Anti-Lenin?

[kid communist]

OK,there's appearently some people out there who are "anti-Lenin".They say that Vladmir Lenin was a tyrant,and such.They claim to be Marxists,and they are,but they sound kinda crazy.

It can be traced back to the very start of the Bolsheviek revolution,with many Marxists saying that he supported authoritarianism,and said that the New Economic Policy was capitalistic.Nowadays,the Socialist Party of Great Britian is the leader in the anti-Leninsitic(I hope I got that right) school of thought.

OK,let's get the story straight;Lenin could be a little strict,but compared to Stalin,he's a softy.(And that's a good thing)!Marx-Leninism does work;just look at Cuba!:cubaflag:Free health-care;freedom of religion;women were given equal rights off the bat when Castro took over!How can you argue with that?!

So maybe Lenin made some slight errors;oh well,nobody's perfect.Did these people look at what Stalinism is?Now that guy was not right.I'm sorry if I offended any anti-Leninists on this forum.

[tir1944]

Sorry mate,but "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Sorry mate,but "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.

So is Maoism and Trotskyism.

[W1N5T0N]

Please, take a look at my quote, it explains why I oppose many, not all, but many of Lenins practices.

[Commissar Rykov]

What are we supposed to discuss in this thread? It was more of a statement than it was a question or asking for any thought provoking statements. To be honest I don't see this thread ending well you have my sympathies OP and you can borrow a fire extinguisher.

[Nox]

So is Maoism and Trotskyism.

Actually, Maoism is a branch of Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism is a different branch of Leninism (Bolshevik-Leninism).

[Magón]

So to be a Marxist, you have to automatically be pro-Lenin? Well I know plenty of Marxists who would disagree with that thinking.

[tir1944]

No,but you can be a "Marxist" without even being "pro-Marx",so to speak.:laugh:

[Mac]

Sorry mate,but "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.
Lenin did not in any way like Stalin's extreme authoritarian beliefs, but he realized he was important for certain things.

[tir1944]

Lenin did not in any way like Stalin's extreme authoritarian beliefs
Did Lenin really speak of Stalin's "extreme authoritarian beliefs"?

[Mac]

No, but he warned a few other people or something like that. My memory's a bit shady, I think it was in a documentary. Look on youtube.

[tir1944]

Look on youtube. I typed in "Lenin Stalin authoritarian beliefs" but didn't get anything.:p
You should try to provide actual sources.It can greatly improve the discussion...

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx-Leninism does work;just look at Cuba!:cubaflag:Free health-care;freedom of religion;women were given equal rights off the bat when Castro took over!How can you argue with that?!In the same way that one can argue with capitalism in general.

In any case, 'Marxism-Leninism' and 'Stalinism' are essentially two different names for the same thing.


OK,let's get the story straight;Lenin could be a little strict,but compared to Stalin,he's a softy.Generally speaking, somebody being 'Anti-Leninist' does not mean that they think that Lenin was a bad person, or elevate 'great men' over history in general. What it can mean varies; for example, some would argue that the Bolsheviks during Lenin's time were responsible for furthering the development of capitalism in Russia, rather than locating the development of capitalism only in or after Stalin's reign, while others may use it to refer to an opposition to such nebulous concepts as 'vanguardism' and, indeed, 'Leninism' as a purported body of theory.

[tir1944]

What it can mean varies; for example, some would argue that the Bolsheviks during Lenin's time were responsible for furthering the development of capitalism in Russia
Yes,but at the same time that furthered the development of Socialism even further.
If one can't understand this rudimentary dialectics he/she should reconsider his/her "Marxism"...

[Mac]

I had assumed it was pretty common knowledge Lenin was not as authoritarian as Stalin. Apparently not.

[tir1944]

I had assumed it was pretty common knowledge Lenin was not as authoritarian as Stalin. Apparently not.
Common knowledge is a pretty "slippery" area,isn't it?
For example,in some parts of the world the idea that Africa is country might as well be seen as "common knowledge" ...:laugh:

[Die Rote Fahne]

Actually, Maoism is a branch of Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism is a different branch of Leninism (Bolshevik-Leninism).

Semantics. Bolshevist-Leninist isn't even a term.

[Commissar Rykov]

Semantics. Bolshevist-Leninist isn't even a term.
It is a term that was coined by Trotsky and the Left Opposition.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I typed in "Lenin Stalin authoritarian beliefs" but didn't get anything.:p
You should try to provide actual sources.It can greatly improve the discussion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament

Lenin didn't really care for any of the Bolshevik Leaders, but he had a special disdain for Stalin, and wanted him removed from office.

[Nox]

Semantics. Bolshevist-Leninist isn't even a term.

There are two branches of Leninism:

- Trotskyism
- Marxism-Leninism

and Maoism is a branch of Marxism-Leninism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes,but at the same time that furthered the development of Socialism even further.
If one can't understand this rudimentary dialectics he/she should reconsider his/her "Marxism"...
In the sense that developed capitalism necessarily leads to its own negation, perhaps, but probably not in any sense in which you would mean it. In either case, it still wouldn't make the founding fathers a socialist force. In any case, a fair few people who would refer to themselves as anti-Leninists are anarchists, such as the SPGB, although there is perhaps a higher proportion of Marxists there than amongst Marxist-Leninists.

[Rooster]

OK,there's appearently some people out there who are "anti-Lenin".They say that Vladmir Lenin was a tyrant,and such.They claim to be Marxists,and they are,but they sound kinda crazy.

That's a good argument. They don't agree with Leninist doctrine so they must be crazy.


It can be traced back to the very start of the Bolsheviek revolution,with many Marxists saying that he supported authoritarianism,and said that the New Economic Policy was capitalistic.Nowadays,the Socialist Party of Great Britian is the leader in the anti-Leninsitic(I hope I got that right) school of thought.

The NEP was capitalistic.


OK,let's get the story straight;Lenin could be a little strict,but compared to Stalin,he's a softy.(And that's a good thing)!Marx-Leninism does work;just look at Cuba!:cubaflag:Free health-care;freedom of religion;women were given equal rights off the bat when Castro took over!How can you argue with that?!

Marxism-Leninism was just the ideology of the ruling strata of the state and was used to justify whatever they said. But anyway, wow, great, they're social democrats. All ML societies were class societies with little to no working class control (except through some legalistic mumbo jumbo that could be used to say that any European state with health care and equal rights is socialistic).

[kid communist]

Sorry mate,but "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.
Got any proof?

[Rocky Rococo]

Marx was quite clear that he was not a "Marxist".

[Rocky Rococo]

The source for this is generally referred to as "Lenin's Testament":


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split, and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky, it is not a detail, or it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

Lenin, 25 December 1922

[Source: Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 36 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966), pp. 594-596.]

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx was quite clear that he was not a "Marxist".Marx probably didn't mean what you think he meant. Engels certainly didn't think so.

[kid communist]

That's a good argument. They don't agree with Leninist doctrine so they must be crazy.



The NEP was capitalistic.



Marxism-Leninism was just the ideology of the ruling strata of the state and was used to justify whatever they said. But anyway, wow, great, they're social democrats. All ML societies were class societies with little to no working class control (except through some legalistic mumbo jumbo that could be used to say that any European state with health care and equal rights is socialistic).

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:

[kid communist]

That's a good argument. They don't agree with Leninist doctrine so they must be crazy.



The NEP was capitalistic.



Marxism-Leninism was just the ideology of the ruling strata of the state and was used to justify whatever they said. But anyway, wow, great, they're social democrats. All ML societies were class societies with little to no working class control (except through some legalistic mumbo jumbo that could be used to say that any European state with health care and equal rights is socialistic).

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:

[Susurrus]

Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.

lolwut

[CleverTitle]

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:

I... I don't even know what's happening here anymore.

[Mac]

I'm sure more people would agree Lenin was less authoritarian than Stalin. Are you by any chance an anarchist, tir? Did Lenin ever order the murder of his own citizens? Did he cause any famines? Seriously, arguing with you is like arguing with a conspiracy theorist.

[Manic Impressive]

In any case, a fair few people who would refer to themselves as anti-Leninists are anarchists, such as the SPGB, although there is perhaps a higher proportion of Marxists there than amongst Marxist-Leninists.
please stop calling the SPGB anarchists, it's highly misleading for those who don't know any better. The party do not consider themselves anarchists (although individual members do) and neither would 99% of anarchists.

[Susurrus]

I'm sure more people would agree Lenin was less authoritarian than Stalin.
Still authoritarian.


Are you by any chance an anarchist, tir?

I loled so hard at this.


Did Lenin ever order the murder of his own citizens?
Yes.
"The nearer we come to the full military suppression of the bourgeoisie, the more dangerous becomes to us the high flood of petty-bourgeois Anarchism. And the struggle against these elements cannot be waged with propaganda and agitation alone. … The struggle must also be waged by applying force and compulsion."

"It is stupid to tolerate "Nikola;" all Chekists have to be on alert to shoot anyone who doesn't turn up to work because of "Nikola."
Nikola=St. Nicholas's day.

[Le Socialiste]

You are aware that Cuba has been steadily introducing various privatization policies over the years, right?

I could go further, but I don't feel like sounding like a broken record.

[Commissar Rykov]

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:
This thread was rather boring but this made me giggle. Excellent trolling.

[Magón]

Got any proof?

Uh? Stalin himself, maybe. He's the one who coined the term, Marxist-Leninism, which all who opposed MLism, started calling it Stalinism. And now some ML's call themselves Stalinists too.

[thefinalmarch]

^I literally just answered this question in another thread, fuck.



Indoctrinated? Tell me Agent Equality, how much do you know about Marxism-Leninism.
The ideological current known as "Marxism-Leninism" was largely just pulled right out of Stalin's arse. "Marxism-Leninism" -- originally termed simply "Leninism" by Stalin in The Foundations of Leninism (1924) -- didn't exist as a concrete ideology until the year of publication of that book in which Stalin's ideology was outlined. Over the years it was developed further and came to be known as "Marxism-Leninism", probably in order to give it some sort of legitimacy or historical precedent by claiming it to be the intellectual heir of true Marxism, or when it was claimed to be perfectly true to Lenin's own ideology (which is what was claimed by the communist party).


Here's a fact: Leninism as a set of theories has nothing to do with Stalin or seizing power away from the proletariat through force. Nothing.
The term "Marxism-Leninism" is not a synonym for Lenin's own ideology, which you subscribe to. The term "Marxism-Leninism" must be understood in its historical context (as described above) as a synonym for what came to be known by Trotskyists/"Bolshevik-Leninists", Left Communists, "Luxemburgists", and Anarchists as "Stalinism". Therefore calling yourself a "Marxist-Leninist" whilst also rejecting Stalin doesn't make any sense.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:
WHAT did I just read

[GatesofLenin]

Lenin did not in any way like Stalin's extreme authoritarian beliefs, but he realized he was important for certain things.

I remember reading in the book 'Young Stalin', Stalin robbed rich merchants early in the 1900's to finance the Bolshevik party.

[Agent Equality]

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:

This made me giggle :laugh:

[RedMarxist]

Marx-Leninism does work;just look at Cuba!:cubaflag:Free health-care;freedom of religion;women were given equal rights off the bat when Castro took over!How can you argue with that?! I'll reprint an earlier post from the A question about my political views thread.



What "failed" was the Communist Party taking power and forming a single-party state detrimental to the interest of the proletariat.

Because of Lenin's unjust actions, Just about every single Communist Party waging a revolution would use Lenin's excuses as their own, to justify forming single party states in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.Sure, one could argue Cuba is a successful model for Socialism, in fact it is considered by many to be the poster boy for Socialism in a post USSR world.

But it's authoritarian Socialism. It comes with all the benefits of full blown Socialism-free health care, free education, etc. but guess what?

Only one party rules, and what that party says is the rule of the land. Castro was using the actions of oh-so-many Communists to justify replacing a dictatorship with another dictatorship. It all can be traced back to the actions of the "old Lenin," the undemocratic, single-party advocate Lenin. If you read 1901-02's What is to Be Done? "Young Lenin" talks exclusively about democracy, working alongside the proletariat, using the party as a platform to wage a democratic Socialist revolution.

So yes, I can argue with it.


The NEP was capitalisticThe NEP was also a strategic economic retreat from revolutionary Socialism.

People who whine that the Soviet Union was state Capitalist don't realize that it was so simply out of necessity. The Bolshevik's salvation-European-wide revolution-failed miserably in all countries that they were attempted in. They had no choice but to make a retreat from actual, authoritarianSocialism, if only for a time until some breather came along.

Kid Communist, its obvious that you are really just a kid. A kid interested in Leninist thought(and Yes I know the difference between Lenin's theories and Stalin's twisted version of them!). You do what one would naturally do at such an age:

You don't understand what Leninism is, so in your attempt to justify it without actually studying your idealism shines through.

It took me several thousand pages of books(many still in progress) to read before I understood both Leninism and the 20th century world Communist movement. Their failures and successes.

You've got a lot to learn.

Oh and this:


Lenin could be a little strict

yes... a "little" strict. I suggest you read up on him more. Just do it.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Kid Communist, its obvious that you are really just a kid. A kid interested in Leninist thought(and Yes I know the difference between Lenin's theories and Stalin's twisted version of them!). You do what one would naturally do at such an age:

Ageism is not cool bro.

[RedMarxist]

I was just assuming he was young, by what he said and his username. Sorry if offended anybody.

[The Idler]

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:
Anarcho-communists would probably say their theoretical principles are incompatible and even opposed to the principles of Leninist theory.
Since anarcho-communists (and other left anti-Leninists) don't agree with Leninism, they don't support it.
It might sound open-minded to be an anarcho-communist and support moderate Leninism but read some more into it.
H.6 Why did the Russian Revolution fail? | Anarchist Writers (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html)

Appendix - The Russian Revolution | Anarchist Writers (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html)

[thefinalmarch]

Ageism is not cool bro.
the funny thing here is that redmarxist is also like 14 or something, so being ageist is kinda self-defeating for him

[RedMarxist]

the funny thing here is that redmarxist is also like 14 or something, so being ageist is kinda self-defeating for him

I'm almost 18 thank you very much. Ageism much?

I read that Anarchist writer's article and agree with a lot of it.

[thefinalmarch]

I'm almost 18 thank you very much. Ageism much?
If I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, the quality of some of your posts tends not to reflect that.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm almost 18 thank you very much. Ageism much?
Well, that depends. If they were guessing from your posts concerning your academic life, then that's not ageism. If it's an assumption based only upon your general manner of posting, however, then it would indeed seem to betray a prejudice against young teenagers.

[m-l Power]

Nowadays it´s impossible to be a marxist if you aren´t leninist too, because the leninism is the marxism of today, of the present age of the capitalism, in other words, the imperialism, the ultimate phase of it.

[Art Vandelay]

Kid Communist, its obvious that you are really just a kid. A kid interested in Leninist thought(and Yes I know the difference between Lenin's theories and Stalin's twisted version of them!). You do what one would naturally do at such an age:

You don't understand what Leninism is, so in your attempt to justify it without actually studying your idealism shines through.

It took me several thousand pages of books(many still in progress) to read before I understood both Leninism and the 20th century world Communist movement. Their failures and successes.

You've got a lot to learn.

Sorry redmarxist but the only person it sounds like your talking about right now is yourself.

[Art Vandelay]

Nowadays it´s impossible to be a marxist if you aren´t leninist too, because the leninism is the marxism of today, of the present age of the capitalism, in other words, the imperialism, the ultimate phase of it.

:rolleyes: Really? Sorry but if you think that capitalism is still in that "highest stage of imperialism" that Lenin described then your out to lunch. Parroting deceased communist leaders does not count as analysis.

[ZeroNowhere]

Nowadays it´s impossible to be a marxist if you aren´t leninist too, because the leninism is the marxism of today, of the present age of the capitalism, in other words, the imperialism, the ultimate phase of it.
This could make sense if 'Leninism' were a coherent framework of thought based on an original analysis of the nature of imperialism and the divergences this necessitates in Marxist theory.

That is to say, it doesn't.

[Susurrus]

The NEP was also a strategic economic retreat from revolutionary Socialism.

People who whine that the Soviet Union was state Capitalist don't realize that it was so simply out of necessity. The Bolshevik's salvation-European-wide revolution-failed miserably in all countries that they were attempted in. They had no choice but to make a retreat from actual, authoritarianSocialism, if only for a time until some breather came along.


The NEP is not why the USSR under Lenin was state capitalist. It was because the people did not have control over the means of production, the party did after seizing the soviets. Authoritarian socialism=contradiction, socialism cannot be imposed from the top down.

[Revolutionair]

Nowadays it´s impossible to be a marxist if you aren´t leninist too, because the leninism is the marxism of today, of the present age of the capitalism, in other words, the imperialism, the ultimate phase of it.

I heavily disagree. I think that for the first time since the end of the first World War, leftist anti-Leninism can be a force on its own. With the end of the Soviet Union to support Marxist-Leninist guerilla groups and with that comes also the end of the ideological supremacy of Leninism.

The current stage of capitalism differs heavily from the conditions that enable a Leninist movement to succeed. In my country, over 76% of the population has a job in the tertiary sector of the economy. The classical Leninist movement rests mainly on the farmers/factory workers. So either a Leninist revolution IS Marxist and 24% is the majority (a communist revolution is the revolution of the majority) or you need a new non-Leninist left.

[RedMarxist]

Ah, there are other Communists out there, you know that right m-l power?

Now I feel a little pissed. I have never been of the opinion that one NEED to be a Leninist. I don't care what one becomes during their revolutionary career. But to make such a dumb comment...no comment.

[Zanthorus]

Has anyone pointed out yet that the original post doesn't actually ask any questions, merely make statements about 'anti-Leninists'? Which is anyway a nebulous way of classfying political groups if ever there was one. As just one example, the SPGB, the reference to which is the only citation provided to support the OP's characterisation, has in the past referred to both the ICC and the ICT as 'Leninist' groups for failing to uphold the SPGB view of the way in which the working-class is supposed to acquire consciousness of it's condition. In fact, the SPGB's understanding of what constitutes Leninism would have a good proportion of the ultra-left from Loren Goldner to Internationalist Perpsectives and running through to Theorie Communiste pegged as secret Gulag advocates.

It's also probably not a brilliant idea to villify 'Stalinism' and then glorify a state which has survived in the past through Soviet support.

[Obs]

OK,some forms of Marx-Leninism can be totalitarian,but not all forms.


Didn't I say that Marx-Leninism has a few glitches?


Actually,I'm an Anarcho-Communist,so that whole "no working class control" stuff don't mean a damn thing.I'm just expressing my frustration with anti-Leninism,and my support for moderate Marx-Leninism.:che:

I'm not sure you know what any of those words mean, son.

[Rafiq]

Ageism is not cool bro.

Especially since RedMarxist completely lacks connection with real Marxist thinking and basically just plays the old talk-out-of-your-ass moralist game.

Red Marxist, I would guess that you are younger than that kid, to be honest.

[Rafiq]

But it's authoritarian Socialism. It comes with all the benefits of full blown Socialism-free health care, free education, etc. but guess what?

Jesus christ, do you really call yourself a Leninist? 'Full Blown Socialism" doesn't fucking exist. And guess what, Cuba runs the capitalist mode of production so what is with your accusations of "authoritarian" socialism. Hell even Anarchists like Bakunin were in favor of "Authoritarian" socialism (but not openly). Authoritarianism is completely necessary and vital to the survival of the revolutoin. The class enemy must be purged and terrorized in order to instill the new order of life and to secure the proletariat in a position of class dictatorship and silence all those who oppose. Revolution isn't fun, it's not pleasant. It's very 'Harsh".

So stop your bullshit, please.



Only one party rules, and what that party says is the rule of the land. Castro was using the actions of oh-so-many Communists to justify replacing a dictatorship with another dictatorship. It all can be traced back to the actions of the "old Lenin," the undemocratic, single-party advocate Lenin. If you read 1901-02's What is to Be Done? "Young Lenin" talks exclusively about democracy, working alongside the proletariat, using the party as a platform to wage a democratic Socialist revolution.

This is bullshit. You accuse another user of Idealism yet you are criticizing Cuba on the basis that "Hur dur no democracy". And shut your mouth about "democracy", please. Democracy is not the main goal of the proletariat. The goal of the proletariat is our class emancipation and crushing the class enemy and effectively reaching class dictatorship. Stop using Bourgeois rhetoric as some kind of means to make Socialism look appealing.


The NEP was also a strategic economic retreat from revolutionary Socialism.

The NEP was a complete necessaty, being that the German revolution failed and Russia was isolated and war-torn, left no choice but to "Sync in" with the world market. The revolution in Russia slowly degenerated and eventually became normal Capitalism (Not State Capitalism). Lenin wasn't an asshole for no reason, and neither was Stalin.

[tir1944]

'Full Blown Socialism" doesn't fucking exist.Actually,RedMarxist has a point here.
The CPSU ideologues created theories about different "stages" of socialism in regards to general development...


Democracy is not the main goal of the proletariat.
Eh you know Lenin said that democracy is indispensable to socialism?

[Old Man Diogenes]

OK,there's appearently some people out there who are "anti-Lenin".They say that Vladmir Lenin was a tyrant,and such.They claim to be Marxists,and they are,but they sound kinda crazy.

It can be traced back to the very start of the Bolsheviek revolution,with many Marxists saying that he supported authoritarianism,and said that the New Economic Policy was capitalistic.Nowadays,the Socialist Party of Great Britian is the leader in the anti-Leninsitic(I hope I got that right) school of thought.

OK,let's get the story straight;Lenin could be a little strict,but compared to Stalin,he's a softy.(And that's a good thing)!Marx-Leninism does work;just look at Cuba!:cubaflag:Free health-care;freedom of religion;women were given equal rights off the bat when Castro took over!How can you argue with that?!

So maybe Lenin made some slight errors;oh well,nobody's perfect.Did these people look at what Stalinism is?Now that guy was not right.I'm sorry if I offended any anti-Leninists on this forum.

This sounds like a troll trying to start a tendency war.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Eh you know Lenin said that democracy is indispensable to socialism?I guess Stalin missed that one. :D

[tir1944]

I guess Stalin missed that one. :DI'm sure he didn't.
Also
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%20Furr/stalin_1.htm
Also 1936 USSR Constitution

[Rafiq]

Actually,RedMarxist has a point here.
The CPSU ideologues created theories about different "stages" of socialism in regards to general development...

Yes, they did. However, being that the Soviet Union was a degenerating shit hole I don't think the CPSU at the time was in any position to talk about "The different stages of socialism" when in fact they couldn't even surpass the capitalist mode of production.



Eh you know Lenin said that democracy is indispensable to socialism?

Yes but these slogans and shouts for "democracy" in our current times are nothing more than Bourgeois-Liberalism

[tir1944]

How and in what way was it a "degenerating shit hole"?
By what criteria?
Also you sure that the USSR never managed to surpass the capitalist mode of producation? What are you basing this on?



Yes but these slogans and shouts for "democracy" in our current times are nothing more than Bourgeois-Liberalism
According to you...

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm sure he didn't.
Also
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%20Furr/stalin_1.htm
Also 1936 USSR Constitution

...democratic Stalinism. Hilarious.

[Rafiq]

How and in what way was it a "degenerating shit hole"?
By what criteria?
Also you sure that the USSR never managed to surpass the capitalist mode of producation? What are you basing this on?

I knew people who lived in the USSR.


Yes, I'm positive. And this is from a scientific analysis, not, you know, saying "Blah Blah State capitalism".



According to you...

You don't get out much.

'Democracy' is a code word for Liberal capitalism.

[tir1944]

I knew people who lived in the USSR. Me too.Your point?



And this is from a scientific analysis, not, you know, saying "Blah Blah State capitalism". And isn't this exactly what you're doing right now?
Please link to this analysis.


...democratic Stalinism. Hilarious. Har har har.


'Democracy' is a code word for Liberal capitalism.
What?

[Art Vandelay]

What?

I think it is pretty clear what he is trying to say and if you have troubles understanding it says something about your comprehension skills. In today's society democracy has become to be known as intrinsically linked to capitalism and ultimately when you ask an average person what democracy is there response would be a form of liberal capitalism. What he is trying to make clear is that when revolutionaries call for democracy it is generally in an attempt to make our views more accessible to the average person, but whitewashes what a revolutionary time is all about. In his opinion, it is not about full blown democracy or whatever meaningless term RM gave it, but actually about one class exerting its force over another.

[ZeroNowhere]

This sounds like a troll trying to start a tendency war.
That's what most Revlefters sound like, though.

[Commissar Rykov]

Democracy just means typical Neoliberalism in fact it is rather disturbing as when you claim something was capitalist but not democratic like Pinochet's Chile you get people screaming you need Bourgeois Democracy in order to have Capitalism. It is really perfect how well the Bourgeoisie have made economic "freedom" mean "political freedom."

[Rafiq]

Me too.Your point?

It was kind of - a pretty bad place to live in- .


And isn't this exactly what you're doing right now?
Please link to this analysis.

http://libcom.org/files/Chattopadhyay,%20Paresh%20-%20The%20Marxian%20Concept%20of%20Capital%20and%20 the%20Soviet%20Experience.pdf

[RedHeathen]

Lenin's policies were largely admirable in many ways. However, they failed to create a state that truly embodied the will of the people, and in the end his government failed. It failed because the USSR became a police state with hopeless bureaucratic inefficiencies. While these are not Lenin's doing, he failed to establish a state that prevented them from developing. In addition, as has been argued by many in the past, Russia was not truly ready for Socialist revolution. Quite simply, it was feudal prior to its revolution and capitalism had not developed to an extent at which Socialist revolution was truly possible. That said, I know Lenin's government provided an enormous improvement into the lives of almost all Russians. However, one must look at Russia since then to determine the success of the Russian revolution and the subsequent Bolshevik takeover.

[Tim Finnegan]

OK,there's appearently some people out there who are "anti-Lenin".They say that Vladmir Lenin was a tyrant,and such.They claim to be Marxists,and they are,but they sound kinda crazy.

It can be traced back to the very start of the Bolsheviek revolution,with many Marxists saying that he supported authoritarianism,and said that the New Economic Policy was capitalistic.Nowadays,the Socialist Party of Great Britian is the leader in the anti-Leninsitic(I hope I got that right) school of thought.
The SPGB has never been the leader of anything ever. They're persistent, I'll give them that, but they have even less relevent today than they did as a forgettable and unhelpful sect ninety years ago. You won't find any history of British socialism that gives them much more than a passing mention, even one specifically focusing on British anti-Leninist socialism (http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Communist-Left-1914-45-Revolutionary/dp/1897980116).

[Agent Equality]

Jesus christ, do you really call yourself a Leninist? 'Full Blown Socialism" doesn't fucking exist. And guess what, Cuba runs the capitalist mode of production so what is with your accusations of "authoritarian" socialism. Hell even Anarchists like Bakunin were in favor of "Authoritarian" socialism (but not openly). Authoritarianism is completely necessary and vital to the survival of the revolutoin. The class enemy must be purged and terrorized in order to instill the new order of life and to secure the proletariat in a position of class dictatorship and silence all those who oppose. Revolution isn't fun, it's not pleasant. It's very 'Harsh".

So stop your bullshit, please.




This is bullshit. You accuse another user of Idealism yet you are criticizing Cuba on the basis that "Hur dur no democracy". And shut your mouth about "democracy", please. Democracy is not the main goal of the proletariat. The goal of the proletariat is our class emancipation and crushing the class enemy and effectively reaching class dictatorship. Stop using Bourgeois rhetoric as some kind of means to make Socialism look appealing.



The NEP was a complete necessaty, being that the German revolution failed and Russia was isolated and war-torn, left no choice but to "Sync in" with the world market. The revolution in Russia slowly degenerated and eventually became normal Capitalism (Not State Capitalism). Lenin wasn't an asshole for no reason, and neither was Stalin.

I'm pretty sure the end goal is the elimination of classes and hierarchy, not a reverse form of classes and hierarchy. No matter how much we may despise the bourgeois they are still people and while it may be necessary to repress them from trying to form a counter revolution for a while, it is not the end goal we should want. It would simply be they are stripped of their status, wealth, class title, and reeducated and those that resisted would have a more intense program. I for one am not in favor of more gulags as they accomplish nothing because they ALWAYS get out of hand. Authoritarianism is not necessary. Swift action, organization, and education is.

It should be our goal as leftists to try and make a better world for all people in the endgame, not just a select group (although that may prove to be necessary at one point of another). The class war should be fought for the sake of peace, not for the sake of war itself.

[Zanthorus]

You won't find any history of British socialism that gives them much more than a passing mention, even one specifically focusing on British anti-Leninist socialism (http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Communist-Left-1914-45-Revolutionary/dp/1897980116).

To be fair, that book is published by the ICC, and is explicitly not a history of the 'anti-Leninist' left in Britain, but the groups in Britain which could reasonably come under the slightly vague banner of the Communist Left (Which the SPGB doesn't for various reasons which are obvious enough to anyone who cares about the subject to not recquire repeating). It's doesn't really say much that they aren't mentioned.

[thriller]

"If anything is certain, it is that I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx. Many communists do not like Lenin, Stalin, or any idea that adheres to the teachings of one single person.

[ZeroNowhere]

"If anything is certain, it is that I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx. Many communists do not like Lenin, Stalin, or any idea that adheres to the teachings of one single person.
Doesn't mean what you think it means, etc. I swear, if Marx had gone up to a Trot group, observed their theoretical works, and commented that, 'If that's what Marx said, I would have to express my profound disagreement with this Mr. Marx', people would be using it to argue that Marx thought that volume III of Capital was inconsistent with volume I or some such rubbish.

[Rafiq]

Lenin's policies were largely admirable in many ways. However, they failed to create a state that truly embodied the will of the people, and in the end his government failed. It failed because the USSR became a police state with hopeless bureaucratic inefficiencies. While these are not Lenin's doing, he failed to establish a state that prevented them from developing. In addition, as has been argued by many in the past, Russia was not truly ready for Socialist revolution. Quite simply, it was feudal prior to its revolution and capitalism had not developed to an extent at which Socialist revolution was truly possible. That said, I know Lenin's government provided an enormous improvement into the lives of almost all Russians. However, one must look at Russia since then to determine the success of the Russian revolution and the subsequent Bolshevik takeover.

You point out the obvious (excluding your bourgeois moralidt rhetoric). The question is not whether it failed. The question is why.

[Thirsty Crow]

In addition, as has been argued by many in the past, Russia was not truly ready for Socialist revolution. Quite simply, it was feudal prior to its revolution and capitalism had not developed to an extent at which Socialist revolution was truly possible.
I apologize for what will sound crass, but this is rehashed socialdemocrat rhetoric, and by that I'm referring to the government social democrats, directly participating in the management of the imperialist slaughter (WWI), and their "theoretical" base, in "renegade" Kautsky. All in all, this viewpoint is hopelessly nationalist, in that it construes proletarian revolution as a purely national affair (disregarding what the Bolsheviks recognized as the vital necessity for Russian workers - first of all, the revolution in Germany - no wonder why socialdemocrats would adopt an opposite position! - and a general international spreadout of workers' taking political power, as a class). What Russian working class did prove, on the other hand, is that a such crude stageism (applying the rigid scheme of the successive modes of production to all of the social formations in existence) is incapable of grasping the revolutiuonary tasks arising from concrete historical developments. Indeed, I don't think it's meaningful to conclude that the Russian working class was not ready to take political power, to smash the bourgeois state.

[RedHeathen]

I apologize for what will sound crass, but this is rehashed socialdemocrat rhetoric, and by that I'm referring to the government social democrats, directly participating in the management of the imperialist slaughter (WWI), and their "theoretical" base, in "renegade" Kautsky. All in all, this viewpoint is hopelessly nationalist, in that it construes proletarian revolution as a purely national affair (disregarding what the Bolsheviks recognized as the vital necessity for Russian workers - first of all, the revolution in Germany - no wonder why socialdemocrats would adopt an opposite position! - and a general international spreadout of workers' taking political power, as a class). What Russian working class did prove, on the other hand, is that a such crude stageism (applying the rigid scheme of the successive modes of production to all of the social formations in existence) is incapable of grasping the revolutiuonary tasks arising from concrete historical developments. Indeed, I don't think it's meaningful to conclude that the Russian working class was not ready to take political power, to smash the bourgeois state.
I'm not sure how what I've said is nationalist or social-democratic in any way. I by no means meant to suggest that the underdevelopment of Russian class relationships was purely limited to Russia, but to suggest that there is no difference in class relationships from one country to the next is, quite frankly, wrong. Accusing me of nationalism and social democracy is again, wrong. Simply acknowledging a point the social democrats made does not make one a social democrat. Neither did I suggest that a rigid "stageist" sense of development was what prevented a completely successful Socialist revolution. I merely meant to suggest that a major cause of many of the USSR's failures was that it began with very little urban industry, and almost no history of industrial class relations necessary for the urban proletariat to truly gain class consciousnuss. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that a major reason for the failings of Lenin's government was, in fact, the lack of development of international capitalism and its respective class relations. In the early twentieth century, capitalism was definitely exploiting the world's working classes, but it had not yet reached the point at which those classes gained a thorough, widespread, indisputable class consciousness. Comrades, the revolution must begin in the most developed regions of the world. Only from there can it spread and Socialism can take root globally. We should not and can not look at Lenin's government as the Socialist ideal for our own time, simply by the obvious fact that it failed. I have previously asserted that the root cause of this failure was the underdevelopment of both global capitalist class relations and their underdevelopment in Russia itself. Thus, it is only once capitalist labor relations themselves have become obsolete and inefficient to the point at which they no longer apply to the material forces of production that Socialist revolution can occur.

[RedHeathen]

You point out the obvious (excluding your bourgeois moralidt rhetoric). The question is not whether it failed. The question is why.
I have answered why.

[Tim Finnegan]

To be fair, that book is published by the ICC, and is explicitly not a history of the 'anti-Leninist' left in Britain, but the groups in Britain which could reasonably come under the slightly vague banner of the Communist Left (Which the SPGB doesn't for various reasons which are obvious enough to anyone who cares about the subject to not recquire repeating). It's doesn't really say much that they aren't mentioned.
Fair point, although I should clarify that they aren't simply not mentioned in the book, but that they adressed briefly as having been entirely peripheral to both the centre and left wings of British socialism during the 1914-1945 period, which, given that they've only declined since, seems incosistent with the OP's belief that they represent any sort of leading organisation in any tendency whatsoever. But, as you say, my original comment was misrepresenting things somewhat.

[Rafiq]

I have answered why.

No, you have not.

Russia was ready for a socialist revolution. The material conditions in place in Russia were perfect, as was the October revolution.

The problem was that it did not spread, specifically, to germany.

[tir1944]

Also the revolution did spread,however it was defeated because it didn't have sufficient support from the German masses.

[Rafiq]

Also the revolution did spread,however it was defeated because it didn't have sufficient support from the German masses.

Yes, that is what I meant

[tir1944]

Yes but that's an important detail,not a semantical question.:)
I'd say that Hungary was actually the "most revolutionary" country at that time (besides Russia of course),but the HSR too got,unfortunately,defeated.

[Rafiq]

^ But the biggest importance was for it to spread to the industrialized countries.

[tir1944]

Indeed,that was very important,but since that didn't happen the first priority became the building of socialism in one country...

[OHumanista]

No trolling here just an observation.
I think people need to start reading more on soviet accounts on Lenin before placing him on the same wagon as Stalin.(because some only read social democratic views from the other side of europe without even reading a text from a single bolshevik, not the case with all but definitely true with some people I met)
The communist party after Stalin can hardly be called bolshevik or leninist(personal isms suck btw) for that matter.

[RedHeathen]

Also the revolution did spread,however it was defeated because it didn't have sufficient support from the German masses.
Simply the fact that it did not receive popular support is evidence that Germany was not ready. The people must start the revolution themselves, it cannot simply "spread" to them and be adopted.

[thefinalmarch]

No, you have not.

Russia was ready for a socialist revolution. The material conditions in place in Russia were perfect, as was the October revolution.

The problem was that it did not spread, specifically, to germany.
how exactly does this view account for soviet russia and the later soviet union being capitalist states?

I mean, what exactly was it about the specific problem you mentioned that prevented the overthrow of capitalism?

[The Idler]

Fair point, although I should clarify that they aren't simply not mentioned in the book, but that they adressed briefly as having been entirely peripheral to both the centre and left wings of British socialism during the 1914-1945 period, which, given that they've only declined since, seems incosistent with the OP's belief that they represent any sort of leading organisation in any tendency whatsoever. But, as you say, my original comment was misrepresenting things somewhat.
There's a good audio talk about the bias of these books at archive.org
The Historical Place of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.archive.org/details/TheHistoricalPlaceOfTheSocialistPartyOfGreatBritai n)

[robbo203]

No, you have not.

Russia was ready for a socialist revolution. The material conditions in place in Russia were perfect, as was the October revolution.

The problem was that it did not spread, specifically, to germany.


Absolute idealist nonsense. How could a devastated shattered economy represent the perfect material conditions from which a socialist society could arise? That is even assuming you could have "socialism in one country" which you can't.


Apart from which there was simply not the mass support for socialism (without which you cannot have it). Lenin himself - since we are talking about Lenin - was absolutely clear on the subject. In 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). Even after the October revolution, in an addresss to trade unionists in June 1918 Lenin pointed out "there are many...who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists (Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 466). And in another speech, this time at the Second All-Russia Congress Of Commissars For Labour May 22, 1918 he frankly admitted "We know how small is the section of advanced and politically conscious workers in Russia".

This, of course, was precisely Lenin's pretext for his vanguard party supposedly drawn from this small and politically advanced section of the working class; the great majority of workers and peasants, in his estimation, were not yet imbued with a socialist consciousness and so the vanguard had to take power and act on their behalf. History has demonstrated this to be the politically disastrous theory it turned out to be . It led not to socialism but state capitalism and the institutionalisation of a dictatorship over the proletariat in whose interests it was purportedly administered

[Rafiq]

Absolute idealist nonsense. How could a devastated shattered economy represent the perfect material conditions from which a socialist society could arise? That is even assuming you could have "socialism in one country" which you can't.


Apart from which there was simply not the mass support for socialism (without which you cannot have it). Lenin himself - since we are talking about Lenin - was absolutely clear on the subject. In 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). Even after the October revolution, in an addresss to trade unionists in June 1918 Lenin pointed out "there are many...who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists (Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 466). And in another speech, this time at the Second All-Russia Congress Of Commissars For Labour May 22, 1918 he frankly admitted "We know how small is the section of advanced and politically conscious workers in Russia".

This, of course, was precisely Lenin's pretext for his vanguard party supposedly drawn from this small and politically advanced section of the working class; the great majority of workers and peasants, in his estimation, were not yet imbued with a socialist consciousness and so the vanguard had to take power and act on their behalf. History has demonstrated this to be the politically disastrous theory it turned out to be . It led not to socialism but state capitalism and the institutionalisation of a dictatorship over the proletariat in whose interests it was purportedly administered


Yeah, that's about enough. Russia was ready for a revolution, perhaps not a complete proletarian revolution.