Bolshevism, Leninism is there a difference?

[Monty Cantsin]

i just wanted to bring this question up is there a difference between Bolshevism and Leninism? say leninism being what lenin wrote in theory and bolshevism being what happened with other peoples influence.

also was lenins actions uncommunist?


(Noam Chomsky's book, "What Uncle Sam Really Wants")

Socialism, real and fake
One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state.

To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since.

These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals, who had criticized Lenin's doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on both counts.

The world's two major propaganda systems did not agree on much, but they did agree on using the term socialism to refer to the immediate destruction of every element of socialism by the Bolsheviks. That's not too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system socialist so as to exploit the moral prestige of socialism.

The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon, to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights.

If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will say: not for me. And if that's the only alternative to corporate state capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as the only reasonable choice.

With the collapse of the Soviet system, there's an opportunity to revive the lively and vigorous libertarian socialist thought that was not able to withstand the doctrinal and repressive assaults of the major systems of power. How large a hope that is, we cannot know. But at least one roadblock has been removed. In that sense, the disappearance of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism, much as the defeat of the fascist powers was.

Noam thinks so what about you guy/gals?

[Monty Cantsin]

also one more thing to look at the The Kronstadt Demands (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24585).

[Salvador Allende]

Stalin was not Marxist or Leninist. He rather, created a new system called Stalinism.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Bolsehvik party was the party of Lenin and emboded his ideas, so I think it can be argued that bolshevism is leninism.

What are the Kronstadt demands there for?

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2004, 07:13 AM
The Bolsehvik party was the party of Lenin and emboded his ideas, so I think it can be argued that bolshevism is leninism.

What are the Kronstadt demands there for?
oh it can be argued and very well, but there seems to be a great gap between what he wrote and what he did.

And the demands are just to show the nature of his government. Because most people accept Lenin but disown Stalin but I see Stalin as an expansion of Lenin’s policy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by euripidies+May 15 2004, 04:42 PM--> (euripidies @ May 15 2004, 04:42 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2004, 07:13 AM
The Bolsehvik party was the party of Lenin and emboded his ideas, so I think it can be argued that bolshevism is leninism.

What are the Kronstadt demands there for?
oh it can be argued and very well, but there seems to be a great gap between what he wrote and what he did.

And the demands are just to show the nature of his government. Because most people accept Lenin but disown Stalin but I see Stalin as an expansion of Lenin’s policy. [/b]
The catastrophy at Kronstadt shows that there is a flaw in Leninist theory. Indeed there is a gap between leninist theory and practice, a contradiction infact. A gap which can never be filled, except with oppression and rivision. So much for workers liberation.

[Shredder]

Kronstadt shows a gaping flaw in anarchist theory: "Let's become terrorists every time there's someone in authority, even if the authority in question has been fighting for his entire life for us."

Naturally, the uprising, without a vanguard, was crushed miserably. With no leadership, the traitors who weren't slaughtered due to lack of leadership, fled cowardly to their counterrevolutionary sponsors in Finland.

I'll never understand how you anarchists intend to achieve a utopia based on cooperation when you never cooperate with anything, ever.

"If people abroad exaggerate the importance of the rising in Kronstadt and give it support, it is because the world has broken up into two camps: capitalism abroad and Communist Russia. " -Lenin

The rebellion in the Kronstadt was counter-revolution with imperialist backing. The event was published Europe before it even happened. What we have here is the Soviet bay of pigs. But the anarchists sympathise with it! Back here in reality, the Kronstadt only confirms the need for a vanguard; the masses, left to themselves and armed with anarchist principles, will split off into sect after sect until chaos reigns.

There is one large difference between Lenin in theory and in practice. In theory, Lenin has to squash ultra-left, counterrevolutionary deterrents with the pen. In practice, those same crybabies take up arms and must be quelled with force.

[elijahcraig]

Marxism is Leninism, Leninism is Bolshevism, Bolshevism is Stalinism, Leninism is Stalinism, and Maoism an extension of them all.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:12 PM
Marxism is Leninism, Leninism is Bolshevism, Bolshevism is Stalinism, Leninism is Stalinism, and Maoism an extension of them all.
I really dont think you can extend Marxism to Stalinism. If that was the case, then Stalinism would be called Marxism wouldnt it?

Exactly. Thats what I thought. :angry:

[elijahcraig]

What is commonly known as "Stalinism" is actually the Marxist form of thought, which Trotskyites have separated in order to insult "Stalinists," ie Marxists, and support their own fringe-based Trotsky-worshipping savior-ideology.

Stalinists don't call themselves "Stalinists," they refer to themselves as "Marxists." This furhter extending of sects has been extended only in so far as for us to distinguish who supports who, etc.

[BOZG]

What is commonly known as "Stalinism" is actually the Marxist form of thought, which Trotskyites have separated in order to insult "Stalinists," ie Marxists, and support their own fringe-based Trotsky-worshipping savior-ideology.

I disagree with it being the Marxist form of thought but I would consider Stalinism to have some origins in Marxism and Leninism but to be a gross distortion of them.



Edit: Added bold

[elijahcraig]

Well, I suppose that's why we have these distinctions. Simple or complex disagreements on the nature of THE Marxism.

[BOZG]

I hate the old "Trotskyism/Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism" argument. Both are variants, the argument is of their proximity to it. Much like whether Leninism is Marxism. Marx was not alive to give his analysis of Lenin so we cannot possibly say that it is Marxism but it's correct to say it's a variation.

[elijahcraig]

Marxism is the ideology invented by Marx, not Marx's judgements of movements at any given time. Any one can "claim" to be Marxist. Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Anarchists sometimes even...the point is that this is why we have the divided name types. And Marx not being here has absolutely nothing to do with it. Darwinists exist today without Darwin being allowed to "christen" them as so.

[BOZG]

I was trying to say that there are different interpretations of Marx, by Leninists and non-Leninists and that you cannot possibly say that Leninism is Marxism.

[elijahcraig]

I can say that, and we can debate it. According to a Trot, I'm wrong. Different interpretations does not mean that Leninism is not Marxism, but that people differ in their views of what constitutes Marxism, and what does not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:06 PM
Kronstadt shows a gaping flaw in anarchist theory: "Let's become terrorists every time there's someone in authority, even if the authority in question has been fighting for his entire life for us."
Interesting. Here are the demands made by the Kronstadt workers and sailors who had fought alongside the bolsheviks


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.


Naturally, the uprising, without a vanguard, was crushed miserably. With no leadership, the traitors who weren't slaughtered due to lack of leadership, fled cowardly to their counterrevolutionary sponsors in Finland.

How the blind lead the blind. Traitors? The Kronstadt workers asked for demands, inline with communist thought. Read the demands. Nothing in them suggests that they are counter revolutionaries, or traitors. Merely communists attempting to bring some power into the hands of the workers.... :o


I'll never understand how you anarchists intend to achieve a utopia based on cooperation when you never cooperate with anything, ever.

What an interesting distortion of history. Anarchists by the thousands flocked to Russia to help support the Bolsheviks and fought along side them. They were not sectarian, they even compromised principles to help fight the whites. The Spanish civil war the anarchists sided with the marxists to help fight the fascists, until, after setting up collectives throughout catalonia were murdered in the thousands by the very people they had co-operated with.

Even now, in the anti-capitalist movement, anarchists work alongside authotarians. You're assertions are basless lies, but I suppose that is to be expected.


"If people abroad exaggerate the importance of the rising in Kronstadt and give it support, it is because the world has broken up into two camps: capitalism abroad and Communist Russia. " -Lenin

What is this supposed to prove?


The rebellion in the Kronstadt was counter-revolution with imperialist backing.

There was nothing counter-revolutionary about the demands that were asked for. If you can find any, go here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24585) in the Kronstadt thread and take the demands one by one, proving that they were counter revolutionarry or imperialist.


What we have here is the Soviet bay of pigs. But the anarchists sympathise with it!

Leninist revision of history. Factless and rhetorical.


Back here in reality, the Kronstadt only confirms the need for a vanguard;

Kronstadt was a port with a few thousand lightly armed soldiers, aganst an army of tens of thousands with artillary guns. Even if they had a vangaurd leading them, they still would have lost.


the masses, left to themselves and armed with anarchist principles, will split off into sect after sect until chaos reigns.

Did you take this from Bourgeois weekly? Your understanding of anarchism is pathetically non-existent for someone who seems to assert things with such confidence.


There is one large difference between Lenin in theory and in practice. In theory, Lenin has to squash ultra-left, counterrevolutionary deterrents with the pen. In practice, those same crybabies take up arms and must be quelled with force.

And the true Leninist speaks. Thank you, for reaffirming everything I have ever thought or learnt about you and your ideal worshipping cult. Hows that for sectarianism!

[elijahcraig]

I would debate, Crippled X, but I feel it would amount to the "agree to disagree" conclusion we seem to always reach.

[Urban Rubble]

Because most people accept Lenin but disown Stalin but I see Stalin as an expansion of Lenin’s policy.

That's what I always say. I've never understood how people like Midnight Marauder and RedZeppelin can be Leninists but reject Stalin. Stalin simply continued with what Lenin started, with alot more paranoia.

I'd like someone to try and disprove what Chomsky said in that little piece.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:16 PM
I would debate, Crippled X, but I feel it would amount to the "agree to disagree" conclusion we seem to always reach.
I shit you not, I had a dream about you last night. You were a gardner called Jeremiah, I knew it was you because you told me who you were over the telephone until a park ranger came and shouted at me...

Jeremiah..it suits you!

[Shredder]

First of all, they did not "ask for demands." They demanded demands.

Secondly, which is it? Are you metaphorically "flocking to Russia" to cooperate with the Bolsheviks for the sake of the working class, or are you siding with the bourgeois and social democrats in lamenting the Kronstadt slaughter? We're not discussing anarchists who have historically cooperated. We're discussing the anarchists who historically side with the uncooperative Kronstadt mutineers!

Thirdly, the Kronstadt mutineers weren't the workers and Bolsheviks from 1917. Those brave men joined the Red Army and were off fighting civil war elsewhere. The mutineers were largely Ukranian peasants, no?

Finally, had the mutineers not been dispersed, the revolution would have been destroyed as foreign fleets would occupy Kronstadt and take over Petrograd. This is a question of revolution vs counterrevolution.

[elijahcraig]

I shit you not, I had a dream about you last night. You were a gardner called Jeremiah, I knew it was you because you told me who you were over the telephone until a park ranger came and shouted at me...

Jeremiah..it suits you!

Anxiety?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:29 AM
First of all, they did not "ask for demands." They demanded demands.
I see you read them carefully. You can not construct an argument against something you are so blatantly ignoring. Read the demands, read them, and you will see that none of them are bourgeois or counter-revolutionary, but are inline with communist practice, and are only "bad" insofar as they ask for more power from the state to be given to the workers.


Secondly, which is it? Are you metaphorically "flocking to Russia" to cooperate with the Bolsheviks for the sake of the working class, or are you siding with the bourgeois and social democrats in lamenting the Kronstadt slaughter?

You're historical accuracy is so misguided I would not be suprised if you wer flat out lying. The Kronstadt uprising had nothing to do with any social democrats or bourgeois counter-revolutionaries. As you can see from the demands, the workers and sailors at Kronstadt were very much wanting to create a workers society. I have seen Leninists revise history, but you my friend are taking it to new levels.


We're not discussing anarchists who have historically cooperated. We're discussing the anarchists who historically side with the uncooperative Kronstadt mutineers!

Read the demands. Read the demands. Read the demands. Take them point by point and please explain in graphic detail why they were so unreasonable or bourgeois.


Thirdly, the Kronstadt mutineers weren't the workers and Bolsheviks from 1917. Those brave men joined the Red Army and were off fighting civil war elsewhere.

Lie!


The mutineers were largely Ukranian peasants, no?

How did you even come to this conclusion?

Kronstadt Uprising (http://www.islandnet.com/~citizenx/kronstadt.html)


Finally, had the mutineers not been dispersed, the revolution would have been destroyed as foreign fleets would occupy Kronstadt and take over Petrograd. This is a question of revolution vs counterrevolution.

The workers and sailors of Kronstadt would have laid down their arms and rejoined the revolution had Lenin done what he should have done in the first place and handed over power to the working class. What is the purpose of a communist revolution if it is not this?

Lenin even did give into some of the demands later on after Kronstadt. The reason these "mutineers" were disperesed was because Lenin and his Executive committee could not deal with the possibility of loosing control. It was never about working class power, it was about the parties power. It was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, it was a dictatorship of the Bolsehvik party. Fact!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:05 AM

I shit you not, I had a dream about you last night. You were a gardner called Jeremiah, I knew it was you because you told me who you were over the telephone until a park ranger came and shouted at me...

Jeremiah..it suits you!

Anxiety?
No, I'm just in love with you.

[BOZG]

How many times do people have to be told that the sailors who fought in Kronstadt in 1917 were dispatched to different fronts during the Civil War? The sailors that fought in Kronstadt in 1921 were not the soldiers who fought with the Bolsheviks. As for this rubbish about the demands, regardless of whether they were inline or not inline with communist demands is irrelevant. If you read some of the BNPs demands, they also sound very nice. It's the consciousness and the backing that determines whether the demands are acceptable.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:35 PM
How many times do people have to be told that the sailors who fought in Kronstadt in 1917 were dispatched to different fronts during the Civil War? The sailors that fought in Kronstadt in 1921 were not the soldiers who fought with the Bolsheviks.
Leninist revision of history.


As for this rubbish about the demands, regardless of whether they were inline or not inline with communist demands is irrelevant. If you read some of the BNPs demands, they also sound very nice. It's the consciousness and the backing that determines whether the demands are acceptable.

Read the link I have provided and by all means refute it.

Kronstadt Uprising (http://www.islandnet.com/~citizenx/kronstadt.html)

[elijahcraig]

No, I'm just in love with you.

You finally have found a father figure in your tragic life. Soon you’ll have to kill me and fuck my wife.


Leninist revision of history.

You get all uppity and angry over me writing “Anarchist idealism,” and such, but…then you go and write what amounts to the same thing, “Leninist revision of history.” Hypocrite.


Read the link I have provided and by all means refute it.

Kronstadt Uprising

That’s just stupid. I could present you with any number of texts on why Kronstadt WAS not an “uprising” in the revolutionary sense, and why your view is wrong. What would it serve? Nothing, you have your texts and I have mine. They both provide a slanted view of what actually occurred. Your “source” merely assumes that a) Bolshevism was to be “revolted against,” b) …let’s just look at a quote:


everyone was feeling the privation and hardship caused by civil disorder, foreign military intervention and economic embargoes, and the extreme measures ordered by Lenin under the `War Communism' policy. Private trading in food and commodities was forbidden, food was expropriated from rural peasants by local Bolshevik authorities to keep the cities supplied, and conscripted and unpaid labour was often used. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks were trying to consolidate their control of the country through local soviets (originally, these were locally elected councils of workers and peasants functioning as interim governments), local bureaucracies, the Cheka (secret police), and, when necessary, the battle-hardened and politically loyal units of the Red Army.

I agree with all of this.

But:


In February 1921 the inhabitants of Kronstadt were, like most other city-dwellers in Russia, hungry, cold, and discontented with Communist rule. The sailors at Kronstadt were in sympathy with them: they recognized that winning the war against the Whites was one thing, but that it was also necessary to defend the spirit of the Revolution against the authoritarian and bureaucratic regime the Bolsheviks were building.

Care to explain exactly how an “authoritarian and bureaucratic regime” was being built in a nation completely torn by famine, war, civil revolt, and god knows what else? Engels said that a revolution IS the most authoritative move EVER, which will cause TERROR to an extent, but if you are SERIOUS about creating a socialist future, you have to work with and around. So is it the revolution or the Bolsheviks “betraying” the revolution against the unfortunate inhabitants of Kronstadt? It doesn’t make sense that you would support a reactionary revolt against the Bolsheviks if you knew that a revolution requires authority implemented to the ends in which it is required.


By the night of the 17th, Kronstadt was under Communist control again.

Oh no, what a horrible thing for the counterrevolutionaries!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:06 PM
You finally have found a father figure in your tragic life. Soon you’ll have to kill me and fuck my wife.
Somebody married you :o


You get all uppity and angry over me writing “Anarchist idealism,” and such, but…then you go and write what amounts to the same thing, “Leninist revision of history.” Hypocrite

That's not what I get uppity about at all. You're consistent name calling is what annoys me.


That’s just stupid. I could present you with any number of texts on why Kronstadt WAS not an “uprising” in the revolutionary sense, and why your view is wrong. What would it serve? Nothing, you have your texts and I have mine.

True.


Care to explain exactly how an “authoritarian and bureaucratic regime” was being built in a nation completely torn by famine, war, civil revolt, and god knows what else? Engels said that a revolution IS the most authoritative move EVER, which will cause TERROR to an extent, but if you are SERIOUS about creating a socialist future, you have to work with and around. So is it the revolution or the Bolsheviks “betraying” the revolution against the unfortunate inhabitants of Kronstadt? It doesn’t make sense that you would support a reactionary revolt against the Bolsheviks if you knew that a revolution requires authority implemented to the ends in which it is required.

Engels is talking about a revolution, not about the art of governance.

There are two ways to go about fighting a revolution. The demands of the Kronstadt workers and sailors were not counter-revolutionary. The demands did not threaten the existence of the revolution. The Bolsehivik regime made a choice. It chose to exact an authotarian form of governance over the working class instead of handing power down to them. The bolsehiks, if they so desired, could have given into the demands of the workers, the people they are there supposedly fighting for, and still been able to defend the revolution.

[elijahcraig]

Somebody married you

No.


That's not what I get uppity about at all. You're consistent name calling is what annoys me.

Weh! Weh!
-Faust


Engels is talking about a revolution, not about the art of governance.

“The art of governance”? That’s ridiculous. ALL events in a place of revolution are events OF REVOLUTION. You are attempting to isolate an event which cannot be isolated.


There are two ways to go about fighting a revolution. The demands of the Kronstadt workers and sailors were not counter-revolutionary. The demands did not threaten the existence of the revolution. The Bolsehivik regime made a choice. It chose to exact an authotarian form of governance over the working class instead of handing power down to them. The bolsehiks, if they so desired, could have given into the demands of the workers, the people they are there supposedly fighting for, and still been able to defend the revolution.

Mere speculation. I’m not going to go back and debate over something which did not happen, and we cannot know what would have happened in the event of a different decision. You’re idealizing a situation which may have never existed based on the idealized accounts of “Anarchists” and other anti-revolutionary forces. The Bolsheviks did what they did in order to save the revolution and to protect the working class power. Your indictment of people who spent their whole lives fighting for revolution and the workers is simply disgusting. They made decisions based on what they thought was necessary in order to defend a revolution, they did not do these things always perfectly. YOU simply construct an “Evil Bolshevik Scare Crow” which is seen as some sort of Devil as Christians believe, which “acts in the forces of evil,” etc. and always chooses the worst thing, based on that they are pure and simple evil. Anarchism and Christianity are very similar in their idealization, utopianism, and constructing of “evil illusions” in “Bolsheviks” or “Devils” in order to justify their “claims” about the “failures” of the world. Pathetic.

[The Feral Underclass]

You're so angry...relax, it's all going to be ok.

[elijahcraig]

Wow, what a reply. I attempt to debate and you simply dodge around my quotes and call me something "angry." How hypocritical.

Although I was not angry, merely annoyed with having to continually refute your ideas copied and pasted off of Anarchist think sites. As RAF said, you don't have individual thoughts, but are merely a tool of the capitalist system. You merely copy the thoughts of a line of thought and paste it on boards in an attempt to "stir up trouble with them there crazy Stalinists." Your thoughts are neither revolutionary nor are they coherent, they are merely annoying and overly-posted.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Stalin was not Marxist or Leninist. He rather, created a new system called Stalinism.

Can you provide me with any specific "beliefs" that constitute "Stalinism"? No matter how hard I look, I can't seem to find any "Stalinist doctrines". Perhaps you can shed some light on it for me.


I really dont think you can extend Marxism to Stalinism. If that was the case, then Stalinism would be called Marxism wouldnt it?

Exactly. Thats what I thought.

There is no such thing as "Stalinism". Perhaps you too can provide me with some insight as to what exactly it is as you seem to be so adamant about it.


I was trying to say that there are different interpretations of Marx, by Leninists and non-Leninists and that you cannot possibly say that Leninism is Marxism

And why is that? Do you have any specific reasons for this opinion?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:17 AM
Wow, what a reply. I attempt to debate and you simply dodge around my quotes and call me something "angry." How hypocritical.

Although I was not angry, merely annoyed with having to continually refute your ideas copied and pasted off of Anarchist think sites. As RAF said, you don't have individual thoughts, but are merely a tool of the capitalist system. You merely copy the thoughts of a line of thought and paste it on boards in an attempt to "stir up trouble with them there crazy Stalinists." Your thoughts are neither revolutionary nor are they coherent, they are merely annoying and overly-posted.
You make interesting points I am sure, but just like the debate we were having in theory, at some point the debate can not go any further. I have not convinced you that I am right, and neither have you convinced me. I do not see the point in going over the same things.

It is unfortunate for you, that you think I am a "tool for capitalism" but you are entitled to your opinion. I can not debate with you anymore. You are very much set in your opinions as I am mine. We are not going to progress. There is nothing I have to say which you haven't heard already, and vice versa. It will only end up with "you are repeating yourself," "more rhetoric..blah blah blah." I have better things to do with my time than get into one of these debates with someone who has nothing but contempt for me.

Thanks for your posts, it has given me food for thought.

[BOZG]

And why is that? Do you have any specific reasons for this opinion?

If you read my other posts, it explains. Leninism is a form of Marxism, you cannot say it is Marxism because you cannot prove what the exact interpretation of Marxism is.

[Vinny Rafarino]

So which is it?


Your previous posts states this;


you cannot possibly say that Leninism is Marxism

and in your reply (once you were called on it);


Leninism is a form of Marxism

and then you switch back again in the close;


you cannot say it is Marxism because you cannot prove what the exact interpretation of Marxism is.

You are very confused.

Let me guess, you are going to reply with something like this;

"I said it was a form of Marxism but not Marxism."

Your inability to even provide ONE SHRED of evidence to support your "theory" coupled with the fact that you are very confused leads me to believe that you really do not have any sort of clue what you are on about.

Let me guess yet again...."read your other posts" right? :lol:

We have are very own Remo Williams here lads.

[BOZG]

You really don't have a clue do you.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:26 PM
You really don't have a clue do you.
If I have think I have no clue, then it is reasonable to assume that there is some sort of "clue" that you feel you have and I lack.

Perhaps you, in your 16 years of wisdom, would like to educate me and the rest of the board as to what that clue is. :lol:

[Urban Rubble]

Perhaps you, in your 16 years of wisdom, would like to educate me and the rest of the board as to what that clue is.

Mr Mustard in the Billiard room with a wrench.