Questions on Leninism

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Recently I have been reading books and articles on the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War, most putting emphasis on Lenin's theories relating to those situations and the Bolsheviks. I have never been anti-Leninist, but generally non-Leninist. By this I mean I don't have a positive or negative view of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but I don't believe that their tactics are useful for an advanced capitalist country. That being said, I have a few questions for Leninists and supporters of Lenin. I would prefer for supporters of Lenin and Leninists to answer the questions, but I do not mind anti-Leninists challenging their claims.

1. Did Lenin support the ends justifying the means and if so do you support it and why?

2. Does the democratic centralist idea create "freedom of discussion, unity of action" or just authoritarian institutions? Is there more than one theory of democratic centralism (for example, I have heard that Rosa Luxembourg had a different idea of democratic centralism than Lenin did).

3. Do all Leninists support a one-party state or feel that was just a specific tacticc used in Russia in Lenin's time?

4. Do all Leninists support either Trotsky or Stalin or are their Leninist organizations that hate/like both?

5. Is the use of a vanguard party relevant and if yes than why?

6. Most would agree that Lenin was a genuine revolutionary but was Lenin power hungry and wanting to silence opposition or just reacting to the situation given to him?

7. When Lenin put the workers and workplace under government control he did this 6 months before the civil war broke out. Was Lenin preparing for the inevitable counter-revolution and if so where is the proof of this?

8. Do you think the NEP was a negative development for Lenin to make or helped pave the way for socialism? I generally agree with Che Guevara on this point.

I would appreciate sources named for statistics and facts shown by people in this thread. Thanx:D

[Bostana]

4. ML's and Trots are both considered Leninist's and both make up Leninist's.

5.And about the Vanguard...a military term! As is Picket, Strike too. It's locked in peoples minds as...VANGUARD PARTY, the Communist Party. Notions of vanguardism have been repudiated by many communists in Britain. An enlightened minority leading ignorant masses anywhere cannot stand scrutiny.
Of course, individual workers are capable of behaving in a way that invites instruction and command. Religious adherence is an example that springs to mind. This is a voluntary suspension of responsibility for independent thought, a description that applies to all religious-like behaviours, some of which may describe themselves as 'political'.

Any behaviour guided by any form of idealistic thought is susceptible to the process of command by those further along the path towards the attainment of the ideal state. The racially pure shall rule the world and remove the contamination of the inferior. Those closer to God shall rule the less enlightened and those most pure in their 'socialist' ideals can do anything they like to anyone. None of this has been the history of workers in Britain. We fought the Nazis. We are the least religious class in the world and have consistently rejected all political idealisms.

Lenin was wrong to put so much emphasis on the PARTY. The phrase, vanguard party, could be best described as a home for armchair generals, largely self-proclaimed. Still I don't expect the term or concept to vanish....wherever a self appointed 'elite' gathers, it will have its admirers.
Lenin made a better job of Democratic Centralism, he studied the structures and organization of British Trade Unions whilst in London and saw the strengths that form might take in forging the Proletarian Party.


Here is a Link that is interesting:
http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/08/17/on-the-vanguard-party/

There is also ''What is to be done'' by Lenin http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

6. Lenin wasn't power hungry just look at the situation in Russia. The people were poor and starving trying to find whatever work they could do so they can maintain a living. Just begging and savaging for food and money. Everybody was suffering.

Except for one group of people:
The Csars.
They were living the good life and doing nothing to help the people so Lenin and the Bolshevik party had to.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Thank you for the post, Bostana, but I have already read "What is to be done" and have a pretty good understanding of Leninism already. I am not saying your post wasn't usefull, I am just using you as an example to make the point that I don't need links to basic Leninist theory or an overview of Leninism. I am not saying your post was, just saw the What is to be done link so I though I would post this before I got more links to Left Wing Communism and Infantile Disorder, Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism, etc. etc.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Interesting article on the vanguard party, Bostana.

[Bostana]

Interesting article on the vanguard party, Bostana.

Thanks

[daft punk]

.
1. Did Lenin support the ends justifying the means and if so do you support it and why?

I would think so yes, but it depends what end and what means. Most of the unpleasant stuff was seen as unavoidable, it was self defence. You could argue on stuff like executions obviously, and I'm sure some were unnecessary, but a civil war is pretty weird, you don't have always know who your enemy are and so on. Put it this way, in the first half of 1918 just 22 people were executed, so it's not like the Bolsheviks dived into that for the fun of it. There were more later but only a few thousand. Millions die in wars.



2. Does the democratic centralist idea create "freedom of discussion, unity of action" or just authoritarian institutions? Is there more than one theory of democratic centralism (for example, I have heard that Rosa Luxembourg had a different idea of democratic centralism than Lenin did).
Both to be honest. Yes there must be different variations. The main reason Russia ended up as a dictatorship wasnt democratic centralism though. It was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country.



3. Do all Leninists support a one-party state or feel that was just a specific tacticc used in Russia in Lenin's time?
Russia was a multiparty democracy for the first few months. The Left SRs walked out of government. All the parties apart from the Bolsheviks to some extent engaged in sabotage, fought with the enemy. Many of their member joined the Bolsheviks. It was never planned, it just happened that way, because all the other parties were treacherous.



4. Do all Leninists support either Trotsky or Stalin or are their Leninist organizations that hate/like both?
All Leninists support Trotsky. Stalin was anti-Leninist.




5. Is the use of a vanguard party relevant and if yes than why?
yes
you may or may not find this worth a look, it by no means covers the topic, it touches on some aspects. There is lots more to read.
http://www.marxist.net/namechange/nameframe.htm

History is littered with wasted opportunities. It was always Marxist leadership that was missing.



6. Most would agree that Lenin was a genuine revolutionary but was Lenin power hungry and wanting to silence opposition or just reacting to the situation given to him?

No he was a very honest man who sacrificed his life for socialism. He wanted to be normal so he walked the streets with the masses and that was how he got shot. I even heard he insisted on waiting in the queue to get his hair cut.



7. When Lenin put the workers and workplace under government control he did this 6 months before the civil war broke out. Was Lenin preparing for the inevitable counter-revolution and if so where is the proof of this?
Not sure this is true really. Have you any examples? I know the 4th congress of soviets voted on Lenin's peace plan, that was when the Left SRs walked out.

"Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy; Soviet power is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic." Lenin, 1918,
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm

He must have thought it was democratic to say that.





8. Do you think the NEP was a negative development for Lenin to make or helped pave the way for socialism? I generally agree with Che Guevara on this point.
Lenin regarded the NEP as a necessary retreat. A year later he called for a halt to the retreat. What did Che say that you agree with?


I would appreciate sources named for statistics and facts shown by people in this thread. Thanx:D

[Bostana]

All Leninists support Trotsky. Stalin was anti-Leninist.

I knew you were gonna do this!

Where has Stalin ever gone against Lenin's policies? When has Stalin ever spoke out against Lenin and his policies? When has Stalin ever said Lenin was a bad Communist Leader?

Stalin has never done any of these things.

And even if he didn't like Lenin then why is it called Marxism-Leninism? It would be stupid to hat someone and his policies and then call it Marxism-Leninism don't ya' think?

Besides:
LENIN CHOSE STALIN TO SOLVE PROBLEMS


I well remember that in one of my conversations with Lenin in 1921 he referred to Stalin as "our Nutcracker" and explained that if the "political bureau were faced with a problem which needed a lot of sorting out Stalin was given the job."
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 72


...wherever the situation seemed most hopeless, wherever incompetence and disloyalty were weakening the cause, on no matter what front and under any conditions, there Stalin was sent, with the results we have seen outlined above.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin, Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 50


...Taking advantage of the traditional hatred felt in the province for everything Russian, the social revolutionaries and their Mensheviks allies were agitating for secession from the USSR and the setting up of an independent state of Georgia.
As usual the task of cleaning up other peoples failures descended on Stalin. Taking Ordjonikidze with him, he hurried to Tiflis to settle the problem once and for all.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 59

Here is my favourite one:

... But while Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representative of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin.
Pritt, Denis Nowell. The Moscow Trial was Fair. London: " Russia To-day," 1937, p. 10

You need to read more.

Stalin respected and adored Lenin as Lenin respected and liked Stalin.
Read More if you want:
http://red-channel.de/the_real_stalin_testament.htm

[Brosip Tito]

In this thread I read an ML claim that Trotsky was a Leninist...brb, seeing how cold hell is.

[l'Enfermé]

4. ML's and Trots are both considered Leninist's and both make up Leninist's.
Just because reactionaries whose beliefs contradict everything Lenin stood for say they're Leninists, doesn't mean they're Leninist. Stalin murdered nearly every Leninist/Bolshevik in the Soviet Union...that's pretty good evidence of how "Leninist" Stalinists/MLs are.


5.And about the Vanguard...a military term! As is Picket, Strike too. It's locked in peoples minds as...VANGUARD PARTY, the Communist Party. Notions of vanguardism have been repudiated by many communists in Britain. An enlightened minority leading ignorant masses anywhere cannot stand scrutiny.
Of course, individual workers are capable of behaving in a way that invites instruction and command. Religious adherence is an example that springs to mind. This is a voluntary suspension of responsibility for independent thought, a description that applies to all religious-like behaviours, some of which may describe themselves as 'political'.
The Leninist vanguard party is not an "enlightened minority" leading the "ignoring masses", it's a party made up of the most militant and class-conscious workers, whose aim it is to root out false consciousness in other workers and to radicalize and win them over from their corrupted trade-unionist leadership, to the side of Proletarian revolution.



Lenin was wrong to put so much emphasis on the PARTY. The phrase, vanguard party, could be best described as a home for armchair generals, largely self-proclaimed. Still I don't expect the term or concept to vanish....wherever a self appointed 'elite' gathers, it will have its admirers.
Lenin made a better job of Democratic Centralism, he studied the structures and organization of British Trade Unions whilst in London and saw the strengths that form might take in forging the Proletarian Party.
No it couldn't be described like that and Lenin wasn't wrong to put so much emphasis on the Party, the bourgeois is an organized force and you can only fight an organized force with an organized force.

Though I don't blame a Stalinist for not understand what "vanguard party" means.


Except for one group of people:
The Csars.
They were living the good life and doing nothing to help the people so Lenin and the Bolshevik party had to.
The Monarchy wasn't abolished by the October Revolution.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2391927#post2391927)
"All Leninists support Trotsky. Stalin was anti-Leninist. "

I knew you were gonna do this!

Where has Stalin ever gone against Lenin's policies?

Have you got all day? Let's start at the beginning. Lenin on his deathbed was battling with Stalin on three or four separate issues. After he died Stalin got control. From 1924-8 his policies were the opposite of Lenin's.
Lenin:
Tax the rich - Stalin did the opposite
Build industry - Stalin did that a bit
Subsidise co-operatives for the poor peasants - Stalin did nothing on that score.
Cut red tape and bureaucracy - nope, that didnt happen
Educate the younger layers of the party - nope, Stalin just gathered his cronies and 'fired to the left'. This means he attacked the left. Stalin's base was Lenin's enemies - the rich, an the bureaucrats.
I covered all this in my Platform of the Opposition thread.
Then Lenin screwed up the Chinese revolution, he invented SIOC. He screwed things up in germany. Then he killed all the communists. He sabotaged the Spanish revolution. And he tried to ensure Eastern Europe and China etc went capitalist. I have separate threads on most of these topics to go through them in detail. No stalinist has posted on some of them yet.




When has Stalin ever spoke out against Lenin and his policies? When has Stalin ever said Lenin was a bad Communist Leader?

Stalin has never done any of these things.

what he did and what he said were different







And even if he didn't like Lenin then why is it called Marxism-Leninism? It would be stupid to hat someone and his policies and then call it Marxism-Leninism don't ya' think?


why did Hitler call his party National Socialist?




Besides:
LENIN CHOSE STALIN TO SOLVE PROBLEMS

he wanted him out in the end








Here is my favourite one:


You need to read more.

Stalin respected and adored Lenin as Lenin respected and liked Stalin.
Read More if you want:
http://red-channel.de/the_real_stalin_testament.htm

I am not ploughing through your worthless Stalinist quotes.

Ok just one

"But while Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representative of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin.
Pritt, Denis Nowell. The Moscow Trial was Fair. London: " Russia To-day," 1937, p. 10 "


random google time

"Trotsky's leadership during the Russian Civil War (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russian_civil_war1.htm) probably saved the Bolshevik (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bolsheviks.htm) Revolution of November 1917 (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/november_1917.htm)."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leon_trotsky.htm

wikipedia article on Russian Civil War. Mentions Trotsky 16 times and Stalin zero (except in the notes).

Trotsky made 36 trips to front lines in his train, covering 105,000 km. Probably the most famous was Petrograd. The troops were retreating and Lenin thought they should just give up on it. Trotsky argued, got his way, went to Petrograd, rallied the people of the town, grabbed a horse, rode after the retreating soldiers, and pleaded with them to turn round and attack. Miraculously it worked and they save the city.

Trotsky built and led the Red Army to victory, and he documented the civil war in his 3 volume Military Writings.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/index.htm

The Military Writings of

Leon Trotsky

Volume 1, 1918

How the Revolution Armed



These writings were first published in 1923 by the Soviet Government.

[Bostana]

READ SOMETHING BESIDE TROTSKY.

Stalin help the industry a little bit? HELLO the Five Year plan? The very you think you complain about. What do you think it was for? Happy Hour?
The Five Year Plan modernized industry and increase production and the economy of the USSR.

Tax the Rich? They're were no rich it was Communism remember? No businesses a classless society?

So you're telling me that Stalin didn't help the Peasants in any way? I like how you troll but try harder.
Collectivization:

Collectivisation was Stalin's answer to his belief that Russia’s agriculture was in a terrible state. Stalin believed that Russia had to be able to feed itself - hence collectivisation - and that at the very least the peasant farmers should be providing food for the workers in the factories if the Five Year Plans were going to succeed.

In 1928 Stalin had said:

"Agriculture is developing slowly, comrades. This is because we have about 25 million individually owned farms. They are the most primitive and undeveloped form of economy We must do our utmost to develop large farms and to convert them into grain factories for the country organised on a modem scientific basis."

Stalin’s description of the state of Russia’s farming was very accurate. There was barely any mechanisation, the use of scientific measures was minimal and peasant farmers produced usually for themselves and the local area. This was not good enough for Stalin.

To change all this and update Russia’s agriculture, Stalin introduced collectivisation. This meant that small farms would be gathered together to form one large massive one. These bigger farms would be called collectives. As they were large, there was every reason to use machinery on them. The more food that could be grown the better as the cities and factories could suitably be fed. Hungry factory workers would not be in a fit enough state to work effectively. If this happened the Five Year Plans would not succeed.

If this happened then Russia would not advance.

The key to collectives would be the use of science and machinery. Tractors stations were created to hire out tractors, combine harvesters etc. Collectives were up and running by 1930 when over 50% of all farms had been grouped together.

How did the peasants react to this policy?

Lenin had given the peasants their land in 1918. By 1924, even the poorest peasant owned land. There were those who had worked hard and done well. These were richer peasants and were called kulaks. This group in particular was very much against collectivisation. They felt that their hard work was being taken advantage of. Stalin tried to turn to poorer peasants against the kulaks. In 1928, he said at a speech:

"Look at the kulaks farms : their barns and sheds are crammed with grain. And yet they are holding onto this grain because they are demanding three times the price offered by the government."

However, many peasants, ‘rich’ or poor, were against collectivisation. The land that Lenin had given them was now being taken away by Stalin. Villages that refused to join a collective had soldiers sent to them and the villagers were usually shoot as "enemies of the revolution" or "enemies of the people". The land, now freed from ownership, was handed to the nearest collective farm.

Those villages that were due for collectivisation but did not want to join a collective, killed their animals and destroyed their grain so that they could not be taken by the soldiers and secret police. Thus began an era of almost unparalleled slaughter of farm animals and the systematic destruction of grain

Read More if you want to:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivisation.htm

[l'Enfermé]

I knew you were gonna do this!

Where has Stalin ever gone against Lenin's policies? When has Stalin ever spoke out against Lenin and his policies? When has Stalin ever said Lenin was a bad Communist Leader?

Stalin has never done any of these things.

Stalin's policies contradicted the policy of the Bolsheviks/Lenin in almost every aspect. From Stalin's forced collectivization, abandoning internationalism in favor of Russian nationalism and chauvinism, to murdering hundreds of thousands of Bolsheviks and facilitating the bureaucratization worker's state.

And even if he didn't like Lenin then why is it called Marxism-Leninism? It would be stupid to hat someone and his policies and then call it Marxism-Leninism don't ya' think?
Why is National Socialism called National Socialism?




Here is my favourite one:

Yes, Trotsky was winning "fame"(he was more "famous" then Lenin or any other Bolshevik already before the revolution, because of his role as one of the leaders of the 1905 Revolution...many in the West wondered why Trotsky wasn't considered the "main" leader of October Revolution in Russia) by making speeches...and also by serving as the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs and building and heading the Red Army from scratch to ultimate victory in the seemingly unwinnable civil war and foreign intervention...right

You need to read more.
Maybe you need to "read more".


Stalin respected and adored Lenin as Lenin respected and liked Stalin.
Read More if you want:
http://red-channel.de/the_real_stalin_testament.htm

It's funny that you mention Georgia, Lenin called Stalin's role in Georgia a "Great-Russian nationalistic campaign" after he was informed that Stalin and his cronies were feeding him lies regarding Georgia.

[l'Enfermé]

People, hear this! Starving millions of peasants to death is actually helping them! I know, it's counter-intuitive, and the millions of peasants who were starved to death surely disagree, but Stalin said so, so it's true! Hail the Father of Nations and Gardener of Human Happiness!

[Bostana]

People, hear this! Starving millions of peasants to death is actually helping them! I know, it's counter-intuitive, and the millions of peasants who were starved to death surely disagree, but Stalin said so, so it's true! Hail the Father of Nations and Gardener of Human Happiness!

Okay so right now you proved to me that you didn't read what I typed.

[Bostana]

I am not ploughing through your worthless Stalinist quotes.

So if refuse to read my quotes and paragraphs how will you ever learn anything new?

[Omsk]

Hello,i will answer some of your questions without going into worthless sectarianism.

And i suggest everyone stops with such behaviour too.


1. Did Lenin support the ends justifying the means and if so do you support it and why?

I support it,because a revolution is not something which can be won with ease,and defended with ease.


2. Does the democratic centralist idea create "freedom of discussion, unity of action" or just authoritarian institutions? Is there more than one theory of democratic centralism (for example, I have heard that Rosa Luxembourg had a different idea of democratic centralism than Lenin did).


It's a principle,and it is about the freedom to discuss,but unity after the decission is made.It's quite simple.


3. Do all Leninists support a one-party state or feel that was just a specific tacticc used in Russia in Lenin's time?

The 'one-party state' is the right-wing's favorite argument,the working class in Russia needed a Vanguard party of the workers which would lead the revolutionary struggle,in unity and with precise action,and after the society passed trough the militaristic part of the struggle,the fight against backward elements must continue,and anti-communist,thus,anti-worker parties,just become too much,uneeded weight,and something which the workers themselves would not want.(Reactionary elements.)


4. Do all Leninists support either Trotsky or Stalin or are their Leninist organizations that hate/like both?


This is simple:

1) Both ML's and Trotskyists consider themselves "Leninists" ,but,they are quite hostile to each-other,so there is no ML organization which 'supports' Trotsky,or a Trotskyite group which 'supports' Stalin.

And since both Stalin and Trotsky are the 'main historical figures' in ML and Trotskyite parties,there are no groups which 'hate both' - at least to my knowledge.



5. Is the use of a vanguard party relevant and if yes than why?



It is,the working class must have an organized column which would be at the front of the struggle against the most backward elements,thus serving as the fighting fist of the proletariat.I doubt a revolution could succeed without the Vanguard party.


6. Most would agree that Lenin was a genuine revolutionary but was Lenin power hungry and wanting to silence opposition or just reacting to the situation given to him?


Power hungry?No,he never had the 'full power' although he was an important figure.

Here is a note on the Bolsheviks and the other political parties:

In the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks were not the only legal party. The Left Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Menshevik internationalists, Anarchists, Maximalists, and several other small political parties also existed legally and published their newspapers. After the Brest-Litovsk treaty they were all in opposition to the Bolsheviks. Naturally, the Bolsheviks kept a very close eye on this opposition press.
... The Social Revolutionaries, who at this time [early 1918] were the political allies of the Mensheviks,...
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 52

(If you wonder,Medvedev is an anti-Stalin historian who's focus is on the history of Russia and the history of the Soviet Union.)

And:

The Sovnarkom met three times, on 7, 8, and 9 December 1917, under Lenin's chairmanship, to discuss broadening the political base of the new regime by including some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (Left SR's), and finally agreed to include seven of them, five as People's Commissars and two as ministers without portfolio.
Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Autopsy for an Empire. New York: Free Press, c1998, p. 13


8. Do you think the NEP was a negative development for Lenin to make or helped pave the way for socialism? I generally agree with Che Guevara on this point.


Lenin himself saw the NEP as the 'step back' ,but his stance was that it had to end,and after that,two steps forward should be made.

[Renegade Saint]

1. Did Lenin support the ends justifying the means and if so do you support it and why?

Marxists don't usually think in terms of absolute moral 'rights' and 'wrongs' that this question presupposes. Class interests are dominant. I support democracy and free speech because I believe it is in the class interest of the working class.

2. Does the democratic centralist idea create "freedom of discussion, unity of action" or just authoritarian institutions?

That is a very good question. But of course someone's answer is going to depend onf whether they're in a democratic centralist organization ;) I think history shows that democratic centralism has a definite tendency towards groupthink and cultish behavior-so much so that I don't think any advantages of it outweigh the negatives.

3. Do all Leninists support a one-party state or feel that was just a specific tacticc used in Russia in Lenin's time?

Definitely not. The Fourth International has a good article on socialist (multi-party) democracy that demonstrates this: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921
personally I think democratic centralism combined with a one-party state is the worst possible combination because there's no room for dissent of any kind, you can't just join another party or create a faction within "the" party.

4. Do all Leninists support either Trotsky or Stalin or are their Leninist organizations that hate/like both?

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

5. Is the use of a vanguard party relevant and if yes than why?

There's always a vanguard in any struggle. There is no revolution without a vanguard. In my mind a vanguard party is merely aspiring to lead the class struggles, rather than tail them as so many socialist parties seem to do.

6. Most would agree that Lenin was a genuine revolutionary but was Lenin power hungry and wanting to silence opposition or just reacting to the situation given to him?
The notion that Lenin was merely "power-hungry" rather than (primarily) responding to the impossible situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in (ie, trying to lead a society already economically backward and devastated by nearly four years of WWI and dealing with renegade white armies and 14 imperialist countries sending soldiers to stamp them out) should be anathema to anyone acquainted with historical materialism.

[l'Enfermé]

Okay so right now you proved to me that you didn't read what I typed.
It's unfortunate, but I read stupid shit Stalinists write before I reply to it. It's a very unpleasant experience but I actually do it.

[Bostana]

It's unfortunate, but I read stupid shit Stalinists write before I reply to it. It's a very unpleasant experience but I actually do it.

Okay I am sure you do.

That's why you said Stalin didn't care about Peasants write? If you read my post and were able to comprehend it you would know that what you said is false.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So for Daftpunks question on what Che said about the NEP Che thought that the NEP was a horrible decision made by Lenin that hindered the socialist consciousness development of the people of Russia and allowed remnants of Russia's old society to seep back into the new one.

[Zulu]

1. Did Lenin support the ends justifying the means and if so do you support it and why?

Yes and yes, because not doing so would put you at an extreme disadvantage in politics.





2. Does the democratic centralist idea create "freedom of discussion, unity of action" or just authoritarian institutions? Is there more than one theory of democratic centralism (for example, I have heard that Rosa Luxembourg had a different idea of democratic centralism than Lenin did).

This is a harder one. I'd say that authoritarian institutions naturally result from any kind of revolutionary (or active counter-revolutionary, for that matter) practice, but that would be especially so as long as the goal of the revolution is to organize a large-scale economic system guided by central planning. Therefore, every time the freedom of discussion comes to conflict with the unity of action it has to take the back seat. Freedom of discussion's best chance to survive is the leaders' understanding that it's sometimes necessary to have a different perspective and that the long-term efficiency will undoubtedly be lost, if no freedom of discussion is allowed at all.





3. Do all Leninists support a one-party state or feel that was just a specific tacticc used in Russia in Lenin's time?
It was a "specific tactic", but it is highly probable to be repeated under many various conditions. Even if other parties were allowed to exist, they would not have a "fair go" at politics. Marxist-Leninsts would like to dominate political landscape and not give up political power once they've taken it.





4. Do all Leninists support either Trotsky or Stalin or are their Leninist organizations that hate/like both?

Yes, there are people describing themselves as Leninists who like both, some hate both and some think both are irrelevant.





5. Is the use of a vanguard party relevant and if yes than why?

Yes, for all the same reasons Lenin advocated it.





6. Most would agree that Lenin was a genuine revolutionary but was Lenin power hungry and wanting to silence opposition or just reacting to the situation given to him?

I say Lenin was eager to do his part changing the world for the better, and regarded power as a useful instrument for it, which there could not be too much of. (Th ends justify the means).





7. When Lenin put the workers and workplace under government control he did this 6 months before the civil war broke out. Was Lenin preparing for the inevitable counter-revolution and if so where is the proof of this?

It was not in connection with the civil war. Lenin believed the majority of workers were not ready for self-management even under the best of political/international circumstances. Arguably that would be so even in modern industrially advanced countries, but in the 1918's Russia many workers were simply illiterate.





8. Do you think the NEP was a negative development for Lenin to make or helped pave the way for socialism? I generally agree with Che Guevara on this point.

It was a necessity forced by the economic collapse in the war-torn country. Lenin regarded it as a "temporary retreat".

[daft punk]

READ SOMETHING BESIDE TROTSKY.

Trotsky's 3 volume Military Writings as stated were published by the Soviet government in 1923. If you want to know what happened in the civil war I suggest that is a good place to start.




Stalin help the industry a little bit? HELLO the Five Year plan? The very you think you complain about. What do you think it was for? Happy Hour?
The Five Year Plan modernized industry and increase production and the economy of the USSR.

The first one started in 1928. It should have started in 1924.






Tax the Rich? They're were no rich it was Communism remember? No businesses a classless society?


This is ludicrous. Read the Intro to the Platform of the Opposition
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/index.htm

Lenin said tax the rich, Stalin did the opposite, these are facts. Try reading instead of wasting time typing rubbish.

Trotsky:

"Taxes, wages, prices, and credit are the chief instruments of distribution of the national income, strengthening certain classes and weakening others. The agricultural tax in the country is imposed, as a general rule, in an inverse progression: heavily upon the poor, more lightly upon the economically strong and upon the kulaks. According to approximate calculations, 34 per cent of the poor peasant proprietors of the Soviet Union (even omitting provinces with a highly developed class differentiation, such as the Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, and Siberia) receive 18 per cent of the net income. Exactly the same total income, 18 per cent, is received by the highest group, constituting only 7.5 per cent of the proprietors. Yet both these groups pay approximately the same amount, 20 per cenf each of the total tax. It is evident from this that on each individual poor farm the tax lays a much heavier burden than on the kulak, or the “well-to-do’ proprietor in general. Contrary to the fears of the leaders of the Fourteenth Congress, our tax-policy by no means strips’ the kulak. It does not hinder him in the least from concentrating in his hands a continually greater accumulation in money and kind.
The role of the indirect taxes in our budget is growing alarmingly at the expense of the direct. By that alone the tax-burden automatically shifts from the wealthier to the poorer levels. The taxation of the workers in 1925-1926 was twice as high as in the preceding year, while the taxation of the rest of the urban population diminished by 6 per cent. [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch01.htm#n1) The liquor tax falls, with more and more unbearable heaviness, precisely upon the industrial regions. The growth of income per person for 1926 as compared with 1925 – according to certain approximate calculations – constituted, for the peasants, 19 per cent; for the workers, 26 per cent; for the merchants and the industrialists, 46 per cent. If you divide the “peasants’ into three fundamental groups, it will appear beyond a doubt that the income of the kulak increased incomparably more than that of the worker. The income of the merchants and industrialists, calculated on the basis of the tax data, is undoubtedly represented as less than it is. However, even these somewhat coloured figures clearly testify to a growth of class differences.
The “scissors”, representing the disparity of agricultural and industrial prices, have drawn still farther apart during the last year and a half. The peasant received for his produce not more than one and a quarter times the pre-war price, and he paid for industrial products not less than two and one-fifth times as much as before the war. This over-payment by the peasants, and again predominantly by the lower level of the peasants, constituting in the past year a sum of about a milliard rubles, not only increases the conflict between agriculture and industry, but greatly sharpens the differentiation in the country.
On the disparity between wholesale and retail prices, the state industry loses, and also the consumer, which means that there is a third party who gains. It is the private capitalist who gains, and consequently capitalism.
Real wages in 1927 stand, at the best, at the same level as in the autumn of 1925. Yet it is indubitable that during the two years intervening the country has grown richer, the total national income has increased, the kulak levels in the country have increased their reserves with enormous rapidity, and the accumulations of the private capitalist, the merchant, the speculator have grown by leaps and bounds. It is clear that the share of the working class in the total income of the country has fallen, while the share of other classes has grown. This fact is of supreme importance in appraising our whole situation.
Only a person who believes at the bottom of his heart that our working class and our party are not able to cope with the difficulties and dangers can affirm that a frank indication of these contradictions in our development, and of the growth of these hostile forces, is panic or pessimism. We do not accept this view. It is necessary to see the dangers clearly. We point them out accurately, precisely in order to struggle with them more effectively and to overcome them.


A certain growth of the hostile forces, the kulak, the Nepman, and the bureaucrat, is unavoidable under the New Economic Policy. You cannot destroy these forces by mere administrative order or by simple economic pressure. In introducing the NEP and carrying it through, we ourselves created a certain place for capitalistic relations in our country, and for a considerable time to come we still have to recognize them as inevitable. Lenin merely reminded us of a naked truth which the workers have to know, when he said:
While we continue to be a small peasant country, there is a more solid basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism. That we must remember ... We have not torn out capitalism by the roots, and we have not undermined the foundation and basis of the internal enemy. [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch01.htm#n2)
The supremely important social fact here indicated by Lenin cannot, as we said, be simply destroyed, but we can overcome it by way of a correct, planned and systematic working-class policy, relying upon the peasant poor and an alliance with the middle peasant. This policy basically consists in an all.round strengthening of all the social positions of the proletariat, in the swiftest possible elevation of the commanding centres of socialism, in closest possible connexion with the preparation and development of the world proletarian revolution."




So you're telling me that Stalin didn't help the Peasants in any way? I like how you troll but try harder.
Collectivization:


Read More if you want to:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivisation.htm

Your quote shows that the peasants were against collectivisation. This was because Stalin did it too late, in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

Lenin said tax the rich and dont tax the poor. Stalin did the opposite. Lenin said subsidise cooperatives for poor peasants, entice them in over a 10-20 year period, offering mechanisation and cheap loans etc. Stlin's policy from 1924-8 was the exact opposite. He did nothing for the poor peasants, he favoured the rich ones. But then in 1928-9, as Trotsky had predicted, the rich peasants had become richer and more numerous and so more powerful, and they challenged for power. They withheld grain and so the state couldnt purchase enough. It was a challenge to Stalin's power. He started requisitioning it and they rebelled so he started forcible collectivisation. This disastrous policy led to millions dying from hunger.

You have to look at collectivisation in 1928 as part of the overall picture. Stalin had screwed up the Chinese revolution in 1925-7, but he was pretending the defeat never happened. The working class were in a low period but Stalin was proclaiming that a world revolutionary upsurge was happening. This led to a shift to a left position. He was doing in Russia what Trotsky had said should have been done earlier, and making excuses as to why he had delayed it. 1928 was the start of the Third Period where Stalin's policies made a big zig zag, and lurched to a fake left position for 6 years, leading to the Nazis taking power in Germany as I explained many times.

Stalin was forced to collectivise to save his ass. He did it too fast, too late, for the wrong reasons, and in a terrible way.

Read Lenin's On Cooperation as to how Lenin wanted it done, and the Platform of the Opposition.

Under Stalin, from 1924-8, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, and so the rich challenged for power, as Trotsky predicted, forcing Stalin to collectivise very rapidly and brutally.

[l'Enfermé]

Okay I am sure you do.

That's why you said Stalin didn't care about Peasants write? If you read my post and were able to comprehend it you would know that what you said is false.
You said Stalin "benifited" peasants, I said that starving millions of peasants to death because you are so stupid doesn't "help" peasants. It does the opposite.

[TheGeekySocialist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

to provide a bit of balance as not everyone worships the Bolsheviks...

[l'Enfermé]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

to provide a bit of balance as not everyone worships the Bolsheviks...
Mr. Chomsky is actually repeating the line of Kautsky.

The irony is that besides Marx and Engels, no one has influenced Lenin and the Bolsheviks more than Kautsky. Using Kautsky's arguments against the Bolsheviks is like saying Mein Kampf is a good criticism of National-Socialism.

[Bostana]

Trotsky's 3 volume Military Writings as stated were published by the Soviet government in 1923. If you want to know what happened in the civil war I suggest that is a good place to start.

Okay, I repeat read something besides Trotsky every once and a while

And of course if you're gonna read Trotsky's view then you're gonna get a bias opinion.




This is ludicrous.

How is it ludicrous?

There is no class in a Communist society. Have you been reading Marx lately? Because I do remember him saying Communism is classless

[daft punk]

So for Daftpunks question on what Che said about the NEP Che thought that the NEP was a horrible decision made by Lenin that hindered the socialist consciousness development of the people of Russia and allowed remnants of Russia's old society to seep back into the new one.
Yeah, like Che was a more experienced revolutionary than Lenin.

[daft punk]

Okay, I repeat read something besides Trotsky every once and a while

And of course if you're gonna read Trotsky's view then you're gonna get a bias opinion.

His military writings were published by the Bolshevik government in 1923. A lot of them are letters, speeches and so on. I can be pretty certain you have never read any of them. He was the leader of the Red Army and these are the things he wrote during the civil war.

eg

Organizing the Red Army


9. The New Army (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch09.htm) (Speech at the Alekseyevskaya People’s House, March 22, 1918) (7.6k)
10. The Red Army (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch10.htm) (Speech at the session of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee, April 22, 1918) (79.9k)
11. Decree on Compulsory Military Training (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch11.htm), adopted at the session of April 22, 1918 (6.9k)
12. The Socialist Oath (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch12.htm), promulgated at the session of April 22, 1918 (3.4k)
13. To All Province, Uyezd and Volost Soviets of Workers’, Peasants’ and Cossacks’ Deputies (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch13.htm) (3.9k)
14. The Organization of the Red Army (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch14.htm) (Speech at the First All-Russia Congress of Military Commissars, June 7, 1918)(14.8k)

this is the historical record. Written as it happened.









Originally Posted by Bostana http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2391997#post2391997)
"Tax the Rich? They're were no rich it was Communism remember? No businesses a classless society? "

This is ludicrous. Read the Intro to the Platform of the Opposition
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...tion/index.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/index.htm)

Lenin said tax the rich, Stalin did the opposite, these are facts. Try reading instead of wasting time typing rubbish.

Trotsky:

"Taxes, wages, prices, and credit are the chief instruments of distribution of the national income, strengthening certain classes and weakening others. The agricultural tax in the country is imposed, as a general rule, in an inverse progression: heavily upon the poor, more lightly upon the economically strong and upon the kulaks. According to approximate calculations, 34 per cent of the poor peasant proprietors of the Soviet Union (even omitting provinces with a highly developed class differentiation, such as the Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, and Siberia) receive 18 per cent of the net income. Exactly the same total income, 18 per cent, is received by the highest group, constituting only 7.5 per cent of the proprietors. Yet both these groups pay approximately the same amount, 20 per cenf each of the total tax. It is evident from this that on each individual poor farm the tax lays a much heavier burden than on the kulak, or the “well-to-do’ proprietor in general. Contrary to the fears of the leaders of the Fourteenth Congress, our tax-policy by no means strips’ the kulak. It does not hinder him in the least from concentrating in his hands a continually greater accumulation in money and kind.
The role of the indirect taxes in our budget is growing alarmingly at the expense of the direct. By that alone the tax-burden automatically shifts from the wealthier to the poorer levels. The taxation of the workers in 1925-1926 was twice as high as in the preceding year, while the taxation of the rest of the urban population diminished by 6 per cent. [1] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch01.htm#n1) The liquor tax falls, with more and more unbearable heaviness, precisely upon the industrial regions. The growth of income per person for 1926 as compared with 1925 – according to certain approximate calculations – constituted, for the peasants, 19 per cent; for the workers, 26 per cent; for the merchants and the industrialists, 46 per cent. If you divide the “peasants’ into three fundamental groups, it will appear beyond a doubt that the income of the kulak increased incomparably more than that of the worker. The income of the merchants and industrialists, calculated on the basis of the tax data, is undoubtedly represented as less than it is. However, even these somewhat coloured figures clearly testify to a growth of class differences.
The “scissors”, representing the disparity of agricultural and industrial prices, have drawn still farther apart during the last year and a half. The peasant received for his produce not more than one and a quarter times the pre-war price, and he paid for industrial products not less than two and one-fifth times as much as before the war. This over-payment by the peasants, and again predominantly by the lower level of the peasants, constituting in the past year a sum of about a milliard rubles, not only increases the conflict between agriculture and industry, but greatly sharpens the differentiation in the country.
On the disparity between wholesale and retail prices, the state industry loses, and also the consumer, which means that there is a third party who gains. It is the private capitalist who gains, and consequently capitalism.
Real wages in 1927 stand, at the best, at the same level as in the autumn of 1925. Yet it is indubitable that during the two years intervening the country has grown richer, the total national income has increased, the kulak levels in the country have increased their reserves with enormous rapidity, and the accumulations of the private capitalist, the merchant, the speculator have grown by leaps and bounds. It is clear that the share of the working class in the total income of the country has fallen, while the share of other classes has grown. This fact is of supreme importance in appraising our whole situation.
Only a person who believes at the bottom of his heart that our working class and our party are not able to cope with the difficulties and dangers can affirm that a frank indication of these contradictions in our development, and of the growth of these hostile forces, is panic or pessimism. We do not accept this view. It is necessary to see the dangers clearly. We point them out accurately, precisely in order to struggle with them more effectively and to overcome them.


A certain growth of the hostile forces, the kulak, the Nepman, and the bureaucrat, is unavoidable under the New Economic Policy. You cannot destroy these forces by mere administrative order or by simple economic pressure. In introducing the NEP and carrying it through, we ourselves created a certain place for capitalistic relations in our country, and for a considerable time to come we still have to recognize them as inevitable. Lenin merely reminded us of a naked truth which the workers have to know, when he said:
While we continue to be a small peasant country, there is a more solid basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism. That we must remember ... We have not torn out capitalism by the roots, and we have not undermined the foundation and basis of the internal enemy. [2] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch01.htm#n2)
The supremely important social fact here indicated by Lenin cannot, as we said, be simply destroyed, but we can overcome it by way of a correct, planned and systematic working-class policy, relying upon the peasant poor and an alliance with the middle peasant. This policy basically consists in an all.round strengthening of all the social positions of the proletariat, in the swiftest possible elevation of the commanding centres of socialism, in closest possible connexion with the preparation and development of the world proletarian revolution."


How is it ludicrous?

There is no class in a Communist society. Have you been reading Marx lately? Because I do remember him saying Communism is classless

I just explained, with a load of detail and a link to more. The rich were getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It was not classless, it was not communism, the data is right in front of your face.

A year later Stalin was forced to confront these people. There was inequality after forced collectivisation, never mind before.

[manic expression]

Okay, I repeat read something besides Trotsky every once and a while

And of course if you're gonna read Trotsky's view then you're gonna get a bias opinion.
It seems someone's not listening to this piece of good advice.

[l'Enfermé]

Translation: "Don't read trustworthy sources, you must insult your own intelligence and read Stalinist propaganda only!"

[Bostana]

His military writings were published by the Bolshevik government in 1923. A lot of them are letters, speeches and so on. I can be pretty certain you have never read any of them. He was the leader of the Red Army and these are the things he wrote during the civil war.

Read Something besides Trotsky, I mean really how many times?


A year later Stalin was forced to confront these people. There was inequality after forced collectivisation, never mind before.

They're were no classes. And duh it wasn't total Communism. If it was total Communism there would be no State. But the point is you told me that Lenin said tax the rich, which is correct, if he wanted classes. How can Lenin say Tax the rich if he was a Communist? They're would be no rich it makes no sense.

What Stalin did was represent a correct and successful practical implementation of the ideas of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin


Tax the rich - Stalin did the opposite

Another thing wrong with this, how would Stalin be able to Tax the Rich the only position he had at the time was unimportant how in anyway would he control Taxes?

[l'Enfermé]

Read Something besides Trotsky, I mean really how many times?



They're were no classes. And duh it was total Communism. If it was total Communism there would be State. But the point is you told me that Lenin said tax the rich, which is correct, if he wanted classes. How can Lenin say Tax the rich if he was a Communist? They're would be no rich it makes no sense.

What Stalin did was represent a correct and successful practical implementation of the ideas of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin
No wonder that no one takes Stalinists seriously around here, except for other Stalinists!

[Bostana]

No wonder that no one takes Stalinists seriously around here, except for other Stalinists!

What has this have to do with anything I have said?

[daft punk]

They're were no classes. And duh it wasn't total Communism. If it was total Communism there would be no State. But the point is you told me that Lenin said tax the rich, which is correct, if he wanted classes. How can Lenin say Tax the rich if he was a Communist? They're would be no rich it makes no sense.



V. I. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x02.htm) Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/oct/15.htm)

Re the Decree on
The Imposition of a Tax In Kind on Farmers[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm#fwV42E9097)


"the rich peasant not to be expropriated, but taxed equitably, heavily middle peasants to be taxed lightly
poor peasants-not at all."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm




What Stalin did was represent a correct and successful practical implementation of the ideas of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin

No he did the opposite as I have shown in the quote above from Trotsky, with clear facts and figures. Stalins right hand man, Bukharin, told the peasants 'enrich yourselves'.




Another thing wrong with this, how would Stalin be able to Tax the Rich the only position he had at the time was unimportant how in anyway would he control Taxes?

Stalin won control early in 1924 and by 1927 had his own terror going against the Left Opposition.

Ok I have been through this beginners stuff with you several times now, that was the last time. Read the paste above, it explains it very clearly.

[Bostana]

V. I. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x02.htm) Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/oct/15.htm)

Re the Decree on
The Imposition of a Tax In Kind on Farmers[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm#fwV42E9097)


"the rich peasant not to be expropriated, but taxed equitably, heavily middle peasants to be taxed lightly
poor peasants-not at all."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm


Yes go ahead and live in your Trotsky version of Communism where they're are classes Rich and Poor. SO then the rich can enslave the poor.
Just Like Capitialism
Go ahead read Marx instead of Trotsky for once.


No he did the opposite as I have shown in the quote above from Trotsky, with clear facts and figures. Stalins right hand man, Bukharin, told the peasants 'enrich yourselves'.

How many times do I need to repeat myself:
READ SOMETHING BESIDES TROTSKY

Just because Trotsky said something doesn't make it truth. You sound like a Christo-Fascist. "It's in the Bible so it's Truth."
Really that's what you sound like


Stalin won control early in 1924 and by 1927 had his own terror going against the Left Opposition.

That's the point I am trying to make if Lenin told Stalin to Tax the rich (Which would make no sense since Lenin was a Communist so he is against class) then Lenin would of meant that Stalin was going to be in charge.

So basically you're fighting yourself on this one and they're two things wrong with what you said:
1. If Lenin told Stalin to raise Taxes on the rich in 1924 before he died then Lenin must of put Stalin in charge because Stalin's position at the time had no right to control Taxes.
2. If he told Stalin to tax the rich, that would mean Lenin created classes, if he created classes that wouldn't make him Communist.

So basically, these are the things you're telling me.

[Geiseric]

Yes go ahead and live in your Trotsky version of Communism where they're are classes Rich and Poor. SO then the rich can enslave the poor.
Just Like Capitialism
Go ahead read Marx instead of Trotsky for once.



How many times do I need to repeat myself:
READ SOMETHING BESIDES TROTSKY

Just because Trotsky said something doesn't make it truth. You sound like a Christo-Fascist. "It's in the Bible so it's Truth."
Really that's what you sound like



That's the point I am trying to make if Lenin told Stalin to Tax the rich (Which would make no sense since Lenin was a Communist so he is against class) then Lenin would of meant that Stalin was going to be in charge.

So basically you're fighting yourself on this one and they're two things wrong with what you said:
1. If Lenin told Stalin to raise Taxes on the rich in 1924 before he died then Lenin must of put Stalin in charge because Stalin's position at the time had no right to control Taxes.
2. If he told Stalin to tax the rich, that would mean Lenin created classes, if he created classes that wouldn't make him Communist.

So basically, these are the things you're telling me.


You know nothing about the USSR, NEP, Planned Economy, or the economic development post civil war. I recommend that you read a book about it. Trotsky was there, so he's a good choice.

I'm honestly not going to explain this to you, since I don't see the point. But there were rich peasents after the Civil War, all of the land wasn't under state control. There was private ownership of farming which Stalin, Zinoviev, and Bukharin were in favor of even when 60% of the wheat reserve was in control of 6% of the peasant population, and people in the cities were starving. Trotsky supported expropiating that Wheat and sending it to the cities. That was the premis of collectivism. At that point, general quotas and raise of production from the cities would allow better equipment to be shipped to the countryside, to build collective farms. This was the prototype planned economy, presented by the Left Opposition.

You might find it hard to believe, but for most of the 1920s, Stalin supported keeping farms owned individually, instead of collectively. All of his plans came from Trotsky.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2393925#post2393925)
"V. I. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x02.htm) Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/oct/15.htm)

Re the Decree on
The Imposition of a Tax In Kind on Farmers[1] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm#fwV42E9097)


"the rich peasant not to be expropriated, but taxed equitably, heavily
middle peasants to be taxed lightly
poor peasants-not at all."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...918/sep/21.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm)"

Yes go ahead and live in your Trotsky version of Communism where they're are classes Rich and Poor. SO then the rich can enslave the poor.
Just Like Capitialism
Go ahead read Marx instead of Trotsky for once.

The quote is from LENIN!!!!!!!!!!




How many times do I need to repeat myself:
READ SOMETHING BESIDES TROTSKY

The quote was from Bukharin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin), Stalin's right hand man.

Here are some quotes from a general history site:

"In the end, NEP helped the rich peasant at the expense of the poorer peasant, who now became a hired, landless laborer."

"By 1924, private business accounted for 40% of Russian domestic trade."

"The left-deviationists favored the liquidation of NEPmenand the kulaks and a return to Marxism at home and the fostering of world revolution. Trotsky was a left-deviationist."

"In the struggle of the mid-1920s, Trotsky argued for a more highly trained managerial force in industry and for economic planning as an instrument that the state could use to control social change. Agriculture should be completely mechanized and peasant individualism should be weakened. Trotsky also maintained that only a world revolution would permit Russia to carry socialism to its proper conclusion. Socialism, in other words, could not succeed in one country. There must be either a world socialist revolution or Russian socialism was doomed to failure. The opponents of Trotsky's left deviation found their voice in Nikolai Bukharin (http://trotsky.org/archive/bukharin/index.htm) (1888-1938), the editor of Pravda. A defender of NEP, Bukharin managed to soften the rigorous Marxist doctrine of the class struggle. He believed socialism was sure of success. Bukharin did not believe in rapid industrialization -- his vision of socialism would be attained gradually over time. He favored cooperatives among peasants but opposed collectivization in which the peasants owned everything "collectively." In foreign affairs, Bukharin was eager to cooperate with noncommunist groups who might be useful to Russia.
In his rise to power, Stalin used Bukharin's ideas to discredit Trotsky, then, partly because Bukharin's policies were failing, he adopted many of Trotsky's policies and eliminated Bukharin. Stalin was not a theoretician. "
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture7.html

Note that by 1928 only 1% of the peasants were in cooperatives. Lenin had wanted all peasants in cooperatives.






Just because Trotsky said something doesn't make it truth. You sound like a Christo-Fascist. "It's in the Bible so it's Truth."
Really that's what you sound like


Trotsky was still in the government. He had access to all the facts and figures, and he presented them.

There is tons of data out there. Loads of history books full of figures the number of peasants with no animals and the number who had several. About 30% of peasants had no draft animals or ploughing equipment. On the other hand just 3% of farms had several animals and owned a third of the agricultural machinery. source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ooks.google.co.uk/books?id=OZuFMKn5NA4C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=horseless+peasants+1927&source=bl&ots=ShgKUz6txz&sig=kkyOizw0hV9tvIbzuW7gZWHEwX4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=moxtT6KsD-rJ0QXdppyNAg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=horseless%20peasants%201927&f=false)




That's the point I am trying to make if Lenin told Stalin to Tax the rich (Which would make no sense since Lenin was a Communist so he is against class) then Lenin would of meant that Stalin was going to be in charge.


Lenin did not tell Stalin to tax the rich, he said the rich should be heavily taxed. This is in the quote above which you seem to think was Trotsky. Please read this stuff properly.





So basically you're fighting yourself on this one and they're two things wrong with what you said:
1. If Lenin told Stalin to raise Taxes on the rich in 1924 before he died then Lenin must of put Stalin in charge because Stalin's position at the time had no right to control Taxes.
2. If he told Stalin to tax the rich, that would mean Lenin created classes, if he created classes that wouldn't make him Communist.

So basically, these are the things you're telling me.
wrong. see above. Please read this stuff before replying to it.

[Bostana]

Trotsky's source.
I mean really talk about blind faith. Do all Trots believe whatever comes out of Trotsky's mouth is truth? He has a history of Opportunism and Terrorism and you guy's just brush that off like it was nothing. Trotsky wanted his version of the USSR not Lenin's


Lenin did not tell Stalin to tax the rich, he said the rich should be heavily taxed. This is in the quote above which you seem to think was Trotsky. Please read this stuff properly.

There is so many things wrong with you said I don't know where to start.
First there is no classes in Communism? We have established that right? So if they're are no classes, and by no classes I mean no one is richer or poorer than anyone, so why would Lenin order a group of people to be Taxed more? It make's no sense
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
No class means no one is taxed more then someone else. If you tax someone more than someone else then that establishes classes?

WHY WOULD LENIN ESTABLISH CLASSES?

[Geiseric]

Dude everything you've read from the ML press is increadibly wrong and askewed. The U.S.S.R. wasn't communist, nobody even Stalin said that. There was a communist party in charge, however that doesn't mean that all of their goals could of just happened.

Lenin isn't establishing other classes, he was dealing with ones that still existed in the fSU. Those classes had representatives in the conservative bolsheviks.

[Grenzer]

So for Daftpunks question on what Che said about the NEP Che thought that the NEP was a horrible decision made by Lenin that hindered the socialist consciousness development of the people of Russia and allowed remnants of Russia's old society to seep back into the new one.

The NEP wasn't so much a horrible decision as an unavoidable one that was a retreat away from socialism.. not that it mattered much because revolution failed to spread, so it was going to be fucked anyway. After the ravages of War Communism and the limitation of the proletariat to a demographic minority, the NEP was a capitulation to the peasantry. Depending on who you ask, this is when the bureaucratic elite began to consolidate their control; but others would say that the bureaucratic dictatorship had begun under the civil war, but didn't become irreversible until Stalin came in charge.

It's also kind of amusing that people are complaining that Trotskyists only talk about Trotsky when they are unable to make a substantial criticism against Trotsky's line.

[daft punk]

Trotsky's source.
I mean really talk about blind faith. Do all Trots believe whatever comes out of Trotsky's mouth is truth? He has a history of Opportunism and Terrorism and you guy's just brush that off like it was nothing. Trotsky wanted his version of the USSR not Lenin's


The quote is Lenin and the source is the Lenin archive on the internet and it has fuck all to do with Trotsky for crying out loud.




Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2394468#post2394468)
"Lenin did not tell Stalin to tax the rich, he said the rich should be heavily taxed. This is in the quote above which you seem to think was Trotsky. Please read this stuff properly. "
There is so many things wrong with you said I don't know where to start.
First there is no classes in Communism? We have established that right?


So if they're are no classes, and by no classes I mean no one is richer or poorer than anyone, so why would Lenin order a group of people to be Taxed more? It make's no sense
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
No class means no one is taxed more then someone else. If you tax someone more than someone else then that establishes classes?

WHY WOULD LENIN ESTABLISH CLASSES?

So why did Lenin say:
the rich peasant not to be expropriated, but taxed equitably, heavily

Lenin said the above and you have a link but refuse to believe he said it!

It was in the NEP, of course there were classes. Are you actually serious? Is this some kind of joke?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm

go to the link, read it, verify it, get the wording into your head.

[Bostana]

It was in the NEP, of course there were classes.

Are you fucking Stupid?

They're no classes in a Communist society. So why the hell would Lenin want classes to be established? It would make no sense. Lenin is Communist, why would he support the creation of classes.

This has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism this is just basic Communist knowledge

[daft punk]

Are you fucking Stupid?

They're no classes in a Communist society. So why the hell would Lenin want classes to be established? It would make no sense. Lenin is Communist, why would he support the creation of classes.

This has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism this is just basic Communist knowledge

Dear god. It's already been explained. It wasnt communist, nothing like. The Bolsheviks couldnt wipe out the class system overnight. Do you expect miracles?

There were rich peasants and poor ones, there were capitalists and workers.

Lenin said to tax the rich.

This isnt rocket science.

[daft punk]

"The capitalists are operating along side us. They are operating like robbers; they make profit; but they know how to do things."

LENIN 1922
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

[Bostana]

Dear god. It's already been explained. It wasnt communist, nothing like. The Bolsheviks couldnt wipe out the class system overnight. Do you expect miracles?

There were rich peasants and poor ones, there were capitalists and workers.

Lenin said to tax the rich.

This isnt rocket science.

You're missing the point,

I said nothing about the USSR being Communist. What I am telling you, is that Lenin was a Communist. If Lenin was Communist why would he establish a non Communist country?

Lenin goal was to make Russia Communist so why would he tax people more than another and create classes?

I can't explain it to you in any other way it's either you get or just to stupid to understand it.

[daft punk]

the rich peasant not to be expropriated, but taxed equitably, heavily

V. I. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x02.htm) Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/oct/15.htm)

Re the Decree on
The Imposition of a Tax In Kind on Farmers[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/21.htm#fwV42E9097)

Written: September 21, 1918

"The rich peasant not to be expropriated, but taxed equitably, heavily middle peasants to be taxed lightly
poor peasants-not at all."


Why are you incapable of reading and understanding that when Lenin says "the rich peasant ... to be ... taxed ... heavily" it is Lenin saying it not Trotsky, and he is saying to tax the rich heavily, using the words tax, rich and heavily. Why do I have to keep stating the obvious and you still can't see what is right in front of you in black and white? And red?

[Art Vandelay]

You're missing the point,

I said nothing about the USSR being Communist. What I am telling you, is that Lenin was a Communist. If Lenin was Communist why would he establish a non Communist country?

Lenin goal was to make Russia Communist so why would he tax people more than another and create classes?

I can't explain it to you in any other way it's either you get or just to stupid to understand it.

Honestly man, the only person making themselves look stupid here is you, Bostana. I really think it would be in your best interest to do some reading before posting more, but at the same time part of me wants to say nothing cause your posts can be entertaining.

Apparently you need an anarchist to teach you "the basics of communism" as you put it, but considering you're a stalinist (yes I know its called marxism-leninism I do not care) it is not all that surprising. Communists (like what you claim to be) believe in a transitional stage ie: the state as a transitional tool to bring about socialism/communism and to protect the gains of the revolution. The revolution does not happen over night, so no communist would expect that the USSR would be establishing communism immediately. Therefor a strategic retreat into state capitalism was necessary (or that was the reasoning for the NEP, something I am no expert on but I am sure Daft Punk knows the party line). That would be why there would still be classes during the time in question, because they did not even claim to be socialist or communist (as it would have been impossible) and were waiting on revolution in Germany.

While Daft Punk may not be right about everything, I am an anarchist so obviously I disagree with a lot he says, you are not even debating him and your one liners and ad hominems say more about your lack of understanding of even "the basic of communism" than it does about his arguments.

[daft punk]

Quick summary, Russia was semi feudal, backward, with some capitalism, mostly foreign owned. The Bolsheviks took over and a civil war broke out against the pro-Tsarist, pro-capitalist generals (Whites). The Bolsheviks implemented war communism tp dela with the economy. Basically this meant taking the peasant's grain to feed the soldiers and the urban workers. The peasants had little incentive to farm so they didn't grow enough, and this resulted in a famine.

So the Bolsheviks implemented the NEP, a temporary retreat which allowed a free market in agriculture. The inequality among the peasants was great, some owned big farms and employed people. These rich ones were the kulaks Lenin wanted to tax heavily. Many had no horses or tools and were very poor. This is the majority Lenin wanted to not tax at all, and to encourage into cooperatives, via subsidies. he wanted to get them not just basic tools but mechanisation. This would be paid for by the taxes paid by the rich, as described above. Also the money would be used to finance building state industries, electrification and railways etc.

[Art Vandelay]

Quick summary, Russia was semi feudal, backward, with some capitalism, mostly foreign owned. The Bolsheviks took over and a civil war broke out against the pro-Tsarist, pro-capitalist generals (Whites). The Bolsheviks implemented war communism tp dela with the economy. Basically this meant taking the peasant's grain to feed the soldiers and the urban workers. The peasants had little incentive to farm so they didn't grow enough, and this resulted in a famine.

So the Bolsheviks implemented the NEP, a temporary retreat which allowed a free market in agriculture. The inequality among the peasants was great, some owned big farms and employed people. These rich ones were the kulaks Lenin wanted to tax heavily. Many had no horses or tools and were very poor. This is the majority Lenin wanted to not tax at all, and to encourage into cooperatives, via subsidies. he wanted to get them not just basic tools but mechanisation. This would be paid for by the taxes paid by the rich, as described above. Also the money would be used to finance building state industries, electrification and railways etc.

As I said I am no expert on the NEP but I would be curious to know your opinions on what would of been the outcomes had the NEP been extended a few years longer?

I read somewhere the other day that while the NEP was meant to only be temporary, that Lenin, had he lived, would of continued it most likely towards the end of 30'. Which could have avoided the devastating consequences that followed.