Pro-Lenin?

[kid communist]

On my last thread,I argued with all the anti-Lenin people on this forum.Now it's time for the Leninists o get pissed off.

Look,Lenin was a statist,and even invaded the Free Territory of Ukraine.:(Not cool.It's also Utopian socialism,and we all know how Marx felt about that.:thumbdown: OK,I support the whole social aspect of Marx-Leninism,but the whole secret police thing?Tisk-tisk.That's what you get if it's a political revolution only.And the command economy is a good idea at first,but a proper syndicalist economy,with occasional gift economy tendencies is what needs to happen.

I'm just letting you all know what I think.Don't get too pissed off at me.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

He was an autocratic tyrant.

inb4 excuses about war conditions or the people being stupid.

[Commissar Rykov]

So why are you trolling both sides? Is there something I am missing? Other than you have too much time on your hands.

[Dogs On Acid]

The only reason the Soviet people "accepted" his socialistic authoritarianism is because they really didn't know much different. It was obviously better than the Czarist regime, and that was good enough for many workers.

[Azraella]

I didn't participate in your last thread but... I have something to say. I don't like dogmatism. I can set aside my differences long enough to work with people when I don't agree with their politics. These types of threads tend... to bring out the worst in people(looking at the anti-Lenin thread and examining similar threads here, while looking at my experience at other leftist websites) and can divert from the larger goal.

HOWEVER:

I want the values of the libertarian socialists to dominate the left, but that does not require us all to agree on a specific model of post-capitalist or otherwise society, such as parecon, anarchist-communism, or even plain old Marxism. And even those who agree on libertarian socialism may disagree on other topics. Particularly we may disagree about reformism vs. revolution, peaceful change or armed revolution, voting for bourgeois political candidates or rejecting electoralism, and other topics. I hope that my views come to dominate the left, but I'll never expect a "united left."

Just my two cents about the tendency war thing.

[Magón]

On my last thread,I argued with all the anti-Lenin people on this forum.

Uh? No you didn't. You made four posts (two of which were duplicates, and the other being the opening post of the thread,) and had no retort to the counter-claims people made against your one post that was:


Got any proof?

Your duplicate posts just showed your lack of understanding Marxist-Leninism, and had no argument in it, just a claim or two.

[Nox]

Although I disagree with much of Marxism-Leninism, I do sympathise with Lenin.

I think he genuinely did believe in achieving the world revolution, he genuinely believed Marxism-Leninism could get there, which is much more than can be said for any other Soviet leader.

He didn't live to see the failure of the revolution in Germany which was the end of any possibility of a world revolution, which you have to take into factor when comparing him to Stalin/Khrushchev/Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko/Gorbachev.

Yes, I memorised all the Soviet leaders. I have a fun life.

Lol
Stalin
Killed
Billions
And
Cannibalised
Grannies

[ZeroNowhere]

On my last thread,I argued with all the anti-Lenin people on this forum.Now it's time for the Leninists o get pissed off.
I'm not sure it's so much 'pissed off' as quietly amused.

[kid communist]

So why are you trolling both sides? Is there something I am missing? Other than you have too much time on your hands.

I'm not a Marx-Leninist,but I agree with some of the ideas that comes out of Marx-Leninism.You see,I'm against anti-Lenin people because they're communists fighting against other communists.I'm against hardline MLs because they're statists.That's just the anarchist in me.

I gave a critique about both sides,because it's stupid to have radicals fighting against each other;we're all socialists right?!It doesn't matter what we are:anarchists,libertarian socialists,communists,whatever you are,we shouldn't be fighting amonst ourselves.'Cuz that's just what the fascists want.

[Commissar Rykov]

I'm not a Marx-Leninist,but I agree with some of the ideas that comes out of Marx-Leninism.You see,I'm against anti-Lenin people because they're communists fighting against other communists.I'm against hardline MLs because they're statists.That's just the anarchist in me.

I gave a critique about both sides,because it's stupid to have radicals fighting against each other;we're all socialists right?!It doesn't matter what we are:anarchists,libertarian socialists,communists,whatever you are,we shouldn't be fighting amonst ourselves.'Cuz that's just what the fascists want.
So like in the last thread you have no clue what you are talking about. Thanks for clarifying.

[Magón]

I'm not a Marx-Leninist,but I agree with some of the ideas that comes out of Marx-Leninism.You see,I'm against anti-Lenin people because they're communists fighting against other communists.I'm against hardline MLs because they're statists.That's just the anarchist in me.

I gave a critique about both sides,because it's stupid to have radicals fighting against each other;we're all socialists right?!It doesn't matter what we are:anarchists,libertarian socialists,communists,whatever you are,we shouldn't be fighting amonst ourselves.'Cuz that's just what the fascists want.

All, and by "all" I mean absolutely every single man, woman, and teenager, who thinks/supports Marxist-Leninism (no matter the degree), is a Statist. There is no way a ML could not be a Statist, just like there's no way an Anarchist could be a Statist.

[Rooster]

You see,I'm against anti-Lenin people because they're communists fighting against other communists.

Wut? Are you saying that Marxist-Leninists don't fight against other communists?

[Conscript]

Maybe you should just lurk, OP?

[Art Vandelay]

First thread was anti-Lenin this thread is pro-Lenin, I am really thinking this is quite possibly a troll.

[Obs]

It's also Utopian socialism,
On what grounds do you base this claim?


and we all know how Marx felt about that.:thumbdown:
How Marx "felt" about anything is completely irrelevant. Marx wasn't a prophet, and his word is not sacred. Marxism is not a religion, and I really can't stress how unbelievably important it is that you understand this sooner rather than later.


That's what you get if it's a political revolution only.
What does this even mean? All class struggle is political struggle.


And the command economy is a good idea at first,but a proper syndicalist economy,with occasional gift economy tendencies is what needs to happen.
Command economy? I think you may be referring to a planned economy, which is pretty much universally agreed upon by Marxists as being not only good, but necessary. Gift economies need coordination and planning, too, y'know.

Now, we can disagree on the extent to which the Lenin-era Soviet planned economy resembled an actual socialist economy - some would argue that all economic decisions must be decided upon totally democratically, which was not the case in the Soviet union. My rebuttal would be that you can't hold a referendum every time Jeff needs a new pair of shoes.


I'm just letting you all know what I think.Don't get too pissed off at me.
Okay, look:

If you feel a need to finish your post with "don't get mad," think to yourself: "Why am I assuming people might get mad?" If the answer is that what you're saying is worded in an inflammatory way, that means you are to blame for people responding as though you're trolling. If not, reconsider the need for you to write it, as it only serves to make you look as if you're trying to be edgy. You're not edgy.


Edit: Also quit the smilies. They're inappropriate for serious discussion and make you look immature.

[Rusty Shackleford]

On my last thread,I argued with all the anti-Lenin people on this forum.Now it's time for the Leninists o get pissed off.

Look,Lenin was a statist,and even invaded the Free Territory of Ukraine.:(Not cool.It's also Utopian socialism,and we all know how Marx felt about that.:thumbdown: OK,I support the whole social aspect of Marx-Leninism,but the whole secret police thing?Tisk-tisk.That's what you get if it's a political revolution only.And the command economy is a good idea at first,but a proper syndicalist economy,with occasional gift economy tendencies is what needs to happen.

I'm just letting you all know what I think.Don't get too pissed off at me.

Marxism-Leninism is Utopian Socialism?

Please, back that claim up.

[Koba1917]

I think he genuinely did believe in achieving the world revolution, he genuinely believed Marxism-Leninism could get there, which is much more than can be said for any other Soviet leader.
'Leninism' didn't exist until after Lenin died. Any Marxist accepts World Revolution but the main dispute is how it's achieved and whatnot.


Anyways I'm pretty sure this kid is either ignorant of basic Marxist-Leninist ideas or just trolling.

[Threetune]

I'm not a Marx-Leninist,but I agree with some of the ideas that comes out of Marx-Leninism.You see,I'm against anti-Lenin people because they're communists fighting against other communists.I'm against hardline MLs because they're statists.That's just the anarchist in me.

I gave a critique about both sides,because it's stupid to have radicals fighting against each other;we're all socialists right?!It doesn't matter what we are:anarchists,libertarian socialists,communists,whatever you are,we shouldn't be fighting amonst ourselves.'Cuz that's just what the fascists want.



Ok which ideas, of what you consider Marx-Leninism, do you like? And why are you against the revolutionary communist workers state?

By the way, anarchism historically has always argued verbally against a state but in practice has ‘organised’ the repression of its enemies as any state does, and has also organised ‘hierarchies’ to do so. Perhaps you could start by having a look at the ‘Black Army’ in the Russian civil war.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx wasn't a prophet, and his word is not sacred. Marxism is not a religion, and I really can't stress how unbelievably important it is that you understand this sooner rather than later.
Personally, I think that bringing up Marx's views on utopian socialism are perfectly valid, given that he had argued against it and for communism in his works, rather than us simply promoting something because he mentioned it off-the-cuff, like his favourite football team or something. However, in this context, it would seem that the problem is in fact the opposite; not their considering Marx's word on utopian socialism to be holy text, but rather a complete lack of exegesis.

[Susurrus]

By the way, anarchism historically has always argued verbally against a state but in practice has ‘organised’ the repression of its enemies as any state does, and has also organised ‘hierarchies’ to do so. Perhaps you could start by having a look at the ‘Black Army’ in the Russian civil war.

Source?

[citizen of industry]

On my last thread,I argued with all the anti-Lenin people on this forum.Now it's time for the Leninists o get pissed off.

Look,Lenin was a statist,and even invaded the Free Territory of Ukraine.:(Not cool.It's also Utopian socialism,and we all know how Marx felt about that.:thumbdown: OK,I support the whole social aspect of Marx-Leninism,but the whole secret police thing?Tisk-tisk.That's what you get if it's a political revolution only.And the command economy is a good idea at first,but a proper syndicalist economy,with occasional gift economy tendencies is what needs to happen.

I'm just letting you all know what I think.Don't get too pissed off at me.

"Now it's time for xyz to get pissed off"?? WTF is that? Don't "tsk" me, tell me how you think Marx felt about something after your insufficent and incomplete reading of his works, or rehatch events that happened a century ago and assume that they are somehow relevant in the present. What is your intention with this thread? To bring theoretical differences into the light so you can start a flame war and watch the fireworks? Are you seeking criticism of your syndicalism? Because certain tendencies adopt specific theories of Lenin and apply them to modern political struggles, do you think that those same tendencies hold him up as a god and wank to every one of Lenin's words or deeds? Who here is advocating secret police? Why is this thread in learning and not in the trash?



In Internet slang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang), a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-1) extraneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective), or off-topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic) messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) response[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-PCMAG_def-2) or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-IUKB_def-3) The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective#English), with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment) outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Trolling:TheTodayShowExplorestheDarkSideoftheInter net-5)

[GatesofLenin]

Trolling much OP?

[Threetune]

Source?

Here’s a place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine)


The point is that the anti-communism militarism of the anarchist tradition is just as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘repressive’ as anything Leninism is accused of, it just isn’t anywhere near as efficient and successful historically and shows no signs of improvement.


That isn’t to say that any of the significant current manifestations of Marxist-Leninist theory are any better at present. The revisionist and Trotskyist wings will continue floundering until Leninist theoretical understanding is re-established again against all its detractors.

[Fawkes]

It doesn't matter what we are:anarchists,libertarian socialists,communists,whatever you are,we shouldn't be fighting amonst ourselves.'Cuz that's just what the fascists want.

If anything, that's utopian. I'm sorry, but beyond a general opposition to capitalism, state and libertarian socialists have little in common. We fight amongst ourselves because we see each other as counterrevolutionary threats. Sure, some of the arguments within certain tendencies are pointless, but there is nothing petty about leninists and anarchists refusing to cooperate with one another, there's a century of bloodshed to evidence that fact.

Imagine going back in time and telling a Spanish telephone worker in Barcelona shooting at Soviet-backed police who were actively destroying the revolution and any attempts at defeating Franco that they should hold their fire cause "that's just what the fascists want"....

If there's anything that we should have learned from the last century it's that a united left is a total fucking myth. It's not sectarian, it's reality.

[Thirsty Crow]

The only reason the Soviet people "accepted" his socialistic authoritarianism is because they really didn't know much different. It was obviously better than the Czarist regime, and that was good enough for many workers.
Yeah, except for the strikes (Petrograd before the Kronstadt uprising) and peasant armed rebellions against grain requisitioning.
I'm surprised how supposed socialists (be they anarchists or some sort of Leninists) can indulge in such idiotic rehashing of bourgeois propaganda - those brutish workers' who can't even think for themselves will accept anything!
Also, the reduction of an extremely complex social and political situation to this sole factor is unbelievable. How the fuck should socialists now understand the degeneration of proletarian dictatorship (by this, I'm not referring to the supposedly socialist state, but to the system of soviets, neighbourhood councils, factory committees) if such viewpoins are adopted?

[robbo203]

Command economy? I think you may be referring to a planned economy, which is pretty much universally agreed upon by Marxists as being not only good, but necessary. Gift economies need coordination and planning, too, y'know.

Now, we can disagree on the extent to which the Lenin-era Soviet planned economy resembled an actual socialist economy - some would argue that all economic decisions must be decided upon totally democratically, which was not the case in the Soviet union. My rebuttal would be that you can't hold a referendum every time Jeff needs a new pair of shoes.
.

Slight pedantic intervention - a "planned economy" or a "command economy" or whatever you want to call it denotes an economy in which a there is a single society wide plan that cordinates all society's inputs and outputs apriori. This is as opposed to a society in which there are many plans and where the interactions between these many plans are anarchic, spontaneous and unplanned.

I wouldnt say a planned economy is a "good thing" - in fact its crazy idea, considered literally , and totally impracticable. Nor would I say many Marxists agree with the idea either. When pushed to explain themselves, most would allow for a degree of decentralisation and spontaneity; its just that they would like to see a higher level of coordination in the economy compared with the present. This is what they call central planning but its not classic central planning in the sense of society wide planning which is a kind of Weberian ideal type employed by people Ludwig von Mises

The important things is not to confuse opposition to the idea of a "planned economy" with support for capitalism. The opposite of a planned economy is not the market. The market is only one form of an unplanned economy; there are others. Non-market and non-statist anarcho communism for example.

[Susurrus]

Here’s a place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine)


The point is that the anti-communism militarism of the anarchist tradition is just as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘repressive’ as anything Leninism is accused of, it just isn’t anywhere near as efficient and successful historically and shows no signs of improvement.


That isn’t to say that any of the significant current manifestations of Marxist-Leninist theory are any better at present. The revisionist and Trotskyist wings will continue floundering until Leninist theoretical understanding is re-established again against all its detractors.

What exactly was in that source that was damning to you? There was only one thing that stuck out to me, and that was an admittance to occasional conscription within a paragraph describing the organization of the army.


The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead, all commanders were elected and recallable. In theory, the RIAU relied on voluntary enlistment instead of conscription, however in practice conscription was used. Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, and all of the army’s disciplinary rules were approved by soldier assemblies.
This organizational structure was later used in organizing militias created by anarchists in the Spanish revolution and Spanish Civil War.

[ComradeOm]

The only reason the Soviet people "accepted" his socialistic authoritarianism is because they really didn't know much different. It was obviously better than the Czarist regime, and that was good enough for many workersThis is silly for a number of reasons. Aside from being inaccurate, the most obvious issue is that it's incredibly insulting to the intelligence of both the Russian proletariat of 1917 and all workers today. "They didn't know much different"? Do you have any idea how condescending this sounds? Yeah, those stupid workers weren't able to tell the difference between socialist ideals and an autocratic dictatorship, they could barely distinguish one from Tsarism. It's a good thing that we have keyboard revolutionaries like yourself to cast judgement on them

"They didn't know much different"? It makes you wonder what those workers were doing cramming into meeting halls to listen to speeches or forming illegal unions or factory committees. How silly they were to support and form worker councils that explicitly called for socialism. How stupid to read/write papers/pamphlets that articulated the yearning for a free and equal society. They 'settled' for a dictatorship slightly better than Tsardom? There's an ignorance there but not on their part


What exactly was in that source that was damning to you? There was only one thing that stuck out to me, and that was an admittance to occasional conscription within a paragraph describing the organization of the army.Which is why we don't trust Wikipedia. The reality is that the key positions in the 'Insurgent Army' were appointed by Makhno and answerable only to him. Similarly, discipline meted out from the top could be harsh (including summary executions) and his occupation of urban areas was hardly popular with the workers there

The Insurgent Army may well have been more popular/democratic than its contemporaries but it was also a military machine replete with hierarchies and other uncomfortable truths

[28350]

Maybe you should just lurk, OP?

please don't tell that to people in learning

[Susurrus]

Which is why we don't trust Wikipedia. The reality is that the key positions in the 'Insurgent Army' were appointed by Makhno and answerable only to him. Similarly, discipline meted out from the top could be harsh (including summary executions) and his occupation of urban areas was hardly popular with the workers there

The Insurgent Army may well have been more popular/democratic than its contemporaries but it was also a military machine replete with hierarchies and other uncomfortable truths

By any chance are you getting your info from this?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch73.htm

I wouldn't trust Trotsky on this, considering a. that he was at war with them and b. he never actually visited them, contrasting with the accounts of those who did eyewitness the Black army.

[ZeroNowhere]

please don't tell that to people in learning
Well, they weren't really trying to learn in this case, were they? This would probably be more appropriate in 'Politics' or someplace, and there's not much wrong with treating it that way.

[Commissar Rykov]

Well, they weren't really trying to learn in this case, were they? This would probably be more appropriate in 'Politics' or someplace, and there's not much wrong with treating it that way.
I still stand by the fact the OP is trolling he makes an initial post and then pretty much disappears and only responds with some one-liners. He did the exact same thing in the last thread that was humorously enough based on the opposite of this one.

[ComradeOm]

By any chance are you getting your info from this?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch73.htm

I wouldn't trust Trotsky on this, considering a. that he was at war with them and b. he never actually visited them, contrasting with the accounts of those who did eyewitness the Black army.No, I'm citing Paul Avrich's The Russian Anarchists

[robbo203]

Interesting post on the SPGB's new website http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/evolution-lenins-political-thought .....

================================================== =====


The Evolution of Lenin's Political Thought


A friend passed me this, which he has prepared for his A Level students. I cut and pasted it so the formatting isn't tabular like the original. It goes year-title-content-reaction. I wonder what you make of it...
The Evolution of Lenin’s Political Thought




1902
What is to be done?
The party must be a tight-knit, exclusive organization, acting as the vanguard of the working class and turning workers into revolutionaries. Party members must be disciplined in organization and loyal in doctrine. The party must be highly centralised.
Reaction: Hugely controversial. These theories and his divisive activity cause a split at the 1903 Second Party Congress between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.


1905
Two Tactics of Social Democracy

Bourgeoisie cannot be the natural leaders of a Russian anti-Tsarist revolution They will betray the revolution and seek compromise with the ruling class. They can’t be trusted to establish political democracy. There must be a ‘provisional revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.’ Terror to be used in order to achieve this.
Reaction: Mensheviks denounce his proposals as having nothing in common with genuinely socialist politics. Lenin was warned that it would lead to a permanent dictatorship.

April 1917
April Thesis
Calls on the party to build up majorities in the soviets and other mass organizations and then to expedite the transfer of power solely to them. Implicit ideas: Provisional Govt to be overthrown; the transition to socialism to be inaugurated instantly. The Bourgeois and Socialist revolutions to be merged into one under the aegis of the Bolsheviks.
Reaction: Bolsheviks stunned. Even they had popularly presumed that Russia would require an epoch of capitalist development. No one had suggested that socialism could be ‘leapt to’. Accepted by Bolsheviks at the end of April.


Summer 1917 (appeared in print in 1918)


The State and Revolution
Written to clarify key points. The passage from capitalism to communism requires an intermediate stage called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. The construction of socialism will thus begin. Mass political participation to be facilitated. An unprecedentedly high level of social and material welfare to be provided. Once the resistance of the former ruling classes has been broken, the need for repressive agencies will disappear. Dictatorship will become obsolete and the state will wither away. Then a further phase – communism – will be inaugurated. Society to be run according to the principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Under communism there would be no political or national oppression, no economic exploitation. Humanity will have reached its ultimate stage of development.
Reaction: Most other socialists in Russia and elsewhere, including Marxists, forecast that Lenin’s ideas would lead not to a self-terminating dictatorship, but to an extremely oppressive, perpetual dictatorship.

[Threetune]

What exactly was in that source that was damning to you? There was only one thing that stuck out to me, and that was an admittance to occasional conscription within a paragraph describing the organization of the army.

I did not say there was anything “damning” as you know. You asked for a “Source?” and I gave one which had a lot of linked notes for the attention of the OP and others as much as for you.

I was initially trying to elicit what understanding the OP really has about character of Anarchism and Leninism. Given that there appears to be a perception that anarchism is not “authoritarian”, I was starting to challenge that often stated idea by using the example of the ‘Black Army’ which would have had a well developed “authoritarian” culture in order to conduct wars and enforce its will on others.

The fig leaf of “anti-authority” used by many anarchists to attack Lenin etc is a fraudulent argument. Now, we can go on to talk about ‘the state’ authority, ‘warts an all’ if you wish, but please can we put to bed this myth about anarchism not exercising authority compulsion, intimidation and terror.