What is "eurocommunism"?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I've been reading a lot about politics and I keep stumbling upon the term "eurocommunism." I've seen it before but I've never known what it meant. What is it? What do you think of it?

[Comrade #138672]

This has already been asked quite recently.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wtf-eurocommunismi-t177345/index.html?t=177345&highlight=Eurocommunism

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is a variant of revisionist communist thought which advocated a third-pole which was both separate from the soviet union and and America, in short. To learn a bit more, albeit from a hostile source, see my study guide: http://www.revleft.com/vb/euro-communism-anti-t176343/index.html

[cantwealljustgetalong]

A post-WWII tendency of Stalinist communist parties to behave as parliamentary social democratic parties.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Euro-communism is anti-communism.

[Blake's Baby]

That doesn't say much, a lot of believe Leninism is anti-communism, is Euro-Communism the same as Leninism?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That doesn't say much, a lot of believe Leninism is anti-communism, is Euro-Communism the same as Leninism?

What is Leninism? Leninism took shape after Lenin's death and has very little to do with Lenin, Lenin certainely wouldn't have argued that he thought of much new stuff, so yes that Leninism is anti-communism but has very little to do with Lenin himself.

[Old Bolshie]

A post-WWII tendency of Stalinist communist parties to behave as parliamentary social democratic parties.

Eurocommunism is a rupture with USSR and the leninist democratic centralism.

The "stalinist" communist parties were those which rejected eurocommunism.


What is Leninism? Leninism took shape after Lenin's death

Before Lenin's death...


so yes that Leninism is anti-communism but has very little to do with Lenin himself.

It has all to do with Lenin.

[Blake's Baby]

What is Leninism? Leninism took shape after Lenin's death and has very little to do with Lenin, Lenin certainely wouldn't have argued that he thought of much new stuff, so yes that Leninism is anti-communism but has very little to do with Lenin himself.

By 'Leninism' I meant Stalinism ('Marxist-Leninism') and Trotskyism ('Bolshevik-Leninism'). The codification of a series of mistakes and compromises made in the early revolutionary period into a dogma that promotes state-capitalist dictatorship and a crude lesser-evil approach to international relations.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Eurocommunism is a rupture with USSR and the leninist democratic centralism.

The "stalinist" communist parties were those which rejected eurocommunism.

while that is true, they were certainely not the only ones rejecting it.



Before Lenin's death...

In a sense it did, but the term Leninism as a tendency was non-existent before that. It did exists in the same way Lenin used Trotskyism in Trotsky's pre-Bolshevik time, i.e. as a slander.




It has all to do with Lenin.

It carries the name but there is where it ends. Lenin was very agrresive about his ideas not being new. He would always say that these theories were what everyone said before but were abandoned by them. The Bolshevik party structure was limited to Russia's conditions but the goal was to have a SPD-like party, so nothing new. The theory of imperialism was developed years before Lenin wrote his book on it, a book containing a lot of those texts is Discovering Imperialism in the Historical Materialism series. Lenin's State and Revolution brings not much new things either. Lenin did not deny his unoriginality he explicitly said that the one's it came from abandoned it. In that sense there is no such thing as Leninism.

[Old Bolshie]

while that is true, they were certainely not the only ones rejecting it.

I didn't say they were the only ones but cantwealljustgetalong referred specifically to "stalinists" and not the others.






In a sense it did, but the term Leninism as a tendency was non-existent before that. It did exists in the same way Lenin used Trotskyism in Trotsky's pre-Bolshevik time, i.e. as a slander.

When Rosa Luxemburg is criticizing Lenin's conception of vanguard party, democratic centralism and the October revolution she is distinguishing a tendency associated to Lenin although she didn't used the term "leninism". However the term did enter in common usage before Lenin's death in 1922.



It carries the name but there is where it ends. Lenin was very agrresive about his ideas not being new. He would always say that these theories were what everyone said before but were abandoned by them. The Bolshevik party structure was limited to Russia's conditions but the goal was to have a SPD-like party, so nothing new. The theory of imperialism was developed years before Lenin wrote his book on it, a book containing a lot of those texts is Discovering Imperialism in the Historical Materialism series. Lenin's State and Revolution brings not much new things either. Lenin did not deny his unoriginality he explicitly said that the one's it came from abandoned it. In that sense there is no such thing as Leninism.

You forgot some things like the democratic centralism or the vanguard party which were conceived by Lenin himself and are fundamental parts of leninism. The Bolshevik party, the Russian revolution and Stalin himself were a product of Leninism although many people hate to hear that, specially Trotskyists.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You forgot some things like the democratic centralism or the vanguard party which were conceived by Lenin himself and are fundamental parts of leninism. The Bolshevik party, the Russian revolution and Stalin himself were a product of Leninism although many people hate to hear that, specially Trotskyists.

Democratic centralism, the real version not the "everyone must agree with the party-line"-version, existed before Lenin, although if I remember correctly the term came to be around the time of Lenin's death.
The Bolshevik party was largely based on the SPD-model, so that is nothing new. Hell you can even find the concept of it in the Communist manifesto.

The Bolshevik party, the Russian revolution, Stalin and ultimately the failure of the USSR were products of Russia's material conditions.

I'm not here to defend Trotskyists so I don't see why you put that in there.

I'm not attacking Lenin. He defended these theories when others betrayed them, his works are defending Marxism and for that reason should be read.
He was also flawed in aspects of his works, and that should be criticized.
I just don't want to make him into a mythical genius who made up new theories everyday, I'm certain Lenin wouldn't have wanted that either.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I said Stalinists because most Maoist and Trotskyist parties did not follow the Stalinist extension of the "popular front" period into the second half of the 20th century. I should also note that I am specifically referring to CPs allied, but not within, the Soviet Union.

[Old Bolshie]

Democratic centralism, the real version not the "everyone must agree with the party-line"-version, existed before Lenin, although if I remember correctly the term came to be around the time of Lenin's death.

I am talking about the Bolshevik model of democratic centralism and which was based on WITBD. If this fits in the real version or the "everyone must agree with the party-line"-version I really don't give a damn. It was conceived by Lenin as I said.



The Bolshevik party, the Russian revolution, Stalin and ultimately the failure of the USSR were products of Russia's material conditions.

Nonsense. The material conditions are just an excuse to justify what happened in Russia. The truth is that the Soviets were independent and especially democratic before they were crushed by the state controlled by the Bolsheviks. If they functioned this way in 1917 when Russia was extreme backward saying that USSR was destined to be like it was due to the material conditions is just an excuse for the authoritarian shape that USSR turned out to take.


I'm not here to defend Trotskyists so I don't see why you put that in there.

I didn't mention "Trotskyists" to attack you.



I'm not attacking Lenin. He defended these theories when others betrayed them, his works are defending Marxism and for that reason should be read.
He was also flawed in aspects of his works, and that should be criticized.
I just don't want to make him into a mythical genius who made up new theories everyday, I'm certain Lenin wouldn't have wanted that either.

I know you are not attacking Lenin, you are defending him and that is precisely why I responded to you.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Nonsense. The material conditions are just an excuse to justify what happened in Russia. The truth is that the Soviets were independent and especially democratic before they were crushed by the state controlled by the Bolsheviks. If they functioned this way in 1917 when Russia was extreme backward saying that USSR was destined to be like it was due to the material conditions is just an excuse for the authoritarian shape that USSR turned out to take...

Had the soviets not been suppressed by the Bolsheviks due to their 'authoritarianism', would it have been possible to build socialism in Russia? I am genuinely interested in your answer to this question, I think it's one of those fundamental differences in how people view the world and politcs.

[Old Bolshie]

Had the soviets not been suppressed by the Bolsheviks due to their 'authoritarianism', would it have been possible to build socialism in Russia? I am genuinely interested in your answer to this question, I think it's one of those fundamental differences in how people view the world and politcs.

Socialism? No. I don't believe that socialism can be build in one single country. But had the soviets not been suppressed you would have a truly dictatorship of the proletariat and not a dictatorship over the proletariat like you had in USSR.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, I'll go along with that.

What would the dictatorship of the proletariat have done significantly differently to the Bolshevik state government? Would it not also have introduced rationing and requesitioning, and miltarised the economy, including introducing both industrial and military conscription, due to the necessity of fighting the Whites, the Germans, the Allies, and anyone else who might take shot? Presumably it wouldn't have suppressed the Makhnovites or the Kronstadt Commune, as the circumstances that gave rise to them wouldn't necessarily exist. That would have been good. But what about the NEP? What about foreign trade with capitalist firms? Would it have done these things?

I don't believe a dictatorship of the proletariat - the working class managing production and distribution while simultaneously trying to destroy capitalism - can be stabilised in a single country. It is a short-term phenomenon. If the world revolution cannot extend itself the DotP necessarily dies, either crushed by an external counter-revolution or chocked by an internal counter-revolution. If the revolution stops moving forwards and becomes trapped in one territory, it will die, whatever the working class there does.

[l'Enfermé]

Very true comrade Xico. Lenin invented the vanguard outlook in WITBD. Here is the passage:


The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

Oh, actually, no. That's Marx and Engels.

[Old Bolshie]

Very true comrade Xico. Lenin invented the vanguard outlook in WITBD. Here is the passage:



Oh, actually, no. That's Marx and Engels.

First of all, I'm not your comrade.

Secondly, you have no clue of what a vanguard party is. The quote that you gave has nothing to do with the vanguard party conception.

Marx never argued for a small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

First of all, I'm not your comrade.

Secondly, you have no clue of what a vanguard party is. The quote that you gave has nothing to do with the vanguard party conception.

Marx never argued for a small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries.

Well, if that is what Lenin meant with the vanguard party, which he didn't, it still wasn't original.
You might want to look into Blanquism.

[Old Bolshie]

Well, if that is what Lenin meant with the vanguard party, which he didn't,

So what he meant?


it still wasn't original.
You might want to look into Blanquism.

First it was Marx and Engels, now it is Blanqui but even Blanqui's conception isn't the same of Lenin's. Who's next?

[Blake's Baby]

...
First it was Marx and Engels, now it is Blanqui but even Blanqui's conception isn't the same of Lenin's. Who's next?

You do realise, Negative Creep isn't the same person as l'Enferme, don't you?

[Old Bolshie]

You do realise, Negative Creep isn't the same person as l'Enferme, don't you?

Of course I do but they are arguing the same thing.

[Blake's Baby]

No they're not, one is arguing lenin derived his conceptions from Marx, the other that he derived his conceptions from Blanqui, and you seemed to be complaining at the inconsistency of the argument. So I don't see why you think they're arguing the same thing. NC can believe Lenin's theories derived from Blanqui, and l'Enferme could believe Lenin derived his theories from Marx, with no reference or responsibility either way between NC and l'Enferme. Gven that their theories are different, I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed that they don't refer to each other.

So, do you think the workers' councils would have militarised the economy to defend the Soviet Republic from counter-revolution and to prevent the population from starving?

[Old Bolshie]

No they're not, one is arguing lenin derived his conceptions from Marx, the other that he derived his conceptions from Blanqui, and you seemed to be complaining at the inconsistency of the argument. So I don't see why you think they're arguing the same thing. NC can believe Lenin's theories derived from Blanqui, and l'Enferme could believe Lenin derived his theories from Marx, with no reference or responsibility either way between NC and l'Enferme. Gven that their theories are different, I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed that they don't refer to each other.

They are both arguing that the vanguard party concept was not conceived by Lenin. That's the point. NC even thanked L'Enferme post about it.


So, do you think the workers' councils would have militarised the economy to defend the Soviet Republic from counter-revolution and to prevent the population from starving?

It's hard to know if the workers councils would have done the same things the Bolsheviks did but the nature of the regime would have been certainly different.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I wasn't arguing Lenin got it from Blanqui.
I'm saying that what Xico thinks Lenin means is the same as blanquism.

[Old Bolshie]

No I don't. I thought I let it clearly in my post. I didn't say that Lenin was arguing for a secret group of conspirators but rather for a small centralized political party composed by professional revolutionaries whose job was not limited to the revolution itself but also beyond it. I'm still waiting for what Lenin meant with the vanguard party in your opinion...

[Ismail]

I've been reading a lot about politics and I keep stumbling upon the term "eurocommunism." I've seen it before but I've never known what it meant. What is it? What do you think of it?Today it's a dead ideology. I discussed it in the thread Wecandobetter linked.

It's just social-democracy with a "communist" veneer. Pretty much every Eurocommunist turned into unabashed social-democrats after 1989. It was an elaboration and deepening of the theses of the 20th Party Congress as to the "peaceful struggle for socialism," "peaceful coexistence," "struggle against the cult of the individual," the "creative development of Marxism-Leninism," etc.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

First of all, I'm not your comrade.

Secondly, you have no clue of what a vanguard party is. The quote that you gave has nothing to do with the vanguard party conception.

Marx never argued for a small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries.

This is not the fucking meaning of the term by anyone's standards here but you. You're using preconceptions based on Stalinist works to distort the argument.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You do realise, Negative Creep isn't the same person as l'Enferme, don't you?

While true, I did say it could be found in the Manifesto.
Lenny quoted it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

First of all, I'm not your comrade.

Secondly, you have no clue of what a vanguard party is. The quote that you gave has nothing to do with the vanguard party conception.

Marx never argued for a small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries.


No he did not, and that is why Lenin presumably also didn't.

"Professional Revolutionary" is a disputed translation and many see "revolutionary-by-trade" as a better russian-english translation. In WITBD Lenin never properly goes into what the inner-party formation should be, presumably because it had all already been contemplated and thought out by his "Revolutionary Social-Democratic" predecessors in Germany. Also, Lenin never actually thought WITBD to be a 'manifesto' of any new kind of branch of Marxism, but more of a contemporary pamphlet on what Revolutionary Social-Democrats should do in the Russian underdeveloped bourgeois, neo-feudal dictatorship of the Czar: apply orthodox Marxist principles of a "Vanguard party" (In the German Communist Manifesto Marx writes the word 'avantgarde' which is translated to 'vanguard' in English) to Russia's material conditions.

[Old Bolshie]

This is not the fucking meaning of the term by anyone's standards here but you. You're using preconceptions based on Stalinist works to distort the argument.


So what is the fucking mean of the term? I am seeing a lot of people saying "that is not what Lenin meant" but no one still gave any definition. Fucking kids. If you are going to counter my argument at least present one yourself otherwise just do me a favor and shut the fuck up.

[Old Bolshie]

No he did not, and that is why Lenin presumably also didn't.

"Professional Revolutionary" is a disputed translation and many see "revolutionary-by-trade" as a better russian-english translation. In WITBD Lenin never properly goes into what the inner-party formation should be, presumably because it had all already been contemplated and thought out by his "Revolutionary Social-Democratic" predecessors in Germany. Also, Lenin never actually thought WITBD to be a 'manifesto' of any new kind of branch of Marxism, but more of a contemporary pamphlet on what Revolutionary Social-Democrats should do in the Russian underdeveloped bourgeois, neo-feudal dictatorship of the Czar: apply orthodox Marxist principles of a "Vanguard party" (In the German Communist Manifesto Marx writes the word 'avantgarde' which is translated to 'vanguard' in English) to Russia's material conditions.

Ok, now Lenin never even defined what a vanguard party is. Each one of you gave me different answers what just means that no one of you have a clue of what is talking about.

As far as Lenin never thought WITBD to be a manifesto doesn't mean that it actually was although I don't go so far to call it a manifesto but definitely created a new tendency within Marxism which shaped the communism of the XX Century.

[Ismail]

What's funny is that the end argument for all these RevLeft Neo-Kautskyists seems to be based on the need for a "mass party," which strangely enough was the exact same thing Togliatti and his Eurocommunists successors claimed was necessary against the supposed "distortions" of "Stalinism."

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What's funny is that the end argument for all these RevLeft Neo-Kautskyists seems to be based on the need for a "mass party," which strangely enough was the exact same thing Togliatti and his Eurocommunists successors claimed was necessary against the supposed "distortions" of "Stalinism."

Great logic.
Eurocommunists say something kind of similar therefore it is bad.
Some eurocommunists praised Lenin, I guess Lenin must be bad as well.

The reasoning of "eurocommunists said something similar so it's bad" is an extreme sign of intellectual poverty, but it's not an actual argument.

Not to mention that the concept of a mass-party and Kautsky existed before Stalinism existed and long before eurcommunism.

[Ismail]

Great logic.
Eurocommunists say something kind of similar therefore it is bad.
Some eurocommunists praised Lenin, I guess Lenin must be bad as well.They "praised" Lenin in order to undermine Leninism, just as the Soviet and Chinese revisionists did.


The reasoning of "eurocommunists said something similar so it's bad" is an extreme sign of intellectual poverty, but it's not an actual argument.It is, indeed, quite bad and also quite amusing that both the Eurocommunists and internet Kautskyists called/call for a "mass party" comprised of communists and social-democrats. Of course the Eurocommunists were not alone; they got their fixation on unity with social-democracy from the 20th Party Congress.


Not to mention that the concept of a mass-party and Kautsky existed before Stalinism existed and long before eurcommunism.Indeed, and that is why a number of persons (including Trots like Mandel, and Karl's grandson John H. Kautsky) drew comparisons between Kautsky and the Eurocommunists.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

They "praised" Lenin in order to undermine Leninism, just as the Soviet and Chinese revisionists did.

Well, by that reasoning they called for a mass-party to undermine Kautskyism.
And so we're back where we started.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade Xico:

Lenin never defined what a "vanguard party", you are correct. Do you know why? Because he never even used the phrase "vanguard party". Neither did Trotsky or Stalin, as far as I know.


This is not the fucking meaning of the term by anyone's standards here but you. You're using preconceptions based on Stalinist works to distort the argument.
That's not the Stalinist conception either. The Stalinist Italian Communist Party peaked at 2 million members. The Stalinist youth wing of the French Communist Party had like 250,000 members right after WWII alone.

No one, ever, has argued for a "small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries". That would be beyond stupid. Why would any political movement seek to minimize its membership and influence?


Ok, now Lenin never even defined what a vanguard party is. Each one of you gave me different answers what just means that no one of you have a clue of what is talking about.

As far as Lenin never thought WITBD to be a manifesto doesn't mean that it actually was although I don't go so far to call it a manifesto but definitely created a new tendency within Marxism which shaped the communism of the XX Century.
The WITBD was a summary of what Russian Marxists have been saying for half a decade. It didn't create a new tendency and it wasn't even considered to be that important by the tendency that it did represent.


First of all, I'm not your comrade.

Secondly, you have no clue of what a vanguard party is. The quote that you gave has nothing to do with the vanguard party conception.

Marx never argued for a small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries.
I have no clue what a "vanguard party" is because a "vanguard party" is not a real fucking thing(there is basically no word for it in Russian either), and while Marx never argued for a "small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries" no one else did either so I don't get your point.

[l'Enfermé]

It is, indeed, quite bad and also quite amusing that both the Eurocommunists and internet Kautskyists called/call for a "mass party" comprised of communists and social-democrats.

Comrade we don't call for a mass party-movement composed of communists and Social-Democrats. That would be ridiculous. Why would Social-Democrats join us even if we wanted them to? They have their own thing going on, i.e Social-Democracy. What we call for is a mass-party movement which only workers that agree with the Marxist programme may join. I would rather be associated with fascists than Social-Democrats, at least it is obvious to everyone they are our enemies.

[Old Bolshie]

Comrade Xico:

Lenin never defined what a "vanguard party", you are correct. Do you know why? Because he never even used the phrase "vanguard party". Neither did Trotsky or Stalin, as far as I know.

Idiot, it wasn't me who said that but the user Workers-control-over-production.



That's not the Stalinist conception either. The Stalinist Italian Communist Party peaked at 2 million members. The Stalinist youth wing of the French Communist Party had like 250,000 members right after WWII alone.

No one, ever, has argued for a "small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries". That would be beyond stupid. Why would any political movement seek to minimize its membership and influence?

You fucking idiot. What was the main reason why the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks split in the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP??? It was precisely because of the membership issue of the party. While Lenin argued limiting party membership to a smaller core of active members Julius Martov wanted the party to be broad-based open to non-active sympathizers.


Why would any political movement seek to minimize its membership

Lol. This people don't even know the basics of the Bolshevik history. As I said I am dealing with kids.





The WITBD was a summary of what Russian Marxists have been saying for half a decade. It didn't create a new tendency and it wasn't even considered to be that important by the tendency that it did represent.

You didn't read WITBD otherwise you wouldn't be saying the bullshit you are saying. WITBD can be viewed as the founding text of Leninism but of course that Leninism isn't limited to WITBD.



I have no clue what a "vanguard party" is because a "vanguard party" is not a real fucking thing(there is basically no word for it in Russian either), and while Marx never argued for a "small centralized party composed of professional revolutionaries" no one else did either so I don't get your point.

You just keep burying yourself. First you said that the idea came from Marx and now the vanguard concept doesn't even exists. NC said that Lenin didn't mean what I said so he must have meant something. But no one of you can answer me.

Go read WITBD and learn more history about the Lenin and the Bolsheviks because you don't know a damn thing as you showed.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

...It is, indeed, quite bad and also quite amusing that both the Eurocommunists and internet Kautskyists called/call for a "mass party" comprised of communists and social-democrats.


I can only agree with comrade l'Enferme here, I would rather form a party with outright fascists than 'Social-Fascists'. We Communists (that you call "internet Kautskyists") call for the "mass party" strategy merely because a more socially penetrating Communist party which, under bourgeois democracy, has more freedoms and rights to do so (unlike Czarist Russia), would benefit tremendously on influence if its organization not only focused on theoretical education of the working class members, but expanded to a cultural, recreational and social organ. I.e. Gramsci concept of 'Hegemony'.

[khad]

Idiot.

You fucking idiot.

Lol. This people don't even know the basics of the Bolshevik history. As I said I am dealing with kids.

This is the Learning forum, Xico. I suggest you turn down your hostility immediately and discuss this like a rational person.

This is a verbal warning.

[bricolage]

Well, if that is what Lenin meant with the vanguard party, which he didn't, it still wasn't original.
You might want to look into Blanquism.
The Blanquists weren't very centralised, the groups were pretty dispersed and due to secrecy most didn't actually know who the other Blanquists were.

[Old Bolshie]

This is the Learning forum, Xico. I suggest you turn down your hostility immediately and discuss this like a rational person.

This is a verbal warning.

The other user started with the provocations and bad language. If people want to have rational discussions I'll go along with that as I did with the other users but once they start to provoke like Enferme did that is no way to do it. I suggest you to follow the arguing from the beginning, not from the end and to be less acquiescent with provocations.

[l'Enfermé]

Idiot, it wasn't me who said that but the user Workers-control-over-production.

:(



You fucking idiot. What was the main reason why the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks split in the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP??? It was precisely because of the membership issue of the party. While Lenin argued limiting party membership to a smaller core of active members Julius Martov wanted the party to be broad-based open to non-active sympathizers.
According to whom? There is a stenographic report of all 37 sessions of the 2nd Congress, available on the MIA. Here is a link (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/index.htm). Here is a brief outline of the split by Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/feb/00.htm) himself. Please stop spouting this drivel.



Lol. This people don't even know the basics of the Bolshevik history. As I said I am dealing with kids.

I am pretty well-versed on Bolshevik history.





You didn't read WITBD otherwise you wouldn't be saying the bullshit you are saying. WITBD can be viewed as the founding text of Leninism but of course that Leninism isn't limited to WITBD.
I read it in 3 different languages.




You just keep burying yourself. First you said that the idea came from Marx and now the vanguard concept doesn't even exists. NC said that Lenin didn't mean what I said so he must have meant something. But no one of you can answer me.
There's a difference between "vanguard party" and "vanguard". Lenin used the word "vanguard" often, he pretty much never said anything about this infamous "vanguard party".


Go read WITBD and learn more history about the Lenin and the Bolsheviks because you don't know a damn thing as you showed.
:(


The other user started with the provocations and bad language. If people want to have rational discussions I'll go along with that as I did with the other users but once they start to provoke like Enferme did that is no way to do it. I suggest you to follow the arguing from the beginning, not from the end and to be less acquiescent with provocations.
Yup I called you a fucking idiot and a kid. Of course.

Wait, that was you. I treated you with respect and politeness, completely disregarding your belligerent and hostile attitude. If you're gonna troll and flame, go find a different forum for that crap, we don't tolerate it on RevLeft.

[Old Bolshie]

According to whom? There is a stenographic report of all 37 sessions of the 2nd Congress, available on the MIA. Here is a link (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/index.htm). Here is a brief outline of the split by Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/feb/00.htm) himself. Please stop spouting this drivel.

The Iskra was one of the reasons but not the main reason behind the split and once again you show your ignorance in the matter.

I thought it wouldn't be needed to give any reference since this is very basic but I see I'll have to do it:

"Vladimir Lenin carried this a step further in 1902 with What Is To Be Done?, in which he argued for forming a small party of professional revolutionaries from the intelligentsia that would both cultivate the necessary revolutionary consciousness among industrial workers provide leadership in the revolution... In 1903 one group, including Plekhanov, Lenin and lulii Martov, organized the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party...There the organizers split. Lenin demanded a more restrictive party membership, while Martov argued for a broader (but still restricted) one."

Rex A. Wade

The Russian Revolution, 1917.

"The dispute over the first clause of the party statute at the Brussels/London Congress in 1903 is by now common knowledge. It turned on whether it was possible to be a member of the party merely by supporting and working under its control (as the Mensheviks wanted), or whether it was essential for members to take part in illegal activity, to devote themselves wholeheartedly to party work, and to submit to the most rigorous party discipline."

"The Bolshevik concept of party organization involved the selection of a group of single-minded revolutionaries, prepared to make any sacrifice, from the more or less chaotic mass of the class as a whole".

Georg Lukacs

Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thought. 1924.



There's a difference between "vanguard party" and "vanguard". Lenin used the word "vanguard" often, he pretty much never said anything about this infamous "vanguard party".

Well, the vanguard was precisely the party. He talked about it in the WITBD and then materialized it with the split with the Mensheviks.

I was looking out for a Lenin's quote that better shows the association between the party and the vanguard:

"By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie."

V.I.Lenin The State and the revolution.






Yup I called you a fucking idiot and a kid. Of course.

Wait, that was you.

It was this kind of idiocy that you used in first place when quoting Marx that led to the derail of the discussion.


I treated you with respect and politeness, completely disregarding your belligerent and hostile attitude. If you're gonna troll and flame, go find a different forum for that crap, we don't tolerate it on RevLeft.

As I said in the commentary above if you wanna have serious discussions no problem with that but with that kind of idiocy the only thing you can wait is hostility. Those who want respect give respect.