Lenin A Good guy or a Madman! [Answered] [Archive]

Zaphod Beeblebrox

15th July 2012, 21:01

I have read a lot of books on Lenin,and I asked all sorts of people,on what they think of Lenin,i have gathered all this information and i would love to start my presentation now.

Ok one,two,three go!

:hammersickle: Introduction About Lenin :hammersickle:

Now Lenin was a man who was highly respected by the Bolsheviks (and other people as well) who was sent to Siberia under the Tsars orders. When the Russian Revolution came about. He Came back from Siberia,and he putted the end to Tsars regime. But on his way of establishing a better system,he also made some mistakes,and of course people always hear and remember the bad thinks first,and they simply forget the good things he did.

:hammersickle: Good Or Bad? :hammersickle:

So the first think I was told was that he was a good man,and that he really wanted to change life better for his people. He was also known for being a kind and generous man,but he was harsh and cruel to his enemies,a reason for that is because he's brother got killed by totalitarian government.
Many people disliked him because of “murders and starvation” he created,but I must deny this.
HE COULD NOT do anything about it. Russia already starved and he tried to fix the problem. But the Tsar had already wasted nearly all the money on beating down the revolution. So he could not use money on farms and other facilities that would pump more food on the peoples tables. Now when it comes to murdering. Yes executed... FEW people. But did you know this? Executions was popular back then. It was used in Russia (tsar) ÙSSR, USA, UK, The second Reich (Prussia), The second Reich (Germany). Lets just say it was used everywhere. So everyone was a mass murderer back then? No they were not. Because that was the law back then. Kill or be killed. When I get into debates with people was Lenin a good/bad guy they are almost always from US,so if you get into a similar debate just use:Americans worship Lincoln even though he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice lives for the greater good,...
So in the end this always depends on your politics.

But unfortunately I must add some bad stuff so if you will debate an smart guy you will be prepared to admit some certain things.
From the very beginning of his takeover of the Russian government, he was an advocate of "mass terror against enemies of the revolution". In his campaign to confiscate the property of the churches, he wrote "We must put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing the better." As a result, thousands of priests, monks, and nuns were murdered. Just a small example of his brutality. But you must imagine how hard and on what pressure those people were in that times it does not surprise me that they have responded with such kind of brutality on the oppressors.

:hammersickle: So in my summary I will just say this: :hammersickle:

What people are taught in school and from media as history then forms what they think of as "facts".
But there are two sides to every story. Some things about him were good and some were bad.
in case that you have a friend in America, then he is coming from a country that hates everything that Lenin stood for. Consider that he might have been the victim of propaganda... Some of the things that he have heard about Lenin are false or exaggerated. ( Thank science im from Ex-Yugoslavia and that I have an communists teacher that gave me 4 books that were written by Lenin)
Lenin, as I understand it, was a political genius in that he could translate the abstract writings of Marx into practical ideas that could be used in a country as Russia. Many of the things he said are relevant for todays society.In the 1930s the change in Russia and the USSR was astonishing - foreigners who visited were blown away. The Russians had gone from a people of mostly oppressed illiterate and starving peasants to a modern and forward thinking superpower.
Things were getting better. They took a horrible beating in the war, but without the USSR, Germany would have won....
The old Russia probably would not have been able to fight like the USSR did. Things got better and better up until about the 1970s. I think. None of this would have happened without Lenin.One might think of "The maximum amount of benefit to the largest possible group of people" as an indicator of whether something is bad or good. Would Russia have been better off if Lenin had never been born?
I would say no Russia would be some third world country if there wasnt for Lenin!

Pleas post to keep this thread a live,hate comments are also appreciated

hatzel

15th July 2012, 21:19

...or just some old dude...

The Idler

17th July 2012, 19:14

OKAlDrTo5lc

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

17th July 2012, 19:33

Nah, many disliked him because he didn't act in the interest of the bourgeoisie/west.

Comrades Unite!

17th July 2012, 19:52

He was an extremely influential figure and one of the greatest men of the 20th century.

Brosa Luxemburg

17th July 2012, 19:56

Just so we can avoid this conversation which is sure to come about...
http://www.revleft.com/vb/charge-blanquism-against-t171367/index.html?t=171367&highlight=lenin+blanquism

No matter what you think about Lenin and Leninism, Lenin was not a Blanquist.

JPSartre12

17th July 2012, 20:26

Lenin was a great visionary who had a couple nice ideas, but I don't think that those ideas were grounded in reality. He helped set the foundation and get the ball rolling for the industrialization of Russia, so credit where it's due, he helped push them towards modernity.

I would just say that my major problem with Leninist theory is his idea of the vanguard party. I'm not really a fan of Leninism because the whole "let's have a communist party surgically inset itself into the historical process, instigate and cause a revolution, and seize control of the state in the name of the proletariat" idea sounds like it has a vague tendency towards authoritarianism.

I say use him as a nice analytical tool with which to look at capitalism and the historical process, but I would say that it's a nice idea to apply his theories. I could be wrong though; I'm not a Leninist so I might have just represented him completely wrong ... Sorry if I did :rolleyes:

Brosa Luxemburg

17th July 2012, 20:35

Lenin was a great visionary who had a couple nice ideas, but I don't think that those ideas were grounded in reality.

I disagree. If anything, I would say it was the opposite.

I would just say that my major problem with Leninist theory is his idea of the vanguard party. I'm not really a fan of Leninism because the whole "let's have a communist party surgically inset itself into the historical process, instigate and cause a revolution, and seize control of the state in the name of the proletariat" idea sounds like it has a vague tendency towards authoritarianism.

1. I am completely for the vanguard party. It doesn't fall into the immediatist and workerist tendencies of the syndicalists and factory councils, it organizes the most class conscious and revolutionary members of the class, etc. In all honesty, read this. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm
2. All revolutionaries are authoritarian. The act of revolution is libertarian for the proletariat and the most extreme authoritarianism for the bourgeoisie. This is recognized by all, from Trots to anarchists.

Art Vandelay

18th July 2012, 01:43

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 01:53

Nope; I have had Tim Cornellis attempt to explain to me how that if a revolution is decentralized, it would in fact be libertarian, regardless of the fact that it is literally one class subjecting another class to its will.

Exactly the reason why a revolution is an extremely authoritarian act.
Even a revolution that is De-Centralized(Which some Marxists would not consider a true revolution)it's still authoritarian in nature.

thriller

18th July 2012, 02:09

The debate shouldn't be about whether Lenin was a good or bad man. It should be about his theories and the roles of revolutionaries and classes during the revolution. I have no personal problem with Lenin himself, but with certain ideas he applied to 'orthodox' Marxist principles. Also, it is not like Lenin himself made all the decisions and killings and starvation by himself. It was a group of like minded people, a group within the revolutionary class of Russia at the time.

However I do like the section about executions. They were not as internationally televised and hated as they are now.

JPSartre12

18th July 2012, 02:11

I disagree. If anything, I would say it was the opposite.

1. I am completely for the vanguard party. It doesn't fall into the immediatist and workerist tendencies of the syndicalists and factory councils, it organizes the most class conscious and revolutionary members of the class, etc. In all honesty, read this. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bord...arty-class.htm
2. All revolutionaries are authoritarian. The act of revolution is libertarian for the proletariat and the most extreme authoritarianism for the bourgeoisie. This is recognized by all, from Trots to anarchists.

Well, I think that some of Lenin's ideas were good. I think he's a fantastic writer and some of his theses are pretty creative, but I'm not enamored enough with them to call myself a Leninist in any sense of the word. I'm more anti-Leninist than I am Leninist but that could just be due to my random excerpt readings of him and the few debates I've had about his theories :confused:
I have no problem with an organized socialist or communist party, I'm just skeptical that the party might become the de facto ruling class over the post-revolutionary society, and that it just might replace the bourgeois rulers with party élite rulers. That being said, they should still definitely be formed - they should restrict themselves to educating and organizing the proletariat rather than acting in its name. I think that that sort of "we represent the proletariat" mentality that it can develop can lead to some slippery slopes.

A big concern that I have with pretty much any political theory is how authoritarian it is. I'm interested in constructing a de-centralized and worker's run sort of socialism, not an authoritarian single-party state one. Am I understanding what you're saying? Probably not :rolleyes:

Maybe I should read that link you posted before saying anything :lol:

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 02:26

A big concern that I have with pretty much any political theory is how authoritarian it is. I'm interested in constructing a de-centralized and worker's run sort of socialism, not an authoritarian single-party state one. Am I understanding what you're saying? Probably not :rolleyes:

Okay, so I am not sure, but it sounds like you are claiming socialism is just workers' control. Well, sorry, it's not just that. Here. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2481534&postcount=6

I already discussed that today. Anyway, I am not sure if that is what you meant. I already discussed the whole "authoritarian" thing.

Maybe I should read that link you posted before saying anything :lol:

You may like it. I guarantee it will be at least thought provoking.

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 02:27

Nope; I have had Tim Cornellis attempt to explain to me how that if a revolution is decentralized, it would in fact be libertarian, regardless of the fact that it is literally one class subjecting another class to its will.

Interesting. What did he say? Fuck it, i'll ask him myself. Should be interesting. Tim's a smart guy.

Le Socialiste

18th July 2012, 02:52

The question isn't whether he was good or bad; framing it that way only muddles the issue. Assess Lenin on the basis of his theories and practices. Going through what works I have of his, I'd say much of what he wrote and said was solid. Of course, I question the course he and others charted during the initial years of the revolution. Given the gradual devolution of the revolution into state-managed capitalism and the failure of various worker-led uprisings in post-war Europe, Lenin somewhat failed to grasp the enormous implications of those policies he managed to get through. In the end, that's what it came down to: Lenin was a lone figure observing the course of history, all the while trying to discern its relation(s) to the wellbeing of the revolution. He was incorrect in many respects, at times overestimating the capabilities of the global proletariat while similarly underestimating the impact its failure would have on the material development of the revolution at home. Lenin was a great thinker, but great thinkers ultimately have little say over the course of history - material circumstances do.

Ocean Seal

18th July 2012, 02:57

I have no problem with an organized socialist or communist party, I'm just skeptical that the party might become the de facto ruling class over the post-revolutionary society,
A party can be a class?

and that it just might replace the bourgeois rulers with party élite rulers.
Yep those party elitists replacing the bourgeoisie, they should just let the revolution twist and turn, and hope that the workers through what could only be called an act of god control and coordinate an extremely large unit of production and of course giving them that power gives any disgruntled group of workers the ability to fuck it over for everyone else. So yeah centralization and authority aren't bad things.

That being said, they should still definitely be formed - they should restrict themselves to educating and organizing the proletariat rather than acting in its name. I think that that sort of "we represent the proletariat" mentality that it can develop can lead to some slippery slopes.

But we do represent the proletariat, especially because most of it doesn't actually care for class rule at the moment.

A big concern that I have with pretty much any political theory is how authoritarian it is. I'm interested in constructing a de-centralized and worker's run sort of socialism, not an authoritarian single-party state one. Am I understanding what you're saying? Probably not :rolleyes:

Maybe I should read that link you posted before saying anything :lol:
I'm not sure why you would want that. Nor why you are interested in constructing the socialism that you've procured.

MuscularTophFan

18th July 2012, 03:03

Leninism goes down in history as a morally bankrupted ideology similar to Nazism and serfdom.

It's safe to say that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao where the biggest enemies of socialism in the 20th century. You can't be a socialist and a statist authoritarian.

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 03:06

Leninism goes down in history as a morally bankrupted ideology similar to Nazism and serfdom.

Did you really just compare Leninism to fascism and Nazism? :rolleyes:

There is a reason no one around here, including the "libertarians" and anarchists, take you seriously around here.

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 03:33

MuscularTophFan

18th July 2012, 03:40

Did you really just compare Leninism to fascism and Nazism? :rolleyes:
No here's what I actually said.

Leninism goes down in history as a morally bankrupted ideology similar to Nazism and serfdom.
There is a reason no one around here, including the "libertarians" and anarchists, take you seriously around here.
Meanwhileyou authoritarian leftists give us real leftists a bad name when you go around worshiping Lenin and Che as your gods. Leninists are basically the Rush Limbaughs of the left. I advocate for complete individual freedoms and full democracy.

Yes clearly I'm the "insane" one around here.

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 03:43

No here's what I actually said.

Menawhile you authertarian leftists give us real leftists a bad name when you go around worshiping Lenin and Che as your gods. Leninists are basically the Rush Limbaughs of the left. I advocate for complete individual freedoms and full democracy.

Yes clearly I'm the "insane" one around here.

''Real Leftists''? Are you serious ?
Let me ask you one question, just a simple question.
Do you support and/or advocate a workers revolution?

Welshy

18th July 2012, 03:48

Meanwhileyou authoritarian leftists give us real leftists a bad name when you go around worshiping Lenin and Che as your gods. Leninists are basically the Rush Limbaughs of the left. I advocate for complete individual freedoms and full democracy.

This is the first I have seen someone accuse a bordigist of worshiping Che. From the rest of your post, I can guess you have never bother to read any Marx or Lenin, am I correct? Plus all this talk of individual freedoms and democracy stinks of liberalism. You may enjoy knowing that I oppose full democracy (not because I consider myself a bordigist, but for other reasons).

Yes clearly I'm the "insane" one around here.

Well we are all insane on varying levels here, you are just the dumbest ones as you are only able to make declaration with out any critical thinking and are only able to talk in liberal notions of rights and freedoms.

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 03:49

No here's what I actually said.

Yes, you just said that Leninism is "similar" to Nazism.

Menawhile you authertarian leftists give us real leftists a bad name when you go around worshiping Lenin and Che as your gods.

1. It's spelled Meanwhile.
2. It's spelled authoritarian
3. I do not worship Lenin and Che as gods, nor did I claim to. Sweeping generalization.

Leninists are basically the Rush Limbaughs of the left.

Nope.

I advocate for complete individual freedoms and full democracy.

Great, you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes clearly I'm the "insane" one around here.

Your posts seem to show so.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2473758&postcount=140

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2474144&postcount=155

Le Socialiste

18th July 2012, 03:50

Leninism goes down in history as a morally bankrupted ideology similar to Nazism and serfdom.

Lenin is in no way comparable to the atrocities committed under Nazism, or the material destitution witnessed under serfdom. How you can compare the ideas and theories of one man to a particular development in the socioeconomic (and political) conditions of a class is beyond me.

On that note, drop the moralism. It's intolerable. I can understand a healthy dose of moral opposition to the actions, policies, or impact(s) of a particular group or social system (I was much like you when first introduced to radical politics), but allowing it to dominate the course and makeup of your arguments means they will be easier to pick apart based on their subjectivity alone. Back your points up by grounding them in their respective historical and/or material contexts (if possible).

It's safe to say that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao where the biggest enemies of socialism in the 20th century. You can't be a socialist and a statist authoritarian.

I'll agree that Stalin and Mao did quite a bit of damage to the revolutionary left. Hitler was a capitalist, however, and Lenin was Lenin. While the former implemented plenty of atrocious policies, he stands in a long line where enemies of socialism are concerned. Remember, Hitler may have been the face of reaction, but without the support and patronage of the ruling-classes (coupled with conditions on the ground) he would have been a nobody.

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 03:56

It's safe to say that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao where the biggest enemies of socialism in the 20th century. You can't be a socialist and a statist authoritarian.

:laugh: Are you fucking kidding me? I can't believe I didn't catch this earlier!
Hitler?

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 04:01

This is the first I have seen someone accuse a bordigist of worshiping Che.

I know. I was really surprised to see that. :D

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 04:03

:laugh: Are you fucking kidding me? I can't believe I didn't catch this earlier!
Hitler?

Haha, Thank you for catching that one that,didn't notice it myself.

Frankly MTF I don't know if your a troll,a liberal with some wild petit bourgeois mentality or a plain idiot.

Look at the top of the site it says ''Revleft,Home of the REVOLUTIONARY left, so please GTFO.Thanks.

Os Cangaceiros

18th July 2012, 05:27

Lenin was a man who did what he had to do in order to take and hold political power. He was definitely not a madman.

I think the real question is what value do Lenin's writings/body of thought hold in today's world. I'd argue "not much", although the only pieces of writing I've read of his are "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" and "State and Revolution". If everything Lenin said in "State and Revolution" would work exactly how he writes it in the book, then I'd probably be a Leninist. But it seems to me that Lenin's self-proclaimed followers throughout history have succeeded only in creating intolerable and stagnant societies which eventually decay into dust and ruin.

Art Vandelay

18th July 2012, 05:35

Ostrinski

18th July 2012, 05:38

I'm starting to think that MTF is an Imposter Marxist sock.

Os Cangaceiros

18th July 2012, 05:57

You are right, that was totally because of Lenin's ideas being implemented and not material conditions.

Material conditions are a very convenient excuse for failed policies, esp. since you can just throw the phrase "material conditions" and expect it to be taken at face value.

:rolleyes:

Material conditions is a sword that cuts both ways. Maybe the material conditions of today are such that Lenin's ideas are no longer relevant. After all, it was the material conditions that created Lenin's ideas, correct? But if nothing has fundamentally changed from Lenin's time to the present (thus making Lenin's ideas still relevant), then why has Leninism been such a disaster? Hmmm!

Art Vandelay

18th July 2012, 06:07

Material conditions are a very convenient excuse for failed policies, esp. since you can just throw the phrase "material conditions" and expect it to be taken at face value.

:rolleyes:

No material conditions are what move history and am frankly surprised to see someone as intelligent as yourself to claim its a cop out.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

The fact that you claimed that Lenin's ideas being implemented is what caused "intolerable and stagnant societies which eventually decay into dust and ruin," is not a materialist analysis; as if ideas wrote the pages of history.

Material conditions is a sword that cuts both ways. Maybe the material conditions of today are such that Lenin's ideas are no longer relevant.

Indeed some of Lenin's theories are no longer relevant and many need to be adapted to current material conditions, but to simply dismiss them cause they haven't established communism yet is ludicrous.

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 06:14

Material conditions are a very convenient excuse for failed policies, esp. since you can just throw the phrase "material conditions" and expect it to be taken at face value.

Alright, I will expand for him. When the Bolsheviks came to power they faced counter-revolutionary sabotage, invasion from 14 countries, underdevelopment, increasing isolation (in 1919 foreign trade was basically non-existent), civil war, etc. With this came the rise of the bureaucracy and Stalin's rule (which represented a triumph of the revolutions degeneration). When the July 26th Movement took power in Cuba it faced counter-revolutionary sabotage, foreign intervention, international hostility, underdevelopment, etc. Of course, the decisions of different individuals made within these conditions account for something but this still has to be viewed within these material conditions. These are just 2 examples, but you will see a similar pattern with other "Leninist" states (which really are just bourgeois states).

Material conditions is a sword that cuts both ways. Maybe the material conditions of today are such that Lenin's ideas are no longer relevant. After all, it was the material conditions that created Lenin's ideas, correct?

That is quite possible, yes. That is why I don't view Lenin as a god and disagree with him on some things (such as participation in bourgeois parliaments and trade unions, national liberation, etc.)

But if nothing has fundamentally changed from Lenin's time to the present (thus making Lenin's ideas still relevant), then why has Leninism been such a disaster? Hmmm!

Because of material conditions which come before ideas.

Art Vandelay

18th July 2012, 06:23

Alright, I will expand for him. When the Bolsheviks came to power they faced counter-revolutionary sabotage, invasion from 14 countries, underdevelopment, increasing isolation (in 1919 foreign trade was basically non-existent), civil war, etc. With this came the rise of the bureaucracy and Stalin's rule (which represented a triumph of the revolutions degeneration). When the July 26th Movement took power in Cuba it faced counter-revolutionary sabotage, foreign intervention, international hostility, underdevelopment, etc. Of course, the decisions of different individuals made within these conditions account for something but this still has to be viewed within these material conditions. These are just 2 examples, but you will see a similar pattern with other "Leninist" states (which really are just bourgeois states).

My only point of contention comrade, and I am sure you were not implying what your post could be misconstrued by some of our more uninformed members, is the comparison of the Cuban revolution to the Bolshevik revolution as if it could be considered a genuine continuation of Leninist thought. Obviously I know this is not what you meant, but in order to hinder confusion, I figured I would point it out and for the record I do have somewhat of a soft spot for the democratic bourgeois revolution which was the 26th of July movement.

Os Cangaceiros

18th July 2012, 06:24

No material conditions are what move history and am frankly surprised to see someone as intelligent as yourself to claim its a cop out.

I've written several posts regarding historical materialism on this site that I can post here if you want, I'm hardly new to this, LOL, so you can spare me the Marx quotes. I don't see how anyone could be unaware of materialism on this site, as materialism, while correct, is the last refuge of scoundrels and has been used to justify every atrocity that's ever happened, my favorite being the modern day People's Republic of China.

So please, don't make it out like materialism is just some neutral tool uncorrupted by ideology. :rolleyes:

The fact that you claimed that Lenin's ideas being implemented is what caused "intolerable and stagnant societies which eventually decay into dust and ruin," is not a materialist analysis; as if ideas wrote the pages of history.

When I see the state of the modern revolutionary movement, which was dominated by Leninism post-1917, one would be a fool to place absolutely no value on the power of ideas and ideology, as manifested through policy-making...that's vulgar materialism. Although not every disaster can be directly attributed to Lenin the man, as he obviously wasn't alive for the vast majority of the time from 1917 to the collapse of the USSR, but Leninism as an ideology is definitely partially to blame for what happened vis-a-vis the revolutionary movement.

Since we're doing quote-wars, here's one you may remember from one Friedrich Engels:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining factor in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Neither Marx nor I have ever asserted more than this. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic factor is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase.

Indeed some of Lenin's theories are no longer relevant and many need to be adapted to current material conditions, but to simply dismiss them cause they haven't established communism yet is ludicrous.

I don't dismiss them because they haven't established communism...I (mostly) dismiss them because I've looked back at the history of Leninism and found the ideology to be very lacking in both substantive, distinct ideas and practical real-world track record (the initial seizure of power not-withstanding).

Art Vandelay

18th July 2012, 06:31

Good post; I'll get back to it tmro when I have more time, I'm watching a movie right now and can't really give your post the response it deserves.

MuscularTophFan

18th July 2012, 10:51

Yes, you just said that Leninism is "similar" to Nazism.
Leninism and Nazism are similar in that they both are vehemently opposed to workers rights. Both are facko "socialist" movements that opposed democracy.

Marxist Leninists states and Nazi Germany where both extremely hostile towards homosexuals. Just compare Western Europe to Eastern Europe when it comes to gay rights. Authoritarian regimes always oppose gay rights and equality for homosexuals. A homosexual who supports the Soviet Union is like a black guy supporting the KKK. Homosexuality was only legalized in Russia AFTER collapse of the Soviet Union. Now compare the democratic countries like South Africa that have full equality for LGBT peoples.

MuscularTophFan

18th July 2012, 10:58

I'll agree that Stalin and Mao did quite a bit of damage to the revolutionary left.
As well did Lenin. Lenin was one of the biggest enemies of socialism of all time.

Hitler was a capitalist,
State capitalists. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao where all state capitalists as well.

MuscularTophFan

18th July 2012, 11:08

Do you support and/or advocate a workers revolution?
I support a nonviolent democratic workers revolution. So yes I'm a revolutionary but I'm not some authoritarian statist who plans on waging a campaign of terror against my enemies like Lenin. Concentration of power is the enemy of humanity. US politicians don't give a shit about the American people. Lenin and Stalin sure as hell didn't give a shit about the Russian people. It's all about controlling the population of their country in order to keep themselves in power.

Le Socialiste

18th July 2012, 11:47

As well did Lenin. Lenin was one of the biggest enemies of socialism of all time.

To be fair, Lenin was certainly not one of socialism's "biggest enemies." I'm not exactly head over heels for the guy either, but it's necessary to balance Lenin's faults with his contributions. I've criticized plenty of the man's positions, ranging from his thoughts on the role of revolutionary parties to NEP; this does not exclude me from accepting bits and pieces (entire passages in some instances) of what he wrote, however. In the end, Lenin was not wholly responsible for the deterioration and isolation of the revolution, though the means by which he and others within the party sought to alleviate the situation helped pave the way in some instances.

State capitalists. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao where all state capitalists as well.

Lenin I'm a little iffy about, but I'll give you Mao and Stalin.

Jimmie Higgins

18th July 2012, 14:33

Material conditions are a very convenient excuse for failed policies, esp. since you can just throw the phrase "material conditions" and expect it to be taken at face value.

:rolleyes:

While I think your argument is understandable when we look back at the failures and mutations of 20th century communist movements after the Russian Revolution, I think it conflates a lot of history and material developments. While there's no doubting that what followed developed OUT of Bolshevik and Leninist ideas, it's another thing to argue causation.

And certainty there have been a lot of top-down bullshit and political dogmatism in the name of Lenin and "Leninism" but the same could be said of communism in general - and in fact this is the argument of anti-communists: look at the shit that followed. But it takes more of an argument to make a convincing case that these methods inevitably lead to Stalinism... especially when the Stalinists had to get rid of so much of the Bolshevik party to achieve dominance.

I'd like to see examples of where the Bolshevik model was more or less accurately followed in the ways that the early Bolsheviks did and the ways that Lenin talks about organizing that resulted in the some of these bad situations. Most CPs and many Maoist and other groups looking to a "USSR" model or National Liberation model were democratically-centrist in name only. Having a top-down party following the cues of the Comintern and against dissent and debate from below in all conditions is not a proper application of these ideas, as you probably know.

I think while the Bolsheviks made many mistakes, they did achieve their goals of creating an explicitly revolutionary organization that could survive ups and downs in struggle and then use some of their experience to make arguments about the way forward when they were in revolutionary times. The revolution failed, many subjective mistakes - many which are clearer in retrospect - were made and unfortunately (IMO) the revolution fell apart with the working class itself becoming disorganized due to the hardships and then there was an internal counter-revolution.

But there is always a chance of failure and so I think in order to argue that this failure is the result of Leninist ideas, there has to be a clearer argument made why or how these ideas would inevitably lead to this in order to make your case against these ideas.

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 14:48

I support a nonviolent democratic workers revolution. So yes I'm a revolutionary but I'm not some authoritarian statist who plans on waging a campaign of terror against my enemies like Lenin. Concentration of power is the enemy of humanity. US politicians don't give a shit about the American people. Lenin and Stalin sure as hell didn't give a shit about the Russian people. It's all about controlling the population of their country in order to keep themselves in power.

But it's a revolution nonetheless? An act of which one class overthrows another, an extremely authoritarian act.

Now, If you in any way think you could bring about Socialism like that, go get your head examined.
The Bourgeois despise Socialism, they will ensure it never comes about but can't deny its support(That's why Bourgeois systems such as Social Democracy pop up)so they will strike up deals with the proletariat, attempt a compromise or a discussion thereby ruining any form of revolt.

Force must be used, the bourgeois will always do there best to stomp out any revolt.Whatever you are your not a Marxist.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

18th July 2012, 14:49

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 15:00

I love the smell of liberal idiots in the morning.

Smells like victory!

Brosa Luxemburg

18th July 2012, 15:13

Leninism and Nazism are similar

So this is were I stopped reading that post because I am sure the rest will be equally ridiculous.

EDIT: BTW good job trivializing Nazism.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

18th July 2012, 15:20

Ugh, Leninism and Nazism the same? Are you kidding me?
Leninism is smashing the Bourgeoisie and capitalism, gives workers power.
Nazism defends the interest of the Bourgeoisie and upholds capitalism and hates workers power.

Clearly the same.

Ocean Seal

18th July 2012, 16:17

No here's what I actually said.
So you did actually compare the two then...

Meanwhileyou authoritarian leftists give us real leftists a bad name when you go around worshiping Lenin and Che as your gods. Leninists are basically the Rush Limbaughs of the left. I advocate for complete individual freedoms and full democracy.

Yes clearly I'm the "insane" one around here.
You are basically the Glenn Beck of the left then I suppose :lol:.

Comrades Unite!

18th July 2012, 17:11

Nazism believes in Class Collaboration,Whereas Leninism believes in Class Struggle.
That's onedifference,yet displays how different they are.

MTF likes to make statements with no base whatsoever, I'd rather listen to JimProfitCommunist on loop, than see another baseless claim by MTF.

Art Vandelay

18th July 2012, 22:45

I've written several posts regarding historical materialism on this site that I can post here if you want, I'm hardly new to this, LOL, so you can spare me the Marx quotes. I don't see how anyone could be unaware of materialism on this site, as materialism, while correct, is the last refuge of scoundrels and has been used to justify every atrocity that's ever happened, my favorite being the modern day People's Republic of China.

I am not attempting to justify anything, but merely expressing my doubt at the fact that Lenin's ideas being implemented would change the fate of history.

When I see the state of the modern revolutionary movement, which was dominated by Leninism post-1917, one would be a fool to place absolutely no value on the power of ideas and ideology, as manifested through policy-making...that's vulgar materialism.

First off, I would have to disagree with your assertion that post 1917 the global revolutionary movement was dominated by Leninism; in fact I would argue the opposite, starting around the time of Lenin's death, the world revolutionary movement was dominated by Marxism-Leninism, which to me is the negation of Leninism (and frankly, for the most part, I would consider Lenin an orthodox Marxist). Marxism-Leninism represented the reaction against the October revolution.

Secondly, I never claimed that ideas played no role in the course of history, after all the Marx quote I provided makes it very clear of the ways in which men impact the fate of history. But you are right, I do not want to get into a quote war (I hate those) so I will do my best to explain my thoughts on materialism briefly and succinctly.

Men and ideas to have an impact on history and in many ways I think that Gramsci's thoughts on cultural hegemony is a fantastic development in Marxist thought, which perhaps illustrates quite well what I am attempting to say. However when it comes down to it, the economic base is still the determining factor of history. That doesn't mean that communism is just going to come about and we can all just forget about this leftist shit, but it does mean that the growth of the productive forces is what primarily turns the pages of history.

The relationship between the base and superstructure is not a uni-casual one, but the base is capable of reinventing the superstructure and not the other way around.

Although not every disaster can be directly attributed to Lenin the man, as he obviously wasn't alive for the vast majority of the time from 1917 to the collapse of the USSR, but Leninism as an ideology is definitely partially to blame for what happened vis-a-vis the revolutionary movement.

When it comes down to it, in my opinion, the mistakes made by Lenin and co (of which there were many) were almost meaningless is the failure of the international revolution. The revolution failed to spread and they could only hold out for so long. Now if you want to make a case that during Lenin's life time that the USSR played a role in helping hinder the spread of revolution, that would be a different argument altogether and one I would be willing to have.

Since we're doing quote-wars, here's one you may remember from one Friedrich Engels:

I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said.

I don't dismiss them because they haven't established communism...I (mostly) dismiss them because I've looked back at the history of Leninism and found the ideology to be very lacking in both substantive, distinct ideas and practical real-world track record (the initial seizure of power not-withstanding).

Fair enough, I am far from one to claim that everyone must be a Leninist (I don't even consider myself one) or that anarchist or various other political stripes won't play valuable roles in the future revolution.

Os Cangaceiros

20th July 2012, 04:25

I am not attempting to justify anything, but merely expressing my doubt at the fact that Lenin's ideas being implemented would change the fate of history.

I think that Lenin's ideas did change the fate of history, in a limited way...maybe not in the way that he'd envisioned, though.

First off, I would have to disagree with your assertion that post 1917 the global revolutionary movement was dominated by Leninism; in fact I would argue the opposite, starting around the time of Lenin's death, the world revolutionary movement was dominated by Marxism-Leninism, which to me is the negation of Leninism (and frankly, for the most part, I would consider Lenin an orthodox Marxist). Marxism-Leninism represented the reaction against the October revolution.

Well, OK, but that's the "actual existing Leninism" that I was talking about in the first post.

There were other "Leninisms", of course, such as Italian left-communism (and, later, Italian autonomism), but "Leninism" as "Marxist-Leninism" was definitely the dominant force...not carried out with the same practical program, the CP-USA in the 30's prefered civil disobediance to the violence of some other communist parties, but everyone more-or-less followed the influence radiating out of the USSR, except for the anarchists (who's influence was on the wane at this point) and the Trotskyists, who I don't know as much about but my impression is that they still thought that the USSR could be redeemed somehow.

Honestly the fact that even intelligent, otherwise solid revolutionary figures like William Z Foster* could be such oblivious bootlickers of Stalin gives me great pause. It makes me think there's an element of "secular religion" in communist politics that negates critical thought and to some degree punishes introspection, which we can see today (in far less dramatic fashion) with the many splits of tiny parties, or leading members of parties resigning and writing some headache-inducing letter about how their already insignificant party betrayed it's principles or something. This is one aspect of what I think is damaging about the ideology of strongly centralist communist parties. To be sure, the seizure of political power by a small group takes great discipline. But I'm not sure that's how socialism will arrive, actually.

*Or perhaps he just didn't have any real information about what was happening in the USSR, I don't know.

However when it comes down to it, the economic base is still the determining factor of history. That doesn't mean that communism is just going to come about and we can all just forget about this leftist shit, but it does mean that the growth of the productive forces is what primarily turns the pages of history.

Yes, I agree with this...

The relationship between the base and superstructure is not a uni-casual one, but the base is capable of reinventing the superstructure and not the other way around.

See, the way I see it, there have only been two real revolutions if we look at it this way (which is probably a correct way to look at it, with perhaps a few regionally-restricted exceptions, like the Khmer Rouge): the Agrarian Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, both of which had political revolutions of far lesser importance attached to them. What is the use of a consciouslly revolutionary movement if we're all just ordained by the "iron laws of history"? Personally I think that ideology and economy are engaged in an intricate interplay, and while economic base provides a framework around which events develop and cannot ultimately transcend, there have still been instances in history in which ideology has become deranged enough that the base has been significantly influenced. (This is not what I think happened with Leninism, though; I've kind of gone off on a tangent.)

When it comes down to it, in my opinion, the mistakes made by Lenin and co (of which there were many) were almost meaningless is the failure of the international revolution. The revolution failed to spread and they could only hold out for so long. Now if you want to make a case that during Lenin's life time that the USSR played a role in helping hinder the spread of revolution, that would be a different argument altogether and one I would be willing to have.

Some people (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2008-12-15/review-publications-from-left-communists-in-turkey) have made that case, vis-a-vis international revolution in Lenin's lifetime, but it's not one that I'm informed enough to argue for.

I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said.

I post it when I think I'm arguing against someone with an overly mechanical conception of economic determinism...

MuscularTophFan

22nd July 2012, 09:14

Leninism is smashing capitalism, gives workers power.
Bullshit propaganda.

Nazism defends the interest of the Bourgeoisie and upholds capitalism and hates workers power.

So was Lenin. He turned Soviet Union into a state capitalist country. He dissolved the power of the soviet workers councils after he got to power. The propaganda version of Lenin that you and the rest of the brainwashed sheep on here believe in is a fairy tale just like the bible or the tooth fairy.

MuscularTophFan

22nd July 2012, 09:20

So this is were I stopped reading that post because I am sure the rest will be equally ridiculous.

EDIT: BTW good job trivializing Nazism.
I guess you missed the parts where I talked about Marxist-Leninist regimes and their hostility towards homosexuals and the more democratic a country is like say South Africa or UK the more homosexual rights that country will have.

Zaphod Beeblebrox

23rd July 2012, 20:08

damn not even one thanked post for making this thread,thanks. :crying:

Brosa Luxemburg

23rd July 2012, 20:42

I guess you missed the parts where I talked about Marxist-Leninist regimes and their hostility towards homosexuals and the more democratic a country is like say South Africa or UK the more homosexual rights that country will have.

1. Good thing I am not a Marxist-Leninist I guess...
2. I have attacked Marxist-Leninist regimes for their attacks on homosexuals. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2407396&postcount=71
3. This still doesn't explain why you think that Lenin and Leninism is comparable to the crimes of fascism, Nazism, and Hitler.

Brosa Luxemburg

23rd July 2012, 20:52

So was Lenin. He turned Soviet Union into a state capitalist country.

Yes, Lenin did institute the New Economic Policy which was a form of "state-capitalism", but I better question (instead of the excessive moralizing you seem to do) is to ask "why" Lenin did what he did. The Soviet Union was greatly underdeveloped, coming out of a viscous civil war and invasion from 14 different countries, famine, etc. War communism was a response to all these things, and whether it was "moral" or not is beside the point because war communism was a necessary response to the civil war, invasion, etc. Of course, the material conditions at this time made over-centralization a very easy path to follow. The NEP was a response to the problems of war communism, the need to industrialize, etc. Instead of moralizing the entire thing, or saying "he was state-capitalist" as if you just said something intriguing, smart, and new how about actually analyzing the situation instead of employing simplistic rhetoric.

He dissolved the power of the soviet workers councils after he got to power

And why was this? Well, it is fairly obvious. The autonomous workers' councils showed they were incapable of running the workplace efficiently (most of the people at this time in Russia were illiterate and very uneducated. Expecting them to run something as complicated as a workplace would be utopian.) Adding to this, you had the civil war, invasion, etc.

The propaganda version of Lenin that you and the rest of the brainwashed sheep on here believe in is a fairy tale just like the bible or the tooth fairy.

1. Leninists do not think that the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin was a workers' paradise. If anything, it is the exact opposite.

2. I find your holding up some "pure democracy" as something to be followed regardless of material conditions stupid as well.