Kronstadt: Trotsky was right!

[Scottish_Militant]

For many years the capitalist press, erudite professors and bourgeois analysts have been going on about the "secrets in the Soviet archives". There was much speculation about the "terrible secrets of the communist regime" that would finally confirm the "evil character" of communism.

After the events that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, historians were finally allowed access to the Soviet archives. So one would expect a flow of terribly indicting facts. However the results for the bourgeois historians have been really disappointing. Of course, they did find a large amount of new evidence that confirms the shocking crimes of Stalinism. But we never had any doubt about this. Trotsky and his followers condemned these crimes long before any archives were opened. Trotsky's supporters in Soviet Russia in the 1920 and 1930s had first hand knowledge of these crimes because they were among the first to suffer the consequences of the Stalinist degeneration. Thousands of them died at the hands of Stalin's henchmen.

What the bourgeois historians were hoping for was a mass of evidence that they could use to show that there was no difference between Stalinism and the healthy regime under Lenin and Trotsky in the first period after the revolution. But they met with real problems in trying to find documents that could be used to discredit the leaders of the Russian Revolution - Lenin and Trotsky. The most difficult documents to get to in the past were those concerning the leaders of the Left Opposition. It is now clear to any historian why this was. The archives show that these leaders played a key role in the 1917 revolution and in establishing the Soviet state....


New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks' position - Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

The Kronstadt demands:


THE PETROPAVLOVSK RESOLUTION (see article "Kronstadt 1921").

"Having heard the report of the representatives sent by the general meeting of ships' crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, with freedom to carry on agitation beforehand for all workers and peasants.

2. To give freedom of speech and press to workers and peasants, to anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. To secure freedom of assembly for trade unions and peasant organisations.

4. To call a non- Party conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and Petrograd province, no later than 10 March 1921.

5. To liberate all political prisoners of socialist parties, as well as workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labour and peasant movements.

6. To elect a commission to review the cases of those being held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all political departments, since no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the state for such purposes. Instead, cultural and educational commissions should be established, locally elected and financed by the State.

8. To remove all road block detachments immediately.

9. To equalise the rations of all working people, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in factories and mills. Should such guard attachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the army from the ranks and in the factories and mills at the discretion of the workers.

11. To give peasants full freedom of action in regard to the land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means, that is, without employing hired labour.

12. To request all branches of the army, as well as our comrades the military cadets, to endorse our resolution.

13. To demand that the press give all our resolutions wide publicity.

14. To appoint an itinerant bureau of control.

15. To permit free handicraft production by ones own labour."

Pertichenko, Chairman of the Squadron Meeting.

Perepelkin, Secretary.

Not really deservant of what happened next.

[Monty Cantsin]

Trotsky and lenin were not real marxist.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Come on, all this depends only on definitions...

I believe that Trotsky and Lenin DID have the interests of the people at heart. They weren't self-publicists, they gave their lives to the revolution... and were betrayed; cruelly too. We all knew Trotsky was right anyhow!

[Monty Cantsin]

i just started writeing an essay about linen and his theroys this is the frist paragraph

Leninist have a fundamental fault when comes to the theory that the party is the vanguard of the people. Because the people within the party when taking the position of a crusader for the proletariat are actually self motivated opportunist. This has been shown with the Bolsheviks Lenin’s own party choosing the dictatorship of the party over democracy of the proletariat, peasants and intellectuals, when they emplaced a ban on factions within the party. This fundamental flaw ended any democracy and led to the totalitarian state that was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the rise of Stalin. So intend to show the role of the party within the popular revolution, this role can be summarised in one phrase;
The party is the apparatus in which the proletariat, peasants and the intellectuals implament their democratic dictatorship over the capitalist class. Thus createing a real workers haven, a sanctuary.

[YKTMX]

Leninist have a fundamental fault when comes to the theory that the party is the vanguard of the people. Because the people within the party when taking the position of a crusader for the proletariat are actually self motivated opportunist

No. The idea of the party as vanguard is not that we should "lead" the class. It is that, in revolutionary circumstances, we can advise and "learn from" the class in order to push the revolution forward. The "vanguard" itself cannot possibly make a revolution. The vanguard is merely a part of the (contradictory) consciousness of the working class, helping to agitate for Marxism at all times in revolutions, strikes, demonstrations etc.



. This has been shown with the Bolsheviks Lenin’s own party choosing the dictatorship of the party over democracy of the proletariat, peasants and intellectuals, when they emplaced a ban on factions within the party. This fundamental flaw ended any democracy and led to the totalitarian state that was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the rise of Stalin

The ban on factions has nothing to do with any flaw in the idelogy of the Leninist party. The decisions (and mistakes for sure) were made during times of extreme pressure. The reaction of the leaders of the Russian Revolution was the EXACT same as the reaction of the leaders of the French Revolution. With defeat and MASS SLAUGHTER of the working class a possibility, they took decision to try and protect the fragile workers state, the ban on factions a good example.

Now, we can all prophesize from our seats in our safe homes about how we would do things diffirently, and how our revolution would be a lovely, democractic one, where the ruling class were allowed to do whatever they want. The Bolsheviks made some mistakes for sure, this has nothing to do with the theory of the party.

[Monty Cantsin]

would you know any sources for "the Vanguard fo the people" ?

[The Feral Underclass]

The idea of the party as vanguard is not that we should "lead" the class. It is that, in revolutionary circumstances, we can advise and "learn from" the class in order to push the revolution forward.

The working class can be advised without the need of a rigid, centralised party. If you are learning from the class what gives you the right to advise them. If the point of this vanguard is not to lead then why is their leadership within the vanguard. What is the point of a central committee if it is not to lead? The entire point of a vangaurd is to lead the workers into revolution. The vangaurd is a group of "professional" revolutionaries who fight for the interestes of the working class. The working class, without any relevant form of consciousness, are supposed to raise up and overthrow the ruling class, and the vanguard has to lead them.

If you claim that the revolution will come from mass consciousness then there is no need for a vangaurd. Either way, the vanguard is wrong. It is either there to lead an unconscious mass of workers which is fundamentally wrong on the basis that any revolution has to be the actions of the working class as a unit fighting for themselves or the workers are conscious and lead themselves which makes the concept of a vanguard pointless.


The "vanguard" itself cannot possibly make a revolution.

The workers must do it.


The vanguard is merely a part of the (contradictory) consciousness of the working class, helping to agitate for Marxism at all times in revolutions, strikes, demonstrations etc.

Is it necessary to have a hierarchical central authority to do this?


The decisions (and mistakes for sure) were made during times of extreme pressure. With defeat and MASS SLAUGHTER of the working class a possibility, they took decision to try and protect the fragile workers state, the ban on factions a good example

Pressure brought on by the fact that the central committee of the "communist" party was attempting to juggle two things at the same time. The perpetration of a state and the liberation of the workers. The two things controdict each other. To have liberation you can not have a state. When the Kronstadt workers revolted and demanded change the bolsheviks made a choice. They chose to perpetrate the state over the demands of the workers. The kronstadt workers had fought along side the bolsheviks to over throw the Tzar. They believed they had made a difference, they believed that workers had control. They believed if they demanded change then change would come, after all, that was the point of the revolution. What happened was a massacre.


Now, we can all prophesize from our seats in our safe homes about how we would do things diffirently, and how our revolution would be a lovely, democractic one, where the ruling class were allowed to do whatever they want.

The way they led the revolution was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Had the revolution be led and organized by the workers and the state dismantled from the beginning with control being handed over directly to federations of workers this would never have happened.

As I said the liberation of the workers and the state conflict. It's either one of the other.


The Bolsheviks made some mistakes for sure, this has nothing to do with the theory of the party.

So fundamental mistakes in my oopinion. The theory of the Leninism has consistantly failed throughout the twentieth century and will continue to fail everytime it is tried. As long as a state exists the working class will not be free.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Gotta love those trot editorialists. They stop at no bounds to keep their rag in the hands of children nationwide. Simply comical.




Leninist have a fundamental fault when comes to the theory that the party is the vanguard of the people. Because the people within the party when taking the position of a crusader for the proletariat are actually self motivated opportunist. This has been shown with the Bolsheviks Lenin’s own party choosing the dictatorship of the party over democracy of the proletariat, peasants and intellectuals, when they emplaced a ban on factions within the party.


Inreresting opinion. Unfortunately there is no substancial fact to support this odd "idea".



This fundamental flaw ended any democracy and led to the totalitarian state that was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the rise of Stalin. So intend to show the role of the party within the popular revolution, this role can be summarised in one phrase;
The party is the apparatus in which the proletariat, peasants and the intellectuals implament their democratic dictatorship over the capitalist class. Thus createing a real workers haven, a sanctuary.



Prove it.




Trotsky and lenin were not real marxist


You won't have much difficulty proving that the Trot had his own ideology that separated himself from marxism, however I would like to see your evidence that supports your idea that comrade Lenin was not a Marxist. Please provide specific examples of how Lenin's works were "different" from those of Marx.

[The Children of the Revolution]

i just started writeing an essay about linen and his theroys this is the frist paragraph


I was about to explode and write an e-rant at this... But "YouKnowTheyMurderedX" summed things up rather nicely:



The ban on factions has nothing to do with any flaw in the idelogy of the Leninist party. The decisions (and mistakes for sure) were made during times of extreme pressure. The reaction of the leaders of the Russian Revolution was the EXACT same as the reaction of the leaders of the French Revolution. With defeat and MASS SLAUGHTER of the working class a possibility, they took decision to try and protect the fragile workers state, the ban on factions a good example.


This is true. The oppressive measures (undoubedly what they were) collectively known as "War Communism" were put in place not out of choice but out of necessity. Tsarist supporters were threatening the Revolution, a Civil War had broken out, the Imperialist West was interfering, the Poles invaded Eastern Russia. there were shortages of just about everything...

The Russian Workers expected a miracle; they expected too much. It was the actions of Stalin - maintaining the harsh police state in calmer circumstances - that created the nightmarish Soviet Russia, not the ideology of Lenin or the Bolsheviks.



The way they led the revolution was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Had the revolution be led and organized by the workers and the state dismantled from the beginning with control being handed over directly to federations of workers this would never have happened.


There would NEVER have been a popular uprising in Russia, 80% of the population were 'conservative' peasants who just wanted some land. The vanguard thoery, advocated by Lenin, was that a revolutionary elite could take power IN THE NAME OF THE PROLETARIAT (a majority of which supported the Bolsheviks, it has been found) and create the conditions needed for the workers to take power. I believe it could have worked, but events conspired to ruin Lenin's noble ideal.

All praise Lenin!

[Monty Cantsin]

what are you guys talking about im no trot. but i do hate what went on in the ussr. like most people do.

[Monty Cantsin]

The Children of the Revolution im not saying that lennin or the others wonted things to turn out the way they did becuase im pretty sure none wanted to be killed of by stalin but there system allowed it to happen.

[The Feral Underclass]

There would NEVER have been a popular uprising in Russia,

Unrest was ripe. The Bolsheviks did not bring about a revolution, they simply took control of it. The revolution would have happened regardless of whether Lenin and his vanguard had insisted control. The country was a powder ceg of unrest. The war had seen to that. Soldiers were deserting in their thousands. By 1916 food was short fuel prices were high and strikes broke out across the country. Lenin wasnt even in Russia at this time. It was the workers on the War Industries committees who began opposition to the war and the lack of supplies. Maybe the revolution wouldnt have been marxist, but thre would have been one nonetheless.

Stop trying to build Lenin up as this instigater and mystical being that created the situation in Russia. It was a historical inevitablity that the russians revolted against the Tzar. It was simply a matter of time and lenin was in the right.


80% of the population were 'conservative' peasants who just wanted some land.

But the revolution, or coup, didnt happen in the countryside, it happened in the main cities. Lenin lead his coup in St Petersburg and established the Soviets using soldiers who had deserted the front line or taken control of their barracks.


The vanguard thoery, advocated by Lenin, was that a revolutionary elite could take power IN THE NAME OF THE PROLETARIAT

Why couldnt the proletariat take power in their own name? Even the word elite completely contradicts the entire point of a workers revolution. Workers liberation can not come from one ruling elite being replaced by another. Had the anarchists been quick and big enough this vangaurd may never have happened.


(a majority of which supported the Bolsheviks, it has been found)

80% of the peasents were conservatives?!?! Those who supported the bolsheviks were a measly working class and soldiers who had just been fighting a war and probably saw a new opportunity.


and create the conditions needed for the workers to take power.

Those conditions could never have been created. The state exists as a tool to maintain the power of a ruling class. You can not perpetrate a state while handing over power to the working class. Which they clearly were not doing, hence this thread. You can not call for workers liberation while oppressing them, you can not advocate freedoms while suppressing them at the same time. Leninism is flawed because of this. Leninism seeks to perpetrate the very thing that creates oppression and exploitation. Lenin kept batteling away, believeing the state would lead to the workers (all 3 million of them) emancipation, while centralising more and more power into its hands, you can not do that and expect to liberate anyone. In order for him to keep the state (which he naivly believed would lead to workers liberation) he had to take drastic measures. He had to keep building layers, adding problem to problem. The workers revolted so he created a communist gaurd to keep them submissive, the workers made demands so he created the Cheka. Layer after layer they built ontop of this state so they could maintain it, all the while professing to be liberating the working class. Do you not see an inherent contradiction in the entire theory. It dosnt work, it can not work and in fact never has. It has either opened up to tyrants, resorted back to captialism or been rencounced all together. Or all three in the case of Russia, the very country this theory was first attempted.

Trotskey even publicly condemned those who "put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy." The bolshevik leadership made no attempt to hide their blatant disregard for workers rights. This is what Leninism is, this is why it has failed. Give it up!


but events conspired to ruin Lenin's noble ideal.

There is nothing noble about wanting power.

[The Children of the Revolution]

The revolution would have happened regardless of whether Lenin and his vanguard had insisted control. The country was a powder ceg of unrest.


I agree. A revolution of sorts would have taken place - my best guess is that the bourgeois phase would have begun; "democracy" and capitalism would have taken hold, the workers would remain slaves to international capital. As I mentioned, 80% of the population were peasants. They would have voted (and indeed did, in the elections held by Lenin) for a party which would remain largely conservative - obviously this was not in the interests of the workers.

Incidentally, I believe the term is "powder keg".



But the revolution, or coup, didnt happen in the countryside, it happened in the main cities. Lenin lead his coup in St Petersburg and established the Soviets using soldiers who had deserted the front line or taken control of their barracks.


What would the workers have done for food? The countryside was of VITAL importance at this time! The Soviets were set up before the October Revolution.



Why couldnt the proletariat take power in their own name? Even the word elite completely contradicts the entire point of a workers revolution. Workers liberation can not come from one ruling elite being replaced by another. Had the anarchists been quick and big enough this vangaurd may never have happened.

80% of the peasents were conservatives?!?! Those who supported the bolsheviks were a measly working class and soldiers who had just been fighting a war and probably saw a new opportunity.


The Proletariat were too small in number to take power for themselves - this was why the Bolshevik movement was formed. A majority of the Proletariat DID support Lenin - but a majority of Russians did not. You misunderstood me, comrade. And please tell me how the anarchists would have fought off the Tsarist "white" armies, avoided mass-starvation, acted against counter-revolution and sabotage and resisted the peasants clamouring for land?



You can not call for workers liberation while oppressing them, you can not advocate freedoms while suppressing them at the same time. Leninism is flawed because of this.


What would you have done in Lenin's place? Surrendered to the Tsar? He had no option but to impose the harsh measures that he did! As you mention, Lenin envisaged the state "withering away" - this may well have happened but history did not allow it. And as for your claim that Vanguardism has never worked... Has Communism? There has never been a truly Communist state - we are kept waiting!



The Children of the Revolution im not saying that lennin or the others wonted things to turn out the way they did becuase im pretty sure none wanted to be killed of by stalin but there system allowed it to happen.


It wasn't their system, it was a system that no-one WANTED, but that they were FORCED to impose!

<apologises for mammoth post>

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s not really "my field" but...

What was the point of the alleged "fund transfers" in France that people are always bringing up to "prove" that Kronstadt was a "white rebellion"? What exactly could a bunch of people on an ice-bound island fortress actually do with the money in a bank more than a thousand miles away? (They didn&#39;t have electronic funds transfer in those days, you know.)

Even if "by magic" the money was actually in the hands of the Kronstadt Soviet, what could they do with it? Who was accepting French currency in Russia? And as for buying Russian currency, no one wanted that either...it was toilet paper in 1921--utterly worthless.

The assertion that two leading ex-Czarist commanders were "in charge" of the defense of Kronstadt sounds pretty damning...until you recall that Trotsky&#39;s "Red Army" was rotten with ex-Czarist officers, many of whom were personally installed by Trotsky himself. (In the 1930s, some of them were actually involved in a counter-revolutionary plot against Stalin&#33;)

Then we have the argument that the Kronstadt sailors were "petty-bourgeois" and, even "worse", Ukrainians. The first charge is obviously false--successful small peasants do not volunteer to serve in anyone&#39;s military forces--the best you can argue is that they were peasants driven off the land by the chaos of civil war in the Ukraine (which changed hands repeatedly). The second is obviously the product of ethnic prejudice...all "great Russians" were (probably still are) taught that the "little Russians" (Ukrainians) are "lesser folk".

Practically everyone in the Russian Empire was either a peasant, a first-generation worker (a peasant who moved to a city and got a job) or, in a very few cases, a 2nd generation worker.

The attempt by Trotsky to create a theory of "non-working-class" origins of Kronstadt is absurd.

I will not comment on the "reports" that soldiers on both sides were less than eager for a fight except to note that the myth that "soldiers are eager to sacrifice their lives for the cause" goes all the way back to ancient despotism...and has almost never been validated. I&#39;m quite sure there were many reluctant combatants on both sides, without regard to their political views.

While Kronstadt gets the "spotlight", much more rarely is mention made of the tremendous amount of working class discontent in Petrograd both before and after Kronstadt...so much that party boss Zinoviev issued orders that mass meetings and leaflet distributions were banned.

The stifling of the working class in "the cradle of the revolution" itself reveals the faults of Lenin far more than Kronstadt--as does his position on the workers&#39; opposition at the 10th Party Congress.

They show that there was absolutely no intention of granting the Russian working class any voice in the "Soviet" state. Trotsky and Stalin, needless to say, agreed enthusiastically with Lenin&#39;s position.

We don&#39;t need "the archives" for that...it&#39;s been public knowledge since the 1920s.

And, finally, a word about "archives". What we generally hear is what some guy said that he found. It may not have been true in the first place--bureaucrats sometimes lie to their superiors. He may have misunderstood what he read--not everyone who says he can read Russian fluently is telling the truth. Or he may just be making it up to sell books...who is in a position to verify it? And even if he&#39;s ultimately exposed as a fraud...he can laugh all the way to the bank.

I don&#39;t suggest that people should ignore such books...but they should not be treated as "gospel" or "finally the real truth revealed" or any of that hype. Read them as you would read any other history...with a skeptical eye.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

The assertion that two leading ex-Czarist commanders were "in charge" of the defense of Kronstadt sounds pretty damning...until you recall that Trotsky&#39;s "Red Army" was rotten with ex-Czarist officers, many of whom were personally installed by Trotsky himself.


Again, I point to the fact that he [Trotsky] had little real choice. A people&#39;s army HAD been set up, but was disbanded and replaced with the old heirarchical structure - because discipline and obedience was CRUCIAL at this incredibly tense time. Civil War and a Polish invasion necessitated the appointment of old Tsarist Generals - with valuable experience, and held in check by political commissars.



The second is obviously the product of ethnic prejudice...all "great Russians" were (probably still are) taught that the "little Russians" (Ukrainians) are "lesser folk".


Unlikely&#33; Don&#39;t forget that Stalin himself was Georgian&#33;&#33; The USSR made a great effort to reverse the prejudice introduced BY THE TSARISTS&#33;



... party boss Zinoviev issued orders that mass meetings and leaflet distributions were banned.

The stifling of the working class in "the cradle of the revolution" itself reveals the faults of Lenin far more than Kronstadt--as does his position on the workers&#39; opposition at the 10th Party Congress.

They show that there was absolutely no intention of granting the Russian working class any voice in the "Soviet" state. Trotsky and Stalin, needless to say, agreed enthusiastically with Lenin&#39;s position.


Again, Lenin had little choice. He did indeed stifle workers demands and certain freedoms - but the alternative was a return to Tsarism. The "White" armies were FAR superior in terms of numbers and equipment; sacrifices HAD to be made in the name of the Revolution. This sounds silly, I know - but is undoubtedly true.



Read them as you would read any other history...with a skeptical eye.


Yes... but not TOO skeptical, comrade&#33;

[Mike Fakelastname]

I can&#39;t be bothered to read anything beyond Anarchist Tension&#39;s post, but I want to comment on his anti-vanguard theory of how the proletariat could&#39;ve just taken power for themselves without the need of a vanguard.

What you&#39;re saying is this: The proletariat could have continued with their revolution and steered Russia towards "communism" by themselves.

Let&#39;s take the anti-Leninist view and assume that that is even possible for a minute: Who is the proletariat? The proletariat is the working class or lower, correct? Well, who can represent the proletariat? According to you, no one&#33;

You want the entire proletariat class, in unison mind you, to control the revolution themselves, unorganized, and have it come out successful? If so, please explain how that would work, and how that could have worked in Russia. Wait&#33; don&#39;t, because I already know exactly what you&#39;re going to say&#33; That the proletariat would organize themselves, no distinctions would be made in the entire class, and that they would&#39;ve carried out the revolution exactly like that.

But isn&#39;t it natural for someone to assume the leadership status of the "party"? Is it not natural to have a teacher in a classroom, a speaker at a conference, that one arrogant friend in your clique that assumes the leadership status? Even if that&#39;s "unnatural" to you, what&#39;s stopping someone from doing exactly that?

Now let&#39;s take the Leninist perspective: Wouldn&#39;t a revolution work better if the proletariat had someone to organize them? A little direction maybe? That is all Leninism is, the organization of the proletarian revolution.

[redstar2000]

Again, I point to the fact that he [Trotsky] had little real choice. A people&#39;s army HAD been set up, but was disbanded and replaced with the old hierarchical structure - because discipline and obedience were CRUCIAL at this incredibly tense time. Civil War and a Polish invasion necessitated the appointment of old Tsarist Generals - with valuable experience, and held in check by political commissars.

You are making assertions...not offering evidence.

Who can say that the original red army--with officers democratically elected from the ranks and subject to recall--would "not" have been able to defeat the whites and their imperialist allies?

Military "expertise", when you get right down to it, is a rather "common sense" sort of knowledge. It&#39;s much simpler than chess, for example...a game that many hundreds of millions of people have learned to play.

In addition, you might want to consider imperial Russian "military doctrine"...traditionally, the Czarist military commanders relied upon numerical superiority to "win battles"...even if you lost catastrophically, there were always plenty of additional peasants you could draft. (This was a tradition continued, in a somewhat attenuated form, in the USSR.)

The real (democratic) red army might have won the civil war with far fewer casualties.


Unlikely&#33; Don&#39;t forget that Stalin himself was Georgian&#33;&#33; The USSR made a great effort to reverse the prejudice introduced BY THE TSARISTS&#33;

And Khrushchev was Ukrainian. So what?

We&#39;re talking about 1921 here...not what would happen decades later.

And Stalin, by the way, was a "Russo-phile"...that is, one who had assimilated into Russian culture and, like many successful immigrants "became more Russian than the Russians". (We have some examples of this in Opposing Ideologies, by the way: recent immigrants to the United States who are "super-patriots" in their sentiments.)


Again, Lenin had little choice. He did indeed stifle workers demands and certain freedoms - but the alternative was a return to Tsarism.

So Lenin asserted and so you echo...but where is the evidence? By 1921 the civil war was essentially over. In fact, one of the concerns that Lenin addresses in his speeches to the 10th Party Congress is "what to do" about these huge numbers of demobilized red army soldiers.

Also, the Czar and his family were dead by 1921...there was no question of a "return to Czarism" no matter what happened.

Finally, the "logic" of your argument is...well, awful. If, in order to get what you want, you are "required" to give up what you want, what&#39;s the point?

If I am told that to "save myself from Czarism" I must acknowledge Lenin as "the new Czar"...what have I gained?

A "better" Czar?


The "White" armies were FAR superior in terms of numbers and equipment; sacrifices HAD to be made in the name of the Revolution. This sounds silly, I know - but is undoubtedly true.

The reason it "sounds silly" is because it is. By 1921, it was "all over" but the mopping up.

And even at the height of the civil war, it&#39;s highly questionable whether the red army was actually outnumbered by the whites--most of the white troops were conscripted peasants from the areas they controlled...who promptly deserted at the first opportunity. On the other hand, the red army could always count on an influx of volunteers wherever they went...the peasants may have been "nervous" about the Bolsheviks, but they knew damn well that a victory by the whites would mean a return to serfdom.


You want the entire proletariat class, in unison mind you, to control the revolution themselves, unorganized, and have it come out successful?

No, the point is that the working class organizes itself to make and defend the revolution. It delegates responsibilities to individual workers--you may call them "leaders" if you wish--but it retains control of policy in its own hands.

"Leaders" are genuine representatives...not self-appointed dictators.


But isn&#39;t it natural for someone to assume the leadership status of the "party"? Is it not natural to have a teacher in a classroom, a speaker at a conference, that one arrogant friend in your clique that assumes the leadership status? Even if that&#39;s "unnatural" to you, what&#39;s stopping someone from doing exactly that?

Anyone can stand up and say "let&#39;s do this and avoid doing that." It&#39;s "perfectly natural" and there&#39;s not a thing wrong with it.

It&#39;s when they get up in front of people and say "you will do this...or these goons that I brought along with me will really hurt you very badly"...that&#39;s when it becomes utter hypocrisy to start blathering about "proletarian" revolution and a "workers&#39; state".


Now let&#39;s take the Leninist perspective: Wouldn&#39;t a revolution work better if the proletariat had someone to organize them? A little direction maybe? That is all Leninism is, the organization of the proletarian revolution.

Gee, how modest. How harmless-sounding. Who could possibly object to such a "reasonable" proposition?

Me&#33;

First of all, of course, Leninist revolutions haven&#39;t "worked better"...or at all. That&#39;s history.

But more importantly, the "direction" of a real revolution is influenced by millions of "weak causes"...it resembles a hurricane much more than it does a military campaign.

The small and tightly-disciplined party that the Leninist paradigm proposes is quite suitable for planning and carrying out a coup...which is what the October Revolution really was.

But the influence of Lenin&#39;s party (and all other organized political tendencies) was trivial in the real revolution of February 1917...when millions rose up and utterly smashed the Czarist autocracy in days.

For all the "Marxist" pretensions, I don&#39;t think either Lenin or the Leninists have ever really grasped the nature of revolution. They think of it as something that can be "prepared" and "carried out"...like a pizza.

It&#39;s really not like that...at all.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Mike Fakelastname]

No, the point is that the working class organizes itself to make and defend the revolution. It delegates responsibilities to individual workers--you may call them "leaders" if you wish--but it retains control of policy in its own hands.

"Leaders" are genuine representatives...not self-appointed dictators.


Alright, I can agree with that.


Anyone can stand up and say "let&#39;s do this and avoid doing that." It&#39;s "perfectly natural" and there&#39;s not a thing wrong with it.

It&#39;s when they get up in front of people and say "you will do this...or these goons that I brought along with me will really hurt you very badly"...that&#39;s when it becomes utter hypocrisy to start blathering about "proletarian" revolution and a "workers&#39; state".


Well that&#39;s where Lenin&#39;s good leadership skills ended. He saw an opportunity for a successful revolution leading to socialism and took that opportunity. But you have to remember that all of those "goons" were in fact members of the proletariat class.

In Lenin&#39;s mind, he thought that the masses were incapable of leading a successful revolution and needed authoritarian leadership to guide the revolution to socialism. Stalinism is the belief that people need authoritarian leadership after the revolution, don&#39;t forget that.


Gee, how modest. How harmless-sounding. Who could possibly object to such a "reasonable" proposition?

Me&#33;

First of all, of course, Leninist revolutions haven&#39;t "worked better"...or at all. That&#39;s history.

But more importantly, the "direction" of a real revolution is influenced by millions of "weak causes"...it resembles a hurricane much more than it does a military campaign.

The small and tightly-disciplined party that the Leninist paradigm proposes is quite suitable for planning and carrying out a coup...which is what the October Revolution really was.

But the influence of Lenin&#39;s party (and all other organized political tendencies) was trivial in the real revolution of February 1917...when millions rose up and utterly smashed the Czarist autocracy in days.

For all the "Marxist" pretensions, I don&#39;t think either Lenin or the Leninists have ever really grasped the nature of revolution. They think of it as something that can be "prepared" and "carried out"...like a pizza.

It&#39;s really not like that...at all.

Of course the revolution didn&#39;t need Lenin&#39;s leadership and would have happened anyway. But do you think it would have been successful? Or would someone just like Stalin or worse just waltz on in and claim leadership of Russia? How could the masses protect themselves against that without a central leader?

To sum it up, as I&#39;ve said before in numerous other threads: I am not a real "hardcore" Leninist, I am just a Leninist sympothizer. Indeed you are right that Leninist revolutions have not been extremely successful in the end.

But let me ask you this: Has there ever been a completely non Leninist revolution? Or in any communist country, have they ever been ruled in a non Leninist fashion? I believe in a central organizational party for the revolution, which is something that non Leninism lacks.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Who can say that the original red army--with officers democratically elected from the ranks and subject to recall--would "not" have been able to defeat the whites and their imperialist allies?


No-one can say for certain, this is true. However, I can make a judgement based upon my knowledge and a great degree of common sense. Modern armies are heirarchical because this is what has been proved to be successful in combat - look at the Romans, for example. They revolutionised Warfare by introducing discipline, drill and strict heirarchical command structures - and their Empire remains one of the greatest ever seen. I do not like armies, I am a pacifist. But Trotsky KNEW (he was a clever chap too) that it was NECESSARY to revert to the old-style command structure. IT MADE SENSE.



Military "expertise", when you get right down to it, is a rather "common sense" sort of knowledge. It&#39;s much simpler than chess, for example...a game that many hundreds of millions of people have learned to play.


Possibly... But a lot has to do with EXPERIENCE as well. I myself love playing chess; fancy a game sometime?



The real (democratic) red army might have won the civil war with far fewer casualties.


Hah&#33;&#33; A "democratic" army would never have fought any battles&#33;&#33;&#33; They would soon be surrounded, outflanked and massacred. And again, you say "might". THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, only interpretation. I insist that my interpretation MAKES MORE SENSE&#33;&#33;&#33;



We&#39;re talking about 1921 here...not what would happen decades later.


Stalin, as I&#39;m sure you are aware, was made Commissar for Nationalities very soon after the Revolution and made an imediate effort to stamp out prejudice and discrimination&#33; It was one of his few successes...



So Lenin asserted and so you echo...but where is the evidence? By 1921 the civil war was essentially over. In fact, one of the concerns that Lenin addresses in his speeches to the 10th Party Congress is "what to do" about these huge numbers of demobilized red army soldiers.


The Civil War was over militarily, perhaps... but there remained counter-revolutionary elements in the cities and villages. Russia is an enormous country, more of a continent to be honest - no-one could govern a state like this in the aftermath of a revolution&#33; The new "workers state", if not "looked after" by Lenin and co. would have disintegrated; the cities would have starved; Western Imperialist intervention might have created another Civil War... Lenin&#39;s aim was to create stability from which a workers state could be established.



Finally, the "logic" of your argument is...well, awful. If, in order to get what you want, you are "required" to give up what you want, what&#39;s the point?


I disagree completely. Workers under the Tsar had no chance of freedom, this being the whole point of an autocracy. Whereas under Lenin, although freedoms were initially restricted, there was a true vision ahead. They had hope.



On the other hand, the red army could always count on an influx of volunteers wherever they went...the peasants may have been "nervous" about the Bolsheviks, but they knew damn well that a victory by the whites would mean a return to serfdom.


This is true to some extent... But the grain requisitioning policy enforced by Lenin won him few friends in the countryside. He could not rely on an influx of "volunteers"; conscripts had to be coerced. Which is why a democratic army wouldn&#39;t have worked.



First of all, of course, Leninist revolutions haven&#39;t "worked better"...or at all. That&#39;s history.


Neither, for your information, has a purely Marxist state. "Vanguardism" has at least created the pretext for a Revolution. In most cases concerned it was the pressure of the Imperialist West that destroyed or perverted the Revolution, not the theory itself.



The small and tightly-disciplined party that the Leninist paradigm proposes is quite suitable for planning and carrying out a coup...which is what the October Revolution really was.

But the influence of Lenin&#39;s party (and all other organized political tendencies) was trivial in the real revolution of February 1917...when millions rose up and utterly smashed the Czarist autocracy in days.

For all the "Marxist" pretensions, I don&#39;t think either Lenin or the Leninists have ever really grasped the nature of revolution. They think of it as something that can be "prepared" and "carried out"...like a pizza.

It&#39;s really not like that...at all.


Heh, that&#39;s novel. Smashing the Tsarist autocracy in days? Then why was there a bloody Civil War lasting years? If you want my opinion - and even if you don&#39;t - Leninists grasp the nature of a revolution more than most. Lenin realised that there wouldn&#39;t be a popular uprising leading to a Proletarian revolution, he never denied this. The uprising of February 1917 was, as you say, directed at the Tsar - and not in favour of any other cause.

But Lenin and co. also thought that the Bourgeois phase of History, characterised by mass-exploitation and suffering, could be eliminated by "inducing" a second revolution. This he did. No, it wasn&#39;t a "popular" revolution; yes, a "dictatorship" (of the proletariat) was set up... But it was, nevertheless, a revolution - the bourgeois parliamentarians never got a look in. Lenin adapted Marx&#39;s theory for the conditions in Russia at the time. If everything had gone to plan, we would all be singing his praises now, rather than just me.

Long Live Lenin&#33;&#33;&#33;

<apologies for the long post by the way, and it&#39;s incoherence. i haven&#39;t slept properly in weeks...>

[Mike Fakelastname]

Lenin adapted Marx&#39;s theory for the conditions in Russia at the time. If everything had gone to plan, we would all be singing his praises now, rather than just me.

That sums up exactly what I was trying to say. He improvied Marxism to fit into Russia, and did so very well in my opinion.

[Vladimir I. Kropotkin]

whether or not the bolsheviks were right or wrong in seizing their opportunity, do any of the lenininsts here believe that the USSR would have grown or developed into a genuine socialist state? and then transistioned into a communist society? Perhaps Lenins adaptation of marxism was suitable in Russia, of course it had to be since Marx had argued for advanced capitalist-nation revolution. Why do you leninists think Marx made this case? and not the case for proletarian revolution in any society? or at least predictions that revolution should or might occur in said societies.

[redstar2000]

But you have to remember that all of those "goons" were in fact members of the proletariat class.

No, they were probably mostly peasants, actually...nearly everyone in Russia was either a peasant or an immediate descendant of peasants.

And it&#39;s perfectly possible to be a "working-class goon"...every group from the Mafia to the Nazis has had them. Indeed, what are the police besides "working-class goons"?

Your class origins are not "iron determinents"...just a very strong influence. Nor can you do something reactionary and then claim "working-class origins" as a "free pass" or "all-purpose excuse".


In Lenin&#39;s mind, he thought that the masses were incapable of leading a successful revolution and needed authoritarian leadership to guide the revolution to socialism. Stalinism is the belief that people need authoritarian leadership after the revolution, don&#39;t forget that.

Well, we&#39;re talking here about March of 1921...that&#39;s three years and five months after October 1917 and 4 years after February 1917.

I know some folks just "love" to blame all the shit on Stalin...but it won&#39;t fly. Both Trotsky and Stalin carried out "Lenin&#39;s line" on post-revolutionary society as best they understood it.

Neither ever showed the slightest interest in giving the working class any say about anything.

Again, that&#39;s history.


But do you think it would have been successful? Or would someone just like Stalin or worse just waltz on in and claim leadership of Russia? How could the masses protect themselves against that without a central leader?

You contradict yourself within two sentences.

You&#39;re essentially saying that the Russian working class "needed" a "Stalin" to "protect themselves" from the possibility of "a Stalin or worse". (&#33;&#33;&#33;)

Not to mention the "small detail" of your superstitious intoxication with "central leaders"...as if "by magic" they can "protect" anybody from anything. You might just as well "trust in God"...it has the same meaning and the same consequences.


But let me ask you this: Has there ever been a completely non-Leninist revolution?

It&#39;s a matter of record that the Cuban 26th of July Movement was not a Leninist party...though I understand that some Leninists argue that it functioned "as if" it were a Leninist party.

The great uprisings of the 20th century--Petrograd, Barcelona, and Paris--did not involve Leninist parties to any significant degree at all.


Or in any communist country, have they ever been ruled in a non-Leninist fashion?

Not a one, in my view. The Leninists squabble with each other on this issue--saying, for example, that "Stalin was not a real Leninist" or "Mao was not a real Leninist" or "Tito was not a real Leninist", etc. Frankly, I regard those as theological disputes.

The key, of course, is that all of those countries (except Cuba)--"real" Leninist or not--ended up restoring capitalism, (Cuba, as we know, is on "the knife&#39;s edge".)

So we have a situation where people acquiesced to a "socialist" dictatorship to "save them" from a capitalist dictatorship...and got the capitalist dictatorship anyway&#33;

Does that make any kind of sense to you?


I believe in a central organizational party for the revolution, which is something that non-Leninism lacks.

"Beliefs" are irrelevant.


However, I can make a judgment based upon my knowledge and a great degree of common sense. Modern armies are hierarchical because this is what has been proved to be successful in combat - look at the Romans, for example. They revolutionised warfare by introducing discipline, drill and strict hierarchical command structures - and their Empire remains one of the greatest ever seen.

Yes, and in the end the "undisciplined barbarians" smashed the Roman armies and ruined their empire.

However, there&#39;s a sense in which your observation is accurate. IF your goal is to "conquer an empire", THEN the modern hierarchal army is "the right tool for the job".

On the other hand, IF your goal is defense of a revolution against an invader until he "gives up" and "goes home", then partisan warfare is the "way to go".

Small groups of lightly-armed fighters, operating semi-autonomously, striking at "targets of opportunity", etc. make life intolerable for the hierarchal occupation army.

As long as there is real popular support for the guerrillas, there is nothing that the invaders can do. Their massive concentrations of troops spend most of their time huddled in their bunkers.

And there&#39;s no particular reason why the partisan units can&#39;t coalesce into a "regular army" when resistance peaks and the invader is reeling under constant attacks; there may be more "discipline" required...but that doesn&#39;t mean that the ranks cannot still elect and recall their officers.

As well as win&#33;


Hah&#33;&#33; A "democratic" army would never have fought any battles&#33;&#33;&#33; They would soon be surrounded, outflanked and massacred. And again, you say "might". THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, only interpretation. I insist that my interpretation MAKES MORE SENSE&#33;&#33;&#33;

Well, I&#39;m not a "military historian". But I&#39;ve read that there were two "major battles" in the defense of Madrid (one to the north and one to the south) fought during the Spanish Civil War that resulted in rare victories for the Republic.

The northern battle was led by bourgeois officers and Communist Party advisors.

The southern battle was led by anarchists and elected officers.

And Franco&#39;s forces (including Italian troops) were beaten both times.

There&#39;s some evidence for you.


Stalin, as I&#39;m sure you are aware, was made Commissar for Nationalities very soon after the Revolution and made an immediate effort to stamp out prejudice and discrimination&#33;

Actually, I think he spent a great deal of the period 1918-1921 on the front--though he never received the publicity that Trotsky did.

But that hardly matters. In 1921, to characterize the Kronstadt rebellion as "Ukrainian" was at least the equivalent of saying "backward countrified shitkickers" if not worse. In "great Russia", everyone "knew" that Ukrainians were "a bunch of hicks".


The Civil War was over militarily, perhaps... but there remained counter-revolutionary elements in the cities and villages. Russia is an enormous country, more of a continent to be honest - no-one could govern a state like this in the aftermath of a revolution&#33; The new "workers state", if not "looked after" by Lenin and co. would have disintegrated; the cities would have starved; Western Imperialist intervention might have created another Civil War... Lenin&#39;s aim was to create stability from which a workers state could be established.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...not to mention the possibility of "invasion by Martians".

Yes, this "could have happened" or that "could have happened". "Great Leaders" are always warning us of "impending disaster" that only they can save us from. Consult the recent speeches of George W. Bush.

With regard to Russia in 1921, I think it&#39;s pretty much entirely bullshit.

There was no aristocracy left alive in Russia (except for those ex-Czarist officers). There was zero popular support in the imperialist countries for a fresh military effort in Russia. Lenin&#39;s New Economic Policy--a frank restoration of open capitalism--removed the primary cause of peasant disaffection.

If Lenin had genuinely wished for real proletarian democracy, he had the opportunity to re-introduce it.

He could have supported the program of the workers&#39; opposition.

As you know, that ain&#39;t how it happened.


I disagree completely. Workers under the Tsar had no chance of freedom, this being the whole point of an autocracy. Whereas under Lenin, although freedoms were initially restricted, there was a true vision ahead. They had hope.

"Hope" is another one of those things that is widely over-rated. The Germans under Hitler had "hope".

Anyway, as things turned out, Russian workers under Lenin and his successors never were liberated...to this day&#33;

It was all for nothing.


He could not rely on an influx of "volunteers"; conscripts had to be coerced. Which is why a democratic army wouldn&#39;t have worked.

Actually, I suspect that a conscript army might actually be slightly more effective if run democratically than otherwise. If you find out after you&#39;ve been conscripted that at least you get the chance to remove abusive or incompetent officers, you might be more inclined to "stick around".

As it is, to the degree that the red army conscripted peasants, I&#39;m sure that the bulk of them deserted at the first opportunity.

Nearly always, it&#39;s the only rational thing to do.


"Vanguardism" has at least created the pretext for a Revolution. In most cases concerned it was the pressure of the Imperialist West that destroyed or perverted the Revolution, not the theory itself.

Here&#39;s that strange new theory again...Leninism didn&#39;t fail because of internal flaws, it was "pressure from the imperialists" that defeated it.

Which raises an interesting question: if imperialism can consistently defeat Leninism "on its home field"...then what good is Leninism?

What good is a theory that despite its initial victories in two huge, rich nations could not resist internal corruption?

A "revolutionary" theory that cannot stand up to imperialism is about as useful as a rubber crutch.

Who needs that?


Then why was there a bloody Civil War lasting years?

I thought I answered this in another post. But it bears repeating. Although the imperialists did not send all that many troops to Russia, they did supply the whites with enormous amounts of military supplies and other materials of war (uniforms, tents, food, medical supplies, etc.).

Without that support, the "civil war" would have been over in a month or two. In the areas that were temporarily controlled by the whites, they rapidly alienated the local populations...not to mention that every peasant knew that a white victory would mean the return of the hated aristocracy. In the end, the white armies were not so much militarily defeated as they simply melted away into the countryside.

As to "bloodiness", by the way, I believe that it&#39;s the "scholarly consensus" that the vast majority of deaths in the Russian civil war were due to disease and malnutrition...not as a result of battles or atrocities.


But Lenin and co. also thought that the Bourgeois phase of History, characterised by mass-exploitation and suffering, could be eliminated by "inducing" a second revolution. This he did.

Well, he was wrong about that, wasn&#39;t he? The bourgeois phase of history took place anyway and is still taking place in Russia.

And Marx was right, wasn&#39;t he? You really can&#39;t skip epochs of production, can you?

Material conditions prevail, don&#39;t they?


Lenin adapted Marx&#39;s theory for the conditions in Russia at the time. If everything had gone to plan, we would all be singing his praises now, rather than just me.

Long Live Lenin&#33;&#33;&#33;

No, he abandoned Marx&#39;s theory...and it landed him in the shit.

Of course, he had a good excuse: "it seemed like a good idea at the time".

His contemporary worshipers, like yourself, can&#39;t say that.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

<Sigh>
Here we go again...



Yes, and in the end the "undisciplined barbarians" smashed the Roman armies and ruined their empire.


After how many centuries?? Besides, the fall of Rome was not by any means exclusively militarily based.



On the other hand, IF your goal is defense of a revolution against an invader until he "gives up" and "goes home", then partisan warfare is the "way to go".

Small groups of lightly-armed fighters, operating semi-autonomously, striking at "targets of opportunity", etc. make life intolerable for the hierarchal occupation army.

As long as there is real popular support for the guerrillas, there is nothing that the invaders can do. Their massive concentrations of troops spend most of their time huddled in their bunkers.


Defence of a Revolution? UNTIL THE "INVADERS" GO HOME??? You&#39;re mad&#33; Where do you think "home" was? Russia&#33; It was a CIVIL WAR&#33;&#33;&#33; And it was the Bolsheviks that held the positions of power, thus giving them "occupation army" status&#33; AND the Bolsheviks DIDN&#39;T have mass support&#33; Be sensible...



If Lenin had genuinely wished for real proletarian democracy, he had the opportunity to re-introduce it.


Again, this would not have given the Proletariat "freedom". A bourgeois democracy would have kept them oppressed; Lenin wanted to avoid this&#33;



Actually, I suspect that a conscript army might actually be slightly more effective if run democratically than otherwise. If you find out after you&#39;ve been conscripted that at least you get the chance to remove abusive or incompetent officers, you might be more inclined to "stick around".

As it is, to the degree that the red army conscripted peasants, I&#39;m sure that the bulk of them deserted at the first opportunity.


No way&#33; This is absurd - if you are an honest God-fearing peasant and you find yourself conscripted, where is the motivation to fight? It certainly isn&#39;t in the "nobility" of the cause - which serves the town folk&#33; A democratic army would have run away&#33; The spineless cowards... :lol:



Which raises an interesting question: if imperialism can consistently defeat Leninism "on its home field"...then what good is Leninism?


How about this theory: if capitalism and imperialism CAN PREVENT A MARXIST REVOLUTION FROM EVER HAPPENING, what good is Marxism? Of course, Marx argues that Revolution was inevitable... But 150 years on and we&#39;re still waiting. Just because Vanguardism has failed before, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s doomed in the future&#33; To return to the Roman example, there were several Barbarian uprisings, all of which failed, before the successful one&#33; And to use your wonderful analogy, there has not yet been a martian invasion SO THERE NEVER WILL BE&#33;&#33;&#33; Nonsense...



In the end, the white armies were not so much militarily defeated as they simply melted away into the countryside.


You claim this... And maintain that after the Civil War "ended", there were no internal threats to the survival of the Revolution???



As to "bloodiness", by the way, I believe that it&#39;s the "scholarly consensus" that the vast majority of deaths in the Russian civil war were due to disease and malnutrition...not as a result of battles or atrocities.


Maybe... But there were so many deaths in the Civil War period that several hundreds of thosands (a minority, of course...) could still have died from "atrocities" - any Civil War is a bloody affair. (UK, America, Spain, France etc. etc.)



Well, he was wrong about that, wasn&#39;t he? The bourgeois phase of history took place anyway and is still taking place in Russia.


No, his legacy and his vision was betrayed. This sounds like a glorification of the life of Lenin - but in reality it was not the theory that was flawed. "External Circumstances" were to blame, and the influence of Stalin.

[redstar2000]

<Sigh> yourself.


Defence of a Revolution? UNTIL THE "INVADERS" GO HOME??? You&#39;re mad&#33; Where do you think "home" was? Russia&#33; It was a CIVIL WAR&#33;&#33;&#33; And it was the Bolsheviks that held the positions of power, thus giving them "occupation army" status&#33; AND the Bolsheviks DIDN&#39;T have mass support&#33; Be sensible...

You&#39;ve become totally incoherent.

In those parts of Russia that were initially occupied by the whites and their imperialist supporters, they were the occupation forces.

At the beginning of the civil war, the Bolsheviks certainly did have mass support. They managed to piss away a good deal of it...but the whites were even more inept.


Again, this would not have given the Proletariat "freedom". A bourgeois democracy would have kept them oppressed; Lenin wanted to avoid this&#33;

The actual program of the workers&#39; opposition excluded the remaining bourgeoisie from participation in Soviet political life.

But you&#39;re just making pathetic excuses. Lenin temporarily "saved" the workers from bourgeois oppression by oppressing them himself.


A democratic army would have run away&#33; The spineless cowards...

Your "faith" in the masses is touching. But I gave you an example from Spain where a democratic army did not "run away" but fought a major battle with Franco&#39;s forces and Italian mercenaries...and beat them.

Perhaps you find your assertions weightier than the evidence...many Leninists share that proclivity.


How about this theory: if capitalism and imperialism CAN PREVENT A MARXIST REVOLUTION FROM EVER HAPPENING, what good is Marxism? Of course, Marx argues that Revolution was inevitable... But 150 years on and we&#39;re still waiting.

Well, you&#39;ve been waiting on "Jesus" for 2,000 years.

Of course, I understand that you hold Marx to a higher standard...I do too. I even wrote once that if capitalism is still going strong by 2400 or so, then we can probably consider the Marxist hypothesis falsified.

So we&#39;ll see, one way or the other, fairly soon as history goes.


Just because Vanguardism has failed before, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s doomed in the future&#33;

Well, they had their "best shot" in Russia and China and missed. They&#39;ve never even remotely threatened the ruling class in any advanced capitalist country.

Do you think Bob Avakian will succeed where so many pretty bright guys have failed?


And to use your wonderful analogy, there has not yet been a martian invasion SO THERE NEVER WILL BE&#33;&#33;&#33;

IF there is any life on Mars, it will be a one-celled organism...and will be incapable of mounting an invasion of Earth unless we bring it back with us.

I realize that science is terra incognito for you...but my example was very deliberately chosen.

"Great leaders", when warning us of "impending disaster" that demands our obedience to them...actually prefer nebulous low-probability "dangers".

The "World Jewish Conspiracy" didn&#39;t even exist...much less constitute a real "danger" to Germany. Fundamentalist Islamic "terrorism" actually exists...but is in no way a serious "threat" to U.S. imperialism.

But such "dangers" are so...useful.


And maintain that after the Civil War "ended", there were no internal threats to the survival of the Revolution???

None of any consequence. I think Poland tried to grab a chunk of the Ukraine around that time...but the red army kicked their ass.


No, his legacy and his vision was betrayed. This sounds like a glorification of the life of Lenin - but in reality it was not the theory that was flawed. "External Circumstances" were to blame, and the influence of Stalin.

*Yawns* Just like the legacy of "Jesus" was "betrayed" by the Emperor Constantine, I suppose.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

You&#39;ve become totally incoherent.


You were always totally incoherent&#33;



In those parts of Russia that were initially occupied by the whites and their imperialist supporters, they were the occupation forces.


As I said, the main cities (Petrograd, Moscow and the areas surrounding them) were controlled by the Bolsheviks. What you said makes sense... but is entirely pointless. By your logic, a paratrooper in Normandy, 1944, is an "occupying force". Because he&#39;s standing on some land.



But you&#39;re just making pathetic excuses. Lenin temporarily "saved" the workers from bourgeois oppression by oppressing them himself.


The idea was that the state would wither away. Of course, comrade Stalin disagreed, there was the push for industrialisation, the Second World War... Lenin&#39;s vision never got a chance.



Your "faith" in the masses is touching. But I gave you an example from Spain where a democratic army did not "run away" but fought a major battle with Franco&#39;s forces and Italian mercenaries...and beat them.


The circumstances were entirely different. The Spanish army had little alternative; the Russians could have "melted away" into the countryside, as you said yourself. Plus, I&#39;ll bet the Spanish "democratic" army had at least BASIC training, and a weapon that fired live ammo&#33; ALSO, the democratic army lost in the end; the fascists won the Civil War. This was not a good thing, obviously, but it showed the superiority of the fascist army in this specific case...



Well, you&#39;ve been waiting on "Jesus" for 2,000 years.


Please explain...



Fundamentalist Islamic "terrorism" actually exists...but is in no way a serious "threat" to U.S. imperialism.

But such "dangers" are so...useful.


I disagree. Islamic fundamentalism poses a REAL threat to American Imperialism... They pump billions into Israel to ensure an "island of sanity" in the Middle East; they risk an unpopular War with Iraq to suppress Islamicism there... The great thing about Islamic terrorism though, is that it cannot be defeated. It isn&#39;t a "nation state", it cannot be "invaded". The US and the West will CONTINUE to face attacks until their attitudes change. Then Islamic Fundamentalism will have won.



IF there is any life on Mars, it will be a one-celled organism...and will be incapable of mounting an invasion of Earth unless we bring it back with us.


You are insane&#33; I quote: "Yeah, yeah, yeah...not to mention the possibility of "invasion by Martians"." This was clearly a stupid comment; such an invasion, as you suggest, is unlikely. My point was that just because something HASN&#39;T happened, doesn&#39;t mean it WON&#39;T happen... I used your Martian analogy because I found it quite amusing, in a silly sort of way.



None of any consequence. I think Poland tried to grab a chunk of the Ukraine around that time...but the red army kicked their ass.


Quite the reverse. The Polish army did indeed "grab a chunk of the Ukraine". I consider this a "pressure"&#33;&#33;&#33; Stop attacking Lenin, go read a History book instead&#33; :lol:

[RED FIRE]

You were always totally incoherent&#33; :lol: , How is that ?

[redstar2000]

Islamic fundamentalism poses a REAL threat to American Imperialism...They pump billions into Israel to ensure an "island of sanity" in the Middle East; they risk an unpopular War with Iraq to suppress Islamicism there... The great thing about Islamic terrorism though, is that it cannot be defeated. It isn&#39;t a "nation state", it cannot be "invaded". The US and the West will CONTINUE to face attacks until their attitudes change. Then Islamic Fundamentalism will have won.

Totally bizarre&#33; :blink:

But too off-topic to bother refuting.


My point was that just because something HASN&#39;T happened, doesn&#39;t mean it WON&#39;T happen...

Then why not just say that? And, more to the point, why won&#39;t you admit that there was no "external" reason for Lenin not to endorse the proposals of the workers&#39; opposition...he just simply had no intention of allowing the Russia working class to exercise any substantive authority, period.


Stop attacking Lenin, go read a History book instead&#33;

Even though my first post in this thread admitted that Soviet history was "not my field", I feel reasonably confident--based on what you&#39;ve had to say thus far--that I am more widely read in this subject than yourself.

Beyond this, I am opposed in principle to making "icons" of humans. I think Lenin&#39;s ideas were bad ideas...and I intend to keep attacking them every time they come up.

That this will offend those who have made him into a plaster saint is just...too bad.

This message board is not a church.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

Totally bizarre&#33;


Oh, right. I thought it&#39;d be right up your street...



Then why not just say that?


You mean like you did? "Yeah, yeah, yeah...not to mention the possibility of "invasion by Martians". You are a hipocrite as well as being wrong&#33;



I feel reasonably confident--based on what you&#39;ve had to say thus far--that I am more widely read in this subject than yourself.


Oh, certainly&#33;&#33; But you must have read all the wrong books, comrade&#33;&#33; Do you still think that the Red Army "kicked" the Poliah invaders in 1920?? Let me print a quote from a book I have read: "In any case, the Poles routed the Red Army in what has been often called "the Miracle of the Vistula." Hmmm. They DID grab a sizeable chunk of the Ukraine as well as much of Belarus.

Widely read indeed... I studied the Russian Revolution for Four years at school, in History lessons&#33; Not only that, I have read just about every major work on the Revolution - although there are so many these days it&#39;s hard to keep up... I was actually sad enough to travel to London for a HISTORY CONFERENCE on the topic&#33; With two of the Worlds leading experts on the issues&#33; I have studied the facts and I believe, comrade, that it is I who is more qualified to pass judgement on the issue&#33;



That this will offend those who have made him into a plaster saint is just...too bad.

This message board is not a church.


Plaster Saint? Hmmm, must mean something to you... Lenin is a historical figure, it is his ideology I follow - just like we all (broadly) support the ideas of Marx. Having said this, Lenin WAS a demi-God... Praise be to Lenin, the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus&#33;&#33;

Peace, Love, Jesus and Lenin, man&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Lenin WAS a demi-God

:lol:

[Solace]

Having said this, Lenin WAS a demi-God... Praise be to Lenin, the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus&#33;&#33;

I nearly choked reading this.

Instead of refuting coherently and explaining cleary your views on Lenin, you raise him to a saint level. Besides, considering Lenin&#39;s views on religion, that&#39;s just... sheer idocy

[Edelweiss]

Having said this, Lenin WAS a demi-God... Praise be to Lenin, the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus&#33;&#33;

Sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here at Che-Lives...

[Scottish_Militant]

Peace, Love, Jesus and Lenin, man&#33;&#33;&#33;

Oh dear :blink:

[The Children of the Revolution]

You people amaze me. In a negative sense, mind you.



Instead of refuting coherently and explaining cleary your views on Lenin


Read the last six or seven posts&#33;&#33;&#33; Redstar raised no new points in his post... so neither did I&#33;



"Having said this, Lenin WAS a demi-God... Praise be to Lenin, the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus&#33;&#33;"

Sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read here at Che-Lives...


Hahaha, come on&#33; I don&#39;t really believe this, I&#39;m having a poke at Redstar&#33; Have you not heard of sarcasm? The lowest form of wit, I agree; but Redstar wouldn&#39;t understand anything any more complex&#33;&#33; Heh, calm down, take five&#33; :lol: I must say I find this whole episode most entertaining&#33;

EDIT: Choke away, &#39;solace&#39;&#33; I am obviously a lunatic after all...

[Solace]

Choke away, &#39;solace&#39;&#33; I am obviously a lunatic after all...

Look at me cryin&#39; because you hurt my feelings.

Perhaps a little explanation is needed. By "views on Lenin", I meant that you say explain cleary why you are elevating him to a "saint" status. I thought, it was pretty clear.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Look at me cryin&#39; because you hurt my feelings.


"Boo Frikkin&#39; Hoo&#33;"



Perhaps a little explanation is needed. By "views on Lenin", I meant that you say explain cleary why you are elevating him to a "saint" status.


Well, since you ask - I admire his vision, his dedication, his theory... He gave his life for the Revolution; he was no "dictator". Evil Imperialists and Counter-Revolutionaries, as well as the actions of Stalin and co. after his death ruined his dream, destroyed the paradise he wanted to set up... Poor old Lenin. He has been vilified in History, even by the people he sought to save.

I hereby pronounce him "Saint Lenin of Petrograd"&#33; :lol:

[Solace]

See? We can get along with simple explanations.

[The Children of the Revolution]

See? We can get along with simple explanations.


Well that&#39;s all great and wonderful then. Hooray, "Saint Lenin of Petrograd" it is&#33;

I apologise also; choking is not something to wish on anyone&#33;

Peace to all.

[redstar2000]

Well, since you ask - I admire his vision, his dedication, his theory... He gave his life for the Revolution; he was no "dictator". Evil Imperialists and Counter-Revolutionaries, as well as the actions of Stalin and co. after his death ruined his dream, destroyed the paradise he wanted to set up... Poor old Lenin. He has been vilified in History, even by the people he sought to save.

Sheer romanticist crap&#33;


Praise be to Lenin, the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus&#33;&#33;

You say you&#39;re joking...but you&#39;re not.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

I admire his vision, his dedication, his theory

Which have subsequently failed every time it has been put into practice.


He gave his life for the Revolution

No, actually he died of a stroke, behind his desk. In his office. In his big house.


he was no "dictator".

I like the way you have inverted the word dictater. Lenin was a dictator and infact had no quirms with affirming himself as one. His entire theory is based around such control. He, along with the executive committee were, in the dictionary sense of the word dictators. They controlled every aspect of society right down to where you went to work. This was the great theory that would lead to communism. :rolleyes:


Evil Imperialists and Counter-Revolutionaries, as well as the actions of Stalin and co. after his death ruined his dream, destroyed the paradise he wanted to set up

So why did it not work in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique or Tanzania?


He has been vilified in History, even by the people he sought to save.

Out of one oppression and into a whole new one.....oh yes please...sign me up now <_<

This is more than romantic crap, it is dangerous idealism. Wake up and smell the embalming fluid, your theory dosnt work&#33;

[The Children of the Revolution]

Which have subsequently failed every time it has been put into practice.


My understanding of Marxism-Leninism is that it was designed to adapt Marx&#39;s theory to conditions in Russia in the early 20th century. "Vanguardism" is a more general term. Leninism only "failed" once - but it could easily have succeeded. Like I said, it was never given a "fair" chance&#33;



No, actually he died of a stroke, behind his desk. In his office. In his big house.


I know this, moron. You should get your facts straight though - Lenin NEVER lived to excess. (unlike Stalin) What I meant by "he gave his life for the revolution" is fairly obvious to see, even for your ilk: Lenin dedicated himself to the revolutionary cause. He worked constantly, visited the troops at the front in the Civil War, (as did Trotsky and Stalin) and committed himself FULLY to the emancipation of the Proletariat.



I like the way you have inverted the word dictater.


Thanks&#33;&#33; I&#39;ll do it again, just for you&#33;&#33; "Dictator"&#33;&#33; I inverted it because people were applying the term in a negative sense. I agree, Lenin attempted to control every aspect of the revolution, he wanted to concentrate power in the hands of the elite. But as I have mentioned, he was acting in the interests of the workers. Why do you think he advocated a "dictatorship of the Proletariat"?? It was needed in Russia at the time - otherwise bourgeois oppression would have taken hold.

I am not denying that the workers suffered under the USSR&#39;s totalitarian regime. What I am saying is that Lenin himself was not to blame.



Sheer romanticist crap&#33;


Rather this than two lines of insults, comrade...

I note you still haven&#39;t responded to the issue of your, shall we say, "Historical Inadequacy"? Do you concede that you were WRONG about the Polish question? Or does that not merit attention?

[The Feral Underclass]

My understanding of Marxism-Leninism is that it was designed to adapt Marx&#39;s theory to conditions in Russia in the early 20th century.

I think he probably believe he was putting Marx&#39;s theories into practice generally.


"Vanguardism" is a more general term.

Marx never talked about a vangaurd. that was specific to Lenin.


Leninism only "failed" once - but it could easily have succeeded.

Do you mean that all the other Marxist-Leninist parties weren&#39;t actually marxist leninist?


Like I said, it was never given a "fair" chance&#33;

A get out of jail free card.


I know this, moron.

:o


What I meant by "he gave his life for the revolution" is fairly obvious to see, even for your ilk: Lenin dedicated himself to the revolutionary cause. He worked constantly, visited the troops at the front in the Civil War, (as did Trotsky and Stalin) and

Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah&#33;&#33;&#33;


committed himself FULLY to the emancipation of the Proletariat.

How can you emancipate the working class by oppressing them?


I inverted it because people were applying the term in a negative sense.

Oh yeah, because the word dictater can be used in a positive way :rolleyes:


Lenin attempted to control every aspect of the revolution, he wanted to concentrate power in the hands of the elite. But as I have mentioned, he was acting in the interests of the workers. Why do you think he advocated a "dictatorship of the Proletariat"?? It was needed in Russia at the time - otherwise bourgeois oppression would have taken hold.


And here&#39;s the admission of oppresion....First of all, no one has the right to control anything let alone concetrate power into their hands. This phraze "working in the interests of the workers" is the most rediculas thing anyone can ever say. You can not say that lenin wanted to conctrate all the power into his hands and then claim it was in the workers interests. It quite clearly wasnt. Hence this thread.

Granted, this concept may have been believed to be useful for a third world country like 1917 russia, but in the 21st century, in highly industrailised nations, with education and technology, it is completely obsolete. The working class have the ability to lead themselves against capitalism without a concentration of power. To put faith in these leaders "to do the right thing" is complete suicide. Are we to trust you simply because you use this phraze. Read the anarchism vs leninism thread i say all this there.


I am not denying that the workers suffered under the USSR&#39;s totalitarian regime. What I am saying is that Lenin himself was not to blame.

That dosnt validate the theory though does it. Just because it&#39;s founder was not entirly to blame for its failure does not mean it works.

PS. Take note of what the word comrade means&#33;

[The Children of the Revolution]

Just a quickie, I&#39;ve posted in the THEORY forum on Leninism...



Oh yeah, because the word dictater can be used in a positive way


Actually, I believe one of the most efficient forms of government IS a dictatorship. Obviously, a "benign" dictatorship is the way forwards rather than the evil stereotype&#33; But if you are to have a state at all, (which you claim is un-necessary, I know...) better for one person to take the decisions than 600 or so bickering politicians&#33;&#33;

If there&#39;s a vacancy going, I&#39;d be happy to fill it by the way... I would be a great ruler. :lol:

[SonofRage]

The obvious problem with that is that such power invariably corrupts.

[The Feral Underclass]

better for one person to take the decisions than 600 or so bickering politicians&#33;&#33;

So much for workers democracy.


If there&#39;s a vacancy going, I&#39;d be happy to fill it by the way... I would be a great ruler.

And that&#39;s what it comes down to isnt it.

[redstar2000]

I note you still haven&#39;t responded to the issue of your, shall we say, "Historical Inadequacy"? Do you concede that you were WRONG about the Polish question? Or does that not merit attention?

Sure I&#39;ll "concede"...I&#39;ve already told you twice that it "wasn&#39;t my field".

But I hardly need be an expert in Soviet-Polish relations to refute this...


Actually, I believe one of the most efficient forms of government IS a dictatorship. Obviously, a "benign" dictatorship is the way forwards rather than the evil stereotype&#33; But if you are to have a state at all, (which you claim is un-necessary, I know...) better for one person to take the decisions than 600 or so bickering politicians&#33;&#33;

If there&#39;s a vacancy going, I&#39;d be happy to fill it by the way... I would be a great ruler.

It is self-refuting. :angry:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

Heh, I knew that was a mistake&#33;&#33;



So much for workers democracy.


There would be no problems if the dictator was a "nice chap". Like me. I would act in their (the workers) best interests. I am, in fact, doing them a favour - they don&#39;t have to trek down to the polling booth in the rain any more&#33;

Also note that my post only mentioned that a dictatorship was perhaps the most EFFICIENT form of government&#33;&#33; (Which, in an ideal world, it undoubtedly is.)

I WILL rule the world one day, then you&#39;ll be sorry&#33;&#33; :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

There would be no problems if the dictator was a "nice chap". Like me. I would act in their (the workers) best interests. I am, in fact, doing them a favour - they don&#39;t have to trek down to the polling booth in the rain any more&#33;
..............................................I WILL rule the world one day, then you&#39;ll be sorry&#33;&#33;

The authority complex. You dont actually care about workers liberation you fantasise about being a ruler and you see Lenin as your role model....get over yourself....it&#39;s never gonna happen.

Why do you believe that someone who was given that much power wouldnt get comforatble with it. Even marx said "being determines consciousness"

[The Children of the Revolution]

Lol, this was a joke&#33;&#33; Hence the " :lol: " smilie&#33;&#33;

You take things far too seriously&#33;&#33;



Why do you believe that someone who was given that much power wouldnt get comforatble with it.


Lenin, who I assume you are referring to, had devoted his entire life to the Bolshevik Revolution. Why do you think he would want to abandon all this? For a few years of notorious luxary? No, I don&#39;t think so...

[The Feral Underclass]

I&#39;m sorry but I dont believe it was a joke. I think you actually do want that.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Oh, right.

You certainly do know a lot about me considering we&#39;ve never met&#33;&#33;

What else do I want to do? Bomb the Jews, perhaps?? Am I a nazi too???

You know nothing. :angry:

[The Feral Underclass]

are you denying it then?

[The Children of the Revolution]

Denying what? That I want to bomb Jews? Yes, certainly&#33;&#33; (I do, however, despise Israel. I hope that one day there will be peace in the region, and that Arabs and Jews can live on equal terms. Until that day I will always support the Palestinian cause. And Ariel Sharon should be tried for War Crimes.)

I also deny being a Nazi or wanting to be a Nazi.

However, if "circumstances" (haha, chew on that&#33; :lol: ) were favorable I would certainly establish a Leninist-style "dictatorship" with me at the helm&#33;&#33; In this way I could effect real change, rather than being confined to an internet forum... But to respond to your accusation that I "fantasise" about becoming ruler of the World - no, I don&#39;t&#33;&#33;

LOUD "BIG-BROTHER-TYPE" VOICE BOOMS:
< You are hereby banned from Che-Lives for writing a one line response&#33;&#33; A plague upon your family&#33;&#33; > :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

There is something inherently sinister about someone who says this:


However, if "circumstances" (haha, chew on that&#33; ) were favorable I would certainly establish a Leninist-style "dictatorship" with me at the helm&#33;&#33;

This is what che-lives leninists come down to. It is the same with the stalinists. What makes you so sure you could do any better than Lenin. Do you think you are Lenin. Would you like to be Lenin?

Very bizarre.


In this way I could effect real change,

So in order for you to effect change you have to become a dictator? Either you have empowerment issues or you have a superiority complex. I would favour the latter.

[The Children of the Revolution]

So in order for you to effect change you have to become a dictator?


Oh, come on. What are you intending to do? Take to the streets armed with "class consciousness" and an AK? Ha, I&#39;d like to see you try&#33;&#33; You said yourself, revolution is a long way off. If I were a "dictator", I COULD effect real change. Look at Lenin and Hitler; you might not appreciate what they did, but it was certainly different&#33;&#33; And today, there are less reasons why a dictatorship of the Proletariat might not succeed.

So please continue to pray for the revolution, please try and get as many people as possible "on side". This can only be a good thing. Meanwhile, I&#39;ll work on taking over the country and establishing a benign dictatorship with myself as unquestioned ruler of all. Then you&#39;ll see some changes, I can tell you&#33;&#33;



Would you like to be Lenin?


Lenin, unfortunately, is dead. So I have no wish to be Lenin in the literal sense. However, given the chance, I would certainly try my hand at Revolution 1917 style. I would make few changes; those that I did would be due to the benefits of hindsight. I would start an extensive exercise regime for myself, to improve my health and thus the well being of MY country. And I would definitely "aquire" a larger house. And some caviar and vodka.

[/PISSTAKE]

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you&#39;re very strange. regardless of the apparent joke....Very strange indeed.


Meanwhile, I&#39;ll work on taking over the country and establishing a benign dictatorship with myself as unquestioned ruler of all. Then you&#39;ll see some changes, I can tell you&#33;&#33;

how do you plan to do this.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Oh, without a doubt&#33;&#33; I&#39;d HATE to be considered normal... wouldn&#39;t you? Just another worker drone in a 9-5 office job? Two kids, two cars and a mortgage? Nah, I&#39;m happy being WIERD&#33;&#33;



how do you plan to do this.


What, take over the country? I haven&#39;t given it much thought. I guess I&#39;d form a political party, call it the "National Socialist British Workers Green Party" or something like that... After being elected to local government I would conquer my local seat and take my place alongside the worms in Parliament. I would proceed to rip the PM to shreds in Commons debates, gaining support amongst the public and media coverage along the way. THEN I would win a mega-lanslide-victory by exposing British Democracy for what it is - useless. I would champion our country and the issues dear to the public&#39;s heart.

Once in power I would use my massive majority to force through "legal dictatorship" legislation. I would make Tony Blair eat his hat. And then declare myself supreme ruler and Lord of all, and set about changing things. I&#39;d plant some trees. And make inflammatory comments about America. These kind of things, good things. I&#39;m a nice guy, really I am&#33;&#33; :lol:

Heh, happy??