Log in

View Full Version : Marxism-Leninism



Bolshevist
31st July 2004, 22:12
Since so many people here only see leninism as the varguard-party theory and nothing more, I just wanted to let people know there's more to it. I translated this text from Norwegian to English, so any spelling and/or grammatical errors are mine and not the author's.


1. Activity Duty
It means that everyone should take part in the life of the party. As one example, coming to meetings, take part in demonstrations by the party, supporting the party economically etc...
Here it is also important to have some flexibility because everyone can't/shouldn't be hyperactive. But the principle still is there. Also for the party leaders.

Why:

a) With passive members you will have many members that get very little impulses from the party, but rather from reactionary sources. Their ability to decide what is "right", and what is "wrong" will weaken and they can change the party towards the right.

b) That the leadership has obligation towards their members, may prevent a bureaucracy. It might prevent certain "deceases" you can get while you are in the leadership ("the members are so lazy - we are the real heroes") and supports the leaders foundation in the grass root members.

c) The communist party's job is to educate their members to becoming future leaders/organizers of the people's struggles/fights around the country. As a passive member, you will not get this education. If you are a passive member, but active in the union's, it could be possible to get a more socialdemocratic leaderstyle.

2: Small teams
To ensure democracy, and make it easier for people to be active, you should have small and active groups/teams. If the teams are too big, it will become more difficult to make sure people are active and the democracy might become weak. Small teams also make it more easy on how to organize people and accept new members and see their needs.

3: Democratic centralism
This is a principle that can be put to life in many ways, from a very tight implementation to a very loose one. It includes freedom to discussion inside the party, but a strong unity in actions. This is not dogmatic. Some times it is necessary that discussions inside the party also reaches out to the public. But as a principle members must follow the will of the majority of the party (when votes on issues etc) and decisions from higher organs in the party and discussions concerning the line of the party.

4: Security policies
As enemies of the bourgeoisie and their state, we will be monitored. Ranging from very mildly to very intense monitoring. This has been the case for 10 000 years and every class-society, in every country. That it suddenly stopped in the 90's for the Norwegian communists - I don't believe. We know that the state are monitoring us these days. What do you think the people are going to use the material they have been collecting? Do you think they would use enormous amounts of money on monitoring groups they do not consider enemies of their state? I don't think so.
I think that when the state machinery has secured enough information about what positions we have, what our privacy is, what window in the block that is our window, it is because they want to have the possibility to lock us up or worse. This is not paranoia, and I get pissed off when people say it is. Then you don't take the meaning of others seriously, and worse you don't take into account history and concrete knowledge. With security policies we can avoid a great deal of sanctions, we can continue working for the party non-legal, we can secure many members from persecution etc.

5: Economical Independence
Revolutionary who oppose and fight the bourgeoisie class-state should not be restrained economically by it. The biggest possible economically Independence is adviced, even in "peacetime". Is also connected with security policies. When you get a lot from the state, you get high consumptionhabits. It also increases the danger for bureaucracy.

YKTMX
1st August 2004, 20:06
Leninism is merely the Scientific theory of Revolution developed for the 21st century. Lenin was interested in one thing: The liberation of the human race. This fetish for the minute details of "party organisations" seems to a completely artifical Stalinist construct.

*prepares himself for mountains of atricles from Lenin about party organisation*

Bolshevist
1st August 2004, 20:46
You said


Leninism is merely the Scientific theory of Revolution developed for the 21st

and at the same time you also said


Lenin was interested in one thing: The liberation of the human race. This fetish for the minute details of "party organisations" seems to a completely artifical Stalinist construct.

And how do you achieve revolution? With the help of a strong, united communist party. IMO you are contradicting yourself, and bringing up Stalin - I don't see the reason for that.


*prepares himself for mountains of atricles from Lenin about party organisation*

I am not going to do that since you know you are contradicting yourself, but I can give you this URL: http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/sw/index.htm

YKTMX
1st August 2004, 20:54
And how do you achieve revolution? With the help of a strong, united communist party. IMO you are contradicting yourself, and bringing up Stalin - I don't see the reason for that.

It's not a contradiction. Consider this statement as the absolute imperative for any serious Marxists.

"The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class."

You are right, a party that is can follow the lead of the masses is essenstial to revolution but without the support of the working class no revolution can work. Lenin understood this. That is why in July 1917 when other Bolsheviks where urging him to take power he said no, because he knew the Bolsheviks support was too centralised in Moscow and Petrograd. So what did he do? He went and wrote a book (State and Revolution) and built the Bolsheviks in the Soviets until it had the power base to take over.

Bringing up Stalin wasn't a personal attack comrade. I was merely referring to the Stalinist historical creation of the "mighty, disciplined Bolsheviks inexorably leading the Working Class to Power". The truth was in fact, much diffirent.

Bolshevist
1st August 2004, 22:01
It's not a contradiction. Consider this statement as the absolute imperative for any serious Marxists.

"The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class."

Of course I agree to that.


Lenin understood this. That is why in July 1917 when other Bolsheviks where urging him to take power he said no, because he knew the Bolsheviks support was too centralised in Moscow and Petrograd. So what did he do? He went and wrote a book (State and Revolution) and built the Bolsheviks in the Soviets until it had the power base to take over.

And again I agree. I do not wish to impose my will over the proletariat. I do not understand from where you even though I wanted to. :huh:

YKTMX
1st August 2004, 22:17
I wasn't trying to say that you were saying anything malicious at all. I was just talking about the tendency amongst some people to fetishise "party discipline" and such. I wasn't trying to attack you comrade :)

SonofRage
7th August 2004, 06:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:06 PM
Leninism is merely the Scientific theory of Revolution developed for the 21st century.
developed in the early 20th century... :D