All About Communism

[CommunistComrade]

I would love to learn about communism and all of its forms, especially Marxism and Leninism. What is Leninism? What are the basic tenets of Marixism? Thanks, comrades!

[Blake's Baby]

They're two of the biggest questions you could possibly ask on a forum like this. There are hundreds of millions, possibly even billions, of words written on those two subjects.

Marxism: the recognition that 1 - societies change through the struggles of different classes in them;
2 - that these classes have different relationships to property and production;
3 - that the current society, capitalist society, is subject to crisis because its organisation is structurally incapable of providing stability;
4 - that the class that actually produces social wealth in capitalism, the working class (or proletariat), is capable of re-organising society for the benefit of humanity;
5 - that the working class can only do this through overthrowing the existing social conditions and imposing its own vision of society and social organisation.

That's a very basic and schematic run-down of Marxism. I don't think anyone here is going to have massive problems with that.

I'll leave the explanation of Leninism to a Leninist.

[The Idler]

Chomsky described Lenin as a right-wing deviation from the socialist movement and [Lenin] was so regarded. He was regarded as that by the Marxists, the mainstream Marxists, but we've forgotten who the mainstream Marxists were.

[reb]

I'm going to quote Otto Ruhle to give you a brief understanding of what Leninism is. He calls it Bolshevism to give it a little bit of a historical context because it was a section of the social democratic second international.



1. Bolshevism is a nationalistic doctrine. Originally and essentially conceived to solve a national problem, it was later elevated to a theory and practice of international scope and to a general doctrine. Its nationalistic character comes to light also in its position on the struggle for national independence of suppressed nations.
2. Bolshevism is an authoritarian system. The peak of the social pyramid is the most important and determining point. Authority is realized in the all-powerful person. In the leader myth the bourgeois personality ideal celebrates its highest triumphs.
3. Organizationally, Bolshevism is highly centralistic. The central committee has responsibility for all initiative, leadership, instruction, commands. As in the bourgeois state, the leading members of the organization play the role of the bourgeoisie; the sole role of the workers is to obey orders.
4. Bolshevism represents a militant power policy. Exclusively interested in political power, it is no different from the forms of rule in the traditional bourgeois sense. Even in the organization proper there is no self-determination by the members. The army serves the party as the great example of organization.
5. Bolshevism is dictatorship. Working with brute force and terroristic measures, it directs all its functions toward the suppression of all non-bolshevik institutions and opinions. Its “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the dictatorship of a bureaucracy or a single person.
6. Bolshevism is a mechanistic method. It aspires to the automatic co-ordination, the technically secured conformity, and the most efficient totalitarianism as a goal of social order. The centralistically “planned” economy consciously confuses technical-organizational problems with socio-economic questions.
7. The social structure of Bolshevism is of a bourgeois nature. It does not abolish the wage system and refuses proletarian self-determination over the products of labour. It remains therewith fundamentally within the class frame of the bourgeois social order. Capitalism is perpetuated.
8. Bolshevism is a revolutionary element only in the frame of the bourgeois revolution. Unable to realize the soviet system, it is thereby unable to transform essentially the structure of bourgeois society and its economy. It establishes not socialism but state capitalism.
9. Bolshevism is not a bridge leading eventually into the socialist society. Without the soviet system, without the total radical revolution of men and things, it cannot fulfil the most essential of all socialistic demands, which is to end the capitalist human-self-alienation. It represents the last stage of bourgeois society and not the first step towards a new society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1939/ruhle01.htm

You should also read this excellent pamphlet by Gilles Dauve, The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve

[CommunistComrade]

I appreciate all the in-depth replies! I am looking forward to hearing more :)

[Remus Bleys]

To the OP, the state and revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) is one of the most enlightening texts on leninism.
This unfinished essay (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm), while not central to leninism, is also one of his better works.

Now:

1. Bolshevism is a nationalistic doctrine. Originally and essentially conceived to solve a national problem, it was later elevated to a theory and practice of international scope and to a general doctrine. Its nationalistic character comes to light also in its position on the struggle for national independence of suppressed nations. While it is true that Bolshevism was mostly a response to a national problem, not all of Lenin (or any other bolshevik for that matter) is geared towards specifically Russia, and is applicable in other situations. Leaving that aside, that hardly makes bolshevism "nationalistic." And yes, Lenin was wrong on national liberation.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm)

2. Bolshevism is an authoritarian system. The peak of the social pyramid is the most important and determining point. Authority is realized in the all-powerful person. In the leader myth the bourgeois personality ideal celebrates its highest triumphs. Authoritarian to whom exactly? To the Bourgeoisie? The dictatorship of the proletariat is hardly a walk in the park. What's next, you gonna tell me October was a Bourgeoisie Revolution?


3. Organizationally, Bolshevism is highly centralistic. The central committee has responsibility for all initiative, leadership, instruction, commands. As in the bourgeois state, the leading members of the organization play the role of the bourgeoisie; the sole role of the workers is to obey orders.http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula Although I disagree with a lot of Democratic Centralism and abhor what has been justified in its name, this is just historically inaccurate.


4. Bolshevism represents a militant power policy. Exclusively interested in political power, it is no different from the forms of rule in the traditional bourgeois sense. Even in the organization proper there is no self-determination by the members. The army serves the party as the great example of organization. The army... who were the workers? Political Power... which is the point of the DotP? And Exclusively interested in political power? Give me a break.


5. Bolshevism is dictatorship. Working with brute force and terroristic measures, it directs all its functions toward the suppression of all non-bolshevik institutions and opinions. Its “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the dictatorship of a bureaucracy or a single person. BRUTE FORCE AND TERROR? OH NO!
“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky

Revolution is not a walk in the park. And a dictatorship of the bureaucracy? In later years of course.
But are we going to act like there wasn't a dotp in the early days?


6. Bolshevism is a mechanistic method. It aspires to the automatic co-ordination, the technically secured conformity, and the most efficient totalitarianism as a goal of social order. The centralistically “planned” economy consciously confuses technical-organizational problems with socio-economic questions. :confused: So, we don't have technical organizational problems? Or is Ruhle (I wish I had an umlaut) acting as if that is an either or thing?


7. The social structure of Bolshevism is of a bourgeois nature. It does not abolish the wage system and refuses proletarian self-determination over the products of labour. It remains therewith fundamentally within the class frame of the bourgeois social order. Capitalism is perpetuated. I was always under the impression that wage labour does not exist in the dotp, and that wages do.


8. Bolshevism is a revolutionary element only in the frame of the bourgeois revolution. Unable to realize the soviet system, it is thereby unable to transform essentially the structure of bourgeois society and its economy. It establishes not socialism but state capitalism.:laugh:
Damn. He really did say October was a Bourgeoisie Revolution.


9. Bolshevism is not a bridge leading eventually into the socialist society. Without the soviet system, without the total radical revolution of men and things, it cannot fulfil the most essential of all socialistic demands, which is to end the capitalist human-self-alienation. It represents the last stage of bourgeois society and not the first step towards a new society. This is just so self righteous and inaccurate that I'm just going to leave it here.

Yes, I realize this is 1939. And when it was 1939, then these criticism are valid and (not what he wrote, but the idea behind it) I would be in full agreement with. Hell, in 1921 I would be in agreement with it.
Unfortunately for you and other anti-octoberists, lenin's work does not equal what he did as a result of the degeneration of the October Revolution. Lenin lived more than just a couple years after 1917, and wrote a lot, expanding a great theory. Maybe you should read that, and not judge the entire theory based off of his actions during degeneration of the October Revolution. No one's saying Lenin was perfect, he was human afterall. And he was wrong on quite a bit, and feel free to disagree with those theories. But to judge him solely off of his actions from his last years is just intellectually dishonest.


Bolshevism did establish a Proletarian Dictatorship. However, as we all know, the Revolution must spread or fail. It can't be put on pause. And when Germany fail, so did Bolshevism. The failure of Bolshevism was not due to a fault of Lenin, nor to a fault of his ideology. No one could change the course of the Soviet Union. Contrary to what Trotskyists tell you, the degeneration of the Revolution was due to the failure of the German Revolution. It had no choice but to degenerate to State Capitalism.

However, both you and Ruhle confusing Stalin with Lenin. Which is highly inappropriate and counterproductive, as the OP asked for Lenin. Not Stalin, who contrary to what stalinists, councillists, and anarchists alike would like to tell you, was not the natural result of lenin.




You should also read this excellent pamphlet by Gilles Dauve, The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin http://libcom.org/library/renegade-k...le-lenin-dauve (http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve) Because Karl Kautsky never had any revolutionary theory. None of his works were of ever importance. Kautsky is basically Bernstein. :rolleyes:
However, the article does raise valid points, like all left comm lit, such as the examination of stalinist movements like China and the Eastern Bloc and the bit on trots. But, yet again, this article makes the mistaken assumption that what is meant by "leninism" is equal to the state capitalist policies of Stalin, Khruschev, etc.

I guess my point is, Bolshevism and specifically Leninism, had its problems. However, these were mainly due to the failure of the German Revolution.
In addition, Bolshevism and specifically Leninism both bring a lot to the table, and to cast it aside as "Kautskyite-Bourgeoisie" is, well, asinine and infantile (:grin:).

[Yuppie Grinder]

Chomsky described Lenin as a right-wing deviation from the socialist movement and [Lenin] was so regarded. He was regarded as that by the Marxists, the mainstream Marxists, but we've forgotten who the mainstream Marxists were.

That's a load of shit and Chomsky doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't lionize Lenin, but calling him a right wing deviation is inaccurate.

[reb]

The state and revolution is one of Lenin's worse works. The whole premise of it is absurd and it hardly represents Marx's own ideas considering that he's barely in it. The idea that you can combine the two ideas of the state from two different men to create a dogma is beyond absurd and to them go on and proclaim that this fusion can then be applied universally is not marxist. The nail in this coffin is that it at no point fitted in with reality. Not only is the premise poor, the execution is even worse as it allows for worms to twist words so that we now have this timeless two phase idea as concrete.

[Remus Bleys]

The state and revolution is one of Lenin's worse works. The whole premise of it is absurd and it hardly represents Marx's own ideas considering that he's barely in it. The idea that you can combine the two ideas of the state from two different men to create a dogma is beyond absurd and to them go on and proclaim that this fusion can then be applied universally is not marxist. The nail in this coffin is that it at no point fitted in with reality. Not only is the premise poor, the execution is even worse as it allows for worms to twist words so that we now have this timeless two phase idea as concrete.
Your right, he quotes Engels. Which was always weird that Marx and Engels are treated like the same person, but that's besides the point.

And I don't really give a damn either if Marx thought it or not, I don't agree with something because Marx, Engels, Lenin or Luxemburg thought of it. It is absurd to believe that Lenin could have given Marx's thought, and it is even more absurd to discard it because it wasn't what Marx thought.

But are you going to tell me the idea of a half-state, the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, is anti-marxist?

Now, we can argue about the merits of the State and Revolution, but you really haven't given me any criticism other than Revisionism. If I wanted to hear someone complain about revisionism, I'd talk to mls about kruschev and yugoslavia (which I do, coincidentally enough), but to get an explanation so immature as to be just an accusation of "REVISIONISM! DEVIATION FROM MARX!" from someone as smart as you, reb, is well, rather dissapointing.

[sixdollarchampagne]

That's a load of shit and Chomsky doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't lionize Lenin, but calling him a right wing deviation is inaccurate.

When you talk to Chomsky face to face (I used to work where he teaches), he is very personable, but I do agree with Kim J. Illmatic, that it's nonsense to call the great Lenin a right-wing deviation.

As for Lenin and the orthodox Marxists (of the Second International), weren't an awful lot of the latter were in favor of the imperialist war ("WW One")? Didn't Kautsky himself, the "Pope of Marxism," think in 1914 that Germany was waging a defensive war against the threat of Czarist Russia? If so, then workers are lucky that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were around to uphold and build the Zimmerwald movement, in opposition to imperialism and its wars, and that stance definitely, undeniably, put Lenin and his co-thinkers, on the left of the workers' movement, if words mean anything.

I always thought of State and Revolution as one of the best things I ever read, in 45 years as a socialist; reading the book as an undergraduate gave me the impression that Lenin had successfully recovered Marx' understanding of the state; Lenin's notion of the destruction of the state (class rule over society) is one of the finest objectives in politics, as far as I am concerned; I believe it would really open the door to the realm of freedom. I would not be interested in a "Marxism" that failed to contain Lenin's great insight, about the final destruction of the state.

[Brotto Rühle]

When you talk to Chomsky face to face (I used to work where he teaches), he is very personable, but I do agree with Kim J. Illmatic, that it's nonsense to call the great Lenin a right-wing deviation.

As for Lenin and the orthodox Marxists (of the Second International), an awful lot of the latter were in favor of the imperialist war ("WW One"), so workers are lucky that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were around to uphold and build the Zimmerwald movement, in opposition to imperialism and its wars, and that stance definitely, undeniably put Lenin and his co-thinkers, on the left of the workers' movement, if words mean anything.

I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who says "the great Lenin" without sarcasm.

[Tim Redd]

I would love to learn about communism and all of its forms, especially Marxism and Leninism. What is Leninism? What are the basic tenets of Marixism? Thanks, comrades!

In essence Leninism was the initial evolution of and adaptation of Marxism to the age of imperialism aka monopoly capitalism. Marx lived in the age of a more competitive capitalism than we live in today. Lenin wrote about the socio-economic nature of the new imperialism in the text "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". In it he brought out the theory that imperialism was a monopoly versus competitive capitalism. He made the case that imperialism is the era of war between advanced imperialist countries and thus giving rise to the tendency for proletarian revolution in those advanced countries that oppose the working class of those countries fighting and dying for a rich man's war. Lenin was the first to lead a successful proletarian revolution that sustained for at least several years. That's a start, more on Leninism later.

[Tim Redd]

Lenin wrote a number of seminal works and in them he laid out extensions and advances to Marxism in a number of areas: economics, philosophy, social theory.

Key to Leninism is its core principle brought forward from Marx and Engels: the proletariat/socialists should organize a vanguard party independent from the bourgeoisie or any other class and the aim of the party under capitalism should be to mobilize masses of people in their millions to bring about a revolution to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) as soon as humanly possible.

The purpose of the dotp is to establish socialism, aka the lower stage of communism in order to transition society to advanced communism where society has been revolutionized in all of its aspects including people's thinking, classes have been abolished, all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated and the dotp whithers away.

In addition to "Imperialism: the Highest stage of Capitalism", among Lenin's other notable works are "State and Revolution", "What is to Be Done?", "Materialism and Empirio-criticism", "Two Tactics of Social Democracy", "The Renegade Kautsky and the Proletarian Revolution", "What the Friends of the People Are", "Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder". Over time I will describe the key points of most of these writings.

Of all of them, now I would like to go over "What is to Done?" (WITBD) since it lays out the central strategy of Leninism. The main points of WITBD are: 1) the socialist movement needs to mobillize the people - the 99% - in their millions to wage political struggle on all questions, issues and fronts to overthrow the bourgeosie, 2) the main way to carry out this political struggle is to raise the consciousness of the working class and as many others in society as possible by creating public opinion amongst all classes and strata, 3) to create public opinion the revolutionary socialist movement should use agitation and propaganda (agit/prop), 4) the aims of establishing socialism aka the dotp, eliminating all exploitation and oppression and striving for advanced communism should be up front in the agit/prop.

Agitation is specific to one issue. Agitation exposes how capitalist greed, and the workings of capitalism are operating to cause a crisis and typically some form of exploitation and oppression on an issue. The issue may have to do with economics, politics, cultural affairs, sports, racism, sexism or whatever.

Propaganda typically covers several issues and tends to take a broader view of how capitalist greed, and the workings of capitalism are operating to cause a crisis and typically some form of exploitation and oppression. Things like movies, plays, novels, and philosophical issues are major vehicles for propaganda.

Try to read "What is to Be Done", it is a very powerful and enlightening work of Lenin. More Leninism later.

[Five Year Plan]

Lenin wrote a number of seminal works and in them he laid out extensions and advances to Marxism in a number of areas: economics, philosophy, social theory.

Key to Leninism is its core principle brought forward from Marx and Engels: the proletariat/socialists should organize a vanguard party independent from the bourgeoisie or any other class and the aim of the party under capitalism should be to mobilize masses of people in their millions to bring about a revolution to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) as soon as humanly possible.

The purpose of the dotp is to establish socialism, aka the lower stage of communism in order to transition society to advanced communism where society has been revolutionized in all of its aspects including people's thinking, classes have been abolished, all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated and the dotp whithers away.

In addition to "Imperialism: the Highest stage of Capitalism", among Lenin's other notable works are "State and Revolution", "What is to Be Done?", "Materialism and Empirio-criticism", "Two Tactics of Social Democracy", "The Renegade Kautsky and the Proletarian Revolution", "What the Friends of the People Are", "Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder". Over time I will describe the key points of most of these writings.

Of all of them, now I would like to go over "What is to Done?" (WITBD) since it lays out the central strategy of Leninism. The main points of WITBD are: 1) the socialist movement needs to mobillize the people - the 99% - in their millions to wage political struggle on all questions, issues and fronts to overthrow the bourgeosie, 2) the main way to carry out this political struggle is to raise the consciousness of the working class and as many others in society as possible by creating public opinion amongst all classes and strata, 3) to create public opinion the revolutionary socialist movement should use agitation and propaganda (agit/prop), 4) the aims of establishing socialism aka the dotp, eliminating all exploitation and oppression and striving for advanced communism should be up front in the agit/prop.

Agitation is specific to one issue. Agitation exposes how capitalist greed, and the workings of capitalism are operating to cause a crisis and typically some form of exploitation and oppression on an issue. The issue may have to do with economics, politics, cultural affairs, sports, racism, sexism or whatever.

Propaganda typically covers several issues and tends to take a broader view of how capitalist greed, and the workings of capitalism are operating to cause a crisis and typically some form of exploitation and oppression. Things like movies, plays, novels, and philosophical issues are major vehicles for propaganda.

Try to read "What is to Be Done", it is a very powerful and enlightening work of Lenin. More Leninism later.

Two things of great importance to note about Lenin: he thought the lower phase of communist society, socialism, was a classless society; and therefore thought that there would not be the dictatorship of any classes under the lower phase of communist society, socialism. Anything else you write about his politics is inevitably distorted if these basic premises of his politics are ignored or misconstrued.

[Tim Redd]

Two things of great importance to note about Lenin: he thought the lower phase of communist society, socialism, was a classless society; and therefore thought that there would not be the dictatorship of any classes under the lower phase of communist society, socialism. Anything else you write about his politics is inevitably distorted if these basic premises of his politics are ignored or misconstrued.

I've read nothing of the sort by Lenin. Please provide textual evidence.

[Five Year Plan]

I've read nothing of the sort by Lenin. Please provide textual evidence.

If you have indeed read Lenin (and I have my doubts about that), you really should learn to read him more carefully.

In State and Revolution, Lenin is clear about what a dictatorship of the proletariat is: "the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors."

He is equally clear about what socialism is. He calls it "the first phase of communist society" and explains that in this first phase of communist society, "The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals . The means of production belong to the whole of society." No mention of oppressed or oppressors here, because those class antagonisms are gone. All of society is now cooperating in terms of production decisions.

He elaborates on this distinction between socialism as a lower phase and full communism as the higher phase: "But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first,' or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word 'communism' is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."

Why isn't socialism "complete communism"? Not because there are still classes, but because "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law" has not been transcended in the realm of distribution. Lenin then takes some time to explain Marx's position on labor vouchers under the first phase. He concludes that there will still be a kind of withered state in the first phase to oversee inequality (masked as formal equality) in the distribution of consumer goods according to labor contribution, but then is explicit that this does not mean the existence of classes: "The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."

Lenin is unequivocally clear that communism is classless: "Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., [I]when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then 'the state... ceases to exist,' and 'it becomes possible to speak of freedom.'"

All of this is easily comprehensible if you take the time to read through the fifth chapter of Lenin's State and Revolution: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

[Tim Redd]

If you have indeed read Lenin (and I have my doubts about that), you really should learn to read him more carefully.

If you can read the whole message where I explained Leninism as the first evolution of Marxism in the era imperialism and the whole message I wrote summarizing his book "What is to be Done?" and you doubt I read Lenin or that I need to read him more carefully, then I strongly suggest that it is you who at least needs to read him more carefully.

Other than socialism, where we disagree on how to interpret Marx and Lenin, please explain how I'm wrong anywhere else in message #12 where I described Leninism as the first evolution of Marxism in the era imperialism, or in message #13 where I summarized What Is to Be Done? I wrote about many things other than socialism in those messages. If you really are familiar with Lenin then you can point out something other than socialism if you doubt I have read him.

[Five Year Plan]

If you can read the whole message where I explained Leninism as the first evolution of Marxism in the era imperialism and the whole message I wrote summarizing his book "What is to be Done?" and you doubt I read Lenin or that I need to read him more carefully, then I strongly suggest that it is you who at least needs to read him more carefully. That is if you have read WITBD at all. Please point out where anything I said in about WITBD is false.

Trying to shift the discussion to What Is To Be Done now? I suppose this means you have thrown in the towel on your anti-Leninist argument that socialism has classes and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Progress, I guess.

[Bostana]

This has the potential to be a good thread. Let's not muck it up

[Tim Redd]

Trying to shift the discussion to What Is To Be Done now? I suppose this means you have thrown in the towel on your anti-Leninist argument that socialism has classes and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Progress, I guess.

Look, you said you doubt if I had read Lenin. I said point out how what I've already posted about Lenin's What is To Be Done? is false if that is the case. You haven't. You lose.

Do you ever make a point without an attempted dig or a chip on your shoulder? I suppose when you don't have a real argument you devolve into insults and sophistry, whereas someone with intellectual integrity would just make their case, concede they were mistaken, concede they might be mistaken, or just remain silent.

Egoism and bourgeois intellectual pissing games is the MO for some people in this thread and for some in Revleft generally . If you all are about achieving communism which includes eliminating capitalist selfishness and egoism, then why do so many here write in that manner rather than in the spirit of seeking the truth and taking an open ego free approach to educate and learn from fellow revolutionaries? I participate here for those reasons and I wish all who are here would do so as well.

[Five Year Plan]

Look, you said you doubt if I had read Lenin. I said point out how what I've already posted about What is To Be Done is false if that is the case. You haven't. You lose.

Do you ever make a point without and attempted dig or a chip on your shoulder? I suppose when you don't have a real argument you devolve into insults and sophistry, whereas someone with intellectual integrity would just make their case, concede they were mistaken, might be mistaken, or just remain silent.

Egoism and bourgeois intellectual pissing games is the MO for a number of people in this thread and on Revleft generally . If you all are about achieving communism which includes eliminating capitalist selfishness and egoism, then why do so many here write in that manner rather than in the spirit of seeking the truth and taking an open ego free approach to educate fellow revolutionaries? I participate here for those reasons not to get hung up in somebody's psychological complex.

Why do you keep trying to make this personal by acting all personally offended? In numerous threads you've kept repeating how you've seen no evidence that Lenin thought socialism was a classless society, and implying that he thought the contrary because "most Marxists" thought so. I presented evidence, and now suddenly you want to pretend that the subject wasn't being discussed at all, that what's really at issue whether you have or haven't read Lenin.

Please read my post more carefully, I didn't say I knew definitively you hadn't read Lenin. I said that if you had, you hadn't read him carefully. Otherwise you would have seen the obvious textual evidence I pointed out where Lenin described socialism as a classless communist society.

[CommunistComrade]

Well, this thread certainly took a turn for the worst. I appreciate all the responses that were legitimate!
Update: I have joined the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

[Remus Bleys]

Well, this thread certainly took a turn for the worst. I appreciate all the responses that were legitimate!
Update: I have joined the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Oh god, please tell me you haven't. Please don't. They even uphold modern day China.

[Czy]

They even uphold modern day China.

Source? Uphold is a very strong word in this context.