing more than insulting a whole group of people and indeed some of the most active Communists around the world and calling them immature and their struggles futile.

How can you call the struggle of the proletariat futile and consider yourself a more 'mature' Communist.

[Comrade Marcel]

What differences did Lenin and Trotsky have?

What, are you kidding me? Trotsky from 1905 to 1917 spent most of his time ATTACKING Lenin and the Bolsheviks in New Life (Menshevik paper).


While Trotsky made theatrical speeches in Petersburg, the Bolsheviks organised the uprising in Moscow and the Caucasus, the two most important revolutionary events of the 1905 Revolution. The Mensheviks, including Trotsky, condemned the Moscow uprising and bitterly attacked the Bolsheviks at the time. Mr. Deutscher writes:

"The Soviet (the St. Petersburg Soviet led by the Menshevik Trotsky, C. A.) called on the country to stop paying taxes to the Tsar." This he calls the great "revolutionary heroism" of Trotsky. It may surprise Mr. Deutscher that even the Cadets in their Viborg Manifesto called on the people not to pay taxes to the Tsar. But the real revolutionaries were the Bolsheviks who organised the military uprising in Moscow. They were attacked from all sides, and not least by Trotsky. Lenin called Trotsky "vain and empty" (Lenin, Col. Works, Vol. VII, p. 194).


Trotsky himself joined the Bolsheviks in July 1917. What happened to the Party up to that date, to the Party that led successfully the October Revolution? During the first imperialist war, between July 1915 and December 1916, the Party organised 480 strikes in Petrograd alone, with 500,000 participants. On February 14, 1917, the Bolsheviks organised the stay-in strike at the Putilov Works, with 30,000 participants. During January and February 1917 the Bolsheviks led 575,000 strikers. In Petrograd, early in 1917, there were no less than fifteen sub-district committees of the Party.

Who led all this work and built the committees and cells? People like Stalin, Sverdlov, Kalinin, Molotov and others, whilst Trotsky was a regular visitor to New York cafes and a constant contributor to Menshevik papers.

Trotsky, who joined the Bolsheviks in July 1917, hesitated a long time before doing so. Only after Lenin's taunts in July that year to him and his colleagues did Trotsky join the Bolsheviks.

From: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/stalincr.htm

See also - REVISIONISM IN RUSSIA:
TROTSKY AGAINST THE BOLSHEVIKS:
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/trotskyism/TROTSKY%20P_1.htm & http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/trotskyism/TROTSKY%20P_2.htm

I think you will find them very enlightening....

Along with: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm

[Comrade Marcel]

If Stalin was a big hero having positions against bureaucratic tendencies in his party, why was Khrushchev such a devious and unbelieving apostate revisionist when he critiqued the same bureaucratic tendencies?

Mr. K never critiqued anything from a socialist/proletarian prospective; it was all from the viewpoint of bourgeois individualism.

[Comrade Marcel]

To answer for Marcel, Lenin and Trotsky had several differences over their lives. For one, in 1905, Trotsky was the one who was present in Petrograd and was thus able to have a first-hand experience of the Petrograd Soviet which enabled him to form theories of workers councils as the new form of the workers struggle in a revolution. He was the first to see and propose a socialist revolution in Russia as a real possibility. He was ahead of Lenin and other orthodox Marxists, who followed the doctrines of Plekhanov which allowed only for a bourgeois revolution inside a majority peasant-dominated society. However, through his direct experience as a leader of the 1905 Petrograd Soviet, his studies of Marx, and the correct interpretations of Marxist doctrine, Trotsky was able to devise through deducing the theories of uneven and combined development, a theory of Permanent Revolution, which allowed for the proletariat to carry out the left-over tasks of the bourgeois revolution, left incomplete by the incompetent bourgeoisie. This is what prompts Trotskysists to proclaim that Lenin became a Trostskyist when he saw for a fact that Trotsky was right and a socialist revolution was on the cards for Russia than a purely bourgeois revolution. However ultimately, owing to the realities of the world situation which saw a defeat of the world proletariat in Germany and other places, Trotsky in the end became a loyal oppositionist to Stalinism and so did most Trotskyists, who along with Maoists, continued to be the loyal opposition within Stalinist bureaucratic rule over the proletariat.

This is some incorrect bullshit I remember hearing from I.S. years and years ago, but certainly not in fact true, you left out the fact that Trotsky failed to act in December allowing for guards to be called from Petersburg to Moscow to crush the uprising.... yeah some fervent revolutionary! Trotsky was brilliant and correct on a few occasions from 1917 to the early 30s (in his polemics with Kautsky, notably). And why are you speaking about him like he was some fucking prophet, almost everything Trotsky predicted was wrong!

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics/wetoldyouso/index.html

[Comrade Marcel]

Like I alluded to earlier, Stalinists are similar to "creationists", who keep believing that the world was created in seven days in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yep, numberous quotes from Trotsky himself, or the fact he didn't even join the winning team until a few months before total win..... :lol:

[Comrade Marcel]

The thing about Marxist Leninists/maoists is that they more or less murdered or imprisoned anybody who didn't support national bourgeois revolutions in the 3rd world countries which could have been made into a socialist revolution, kinda like the russian revolution, and every country they ruled ended up as a mega capitalist country with poverty on a huge scale. They are nationalists, they don't believe in internationalism, they participate in bourgeois governments not for aggitation like Lenin did but to actually perform a government function. They have an astounding amount of cultism towards "great men" like Stalin, Mao, and when it suits them, Lenin. they are honestly as counter revolutionary as the mensheviks before the October revolution.

Lemming award for stupid post, accusations without evidence, and this super-oxymoron: "murdered or imprisoned anybody who didn't support national bourgeois revolutions in the 3rd world countries ... they don't believe in internationalism".

thanks for showing everyone your white man's burden! The 3rd world will be sure to call for your permission to have a revolution that is pure enough for you, ok? :thumbup1:

[Manic Impressive]

That is ridiculous, in fact the more I come into understanding, the more and more I support Marxism-Leninism. Of course that is hardly an argument for it and so your idea is hardly an argument against it.
I'm sorry to hear that, from what I remember you used to be a sensible comrade.


What you are saying is nothing more than insulting a whole group of people and indeed some of the most active Communists around the world and calling them immature and their struggles futile.
Their struggles are futile, how many examples of revolution>state capitalism>private ownership do you need? How about the blatant contradictions to Marxism?


How can you call the struggle of the proletariat futile and consider yourself a more 'mature' Communist.
Leninist struggle is not proletarian struggle if you don't consider them communists. If you advocate or implement capitalism and wage labour you ain't no communist.

[promethean]

Mr. K never critiqued anything from a socialist/proletarian prospective; it was all from the viewpoint of bourgeois individualism.Stalin's gentle slapping of his fellow bureaucrats was not much different from Khrushchev's only Stalin, being the chief of the bureaucratic clique, was being dishonest, while Khrushchev was honest enough to admit Stalin's excesses. Neither Stalin's nor Khrushchev's actions seem to display much bourgeois individualism.


This is some incorrect bullshit I remember hearing from I.S. years and years ago, but certainly not in fact true,Which part is "not true"? Trotsky's being the leader of 1905 Petrograd or his differences with Lenin?


you left out the fact that Trotsky failed to act in December allowing for guards to be called from Petersburg to Moscow to crush the uprising.... Which December? The 1905 uprising was crushed in Petrograd, not Petersburg and if so, why would guards be called from Petrograd to Moscow?


Yep, numberous quotes from Trotsky himself, or the fact he didn't even join the winning team until a few months before total win..... Stalinist creationists mainly rely on quotemining from Trotsky and Lenin to prop their fake histories in a similar way as religious creationists like to quote-mine Darwin's works.

[Zealot]

Fucking amazing, he specifically asks for non-MLs to stay out and so they come in to spread disinformation. Contrary to what some have said, myself personally and others I know were first attracted to Trotskyism because he's romanticized as some sort of figure who would have made everything better in the Soviet Union. This is idealist and ignores the objective conditions of that period. Christopher Hitchens (Trotskyist) has admitted that things wouldn't have been much better and says they might have even been worse under Trotsky.

To answer the question, you might want to read "The Foundations of Leninism" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm) by J Stalin. It's quite short and to the point, using quotes from Lenin to lay out the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism.

[GatesofLenin]

OP

Do you like capitalism?

Do you think society should be governed by a tiny minority?

Do you think that socialism can be created by a tiny minority of intellectuals rather than the working class as a whole?

If you answered yes to any of these questions then Leninism or Trotskyism may be for you.

Now I'm really confused, when did Lenin ever like capitalism?

[Kamos]

Which December? The 1905 uprising was crushed in Petrograd, not Petersburg

Say what?

OP, what's wrong with reading Lenin by yourself? Instead of looking at it in a biased way you could have read and judged it objectively before creating this thread.

[Tim Cornelis]

Always enjoyable to see how fast these threads derail.

[Manic Impressive]

Now I'm really confused, when did Lenin ever like capitalism?
instead of quoting it every time I have it in my sig for easy access ;)

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not sure that Leninism as such even exists, in the sense of an autonomous tendency based upon Lenin's works. Groups like the SPGB attack it a lot, but generally use it in more or less the same way that most other anarchists refer to 'authoritarianism' and the like. 'Marxism-Leninism' does exist, but as it's not a form of socialism you may be better off asking about it in OI.

[Zealot]

instead of quoting it every time I have it in my sig for easy access ;)

Nice context?


The petty bourgeois who hoards his thousands is an enemy of state capitalism. He wants to employ his thousands just for himself, against the poor, in opposition to any kind of state control. And the sum total of these thousands, amounting to many thousands of millions, forms the base for profiteering, which undermines our socialist construction.

[Comrade Marcel]

Which December? The 1905 uprising was crushed in Petrograd, not Petersburg and if so, why would guards be called from Petrograd to Moscow?


"The St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, being the Soviet of the most important industrial and revolutionary centre of Russia, the capital of the tsarist empire, ought to have played a decisive role in the Revolution of 1905. However, it did not perform this task, owing to its bad, Menshevik leadership. As we know Lenin had not yet arrived in St. Petersburg; he was still abroad. The Mensheviks took advantage of Lenin’s absence to make their way into the St.Petersburg Soviet and to seize hold of its leadership. It was not surprising under such circumstances that the Mensheviks Khrustalev, Trotsky, Parvus and others managed to turn the St. Petersburg Soviet against the policy of an uprising. Instead of bringing the soldiers into close contact with the Soviet and linking them up with the common struggle, they demanded that the soldiers be withdrawn from St. Petersburg. The Soviet, instead of arming the workers and preparing them for an uprising, just marked time and was against preparations for an uprising". -- J.V. Stalin: "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (Bolsheviks; Moscow; 1941; p.79-80).

On December 19th., 1905 the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, which was led by the Bolsheviks, resolved to:

"Strive to transform the strike into an armed uprising."
(V.I.Lenin: "The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising; in: "Selected Works, Volume 3; London; l946; p. 346)

and by December 22nd. the first barricades were being set up in the streets.

"The 23rd: artillery fire is opened on the barricades and on the crowds in the streets. Barricades are set up more deliberately, and no longer singly but on a really mass scale. The whole population is in the streets; all the principal centres of the city are covered by a network of. barricades. For several days stubborn guerilla fighting proceeds between the insurgent detachments and the troops. The troops become exhausted and Dubasov is obliged to beg for reinforcements. Only on December 28 did the government forces acquire complete superiority and on December 30 the Semenov regiment stormed the Prosnya distrect, the last stronghold of the uprising". -- V. I. Lenin: "The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising", in: ibid; p. 347).

In fact, the attitude of the Menshevik leadership of the St. Petersburg Soviet, led by Trotsky enabled the tsar to transfer troops from the capital to Moscow and this was a significant factor in the crushing of the uprising in the latter city.

"The climax of the Revolution of 1905 was reached in the December uprising in Moscow. A small crowd of rebels, namely, of organised and armed workers -- they numbered not more than eight thousand --resisted the tsar’s government for nine days. The government dared not trust the Moscow garrison; on the contrary, it had to keep it behind locked doors, and only on the arrival of the Semenovsky Regiment from St. Petersburg was it able to quell the rebellion". -- V.1. Lenin: Lecture on the 1905 Revolution, in: ibid.; p. 16).

Soviets of Workers’ Deputies were organised in other towns as well as in St. Petersburg and Moscow. In addition, Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies and Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies were established in some places.

Isolated strikes, riots and mutinies continued into 1906, leading to a lack of clarity for some months as to whether the revolutionary tide was ebbing or merely temporarily at rest before a subsequent rise. In fact December 1905 proved to be the peak of the revolutionary tide.

(source: http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/trotskyism/TROTSKY%20P_1.htm )

[Smyg]

No. It's not my job to educate you.

Learning forum? Idiot.

[manic expression]

OP

Do you like capitalism?

Do you think society should be governed by a tiny minority?

Do you think that socialism can be created by a tiny minority of intellectuals rather than the working class as a whole?

If you answered yes to any of these questions then Leninism or Trotskyism may be for you.
Except Leninism is the only ideology that's been able to overthrow capitalism, put power in the hands of the workers and reject tiny intellectual trends in leftism since the beginning of the 20th Century.

Ultra-left bitterness, though, knows no affinity for reality.

[#FF0000]

Except Leninism is the only ideology that's been able to overthrow capitalism, put power in the hands of the workers and reject tiny intellectual trends in leftism since the beginning of the 20th Century

this is funny because it is literally the exact opposite of what is true.

[manic expression]

this is funny because it is literally the exact opposite of what is true.
Remind me again, how many "left communist" revolutions have there been?

[Kamos]

Remind me again, how many "left communist" revolutions have there been?

Irrelevant, especially in light of left communism's approach to revolution. A better question is, how many Leninist countries are still socialist today?

[#FF0000]

Remind me again, how many "left communist" revolutions have there been?

Damn, son. This line is so stupid that I'm almost surprised people keep touting it. Almost.

Let me point out just a couple reasons why it is stupid.

1) Ideologues don't make revolution. Workers do. Idealogues just take credit.
2) Marxism-Leninism wasn't even a thing in 1917.

C'MON, SON.

[CleverTitle]

Remind me again, how many "left communist" revolutions have there been?

There have been no successful Leninist revolutions (there is only capitalism today) so I don't see how this line of reasoning helps your case.

[Comrade Marcel]

There have been no successful Leninist revolutions (there is only capitalism today) so I don't see how this line of reasoning helps your case.

Every Leninist revolution was a success, and you are wrong there is socialist nations all over the globe today. Socialism has a market economy, unless you believe in "communism in one country"! :lol:

[manic expression]

Irrelevant, especially in light of left communism's approach to revolution.
What approach? Sit there with a funny look on their face waiting for other people to further the struggle of the working class? No wonder they've accomplished nothing in their entire existence.


A better question is, how many Leninist countries are still socialist today?
Cuba, for starters.


1) Ideologues don't make revolution. Workers do. Idealogues just take credit.
2) Marxism-Leninism wasn't even a thing in 1917.
1.) Really? So class consciousness has nothing to do with revolution? It does? That's ideology, whether or not you want to admit it. Further, tactics plays a big role in all revolutions, read history and you'll see. That's also ideology.

2.) Bolshevism was a thing in 1917, and Leninism is Bolshevism.


There have been no successful Leninist revolutions (there is only capitalism today) so I don't see how this line of reasoning helps your case.
There is socialism today, and those liberated workers are not under the thumb of capitalism thanks in no small part to Marxism-Leninism.

[Kamos]

What approach? Sit there with a funny look on their face waiting for other people to further the struggle of the working class? No wonder they've accomplished nothing in their entire existence.

I could also make a parody of M-Lism just as easily. "Build communism by creating capitalism!" Please stick to coherent arguments.


Cuba, for starters.

Cuba's socialism is on life support today. It will not be long until the plug is pulled. Therefore, it doesn't really count. Any more?

[Die Rote Fahne]

What approach? Sit there with a funny look on their face waiting for other people to further the struggle of the working class? No wonder they've accomplished nothing in their entire existence.Paris Commune wasn't a Leninist revolution. Spain wasn't.



Cuba, for starters.
Has never been socialist.



2.) Bolshevism was a thing in 1917, and Leninism is Bolshevism.
There were differing views within Bolshevism. Hence the purges.


There is socialism today, and those liberated workers are not under the thumb of capitalism thanks in no small part to Marxism-Leninism.
There is no socialism today. It's thanks to the workers who made the revolution possible. It's thanks to the failed methods of Stalin, Lenin and the Leninist way that have resulted in the absolutism and despotism of the regimes.

[La Peur Rouge]

Every Leninist revolution was a success


http://i55.tinypic.com/335d4ao.png

Success!

[manic expression]

I could also make a parody of M-Lism just as easily. "Build communism by creating capitalism!" Please stick to coherent arguments.
Except M-Lism doesn't create capitalism...unless by capitalism, you mean abolishing capitalist property relations and all that jazz.


Cuba's socialism is on life support today. It will not be long until the plug is pulled. Therefore, it doesn't really count. Any more?It doesn't really count because an opponent of its system thinks it's on life support?


Paris Commune wasn't a Leninist revolution. Spain wasn't.
The Paris Commune was before Leninism existed or had a reason to exist. In Spain, Soviet support was the reason the leftists had any chance in the world.


Has never been socialist.Except it is.


There were differing views within Bolshevism. Hence the purges.Differing views on policy and leadership, sure, but just because an ideology is in the process of being better defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We might as well say that Marxism has never existed, since there have always been incredibly differing views with Marxism.


There is no socialism today.Except Cuba is socialist. Even Kamos acknowledges this plain fact.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The Paris Commune was before Leninism existed or had a reason to exist. In Spain, Soviet support was the reason the leftists had any chance in the world. Actually, the Soviets were the reason Spain had lost the civil war. Time to read up on your history.


Except it is.
The workers hold political power and control the means of production? No, thought so. Cuban absolutism and state capitalism =/= socialism.


Differing views on policy and leadership, sure, but just because an ideology is in the process of being better defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We might as well say that Marxism has never existed, since there have always been incredibly differing views with Marxism.Not really a good comparison, but I get your point.


Except Cuba is socialist. Even Kamos acknowledges this plain fact.Except it really isn't.

http://slp.org/pdf/others/is_cuba.pdf

[Kamos]

Except M-Lism doesn't create capitalism...unless by capitalism, you mean abolishing capitalist property relations and all that jazz.

Neither do left communists just "sit there with a funny look on their face" any more than members of other tendencies.


It doesn't really count because an opponent of its system thinks it's on life support?

Yes. One of the basic prerequisites of successful revolution is that it doesn't revert back to capitalism. Thanks to Cuba's economic policies lately, socialism is effectively dead in Cuba in spite of its staunch Marxist-Leninist self-identification.

[#FF0000]

What approach? Sit there with a funny look on their face waiting for other people to further the struggle of the working class? No wonder they've accomplished nothing in their entire existence.

you say these things and i have the feeling that you yourself know that these things are inaccurate but say them anyway.


1.) Really? So class consciousness has nothing to do with revolution? It does? That's ideology, whether or not you want to admit it. Further, tactics plays a big role in all revolutions, read history and you'll see. That's also ideology.

Marxism-Leninism wasn't an ideology in 1917.


2.) Bolshevism was a thing in 1917, and Leninism is Bolshevism.
This is funny because those who would become the left communists were all up in the Bolsheviks. It's also funny because it is dumb, and Marxism-Leninism was not a thing until like 1926 or something. It was well after Lenin died, either way.


There is socialism todayNope.

[GatesofLenin]

instead of quoting it every time I have it in my sig for easy access ;)

Interesting, I've read that quote before and it's stated that Lenin did believe that to finally reach true socialism, one must climb a path to socialism. State capitalism is one of the steps required to reach that true socialist system that we each crave.

I want to thank you for pointing this out. As a newer Marxist-Leninist, I do have alot to learn on the subject. Guess we never stop learning and that's a great thing. :thumbup:

[RedGrunt]

OP, read Marx and Engels, then read Lenin and Stalin. No matter how much anyone "sells" anything to you, you are the crucial factor in it. The deciding point. And as obvious by the way this thread went, asking such is only ever going to lead to a tendency war despite any OP guidelines. Important factor in learning anything: Read, teach yourself.

Also, you could've asked this question to MLs on their tendency group.

[robbo203]

Now I'm really confused, when did Lenin ever like capitalism?

Well, here, for example

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm))


And here

"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.
( https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm))

He admired the state capitalism of the German War econony and urged that Russia imitate it. He also professed an admiration for one man management, scientific Taylorism and big banks, that quintessential institution of capitalism:

"Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;..A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? October 1, 1917 Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 87-136).

As is well known, Lenin distorted the meaning of the word socialism equating it with state capitalism under the so called "proletarian state". However, he was sufficiently acquainted with the traditional Marxian definition of socialism to acknowlege that socialism in this sense did not exist in Riussia and was nowhere near being realised. On April 1917 at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P he said

"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".

A month later he was saying that the "proletariat and semi proletariat", had "never been socialist, nor has it the slightest idea about socialism, it is only just awakening to political life (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/24c.htm


Shortly before his death Lenin admitted in an interview with Arthur Ransome that Russia was still state capitalist and socialism in the traditional sense still lay in the future. An admission that must be highly embarrassing to all those romantic leninists who imagine that Bolshevik Revolution ushered in a "socialist" society


Let us proceed further. Is it possible that we are receding to something in the nature of a "feudal dictatorship"? It is utterly impossible, for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism), and certainly not back to feudalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm)

[CommunityBeliever]

I know that this could turn into a tendency war, but I'd like to ask the non-ml's to hold off until it gets more than 10 posts please :).

If you sincerely don't want to see a tendency war, there are plenty of better places to go (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/).


Sorry O couldn't wait till post # 10. MLism is pretty much the gateway to leftist politics. Since it has so much history behind it (FSU, Eastern Bloc, Cold war, etc.) it gets the most attention the quickest. It starts off with fascination of Lenin, Stalin, WWII, The Soviet Union, etc. Then it progresses into curiosity about the ideas. Then you adopt those ideas as your own because you have not traversed very far into leftist ideas yet. Once people get a little bit more mature, they slowly realize the futility of MLism but use it as a learning experience to get into other leftist tendencies.

Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas should not be taken seriously. It has its history, and its history is not one of socialism. However, it has the mainstream appeal of the cold war and face of socialism etc. So thats what gets people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.


Since there is such a humongous shroud of propaganda against Marxism-Leninism and against every socialist revolutions that has ever occurred (the October revolution, the Chinese revolution, etc), the gateway to leftist politics is ultraleftism. But then as you progress you become curious about these revolutions. Eventually you may become mature enough to free your mind from capitalist propaganda, then you will begin to embrace the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninsm.

Its great to get people introduced to the left, but the ideas of ultraleftism should not be taken seriously, since they have never successfully led any revolution. However, ultraleftism has the appeal that you can become a leftist without knowing anything at all about actual existing socialism, so that gets some people into the left. I know cause this happened to myself and many a user here.


Remind me again, how many "left communist" revolutions have there been?

None. Left communism is just what we use to introduce people into leftism. Then when they "mature" and realise the "futility" of their ideas they can become a ML. ;)


Like I alluded to earlier, Stalinists are similar to "creationists", who keep believing that the world was created in seven days in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What is a "Stalinist"? I consider myself a Marxist, not a "Stalinist."


"If in approximately six months’ time State Capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country"

I know it is not worth it to waste two seconds talking to you, but for the sake of everyone else reading, here is another quote from that text:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).


there is only capitalism today

There are a variety of places in south asia, e.g the red corridor controlled by communists, e.g CCOMPOSA. It is also questionable to what extent capitalism and revisionism has taken hold in the rest of the east, ie. China, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK, etc. They certainly haven't overturned all their revolutionary achievements yet.

This is not to mention Cuba, and the various other progressive movements in the West (occupy wall street, eurozone protests, etc). Considering this, I would say that well capitalism certainly may still dominate most of the world, it certainly isn't at a high point compared to say five years ago.

[CommunityBeliever]

Well, here, for example

Just as capitalism is a natural result of feudalism, state capitalism is a natural result of the development of capitalism. This is because monopolies form around sectors as telecommunications, water services, electricity, etc. Then the monopolies merge with the state. Even today you can observe as the the cloud computing industry is being monopolised by a few organisations. This may soon make computing something delivered by a few state backed monopolies. However, the state produces surpluses from production that it inevitably must spend on imperialist endeavours to acquire the resources of other states. This is basic Marxism.

And like comrade Lenin, I think we should support national liberation movements against these imperialists, and contemporaneously, we should support worker's revolutions to transform all developed states into worker's states.

[Broletariat]

However, the state produces surpluses that it inevitably spends on imperialism to acquire the resources of other states. As a result of this we must support national liberation movements against these imperialists, and contemporaneously, we should support worker's revolutions to transform each of these state's into worker's states. This is basic Marxism.

As a result of Capitalism we should support Capitalism? No fuck that, go join your buddies in Greece assaulting the protestors.

Uneven and Combined development how about YOU learn some basic Marxism?

[CommunityBeliever]

As a result of Capitalism we should support Capitalism? No fuck that, go join your buddies in Greece assaulting the protestors.

Uneven and Combined development how about YOU learn some basic Marxism?

I don't understand anything you just said. In what context are you saying "we should support capitalism" or "uneven and combined development"? What I support is continuous development and the corresponding transition from discrete modes like feudalism, capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.

[Broletariat]

I don't understand anything you just said. In what context are you saying "we should support capitalism" or "uneven and combined development"?
You pretty clearly stated we should support the liberation of nations. Now I don't know about YOUR politics, but I'm an internationalist. You can ignore class in favor of arbitrary lines on a map all you want, it's just supporting the bourgeois.

The comment about uneven and combined development was irrelevant upon a re-read, I'm just in a seething rage at the moment over ML ilk betraying the revolution, yet a-fucking-gain.

[CommunityBeliever]

You pretty clearly stated we should support the liberation of nations. Now I don't know about YOUR politics, but I'm an internationalist. You can ignore class in favor of arbitrary lines on a map all you want, it's just supporting the bourgeois. I am a staunch anti-imperialist, for example I support the Iraqi resistance and any other movements that resist the imperialist exploitation of the third world.

[Broletariat]

Well now the uneven and combined development comment becomes relevant, like I thought it would.

The world is Capitalist right now, there may be remnants of archaic production relations, but they've been co-opted into Capitalism at this point.

Also, what the fuck is Socialism, and what makes it different from BOTH Capitalism and Communism? How about you check your basic Marxism again and note that Marx used the words Communism and Socialism interchangeably.

[Broletariat]

I am an anti-imperialist. Sorry about that.

Oh it's fine I understand, the emancipation of the working class must be an act of the national bourgeois.

I don't understand how your ilk isn't restricted.

[CommunityBeliever]

Also, what the fuck is Socialism, and what makes it different from BOTH Capitalism and Communism? How about you check your basic Marxism again and note that Marx used the words Communism and Socialism interchangeably.

Our terminology generally associates communism with pure communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism).


I don't understand how your ilk isn't restricted.

I don't understand why imperialist supporting first-worlders aren't restricted.

[Broletariat]

Our terminology generally associates communism with pure communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism).

That's not what I asked.

Also, what the hell would be "impure communism" then?




I don't understand why imperialist supporting first-worlders aren't restricted.

Shit bruh, I don't support shit about dicks when it comes to imperialism.

Instead I think the worker's themselves, alone, independent of any national bourgeois, should make revolution on their own. Stop trying to blur the fact that you support the role of national bourgeois in "anti-imperialism"

[La Peur Rouge]

I don't understand why imperialist supporting first-worlders aren't restricted.

Oh, this tired old bullshit again. Most of us here actually support the working class instead of taking sides in this petty game of which capitalist nation is more righteous, but that's a BIG stretch for some of us it seems.

[CommunityBeliever]

Also, what the hell would be "impure communism" then?That would be socialism, a stage where the workers exert democratic control over society, but they haven't yet developed the social and technological conditions of pure-communism.


Instead I think the worker's themselves, alone, independent of any national bourgeois, should make revolution on their own. Stop trying to blur the fact that you support the role of national bourgeois in "anti-imperialism" Bourgeoisie nationalism is progressive relative to imperialist exploitation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hobDCtmx0xo), the slaughtering of millions of men, women, and children and the continuation of the worst kinds of under-development. For example, Qadaffi's Libya was progressive relative to the NTC government, just as Assad's Syria is progressive relative to what it will be if the West gets their hands on it.

[Broletariat]

That would be socialism, a stage where the workers exert democratic control over society, but they haven't yet developed the social and technological conditions of pure-communism.

No, no man, none of this abstract bullshit. Capitalism is generalised commodity production (see Marx). Communism is the abolition of Value relationships (see Marx). What is Socialism and how is it neither?


Bourgeoisie nationalism is progressive relative to imperialism and the slaughtering of millions of men, women, and children and the creation of the world forms of exploitation and under-development. For example, Qadaffi's Libya was progressive relative to the NTC government, just as Assad's Syria is progressive relative to what it will be if the West gets their hands on it.


Fuck that, you just fell for the good cop bad cop game the bourgeois play with us all the damn time.

Instead try supporting the workers.

[CommunityBeliever]

No, no man, none of this abstract bullshit. Capitalism is generalised commodity production (see Marx). Communism is the abolition of Value relationships (see Marx). What is Socialism and how is it neither?Read Marx. He clearly distinguishes between early stage communism (socialism) and later stage communism (pure communism). This is all explained. Here are some important features:


The society would be completely statelessness / classlessness
Advanced automation and over advanced technologies would be used to completely free people from compulsory relations.


Instead try supporting the workers. I support the workers.

[Broletariat]

Read Marx. He clearly distinguishes between early stage communism (socialism) and later stage communism (pure communism). This is all explained.

So does early stage Communism have value relationships? if no it's Communism, if yes its Capitalism.


I support the workers.

Bullshit you do, you support fucks like Gadaffi.

[robbo203]

Just as capitalism is a natural result of feudalism, state capitalism is a natural result of the development of capitalism. This is because monopolies form around sectors as telecommunications, water services, electricity, etc. Then the monopolies merge with the state, resulting in state capitalism, just look today as the cloud computing service is being monopolised by a few organisations. These new monopolies will merge with the state and increase it in size.

However, the state produces surpluses that it inevitably spends on imperialism to acquire the resources of other states. As a result of this we must support national liberation movements against these imperialists, and contemporaneously, we should support worker's revolutions to transform each of these state's into worker's states. This is basic Marxism.

This is a complete dead end you advocate.

State capitalism leads nowhere except to reinforce the underlying capitalist relations of production and the capitalist mindset that goes with it. So called national liberation movements are reactionary capitalist movements and class collaborationist to the hilt in their idealisation of "the nation" and pseudo national unity. Invariably, upon achieving their "national liberation" they will start pimping themselves and their workforce as cheap and compliant labour for global capital to invest in - that is , when they are not engaging in nasty little imperialist wars themselves with their (similarly "liberated") neighbours over some disputed territory or resource. Invariably, too, so called "workers states" turn to be rotten class ridden authoritarian capitalist states where all the basic features of capitalism are clearly evident , where (instead of a so called proletarian dictatorship) a dictatorship over the proletariat is installed and where a tiny class holding the reigns of state power cynically, but all too predictably, sets about abusing its position to enrich itself at the expense of the majority. Who was it that overthrow that archetypal "workers state", the mother of all "workers states" - the Soviet Union? Thats right - the red fat cats, your glorious fucking vanguard, the state capitalist class, the nomenklatura, who wearied of the pretence of leading the workers to communism and opted for corporate capitalism without illusion in their "revolution from above"


Having you learnt nothing at all from the last 100 years? You want us to bang our heads against the wall all over again in the vain hope that it might raise consciousness as opposed to giving us a a serious case of concussion. If people like you in your millions had not pinned your faith in the state capitalist delusuon as the high road to communism we might have had the real thing by now.....

[Zanthorus]

What I support is continuous development and the corresponding transition from discrete modes like feudalism, capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.

But 'state capitalism' is precisely not a mode of production which is distinct from capitalism, but rather one which contains all the latters basic content and contradictions, with the development being one of form (Private to state ownership) rather than of substance (No change in, or abolition of, value relations is entailed by the transition from 'private' to 'state' or 'monopoly' capitalism).


I don't understand why imperialist supporting first-worlders aren't restricted.

The Revleft BA has been known to come down fairly hard in the past on people with suspect positions on the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel/Palestine. A lot of people tend to complain in the opposite direction, that the restriction policy here is overzealous. To answer both you and Broletariat, officially, the board is supposed to be a forum for all currents of the revolutionary left, and hence avoid any kind of 'party line', which is why no-one's getting banned for agreeing with Luxemburg over Lenin or vice versa in the foreseeable future. If I were you I'd get over it and focus on coming up with halfway coherent arguments.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism))

There are a multitude of conflicting opinions on what Marx said and meant in various texts and by various turns of phrase, and all of those who have produced works on the subject, the editors of wikipedia are not exactly the most authoritative. If you're going to try self-rightously informing someone that they are ignorant of a basic tenent of Marxism, you might try quoting Marx rather than third or fourth hand readings of his work.

[CommunityBeliever]

There are a multitude of conflicting opinions on what Marx said and meant in various texts and by various turns of phrase, and all of those who have produced works on the subject, the editors of wikipedia are not exactly the most authoritative. If you're going to try self-rightously informing someone that they are ignorant of a basic tenent of Marxism, you might try quoting Marx rather than third or fourth hand readings of his work.

That quote is fine since I emphasised the main points, like statelessness, classness, and the use of advanced automation.


the editors of wikipedia are not exactly the most authoritative.

That is certainly true, but it is the first thing that comes up in my search engine, so it takes more time to find better links. However, now I have edited this post to include some good posts from Marxists below.



Socialism


Points one and two are both features of the 'lower' stage of communism though, and no-one has ever dredged up convincing evidence to prove otherwise. Comrades Marx and Engels and have offered pretty convincing arguments for a lower stage of communism (a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat) will exist which still has states, classes, and that still lacks our desired level of technological productive forces. According to the Marxist conception of the state, it is necessary to first have a socialist state to resolve the antagonism between classes, which will then allow for communism to be possible:


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from without; just as little is it “the reality of the moral idea,” “the image and the reality of reason,” as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
Since there is an antagonism between the capitalist class and the working class, it is necessary to have a *transitional* socialist state to resolve this. Once this is resolved and we have developed our productive forces we can have communism and at last man will be his own master — free.


Invariably, too, so called "workers states" turn to be rotten class ridden authoritarian capitalist states where all the basic features of capitalism are clearly evident , where (instead of a so called proletarian dictatorship) a dictatorship over the proletariat is installed and where a tiny class holding the reigns of state power cynically, but all too predictably, sets about abusing its position to enrich itself at the expense of the majority.The true nature of these worker's states is to settle the class antagonism between workers and capitalists.


Statism


But 'state capitalism' is precisely not a mode of production which is distinct from capitalism, but rather one which contains all the latters basic content and contradictions, with the development being one of form (Private to state ownership) rather than of substance (No change in, or abolition of, value relations is entailed by the transition from 'private' to 'state' or 'monopoly' capitalism).A high level of state control is a natural outgrowth of capitalist economic development. The only places in history you can see "free market" capitalism is in backwards countries, including countries attempting to recover from colonialism, imperialism, feudalism. This backwardness necessitates the use of New Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm) for development, which was previously represented as the NEP by Lenin. If the country has already sufficiently developed that it might be immediately ready for socialist conditions.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm


We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.


Imperialism


Bullshit you do, you support fucks like Gadaffi. I support national liberation which is a cause which was once supported by Qadaffi before he was murdered by the Western imperialists. The source of your misunderstanding is that my standards of comparison are based upon reality not upon anarchist utopianism. Do you think that right now there is some third organisation in Libya for us to support? How are the working class going to gain control when their very sovereignty is being destroyed?


So called national liberation movements are reactionary capitalist movements and class collaborationist to the hilt in their idealisation of "the nation" and pseudo national unity.You are clearly not basing your standard of comparison on the reality of imperialism. It is essential that these countries free themselves from imperialist oppression, and doing anything to achieve that is not "reactionary." Assisting the imperialists by demonizing their resistance as anarchists / trotskyists do absolutely is reactionary though.

[Zanthorus]

Points one and two are both features of the 'lower' stage of communism though, and no-one has ever dredged up convincing evidence to prove otherwise.

[Revolution starts with U]

instead of quoting it every time I have it in my sig for easy access ;)

Easy access for easy penetration (of the mind) :cool:


Except Leninism is the only ideology that's been able to overthrow capitalism,
You have to actually overthrow capitalism, rather than place it in the hands of the so-called vanguard, to claim overthrow of capitalism :rolleyes:

put power in the hands of the workers
The power to what? Not leave the country? Watch the bureaucrats live in relative luxury off your labor?


and reject (with indiscriminate bullets) tiny intellectual trends in leftism since the beginning of the 20th Century.

:lol:

[RedMarxist]

OK, I'm going to try to beat the stupid out of these last few posts with a repost of mine from the High School Commie's Guide. I am a convinced Marxist-Leninist(but not of the lame Stalinist variety)

REPOST BELOW:

But anyways, I'd just like to point out that Leninism is not inherently a failure. It is pretty apparent that Leninism works fine when used on the sidelines of the revolution(agitation and stuff like that), but where it has failed is when it tries to take up the mantle of leadership, becoming the "vanguard of the revolution" after it has overstayed its welcome.
Although it can be argued that Lenin the man was an authoritarian and a order obsessed freak, that does not discount the entire ideology simply because the man had serious flaws in character or morals.(Marx allegedly hated Jews, yet that does not mean that Marxism is anti-Jewish)

Likewise, Lenin may have arguably taken power in a coup of sorts after the much vaunted "October Revolution," but that does not mean that the ideology is all about obsession with power/is inherently authoritarian.

That was Lenin the man. He was deeply flawed as a human being, but again his theories are very important and should be applied in future proletarian uprisings.

[Die Rote Fahne]

OK, I'm going to try to beat the stupid out of these last few posts with a repost of mine from the High School Commie's Guide. I am a convinced Marxist-Leninist(but not of the lame Stalinist variety)

REPOST BELOW:

But anyways, I'd just like to point out that Leninism is not inherently a failure. It is pretty apparent that Leninism works fine when used on the sidelines of the revolution(agitation and stuff like that), but where it has failed is when it tries to take up the mantle of leadership, becoming the "vanguard of the revolution" after it has overstayed its welcome.
Although it can be argued that Lenin the man was an authoritarian and a order obsessed freak, that does not discount the entire ideology simply because the man had serious flaws in character or morals.(Marx allegedly hated Jews, yet that does not mean that Marxism is anti-Jewish)

Likewise, Lenin may have arguably taken power in a coup of sorts after the much vaunted "October Revolution," but that does not mean that the ideology is all about obsession with power/is inherently authoritarian.

That was Lenin the man. He was deeply flawed as a human being, but again his theories are very important and should be applied in future proletarian uprisings.
The power trap was a direct result of the ultra-centralism within Leninism. Without the democratic methods, without the say and voice of the masses we see the sectarianism morph to authoritarianism morph into totalitarianism.

Also, Marx did not "hate Jews". I know you are saying he "apparently" did. However, I feel this needs to be stated at every chance. The "anti-Semitic" Marx idea is a bourgeois talking point. It's false.

[RedMarxist]

The power trap was a direct result of the ultra-centralism within Leninism. Without the democratic methods, without the say and voice of the masses we see the sectarianism morph to authoritarianism morph into totalitarianism.

Also, Marx did not "hate Jews". I know you are saying he "apparently" did. However, I feel this needs to be stated at every chance. The "anti-Semitic" Marx idea is a bourgeois talking point. It's false.

I was well aware that he did not hate the Jews. But I was just using it to make a point.

But that brings me to my other point. Leninism was pivotal in providing structure to the 1917 Russian revolution, which the '05 revolution lacked.

It is pivotal in providing structure in modern day revolts/protests. It should not be disregarded as a complete failure just because of its many mistakes.

Also, I do not believe that Lenin created the Bolshevik party out of a lust for power. He created it of course for bringing about a successful Communist revolution. And it worked pretty well and was a swell deal until the party took up the mantle of leadership.

That is the one of the largest flaws of Leninism right there: taking power away from the proletarian masses.

In my mind come post-revolution, the party having served it's purpose of helping inch forwards toward the creation of a Socialist state, should either dissolve or work alongside the proletarian masses.

[GatesofLenin]

- Shortened to save space -

Shortly before his death Lenin admitted in an interview with Arthur Ransome that Russia was still state capitalist and socialism in the traditional sense still lay in the future. An admission that must be highly embarrassing to all those romantic leninists who imagine that Bolshevik Revolution ushered in a "socialist" society

Hi comrade Roboo203, thanks for the post. This is one of the reasons I love to study Lenin, he surely was a complex man.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I was well aware that he did not hate the Jews. But I was just using it to make a point.

But that brings me to my other point. Leninism was pivotal in providing structure to the 1917 Russian revolution, which the '05 revolution lacked.

It is pivotal in providing structure in modern day revolts/protests. It should not be disregarded as a complete failure just because of its many mistakes.

Also, I do not believe that Lenin created the Bolshevik party out of a lust for power. He created it of course for bringing about a successful Communist revolution. And it worked pretty well and was a swell deal until the party took up the mantle of leadership.

That is the one of the largest flaws of Leninism right there: taking power away from the proletarian masses.

In my mind come post-revolution, the party having served it's purpose of helping inch forwards toward the creation of a Socialist state, should either dissolve or work alongside the proletarian masses.



It's not that the party took leadership, but the Central Committee of the party.

[Tim Cornelis]

Marx did not "hate Jews". I know you are saying he "apparently" did. However, I feel this needs to be stated at every chance. The "anti-Semitic" Marx idea is a bourgeois talking point. It's false.

Are you sure about that?


What is the Jew's foundation in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money... Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand ... The bill of exchange is the Jew's real God ... Only then could Jewry become universally dominant ... The social emancipation of Jewry is the emancipation of society from Jewry.

Sounds like it was taken straight out of Mein Kampf doesn't it? Yet written by Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/).

[RedMarxist]

Shortly before his death Lenin admitted in an interview with Arthur Ransome that Russia was still state capitalist and socialism in the traditional sense still lay in the future. An admission that must be highly embarrassing to all those romantic leninists who imagine that Bolshevik Revolution ushered in a "socialist" society

So true. Russia was indeed still state Capitalist out of necessity rather than a true Socialist state.

A lot of people on revleft riff on the U.S.S.R for being State Capitalist. But what about the fact that, I dunno, if it were truly socialist with democratic worker control the rest of the world would Probably not trade with them + it's economy was blown to shit so providing for society rather than a wealthy few would most likely not function very well, at least early on.

Russia too was ripe for a man like Stalin to take charge and rule in a totalitarian fashion. I hear people all the time say naive things like: "Well, Russia could have had true democracy and it would have worked out swell and good and everything would have been dandy!"

Is Leninism inherently authoritarian. No.

[Art Vandelay]

First off the whole Marx hated Jews thing has been dealt with many times and a few times quite recently so we do not need another thread train wrecked because of it. It is also not true, the facts are out there for anyone that is interested or just simply understanding the fact that Marx was a materialist discredits the fact that he was a racist.

Secondly RedMarxist seems to be confused in his depiction of Leninism but perhaps he does not know fully what it is. The main concept Lenin made to revolutionary theory was his concept of the vanguard! You can go ahead an say yeah Leninism is great minus the vanguard but then you do not have Leninism you have orthodox Marxism. I also get pretty sick of hearing commies talk about how they need to organize the working class. How about this? Fuck you, the working class does not need you or anyone else telling it what to do. How that pompous and arrogant view was ever propagated is beyond me.

[tir1944]

Sorry bro,but MLism ain't for sale.:)
You should read Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin and then see for yourself if it makes sense or not.
I'd reccomend a classic:Stalin's "The questions/problems of Leninism" (sometimes called just "Leninism").
Cheers.

[robbo203]

Are you sure about that?



Sounds like it was taken straight out of Mein Kampf doesn't it? Yet written by Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/).

As a corrective to this notion of Marx-the-antisemite you might want to read Hal Draper's essay http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article.htm
"Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype". Things are not always what they might seem. As the write up to Draper's essay puts it regarding Marx's "On the Jewish Question" - the target of such misinformation:

The work has been circulated in grossly edited form by right-wingers with the specific aim of slandering Marx’s character. In fact the article is a defence of the civil rights of Jews, as well as being a profound study of the relation between social and political rights in bourgeois society more generally.

[Agent Equality]

I couldn't disagree with this more. It may be the case for the few individuals but for the vast majority of people it's one of the biggest reasons why they would not look to the left. It's our biggest failure and our biggest embarrassment, basically a big shit stain on a red flag.

Well do you not realize what I am saying though? I completely agree with you that it is our biggest failure, but it is really. I am just saying that a lot of people get interested in MLism BECAUSE of the taboo it has in the western world (taboo which is rightly earned if i must say). They think its cool (i mean common, soviet imagery is pretty cool) and eventually get interested in socialism. But you are correct it definately is why a lot don't look to the left. It is indeed a shit stain on history. However it cannot be denied that many a good socialist and anarchist have come to us from the ML gates.

Its just sad that some actually choose to hold on to it. I really think most if not all individuals who hold on to MLism and maoism don't really want to see reason thats right in front of them. I'm sure there are some intelligent MLs (seeing as how Arrowlance negative reppped me for my post) who generally think that MLism is still a viable way to achieve socialism. But even these MLs don't want to admit that they or their gods of socialism are ever wrong.

[RedMarxist]

give me a break. We go from intelligent conversing to outright insults against MLism?


Secondly RedMarxist seems to be confused in his depiction of Leninism but perhaps he does not know fully what it is. The main concept Lenin made to revolutionary theory was his concept of the vanguarNo duh. That same vanguard that leads the nation post-rev...can be used constructively to aid the working class pre-revolution. It really doesn't have to take power autocratically guys, I already pointed that out. :)

ML parties taking power from the working class was a shit stain on the world Communist movement and is the reason our numbers are low.

Again, I have studied Lenin the man and Lenin's writings extensively, so I'm pretty sure I know all about Lenin's theories.

And no I am not holding on to romantic notions of Leninism/or Maoism. I know full well about the successes...and the failures of Leninism/and Maoism.

[La Peur Rouge]

No duh. That same vanguard that leads the nation post-rev...can be used constructively to aid the working class pre-revolution. It really doesn't have to take power autocratically guys, I already pointed that out. :)

ML parties taking power from the working class was a shit stain on the world Communist movement and is the reason our numbers are low.


This is what I don't understand, why as a communist are you advocating a group "leading the nation"? It's as if this "Vanguard" is outside the realm of our class.

Sure, the vanguard doesn't have to take power, but it always has, yeah? What solutions does Leninism give to prevent this? I've never seen any.

[RedMarxist]

This is what I don't understand, why as a communist are you advocating a group "leading the nation"? It's as if this "Vanguard" is outside the realm of our class.

Sure, the vanguard doesn't have to take power, but it always has, yeah? What solutions does Leninism give to prevent this? I've never seen any.

Uh, I never advocated a vanguard party leading the nation. I said that is where it failed miserably.

I'm not God(which does not exist of course :))-I cannot predict a quick fix for Leninism flaws.

Again, the goal of Leninism should be to be the vanguard pre-revolution, it should agitate and conduct Socialist propaganda campaigns, but never under any circumstances should it take power away from the proletariat.


What solutions does Leninism give to prevent this?

Solution: Don't ask a question to something that I never referred to in the first place.

[Susurrus]

Remind me again, how many "left communist" revolutions have there been?

1. Paris Commune
2. Russian Revolution(pre-soviet seizure)
3. Ukrainian Free Territory
4. Bavarian Soviet Republic
5. Strandzha Commune
6. Biennio Rosso
7. Mexican Revolution
8. Shinmin Autonomous Region
9. Kronstadt Rebellion
10. Spanish Civil War
11. EZLN

And I'm certain there's more out there.

[Art Vandelay]

Uh, I never advocated a vanguard party leading the nation. I said that is where it failed miserably.

I'm not God(which does not exist of course :))-I cannot predict a quick fix for Leninism flaws.

Again, the goal of Leninism should be to be the vanguard pre-revolution, it should agitate and conduct Socialist propaganda campaigns, but never under any circumstances should it take power away from the proletariat.



Solution: Don't ask a question to something that I never referred to in the first place.

Then you simply do not understand the criticism of M-Ls. The whole point is that no vanguard will simply relinquish power post revolution.

[Susurrus]

@RedMarxist: No offence, but what you're advocating sounds more like left communism than Leninism.

[promethean]

1. Paris Commune
2. Russian Revolution(pre-soviet seizure)
3. Ukrainian Free Territory
4. Bavarian Soviet Republic
5. Strandzha Commune
6. Biennio Rosso
7. Mexican Revolution
8. Shinmin Autonomous Region
9. Kronstadt Rebellion
10. Spanish Civil War
11. EZLN

And I'm certain there's more out there.
Only the Biennio Rosso (Italy 1919-20) and the German uprising (1918-19) had anything to do with left communism, as majorities of communists in those countries were left communists.

Left communists at the time were explicitly critical of the Spanish Civil War as workers getting themselves killed in a bourgeois war. The EZLN can also be seen as more of a nationalist uprising.

[Geiseric]

Well if we look at what happened before the civil war in russia, weren't the workers councils playing a very active role in the country's economy and politics? M-L's are totally wrong, however Vanguardism refers to the most revolutionary educated and class consious workers and socialists preventing what we see in Occupy Walstreet. If there was a democratic centralist general assembly coordinated by revolutionary working class, it would be accomplishing soo much more.

[Susurrus]

Only the Biennio Rosso (Italy 1919-20) and the German uprising (1918-19) had anything to do with left communism, as majorities of communists in those countries were left communists.

Left communists at the time were explicitly critical of the Spanish Civil War as workers getting themselves killed in a bourgeois war. The EZLN can also be seen as more of a nationalist uprising.

I was under the impression that, rather than explicit "left communism" we were referring to any communism left of leninism. As for the EZLN, "For everyone, everything, for us, nothing" (Para todos todo, para nosotros nada) doesn't sound very nationalist to me.

[La Peur Rouge]

Uh, I never advocated a vanguard party leading the nation. I said that is where it failed miserably.

I'm not God(which does not exist of course :))-I cannot predict a quick fix for Leninism flaws.

Again, the goal of Leninism should be to be the vanguard pre-revolution, it should agitate and conduct Socialist propaganda campaigns, but never under any circumstances should it take power away from the proletariat.

Solution: Don't ask a question to something that I never referred to in the first place.

You'll have to forgive me for the misunderstanding but your post was confusing when you say:


"That same vanguard that leads the nation post-rev...can be used constructively to aid the working class pre-revolution."Sounds like that is exactly what you were advocating, if you weren't then I apologize.

But please don't attempt to dodge the question. What solutions does Leninism give to prevent the vanguard from taking power after a revolution?

[Geiseric]

The point of Leninism is that the Vanguard is part of the working class itself, in orthodox leninism (w00t created a new term) it's simply the part of the working class that goes out of its way and fights the bourgeoisie. The protesters in Greece are de facto the vanguard of the greek revolution, anybody who takes part in a general strike in order to bring down a government is part of the vanguard. What happened during the civil war wasn't vanguardism, it wasn't even Leninism. It was what the Bolsheviks were more or less forced to do in order to keep the whites from gaining back power over Russia.

[promethean]

I was under the impression that, rather than explicit "left communism" we were referring to any communism left of leninism. As for the EZLN, "For everyone, everything, for us, nothing" (Para todos todo, para nosotros nada) doesn't sound very nationalist to me.
Left communists were an actual current in the Third Communist International and most of them were against participating in the Spanish Civil War, which they saw as a bourgeois confrontation. Though they may be mistaken in doing so, present day left communists lay claim to this tradition. EZLN is a topic for another discussion. The Zapatisistas may be nice people but slogans apart, the aim of EZLN is one of national liberation of certain indigenous communities of Mexico.

[La Peur Rouge]

The point of Leninism is that the Vanguard is part of the working class itself

So really it boils down to semantics then...

[promethean]

The point of Leninism is that the Vanguard is part of the working class itself, in orthodox leninism (w00t created a new term) it's simply the part of the working class that goes out of its way and fights the bourgeoisie. The protesters in Greece are de facto the vanguard of the greek revolution, anybody who takes part in a general strike in order to bring down a government is part of the vanguard. What happened during the civil war wasn't vanguardism, it wasn't even Leninism. It was what the Bolsheviks were more or less forced to do in order to keep the whites from gaining back power over Russia.
1) Leninism does not exist. Trotskyists and Stalinists both lay claim to Lenin as their own.

2) As Lenin said in 1901 in What Is To Be Done, he did not consider the vanguard to be part of the working class. He considered the vanguard to be a highly intelligent band of bourgeois intellectuals who would raise revolutionary consciousness in workers. Lenin considered workers by themselves to be incompetent to lead themselves and claimed that they could only reach "trade union consciousness".

[Susurrus]

Left communists were an actual current in the Third Communist International and most of them were against participating in the Spanish Civil War, which they saw as a bourgeois confrontation. Though they may be mistaken in doing so, present day left communists lay claim to this tradition. EZLN is a topic for another discussion. The Zapatisistas may be nice people but slogans apart, the aim of EZLN is one of national liberation of certain indigenous communities of Mexico.

I know that there is a left communist community, I meant the way the person I was responding to used the term.

The EZLN seems to aim for national liberation through international liberation, or vice versa. Or at the very least national liberation though socialism.

[Geiseric]

He meant that if a vanguard of the minority of revolutionary workers didn't revolutionize the mass of the proletariat, it was doomed to only trade union consiousness. And that is true, most people don't have the time to read marx, bakunin, engels, gramsci, whatever. They are too busy with the day to day task of surviving. That is why some of the workers who have a passion for revolution and somehow find the time to educate themselves outside of the bourgeois education process have the responsibility of educating their fellow proletarians and organising them into something that can fight the bourgeoisie.

That's how I understand Leninism compared to Left Communism, Anarchism, and other ideologies who have the utopian idea of a mass uprising of every single worker in a country/area. I'm not being chauvinistic, i'm being a realist. If you're in favor of any kind of democratic workers party which can coordinate a revolution and make sure the bourgeois don't destroy it from the inside or the outside, I would consider you a Leninist. Non class collaborationism is also a prerequisite in my mind of being a Leninist.

Leninist is a relative term in my book.

[Geiseric]

He meant that if a vanguard of the minority of revolutionary workers didn't revolutionize the mass of the proletariat, it was doomed to only trade union consiousness. And that is true, most people don't have the time to read marx, bakunin, engels, gramsci, whatever. They are too busy with the day to day task of surviving. That is why some of the workers who have a passion for revolution and somehow find the time to educate themselves outside of the bourgeois education process have the responsibility of educating their fellow proletarians and organising them into something that can fight the bourgeoisie.

That's how I understand Leninism compared to Left Communism, Anarchism, and other ideologies who have the utopian idea of a mass uprising of every single worker in a country/area. I'm not being chauvinistic, i'm being a realist. If you're in favor of any kind of democratic workers party which can coordinate a revolution and make sure the bourgeois don't destroy it from the inside or the outside, I would consider you a Leninist. Non class collaborationism is also a prerequisite in my mind of being a Leninist.

Leninist is a relative term in my book.

[Susurrus]

If you're in favor of any kind of democratic workers party which can coordinate a revolution and make sure the bourgeois don't destroy it from the inside or the outside, I would consider you a Leninist. Non class collaborationism is also a prerequisite in my mind of being a Leninist.

Leninist is a relative term in my book.

So anarcho-syndicalism and Platformism are Leninist ideologies?

[promethean]

I know that there is a left communist community, I meant the way the person I was responding to used the term.

The EZLN seems to aim for national liberation through international liberation, or vice versa. Or at the very least national liberation though socialism.Ok. The EZLN do not claim to be of any ideology in particular, but they do not seem to have much to say about workers self management or a working class revolution.


He meant that if a vanguard of the minority of revolutionary workers didn't revolutionize the mass of the proletariat, it was doomed to only trade union consiousness. And that is true, most people don't have the time to read marx, bakunin, engels, gramsci, whatever. They are too busy with the day to day task of surviving. That is why some of the workers who have a passion for revolution and somehow find the time to educate themselves outside of the bourgeois education process have the responsibility of educating their fellow proletarians and organising them into something that can fight the bourgeoisie.

That's how I understand Leninism compared to Left Communism, Anarchism, and other ideologies who have the utopian idea of a mass uprising of every single worker in a country/area. I'm not being chauvinistic, i'm being a realist. If you're in favor of any kind of democratic workers party which can coordinate a revolution and make sure the bourgeois don't destroy it from the inside or the outside, I would consider you a Leninist. Non class collaborationism is also a prerequisite in my mind of being a Leninist.

Leninist is a relative term in my book.Lenin believed in a vanguard of bourgeois intellectuals raising consciousness among workers. Lenin himself belonged to a bourgeois aristocratic family and had little roots in the working class. Lenin's own writings in What Is To Be Done contradict your beliefs in Leninism. Your beliefs are actually more in line with anarchism. Left communists or anarchists do not believe in any of the ideas you think, but are for the self emancipation of the working class.

[Geiseric]

Well the point of Leninism is the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state via a workers revolution. So if Anarcho Syndicallists include all workers in their party and use their force to overthrow the bourgeois, then they're leaning more towards Marxism/Leninism then they are towards theoretical Anarchism, which denies all use of force or power from a statist entity, leaning more towards unions or other organisations, which I and other marxists would still consider technically a political party, since any group of people trying to establish the rule of their class over another is a statist entity. A slave rebellion creates a statist entity (I'm sorry, I don't know the correct term for what i'm trying to say) composing of the slaves who want to overthrow their masters. However anybody who thinks that any state power being used to overthrow the bourgeois isn't needed is in my opinion a utopian.

I'm relatively new to the specifics of my arguement, so please if i'm confusing at all i'll try to get somebody more informed about the subject than myself to represent the arguement.

It's just about having a working class entity to organise and aggitate the rest of the working class, who may still be under the influence of bourgeois propaganda and under the curse of believing in populism or nationalism, which is a large section of the proletariat. Are you assuming that every member of the working class is inheritly a revolutionary socialist? If you are, then it shows how disconnected you are from political reality and that you have no idea of how the bourgeois state maintains its rule.

By the way, I want to see your source for the majority of the Bolsheviks being bourgeois intelligencia. From just looking at Wikipedia, it says that 60% were industrial workers, and more than 20% were uprooted peasants. As long as somebody gives up the bourgeois lifestyle and rejects the bourgeois mindset, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed membership in a workers party. You're being such an ultraleftist, are you one of those guys who says that anybody coming from the military is also a reactionary person and shouldn't be allowed entrence in a revolutionary organistation as well?

[Susurrus]

Well the point of Leninism is the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state via a workers revolution. So if Anarcho Syndicallists include all workers in their party and use their force to overthrow the bourgeois, then they're leaning more towards Marxism/Leninism then they are towards theoretical Anarchism, which denies all use of force or power from a statist entity, leaning more towards unions or other organisations, which I and other marxists would still consider technically a political party, since any group of people trying to establish the rule of their class over another is a statist entity. A slave rebellion creates a statist entity (I'm sorry, I don't know the correct term for what i'm trying to say) composing of the slaves who want to overthrow their masters. However anybody who thinks that any state power being used to overthrow the bourgeois isn't needed is in my opinion a utopian.



Well, are you saying that anarchists are closet statists? :confused:

Way I see it, so long as the party/federation/whatever is directly democratic, not trying to set up a new state, and not attempting to impose its will over the people, then it's libertarian or anarchistic. Force is not inherently statist, if being used against an oppressor in power.

[Geiseric]

Is it justified though if that force is being used for the benefit of the proletariat, and if the party is truly representative of and comprising of revolutionary working class? And the workers state, run by the statist revolutionary proletariat, would only be temporary untill the bourgeois are removed entirely from power.

The task before us is eliminating oppression of human beings by a small minority of human beings, who'se only difference over the thousands of years of human society is their theoretical justification for oppression. The working class indeed does need to carry out the revolution, from below. The party is simply a way of organising and aggitating momentarily non revolutionary members of the proletarian class, for the purpose of carrying out the removal of the bourgeoisie from power. This doesn't mean it's a party we see it in the bourgeois sense where it's a group who'se decisions are made almost completely isolated from who they claim to represent. This party would be directly democratic, whose decisions are made by members of the party, i.e. the revolutionary workers who make it up. Representatives would be subject to recall at any point in time if the people they represent are dissatisfied. Members wouldn't be forced to do anything, however in order to remain a member you can't act against the party.

But the whole point of the state is to carry on the proletarian struggle, whatever form politics happen there WILL be some kind of state, however instead of a bourgeois state as we see it now, it will be a workers state whose purpose is entirely different from a bourgeois state. Any attempt to use power against oppressors has a state as a necessary role, the state is the entity organising and coordinating the forces used to carry out its goals.

Basically, I believe that force is indeed inherently statist. Any attempt to neglect the possibility of using force against those who seek the proletarian movement's destruction is I think utopian and reactionary. What will you do when they send in foreign mercenaries to put down the revolution? Simply ask the soldiers to stop in their tracts? No, you need a state at least momentarilly to ensure the movement's survival.

[Geiseric]

Is it justified though if that force is being used for the benefit of the proletariat, and if the party is truly representative of and comprising of revolutionary working class? And the workers state, run by the statist revolutionary proletariat, would only be temporary untill the bourgeois are removed entirely from power.

The task before us is eliminating oppression of human beings by a small minority of human beings, who'se only difference over the thousands of years of human society is their theoretical justification for oppression. The working class indeed does need to carry out the revolution, from below. The party is simply a way of organising and aggitating momentarily non revolutionary members of the proletarian class, for the purpose of carrying out the removal of the bourgeoisie from power. This doesn't mean it's a party we see it in the bourgeois sense where it's a group who'se decisions are made almost completely isolated from who they claim to represent. This party would be directly democratic, whose decisions are made by members of the party, i.e. the revolutionary workers who make it up. Representatives would be subject to recall at any point in time if the people they represent are dissatisfied. Members wouldn't be forced to do anything, however in order to remain a member you can't act against the party.

But the whole point of the state is to carry on the proletarian struggle, whatever form politics happen there WILL be some kind of state, however instead of a bourgeois state as we see it now, it will be a workers state whose purpose is entirely different from a bourgeois state. Any attempt to use power against oppressors has a state as a necessary role, the state is the entity organising and coordinating the forces used to carry out its goals.

Basically, I believe that force is indeed inherently statist. Any attempt to neglect the possibility of using force against those who seek the proletarian movement's destruction is I think utopian and reactionary. What will you do when they send in foreign mercenaries to put down the revolution? Simply ask the soldiers to stop in their tracts? No, you need a state at least momentarilly to ensure the movement's survival.

[Geiseric]

Is it justified though if that force is being used for the benefit of the proletariat, and if the party is truly representative of and comprising of revolutionary working class? And the workers state, run by the statist revolutionary proletariat, would only be temporary untill the bourgeois are removed entirely from power.

The task before us is eliminating oppression of human beings by a small minority of human beings, who'se only difference over the thousands of years of human society is their theoretical justification for oppression. The working class indeed does need to carry out the revolution, from below. The party is simply a way of organising and aggitating momentarily non revolutionary members of the proletarian class, for the purpose of carrying out the removal of the bourgeoisie from power. This doesn't mean it's a party we see it in the bourgeois sense where it's a group who'se decisions are made almost completely isolated from who they claim to represent. This party would be directly democratic, whose decisions are made by members of the party, i.e. the revolutionary workers who make it up. Representatives would be subject to recall at any point in time if the people they represent are dissatisfied. Members wouldn't be forced to do anything, however in order to remain a member you can't act against the party.

But the whole point of the state is to carry on the proletarian struggle, whatever form politics happen there WILL be some kind of state, however instead of a bourgeois state as we see it now, it will be a workers state whose purpose is entirely different from a bourgeois state. Any attempt to use power against oppressors has a state as a necessary role, the state is the entity organising and coordinating the forces used to carry out its goals.

Basically, I believe that force is indeed inherently statist. Any attempt to neglect the possibility of using force against those who seek the proletarian movement's destruction is I think utopian and reactionary. What will you do when they send in foreign mercenaries to put down the revolution? Simply ask the soldiers to stop in their tracts? No, you need a state at least momentarilly to ensure the movement's survival.

[Rooster]

He meant that if a vanguard of the minority of revolutionary workers didn't revolutionize the mass of the proletariat, it was doomed to only trade union consiousness.

Did Lenin not go back later on and recant this?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Trotsky
Lenin
Stalin
Trotsky is better than Stalin! No, Stalin is better than Trotsky! Stalin and Trotsky sucked, the Lenin should have lived forever hnnnng!

[RedMarxist]

What happened during the civil war wasn't vanguardism, it wasn't even Leninism. It was what the Bolsheviks were more or less forced to do in order to keep the whites from gaining back power over Russia.

Exactly. Lenin never had it in one of his to do lists to become the new autocratic leader of a post-Tsar Russia.

Or at least in my mind that is true.

The Bolsheviks had to be autocratic, sadly, to keep control. It is naive to suggest that the Soviets could have fought out the Civil War themselves without any organization, which true democracy is prone to(think about Greece)

and even more sadly, this allowed a man like Stalin to rise to the top and besmirch the name of Communism forever.

[manic expression]

Neither do left communists just "sit there with a funny look on their face" any more than members of other tendencies.
Yes, they certainly do. When was the last time you saw a "left communist" group being vocal at any political event (demonstration, anything)? You'd have to travel far and wide.


Yes. One of the basic prerequisites of successful revolution is that it doesn't revert back to capitalism. Thanks to Cuba's economic policies lately, socialism is effectively dead in Cuba in spite of its staunch Marxist-Leninist self-identification.
Socialism is hardly dead in Cuba, it's simply taking a fresh look at its organization...just because it's not the Soviet-style model it used to be doesn't mean it isn't socialism. You above all people should understand that.


. Actually, the Soviets were the reason Spain had lost the civil war. Time to read up on your history.
Where did the Republic's best tanks come from? How did they get a significant portion of their arms? :lol: History sucks when it disagrees with you.


The workers hold political power and control the means of production? No, thought so. Cuban absolutism and state capitalism =/= socialism.
Here (http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/61CDH/Complete%20texts/Cuba%B4s%20Political%20and%20Elections%20System.ht m), read up.


Except it really isn't.
My computer isn't loading the PDF, so an HTML link would be useful.


you say these things and i have the feeling that you yourself know that these things are inaccurate but say them anyway.
What's the last political anything organized by left communists?


Marxism-Leninism wasn't an ideology in 1917.
Bolshevism was, and that's what M-Lism is.


This is funny because those who would become the left communists were all up in the Bolsheviks. It's also funny because it is dumb, and Marxism-Leninism was not a thing until like 1926 or something. It was well after Lenin died, either way.
They called it M-Lism after Lenin died, but all its basic tenets came long before 1926. As an ideology it can be drawn to What is to be done? which was in IIRC 1903. And it was definitely defined quite well by Imperialism in 1916.


1. Paris Commune
2. Russian Revolution(pre-soviet seizure)
3. Ukrainian Free Territory
4. Bavarian Soviet Republic
5. Strandzha Commune
6. Biennio Rosso
7. Mexican Revolution
8. Shinmin Autonomous Region
9. Kronstadt Rebellion
10. Spanish Civil War
11. EZLN
1.) Before Leninism or Bolshevism existed, or had a reason to exist. Definitely not anything "left-communist".
2.) Led by the Bolsheviks, utilizing the principles laid down by Lenin.
3.) A band of cossacks who reportedly attacked Jews, but more importantly it wasn't left-communist but anarchist.
4.) Not left communist by any stretch of the imagination.
5.) Led by an anarchist.
6.) Anarcho-syndicalists.
7.) Not even close.
8.) Never heard of it, can't find any information on it.
9.) A pro-white rebellion against Soviet authority.
10.) Anarchists take the most credit for the most revolutionary acts. The communists (MLists) take the most credit for making the Republic's cause even vaguely viable.
11.) Isolated and shrinking, never was very left-communist anyway.

[Mettalian]

No. It's not my job to educate you.

Yeah, shows him for trying to learn in the learning forum.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes, they certainly do. When was the last time you saw a "left communist" group being vocal at any political event (demonstration, anything)? You'd have to travel far and wide.


Socialism is hardly dead in Cuba, it's simply taking a fresh look at its organization...just because it's not the Soviet-style model it used to be doesn't mean it isn't socialism. You above all people should understand that.


Where did the Republic's best tanks come from? How did they get a significant portion of their arms? :lol: History sucks when it disagrees with you.


Here (http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/61CDH/Complete%20texts/Cuba%B4s%20Political%20and%20Elections%20System.ht m), read up.


My computer isn't loading the PDF, so an HTML link would be useful.


What's the last political anything organized by left communists?


Bolshevism was, and that's what M-Lism is.


They called it M-Lism after Lenin died, but all its basic tenets came long before 1926. As an ideology it can be drawn to What is to be done? which was in IIRC 1903. And it was definitely defined quite well by Imperialism in 1916.


1.) Before Leninism or Bolshevism existed, or had a reason to exist. Definitely not anything "left-communist".
2.) Led by the Bolsheviks, utilizing the principles laid down by Lenin.
3.) A band of cossacks who reportedly attacked Jews, but more importantly it wasn't left-communist but anarchist.
4.) Not left communist by any stretch of the imagination.
5.) Led by an anarchist.
6.) Anarcho-syndicalists.
7.) Not even close.
8.) Never heard of it, can't find any information on it.
9.) A pro-white rebellion against Soviet authority.
10.) Anarchists take the most credit for the most revolutionary acts. The communists (MLists) take the most credit for making the Republic's cause even vaguely viable.
11.) Isolated and shrinking, never was very left-communist anyway.

It seems you think there are only either left communists or MLs. Speaking as neither, you need to clarify.

[GatesofLenin]

... How about this? Fuck you, the working class does not need you or anyone else telling it what to do. How that pompous and arrogant view was ever propagated is beyond me.

Jeez, relax comrade! You won't get your point across well swearing at people. Let's have a smart discussion instead.

[Art Vandelay]

Jeez, relax comrade! You won't get your point across well swearing at people. Let's have a smart discussion instead.

Well to begin with I will say that the part of my post you quoted was not directed at anyone in particular but more just a general comment and frankly that is probably a nicer thing I could of said. I will not say all of the M-Ls, but there is a good amount of them that have not only extreme violence fetishes but also authoritarian ones. Not to mention some of the things I have heard said on this boards by some M-Ls is pretty disturbing. Fact of the matter is, if some of the members of this board had it up to them come time for revolution, they would be lining me up against the wall. So yes I can get emotional and angry when talking on this subject.

[Geiseric]

Did Lenin not go back later on and recant this?

Probably, I don't think that theory is a hundred persent true. I mean It's just a matter of timing, left communists sometimes call for a general strike NOW, or when it isnt necessarily guaranteed to include everybody they could if they waited and organised a bigger one. I was just trying to explain the context of Lenin's quote and about how it's not being cheuvanist. However once the revolutionary proletariat does reach socialist consiousness, it should organise to win over possibly more reactionary members of the population, that would have to be done in the American South in my opinion.

[Nox]

It's true that M-Lism is the gateway to Communism.

I was a 'High School Stalinist' until 2 weeks after I started college, then I became an Anarchist.

[GatesofLenin]

Well to begin with I will say that the part of my post you quoted was not directed at anyone in particular but more just a general comment and frankly that is probably a nicer thing I could of said. I will not say all of the M-Ls, but there is a good amount of them that have not only extreme violence fetishes but also authoritarian ones. Not to mention some of the things I have heard said on this boards by some M-Ls is pretty disturbing. Fact of the matter is, if some of the members of this board had it up to them come time for revolution, they would be lining me up against the wall. So yes I can get emotional and angry when talking on this subject.

We understand that political talk can get heated but we're also trying to learn from each other. I'm pretty new to the whole far-left ideology myself and have been exposed to Marx and Lenin from the start, this is why I'm fascinated with learning all I can about V.I Lenin and his theses. Less fighting amongst the far-left minded is better for all I believe.

[RedMarxist]

It's true that M-Lism is the gateway to Communism.

I was a 'High School Stalinist' until 2 weeks after I started college, then I became an Anarchist.

How exactly were you a 'Stalinist' in High School? Just curious. Why did you become, on the other hand, an Anarchist just a few weeks after going to college?

Look, I am totally against autocracy of any kind(left or right). Yet, from what we can see from history is that the Bolsheviks were more or less forced to exercise firm control over Russia lest they be destroyed.

I won't get into the whole debate over whether or not the "October Revolution" was a coup by Lenin and his party, but the point is:

autocracy = stability for Russia in times of hardships and civil war.

The alternative(true democratic rule by the Soviets) is childish and naive to even be viable. Russia was falling apart. Any attempts at true democracy that the Soviets wanted would be/were in vain.


I agree, and have explained repeatedly, that what the Bolsheviks did during the Civil War was not part of Plan A. More like Plan B.

Leninism was more like plan A. Assist the proletariat in times of peace and get them engaged in Socialist thought, while assisting them in a revolution as the most advanced section of the working class. To be the vanguard. The key word here is 'assist,' as opposed to the term many anarchists and left Communists like to use in relation to Leninist theory: 'usurp'

I am a Leninist because I'm being practical here and know my history.


Still, I get called an idealist all the time by my folks...simply because I'm young. :(

[Smyg]

I personally will not sacrifice idealistic attempts at democracy for brutal autocracy.

[tir1944]

Cool story bro.

[Rooster]

Marxism-leninism is the ideology of the grand labour aristocracy. It is the revisionism that was used to stifle out the revolution. Take for example, some comrades here who are marxist-leninists and yet have not read or taken into account Marx or his writings, sometimes will fully disagreeing with Marx and at the same time condemning others as revisionists. Either you follow the correct line or you are a revisionist and deserve to be excluded from the democratic process or just done away with. It does not allow for participation, debate or disagreement with those who are in the revolutionary van guard. It is the marxist equivalent of Catholicism.

[tir1944]

Marxism-leninism is the ideology of the grand labour aristocracy.
Cool story bro.


It is the revisionism that was used to stifle out the revolution.
Also cool story.Last time i checked it was the ML Bolsheviks who led a successful revolution and established the world's first socialist state.



Take for example, some comrades here who are marxist-leninists and yet have not read or taken into account Marx or his writings, sometimes will fully disagreeing with Marx and at the same time condemning others as revisionists.
How about some concrete examples,eh?
Otherwise you're just driveling.


Either you follow the correct line or you are a revisionist and deserve to be excluded from the democratic process or just done away with.
Yes,there are only 2 sides in the revolution:either you're a revolutionary or a counterrevolutionary.



It does not allow for participation, debate or disagreement with those who are in the revolutionary van guard.
This makes no sense.There's only one revolutionary vanguard.



It is the marxist equivalent of Catholicism.
I bet you think you're really smart because you though of this amazing new idea,eh?

[manic expression]

Either you follow the correct line or you are a revisionist and deserve to be excluded from the democratic process or just done away with. It does not allow for participation, debate or disagreement with those who are in the revolutionary van guard. It is the marxist equivalent of Catholicism.
This is just a stereotype of ML groups, I've found that in most cases, MLs are quite open to disagreement and debate. The only expectation is that you don't criticize the party in public, which is entirely reasonable when you look at what lack of discipline leads to. That's why ML parties have historically withstood a great amount of pressure from their enemies and functioned well in spite of it.

Yeah, sure, there are some parties that can be "dogmatic" (for lack of a better word), but you have that in every tendency. The real question is the merits of Marxism-Leninism, which has little to nothing to do with a few parties that aren't conducive to discussion.

[Nox]

How exactly were you a 'Stalinist' in High School? Just curious. Why did you become, on the other hand, an Anarchist just a few weeks after going to college?

. :(

I was an Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist/Hoxhaist.

I just think it's a funny coincidence that 2 weeks after I left high school, I dropped 'Stalinism' ;)

I became an Anarchist because I no longer thought it was unrealistic, previously that was the only thing holding me back. I also found myself constantly making excuses and strawman arguments when defending Marxism-Leninism.

[RedMarxist]

I was an Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist/Hoxhaist.

I just think it's a funny coincidence that 2 weeks after I left high school, I dropped 'Stalinism' ;)

I became an Anarchist because I no longer thought it was unrealistic, previously that was the only thing holding me back. I also found myself constantly making excuses and strawman arguments when defending Marxism-Leninism.

my solution: Read more Vladimir Lenin

[Bardo]

Interested in communism but not sure where to begin?

Marxism-Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism) might be just what you're looking for!

Why settle for those cheap imitation "isms" when you can subscribe to this name brand??

Did you know:

-Marxism-Leninism make you appear attractive to the opposite sex
-Marxism-Leninism has been proven to diminish the effects of acne
-Marxism-Leninism is 40% more affordable than capitalism

Don't take it from me, listen to these satisfied comrades:


Marxism-Leninism was a godsend. I was frittering around with anarchism and libertarian socialism but just wasn't getting what I needed. Thanks to Marxism-Leninism I finally have a clear path to the end of history!


Wo0t Lenin ftw!

There you have it.

For just $15 per month, YOU can belong to a Marxist-Leninist organization TODAY.

Call 1 800 Marx Len for details.

[Susurrus]

my solution: Read more Vladimir Lenin

Threetune has a sockpuppet?



1.) Before Leninism or Bolshevism existed, or had a reason to exist. Definitely not anything "left-communist".
2.) Led by the Bolsheviks, utilizing the principles laid down by Lenin.
3.) A band of cossacks who reportedly attacked Jews, but more importantly it wasn't left-communist but anarchist.
4.) Not left communist by any stretch of the imagination.
5.) Led by an anarchist.
6.) Anarcho-syndicalists.
7.) Not even close.
8.) Never heard of it, can't find any information on it.
9.) A pro-white rebellion against Soviet authority.
10.) Anarchists take the most credit for the most revolutionary acts. The communists (MLists) take the most credit for making the Republic's cause even vaguely viable.
11.) Isolated and shrinking, never was very left-communist anyway.
Sorry, thought you were referring to communism left of MLs, not left communism.
2.) All power to the soviets! was the aim, not All Power to the Bolsheviks.
3.) Not cossacks, "reportedly" one formerly white regiment did this and was punished by the Black Army. Makhno personally shot anti-semites and pogromists.
9.) Uh-huh. No. http://libcom.org/library/kronstadt-izvestia
10.) They were responsible for de-collectivisation and stopping the revolution, starting the May Days and splitting the left, ripping off the gold reserves, lying through their newspapers abroad, and denying arms to the miltias.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes,there are only 2 sides in the revolution:either you're a revolutionary or a counterrevolutionary.


This makes no sense.There's only one revolutionary vanguard.


This kind of stuff right here is the exact reason why it is impossible for me to work with M-Ls. There is no room for people like me in their plans and history has shown, as well as, for example, the recent clash between anarchists and the KKE, that they will "deal" with people like me.

I would have no problem working with a Leninist if they could accept opposing viewpoints, or work in co-operation for a revolution, but I have yet to see any reason to make me think they can.

I give Lenin credit for his theoretical contribution to the left. I personally have always loved the state and revolution and when he first came out with it people thought he has turned into an anarchist. But the theory he outlined pre-revolution is not reconcilable with his actions during the revolution. I can even accept the lots of the policies during war communism as necessary since they were being stormed from every side. I happen to also love lots of trotsky's work and think he also contributed vastly to the left. But there are some of their actions which are simply unforgivable: the crushing of the free territory, suppression of Krondstadt to name a couple.

[Geiseric]

God people on this forum are so fucking stupid. I can't believe that somebody is seriously using "cool story bro" as an arguement. Seriously, can we just ban these guys? seriously, they give actual Leninists a really bad name.

[RedMarxist]

Cool story bro my behind. Use real arguments as a counter to my own. Or do you not know how to argue against anyone?


There is no room for people like me in their plans and history has shown, as well as, for example, the recent clash between anarchists and the KKE, that they will "deal" with people like me

The KKE long ago traded in their red flags for cushy seats in the Greek parliament. They are not a good example of a true Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. They are the epitome of reformist policies.

That's what bothers me about the danged CPUSA. they are the largest CP in America(with millions of actual Communists in their ranks), yet they do everything opposite of what is needed for an actual revolution.

The only reason I'd join them is just so I could get in touch with people who think like me. Marxist-Leninists.

Oh, and I do believe that they are so pathetic the U.S government doesn't even see a reason to oppress "the Communist party" anymore. FAIL.

The Bolshevik Party, the Chinese Communist Party, and many more Communist parties the world over were all great examples of actual revolutionary CP's, if only for a time.

Recent revolutionary CP's include the CPP(Communist Party of the Philippines) and the Communist Party of India(CPI). The Nepali CP still has a good section of revolutionary cadres left, but who knows how Nepal could turn out at such a dire moment in history.

The KKE and CPUSA USED to be revolutionary when they were founded oh so many decades ago, but not anymore.

[Geiseric]

You're assuming that it wasn't their ideology that determined whether or not they turned "reformist." but the fact of the matter about MLism, not Lism, is that its simply the remnent of Stalinism, which is increadibly reformist. It's practically a given for MLs to be class collaborationist, and to sell out the working class for gov seats.

[Reznov]

No. It's not my job to educate you.

Then don't post?

And as for the OP, I'd suggest just doing some google searches for more links and sources.

Yes, you will probably have to ingest more than a paragraph or two to really understand M-L.

[RedMarxist]

You're assuming that it wasn't their ideology that determined whether or not they turned "reformist." but the fact of the matter about MLism, not Lism, is that its simply the remnent of Stalinism, which is increadibly reformist. It's practically a given for MLs to be class collaborationist, and to sell out the working class for gov seats.

How so? Last time I checked not ALL parties are "class collaborationist." It depends mostly on the leaders and makeup of the party.

If the leaders are reformist, the party will be too and collaborate. If they are revolutionary, then the party will be revolutionary.

Talk about a blanket statement.

[CommunityBeliever]

You're assuming that it wasn't their ideology that determined whether or not they turned "reformist." but the fact of the matter about MLism, not Lism, is that its simply the remnent of Stalinism, which is increadibly reformist. It's practically a given for MLs to be class collaborationist, and to sell out the working class for gov seats. This is a baseless slander.

[tir1944]

God people on this forum are so fucking stupid.
Quoted for truth.:laugh:

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you sure about that?



Sounds like it was taken straight out of Mein Kampf doesn't it? Yet written by Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/).
Yes, we all know that Hitler wasn't a racist, and just attacked the Jewish religion.

[Agent Equality]

Cool story bro.


Also cool story.Last time i checked it was the ML Bolsheviks who led a successful revolution and established the world's first socialist state.


How about some concrete examples,eh?
Otherwise you're just driveling.

Yes,there are only 2 sides in the revolution:either you're a revolutionary or a counterrevolutionary.


This makes no sense.There's only one revolutionary vanguard.


I bet you think you're really smart because you though of this amazing new idea,eh?

Really? You would use this as your argument? I'd say you need to be restricted immediately for your doctrinistic, trollish ways but that's not enough. You need to just fucking leave and never come back. I cannot possibly in my mind see what you could actually contribute to universal emancipation of humanity. I'd place my vote for a ban for you any day of the week.

Your politics suck
Your arguments suck
Your respect for others sucks
Therefore, you suck.

[tir1944]

Very nice,it's good to see that you disagree with me,even if you don't have any arguments except the one that "my politics suck".
What can i say?
This isn't trolling,this is even worse.

[Rooster]

Very nice,it's good to see that you disagree with me,even if you don't have any arguments except the one that "my politics suck".
What can i say?
This isn't trolling,this is even worse.

You have such a poor grasp of marxism anyway. For instance, you're for the idea of having wages under socialism despite Marx being quite clear about what wages mean (capital exploitation). You've seemed to have set your mind up before any argument and are just looking for something, anything, to agree with that. Collectivisation, correct. Kulaks, menace. Trotsky, fascist spy. And so on.

[tir1944]

You have such a poor grasp of marxism anyway.
Good,maybe i could improve myself.



For instance, you're for the idea of having wages under socialism despite Marx being quite clear about what wages mean (capital exploitation).
No,i'm not for this idea.I never said that.However i asked for a source/article or something which deals with the issue of wages in socialism.
Marxism doesn't "end" with Marx,so i was interested in what Marxist experts here know about this problem.
Why didn't you help me with that?



You've seemed to have set your mind up before any argument and are just looking for something, anything, to agree with that. Collectivisation, correct. Kulaks, menace. Trotsky, fascist spy.
I've read some history so i do have some knowledge of things.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Sorry, Stalin fought bureaucratic shit his whole life. The amount of bullshit on this site you would think it's a bunch of farmers not proles!

Farmers are respectable members of the proletariat you piece of shit



Stalin followed Marx and Lenin, no one goes around calling themselves a Stalinist, yet Trots identify as Trotskyist all of the time. Trotsky and Lenin had more differences than a bird and a fish, and this is can be seen easily by reading the writings of both; for example the years and years up to 1917 that Trotsky spent attacking Lenin and Bolshevism (and then years of trying to create splits in the party after he finally joined)! The fact that people still try to spout this about Trotsky and Lenin as nearly identical twins (or worse Lenin taking up Troskyism!) shit is hilarious.

Have you ever been to this neat website called Revleft

[ericksolvi]

No. It's not my job to educate you.

this post is under learning. So in this context it is your job to educate.:thumbdown: