Why are some Marxists VERY anti-Leninist?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Some Marxists I've seen seem to be VERY against Leninism. Why is that (If youre one of them, why?)?

[Manic Impressive]

ran capitalism but called it socialism
was a minority revolution (lacked a class conscious majority)
means of production was not in the hands of workers
undemocratic

It's inevitable failure has led to the situation we're in now. It is a complete revision of Marxism. It destroyed almost all genuine Marxist movements. Do you need more?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

As a former anti-Leninist:

* the vanguard party
* the Red Terror
* the Cheka
* War Communism, strikebreaking, and repression of the Kronstadt uprising
* the Bolsheviks appear to crush the soviets to implement a non-democratic state
* Stalinism grew out of Leninism

[RedAtheist]

Let's not forget

-millions of people starving to death
-an attempt to bring about socialism in an economically underdeveloped country, using a method intended for a economically developed capitalist society
-suppression of opposition parties
-the shutting down of democratic institutions

[MarxSchmarx]

Some Marxists I've seen seem to be VERY against Leninism. Why is that (If youre one of them, why?)?
are there any groups u have specifically in mind?

[Sentinel]

Just to offer the other side of the argument, may I suggest you check out this article: Lenin - the original dictator? (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/1086) It explains the trotskyist (CWI) view on Lenin, and refutes the different (left and right wing) accusations against him about being undemocratic, or that stalinism was a mere continuation of leninism etc.

We argue that Lenin was democratically oriented, and to what extent he and the bolsheviks actually did reduce democratic input in society, was due to being forced by external circumstances (counter revolution, civil war etc) - and that these measures were meant to be temporary, but were cemented into permanent policy by the stalinist bureacracy.

We also point out that between the civil war and before Stalin's clique consolidated it's power, there existed a living democracy with fierce (revleft like) debates regarding policy within the Party, which is a main difference to the later situation. As long as the only ruling party is ran democratically, having a one party state isn't that bad.

But it's not the optimal or preferred situation, which is why the bolsheviks initially after the October revolution allowed dissent, even though they were forced to change their policy due to the events that followed. That's also why we still today stand for the right of anyone (well, except fascists) to speak their mind, organise and run in elections etc.

[tuwix]

Some Marxists I've seen seem to be VERY against Leninism. Why is that (If youre one of them, why?)?

Beside that is listed above Lenin has done some funny “temporary” things. The censorship had to be “temporary”. The CheKa terror had to be “temporary” too. But these “temporary” things lasted 70 years. Secret police and censorship lasted until the fall of the Soviet union.

Lenin was a one of these persons who wanted very good things but they turned into very bad things.

[Old Bolshie]

We argue that Lenin was democratically oriented, and to what extent he and the bolsheviks actually did reduce democratic input in society, was due to being forced by external circumstances (counter revolution, civil war etc) - and that these measures were meant to be temporary

That reduced democratic input was consolidated after the end of the civil war while Lenin was still in charge....


, but were cemented into permanent policy by the stalinist bureacracy.

It's a commonplace to see Stalin receiving credit for things he hadn't any responsibility for it. The truth is that the bureaucracy came from the old tsarist political structure (and it grew under Lenin). Lenin once commented about this referring that the soviets took the tsarist bureaucratic state apparatus and anointed with soviet oil.

But for the patriarch of bureaucrats like Trotsky was called I'm sure bureaucracy shouldn't be a concern. Trostky was criticized by Lenin for wanting to increase the bureaucracy within the soviet structure regarding the Trade Union's issue.


We also point out that between the civil war and before Stalin's clique consolidated it's power, there existed a living democracy with fierce (revleft like) debates regarding policy within the Party, which is a main difference to the later situation. As long as the only ruling party is ran democratically, having a one party state isn't that bad.

The ban on factions within the Bolshevik was implemented by Lenin and supported by Trotsky.

[revoltordie]

the vulgar reading of marx and engels just to justify himself such as the invention and popularization of the idea that socialism is both the lowest stage of communism and a transition to communism plus with it the dictatorship of the proletariat and wages. leninism is also popular with historical revisionism and its own role in the russian revolution placing itself at the front instead of at the back where it belongs.

[Riveraxis]

Lenin and Stalin are equally responsible for the notion of "communism" that most of the world holds today.
That it's a repressive, micromanaged, centralized slave-driven nightmare that only seeks to hurt people.

I admire Lenin's drive for revolution, sure, but whether it was it was his personal intentions or counter-revolutionary paranoia, he definitely paved the way for Stalinism.

[Dave B]

CWI are liars as well.

The Bolsheviks and Lenin did ban other political parties, eg the Mensheviks and they went even further in introducing the death penalty for being a Menshevik.

Thus from 1922;


we say in reply, “For the public manifestations of Menshevism our revolutionary courts must pass the death sentence, otherwise they are not our courts, but God knows what.”

They cannot understand this and exclaim: “What dictatorial manners these people have!” They still think we are persecuting the Mensheviks because they fought us in Geneva......................the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries preach express their true nature—“The revolution has gone too far. What you are saying now we have been saying all the time, permit us to say it again.”

But we say in reply: “Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that.

Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your political views publicly in the present circumstances, when our position is far more difficult than it was when the whiteguards were directly attacking us, then you will have only yourselves to blame if we treat you as the worst and most pernicious whiteguard elements.” We must never forget this.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

And the Mensheviks never engaged in armed opposition to the Bolsheviks; that is another of many lies told by Leninists.

The oppression of the Mensheviks began in 1918 and continued with show trials or the


………compulsory staging of a number of model (as regards speed and force of repression…….. through the courts and the press) trials in Moscow……Because the Bolshevik ‘dictatorship of one party’ would only;


….recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is ……… we Communists—who are the state.http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm

When it came to the old Bolsheviks turn to be hung by their own petard, the Mensheviks came to their defense in the British press;

The Trials And Executions In Moscow



Eliminating the Opposition Under the New Constitution?




By Theodore Dan

We reprint the following letter sent to the editor of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN by Theodore Dan, appearing in that publication on September 4, 1936. Dan is the leader of the Russian Menshevik (Social Democratic) party, and a member of the Bureau of the Socialist and Labor International. While we are not in accord with all the political views of Theodore Dan, his letter on the trial and executions in Moscow is, we feel, of signal interest to our readers.—The Editors.
To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian.


Sir,—Sixteen men have been shot in Moscow and one, Tomsky, menaced and hounded into suicide. Among the sixteen were Zinovieff, Kameneff, Smirnov, Mratchkovsky, the most noted of the fellow-workers of Lenin, co-founders of the Bolshevik party and the international Communist movement, men who led the Bolshevik revolution and during its heroic period filled the highest posts in the Soviet State and in the party and trade union organizations. The turn of other Bolshevik leaders no less prominent, men who have held high positions in the State and the army—Radek, Bukharin, Rykoff, Piatokoff, Sokolnikoff, Serebriakoff—has still to come. Everyone who at any time played a leading part in the Bolshevik party is awaiting his fate in fear and horror.

Even those nearest to Stalin feel insecure.
Stalin is not content even with having the old party leaders shot; he is having them covered with infamy—and with them the leader who is now out of his reach, Trotsky, the actual organiser of the October rising, of the Red Army, and of the victories in the civil war. If one is to believe the court and the Soviet press, the men who were the making of the Bolshevik party and of international Communism, and who led the Bolshevik revolution, were nothing but blackguards and thieves, spies and mercenaries of Hitler and the Gestapo!

But did there really exist a terrorist conspiracy against Stalin among the old Bolshevik leaders? It is only too natural that terrorist ideas should simmer in many a hot head in a country in which every opportunity is lacking of organised peaceful opposition to the arbitrary “totalitarian” omnipotence of a single person. But one may well suspect that these hot heads would not be found on the shoulders of old and experienced politicians, who, as Marxists, had for many a year strongly condemned terrorism, if only on account of its futility. The suspicion becomes a certainty when one examines the case for the prosecution and the reports of the Soviet press on the proceedings.

There is not a single document, not a single definite piece of evidence, not a single precise detail of the alleged plans of assassination, not a single attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements made, and only two “witnesses,” both brought into court from prison and both due to appear themselves as defendants in the “second” terrorist trial before the same court! There is nothing but malevolent phrases in general terms and, most incredible of all, the most abject of self-vilification and “confessions” on the part of the accused men, once more without any concrete detail of any sort concerning their “crime”; they fairly enter into competition with the State prosecutor in branding themselves, and actually beg for the death penalty.

But why is Stalin thus getting rid of the old party leaders on the very eve of the enactment of the new Constitution, with all its democratic flavour? Why is he breaking, at this particular moment, the bonds that still unite him with the old traditions and the past history of the Bolshevik party, the international Communist movement, and the Bolshevik revolution, as Napoleon once broke with the Jacobins from among whom he had risen to power?

In spite of all the democratic rights granted to Soviet citizens by the new Constitution Stalin intends to be in a position to make it a serviceable instrument of the consolidation of his personal dictatorship. For there is one right that is still denied the Soviet citizen—the right of free political self-determination and free organisation in general, without which all other rights can easily be rendered valueless. The political monopoly and the leadership in all permitted organisations and all State and municipal bodies, and therewith the disposal of the press, of the right of assembly, and so on, remains in the hands of the Communist party which Stalin has politically emasculated; in other words, it remains constitutionally reserved to Stalin himself.

But he still has to face the danger that certain provisions of the new Constitution, above all, the secrecy of the ballot, may become buttresses for a legal struggle of the working masses for their rights—above all, for the right of free organisation. For that reason he is urgently at work now making “innocuous” all those who are in a position to organise this mass struggle. He is sending Social Democrats wholesale into his concentration camps. And he is hurriedly exterminating the last of the old Bolshevik leaders whose names and whose opposition to him are known to the masses and who could thus become particularly dangerous to him in his peaceful and constitutional struggle for his sole dominance.

If the Soviet Union is to be preserved as the nucleus of peace, and the war peril facing all humanity thus exorcised, all friends of the Russian Revolution and of world peace must stand resolutely on the side of the Russian workers and peasants in order to assist them to defend the possibilities of democratic and Socialistic development of the Soviet Union against the nationalistic and Bonapartist policy of Stalin. The Moscow murders are perhaps one of the final warnings.—

Yours, &c.,
Paris, August 28.
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistappeal/vol02/no09/dan.htm


contrast that to Bukharin’s and (Tomsky’ s) ‘joint’ statement to an American Journalist in 1928 as quoted by Abramovitch in his book page 302.


“it is nonsense to say that different political parties may not exist in Russia, on the contrary they may provided only that that one party the communists is lodged in the Kremlin and all the rest are in jail”Mark Rein, Ambrahovitch’s Menshevik son was kidnapped, and then murdered by Stalin in 1937 for refusing to testify against Bukharin in his show trial.

When it boils down to the basic issue Leninist are elitist shits with no moral compass; apart from being, same thing, a pack of middle class unprincipled opportunist self serving bourgeois liars.

Which was the real underlying reason for the Bolshevik- Menshevik split and for that matter Kautsky’s objection to Bolshevism.

[Le Socialiste]

Marx and Engels never fully elucidated on the question of communist organization during their times; Marx less so than Engels, though both made modest contributions. The question of organization fell to others, among whom Lenin may be counted. Lenin, similar to Marx and Engels, recognized the dynamics inherent within class society as molded by capitalist relations, and continued in that tradition. One of the common misperceptions of Lenin has to do with his understanding of the historic role of the working-class, which was very much in line with Marx's. Another point most people fail to understand is Lenin's emphasis on democratic processes and the impetus of the proletariat as the driver of social - and political - change.

Leninism isn't the forebear of Stalinism. Some might point to the practices of the Bolsheviks while they were in power - growing bureaucratism, top-down centralism, stifling of democracy - and venture to say they see Lenin's hand in this process. This ignores the occurrence of innumerable factors that were beyond the party's - and, indeed Lenin's - control. Civil war and foreign intervention decimated the country and its fledgling working-class; deprived of its base, Lenin and the party inherited a situation that compelled them to take various unpopular policies. Would I condone them? Not at all, but I refuse to attribute to them some vague notion of it all being due to Leninism's own organizational and theoretical failings.

And Dave B: minimize the font in your post, it's giving me a headache and it's a pain in the ass to read.

[l'Enfermé]

ran capitalism but called it socialism
was a minority revolution (lacked a class conscious majority)
means of production was not in the hands of workers
undemocratic

It's inevitable failure has led to the situation we're in now. It is a complete revision of Marxism. It destroyed almost all genuine Marxist movements. Do you need more?

Ok, that's pretty dishonest isn't it? Not that I would expect more from you, you have a history for distorting the facts in regards to October.


ran capitalism but called it socialism
That's not true. Lenin was quite open that what existed after October 1917 was state-monopoly capitalism.


was a minority revolution (lacked a class conscious majority)That's not true as well. A little schoolboy could disprove this statement without much difficulty. You just have to look at the Soviet figures. The workers sent 649 delegates with a full vote to the Second Congress of the Soviets, which convened during on the same day as the Bolshevik insurrection(October 25). Of these, 390 were Bolsheviks, around 110 were left-SRs, around 50 were right-SRs, and 86 were Mensheviks(72 were social-chauvinists and 14 were "internationalists", though in the Menshevik sense, which doesn't mean much). That's more than a 3/4ths majority for Bolshevik left-SR bloc.

At least 80-90 percent of the Russian workers supported one of the 3 major explicitly socialist parties(Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs) at the time of October. Over half of them supported the Bolsheviks and even more supported them in the major industrial centers of the country - in Petrograd for example, the SRs didn't even have an actual presence.

As for that crap about lacking a class conscious majority, what a load of shit. You would have more luck finding a needle in a haystack than finding a worker during the Russian Revolution who wasn't aware that he belongs to a class that's distinct from all other classes and has its own interests. The Russian worker even before 1917 was the most class-conscious in the world, it's not a coincidence that the writings of German Marxists(Germany being the center of the worker's movement and Marxism) like Kautsky were translated more into Russian than any other language.


It is a complete revision of Marxism.What exactly did Lenin revise? Tell us.


It destroyed almost all genuine Marxist movementsOh really it did? When did that happen? There was a Marxist movement before WWI. It was called Social-Democracy. Then it collapsed. Was that Lenin's fault? Then Marxism pulled itself together again and re-consolidated around the Comintern. Then the counter-revolution and Stalinism triumphed and we've had no more "Leninism" since. Where does all this destruction of "genuine Marxist movements" fit in?

[l'Enfermé]

Dave do you write in this terrible font so people are reluctant to reply and refute(because it's really difficult to read) these falsehoods you keep on spreading? Please stop...


CWI are liars as well.

The Bolsheviks and Lenin did ban other political parties, eg the Mensheviks and they went even further in introducing the death penalty for being a Menshevik.

Thus from 1922;

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


How terrible, the Bolsheviks outlawed counter-revolutionaries that sided with the Czar during WWI and with the bourgeois provisional-government after February! Infamy! The same counter-revolutionaries that sent memberes of its central committe to serve as ministers in the bourgeois government. The same counter-revolutionaries that explicitly supported the killing of Bolsheviks by the government during the July Days and the same counter-revolutionaries that called for the arrest of Bolshevik leaders and banning of the party during and after the said July Days.

Okay...


And the Mensheviks never engaged in armed opposition to the Bolsheviks; that is another of many lies told by Leninists.
How would the Mensheviks engage in armed opposition to the Bolsheviks? They completely lost all mass support from militant workers in 1917 outside of tiny Georgia. They had neither the men nor the arms to oppose the Bolsheviks. They could offer any sort of serious resistence to the Bolsheviks only if the Entente powers propped them up with arms and money, but why would they do that when they could prop up monarchists and other whiteguards that had whiter coats than the Mensheviks?


The oppression of the Mensheviks began in 1918 and continued with show trials or the

Because the Bolshevik ‘dictatorship of one party’ would only;

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm

When it came to the old Bolsheviks turn to be hung by their own petard, the Mensheviks came to their defense in the British press;

The Trials And Executions In Moscow



Eliminating the Opposition Under the New Constitution?



http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistappeal/vol02/no09/dan.htm


contrast that to Bukharin’s and (Tomsky’ s) ‘joint’ statement to an American Journalist in 1928 as quoted by Abramovitch in his book page 302.

Mark Rein, Ambrahovitch’s Menshevik son was kidnapped, and then murdered by Stalin in 1937 for refusing to testify against Bukharin in his show trial.
Hahahahahaa. And what do you think the Bolsheviks should have done with the Mensheviks? Revolutionaries show no mercy to counter-revolutionaries.



When it boils down to the basic issue Leninist are elitist shits with no moral compass; apart from being, same thing, a pack of middle class unprincipled opportunist self serving bourgeois liars.
Oh, alright. Leninists are elitist shits. No moral compass. Middle class bourgeois liars. I think you're confusing them with the Mensheviks. You know, the Mensheviks, who, while proclaiming to be socialists, supported the imperialist war which killed at least 15 million workers and peasants. The same Mensheviks that provided ministers of interior(Nikitin), justice(Malintovich), labour(Gvozdev, Skobelev) etc., etc., to the bourgeois government. It's the Bolsheviks who overthrew the bourgeoisie and hung and shot most of former-bourgeoisie who weren't already driven out of the country by them that were bourgeois. Not the Mensheviks who formed the ruling coalition of a bourgeois government engaged in an imperialist war. It's the Bolsheviks who had no moral compass and were unpricipled oppurtunists, the same Bolsheviks who opposed the imperialist war and were arrested and exiled by the Czarist government for it(all 5 Bolsheviks in the Duma came out against the war since 1914, since day 1 - by Dec 1914 the last one was arrested for it), not the Mensheviks who energetically propagated chauvinism and patriotism during the war.




Which was the real underlying reason for the Bolshevik- Menshevik split and for that matter Kautsky’s objection to Bolshevism.
Right, so you know literally nothing about the Bolshevik-Menshevik split. You're just talking out of your ass and wasting our time. I get it now. Trolling successful, I fell for it, sir.

[subcp]

Marx and Engels never fully elucidated on the question of communist organization during their times; Marx less so than Engels, though both made modest contributions. The question of organization fell to others, among whom Lenin may be counted.I don't agree. I think the lived experience of Marx and Engels left the legacy that was later continued by Lenin: in periods of the non-revolution/normal times, communists organize as a minority of the working-class, on a local and international level; during a pre-revolutionary situation or revolutionary crisis, the communist minority forms the class party, the International (of which Marx was a main animator in the First International). This was copied by Lenin first in the Bolshevik Party, which tried to link up with like minded left socialists internationally before the revolutionary ferment, at which time it was the primary founder of the Third International. Not much different from the Communist League - First International (the fraction/party relationship) set down by Marx and Engels.

[Ostrinski]

The reason that the people in question are staunchly anti-Leninist is because they view the historical experience of Bolshevism as ultimately counter-revolutionary and anathema to socialist goals. There are any number of reasons why they think this, depending on who you ask and what political tradition they identify with. They view the Leninist organizational model, based loosely on the structure of the Bolshevik party, as a strategical dead end and the concept of the vanguard party as elitist and substitutionist.

Just as, the reason that other Marxists are Leninists is because they view the historical experience of Bolshevism and Leninism as an advancement of the working class movement, and identify strongly with the Bolsheviks and how their party was run.

So it is effectively more or less a historical issue. This is why I don't bother calling myself a Leninist because I can't fucking stand the attitude that your politics have to be defined by your views on historical events, people, and organizations. It's silliness. As an aspiring historian, I find the perversion and exploitation of history for political purposes (which is a necessary result of defining your own or someone else's politics by their historical views) to be absolutely filthy and disgusting.

[l'Enfermé]

Dammit Austin "Leninism" is not a real thing you have to put it in quotation marks! :angryface:

[Dave B]

Are we saying that the Marxist internationalist Mensheviks sided with the Czar during WWI?

Even Lenin never said that.


It had been Bolshevik policy to support and play a ‘leading role’ in a provisional revolutionary government in fact as I remember it that was the active policy of the Bolsheviks eg Stalin before Lenin turned up.


I think that is in Sukhanov’s book.

To be fair to Lenin he placed a caveat on that in 1915 re joining provisional revolutionary government that wanted to pursue a war to the defeat of Germany with ‘reparations’ and financial penalties and annexations for having been gits and started it etc.



Eg;


Several Theses


(7)As hitherto, we consider it admissible for Social-Democrats to join a provisional revolutionary government together with the democratic petty bourgeoisie, but not with the revolutionary chauvinists.

(8)By revolutionary chauvinists we mean those who want a victory over tsarism so as to achieve victory over Germany, plunder other countries, consolidate Great-Russian rule over the other peoples of Russia, etc.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/13.htm

There was such a wide range of opinions on the continuation of the war across the whole political spectrum that it is a subject in itself.

It ranged from unadulterated a patriotism etc which I think was a minority opinion post May 1917; I even don’t think Karensky took that position.
I would have to check.


To, as regards the idea, the revolutionary defense against ‘German’ bay of pigs type imperialism.

Not my thing really.


The Mensheviks and SR’s were asked to go into the May provisional revolutionary government by the Petersburg soviet in order to have a leftist representation in it.

The Mensheviks initially refused and the SR’s refused to go in without the Mensheviks.



A row broke out between the Menshevik party centre, the local Petersburg Menshevik party and the ‘organisation’ of the Petersburg Mensheviks delegates in soviet.

There was some cross over of membership with some individuals being in all three.

Martov the party leader was totally against the idea as was the Menshevik party centre, initially at least

In May and later there was a cloud of suspicion surrounding the Bolsheviks ie they had arrived on a sealed train from Germany and were being funded by the Kaiser;which turned out to be true.

In July the Bolsheviks had been accused of attempting an armed coup and they were placed in the sin bin by the Soviet backed May provisional revolutionary government.

Which was why then Lenin and Stalin in July opposed the soviets as obsolete eg Lenin’s ‘On Slogans’ and Stalin’s

SPEECHES DELIVERED AT AN EMERGENCY CONFERENCE OF THE PETROGRAD ORGANIZATION OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
(BOLSHEVIKS)


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/15.htm


http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SEC17.html


No Bolsheviks were killed by state re the July revolution, those arrested were shortly released, including Trotsky I think.

Actually the Mensheviks, eg Martov in particular, opposed the ‘mass’ arrests of the Bolsheviks at the time.

The idea of the Mensheviks supporting armed opposition of the Bolsheviks circulates amongst Leninists and it was part the case of second international Stalinist show trial of Mensheviks in 1931?


It is not however totally without substance as some Mensheviks wanted to join in with the SR’s in fighting the Bolsheviks and the Menshevik centre issued proclamations against it.

I am prepared to accept that some of them might have ignored it.

There was resurgence of support for the Mensheviks through 1918 as outlined in a detailed and resourced history by Brovkin ‘The Mensheviks After October’.

The SR’s for what it matters wanted to dispossess and expropriate the Tsarist aristocracy of its land and were no friends of the Whites.

The Mensheviks never supported the first world war they were part of the Zimerwald sect, somewhere even Lenin gave them credit for that.

[Lucretia]

Most anti-Leninist types are anti-Leninist because they can't bring themselves to accept that socialist revolutions sometimes entail violating the norms of classic bourgeois democracy, because violating those norms sometimes has the effect of preserving the substance of democratic power. Instead they make the mistake that Lenin pinpointed in "Left-Wing Communism": confusing democratic forms with democratic content, and being oblivious to the fact that bourgeois democratic forms are often a stand-in for bourgeois power in a way that makes attacking bourgeois power sometimes entails attacking the extant forms in which they exist.

It basically boils down to the breathtaking Kautskyite error of thinking that a majority of socialist cadre can be developed within capitalist society, even though capitalists exercise ideological hegemony by virtue of controlling the means of material and intellectual production, and that once this socialist cadre-majority is developed, then you have a perfectly wonderful and peaceful socialist revolution in which no norms of bourgeois democracy are violated.

In reality, this is a recipe for reformism because such a cadre-majority cannot be formed within capitalism for the reason I hinted at above. A socialist majority is achieved in the process of revolution. And the process of revolution is democratic because the program it represents, the revolutionary program of the workers' state, enjoys majority support. Not because the majority of workers magically become dyed-in-the-wool Marxists overnight. One need not be familiar with Marxist theory at all to support a workers' state program. Majority support for this program, during a revolutionary situation, within the confines of a bourgeois society, forms the fulcrum of transformation from capitalism to socialism, as well as the basis for transforming the majority of workers into Marxists.

To claim that one must wait for a majority to become dedicated Marxists before the revolution occurs is just to postpone the question of revolution to some dimly distant day that will never arrive, and to relegate one's own political work to a series of minimalist reforms within the treasured constraints of bourgeois democracy.

[Comrade #138672]

Because some of them are too Idealistic and don't take the material conditions into account.

[Captain Ahab]

Lenin did a few controversial actions such as disbanding Soviets that dared to not support the Bolsheviks and dissolving the constituent assembly. There's also the role of the vanguard party and how many libcoms oppose its minority rule. He also stated this little nugget of wisdom:

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
-The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It
One can say the Lenin was the original revisionist.

[Let's Get Free]

He turned his interpretation of Marx into a weapon against workers. Soviet "Marxism" was used in the 1920s and 1930s to justify the crushing of both peasantry and industrial workers in the name of socialism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

He turned his interpretation of Marx into a weapon against workers. Soviet "Marxism" was used in the 1920s and 1930s to justify the crushing of both peasantry and industrial workers in the name of socialism.

And how so? Please clarify.



The NEP* was a necessity and the Trials were an excess but in what way did the Bolsheviks make a concerted effort to crush the peasantry and working class?

During the NEP the government almost always sided with the grievances of workers over employers.

The banning of parties was the result of shit like what the SRs were trying to pull or groups like the Black Hundreds even existing.

[Let's Get Free]

And how so? Please clarify.


The crushing of soviet democracy, workers' self-management, democracy in the armed forces or working class power and freedom generally(all this was before the civil war had started), factory committees being gradually crushed and extinguished, Trotsky, with his despicable anti-working class militarization of labor, the suppression of Makhno's movement, the suppression of any attempts at workplace autonomy in opposition to Bolsheviks "one man management" the suppression of workers and peasant uprisings and strikes, and of course, Kronstadt.

[Lucretia]

Lenin did a few controversial actions such as disbanding Soviets that dared to not support the Bolsheviks and dissolving the constituent assembly. There's also the role of the vanguard party and how many libcoms oppose its minority rule. He also stated this little nugget of wisdom:

-The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It
One can say the Lenin was the original revisionist.

Jesus Christ. Does this quote have to be in every single thread about Lenin? I don't know how many times I've had to respond to this quote from copy-paste-happy anarchists on this forum. Perhaps some moderator should pin a proper analysis of this quote to the top of every subforum. You can consult http://www.revleft.com/vb/mensheviks-t177067/index2.html for a more in-depth discussion, but basically the gist of it is as follows:


Do you mean what Lenin wrote in this work? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni.../ichtci/11.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm))

I see nothing really objectionable in it. The gist of it is that the collectivized property form that will exist in socialism develops within monopoly capitalism, and that the process of establishing socialism and overthrowing class society (and here is where MH could probably learn something) is of transforming the content of that property form by bringing it under the control of "a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way."

Anarchists love to point out quotes such as: "For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism."

And they use these quotes to try to attribute to Lenin the position that socialism is at its essence about a collectivized means of production used to serve the interests of people, without any regard to the people doing the using, the planning, etc. In other words, socialism is a matter of distribution, not of workers' control. (The quotes above are followed by the statement "Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism." -- Again the process of democratization of decision-making and movement toward socialism are viewed as inextricable.)

This of course is belied by Lenin's continual stress on the content of the state that controls the means of production. It must necessarily be democratic. So those quotes need to be read in context.
...
Lenin never said that "state capitalism" was the same as socialism, and its misleading to once again, even after being shown a lengthy exegesis of the passage you keep quoting, act as though Lenin perceived socialism as just capitalism with enlightened leadership in the state. His only point in defining state capitalism the way he did was to suggest that the collectivized property form that develops within monopoly capitalism takes on a socialist content when it has been transformed by workers who have seized control of that form through a new kind of state. It's obvious from the context of the piece why he made this point, since it is a discussion about the development of capitalism and the relationship between imperialism, characterized by the state's merger with capitalist trusts, and the possibility of a socialist revolution. There is absolutely nothing in this that Engels or Marx would have disagreed with.

[Captain Ahab]

Am I supposed to accept that socialism is to be reached through nationalization and concentration of power into a vanguard party? What you're doing here is calling state-capitalism socialism but using the logic that because a group claiming to represent the workers is in power then that means the representative group is in power. Leninist revisionism would make old Marx rather upset.

[Red Enemy]

Some "Marxists" are opposed to Lenin, usually dogmatically, due to a complete misunderstanding of material conditions and history. These "Marxists" use out-of-context quotes, and anecdotal evidence, to suggest Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not Marxist, but "state capitalist" from the very start. Somehow, the Bolsheviks were plagued with deformation, with the interests of a yet non-existing class (state capitalist class), with no explanation as to why, or actual evidence to support their claims. They rightly criticize some of the actions of the Bolsheviks, but ignore the context in which these actions took place. As I said, they tend to lay the blame on everything but material conditions and reality.

You will see many quotes where Lenin discusses "state capitalism". In which he uses it in ways that seem condemning when taken out of context, but when the entire work is there, when you understand the situation in Russia at the time, you know he wasn't of the notion that socialism = what we know is state capitalism.

In fact, he tackles it in a article called "Left Wing Childishness", not to be confused with "Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder".

What these anti-Lenin "Marxists" do is make a mockery of materialism, and a mockery of Marxism. They exaggerate, they misinterpret, misunderstand, and do so robbotically, pardon the pun ;) .

[Jimmie Higgins]

Am I supposed to accept that socialism is to be reached through nationalization and concentration of power into a vanguard party? What you're doing here is calling state-capitalism socialism but using the logic that because a group claiming to represent the workers is in power then that means the representative group is in power. Leninist revisionism would make old Marx rather upset.

It would make Marx rather upset - and the conception as you describe it above would have also made Lenin himself upset. This is a straw-man version of "vanguard" ideas - though it's also hard to blame someone for believing this version since some self-proclaimed "vanguards" have more or less shared this "revisionism" of "Lenin's revisionism".

[Lucretia]

Am I supposed to accept that socialism is to be reached through nationalization and concentration of power into a vanguard party? What you're doing here is calling state-capitalism socialism but using the logic that because a group claiming to represent the workers is in power then that means the representative group is in power. Leninist revisionism would make old Marx rather upset.

Gee. I don't know. Are you, as a Marxist, supposed to believe that the tendency for capital to accumulate and centralize brings people farther from socialism, in which case the entire dialectical framework of Marxian economic and social thought is undermined, and we get farther and farther from socialism as the laws of capitalism manifest themselves to greater degrees? I guess we can call this Ahabian revisionism.

Just a clue: the socialist revolution doesn't modify the centralized forms of ownership and control. It modifies their content, by bringing that formal unity under the command of a revolutionary-democratic state, thereby decentralizing the power, the substance of that formal control (so that the entire proletariat controls the means of production). You are getting so confused in your facile dismissals of Lenin that you aren't making these basic distinctions.

On that note, our exchange here has reminded me of something. Why are so many Marxists ardently anti-Lenin? Because many Marxists have taken Marx's thought seriously enough to realize that the bourgeois propaganda about him is a lie, but haven't yet taken the step of studying Lenin's thought with the requisite seriousness to see through the bourgeois lies about Leninism.

[Captain Ahab]

It would make Marx rather upset - and the conception as you describe it above would have also made Lenin himself upset. This is a straw-man version of "vanguard" ideas - though it's also hard to blame someone for believing this version since some self-proclaimed "vanguards" have more or less shared this "revisionism" of "Lenin's revisionism".
I'm only opposed to a vanguard party assuming control of the workers state and concentrating power into itself. A vanguard or whatever you may call groups that do similar actions in aiding a revolution I do not mind. If I'm misinterpreting Lenin then please tell me what he really meant. I do not desire making hating Lenin a religion.

[Rational Radical]

I actually never understood why certain communists felt the need to attach themselves to historical figures that will only alienate workers in the 21st century,it's really beyond me. My position is although Lenin can be considered a marxist in some ways,he undermined soviet democracy,workers self management and increased the bureaucratization of the party which was at least,highly non-socialist(notice i didnt say lenin wasnt necessarily anti-socialist but his decisions,due to war and the lack of a class conscious majority,didnt coincide with socialist principles)

[Let's Get Free]

I actually never understood why certain communists felt the need to attach themselves to historical figures that will only alienate workers in the 21st century,

we're still stuck in 1905 tsarist russia


it's really beyond me. My position is although Lenin can be considered a marxist in some ways,

i would actually say that lenin was more of an anti-tsarist populist than a disciple of marx

[Lucretia]

I actually never understood why certain communists felt the need to attach themselves to historical figures that will only alienate workers in the 21st century,it's really beyond me. My position is although Lenin can be considered a marxist in some ways,he undermined soviet democracy,workers self management and increased the bureaucratization of the party which was at least,highly non-socialist(notice i didnt say lenin wasnt necessarily anti-socialist but his decisions,due to war and the lack of a class conscious majority,didnt coincide with socialist principles)

Why consider yourself a "Marxist"? Isn't that just "attaching yourself to historical figures that will only alienate workers in the 21st century"? :confused:

[Rational Radical]

Why consider yourself a "Marxist"? Isn't that just "attaching yourself to historical figures that will only alienate workers in the 21st century"? :confused:
No because marxism is a scientific analysis of capitalism and it's effects on social relations that is supposed to be used as a tool to create a better future for humanity as opposed to arguing over historical failures

[Lucretia]

No because marxism is a scientific analysis of capitalism and it's effects on social relations that is supposed to be used as a tool to create a better future for humanity as opposed to arguing over historical failures

Calling one's self a Marxist will alienate large numbers of people who buy into bourgeois propaganda about Marx and his body of thought. That was the basis of your claim that people shouldn't call themselves Leninists.

Now we see you making claims about how Leninism is different than Marxism because one leads to historical failure and the other leads to a better future. But this is YOUR opinion. If we want to avoid alienating YOU, I guess there's a big difference between calling one's self a Marxist and a Leninist, but I doubt most people would make this distinction.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I am so glad we have the eloquent Lucretia to do the heavy lifting, through a detailed refutation of the claims of the ultra-lefts, when they go after Lenin. If I remember correctly, Trotsky went so far as to write that, without Lenin in Petrograd, there would have been no revolution.

[Prof. Oblivion]

we're still stuck in 1905 tsarist russia



i would actually say that lenin was more of an anti-tsarist populist than a disciple of marx

So on the one hand Lenin is a vanguardist who thinks socialism can only be achieved through the domination of the advanced workers over the rest of society in the form of a single party; but on the other hand he is an "anti-tsarist populist"?

How does that make any sense? :confused:

[Rational Radical]

Let us not forget that Leninism is a revision of Marxism, a movement that once posed a significant threat to capital and was more popular among the worker before the russian revolution. It was only after the russian revolution where common people started to increasingly doubt the credibility of socialism due to of course bourgeoise propaganda AND what i and other posters mentioned in this thread. By celebrating leninism and the russian revolution as socialist we are celebrating a bastardization of marxism-which sought to create a classless,stateless,market-less society and if leninism didn't accomplish this then it isn't worth attaching ourselves to.

[Art Vandelay]

i would actually say that lenin was more of an anti-tsarist populist than a disciple of marx

In one post you are rambling on about how Lenin underminded democracy centralized power and in the next post he's a populist.

:laugh:

[Let's Get Free]

In one post you are rambling on about how Lenin underminded democracy centralized power and in the next post he's a populist.

:laugh:

I fail to see how those are mutually exclusive. Many dictators have played up populist sentiments to get into power

[Le Socialiste]

Let us not forget that Leninism is a revision of Marxism, a movement that once posed a significant threat to capital and was more popular among the worker before the russian revolution. It was only after the russian revolution where common people started to increasingly doubt the credibility of socialism due to of course bourgeoise propaganda AND what i and other posters mentioned in this thread. By celebrating leninism and the russian revolution as socialist we are celebrating a bastardization of marxism-which sought to create a classless,stateless,market-less society and if leninism didn't accomplish this then it isn't worth attaching ourselves to.

You might as well remove the word 'rational' from your username, because very little of what you said qualifies as such. I'm sorry, I'm not actually this rude irl, I'm just tired of all these threads on Leninism that seem to go 'round in circles time and again.

If you're going to stake a claim that Leninism is a revision of Marxism, you'll need to support this with more than mere assertion. Simply saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. The Russian revolution didn't cast doubts in people's minds as to the 'credibility of socialism'; quite the opposite. The revolution sparked uprisings throughout the world, and countries that didn't experience these on a heightened level still witnessed a sharp rise in and the proliferation of socialist parties and organizations. The Russian example gave impetus to broad left forces, and breathed new life into a movement that prior to October had been struggling amidst the ruins of the 2nd International.

When Marx said "[R]evolutions are the locomotives history," he identified the working-class as the primary drivers of this change within the capitalist epoch. "It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory" (1850). Lenin, in turn, writes of the need to "develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" (1905). Additionally, lest critics put forward the notion that Lenin's views on the subject of the centrality of the working-class changed over the years, he wrote in 1913 of "the forces which can - and, owing to their social position, must - constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new..."

I find your dismissal of the Russian revolution as a "bastardization of Marxism" saddening, for it's such a woefully shortsighted mistake to make. The revolution didn't come about because the 'conspirators' of the Bolsheviki willed it, it erupted out of existent contradictions within Russian social and political life. As the driving engine of history, a revolution is, will and must always be, carried by the resolution of the working-class. As engineers in the truest sense they retain their pivotal role at the heart of production. Marx recognized this, Lenin recognized it, and he argued within this particular vein within the Bolshevik party.

That you and others can look at the savage swiftness with which the ruling-classes of the world sought to undo the events of October through war, sabotage, ruination and isolation, and still lay the failures of the revolution at Lenin's and the Bolshevik's feet is astounding. That Leninism was incapable of creating a stateless, classless, socialist society in light of all this shouldn't shock or appall anyone (indeed, seeing as it's the proletariat that sets these processes in motion). Were the Bolshevik's policies in this period correct in their totality? No, but we must first identify why and within what context they were made. Of course, I disdain attempts to separate Leninism as something distinctly un-Marxian, or as not continuing in the historical traditions laid down by Marx and Engels themselves. Lenin's ideas are less a bastardization of Marx's own than they are a simple continuation of the latter's theory and praxis.

[Rational Radical]

You might as well remove the word 'rational' from your username, because very little of what you said qualifies as such. I'm sorry, I'm not actually this rude irl, I'm just tired of all these threads on Leninism that seem to go 'round in circles time and again.

If you're going to stake a claim that Leninism is a revision of Marxism, you'll need to support this with more than mere assertion. Simply saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. The Russian revolution didn't cast doubts in people's minds as to the 'credibility of socialism'; quite the opposite. The revolution sparked uprisings throughout the world, and countries that didn't experience these on a heightened level still witnessed a sharp rise in and the proliferation of socialist parties and organizations. The Russian example gave impetus to broad left forces, and breathed new life into a movement that prior to October had been struggling amidst the ruins of the 2nd International.

When Marx said "[R]evolutions are the locomotives history," he identified the working-class as the primary drivers of this change within the capitalist epoch. "It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory" (1850). Lenin, in turn, writes of the need to "develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" (1905). Additionally, lest critics put forward the notion that Lenin's views on the subject of the centrality of the working-class changed over the years, he wrote in 1913 of "the forces which can - and, owing to their social position, must - constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new..."

I find your dismissal of the Russian revolution as a "bastardization of Marxism" saddening, for it's such a woefully shortsighted mistake to make. The revolution didn't come about because the 'conspirators' of the Bolsheviki willed it, it erupted out of existent contradictions within Russian social and political life. As the driving engine of history, a revolution is, will and must always be, carried by the resolution of the working-class. As engineers in the truest sense they retain their pivotal role at the heart of production. Marx recognized this, Lenin recognized it, and he argued within this particular vein within the Bolshevik party.

That you and others can look at the savage swiftness with which the ruling-classes of the world sought to undo the events of October through war, sabotage, ruination and isolation, and still lay the failures of the revolution at Lenin's and the Bolshevik's feet is astounding. That Leninism was incapable of creating a stateless, classless, socialist society in light of all this shouldn't shock or appall anyone (indeed, seeing as it's the proletariat that sets these processes in motion). Were the Bolshevik's policies in this period correct in their totality? No, but we must first identify why and within what context they were made. Of course, I disdain attempts to separate Leninism as something distinctly un-Marxian, or as not continuing in the historical traditions laid down by Marx and Engels themselves. Lenin's ideas are less a bastardization of Marx's own than they are a simple continuation of the latter's theory and praxis.
Well maybe you should read (and NOT skim through the thread)my first post where i stated that lenin was a marxist but had to make decisions due to certain pressures which ultimately violated socialist principles,perhaps you need to quote and address some one else. You also need to make a distinction between socialist organizations and leninist or leninist influenced parties,i'm really curious as to what you label socialism. This might be your opinion on leninism but i happen to think left(although some identify as leninist,it's due to historical reasons and not theoretical) or council communism is a more suitable and modern form of marxism.

[Captain Ahab]

Gee. I don't know. Are you, as a Marxist, supposed to believe that the tendency for capital to accumulate and centralize brings people farther from socialism, in which case the entire dialectical framework of Marxian economic and social thought is undermined, and we get farther and farther from socialism as the laws of capitalism manifest themselves to greater degrees? I guess we can call this Ahabian revisionism.
.
Sure buddy boy. Nationalization and bringing more power to the state will bring about its very death. Is the Dictatorship of the proletariat the dictatorship of the party now? I don't think I'll ever understand the dialectical jargon spouted by Leninists.

Just a clue: the socialist revolution doesn't modify the centralized forms of ownership and control. It modifies their content, by bringing that formal unity under the command of a revolutionary-democratic state, thereby decentralizing the power, the substance of that formal control (so that the entire proletariat controls the means of production). You are getting so confused in your facile dismissals of Lenin that you aren't making these basic distinctions.
Typical Leninist double logic. The vanguard takes control of the state. The state nationalizes many things and places more and more power into the vanguard creating a new red bourgeois, then they proclaim all of this as decentralization and the workers gaining control. Beautiful!


On that note, our exchange here has reminded me of something. Why are so many Marxists ardently anti-Lenin? Because many Marxists have taken Marx's thought seriously enough to realize that the bourgeois propaganda about him is a lie, but haven't yet taken the step of studying Lenin's thought with the requisite seriousness to see through the bourgeois lies about Leninism

Perhaps Lenin's thought is in stark contrast to the thought of others and several of his actions are particularly unforgivable? But oh wait, the Leninists will give me the "material conditions" explanation. They might as well say that God willed Lenin to do his actions.

Now stop being so verbose, this won't stop me from replying to you.

[Red Enemy]

Honestly, this whole argument has been dragged on, thread after thread, post after post.

The anti-Leninists refuse to acknowledge context; material conditions, reality, etc. You can't convince someone of something when they accept their anti-Leninism dogmatically; it sets them apart from us evil authoritarians!

Just close the fucking thread. Stop beating dead horses.

[subcp]

Talk about 'strawmen', "state capitalist class"? Really?

[Dave B]

We need to look a populism in the context of the situation in Russia and Marxist theory.

We could take as a starting point the definition;




A supporter of Populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism), a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

So where there any populists in Russia before 1917 and who were they, what were they saying and what was the Marxists attitude to them etc?

We could start with Lenin.

According to Lenin and the Bolsheviks the SR’s were populists and in fact Narodism, which is what he called them, ‘means’ populism.

So much so that Abramovitch translated the title of Lenins ‘Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism’ to ‘Left Populism and Marxism’ pg 212 of The soviet Revolution cf

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm

(Abramovitchs quotation from it in his book is sufficiently different to it to be his own translation.)

The SR’s were not just a peasant orientated organisation they had sympathies and constituency/support base amongst the workers and accepted much of Marxist theory like the anarchists did.

They were on the side of the poor and against the rich and wanted in Russia some kind of socialist revolution like the Anarchists did.

The Marxists including the Bolsheviks were opposed to the SR and Anarchist idea of a socialist revolution in Russia because according to Marxist theory it wouldn’t work and would end in disaster; as in Lenin’s own ‘Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism’, please read it.

It was only a reiteration of his 1905 position in Two Tactics section 6.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6

Expressed by Marx as against the related and similar Bakunist position;


Schoolboy stupidity! A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people. And if it is to have any chance of victory, it must be able to do immediately as much for the peasants as the French bourgeoisie, mutatis mutandis, did in its revolution for the French peasants of that time. A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour!

But here Mr Bakunin's innermost thoughts emerge. He understands absolutely nothing about the social revolution, only its political phrases. Its economic conditions do not exist for him. As all hitherto existing economic forms, developed or undeveloped, involve the enslavement of the worker (whether in the form of wage-labourer, peasant etc.), he believes that a radical revolution is possible in all such forms alike. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples, not to surpass this level [...] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks agreed on this; however the Mensheviks suspected the Bolsheviks of power mad ‘marble halls of power’ megalomania; of which the Bolshevik desire to participate in a provisional revolutionary government was a ‘psychological’ symptom.

The Mensheiks said that in the heat of the moment of the historical bourgeois revolution in Russia, which was inevitable or ordained according to the Marxist historical script, the Bolsheviks would get carried away on a wave of ‘spontaneity’ and become SR’s and Anarchists and attempt a ‘populist’ socialist revolution.

Thus from Lenin;


The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry




Let us dwell on the contentions.. [of the dangers of participating in a provisional revolutionary government]…..[from the Mensheviks] who ….[disagree with] such a point of view.

[According to the Mensheviks]

By [the Bolsheviks] participating in the provisional government,..[we]…would have the power in [our] hands; but as the party of the proletariat, ..[ we could or would not] .. hold .. power without ..[resisting the attempt] to put ..[our] maximum programme ..[‘socialism’] ..into effect, i.e., without attempting to bring about the socialist revolution.

( this kind of thing still appeared in lenin's stuff in as late as the middle of 1917 re 'introducing socialism')

In such an undertaking [we would] ………..inevitably come to grief, discredit [ourselves and Marxism] , and play into the hands of the reactionaries.

[and] Hence, [according to the Menshevik Faustian theory of our own congenital moral bankruptcy ] participation by [Bolsheviks] in a provisional revolutionary government is inadmissible.

This ………[accusation of the Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks] ……. is based on a misconception; it ….[claims the Bolsheviks would] …..confound... [ in a potential Mephistopheles kind of way]the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic.......... with the struggle for socialism.

If …….[the Bolsheviks at that point in1917?]… sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself.

It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that …..[Bolshevism or we have] … always combated.

For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme [spit] and the socialist maximum programme [the socialist revolution].

Some Social-Democrats, who are inclined to yield to spontaneity…. [Trotsky permanent revolution perhaps-who is he having pop at in 1905 here?]………, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole.



The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel [the Bolsheviks} in such a position [ in the Provisional revolutionary government and in the 'marble halls of power'] to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself.

Were this so, our programme would be incorrect, it would not be in keeping with the “march of events”, which is exactly what the spontaneity worshippers fear; they fear for the correctness of our programme. But this fear (a psychological explanation of which we attempted to give in our articles) is entirely baseless.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm

So the question might be did the Bolsheviks do what they said they wouldn’t do?

Overthrow the ‘existing provisional government’ in a coup and become the next one themselves and ‘set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself’?

With the support of the Anarchists and left SR’s who were always up for the idea anyway and in the process discredit itself (or disgrace- Theodore Dan translation).

It was no accident that in 1918 the anarchists and the left SR’s supported the Bolsheviks; the anarchists and Left SR’s didn’t become Bolsheviks the Bolsheviks became left SR’s and Anarchists.


It has been somewhat reassuring to myself that I had in fact read the Lenin archive properly when later people like Abramovitch and Dan used the same stuff I had already archived and saved.

Cross referencing them is impossible as Dan and Abramovitch don’t use the English Lenin archive.

Interpretations of the Russian revolution vary but I don’t think Lenin deviated from or revised the Marxist economic model of [state] capitalism having to following feudalism.

The political one of state capitalism under communism was a ‘revision’ as Lenin said himself.


Not a single book has been written about state capitalism under communism. It did not occur even to Marx to write a word on this subjecthttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

You could argue that Populism was a type of opportunism pandering to the lack of understanding theoretical socialism in the masses and cynically promising the impossible of land, peace, bread and the sugar candy mountain of socialism in Russia and a socialist revolution in Europe etc.

The Bolsheviks did briefly gain mass support based on those manipulative lies from say June 1917 to Febuary 1918.

Yes sure it is old dead Russian society crap but is old discredited anarcho-SR crap that Marxism had rejected.

I don't deny that the SR's and anarchists had a moral compass.


.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There are a significant amount of individuals and groups that think they can take an identical path today that the Bolsheviks took almost a century ago. They raise Lenin to a position above normal humans and worship him as a fetish in their braindead publications . These people are a problem, as they make anti-capitalism look like the work of a cult. I don't actually feel that much hostility towards Lenin or his writing, what the Bolsheviks tried was worth a shot imo.

[Lucretia]

Sure buddy boy. Nationalization and bringing more power to the state will bring about its very death. Is the Dictatorship of the proletariat the dictatorship of the party now? I don't think I'll ever understand the dialectical jargon spouted by Leninists.

Typical Leninist double logic. The vanguard takes control of the state. The state nationalizes many things and places more and more power into the vanguard creating a new red bourgeois, then they proclaim all of this as decentralization and the workers gaining control. Beautiful!

Perhaps Lenin's thought is in stark contrast to the thought of others and several of his actions are particularly unforgivable? But oh wait, the Leninists will give me the "material conditions" explanation. They might as well say that God willed Lenin to do his actions.

Now stop being so verbose, this won't stop me from replying to you.

You haven't answered the one question I asked of you, CA. If the development of capitalism's tendencies -- namely the centralization of capital -- brings us farther from the goals of socialism, then isn't it true that we are moving more and more away from the goal of socialism as capitalism develops? Have you thought through the implications of what this belief means? Probably not.

And I say that because, instead of responding to my question, you in a disturbingly anti-intellectual sort of way, claim that you "don't think you'lll ever understand the dialectical jargon spouted by Leninists." It seems you are completely unaware that Marx was a dialectician heavily influenced by Hegel, and think that dialectics is somehow a "revision" by Lenin. For somebody who does not hesitate in making all variety of bold declarations about both, this lack of knowledge is alarming. It also goes a long way in explaining your ultra-left idealism. You don't understand that what ought to be, what can be, is premised on a real movement in society -- a movement that capitalism itself is helping to instigate. Yours is a politics of second-rate moralizing. It judges according to absolute standards of goodness that you've imposed without any regard to the real movement, including the tendencies of capitalist development.

And by the way, nobody claimed that only the vanguard seizes control of the state, as though they are doing so independent of the working class, while claiming to act in its name. The revolutionary party seizes control of the state with the majority support of the working class. You can try to fiddle with this formulation to make it sound more anti-democratic, but make no mistake about it -- the formulation you're attacking is your own. Not mine. And certainly not Lenin's or Trotsky's.

Your responses in this thread bear all the marks of somebody who has done very little or no serious thinking about Lenin's body of thought, yet you insist on making all sorts of sweepingly harsh judgments on people who have. And when pressed on the superficiality of your knowledge, you just throw your hands up in the air and spew platitudes about vanguard intellectuals acting on behalf of an immobilized and inert mass. This is not an impressive showing on your part. I hope it acts as a wake up call that you really need to do your homework if you want people to respect your views on these issues and give you the kind of respect you clearly haven't given Lenin.

As for your last remark, "Stop being verbose, they won't stop me from replying to you" - Huh?? The point of a discussion, and what distinguishes it from a sermon, is to anticipate and welcome a reply. That's why people ask questions, as I did in my earlier post to you -- which of course went unanswered in your subsequent homily. It seems that you have this idea that we are immersed in some kind of battle-to-the-death rhetorical contest where the last person standing "wins," then projecting this bizarre teenage fantasy onto me. Seriously: grow up. You're not a monumentally important theoretician I have spent years setting my sights on slaying. You're some confused leftist with a trove of out-of-context quotes you haven't analyzed, a set of political views based largely on pat reformulations of the anti-Leninist propaganda that you've no doubt been subjected to from before you even knew what a leftist was. But you don't have much else beyond these things. It's time to move to the next stage in your development as a leftist, and as a person, by taking ideas seriously, by engaging with those ideas rather than trying to shout them down, ignore them, or misrepresent them. Even if it makes you uncomfortable.

[Captain Ahab]

You haven't answered the one question I asked of you, CA. If the development of capitalism's tendencies -- namely the centralization of capital -- brings us farther from the goals of socialism, then isn't it true that we are moving more and more away from the goal of socialism as capitalism develops? Have you thought through the implications of what this belief means? Probably not.

The problem is that only recently am I having any sort of interest in Marx and thinking of shifting from my previous anarchist stance. So your question is null and void.


And I say that because, instead of responding to my question, you in a disturbingly anti-intellectual sort of way, claim that you "don't think you'lll ever understand the dialectical jargon spouted by Leninists." It seems you are completely unaware that Marx was a dialectician heavily influenced by Hegel, and think that dialectics is somehow a "revision" by Lenin. For somebody who does not hesitate in making all variety of bold declarations about both, this lack of knowledge is alarming. It also goes a long way in explaining your ultra-left idealism. You don't understand that what ought to be, what can be, is premised on a real movement in society -- a movement that capitalism itself is helping to instigate. Yours is a politics of second-rate moralizing. It judges according to absolute standards of goodness that you've imposed without any regard to the real movement, including the tendencies of capitalist development.
I consider Leninism a revisionism of socialism. Wasn't Rosa Litchenstein an anti-dialecticion and a Trot? If seriously doubt dialectics is as central to Marxist thought as you claim it is. It's a bunch of jargon and dialecticions have always failed to simplify their shit in normal language.


And by the way, nobody claimed that only the vanguard seizes control of the state, as though they are doing so independent of the working class, while claiming to act in its name. The revolutionary party seizes control of the state with the majority support of the working class. You can try to fiddle with this formulation to make it sound more anti-democratic, but make no mistake about it -- the formulation you're attacking is your own. Not mine. And certainly not Lenin's or Trotsky's.

Why can't the working class not emancipate itself and take control for itself? Why is this vanguard needed beyond whatever military and organizational aid it would give during a revolution? Also, you're equating support with also taking control. Leninist double logic.

Your responses in this thread bear all the marks of somebody who has done very little or no serious thinking about Lenin's body of thought, yet you insist on making all sorts of sweepingly harsh judgments on people who have.
I'm well aware that my exposure to Leninist thought is shrouded in Leftcom and Anarchist bias and distortions by M-Ls, M-L-Ms, and Trots. If I have serious misconceptions about Lenin's thought then please clear it up so my criticisms aren't based on strawmen.

And when pressed on the superficiality of your knowledge, you just throw your hands up in the air and spew platitudes about vanguard intellectuals acting on behalf of an immobilized and inert mass. This is not an impressive showing on your part. I hope it acts as a wake up call that you really need to do your homework if you want people to respect your views on these issues and give you the kind of respect you clearly haven't given Lenin.
I care very very very much about the words of a random internet Trot respecting my views. Just like you would care very very very much if some random anarchist considered you counter revolutionary.


As for your last remark, "Stop being verbose, they won't stop me from replying to you" - Huh?? The point of a discussion, and what distinguishes it from a sermon, is to anticipate and welcome a reply.
Yes but much of your verboseness is very very fat and in need of trimming. You say things in five sentences when it could be said in one.

That's why people ask questions, as I did in my earlier post to you -- which of course went unanswered in your subsequent homily. It seems that you have this idea that we are immersed in some kind of battle-to-the-death rhetorical contest where the last person standing "wins," then projecting this bizarre teenage fantasy onto me.
No, we're immersed in the ship of the Pequod where I Captain Ahab spar with the whale. I come back either drowned or with a whale! Or nothing happens.


Seriously: grow up. You're not a monumentally important theoretician I have spent years setting my sights on slaying. You're some confused leftist with a trove of out-of-context quotes you haven't analyzed, a set of political views based largely on pat reformulations of the anti-Leninist propaganda that you've no doubt been subjected to from before you even knew what a leftist was.
Teach me more, Professor! Teach me more!

But you don't have much else beyond these things. It's time to move to the next stage in your development as a leftist, and as a person, by taking ideas seriously, by engaging with those ideas rather than trying to shout them down, ignore them, or misrepresent them. Even if it makes you uncomfortable.
I am a blasphemer! I have dared to speak ill of the name of Saint Lenin the Magnificent, and his apostle Trotsky.

[Lucretia]

The problem is that only recently am I having any sort of interest in Marx and thinking of shifting from my previous anarchist stance. So your question is null and void.

I consider Leninism a revisionism of socialism. Wasn't Rosa Litchenstein an anti-dialecticion and a Trot? If seriously doubt dialectics is as central to Marxist thought as you claim it is. It's a bunch of jargon and dialecticions have always failed to simplify their shit in normal language.


Why can't the working class not emancipate itself and take control for itself? Why is this vanguard needed beyond whatever military and organizational aid it would give during a revolution? Also, you're equating support with also taking control. Leninist double logic.

I'm well aware that my exposure to Leninist thought is shrouded in Leftcom and Anarchist bias and distortions by M-Ls, M-L-Ms, and Trots. If I have serious misconceptions about Lenin's thought then please clear it up so my criticisms aren't based on strawmen.

I care very very very much about the words of a random internet Trot respecting my views. Just like you would care very very very much if some random anarchist considered you counter revolutionary.

Yes but much of your verboseness is very very fat and in need of trimming. You say things in five sentences when it could be said in one.

No, we're immersed in the ship of the Pequod where I Captain Ahab spar with the whale. I come back either drowned or with a whale! Or nothing happens.


Teach me more, Professor! Teach me more!

I am a blasphemer! I have dared to speak ill of the name of Saint Lenin the Magnificent, and his apostle Trotsky.

Saint Lenin? Give me a break. He was a human being, and insisting that you should take his ideas seriously is not to suggest that he was anything but. It's not even to suggest that he was correct. It's to suggest that they provide a valuable perspective for thinking through issues of political organization, and how they relate to revolutionary tasks in a capitalist society. You might think it's an issue deserving of levity and (not-so) witty sarcasm. There are people in this world, however, for whom these issues have been and continue to be matters of utmost importance, issues that dictate whether they can look forward to a life beyond exploitation and oppression. I suppose to a student insulated from the worst crimes of 21st century capitalism, these hard realities can remain safely hidden beneath a pile of vain attempts at humor and insult. Certainly, humor and effective revolutionary politics aren't mutually exclusive, but if you start using humor and half-baked witticisms as a substitute for analysis -- as you do in this thread -- well, it's time to hit the books, comrade, and start placing that trove of recycled Lenin quotes into their proper historical and theoretical context.

You mention that you doubt that dialectics is as central to Marxism as I indicated. All I can say in response is to repeat that you have a lot of studying to do before you'll be in a position to debate persuasively on these sorts of issues with other Marxists, Leninist or otherwise. I have no idea who "Rosa Lichtenstein" is, and, unless this is the nickname of some "anonymous Internet trot," am guessing you're referring to Rosa Luxemburg. Who was very much aware of the importance of dialectics.

You also say, "Why can't the working class not emancipate itself and take control for itself? Why is this vanguard needed beyond whatever military and organizational aid it would give during a revolution? Also, you're equating support with also taking control. Leninist double logic." These are very important issues you raise, and they deserve a fuller treatment than I am capable of giving in the limited space and time I have as a participant on this forum.

It seems you are asking why the working class can't abolish all forms of the state immediately, and move straight from monopoly capitalism to a stateless society. And the answer is that cultural and social remnants of class society will persist even after the workers seize the means of production. Not everybody will have been active participants, or even supporters, of the revolution; and it is idealistic in the extreme to suppose that they'll suddenly and spontaneously internalize selfless modes of communist co-operation and thinking. Not even workers themselves, including the vanguard, who have spent the better part of their lives conditioned by certain routines will suddenly be able to make a monumental leap to "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" in the span of a year or two. And all of this is ignoring the fact that socialist revolutions will not happen everywhere all at once, but will rather take place over a period of time in one country (or set of countries) after another, so that countries transitioning to socialism will still require a state to defend itself from the external threat of counter-revolution. This is one of the reasons why the transition to socialism, which begins after the workers smash the bourgeois state apparatus and replace it with their own, should not be confused with socialism proper -- class struggle, both domestically and internationally, continues after the establishment of a workers' state.

And, of course, all this all raises the issue of how without a concentrated expression of workers' power -- namely, a workers' state -- the smashing of the bourgeois state would even be possible. Decentralized hippie collectives, loosely organized on the basis of "consensus," will never be capable of such world-historic feats.

I also refer you to my earlier remarks about the creation of a communist majority occurring through revolution, not before it. (And let me remind you that this doesn't mean that the majority doesn't support the workers' state program transitional to communism, the basis upon which the party wins that majority confidence and support. There is a difference between being a theoretically informed and committed Marxist, and being a worker who for practical reasons supports the program of a workers' state.)

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

the vulgar reading of marx and engels just to justify himself such as the invention and popularization of the idea that socialism is both the lowest stage of communism and a transition to communism plus with it the dictatorship of the proletariat and wages. leninism is also popular with historical revisionism and its own role in the russian revolution placing itself at the front instead of at the back where it belongs.
What?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Most of the chuckle-headed anti-Lenin comrades seem to ignore historical context and thereby completely miss some of the critical issues facing Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Firstly, that above all, they were INTERNATIONALISTS. They knew that they could not build socialism in Russia/USSR. They were primarily concerned in spreading the revolution to more advanced industrial nations. And the did as much as they could in this regard. The amount of time, energy and money poured into the building of the CI by the Bolsheviks during civil war and allied interventions and other major crises should give you all a clue. If they had not taken measures, such as the the dispersal of the constituent assembly or the crushing of Kronstadt, they would have relinquished power to the counterrevolution. The SRs, right and left would have quickly given way to Kadets, Octobrists and probably some kind of restoration of the Monarchy.

Workers' management in industry was not viable after the revolution and civil war -- in fact, the existence of industry hung in the balance for a while. As was the continued existence of the Soviet State. From that point of view, the NEP was necessary to stabilize currency, to get industry out of its moribund condition and to increase agricultural production. Of course, once these goals had been met, a sensible policy of industrial development and agricultural collectivization could have been embarked upon. Bukharin and Stalin had other ideas.

As for Leninism being a precursor to Stalinism, bullshit. Lenin was an internationalist marxist. Stalin was a nationalist, a great russian chauvinist, a bureaucrat, and a sociopath.

[Captain Ahab]

Saint Lenin? Give me a break. He was a human being, and insisting that you should take his ideas seriously is not to suggest that he was anything but. It's not even to suggest that he was correct. It's to suggest that they provide a valuable perspective for thinking through issues of political organization, and how they relate to revolutionary tasks in a capitalist society.
Ok then.

As for dialectics Rosa Litchenstein was a Trotskyist member who went on a crusade against dialectics not just on revleft but on other sites like Libcom and Soviet-Empire. You can search some old threads in this forum relating to dialectics to see some of her arguments. There's also this site: http:(forward slash) (forward slash) www(dot)anti(hyphen)dialectics(dot)co(dot)uk
Another Marxist poster here known as Redstar 2000 considered dialectics nonsense and the existence of analytical Marxism makes severely doubt the need for it in Marxism.


snip

Your comment is more of an answer to the anarchist call for instant communization. One of the reasons I'm interested in Marxism and switching over is that I don't adhere to this view any longer. My ideology is in a liquid phase and I hope to solidify it into ice.

[Let's Get Free]

As for Leninism being a precursor to Stalinism, bullshit. Lenin was an internationalist marxist. Stalin was a nationalist, a great russian chauvinist, a bureaucrat, and a sociopath.

I'd say that Stalinism is Leninism taken to it's logical extreme.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Ok then.

As for dialectics Rosa Litchenstein was a Trotskyist member who went on a crusade against dialectics not just on revleft but on other sites like Libcom and Soviet-Empire. You can search some old threads in this forum relating to dialectics to see some of her arguments. There's also this site: http:(forward slash) (forward slash) www(dot)anti(hyphen)dialectics(dot)co(dot)uk
Another Marxist poster here known as Redstar 2000 considered dialectics nonsense and the existence of analytical Marxism makes severely doubt the need for it in Marxism.


Your comment is more of an answer to the anarchist call for instant communization. One of the reasons I'm interested in Marxism and switching over is that I don't adhere to this view any longer. My ideology is in a liquid phase and I hope to solidify it into ice.


There's nothing mysterious or wrong about dialectics. One of Marx's greatest achievements, and one of the greatest achievements in philosophy in the 19th century, was the resolution of this problem.

[Art Vandelay]

As for dialectics Rosa Litchenstein was a Trotskyist member who went on a crusade against dialectics not just on revleft but on other sites like Libcom and Soviet-Empire. You can search some old threads in this forum relating to dialectics to see some of her arguments. There's also this site: http:(forward slash) (forward slash) www(dot)anti(hyphen)dialectics(dot)co(dot)uk
Another Marxist poster here known as Redstar 2000 considered dialectics nonsense and the existence of analytical Marxism makes severely doubt the need for it in Marxism.

You really need to listen to what Lucretia is saying here. No one is claiming that you have to become a 'Leninist,' I'm sure most people here would consider myself one, although I don't even think 'Leninism' exists. It was fabricated and codified after his death, Lenin was nothing but an orthodox Marxist. What Lucretia is saying, is that until you can make an informed opinion on something (which entails intellectually engaging with an theory or theoretician) don't go pretending like you know what you're talking about. I'm sure practically all posters on this site that joined up fairly young (myself included) could go look back on early posts and cringe.

What is quoted above is a good example. Simply because 2 notable members in revelfts history consider dialectics nonsense, is not an argument as to why it is nonsense. It would be like me arguing with a capitalist and simply stating: 'Capitalism sucks cause Marx said so.' Its not all to convincing is it? To have an informed opinion on dialectics, you need to engage with the theory itself and you need to decide what you think.

Listen to Lucretia, he's trying to teach you a valuable lesson and quite frankly is doing so with more patience then I would of had.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Gee. I don't know. Are you, as a Marxist, supposed to believe that the tendency for capital to accumulate and centralize brings people farther from socialism, in which case the entire dialectical framework of Marxian economic and social thought is undermined, and we get farther and farther from socialism as the laws of capitalism manifest themselves to greater degrees? I guess we can call this Ahabian revisionism.

Just a clue: the socialist revolution doesn't modify the centralized forms of ownership and control. It modifies their content, by bringing that formal unity under the command of a revolutionary-democratic state, thereby decentralizing the power, the substance of that formal control (so that the entire proletariat controls the means of production). You are getting so confused in your facile dismissals of Lenin that you aren't making these basic distinctions.

On that note, our exchange here has reminded me of something. Why are so many Marxists ardently anti-Lenin? Because many Marxists have taken Marx's thought seriously enough to realize that the bourgeois propaganda about him is a lie, but haven't yet taken the step of studying Lenin's thought with the requisite seriousness to see through the bourgeois lies about Leninism.

Aye, Marx's "Hegelian hangover" is pretty unappealing. So, is it surprising that some Marxists are so over bourgeois idealism in Marx? That, in the 21st century, some Marxists don't totally hold up Lenin's revolutionary liberalism (which may have suited Russian semifeudalism, granted) as a relevant strategy at a point where capitalism is globally dominant (or damn close)?

So done with narratives of "progress" and the bores who are still stuck on "history" as it is conceptualized by the leading lights of European liberal philosophy circa a century and a half ago.

Full communism or the apocalypse. Whatever. <3

[Old Bolshie]

Most of the chuckle-headed anti-Lenin comrades seem to ignore historical context and thereby completely miss some of the critical issues facing Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Firstly, that above all, they were INTERNATIONALISTS. They knew that they could not build socialism in Russia/USSR. They were primarily concerned in spreading the revolution to more advanced industrial nations. And the did as much as they could in this regard. The amount of time, energy and money poured into the building of the CI by the Bolsheviks during civil war and allied interventions and other major crises should give you all a clue. If they had not taken measures, such as the the dispersal of the constituent assembly or the crushing of Kronstadt, they would have relinquished power to the counterrevolution. The SRs, right and left would have quickly given way to Kadets, Octobrists and probably some kind of restoration of the Monarchy.

All those justifications you gave to Lenin's decisions I could give to Stalin. In fact, USSR was more threatened under Stalin's rule than under Lenin.


Workers' management in industry was not viable after the revolution and civil war -- in fact, the existence of industry hung in the balance for a while. As was the continued existence of the Soviet State. From that point of view, the NEP was necessary to stabilize currency, to get industry out of its moribund condition and to increase agricultural production. Of course, once these goals had been met, a sensible policy of industrial development and agricultural collectivization could have been embarked upon. Bukharin and Stalin had other ideas.

Those goals weren't met not even when Stalin embarked on Industrialization and collectivization. Doing it earlier would have produced an even worst catastrophe than what happened in 32-33 and forced the state to retreat and concede another defeat to the kulaks.



As for Leninism being a precursor to Stalinism, bullshit. Lenin was an internationalist marxist.

So was Stalin.


Stalin was a nationalist

For someone who advocated the merge of nations into one like Stalin did I would say that he was so nationalist as Hitler was a jew sympathizer.


a bureaucrat,

Lenin was the first recognizing that bureaucracy had been inherited from the Tsarist bureaucracy machine, was part of the system and couldn't be extinguished from the soviet state apparatus. In fact, bureaucracy grew a lot with Lenin.

Trotsky was pushing for even more bureaucratization with the Trade Unions issue.


and a sociopath.

The soviet people must have been one of the most luckiest in the world. While be running by a sociopath they left the back of the industrialized world and became a superpower, defeated the Nazi Germany and even went to the space...

We should go to mental institutions to chose our leaders...

[Lucretia]

Xico, you're derailing the thread. In case you didn't realize it, the subject is, "Why are some Marxists very anti-Leninist?" Not "Why are some Leninists very anti-Stalinist?" If you want to wave your little flag, please start another thread.

[Old Bolshie]

Xico, you're derailing the thread. In case you didn't realize it, the subject is, "Why are some Marxists very anti-Leninist?" Not "Why are some Leninists very anti-Stalinist?" If you want to wave your little flag, please start another thread.

So, attacking Stalin isn't derailing the thread but defending him it is. I always loved trotskyist hypocrisy...

[Rurkel]

All those justifications you gave to Lenin's decisions I could give to Stalin.
Ironically, anti-Leninists would agree with that, heh. That's why I don't think that Xico's post is off-topic as such.

[Captain Ahab]

You really need to listen to what Lucretia is saying here. No one is claiming that you have to become a 'Leninist,' I'm sure most people here would consider myself one, although I don't even think 'Leninism' exists. It was fabricated and codified after his death, Lenin was nothing but an orthodox Marxist. What Lucretia is saying, is that until you can make an informed opinion on something (which entails intellectually engaging with an theory or theoretician) don't go pretending like you know what you're talking about. I'm sure practically all posters on this site that joined up fairly young (myself included) could go look back on early posts and cringe.
.
Sure. Sure. Sure.


What is quoted above is a good example. Simply because 2 notable members in revelfts history consider dialectics nonsense, is not an argument as to why it is nonsense. It would be like me arguing with a capitalist and simply stating: 'Capitalism sucks cause Marx said so.' Its not all to convincing is it? To have an informed opinion on dialectics, you need to engage with the theory itself and you need to decide what you think.
You're not understanding what I'm disputing. What I'm disputing is exactly how central to Marxism dialectics is. If Marxists can completely disregard it then surely its importance is not so grand as the dialecticians claim it is.

Listen to Lucretia, he's trying to teach you a valuable lesson and quite frankly is doing so with more patience then I would of had
Okey dokey.

[Zanthorus]

So done with narratives of "progress" and the bores who are still stuck on "history" as it is conceptualized by the leading lights of European liberal philosophy circa a century and a half ago.

So done with the people who think calling something boring or passe is a reasonable argument, personally.


If Marxists can completely disregard it then surely its importance is not so grand as the dialecticians claim it is.

Well holy shit what else have Marxists disregarded? The materialist conception of history, the theory of value, the centrality of the proletariat, guess none of that is crucial to Marxism either.

[I <3 short shorts]

Going out on a limb here but Leninists have quite the record of killing non leninists. Food for thought.

[RedSun]

So, attacking Stalin isn't derailing the thread but defending him it is. I always loved trotskyist hypocrisy...


Trotskists don't like to be reminded of how similar to "stalinists" they really are.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So done with the people who think calling something boring or passe is a reasonable argument, personally.



Well holy shit what else have Marxists disregarded? The materialist conception of history, the theory of value, the centrality of the proletariat, guess none of that is crucial to Marxism either.

Arguably a materialist conception of history isn't synonymous with a dialectical conception of history, the theory of value has simply been elaborated on, and … who's abandoning the proletariat as the central subject of capital?

Anyway, if you'd prefer I avoid calling the liberal baggage in Marx "boring", how about anachronistic, unnecessary, and an unfortunate barrier to Marxists theorizing the contemporary hegemonic liberal order; one that manifests in all sorts of gawdawful opportunism by dogmatic Marxists. It's useful to describe certain relationships as dialectical, but there is no iron historical law or trajectory that can be grasped in such terms - chaos reigns.

[Art Vandelay]

Sure. Sure. Sure.


You're not understanding what I'm disputing. What I'm disputing is exactly how central to Marxism dialectics is. If Marxists can completely disregard it then surely its importance is not so grand as the dialecticians claim it is.

Okey dokey.

Well how can I argue with this, you're right; continue on.

[subcp]

Well holy shit what else have Marxists disregarded? The materialist conception of history, the theory of value, the centrality of the proletariat, guess none of that is crucial to Marxism either.

Let's not forget what Lenin disregarded- the minority party of militants for the mass parties; being for the soviets and factory committee's for working in the 'yellow' trade unions, etc.

[Leo]

ran capitalism but called it socialism

He never did, Lenin thought socialism can't be built in a single country.


was a minority revolution (lacked a class conscious majority)

It was the military revolutionary committee of the Petrograd workers' council that made the revolution, not Lenin or the Bolshevik Party. The revolution was made by the working class of Russia, and led by the working class of Petrograd.


means of production was not in the hands of workers

Eventually yes, but initially yes and no. There were the factory committees and taylorism etc. wasn't put forward until later. In any case, proletarian revolution is first of all political, not economical and one can't change the mode of production in a single day in a single country.


undemocratic

Marxists are against democracy.


Because some of them are too Idealistic and don't take the material conditions into account.

And no. Some of the finest minds of the Communist International, including the only scientist of the "scientific socialist" Second International took this position eventually, and it wasn't because they were too idealistic. They were materialists to the core, and the fact that they were wrong doesn't change that.

The reason why some marxists took this position was because of the trauma caused by the defeat of the world revolution at the time, which included the counter-revolution in Russia - immensely traumatic in its own right.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

We need to look a populism in the context of the situation in Russia and Marxist theory.

We could take as a starting point the definition;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

So where there any populists in Russia before 1917 and who were they, what were they saying and what was the Marxists attitude to them etc?

We could start with Lenin.

According to Lenin and the Bolsheviks the SR’s were populists and in fact Narodism, which is what he called them, ‘means’ populism.

So much so that Abramovitch translated the title of Lenins ‘Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism’ to ‘Left Populism and Marxism’ pg 212 of The soviet Revolution cf

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm

(Abramovitchs quotation from it in his book is sufficiently different to it to be his own translation.)

The SR’s were not just a peasant orientated organisation they had sympathies and constituency/support base amongst the workers and accepted much of Marxist theory like the anarchists did.

They were on the side of the poor and against the rich and wanted in Russia some kind of socialist revolution like the Anarchists did.

The Marxists including the Bolsheviks were opposed to the SR and Anarchist idea of a socialist revolution in Russia because according to Marxist theory it wouldn’t work and would end in disaster; as in Lenin’s own ‘Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism’, please read it.

It was only a reiteration of his 1905 position in Two Tactics section 6.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6

Expressed by Marx as against the related and similar Bakunist position;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks agreed on this; however the Mensheviks suspected the Bolsheviks of power mad ‘marble halls of power’ megalomania; of which the Bolshevik desire to participate in a provisional revolutionary government was a ‘psychological’ symptom.

The Mensheiks said that in the heat of the moment of the historical bourgeois revolution in Russia, which was inevitable or ordained according to the Marxist historical script, the Bolsheviks would get carried away on a wave of ‘spontaneity’ and become SR’s and Anarchists and attempt a ‘populist’ socialist revolution.

Thus from Lenin;


The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm

So the question might be did the Bolsheviks do what they said they wouldn’t do?

Overthrow the ‘existing provisional government’ in a coup and become the next one themselves and ‘set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself’?

With the support of the Anarchists and left SR’s who were always up for the idea anyway and in the process discredit itself (or disgrace- Theodore Dan translation).

It was no accident that in 1918 the anarchists and the left SR’s supported the Bolsheviks; the anarchists and Left SR’s didn’t become Bolsheviks the Bolsheviks became left SR’s and Anarchists.


It has been somewhat reassuring to myself that I had in fact read the Lenin archive properly when later people like Abramovitch and Dan used the same stuff I had already archived and saved.

Cross referencing them is impossible as Dan and Abramovitch don’t use the English Lenin archive.

Interpretations of the Russian revolution vary but I don’t think Lenin deviated from or revised the Marxist economic model of [state] capitalism having to following feudalism.

The political one of state capitalism under communism was a ‘revision’ as Lenin said himself.

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

You could argue that Populism was a type of opportunism pandering to the lack of understanding theoretical socialism in the masses and cynically promising the impossible of land, peace, bread and the sugar candy mountain of socialism in Russia and a socialist revolution in Europe etc.

The Bolsheviks did briefly gain mass support based on those manipulative lies from say June 1917 to Febuary 1918.

Yes sure it is old dead Russian society crap but is old discredited anarcho-SR crap that Marxism had rejected.

I don't deny that the SR's and anarchists had a moral compass.


.

Cripes this is quite a mish mash. As an apologist for the Mensheviks, you do a fine job. The Bolsheviks really swindled the masses. The parts of their program that drew in the peasantry ending Russian involvement in WWI, and land to the tiller. In your parallel universe I guess they reneged on that. And the Bolsheviks were, above all, Marxist Internationalists -- they didn't become Narodniks any more than the SRs became Bolsheviks.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Arguably a materialist conception of history isn't synonymous with a dialectical conception of history, the theory of value has simply been elaborated on, and … who's abandoning the proletariat as the central subject of capital?

Anyway, if you'd prefer I avoid calling the liberal baggage in Marx "boring", how about anachronistic, unnecessary, and an unfortunate barrier to Marxists theorizing the contemporary hegemonic liberal order; one that manifests in all sorts of gawdawful opportunism by dogmatic Marxists. It's useful to describe certain relationships as dialectical, but there is no iron historical law or trajectory that can be grasped in such terms - chaos reigns.
There's nothing new under the sun, comrade. Opportunism in the ostensibly Marxist left has a looooong history. Marxist theory may bore you, perhaps some kind of stimulant would help?

Of course one can be a materialist and not use dialectics. That would make them what Marx called "a crude materialist." Certainly not a Marxist.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You're not understanding what I'm disputing. What I'm disputing is exactly how central to Marxism dialectics is. If Marxists can completely disregard it then surely its importance is not so grand as the dialecticians claim it is.

There are "Marxists" who have disputed dialectics, but from what I've read they usually haven't stayed Marxist as a result. I recommend you read about the degeneration of the Second International to get a flavor for their contempt for philosophy and Marxist theory. Kautsky, Plekhanov and Eduard Bernstein are good examples to study. And if you manage to get through those without being convinced, try Trotsky's struggle against Burnham, Schachtman, and Eastman.

Or Engels' polemic against Duhring. At least attempt to know what dialectics really are before dismissing it.

[Le Socialiste]

Well maybe you should read (and NOT skim through the thread)my first post where i stated that lenin was a marxist but had to make decisions due to certain pressures which ultimately violated socialist principles,perhaps you need to quote and address some one else. You also need to make a distinction between socialist organizations and leninist or leninist influenced parties,i'm really curious as to what you label socialism. This might be your opinion on leninism but i happen to think left(although some identify as leninist,it's due to historical reasons and not theoretical) or council communism is a more suitable and modern form of marxism.

Rest assured I read the thread in its entirety, including your first post. But this raises some questions: is Leninism a continuation of the Marxist tradition or a bastardization? One can't quite be the other, unless you're distinguishing between Leninism the theory and Lenin the man. Or perhaps I've misunderstood your position altogether, and you meant something else entirely - in which case I suggest you be a bit more coherent in stating your position(s).

As for the rest of your post, let's break it down:


i stated that lenin was a marxist but had to make decisions due to certain pressures which ultimately violated socialist principles

To be sure, Lenin and the Bolsheviks undertook specific policies and decisions that were unpopular. However, as you yourself noted, these were implemented in response to intense shifts and pressures that arose in the aftermath of October; namely, a foreign-sponsored civil war that ruined the national economy and decimated the ranks of the Russian proletariat. The Bolsheviks had to work in what were very adverse circumstances. Temporary suspension of the gains of October marked a definite retreat, albeit a necessary one. Their subordination to the immediate task of defeating the Whites and other assorted counterrevolutionary elements constituted a defense of those gains, not the 'power grab' comrades make it out to be.

Some statistics: in 1918 alone, Petrograd lost approximately 850,000 people; a handful of cities (including Pskov and Nizhny-Novgorod) last half or more of their populations between 1917-20; Moscow's declined by 40%. The atomization of the working-class undermined the basis of Soviet power, and by extension that of the Bolshevik party. In 1850 Engels lamented that "The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents;" of course, this isn't wholly applicable to the situation that confronted Lenin and the Bolsheviks - at least, not in any strict interpretative sense.

What Lenin and others recognized was that, despite the advanced state of proletarian consciousness in Russia, it remained an infinitesimal percentage of the general population, dwarfed by the working-classes of Germany and elsewhere. History is strewn with the failures of those revolutions abroad, the result being a party adrift, deprived of its anchor and the source of its domination. As an indirect realization of Engels' warning above, and "the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply," the Bolshevik party underwent a period of degeneration and re-consolidation, its social role transformed.

In this light, at which point do socialist principles cease being principles in their own right, and become dogma? That Lenin and co. breached these principles in a period of intense uncertainty isn't a point against them; indeed, their adaptability to the urgency of "certain pressures" retains the contours of marxian sufficiency. Of course, we needn't make excuses, and I hope my response isn't read in this light. Rather, I'm simply attempting to argue that rather than 'abandoning' or retreating from socialist principles, the Bolsheviks and Lenin undertook the latter from a position that isn't strictly Marxist, but bears the birthmark of its empirical reasoning. In essence: criticize the content of these policies, both in theory and in practice, but understand the period and context in which they occurred.


You also need to make a distinction between socialist organizations and leninist or leninist influenced parties,i'm really curious as to what you label socialism.

The point I was attempting to make is that a majority of socialist parties, organizations, and groups were influenced by the example of October and the leading role of the Bolsheviks in it. In 1920, the first Congress of the Peoples of the East in Baku attracted 2,000 delegates from Afghanistan to India. Inspired by the Bolshevik's support for self-determination, communists debated on a variety of subjects that were particularly pertinent to them, including the question of how best to overcome national and religious divisions as perpetuated and exploited by their ruling-classes. That same year, delegates from 37 countries travelled to Petrograd and Moscow to take part in the 2nd World Congress of the 3rd International/Comintern. Whether one accepts it or not is irrelevant; the Bolshevik's example had a resounding impact on how foreign parties organized and agitated.

My definition of socialism is that of Marx's: a classless, stateless society realized on the abolishment of private property and those relations resulting therefrom, including the seizure and subsequent centralization of all economic and political means into the hands of the working-class, to be held in common under collective management. I hold socialism and communism to be synonymous. Does that help answer your question?


This might be your opinion on leninism but i happen to think left(although some identify as leninist,it's due to historical reasons and not theoretical) or council communism is a more suitable and modern form of marxism.

Now this is interesting. Care to elaborate? I'm curious as to your reasoning concerning the latter part of this quote.

[Art Vandelay]

Of course, worthy of consideration is how the ones who count the ballots relate to the means of production. Place "democracy" outside of the actual putting-into-practice of communism, and you end up with some strange "democrats". Pretty soon pigs resemble men, etc.

Comrade this is nothing but plain old 'power/privilege corrupts' and I am surprised to see someone as intelligent as yourself subscribe to the notion. But for the record, counting ballots in no way shape or form changes ones relationship to the means of production. You also seem to run on the assumption that it is some sort of bureaucratic position. I don't see why those who count the ballots couldn't be chosen by random draw and those who participated the process, be removed from being chosen back to back times.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Comrade this is nothing but plain old 'power/privilege corrupts' and I am surprised to see someone as intelligent as yourself subscribe to the notion. But for the record, counting ballots in no way shape or form changes ones relationship to the means of production. You also seem to run on the assumption that it is some sort of bureaucratic position. I don't see why those who count the ballots couldn't be chosen by random draw and those who participated the process, be removed from being chosen back to back times.

To be fair, you're right counting ballots doesn't necessarily entail a bureaucratic position. It's the latter relationship (as a bureaucratic with a managerial relationship to capital with control over others' labour, and the surplus value produced by said labour), that is "corrupting" (insofar as it is objectively non-proletarian, and changes one's class character - not because it causes some "moral" failing). The ballot counting mechanism you suggest is actually a rather good one, should situations arise where ballots are necessary.

[Comrade Nasser]

ran capitalism but called it socialism
was a minority revolution (lacked a class conscious majority)
means of production was not in the hands of workers
undemocratic

It's inevitable failure has led to the situation we're in now. It is a complete revision of Marxism. It destroyed almost all genuine Marxist movements. Do you need more?

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

[Geiseric]

Lenin and the bolsheviks were VOTED Into the soviets by direct election. There were no other signifcant revolutionary alternaives to the russian working class. Makhno and the SRs were peasantry backed movements.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

All those justifications you gave to Lenin's decisions I could give to Stalin. In fact, USSR was more threatened under Stalin's rule than under Lenin.



Those goals weren't met not even when Stalin embarked on Industrialization and collectivization. Doing it earlier would have produced an even worst catastrophe than what happened in 32-33 and forced the state to retreat and concede another defeat to the kulaks.




So was Stalin.



For someone who advocated the merge of nations into one like Stalin did I would say that he was so nationalist as Hitler was a jew sympathizer.



Lenin was the first recognizing that bureaucracy had been inherited from the Tsarist bureaucracy machine, was part of the system and couldn't be extinguished from the soviet state apparatus. In fact, bureaucracy grew a lot with Lenin.

Trotsky was pushing for even more bureaucratization with the Trade Unions issue.



The soviet people must have been one of the most luckiest in the world. While be running by a sociopath they left the back of the industrialized world and became a superpower, defeated the Nazi Germany and even went to the space...

We should go to mental institutions to chose our leaders...
Hey, as a Trotskyist, I believe that in spite of Stalin, the superior property forms and organization of the USSR led it to being a superpower.

The only point during Stalin's rule that might qualify is during WWII when the Wehrmacht nearly defeated the Red Army a brief but harrowing period. During the first several years of existence, the USSR was invaded by 17 countries, had a wide spread civil war, faced the destruction of industry, and famine. This on the heels of WWI. This period lasted several years.

Stalin so badly fucked up defense of the USSR that the capacities and resources were stretched right up to the breaking point. It didn't break, and the German Army was smashed by the USSR, a great thing. Stalin ignored his unbelievably detailed intelligence reports (the CI had agents in the German General Staff) and did not prepare properly for the invasion. It did not help that he had purged and murdered most of the senior Soviet military leadership in the late 30s.

The way that Stalin collectivized agriculture was a panicked reaction to the grain crisis in 1928, when, in spite of the second bumper crop in a row, the cities did not have enough grain to avoid starvation. All of this was foreseen by the LO, which had a rational plan to collectivize at a pace commensurate with Soviet resources (at the time of collectivization, there were many collective farms, with zero machinery, therefore, no way to take advantage of large scale farming). Also, it was done in such a hamfisted and brutal fashion that in protest peasants burned their crops, their seed and killed their livestock (livestock levels did not recover until the early 1950s).

Ah, Stalin the great internationalist that first turned the sections of the CI into puppets that slavishly followed Moscow's every whim, then liquidated the CI. The man who turned his back on world revolution in favor of building socialism in one country:rolleyes:.

[Leo]

The discussion on democracy split to politics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-against-t178511/index.html?t=178511).

[Old Bolshie]

Hey, as a Trotskyist, I believe that in spite of Stalin, the superior property forms and organization of the USSR led it to being a superpower.

USSR became a superpower due to the soviet people effort led by Stalin.




The only point during Stalin's rule that might qualify is during WWII when the Wehrmacht nearly defeated the Red Army a brief but harrowing period. During the first several years of existence, the USSR was invaded by 17 countries, had a wide spread civil war, faced the destruction of industry, and famine. This on the heels of WWI. This period lasted several years.

From those 17 countries non of it was a Nazi Germany which had dominated Europe and the war until then. This invasion surpasses the amount of losses for the USSR than the invasions of all those 17 countries. The casualties of the Soviets in this war speaks for itself, besides the destruction of the industrial complex caused by the nazi invasion.

Stalin also faced a much bigger famine than Lenin's and a class war against the kulaks which produced the known devastated results.



Stalin so badly fucked up defense of the USSR that the capacities and resources were stretched right up to the breaking point. It didn't break, and the German Army was smashed by the USSR, a great thing. Stalin ignored his unbelievably detailed intelligence reports (the CI had agents in the German General Staff) and did not prepare properly for the invasion. It did not help that he had purged and murdered most of the senior Soviet military leadership in the late 30s.

They probably would have joined the Russian Liberation Army so it was just less resources for Adolf Hitler...


The way that Stalin collectivized agriculture was a panicked reaction to the grain crisis in 1928, when, in spite of the second bumper crop in a row, the cities did not have enough grain to avoid starvation. All of this was foreseen by the LO, which had a rational plan to collectivize at a pace commensurate with Soviet resources (at the time of collectivization, there were many collective farms, with zero machinery, therefore, no way to take advantage of large scale farming). Also, it was done in such a hamfisted and brutal fashion that in protest peasants burned their crops, their seed and killed their livestock (livestock levels did not recover until the early 1950s).

It was just not a panicked reaction to the 1928's crisis. Stalin foreseen that USSR would eventually been invaded by some foreign power within a short period of time and the pace of USSR's industrialization under NEP was not the desired one. A semi-industrialized USSR would have been an easy prey for the Nazis or any other foreign power.

I said it couldn't have been done earlier when the food production was even lower and the Kulaks would always resist.


Ah, Stalin the great internationalist that first turned the sections of the CI into puppets that slavishly followed Moscow's every whim, then liquidated the CI. The man who turned his back on world revolution in favor of building socialism in one country:rolleyes:.

And how submitting foreign communist parties to Moscow leadership disqualifies him as a internationalist? Since USSR was the only worker's state (deformed or not) it's reasonable to see a certain ascendant from the USSR over the CP's of other countries.

As far as world revolution goes, it must be said that the world revolution ended with the failure of the german revolution in 1923. Not Trotsky or anyone else could have changed that fact. Despite this, USSR leadership decided not to give up of their revolution and continue its course. Lenin also argued that the victory of socialism was possible in one country. This doesn't mean that the internationalism was abandoned. The Comintern remained active and USSR helped to bring revolutions outside its frontiers.

[Rational Radical]

In regards to Lenin my main point was that since he wasnt a founder of communism or didn't contribute anything theoretically groundbreaking, he should only be acknowledged as a historical figure(a revolutionary for liberating the russian people from tsarist oppression even!!what ever helps you sleep at night) and not a theoretician whose ideas are applicable for a 21st century world.Marx and Engles did the heavy lifting for exposing the nature of capital and its contradictions,it's now up to us to provide the working class with a viable alternative,in which can either in my opinion take the form of left/council communism or anarcho-syndicalism/communism.

[Art Vandelay]

USSR became a superpower due to the soviet people effort led by Stalin.

As communists we aren't trying to turn any isolated formation of states into a 'superpower' but to end the social construct of the state all together. So you can brag about Stalin leading the soviet people and the USSR in their quest to become a global superpower, just don't expect this to impress any actual Marxists.

[Art Vandelay]

In regards to Lenin my main point was that since he wasnt a founder of communism or didn't contribute anything theoretically groundbreaking, he should only be acknowledged as a historical figure(a revolutionary for liberating the russian people from tsarist oppression even!!what ever helps you sleep at night) and not a theoretician whose ideas are applicable for a 21st century world.Marx and Engles did the heavy lifting for exposing the nature of capital and its contradictions,it's now up to us to provide the working class with a viable alternative,in which can either in my opinion take the form of left/council communism or anarcho-syndicalism/communism.

To say that Lenin didn't contribute any theoretical innovations to Marxism, is simply historically inaccurate.

[Rational Radical]

To say that Lenin didn't contribute any theoretical innovations to Marxism, is simply historically inaccurate. No it's my opinion,since his policies were mostly for backwards Russia.Now alot of those that claim to be marxists might've been inspired by lenin,it doesnt mean that he made an impact theoretically,but what are some of lenin's theoretical innovations that can be applied today?

[Art Vandelay]

No it's my opinion,since his policies were mostly for backwards Russia.Now alot of those that claim to be marxists might've been inspired by lenin,it doesnt mean that he made an impact theoretically,but what are some of lenin's theoretical innovations that can be applied today?

Read some Lenin if you'd like to know anything about his theoretical contributions to Marxism, its not my job to end the ignorance of those who go around talking authoritatively about things which they know not.

[Rational Radical]

Read some Lenin if you'd like to know anything about his theoretical contributions to Marxism, its not my job to end the ignorance of those who go around talking authoritatively about things which they know not.
I was simply asking your opinion,didnt need the patronizing,condescending comeback .You may consider that his theories impacted marxism but that doesnt necessarily make it true.

[Ostrinski]

I actually do agree that Lenin wasn't really a groundbreaking theorist of Marxism. That doesn't mean anything against Lenin really, it just means that many people misunderstand his role as a historical figure. Lenin's prominence was as a political strategist - the key leading political strategist of the Bolshevik party.

What this means is that most of what we consider to be his contributions to theory as well as most of his important texts regard political matters and are furthermore most significant only in relation to the context that they were written in.

[Art Vandelay]

I actually do agree that Lenin wasn't really a groundbreaking theorist of Marxism. That doesn't mean anything against Lenin really, it just means that many people misunderstand his role as a historical figure. Lenin's prominence was as a political strategist - the key leading political strategist of the Bolshevik party.

What this means is that most of what we consider to be his contributions to theory as well as most of his important texts regard political matters and are furthermore most significant only in relation to the context that they were written in.

You don't support Lenin's theories on imperialism?

[Ostrinski]

Max Beer and Karl Kautsky were writing on the subject of imperialism in the 1890's, and Bukharin and Radek were writing on it in the early 1910's, all of which preceded Lenin's work on imperialism and served as prerequisites to his own work. That isn't to say that Lenin didn't incorporate his own perspectives on the subject but to say that Lenin's theory on imperialism is an innovative contribution to Marxist theory is not true.

[Art Vandelay]

Max Beer and Karl Kautsky were writing on the subject of imperialism in the 1890's, and Bukharin and Radek were writing on it in the early 1910's, all of which preceded Lenin's work on imperialism and served as prerequisites to his own work. That isn't to say that Lenin didn't incorporate his own perspectives on the subject but to say that Lenin's theory on imperialism is an innovative contribution to Marxist theory is not true.

Marxism is a science which, through praxis, is continually evolving. My point is that Lenin can be seen as one of the many 20th century Marxists who helped push forth the evolution of Marxism. While I agree that his greatest 'prominence' was that as a astute political leader, to say that he wasn't a valuable Marxist theoretician as well, is a tad bit of a vulgar analysis of his body of thought, in my opinion.

[Ostrinski]

Marxism is a science which, through praxis, is continually evolving. My point is that Lenin can be seen as one of the many 20th century Marxists who helped push forth the evolution of Marxism. While I agree that his greatest 'prominence' was that as a astute political leader, to say that he wasn't a valuable Marxist theoretician as well, is a tad bit of a vulgar analysis of his body of thought, in my opinion.Yes, but you haven't demonstrated how. You brought up the example of his work on imperialism, which was drawn from previous writings on the subject from the likes of Kautsky, Beer, Bukharin, and Radek.

Most of his "body of thought" is pretty recycled. Now once again that is nothing really against him, although those that worship him will take it that way, I'm just pointing out that his stake in history needs to be understood more clearly.

[Brutus]

Lenin quite simply adapted Marx's theory for a time when capitalism had evolved. We shouldn't follow his word to the letter, we should take what is relevant and adapt and add onto the theories laid down for us by Marx and Engels. All Lenin did was expand on them (for example, the vanguard party is mentioned in the communist manifesto)

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated how. You brought up the example of his work on imperialism, which was drawn from previous writings on the subject from the likes of Kautsky, Beer, Bukharin, and Radek.

Most of his "body of thought" is pretty recycled. Now once again that is nothing really against him, although those that worship him will take it that way, I'm just pointing out that his stake in history needs to be understood more clearly.

I far from worship Lenin and your opinion, I would say, of the man is proper closer to my own then you think; my original statement was addressing those who posit he made no theoretical contributions to Marxism. Given my belief in the lineage between Kautsky and Lenin, I'd agree that much of what made him 'great' was recycled from the Marxist orthodoxy of his day, his greatest achievement was continuing on this tradition while successfully combating the left and right wings of social democracy from the revolutionary center.

[Lucretia]

In the process of struggling against reformism, which M&E had only begun to have to confront as a major organized force among the working class in their lifetimes, Lenin developed and applied the principles of Marxism to party-building. Read the resolutions of the first few cominten congresses, and you'll see that in that field alone Lenin contributed a whole hell of a lot of new stuff to Marxism. That's without getting to his writings on imperialism. Of course Lenin didn't develop any new basic principles of Marxism. Marxism was still Marxism before and after Lenin in a very general and abstract sense. But who cares? "Marxism" isn't just a set of abstract principles. It's the real movement, which takes basic insights and principles and methodologies of political work and applies them in very different historical situations. That is how Marxism changes and grows as a tradition and as a body of thought. So am I a Marxist? Of course. Am I a Leninist? Yes. Are they in conflict? Absolutely not. But is "Leninism" deserving of its own label? Yes, and not because of any differences between it and Marxism at a general level. But because of differences in how those basic ideas guided Lenin to do and think new things concretely in response to new situations and problems.

[Old Bolshie]

As communists we aren't trying to turn any isolated formation of states into a 'superpower' but to end the social construct of the state all together. So you can brag about Stalin leading the soviet people and the USSR in their quest to become a global superpower, just don't expect this to impress any actual Marxists.

Next time try to read the whole arguing and not just the final to avoid making these stupid comments. I was not bragging anything. I just gave an ironic answer to the other user who called Stalin sociopath.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin's greatest contribution to Marxism, was to adapt basic Marxist principles to a specific set of material conditions; thus giving countless generations of Marxists a body of work to analyze and come to conclusions for their own circumstances.

[MP5]

I was a Marxist-Leninist before i was essentially just a Communist with political leanings toward Anarchist style Communism. I was never a Stalinist though and i always found many of the people who called themselves Stalinist to be on the rather Conservative side when it came to social issues so i had little in Common with them. Granted i never was a big fan of Trotskyism either.

The main problems i have with Leninism are:

1. The suppressing of workers led strikes in a effort to somehow try and make workers see that the party knew better then they did even if it was not in the best interests of the workers at all. When the Kronstadt rebellion happened it was just a final sign that the Bolshevik government was just as willing to suppress workers rights as the Tsars where.

2. The suppression of Anarchists and other political groups such as the left SR's and Mensheviks after the overthrow of the Tsars. The Anarchists initially saw the Bolshevik government as a very good step toward a much more democratic Russia but the needless crackdowns and arrests soon melted away any hope the Anarchists had for a more democratic government. The split between the Soviet Communists and the Anarchists not to mention later on the split between the Trotskyists and Stalinist's did nothing but ensure that the revolutionary left would be divided even up until today for christ sakes. The Spanish civil war may have been the final nail in the coffin between authoritarian Communists and Anarchist Communists but the Russian revolution was the start of it.

3. Centralization of government. Lenin's experiment in democratic centralism which was picked up by other Marxist-Leninist countries was a utter failure and ensured the consolidation of power. Under democratic centralization the Soviet government could easily just have been the Canadian government just with different names for the positions. In fact it's governments like the USSR, China and of course Canada are prime examples of why centralization just does not work.

4. Leninism was not the same as Stalinism as many people say it is but it did lead to Stalinism and authoritarian Socialism in general being the predominant form of Socialism for the 20th century. Hence why so many people still get such a bad first impression of Communism as they automatically think of Stalinism as being Communism despite the fact that it was just state capitalism.

Ive heard other Marxists and Communists of all types level other complaints against Leninism but those are my main ones.

[Red Enemy]

I was a Marxist-Leninist before i was essentially just a Communist with political leanings toward Anarchist style Communism. I was never a Stalinist though and i always found many of the people who called themselves Stalinist to be on the rather Conservative side when it came to social issues so i had little in Common with them. Granted i never was a big fan of Trotskyism either.

The main problems i have with Leninism are:I'm tired, but let me address this the best I can.


1. The suppressing of workers led strikes in a effort to somehow try and make workers see that the party knew better then they did even if it was not in the best interests of the workers at all. When the Kronstadt rebellion happened it was just a final sign that the Bolshevik government was just as willing to suppress workers rights as the Tsars where.The problem with this lies in the entire situation. I'll agree that Kronstadt was handled wrongly, but on both sides. The Bolsheviks had a clear majority in the soviets, to just settle that. When we look at the wider situation of civil war, famine, a peasant class with heavy influence, not long out of a war against Germany, other parties like the Mensheviks calling for the Kerensky bourgeois republic, etc. one can't help but think comparing Kronstadt to Tsarist oppression as absurd.

The situation was volatile, with threats to workers power at every corner, and the only hope being the victory of the German - and thus the world - proletariat. The Kronstadt uprising was not purely proletarian, and thus not necessarily of proletarian class interest.

I do sympathize with their points they demanded, and I am heavily critical of much of what the Bolsheviks did in response to the material conditions presented. That's the key though, to look at this through in the proper context, by analyzing the material conditions.


2. The suppression of Anarchists and other political groups such as the left SR's and Mensheviks after the overthrow of the Tsars. The Anarchists initially saw the Bolshevik government as a very good step toward a much more democratic Russia but the needless crackdowns and arrests soon melted away any hope the Anarchists had for a more democratic government. The split between the Soviet Communists and the Anarchists not to mention later on the split between the Trotskyists and Stalinist's did nothing but ensure that the revolutionary left would be divided even up until today for christ sakes. The Spanish civil war may have been the final nail in the coffin between authoritarian Communists and Anarchist Communists but the Russian revolution was the start of it.The Mensheviks openly called for the return of the Kerensky Bourgeois Republic, and many supported the Whites in the civil war.

The Left SR's resigned from their positions in the soviets -- committed terrorist acts (bombings I think), and openly rebelled in the streets in response to Brest-Litovsk. They wanted Russia to continue fighting Germany, and participating in the war. The Left SR organization, as such, didn't have much to do with it. After arrests, and whatnot, much of the Left SR's dissolved INTO THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY.

Again, I urge you to take into consideration the material conditions when talking about these things:

- Famine
- World War
- Civil war (which decimated much of the proletariat population)
- Peasants (the majority class) growing from an ally, to clearly expressing it's own class interests.
- Open rebellion, and open support for it by parties such as the Mensheviks, Right SR's.
- The actions of many Left SRs. Open rebellion, resigning from the soviets, terrorism, etc.
- ISOLATION (A proletariat, or pseudo-proletariat state, in a sea of capitalism)
- Failure of the German and world proletariat. Again to emphasize Isolation.


3. Centralization of government. Lenin's experiment in democratic centralism which was picked up by other Marxist-Leninist countries was a utter failure and ensured the consolidation of power. Under democratic centralization the Soviet government could easily just have been the Canadian government just with different names for the positions. In fact it's governments like the USSR, China and of course Canada are prime examples of why centralization just does not work.Democratic Centralism is a method of PARTY organization, not the method applied to governing the USSR. Even left communists like Onarato Damen in Italy, and the likes of Luxemburg were democratic centralists.

Soviet democracy was the original governing method, however that soon changed to party dictatorship -- and the party soon stopped representing the class.

Again, we must look into material conditions.


4. Leninism was not the same as Stalinism as many people say it is but it did lead to Stalinism and authoritarian Socialism in general being the predominant form of Socialism for the 20th century. Hence why so many people still get such a bad first impression of Communism as they automatically think of Stalinism as being Communism despite the fact that it was just state capitalism.

Ive heard other Marxists and Communists of all types level other complaints against Leninism but those are my main ones.Material conditions led to Stalinism.

There was no "authoritarian socialism", but state capitalism, that resulted directly from material conditions, and I would argue that it also stemmed from the authoritarian and ultra centralist party practices of the Bolsheviks during War Communism -- that would also fall under material conditions.

It sucks that Stalinism became the predominant form of, what people perceived to be, socialism. However, this is not a result of some inherent flaw in Lenin's theories or the Bolsheviks. It lays much deeper; in the material conditions both within and without Russia.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My biggest point is this:

Whatever way the revolution went; a Kerensky republic or anarchists getting there way, we would have seen the same result: the continued rule of, or the eventual return of capital. What form this would have took is unknown. I would suggest it could have been, and likely would have been fascism (even in the event of a Kerensky Republic).

[MP5]

I'm tired, but let me address this the best I can.

The problem with this lies in the entire situation. I'll agree that Kronstadt was handled wrongly, but on both sides. The Bolsheviks had a clear majority in the soviets, to just settle that. When we look at the wider situation of civil war, famine, a peasant class with heavy influence, not long out of a war against Germany, other parties like the Mensheviks calling for the Kerensky bourgeois republic, etc. one can't help but think comparing Kronstadt to Tsarist oppression as absurd.

The situation was volatile, with threats to workers power at every corner, and the only hope being the victory of the German - and thus the world - proletariat. The Kronstadt uprising was not purely proletarian, and thus not necessarily of proletarian class interest.

I do sympathize with their points they demanded, and I am heavily critical of much of what the Bolsheviks did in response to the material conditions presented. That's the key though, to look at this through in the proper context, by analyzing the material conditions.

The Mensheviks openly called for the return of the Kerensky Bourgeois Republic, and many supported the Whites in the civil war.

The Left SR's resigned from their positions in the soviets -- committed terrorist acts (bombings I think), and openly rebelled in the streets in response to Brest-Litovsk. They wanted Russia to continue fighting Germany, and participating in the war. The Left SR organization, as such, didn't have much to do with it. After arrests, and whatnot, much of the Left SR's dissolved INTO THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY.

Again, I urge you to take into consideration the material conditions when talking about these things:

- Famine
- World War
- Civil war (which decimated much of the proletariat population)
- Peasants (the majority class) growing from an ally, to clearly expressing it's own class interests.
- Open rebellion, and open support for it by parties such as the Mensheviks, Right SR's.
- The actions of many Left SRs. Open rebellion, resigning from the soviets, terrorism, etc.
- ISOLATION (A proletariat, or pseudo-proletariat state, in a sea of capitalism)
- Failure of the German and world proletariat. Again to emphasize Isolation.

Democratic Centralism is a method of PARTY organization, not the method applied to governing the USSR. Even left communists like Onarato Damen in Italy, and the likes of Luxemburg were democratic centralists.

Soviet democracy was the original governing method, however that soon changed to party dictatorship -- and the party soon stopped representing the class.

Again, we must look into material conditions.

Material conditions led to Stalinism.

There was no "authoritarian socialism", but state capitalism, that resulted directly from material conditions, and I would argue that it also stemmed from the authoritarian and ultra centralist party practices of the Bolsheviks during War Communism -- that would also fall under material conditions.

It sucks that Stalinism became the predominant form of, what people perceived to be, socialism. However, this is not a result of some inherent flaw in Lenin's theories or the Bolsheviks. It lays much deeper; in the material conditions both within and without Russia.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My biggest point is this:

Whatever way the revolution went; a Kerensky republic or anarchists getting there way, we would have seen the same result: the continued rule of, or the eventual return of capital. What form this would have took is unknown. I would suggest it could have been, and likely would have been fascism (even in the event of a Kerensky Republic).

You make more then a few good points there. You are right that the Kronstadt uprising was not wholly proletariat at all. Many of the people involved where military not civilians. But the handling of it could have been far far better.

The main point i think that is overlooked by many is just how difficult the material conditions where that the Bolsheviks had to work with and i must thank you for reminding me of that. It is easy to criticize Lenin but when one looks at the state that Russia was in at the time it's a miracle that the revolution even happened let alone lasted for as long as it did before it went counter revolutionary under Stalin. Russia was just coming out of feudalism into Capitalism, famine was plentiful food was not, the peasant farmers often horded much of the grain which did not help the famine at all, Russia was completely cut off for all intensive purposes and the Bolsheviks had to survive on their own, there where counter revolutionary pro fascist pro Capitalist foreign forces all over Russia operating with the white forces who engaged in unspeakable acts of terror on any civilians that where thought to have Communist sympathies and the list goes on.

So i don't think anyone could have really have done much better of a job under the circumstances no matter what their ideology. However i do think that democratic centralization was a huge mistake and it is my main problem with what Lenin did. This ensured centralization of power and it is both a method of organizing the part and governing the country. Centralization of power is a country as big and diverse as Russia was certainly not the way to go.

One need look no further then our own country Canada (greetings by the way :) ) as a example of how centralized government is a total failure. We have idiots up in Ottawa telling people in Newfoundland how our main resources should be run. Now what would someone from Ontario, Alberta or whatever know about the fishery or Newfoundland culture for that matter? About as much as i would know about wheat farming. This leads to discontent and in some cases outright hatred of the federal government. They where not quite as disconnected from reality in the USSR but the problems of centralization remain the same.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I think Lucretia is spot on when he says that Leninism, as such, exists upon the foundation of Marxism. So it is not a whole new theory. To paint Lenin as a man whose theories were useful only to the Russian Empire circa 1917 is very wrongheaded. Not only was his contribution to the forming and early work of the CI remarkable (he was not the only one -- if you can, read the proceedings from the first four congresses -- these are amazing historical documents), but his writings about building revolutionary parties is indispensable. Lenin's break with the practices of the SI shifting to building a new type of workers party was a major contribution. Also, The State and Revolution, is an awfully good book, IMHO.

I suppose some comrades might not know that the bolsheviks as well as many other revolutionaries of their time studied the French Revolution -- in great detail. It was what they had to look to. They didn't suppose, as some do in this forum, that it had happened a long time ago in different conditions, and was therefore irrelevant.

[Narodnik]

State and Revolution and the April Thesis are good works, if you like opportunist works that the one who wrote them has used to gain popular support and when gained power instituted policies the opposite of those in that works.

If you want close-to-libertarian Marxist works read Luxemburg and SPGB published works, for libertarian Marxism go De Leon, Pannekoek and Mattick.