Thought provoking quote from Lenin

[Comrade Jandar]

I've been studying and reading some of Lenin's writings recently and surprisingly I've been in agreement with many of his ideas despite considering myself anarchist. One quote that really struck me was this:

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."

Any thoughts? For me at least, this provides a fairly good argument for a more top-down, coercive approach to revolution.

[Marxaveli]

Lenin is touching on Marx or Engels' concept of False Consciousness, which is part of why Marxist-Leninists feel a vanguard or authoritarian party would be necessary for revolution. Indeed, false consciousness is and has been a very serious problem and barrier for the working class to mobilize, who still cling to idealism as the solution to their problems. Nowhere is this more evident than with our working class Tea Party reactionaries, who have genuine grievances but are clearly misguided on the source of them. Still, I am strongly against any vanguard that does not consist of the workers themselves, and anything resembling authoritarianism, no matter how eloquently penned, will lead to disaster. We tried it already, it failed. If we ever get a second chance (and it seems a big if right now), we cannot make the same mistakes we made in the past. Lenin is a great thinker, but his methodology and self-determination of the state is flawed. It hasn't, nor will it ever, work. For authoritarianism undermines the very principles of what Communism seeks to achieve.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

For the record the vanguard party isn't synthesized as a authoritarian concept;but rather a mechanism for the liberation of the working class through organization.

[Marxaveli]

Right. But such organizations should have no political power in my opinion. Power corrupts, and is a perfect outlet for opportunists like Uncle Joe to seize power for themselves while using Marxism as a vehicle to shield it. Yes to unions, councils, and the like....no to vanguard parties which sponsor a top-down revolution.

[Geiseric]

What's wrong with authority as long as it's directed at the bourgeois and reactionary classes? They are prepared to use authority to crush any hint of revolutionary activity, authority in the sense of taking them out of power (not necessarily executing the members of the state) and expropiating the means of production is more than necessary, indeed it's nearly the definition of a socialist revolution.

And Stalin only came to power because of the results of the devastation and chaos from the counter revolution. It doesn't even matter who was the head, the entire workers state degenerated because of the war. Stalin was meerly the figurehead of the new state. The new leaders of the state executed pretty much every other old bolshevik as well.

[kurr]

Any thoughts? For me at least, this provides a fairly good argument for a more top-down, coercive approach to revolution.

All revolutions are coercive.

[Marxaveli]

What's wrong with authority as long as it's directed at the bourgeois and reactionary classes? They are prepared to use authority to crush any hint of revolutionary activity, authority in the sense of taking them out of power (not necessarily executing the members of the state) and expropiating the means of production is more than necessary, indeed it's nearly the definition of a socialist revolution.

And Stalin only came to power because of the results of the devastation and chaos from the counter revolution. It doesn't even matter who was the head, the entire workers state degenerated because of the war. Stalin was meerly the figurehead of the new state. The new leaders of the state executed pretty much every other old bolshevik as well.

It is a slippery slope though. They may direct it at the ruling class first, yes, but as I said before, power corrupts. What is to say they wouldn't do the same to the workers afterward? Authoritarianism is like water: it will find its way around any obstacle, somehow.

[Le Socialiste]

What's wrong with authority as long as it's directed at the bourgeois and reactionary classes? They are prepared to use authority to crush any hint of revolutionary activity, authority in the sense of taking them out of power (not necessarily executing the members of the state) and expropiating the means of production is more than necessary, indeed it's nearly the definition of a socialist revolution.

Eventually the authority you speak of centralizes to the point in which it ceases to be revolutionary, assuming the mantle left to it by the old bourgeois class. It justifies its existence by harnessing the excitement of the people following the removal of the old order and sets itself up as the guarantor of revolutionary activity and defense. By dressing up its rhetoric with slogans of “workers’ democracy,” “Industrial democracy,” and the “defense of the gains made by the revolutionary proletariat,” the authority of the vanguard does more to threaten the momentum of the revolutionized than the reactionary elements surrounding it. Just as the authority of the bourgeoisie makes known its preparedness in crushing any threat to its presence, so does the proponents of vanguardism once their hold over the state solidifies. In nearly every revolutionary situation that sees the seizure of the state by vanguardist elements the workers find themselves subjected to the same repressive conditions experienced prior to the revolution. The sole difference lies in how the new ‘intelligentsia’ presents its case to the average toiler, decorating its speeches and decrees with rhetoric that echoes the aspirations of the workers. What results is a series of hollow promises and/or policies that do more to temporarily appease the working-class (and forestall against future agitation) than provide actual steps towards the ‘socialization’ of industry and labor (which would be better placed in the collective hands of the workers themselves). When this ceases to be enough, the authority of the state is directed at the workers it claims to represent. What we have is an authority that is vested in the maintenance of a state system that excludes, rather than includes, the revolutionized consciousness of the class-aware worker.

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."

By 1917-1918 the Russian proletariat was ready to cast aside the institutions of bourgeois authority and management in favor of a system built from the ground up. Through the use of workers’ and soldiers’ soviets broad layers of the repressed organized around the idea of revolutionary self-management. The democratic aspirations of the people were bound up in the collective, not in some far away commissar from Petrograd/Moscow. Socialism had been realized through the development and experiences of the industrialized working-class (and even amongst some segments of the peasantry – although these effects were relatively minor and of little significance; all that was evident at the time was the mass rejection of the monarchy by the general population). The mentality was there amongst the people as years of agitation by revolutionary leftist elements of society became firmly embedded. The army had been largely radicalized, as had those working in the economy’s industrial sectors. Conditions were ripe amidst a sea of social upheaval as rejection of the old order ran rampant around the empire. Socialist organizations were growing and gaining an ever-expanding audience. Lenin’s assertion that the ‘intellectual development’ of the people wouldn’t permit the implementation of socialism for ‘five hundred years’ only served the necessary purpose of justifying the forcible seizure of state institutions and the decentralized network of soviets by authoritarian forces. The Bolsheviks rode the revolution on a sea of supporters won over by their talk of “free soviets” and “proletarian democracy” all the way to the halls of authority. Once there, the preservation of Bolshevik power and the pacification of the population were deemed top priority. What resulted was the repression of any revolutionary movements or activity that didn’t align with the Bolshevik’s ideological line. This saw the crushing of any and all uprisings that had to do with the Bolsheviks and their handling of such issues as hunger, heat, and basic rights – including what many saw as a betrayal of the demands forged in the initial stages of the revolution. Thus events like Kronstadt (however flawed) that posed a threat to Bolshevik rule resulted in merciless repression.

One could certainly argue that the Bolsheviks were responding to the rising threat of reactionary elements within and around the country. Yet even this begs the question of how the situation was handled. From War Communism to the constant erosion of peoples’ basic rights and necessities, the Bolsheviks exposed themselves to be ineffectual leaders in the fight for communism. Similar stories have been repeated throughout history (with slight alterations made due to the historical and material conditions of the societies involved). From Germany to China; from Spain to the Americas; from the Middle East to Africa; revolutions that carried arguably non-revolutionary elements to power often witnessed the use of the state against the very workers that supported them. When the relationship between the oppressors and oppressed remain unshaken it is vital that steps be taken that place full authority in the hands of the revolutionized working-class. If not, the authority once used against the old order begins to be directed against the very forces that – not so long ago – embraced it. There have been plenty of instances throughout history in which the mass consciousness of the working-class developed to the point necessary for a radical shift in public opinion and the acceptance of worker-based theories and practices. There have been moments where the unbridled will of the toiling masses met the iron fist of the bourgeoisie and prevailed, pushing towards the beginnings of revolutionary activity. An authority composed of the workers themselves is the only way forward in the fight for a healthy communist society. Top-down authoritarianism strangles the class struggle before it has even begun to realize the strength of its own unity, retaining the old institutions and paving the way for a reinstatement of bourgeois ‘law and punishment’ – and the rise of a new privileged class.

[Marxaveli]

Eventually the authority you speak of centralizes to the point in which it ceases to be revolutionary, assuming the mantle left to it by the old bourgeois class. It justifies its existence by harnessing the excitement of the people following the removal of the old order and sets itself up as the guarantor of revolutionary activity and defense. By dressing up its rhetoric with slogans of “workers’ democracy,” “Industrial democracy,” and the “defense of the gains made by the revolutionary proletariat,” the authority of the vanguard does more to threaten the momentum of the revolutionized than the reactionary elements surrounding it. Just as the authority of the bourgeoisie makes known its preparedness in crushing any threat to its presence, so does the proponents of vanguardism once their hold over the state solidifies. In nearly every revolutionary situation that sees the seizure of the state by vanguardist elements the workers find themselves subjected to the same repressive conditions experienced prior to the revolution. The sole difference lies in how the new ‘intelligentsia’ presents its case to the average toiler, decorating its speeches and decrees with rhetoric that echoes the aspirations of the workers. What results is a series of hollow promises and/or policies that do more to temporarily appease the working-class (and forestall against future agitation) than provide actual steps towards the ‘socialization’ of industry and labor (which would be better placed in the collective hands of the workers themselves). When this ceases to be enough, the authority of the state is directed at the workers it claims to represent. What we have is an authority that is vested in the maintenance of a state system that excludes, rather than includes, the revolutionized consciousness of the class-aware worker.

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."

By 1917-1918 the Russian proletariat was ready to cast aside the institutions of bourgeois authority and management in favor of a system built from the ground up. Through the use of workers’ and soldiers’ soviets broad layers of the repressed organized around the idea of revolutionary self-management. The democratic aspirations of the people were bound up in the collective, not in some far away commissar from Petrograd/Moscow. Socialism had been realized through the development and experiences of the industrialized working-class (and even amongst some segments of the peasantry – although these effects were relatively minor and of little significance; all that was evident at the time was the mass rejection of the monarchy by the general population). The mentality was there amongst the people as years of agitation by revolutionary leftist elements of society became firmly embedded. The army had been largely radicalized, as had those working in the economy’s industrial sectors. Conditions were ripe amidst a sea of social upheaval as rejection of the old order ran rampant around the empire. Socialist organizations were growing and gaining an ever-expanding audience. Lenin’s assertion that the ‘intellectual development’ of the people wouldn’t permit the implementation of socialism for ‘five hundred years’ only served the necessary purpose of justifying the forcible seizure of state institutions and the decentralized network of soviets by authoritarian forces. The Bolsheviks rode the revolution on a sea of supporters won over by their talk of “free soviets” and “proletarian democracy” all the way to the halls of authority. Once there, the preservation of Bolshevik power and the pacification of the population were deemed top priority. What resulted was the repression of any revolutionary movements or activity that didn’t align with the Bolshevik’s ideological line. This saw the crushing of any and all uprisings that had to do with the Bolsheviks and their handling of such issues as hunger, heat, and basic rights – including what many saw as a betrayal of the demands forged in the initial stages of the revolution. Thus events like Kronstadt (however flawed) that posed a threat to Bolshevik rule resulted in merciless repression.

One could certainly argue that the Bolsheviks were responding to the rising threat of reactionary elements within and around the country. Yet even this begs the question of how the situation was handled. From War Communism to the constant erosion of peoples’ basic rights and necessities, the Bolsheviks exposed themselves to be ineffectual leaders in the fight for communism. Similar stories have been repeated throughout history (with slight alterations made due to the historical and material conditions of the societies involved). From Germany to China; from Spain to the Americas; from the Middle East to Africa; revolutions that carried arguably non-revolutionary elements to power often witnessed the use of the state against the very workers that supported them. When the relationship between the oppressors and oppressed remain unshaken it is vital that steps be taken that place full authority in the hands of the revolutionized working-class. If not, the authority once used against the old order begins to be directed against the very forces that – not so long ago – embraced it. There have been plenty of instances throughout history in which the mass consciousness of the working-class developed to the point necessary for a radical shift in public opinion and the acceptance of worker-based theories and practices. There have been moments where the unbridled will of the toiling masses met the iron fist of the bourgeoisie and prevailed, pushing towards the beginnings of revolutionary activity. An authority composed of the workers themselves is the only way forward in the fight for a healthy communist society. Top-down authoritarianism strangles the class struggle before it has even begun to realize the strength of its own unity, retaining the old institutions and paving the way for a reinstatement of bourgeois ‘law and punishment’ – and the rise of a new privileged class.

Flawless post. I couldnt have said it better myself.

[thefinalmarch]

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."
Right off the bat, Lenin is wrong.

Revolutions aren't dependent on the working class developing revolutionary ideas. Revolution will be the necessary action that the working class takes to get itself out its position in class society. Ideology has got nothing to do with it.

[Decommissioner]

Right off the bat, Lenin is wrong.

Revolutions aren't dependent on the working class developing revolutionary ideas. Revolution will be the necessary action that the working class takes to get itself out its position in class society. Ideology has got nothing to do with it.

That's kind of what I got out of the quote, like he was saying we can't wait for the working class to proclaim themselves communists or anarchists or a part of any ideology. Revolution will come forth when the working class is put in a position where it as a whole will feel compelled to act for its very survival and liberation. It is the anarchists and the socialists that will educate and agitate and try to steer the anger towards revolution.

[Thirsty Crow]

What's wrong with authority as long as it's directed at the bourgeois and reactionary classes? They are prepared to use authority to crush any hint of revolutionary activity, authority in the sense of taking them out of power (not necessarily executing the members of the state) and expropiating the means of production is more than necessary, indeed it's nearly the definition of a socialist revolution.

It's not authority that the working class directs at the capitalists - its force.
In other words, you're using the term in a wrong way. Authority always implies a specific body (institution) or a person who claims legitimacy to exclude others from the decision making process and to enforce the decisions upon those who didn't partake in their elaboration.
In this sense, the fusion of the party and the state, resulting in a suppression of organs of proletarian direct rule - such as factory assemblies, neighbourhood assemblies and soviets directly accountable to the base - can be describes as authoritarian, and yes, I do think this represents a dead end. Proletarian democracy is not just a nice idea or a mere ornament of a workers' state. It is indispensable.

And as far as Lenins quote goes, the intellectual development of the broad layers of the working class is not something given or fixed, and indeed there could be an organized social endeavour to educate each and every worker both in political matters and in matter pertaining to workplace management, though here the point is that one-man management and the non-existence of effective organs of proletarian democracy actually works against these possibilities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Beware Lenin quotes repeated without context - they are generally used to demonize or glorify Lenin while shedding no light on the actual history or meaning of the quote.


Lenin is touching on Marx or Engels' concept of False Consciousness, which is part of why Marxist-Leninists feel a vanguard or authoritarian party would be necessary for revolution. Indeed, false consciousness is and has been a very serious problem and barrier for the working class to mobilize, who still cling to idealism as the solution to their problems.

I googled this quote and found it repeated a lot on those "great quote" websites, but without any citation or background. I'm pretty sure it's from "10 Days" though and I think he's not talking about the working class at all, he's talking about the peasantry as represented by the Social Revolutionaries. It's something to do with splits between the peasants (who were 80% of the population - hence "all the people" or "masses") and the workers.

To Lenin at that point, there was no question if workers were revolutionary or not - they just had 2 revolutions! But he was really concerned with how to keep the coalition of peasants and workers from breaking apart though and I think that's what the quote is about.


I've been studying and reading some of Lenin's writings recently and surprisingly I've been in agreement with many of his ideas despite considering myself anarchist. One quote that really struck me was this:

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."

Any thoughts? For me at least, this provides a fairly good argument for a more top-down, coercive approach to revolution.

I don't find that a good argument for a top-down or coercive approach. As for the question of mixed-consciousness among workers, yes people are bombarded with status-quo ideas and ideology, but action on the part of people fighting in their own (working) class interests creates a gap and can challenge these handed-down ideas with real world experience. Where I think it is important for working class revolutionaries to organize and work together, an organized vanguard, is in creating a vehicle for revolutionary workers to coordinate their actions and draw generalized lessons from their struggles. Also in the case of a country where all toilers may not be prols, workers organizing together can help create an alternative hegemony (alternative to the ruling class) that can pull other forces in society behind the efforts of revolutionary workers to establish a worker-run and organized society.

But a top-down form of organizing could actually prevent the generalization of local lessons and initiative. And as far as the bigger question of society as a whole as opposed to how revolutionaries should organize themselves, without bottom-up initiative of workers themselves - maybe not 100% of them, but a decisive and active chunk which is also allied with other oppressed classes - there simply can not be socialism. Without proletarian democracy run from the bottom up, workers can't learn how to work together and lead and run society - it would actually re-enforce passivity and bourgeois ideas if worker's aren't running things and therfore challenging the muck of ages (like that people are selfish or workers aren't smart enough to rule, etc) through their own actions and experiences.

[december]

It does seem that Lenin is taking an elistist position here in the quote, a sort of technocratism implied if I understand correctly. Yet the idea that was stated that the vanguard is necessary to empower workers in the end was a good point, too.

I think the vanguard is necessary to prevent counter-revolution. Parsons, the great sociologist, said revolutions are doomed to failure without a connection to government to reestablish order afterwards. This should be the role of the vanguard.

Regarding education, it was reserved at that time in Russia, from my understanding , to a select group of individuals. Perhaps Lenin was thinking that equal oppurtunity for education could not be acheived without socialism, so a vanguard was needed or it would take forever, instead of making an elitist comment. This seems more likely. Especially since one of the ways class was defined at the time, in fact by Marx, included the idea of having a separate educational experience.

[thefinalmarch]

Beware Lenin quotes repeated without context - they are generally used to demonize or glorify Lenin while shedding no light on the actual history or meaning of the quote.
This, as well as Decommissioner's post, has got me thinking: beneath the confusing tone (it almost sounds like sarcasm), what message is Lenin actually trying to convey?

I've always interpreted this particular quote in such a way that Lenin is trying to "force socialism" on an uneducated working class -- this particular interpretation is probably a holdover from my somewhat infantile anarchist days. But on re-reading it, it seems like he's actually affirming my point of view: that the working class doesn't need to be intellectually enlightened to emancipate itself; that material conditions will force it to overthrow capitalism.

If that's actually what Lenin is saying then I agree completely.

[ZeroNowhere]

Right off the bat, Lenin is wrong.

Revolutions aren't dependent on the working class developing revolutionary ideas. Revolution will be the necessary action that the working class takes to get itself out its position in class society. Ideology has got nothing to do with it.
I agree with that. To be fair, though, Lenin's not saying that revolutions would be dependent upon the working class developing revolutionary ideas. The full context in the Reed text was this:

“The ownership of the land in Russia is the basis for immense oppression, and the confiscation of the land by the peasants is the most important step of our Revolution. But it cannot be separated from the other steps, as is clearly manifested by the stages through which the Revolution has had to pass. The first stage was the crushing of autocracy and the crushing of the power of the industrial capitalists and land-owners, whose interests are closely related. The second stage was the strengthening of the Soviets and the political compromise with the bourgeoisie. The mistake of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries lies in the fact that at that time they did not oppose the policy of compromise, because they held the theory that the consciousness of the masses was not yet fully developed….

“If Socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years…. The Socialist political party—this is the vanguard of the working-class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative."

The main thrust of that seems to be opposition to policies of compromise which serve to act against working class power and interests in periods of revolution; the autonomy and struggle of the working class is to be kept up regardless of any low intellectual development and ideological tendencies of the mass average. People develop through struggle, and hence the struggle must be fought by those who need and wish to fight it, and this will eventually lead the others into the maelstrom. This seems fairly close to the argument that the workers' movement must not be compromised by sectarian principles such as that of democracy, which I would agree with.

Trotsky used a vaguely similar phrase in asserting that the Party is "entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers’ democracy," which is also fine, at least in theoretical terms (although in the specific context it had more unsavoury connotations.) Lenin, likewise, opposed the revolutionary task of communists to 'syndicalism', which for him seemed to mean something akin to mutualism (Bordiga used the word with a similar connotation), which, rather than training the working class to take control of the economy as a single body through uniting the economy under the workers' Party, simply dissolved the Party and gave workers 'power' in an essentially mutualist, divided manner, "without carrying on prolonged work either in training the masses or in actually concentrating in their hands the management of the whole of the national economy."

Of course, as it happens, the political rule of the producer is incompatible with the perpetuation of his social slavery, and this attempted training did not face the conditions which would impel it to carry its struggle to completion.

[thefinalmarch]

So that quote was just a criticism of the left SRs or am I wrong entirely?

[ZeroNowhere]

That does seem to have been the main point, although it does of course have wider implications as far as the nature of revolution and tactics go.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Big thanks to ZeroNowhere for finding the context that will help clarify things.

[ComradeOm]

Thanks to ZeroNowhere for providing the context, it was interesting to see how people's minds automatically jumped to different conclusions

Personally, I immediately thought of that other great Lenin quote: "Whoever expects a 'pure' social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is." This is Lenin in pragmatist mode, railing against those who would wait until everyone is enrolled into a Das Kapital reading group before pushing for revolution. That is nothing short of reformism; kicking revolution into the long grass


Revolutions aren't dependent on the working class developing revolutionary ideas. Revolution will be the necessary action that the working class takes to get itself out its position in class society. Ideology has got nothing to do with it.Ideology has everything to do with it. How can the working class possibly overthrow capitalism and install itself as the master of society without "developing revolutionary ideas"? Revolutions are not accidents of history, classes do not stumble into ascendency. It takes the concious actions of a revolutionary movement - itself the product of revolutionary conditions - to force the pace of change and overthrow the bourgeoisie

Ideology in this context is not the product of some Marxist priest preaching defiance but the evolution of the proletariat's class conciousness to the point where it can contemplate and justify seizing power


By 1917-1918 the Russian proletariat was ready to cast aside the institutions of bourgeois authority and management in favor of a system built from the ground up. Through the use of workers’ and soldiers’ soviets broad layers of the repressed organized around the idea of revolutionary self-managementReally? Then how is it that every major expression of the revolutionary Russian labour movement - the soviets, unions and factory committees - overwhelmingly supported the Bolsheviks (a party that had never committed to worker management) in 1917? How is it that these organisations were perfectly content to vote time and time again in favour of Bolshevik resolutions that emphasised worker control rather than management? How is it that in Petrograd, the centre of the revolutionary movement, a mere handful of enterprises (out of over a thousand) were fully taken over by the workers following October 1917?

[ZeroNowhere]

Ideology has everything to do with it.I think their point was that the revolutionary movement is ultimately begun by the proletariat acting in its immediate class interests, and only through this does it gain a revolutionary consciousness as such. Essentially, "Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution". As such, it's not a matter of waiting until the proletariat as a whole develops a sufficient level of consciousness before the struggle can begin, but rather the interests and autonomy of the workers' movement must be pressed forward, and only through this does the necessity of abolishing the capitalist mode of production become widely apparent, and at the same time a concrete necessity.

I won't elaborate too much, though, so that they can explain their position themselves.

[thefinalmarch]

I won't elaborate too much, though, so that they can explain their position themselves.
Why bother when you've already explained it better than I ever could? :blushing:

[ZeroNowhere]

Goddamnit.

[thefinalmarch]

I don't know why people keep thanking my post, given that I interpreted it completely out of context...

[ComradeOm]

As such, it's not a matter of waiting until the proletariat as a whole develops a sufficient level of consciousness before the struggle can begin, but rather the interests and autonomy of the workers' movement must be pressed forward, and only through this does the necessity of abolishing the capitalist mode of production become widely apparent, and at the same time a concrete necessityFully agreed with this. But the end point of this process is a proletariat armed with a revolutionary ideology that prepares it for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. "Developing revolutionary ideas" is a fundamental element of increased class conciousness through the defence of worker interests. To strip this ideological component out of the equation is to arrive at a pretty mechanical conception of history; one in which classes take power simply because they're supposed to

[thefinalmarch]

"Developing revolutionary ideas" is a fundamental element of increased class conciousness through the defence of worker interests.
Thanks for picking up on that. That was really poor and confusing phrasing, on my behalf, as it appeared to contradict the point I was trying to put across that the overthrow of bourgeois society would be a necessary consequence of the material circumstances of the workers, when in fact the process by which the workers reach the decision to abolish capitalism will involve the development of what can only be called "revolutionary ideas".

I think a more suitable and correct term for me to have used would have been "adopting revolutionary doctrine".

Either way, I guess most of the posters ITT still understood the message I was trying to convey.

[North Star]

Some of Lenin's "500 years" comment has to do with the general level of education that workers especially in Russia but also in the rest of Europe had. These days we've got near universal literacy in the West and many developing countries today probably have higher literacy rates than Russia did in 1917. That doesn't mean knowledge isn't withheld from working class people ie the cost of university in many nations but the overall education and cultural level or workers despite what some may think is far more developed than it was during World War I. Class consciousness is another issue, it's actually declined, but I'm thinking that is starting to change... :lol: Though while I greatly admire Lenin as a theorist and practical politician mechanically copying the Bolshevik party that operated mostly under illegality and agitated among mostly illiterate and uneducated workers isn't the wisest of choices. The "vanguard" today will be broader than it was in Lenin's day.