Happy Birthday Lenin

[RedAtheist]

I just remembered it was Lenin's birthday today (22/4/12) and felt the need to a make a reference to this before I forgot. I'm not a fan of Lenin myself, but I'd like to know what other people think of him. Was he a good leader of the workers' movement or not. Tell me what you think and why.

[Alfonso Cano]

Happy birthday Comrade Lenin! :thumbup1:

What do I think about him? The greatest revolutionary ever to live!

[Geiseric]

Lenin was awesome, I wish those damn Kadets didn't try to kill him so many times >.>

[Ostrinski]

Lenin was a bro lol

[Manic Impressive]

he was a fool and really not a very nice person.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'll bet he'll be a riot during the zombie apocalypse.

[Railyon]

he was a fool and really not a very nice person.

I remember him being a massive dick in his notes on Bukharin's "The Politics and Economics of the Transition Period,Imperialism and World Economy".

[Rooster]

I still feel sorry for him going bald in his 20s.

[Manic Impressive]

yeah man totally there was just no need to be that dickish was there?

[Comrade Samuel]

God has a birthday?

I just thought he always was always will be.

[ForgedConscience]

Well, I'm not a Leninist but I do think his intentions were genuine. I mainly base this on his family's treatment under the tsarist regime, the execution of his brother and banishment of his sister, as well as his first-hand witnessing of the treatment of the peasants. There is no doubt in my mind this drove him to seek freedom for the people.

[Drosophila]

he was a fool and really not a very nice person.

There should have been a teddy bear leading the Russian Revolution. I agree.

[Geiseric]

Lenin was alot more "libertarian," than Trotsky even was at the time. But his theoreticals I think will long outlast him, you, me, Aristotle, or Napoleon.

[Railyon]

Lenin was alot more "libertarian," than Trotsky even was at the time.


[...]the conclusion is extremely precise, definite, practical and palpable: all previous revolutions perfected the state machine, whereas it must be broken, smashed.
[...]
Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.
[...]
But the more the bureaucratic apparatus is “redistributed” among the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties (among the Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks in the case of Russia), the more keenly aware the oppressed classes, and the proletariat at their head, become of their irreconcilable hostility to the whole of bourgeois society. Hence the need for all bourgeois parties, even for the most democratic and "revolutionary-democratic" among them, to intensify repressive measures against the revolutionary proletariat, to strengthen the apparatus of coercion, i.e., the state machine. This course of events compels the revolution "to concentrate all its forces of destruction" against the state power, and to set itself the aim, not of improving the state machine, but of smashing and destroying it.

Lenin, "State and Revolution"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=949

Was Lenin betraying his own principles? You decide.

[Art Vandelay]

Dude was a blatant opportunist that is for sure.

[DaringMehring]

Dude was a blatant opportunist that is for sure.

The kind of opportunist who organizes an insurrection and expropriates the bourgeoisie.

If only we had more of those among the numerous ranks of the "opportunists..."

[TheGodlessUtopian]

He was,without a doubt,the greatest revolutionary leftist who ever lived-period!

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzG4RGidY2DSZDg1ih4hsQInSrg4Ke7 Ig4vqO_nQqITHGDH6ZMGA

(Actual cake)

[Art Vandelay]

The kind of opportunist who organizes an insurrection and expropriates the bourgeoisie.

If only we had more of those among the numerous ranks of the "opportunists..."

I was more referring to the fact he turned on his beliefs and helped pave the way for stalinism. :thumbup1:

[WanderingCactus]

I'll bet he'll be a riot during the zombie apocalypse.

Watch out for the zombie vanguard.

[Geiseric]

Would the French Revolution worked out if the revolutionaries couldn't organize the Grand Armae? Would the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revoution of survived if the Red Army wasn't formed? You decide.

Levee en Masse happened for a reason and naturally the state was needed for that.

[OHumanista]

R.I.P comrade Lenin:thumbup1:

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Trots join Marxist-Leninists to defend Lenin against anarchist slander! THIS IS WAR!

[Zostrianos]

He was a man with great ideas, but who ended up doing some very bad things. I fully agree with the October Revolution, but Lenin (under Stalin's influence I think) eventually became increasingly violent. While a lot of the violence can be justified as a response to White terror, a good part of it just seemed to be wanton savagery.
That being said, I still think he was a great man.

[BE_]

To be honest, I don't give a shit.

[Art Vandelay]

He was a man with great ideas, but who ended up doing some very bad things. I fully agree with the October Revolution, but Lenin (under Stalin's influence I think) eventually became increasingly violent. While a lot of the violence can be justified as a response to White terror, a good part of it just seemed to be wanton savagery.
That being said, I still think he was a great man.

I do not have a problem with the violence, more with the lack of democracy under his leadership, the whole "socialism is state capitalism in the interests of the proletariat or whatever he said (seriously wtf:confused:)." What he said he would do and what he did were quite different. Also most usually forget that when he came out with the State and Revolution everyone thought he had become an anarchist.

On the positive side he did say one of my favorite quotes:

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

[Geiseric]

I do not have a problem with the violence, more with the lack of democracy under his leadership, the whole "socialism is state capitalism in the interests of the proletariat or whatever he said (seriously wtf:confused:)." What he said he would do and what he did were quite different. Also most usually forget that when he came out with the State and Revolution everyone thought he had become an anarchist.

On the positive side he did say one of my favorite quotes:

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

I thought that was a Stalin quote :/

[WanderingCactus]

I thought that was a Stalin quote :/

At the end of the day they're all the same.

[Ostrinski]

Though I do have to say, Stalin was way more badass.

[NewLeft]

Lenin was great at giving speeches..

[Art Vandelay]

I thought that was a Stalin quote :/

I have heard others say that too, but I am fairly certain it is correctly attributed to Lenin.

[Bronco]

Let's party

[Prometeo liberado]

A man who through the sheer power of his intellect could lead a nation. Lenin ate capitalist and pissed knowledge. Ass kickin' mother****er for sure!

[Questionable]

Neither fully good, nor fully evil. He was part of the first proletariat revolution, and whether you like what happened or not, it's important to analyze those events and take away lessons from it.

[Althusser]

Happy Birthday comrade Lenin!

[Goblin]

Happy birthday Lenin! One of the smartest and most influental people to ever live!

[Rooster]

He was a man with great ideas

He was a man with poor ideas. Socialism is state capitalism made to benefit the people? Oh, please.


A man who through the sheer power of his intellect could lead a nation. Lenin ate capitalist and pissed knowledge. Ass kickin' mother****er for sure!

And it's no coincidence that Lenin was a head of a capitalist state.

[marl]

Celebrating the birthday of an old revolutionary seems a bit too much to me, Revleft.



And it's no coincidence that Lenin was a head of a capitalist state.

Material conditions, yadda yadda.

[Prometeo liberado]

He was a man with poor ideas. Socialism is state capitalism made to benefit the people? Oh, please.



And it's no coincidence that Lenin was a head of a capitalist state.

Dont you have an old lady to rob or a sect to start? I mean I get it already. The ultra-left mantra and its mutant off spring, roosterism. Lets see, how does it go? Oh right, there has never been socialism. There are n o socialist. Stalin destroyed socialism(in this case Lenin as well). Stalin tried to destroy the socialist revolution in China, yes the socialism that never existed. Whittling down this checklist until you're left with only one other roosterist to cannibalize. An ideology of destruction without construction.

[Railyon]

He was a man with poor ideas. Socialism is state capitalism made to benefit the people? Oh, please.

In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.
It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!
State and Revolution, chapter 5

Did he just really contradict his own appeals to smashing the bourgeois state in earlier chapters? Like really?

Incoherence at its best.

[Art Vandelay]

He was a man with poor ideas. Socialism is state capitalism made to benefit the people? Oh, please.



And it's no coincidence that Lenin was a head of a capitalist state.

I will never understand the affinity some "socialists" have for praising politicians who helped found bourgeois capitalist states. :confused:

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I was more referring to the fact he turned on his beliefs and helped pave the way for stalinism. :thumbup1:

Ooooohh "Stalinism" :lol:

[Ostrinski]

In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.
It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!
State and Revolution, chapter 5

Did he just really contradict his own appeals to smashing the bourgeois state in earlier chapters? Like really?

Incoherence at its best.Yes, Lenin differentiated between socialism and communism. He uses socialism to refer to the dotp, which has not yet shed the capitalist mode of production. I think he's being perfectly honest with regard to his views on the matter actually :confused:. Of course, those who think commodity production will cease to exist on day 1 will find issue with this. But it's still completely honest.

[Anderson]

He was a tough comrade. Inspires us to keep away the time-passers and theorists whose presence or absence does not make any difference. Real communists work full time for revolution, they are professional revolutionaries.
Also he is perfect example that only revolutionaries who participate in day to day movement can actually represent and defend Marxist ideology. He fought the various types of pseudo leftists and defeated them by practical revolutionary victory as well.
He taught us not to be liberal and defend the correct political line even if we become less in number as the correct line will win in the long run.
He was against meaningless left unity which is not based on ideological unity.
We need to follow his footsteps, take his guidance and fight and win again.:)

Long live Comrade Lenin!

[Railyon]

Yes, Lenin differentiated between socialism and communism. He uses socialism to refer to the dotp, which has not yet shed the capitalist mode of production. I think he's being perfectly honest with regard to his views on the matter actually :confused:. Of course, those who think commodity production will cease to exist on day 1 will find issue with this. But it's still completely honest.

My issue with it is its internal contradiction to what he said earlier about the Paris Commune, and how a state seized by the workers would change class content and the quality of the state which will then whither away.

To then go out and say that there will be a bourgeois state does not fit into that, to me it implies the dotp wasn't one really as a genuine dotp would have at least abolished the bourgeois state to instate a new entity in its place.

I'm not saying things will vanish overnight, but to paint the lower phase as retaining the bourgeois state apparatus is 1) as said internally contradictory to his own writings 2) a clear break with Marxism.

[Art Vandelay]

My issue with it is its internal contradiction to what he said earlier about the Paris Commune, and how a state seized by the workers would change class content and the quality of the state which will then whither away.

To then go out and say that there will be a bourgeois state does not fit into that, to me it implies the dotp wasn't one really as a genuine dotp would have at least abolished the bourgeois state to instate a new entity in its place.

I'm not saying things will vanish overnight, but to paint the lower phase as retaining the bourgeois state apparatus is 1) as said internally contradictory to his own writings 2) a clear break with Marxism.

Which is a perfect example of his opportunism.

[Geiseric]

The bourgeois state apparatus, i.e. a department of economy, department of war, an army, a state planning group, would still exist. However it would operate under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would make its class interests and composition of its members and leaders on the side of the revolution. Which it was through the Civil War.

[Ostrinski]

My issue with it is its internal contradiction to what he said earlier about the Paris Commune, and how a state seized by the workers would change class content and the quality of the state which will then whither away.Well, what were the time periods of the two writings?


To then go out and say that there will be a bourgeois state does not fit into that, to me it implies the dotp wasn't one really as a genuine dotp would have at least abolished the bourgeois state to instate a new entity in its place.Certainly the dotp will retain bourgeois functions, as the necessity for a proletarian state in the first place precludes the sudden abandonment of all aspects of bourgeois society. The Soviet Union never surpassed the capitalist mode of production, even Lenin noted this.


I'm not saying things will vanish overnight, but to paint the lower phase as retaining the bourgeois state apparatus is 1) as said internally contradictory to his own writings 2) a clear break with Marxism.For him the lower phase of communism ("Socialism") takes over the functions of the state while dropping its coercive mechanisms.

[Art Vandelay]

For him the lower phase of communism ("Socialism") takes over the functions of the state while dropping its coercive mechanisms.

I always thought that after the Paris commune Marx stated that its downfall proved that the bourgeois state apparatus could not be picked up and wielded for proletarian interests. That they would have to smash it and erect a proletarian state in its place (dotp). I could be wrong, but if I am not then I do not see how there could be considered to have been a dotp in USSR.

[Rooster]

Well, what were the time periods of the two writings?

It's in the same text.

[Ostrinski]

It's in the same text.Well that is interesting, and does represent a genuine inconsistency. I need to read S&R again.

[Anderson]

Dotp can be successful by
1) Working class retaining control over the communist party &
2) working class having control over all pillars of State power - executive, legislation, judiciary and army/police

It failed because the above did not happen or sustain as it should have in Russia.
In their quest to be more democratic and being fair they forgot that their class enemies are all around them and allowed these elements to infiltrate the Party and pillars of State power. :(

[Ostrinski]

I always thought that after the Paris commune Marx stated that its downfall proved that the bourgeois state apparatus could not be picked up and wielded for proletarian interests. That they would have to smash it and erect a proletarian state in its place (dotp). I could be wrong, but if I am not then I do not see how there could be considered to have been a dotp in USSR.But the fact that there must be a conquest of state power in the first place demonstrates that revolution is a process and not just some random event. The erection of a proletarian state definitely suggests that not all bourgeois state functions will simply evaporate, as if that were the case then we would have stateless socialism by dawn.

The proletariat's task is to abolish itself as a class, and statelessness is a necessary condition for such an arrangement. So the fact that they must seize political power in the first place shows that the existing bourgeois order will not simply be destroyed, but will cease to exist as it loses its place in the new society.

[Ocean Seal]

Dude was a blatant opportunist that is for sure.

Opportunism is the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of circumstances
So basically what you are telling me is that Lenin, who lead a cushy life lead himself into political exile and put himself in the most dangerous of positions so that he could take advantage of them? Time to start up a utopian circle jerk and call every revolutionary to ever achieve an success an opportunist.

[Art Vandelay]

But the fact that there must be a conquest of state power in the first place demonstrates that revolution is a process and not just some random event. The erection of a proletarian state definitely suggests that not all bourgeois state functions will simply evaporate, as if that were the case then we would have stateless socialism by dawn.

The proletariat's task is to abolish itself as a class, and statelessness is a necessary condition for such an arrangement. So the fact that they must seize political power in the first place shows that the existing bourgeois order will not simply be destroyed, but will cease to exist as it loses its place in the new society.

Well as someone who, to a certain extent, still self-styles as an anarchist, I am no expert to how the "state" should function during the praxis that is revolution; but I can say that I do believe Lenin's actions (regardless of his justifications) were a fundamental break with what Marx said on the subject (not that Marx was always right or anything). I am going to do some digging around for the quote I was referring too earlier.

Also I think that a genuine workers state would not resemble a bourgeois state so much; as in it would not need all of the same functions as a bourgeois state. I would consider, except for a very very small period of time, the USSR to be almost indistinguishable from a bourgeois state.

[Rooster]

So basically what you are telling me is that Lenin, who lead a cushy life lead himself into political exile and put himself in the most dangerous of positions so that he could take advantage of them? Time to start up a utopian circle jerk and call every revolutionary to ever achieve an success an opportunist.

It's opportunist in the sense that a revolutionary situation was already present in Russia, one that the bolsheviks bandwagon jumped upon, with slogans, at the time when it suited them then abandoned when it didn't. Also, may I note, the bolsheviks also did not hold an approving opinion of the soviets to begin with.

[Manic Impressive]

Of course, those who think commodity production will cease to exist on day 1 will find issue with this. But it's still completely honest.
Does anyone actually think that?

[Art Vandelay]

So basically what you are telling me is that Lenin, who lead a cushy life lead himself into political exile and put himself in the most dangerous of positions so that he could take advantage of them? Time to start up a utopian circle jerk and call every revolutionary to ever achieve an success an opportunist.

He revised his own theories when it became convenient to do so. Yup, that would be opportunism. Socialism is state capitalism to benefit the masses, cmon?

[Rafiq]

Lenin was exceptionally intelligent and will always remain a brilliant theoretician of Marxism.

Of course, his legacy (theoretically only) was betrayed by both Trotsky and Stalin (for obvious reasons).

[Ostrinski]

Does anyone actually think that?It would appear so.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

My issue with it is its internal contradiction to what he said earlier about the Paris Commune, and how a state seized by the workers would change class content and the quality of the state which will then whither away.

To then go out and say that there will be a bourgeois state does not fit into that, to me it implies the dotp wasn't one really as a genuine dotp would have at least abolished the bourgeois state to instate a new entity in its place.

I'm not saying things will vanish overnight, but to paint the lower phase as retaining the bourgeois state apparatus is 1) as said internally contradictory to his own writings 2) a clear break with Marxism.

No, Lenin recognised that the rule of the bourgeois state does have certain social changes, positive political changes from feudalism. The first revolution in 1917 of February was a bourgeois revolution, but Lenin did everything to make clear that the workers' must shove the bourgeois armed forces aside, and create a workers' state. I recommend reading Lenin's Letters from Afar in which he makes these points very clear that the bourgeois state that replaced the monarchical order in Russia, had to be ousted and replaced by the Soviet, not only the Soviet, but consequently the workers' militia.

[Dr Doom]

he was alright i guess. i don't agree with his views on imperialism, unions, national liberation or on the self organisation of the working class and i think he had a pretty social democratic idea of what socialism was but none of that shit prevented him from holding a truly internationalist stance during the world war. and thats why he was a revolutionary in 1914, and people like kropotkin and kautsky weren't.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

He revised his own theories when it became convenient to do so. Yup, that would be opportunism. Socialism is state capitalism to benefit the masses, cmon?

Of course it is, that is because Lenin was a marxist. To the workers, as to marxists, of the post WW1 period the word "socialism" was used interchangeably with the DoP, i.e. Soviet councils and the workers state. Revolutionary Experience has taught that you cannot have non-capitalist relations during revolutionary period. You need democratic centralism during times of upheaval; sabotage and attack of the class enemy during times of revolution demand a socialised, centrally controlled, economy. Of course once the revolution is successful in a developed country, the capitalist relations are abolished and workers decide about each and every surplus that they make collectively within their enterprise.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

he was alright i guess. i don't agree with his views on imperialism, unions, national liberation or on the self organisation of the working class and i think he had a pretty social democratic idea of what socialism was but none of that shit prevented him from holding a truly internationalist stance during the world war. and thats why he was a revolutionary in 1914, and people like kropotkin weren't.

LOL, Lenin was the only Social-Democratic leader that did not become a social-chauvinist during the 1st World War. What an idiotic thing to say :sleep:

[Geiseric]

The mere fact that he split from the 2nd International which was a mess proves that he wasn't an opportunist... "All power to the soviets," was pretty opportunist eh?

[Art Vandelay]

The mere fact that he split from the 2nd International which was a mess proves that he wasn't an opportunist... "All power to the soviets," was pretty opportunist eh?

My issue is not with "All power to the soviets," obviously, but with the fact that all power did not actually go to the soviets.

[Dr Doom]

LOL, Lenin was the only Social-Democratic leader that did not become a social-chauvinist during the 1st World War. What an idiotic thing to say :sleep:

what the fuck are you talking about.

[Art Vandelay]

what the fuck are you talking about.

I think he thought you were arguing the opposite of what you actually were. Because if I am not mistaken, you both were attempting to state the same thing.

[Ostrinski]

He could still be a political opportunist and I wouldn't care

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

LOL at all the anarchists who sit around all day on their computers and watch porn every 5 minutes talking shit on Lenin, a man they could never live up to. Methinks they just jelly. :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

LOL at all the anarchists who sit around all day on their computers and watch porn every 5 minutes talking shit on Lenin, a man they could never live up to. Methinks they just jelly. :rolleyes:I see you've perfected the art of flamebait.

[Art Vandelay]

LOL at all the anarchists who sit around all day on their computers and watch porn every 5 minutes talking shit on Lenin, a man they could never live up to. Methinks they just jelly. :rolleyes:

On top of flaimbait hes has perfectly shown the type of "critical thinking" (or lack there of) which leads one to adopt the political conclusions he has. Yes anyone who does not follow the word of glorious comrade Lenin is jealous. :rolleyes:

[Rooster]

LOL at all the anarchists who sit around all day on their computers and watch porn every 5 minutes talking shit on Lenin, a man they could never live up to. Methinks they just jelly. :rolleyes:

Lenin didn't create and head a capitalist state in Russia? :confused:

[Manic Impressive]

LOL at all the anarchists who sit around all day on their computers and watch porn every 5 minutes talking shit on Lenin, a man they could never live up to. Methinks they just jelly. :rolleyes:
You may quite possibly be the least useful poster on this forum.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I see you've perfected the art of flamebait.

This entire thread is flamebait... in fact, by the end of the day it will probably be moved to chit chat or something.

[Geiseric]

He didn't lead a capitalist state, he led a workers state that had no productive capibilities past Feudalism. Thus "capitalism," i.e. the expansion of productive forces in the only way that exists had to be done, but the goal wasn't Capitalism, and it wasn't run by or for capitalists.

[Ostrinski]

Lenin didn't create and head a capitalist state in Russia? :confused:


I see you've perfected the art of flamebait.

I love revleft.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Not all anarchists are assholes, just the ones who constantly use the talking point "Lenin established a capitalist dictatorship and gave birth to the great Satan, Stalin!!!!!!! Here are some stupid, out of context quotes to back me up!!!!!!! If you disagree, your a capitalist dictator, too!!!!!!"

[Art Vandelay]

Not all anarchists are assholes, just the ones who constantly use the talking point "Lenin established a capitalist dictatorship and gave birth to the great Satan, Stalin!!!!!!! Here are some stupid, out of context quotes to back me up!!!!!!! If you disagree, your a capitalist dictator, too!!!!!!"

Ad hominems are awesome.

[Rooster]

Not all anarchists are assholes, just the ones who constantly use the talking point "Lenin established a capitalist dictatorship and gave birth to the great Satan, Stalin!!!!!!! Here are some stupid, out of context quotes to back me up!!!!!!! If you disagree, your a capitalist dictator, too!!!!!!"

So you're saying that Lenin did not lead a capitalist state?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

So you're saying that Lenin did not lead a capitalist state?

No, I have been wrong all along, he totally did. And Bakunin and Makhno are saints and vandalizing random shit is fun! Also, struggle against hierarchy over class struggle all day, eryday.

[Art Vandelay]

No, I have been wrong all along, he totally did. And Bakunin and Makhno are saints and vandalizing random shit is fun! Also, struggle against hierarchy over class struggle all day, eryday.

Woah now, vandalizing random shit may not be the epitome of revolutionary activity, but it sure as fuck is fun.

[Geiseric]

So you're saying that Lenin did not lead a capitalist state?

He did not lead a Capitalist state. It was a state that was "the outpost of the world revolution," as he called it, however most if not all of the degeneration happened once he was in the hospital from gunshot wounds. Besides the revolution wouldn't of happened if he didn't make the bolsheviks get their shit togather. They had to make production in the U.S.S.R. speed up to par with Capitalist states, or else they would of lost the civil war, yadayadayada, same shit.

What would anybody of done differently than Lenin if we were in his shoes? Don't say "Allow democracy!" Because the SRs and Mensheviks were crying out the same crap at the time. Once the revolution happened Lenin was on good terms with Kropotkin and the other anarchists, untill some off them tried to shoot him because of Makhno's "anarchist," dictatorship being crushed and because The Kronstadt Sailors about to let through Wrangel's army with a rebellion.

Honestly nothing Lenin did was contrary to anything we would have done. He wasn't just "viscous and out for power!" like some Bourgeois put it, but things like kicking people out of the Bolshevik party and killing people who are trying to kill other people and threaten the revolution with terrorism doesn't sound insane to me,

[Art Vandelay]

He did not lead a Capitalist state. It was a state that was "the outpost of the world revolution," as he called it, however most if not all of the degeneration happened once he was in the hospital from gunshot wounds. Besides the revolution wouldn't of happened if he didn't make the bolsheviks get their shit togather. They had to make production in the U.S.S.R. speed up to par with Capitalist states, or else they would of lost the civil war, yadayadayada, same shit.

What would anybody of done differently than Lenin if we were in his shoes? Don't say "Allow democracy!" Because the SRs and Mensheviks were crying out the same crap at the time. Once the revolution happened Lenin was on good terms with Kropotkin and the other anarchists, untill some off them tried to shoot him because of Makhno's "anarchist," dictatorship being crushed and because The Kronstadt Sailors about to let through Wrangel's army with a rebellion.

So you also ascribe to the great man of history theory.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

So you also ascribe to the great man of history theory.

You anarchists say that about 1000 times a day. No one ascribes to the "great man" theory of history. When is accepting the fact that individuals might, just might, have an influence over history within the context of material conditions and class struggle being anti-materialist?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Can the great man theory be applied to groups? :confused:

[Art Vandelay]

You anarchists say that about 1000 times a day. No one ascribes to the "great man" theory of history. When is accepting the fact that individuals might, just might, have an influence over history within the context of material conditions and class struggle being anti-materialist?

Obviously individuals have influence over outcomes, but one man does not make a revolution. Had Lenin not played the historical role he did during the revolution, someone else would have.

[Ocean Seal]

Obviously individuals have influence over outcomes, but one man does not make a revolution. Had Lenin not played the historical role he did during the revolution, someone else would have.
And quite possibly failed at delivering it. Perhaps, perhaps not. Revolutions often rely dearly on a small but popular cadre to lead them forward. Without a doubt there would have been a revolution, and perhaps even communists taking power, but history is the sum total of man's actions. In the long run, I agree that individuals are generally powerless to change the future (ie: feudalism would not have lasted forever regardless of the cunning of every future monarch).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I definitely respect him for being a very cunning and intelligent political force and manipulator of power.

But I respect Otto Van Bismarck, Mao, Mussolini and Stalin in the same way, so it's not like that speaks volumes about Lenin's character...

As far as Lenin's "lessons" for the world we live in today, I honestly don't see much value. (Unfortunately I took Threetune's advice and "read some Lenin".) ;)

[o well this is ok I guess]

Lenin was alot more "libertarian," than Trotsky even was at the time. But his theoreticals I think will long outlast him, you, me, Aristotle, or Napoleon. Last I checked, more people study Aristotle than Lenin.

[Geiseric]

I don't think that's important, Lenin has to do with the modern world.

I don't ascribe to the "great man," theory but the Bolshevik leadership i.e. Stalin Kamanev Zinoviev would of not allowed the October revolution to happen had they been in the Bolshevik driver seat.

[Art Vandelay]

I am pretty sure that saying an entire revolution would not of happened without one man, is a perfect example of the great man theory of history. Its like the equivalent of saying the french revolution would not of happened without Robespierre.

[Geiseric]

t Feburary would have happened without the Bolsheviks, but the old conservative cadres that were in Russia at the time like the editors of Pravda at about March-April were ready to have the bolshevik party play the role of a "Left opposition," to the SR and Menshevik government.

I'm not saying that Lenin "caused the revoluion! he's a god!" but he convinced the rest of the Bolsheviks to collectively work towards overthrowing the PG, something that they thought was impossible.

It's more akin to Robespierre convincing the jacobin leadership to storm the Bastille than actually being the jesus in charge of the entire operation. I'm not sure that happened but i'm trying to fix the misunderstanding with an analogy. But it was a leadership conflict in the Bolshevik party that would of prevented October, and Lenin convinced the leadership to do it once he got back to Russia. I promise you, just read his April Thesis.

[Art Vandelay]

And quite possibly failed at delivering it. Perhaps, perhaps not. Revolutions often rely dearly on a small but popular cadre to lead them forward. Without a doubt there would have been a revolution, and perhaps even communists taking power, but history is the sum total of man's actions. In the long run, I agree that individuals are generally powerless to change the future (ie: feudalism would not have lasted forever regardless of the cunning of every future monarch).

Exactly and while revolutions rely on a small cadre to push them forward, the people who fill in a specific historical role are a product of their material conditions. If it had not been Lenin it would of been someone else, just like it would not have mattered had Trotsky taken power over Stalin (or even if Lenin had lived for another 2 decades), the result would of been the same.

[Grenzer]

My issue with it is its internal contradiction to what he said earlier about the Paris Commune, and how a state seized by the workers would change class content and the quality of the state which will then whither away.

To then go out and say that there will be a bourgeois state does not fit into that, to me it implies the dotp wasn't one really as a genuine dotp would have at least abolished the bourgeois state to instate a new entity in its place.

I'm not saying things will vanish overnight, but to paint the lower phase as retaining the bourgeois state apparatus is 1) as said internally contradictory to his own writings 2) a clear break with Marxism.

One of the biggest slanders of Lenin(don't make a mistake, I'm not accusing you of that) is that he actually endorsed capitalism. He did endorse state-capitalism, but it is not what most people would imagine it is. He did not support a bourgeois state either. He supported a proletarian state.

I don't think the term proletarian state is very vague. The early Soviet Union is an example of a poorly functioning proletarian state.

It's a proletarian state because it's a state in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is in control. It's a state because it has a monopoly on coercive organs to effect the repression of counter-revolutionaries, socialization of the means of production, and conversion of the remaining classes such as peasantry into proletarians.

Generalized commodity production cannot be spontaneously abolished, it's a process in which capitalism is phased out and replaced with the socialist mode of production. During this process, while generalized commodity production remains the rule, it would remain capitalist but be moving to socialism rapidly. To carry this process out, a state is necessary. While the capitalist mode of production and class society exists, the state will be necessary. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state is actively working to abolish commodity production. With the successful destruction of the capitalist mode of production, so comes with it the existence of class distinctions; and with that, the need of the state as a tool of class repression.

So in essence, a brief period of state capitalism and the state are unavoidable since the capitalist mode of production cannot be spontaneously abolished. The process of removing the bourgeoisie from political power is not the same thing as destroying the capitalist mode of production.

This is why I support Lenin's NEP; but they had the additional problem of not being able to move directly to socialization, they had to industrialize first which meant that the capitalist mode of production needed to be sustained. This would remain true regardless of whether revolution spread or not. The difference lies in the fact that the failure of revolution to spread meant that the dictatorship of the proletariat would degenerate into an ordinary bourgeois dictatorship; and the the state capitalist system would no longer be under the control of the workers and being moved in the direction of socialism; but liberalized and repurposed into an ordinary capitalist state.

No mode of production have ever been spontaneously abolished, and I think it would be a disaster to try. The likely result is that it would be a catastrophic failure with widespread famine and death; and you may even end up with an ordinary bourgeois dictatorship again. Some people say we are in transition right now, but this is clearly not true. The mode of production remains capitalist, and there is no active progress being made in transforming it into a socialist mode of production. That can only occur when the proletarian dictatorship has toppled the bourgeoisie from political power.

I actually posted this already in Rooster's group, but that's not publicly accessible. Someone suggested it would be appropriate here. The Soviet Union published a 260 page collection of Lenin's writings on the subject of State Capitalism entitled On State Capitalism during the Transition to Socialism, which is where I have gotten my information from. The earliest of the writings are from August of 1918, so it's after State and Revolution.

Lenin was not perfect, but he was without a doubt the most significant revolutionary of the 20th century. Perhaps he wasn't the best theorist, as he did have errors, but he also made invaluable contributions. It's important to avoid idolizing and hero-worship, but Lenin has my respect. He did not break significantly with Marxism in practice, though I think he did become delusional in his expectations of how quickly Socialism would be reached.

[Geiseric]

In order to go from Feudalism to Socialism, the production that they've reached in any advanced capitalist country by that point had to be reached in the U.S.S.R. Lenin and Trotsky were unique from the other Bolsheviks in the fact that they thought it could happen, as long as the Russian revolution kick started the revolutions in Europe, which it did. Then Fascism and the Freikorps came around.

[Grenzer]

In order to go from Feudalism to Socialism, the production that they've reached in any advanced capitalist country by that point had to be reached in the U.S.S.R. Lenin and Trotsky were unique from the other Bolsheviks in the fact that they thought it could happen, as long as the Russian revolution kick started the revolutions in Europe, which it did. Then Fascism and the Freikorps came around.

Well, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. It did cause revolution to spread, which were crushed by 1927. The Freikorps were important in crushing the German revolutionaries, but fascism didn't really become a big force in Europe until 1933, several years after global revolution had been confirmed to have failed. Given, Mussolini had come into power in the early 20's, he didn't have much to do with the failure of global revolution.