Lenin!

[Unrelenting Steve]

Why didnt Lenin go Capitalist? Why did he stray from the more conventional Marxist route of Capitalism>Socialism>Communism. Why did he aviod capitalism, specificly i want to know; What were the problems facing a capitalist Russia, please insight into this would be most useful ^_^.


PS: i know he developted a kindof state capitalism, but this is not as efficent as a proper capitalism system. I know this issue might be linked to reasons why democracy would have been reactionary at that time or if democracy would fail in Russia, so you could include; What were the problems facing Democracy in Russia (i know they were peasants but i dont see why they could of screwed up when voting for their interests)... So Problems facing democracy and Capitalism in Russia, please ellabourate!

Thanx
Seven

[Misodoctakleidist]

The main flaw was in leninist theory, it inevitably, I believe, creates a new class structure and thus a new class war and in doing so perpetuates the state. Lenin, like Blanqui, believed that the revolution should be lead by a "vanguard" party because he didn't believe that the proletariat was capable of attaining class consciousness on it's own. After the revolution the vanguard party nationalises the means of production and all workers are employed by the state, the problem with this set up it that the vanguard, and indeed every other layer of the state hierachy, have different relationship to the means of production to the proletariat. Leninist theory dictates that the dictatorship of the proletariat will wither away becuase the class war, it's mediation being the function of state, will die with the class system, however, since various levels of the state hierachy, particularly the vanguard party, represent different classes this doesn't happen. The state remains in place and after the first generation of well-intentioned revolutionarys are gone, their replacments, the victames of their material conditions, seek to use their position of power to turn themselves into a traditionsal capitalist bourgeoisie.

The reason Leninist revolutions have occured in so many countries can be explained by the material conditions of those countries at the time. Marx wrote that it was possible for the proletariat to sieze power before the material conditions were present to achieve communism but that such a revolution would only serve as a point in the bougeois revolution, he points to the example of the Jacobin revolution which wiped away the last remenants of feudalism, achieving in such a short space of time what would have takes the bougeorsie decades.

[Unrelenting Steve]

thank you, that was brilliant^^

[Shredder]

Why did he stray from the more conventional Marxist route of Capitalism>Socialism>Communism.

He strayed?

[Unrelenting Steve]

Is stray not a word? am i spelling it incorrectly?

if that is not ur thinking, then might i point out

Lenin did not insitute capitalism, which Marxists belive is a prerequisite for Socialism and Communism... its like a house without a foundation.

[Shredder]

Oh, that's the crux of the entire revolution.

The Russian bourgeoisie had arrived on the stage of history too late to make Russia a capitalist power. It would remain a "sphere of influence" with most of its capital being exported to the US, Britain, Germany and France. History has proven this true--the oh-so-glorious Free Market doesn't allow a pawn to become a player. The proletariat needed to carry out the bourgeois tasks--that is, building a strong economy--in place of the incompetant bourgeoisie. But after the bourgeois tasks, the proletariat would continue on to fulfill the socialist tasks.

And from this, you should draw the conclusion that October wasn't a useless failure, as crazy glass-half-empty anarchists think. It completed half of its mission. It created the material conditions for socialism where capitalism could not. Sadly, the entire process is now being reversed, and a second revolution is necessary to prevent all the capital from flowing back out to foreign capitalists.