Debate: Leninism Vs. Marxism

[NovelGentry]

I'm not going to make any other prior statements than that this is first and foremost a debate between Vladimir_ and myself. There is no obligation of anyone to read this, but if you think you'll find it interesting it is here. What I would like to see, just for the sake of assuming I'm right, is some sort of formal answers to this. I'm not going to put words in Vlads mouth, in fact I think he says quite clearly what he believes in the debate, but I am going to say that I believe there are fundamental differences between Marxism and Leninism.

Here is the chat log (I hope my server can take it)

Leninism Vs. Marxism (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/FilingCabinet/Logs/leninism-vs-marxism.html)

[NovelGentry]

I'm not going to make any other prior statements than that this is first and foremost a debate between Vladimir_ and myself. There is no obligation of anyone to read this, but if you think you'll find it interesting it is here. What I would like to see, just for the sake of assuming I'm right, is some sort of formal answers to this. I'm not going to put words in Vlads mouth, in fact I think he says quite clearly what he believes in the debate, but I am going to say that I believe there are fundamental differences between Marxism and Leninism.

Here is the chat log (I hope my server can take it)

Leninism Vs. Marxism (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/FilingCabinet/Logs/leninism-vs-marxism.html)

[NovelGentry]

I'm not going to make any other prior statements than that this is first and foremost a debate between Vladimir_ and myself. There is no obligation of anyone to read this, but if you think you'll find it interesting it is here. What I would like to see, just for the sake of assuming I'm right, is some sort of formal answers to this. I'm not going to put words in Vlads mouth, in fact I think he says quite clearly what he believes in the debate, but I am going to say that I believe there are fundamental differences between Marxism and Leninism.

Here is the chat log (I hope my server can take it)

Leninism Vs. Marxism (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/FilingCabinet/Logs/leninism-vs-marxism.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd like to get into the debate, I just can't be bothered to read the link. Can you not break it down?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd like to get into the debate, I just can't be bothered to read the link. Can you not break it down?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd like to get into the debate, I just can't be bothered to read the link. Can you not break it down?

[NovelGentry]

I don't want to put words in Vlad's mouth, but I can certainly cut and copy some of what I would consider the more interesting parts that we disagree on. Furthermore, it's realistically only like a 10 minute read.

<Gent> I don&#39;t think Lenin thought Marx argued for a dictatorship by the party
<Vladimir_> yes but all ploretariats maybe dont want communism&#33;
<Gent> I think Lenin knew damn well that Marx wanted a dictatorship of the entire proletariat
<Vladimir_> no why the hell did he establish one????????
<Gent> Because he wasn&#39;t living in a theoretical world

<Vladimir_> We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.
<Gent> what year was it written?
<Vladimir_> 1917
<Gent> when did the revolution happen?
<Vladimir_> 1918
<Vladimir_> and?
<Gent> errr...
<Gent> Was the revolution not in October of 1917?
<Vladimir_> hey gent the STATE AND REVOLUTION has been changed many times by lenin it was released in 1922 or something
<Gent> Vladimir, it was written within months of the revolution on either side... He had no idea of the practical necessities of the revolution before he wrote it

<Vladimir_> why is there no leninism
<Vladimir_> ?
<Gent> there is
<Vladimir_> no there isnt because leninism uses marxism as its base
<Vladimir_> thus so called leninism has no base without marxism
<Gent> that is semantics
<Gent> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop...e/leninism.html (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/l/le/leninism.html) -- read that, it will tell you the difference between Marxism and Leninism
<Gent> If you want to consider Marxism-Leninism and Leninism the same, that&#39;s fine, but you cannot consider Marxism and Leninism alone to be the same

<Vladimir_> gent that is my point after every qoute lenin says marx is right and this is why he explains marx&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
<Gent> He explains Marx in such a way that he changes what Marx is saying, that is the problem... he puts what Marx says and then tells you what ot make of it. Why read what he says, why not read Marx for yourself and see?
<Vladimir_> gent do you not believe what lenin says?
<Gent> I&#39;m not saying Lenin is some evil guy trying to destroy the work of Marx... I&#39;m just willing to admit, unlike you, that he disagreed on certain things, differed on others, but in the end he had to, because he was in a different situation than Marx described, and eve had he been in the same situation as what Marx described, he was still trying to make it work practially, not theoretically
<Vladimir_> yes but gent the qoutes that im sending you from lenin are according to you not the words of marx right?
<Gent> Vladimir, I do not believe all his critiques on Marx, no. Certainlly he understands some of it very well, but other parts he does not. What I believe is that Lenin used Marx in order to present a basis for what he was doing in Russia. Lenin realized that what Marx described couldn&#39;t necessarily apply to Russia and thus he made his own beliefs on top of that in order so that he could have a practical application of Marxism, which in it
<Gent> self would be what he came up with, aka: Leninism
<Gent> Every quote you sent me so far was not Marx&#39; words, they were Lenin&#39;s

<Gent> Vladimir, so they both assumed a vanguard party would lead?
<Vladimir_> yes
<Vladimir_> All his life Marx fought against this petty-bourgeois socialism, now revived in Russia by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. He developed his theory of the class struggle consistently, down to the theory of political power, of the state.
<Gent> And they both believed that socialism could be acheived in a place where capitalism hadn&#39;t already had it&#39;s time?
<Vladimir_> marx agaoinst menshevieks
<Gent> Marx didn&#39;t write that
<Vladimir_> lenin made that up?
<Gent> I don&#39;t care how much you respect, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else who did their thing, but how can you stand by putting words in their mouths?
<Gent> words in Marx&#39;s mouth rather
<Vladimir_> lenin said that not me&#33;
<Gent> Vladimir, Marx argued that the petty bourgeoisie would join the bourgeoisie
<Vladimir_> tell that to lenin &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
<Gent> Vladimir, I know...I meant how can you stand by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao putting words in Marx&#39;s mouth?


Those are some of the jucier bits I guess which really explain where I think we differ. In short I say Marx&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution). Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat. I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society. Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

A lot of the crap in there is just me repeating stuff trying to make it sink in. Hope these sections help, and I hope I didn&#39;t take anything out of context, I tried to do fairly big chunks were certain specific points were made.

[NovelGentry]

I don&#39;t want to put words in Vlad&#39;s mouth, but I can certainly cut and copy some of what I would consider the more interesting parts that we disagree on. Furthermore, it&#39;s realistically only like a 10 minute read.

<Gent> I don&#39;t think Lenin thought Marx argued for a dictatorship by the party
<Vladimir_> yes but all ploretariats maybe dont want communism&#33;
<Gent> I think Lenin knew damn well that Marx wanted a dictatorship of the entire proletariat
<Vladimir_> no why the hell did he establish one????????
<Gent> Because he wasn&#39;t living in a theoretical world

<Vladimir_> We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.
<Gent> what year was it written?
<Vladimir_> 1917
<Gent> when did the revolution happen?
<Vladimir_> 1918
<Vladimir_> and?
<Gent> errr...
<Gent> Was the revolution not in October of 1917?
<Vladimir_> hey gent the STATE AND REVOLUTION has been changed many times by lenin it was released in 1922 or something
<Gent> Vladimir, it was written within months of the revolution on either side... He had no idea of the practical necessities of the revolution before he wrote it

<Vladimir_> why is there no leninism
<Vladimir_> ?
<Gent> there is
<Vladimir_> no there isnt because leninism uses marxism as its base
<Vladimir_> thus so called leninism has no base without marxism
<Gent> that is semantics
<Gent> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop...e/leninism.html (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/l/le/leninism.html) -- read that, it will tell you the difference between Marxism and Leninism
<Gent> If you want to consider Marxism-Leninism and Leninism the same, that&#39;s fine, but you cannot consider Marxism and Leninism alone to be the same

<Vladimir_> gent that is my point after every qoute lenin says marx is right and this is why he explains marx&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
<Gent> He explains Marx in such a way that he changes what Marx is saying, that is the problem... he puts what Marx says and then tells you what ot make of it. Why read what he says, why not read Marx for yourself and see?
<Vladimir_> gent do you not believe what lenin says?
<Gent> I&#39;m not saying Lenin is some evil guy trying to destroy the work of Marx... I&#39;m just willing to admit, unlike you, that he disagreed on certain things, differed on others, but in the end he had to, because he was in a different situation than Marx described, and eve had he been in the same situation as what Marx described, he was still trying to make it work practially, not theoretically
<Vladimir_> yes but gent the qoutes that im sending you from lenin are according to you not the words of marx right?
<Gent> Vladimir, I do not believe all his critiques on Marx, no. Certainlly he understands some of it very well, but other parts he does not. What I believe is that Lenin used Marx in order to present a basis for what he was doing in Russia. Lenin realized that what Marx described couldn&#39;t necessarily apply to Russia and thus he made his own beliefs on top of that in order so that he could have a practical application of Marxism, which in it
<Gent> self would be what he came up with, aka: Leninism
<Gent> Every quote you sent me so far was not Marx&#39; words, they were Lenin&#39;s

<Gent> Vladimir, so they both assumed a vanguard party would lead?
<Vladimir_> yes
<Vladimir_> All his life Marx fought against this petty-bourgeois socialism, now revived in Russia by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. He developed his theory of the class struggle consistently, down to the theory of political power, of the state.
<Gent> And they both believed that socialism could be acheived in a place where capitalism hadn&#39;t already had it&#39;s time?
<Vladimir_> marx agaoinst menshevieks
<Gent> Marx didn&#39;t write that
<Vladimir_> lenin made that up?
<Gent> I don&#39;t care how much you respect, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else who did their thing, but how can you stand by putting words in their mouths?
<Gent> words in Marx&#39;s mouth rather
<Vladimir_> lenin said that not me&#33;
<Gent> Vladimir, Marx argued that the petty bourgeoisie would join the bourgeoisie
<Vladimir_> tell that to lenin &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
<Gent> Vladimir, I know...I meant how can you stand by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao putting words in Marx&#39;s mouth?


Those are some of the jucier bits I guess which really explain where I think we differ. In short I say Marx&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution). Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat. I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society. Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

A lot of the crap in there is just me repeating stuff trying to make it sink in. Hope these sections help, and I hope I didn&#39;t take anything out of context, I tried to do fairly big chunks were certain specific points were made.

[NovelGentry]

I don&#39;t want to put words in Vlad&#39;s mouth, but I can certainly cut and copy some of what I would consider the more interesting parts that we disagree on. Furthermore, it&#39;s realistically only like a 10 minute read.

<Gent> I don&#39;t think Lenin thought Marx argued for a dictatorship by the party
<Vladimir_> yes but all ploretariats maybe dont want communism&#33;
<Gent> I think Lenin knew damn well that Marx wanted a dictatorship of the entire proletariat
<Vladimir_> no why the hell did he establish one????????
<Gent> Because he wasn&#39;t living in a theoretical world

<Vladimir_> We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.
<Gent> what year was it written?
<Vladimir_> 1917
<Gent> when did the revolution happen?
<Vladimir_> 1918
<Vladimir_> and?
<Gent> errr...
<Gent> Was the revolution not in October of 1917?
<Vladimir_> hey gent the STATE AND REVOLUTION has been changed many times by lenin it was released in 1922 or something
<Gent> Vladimir, it was written within months of the revolution on either side... He had no idea of the practical necessities of the revolution before he wrote it

<Vladimir_> why is there no leninism
<Vladimir_> ?
<Gent> there is
<Vladimir_> no there isnt because leninism uses marxism as its base
<Vladimir_> thus so called leninism has no base without marxism
<Gent> that is semantics
<Gent> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop...e/leninism.html (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/l/le/leninism.html) -- read that, it will tell you the difference between Marxism and Leninism
<Gent> If you want to consider Marxism-Leninism and Leninism the same, that&#39;s fine, but you cannot consider Marxism and Leninism alone to be the same

<Vladimir_> gent that is my point after every qoute lenin says marx is right and this is why he explains marx&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
<Gent> He explains Marx in such a way that he changes what Marx is saying, that is the problem... he puts what Marx says and then tells you what ot make of it. Why read what he says, why not read Marx for yourself and see?
<Vladimir_> gent do you not believe what lenin says?
<Gent> I&#39;m not saying Lenin is some evil guy trying to destroy the work of Marx... I&#39;m just willing to admit, unlike you, that he disagreed on certain things, differed on others, but in the end he had to, because he was in a different situation than Marx described, and eve had he been in the same situation as what Marx described, he was still trying to make it work practially, not theoretically
<Vladimir_> yes but gent the qoutes that im sending you from lenin are according to you not the words of marx right?
<Gent> Vladimir, I do not believe all his critiques on Marx, no. Certainlly he understands some of it very well, but other parts he does not. What I believe is that Lenin used Marx in order to present a basis for what he was doing in Russia. Lenin realized that what Marx described couldn&#39;t necessarily apply to Russia and thus he made his own beliefs on top of that in order so that he could have a practical application of Marxism, which in it
<Gent> self would be what he came up with, aka: Leninism
<Gent> Every quote you sent me so far was not Marx&#39; words, they were Lenin&#39;s

<Gent> Vladimir, so they both assumed a vanguard party would lead?
<Vladimir_> yes
<Vladimir_> All his life Marx fought against this petty-bourgeois socialism, now revived in Russia by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. He developed his theory of the class struggle consistently, down to the theory of political power, of the state.
<Gent> And they both believed that socialism could be acheived in a place where capitalism hadn&#39;t already had it&#39;s time?
<Vladimir_> marx agaoinst menshevieks
<Gent> Marx didn&#39;t write that
<Vladimir_> lenin made that up?
<Gent> I don&#39;t care how much you respect, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else who did their thing, but how can you stand by putting words in their mouths?
<Gent> words in Marx&#39;s mouth rather
<Vladimir_> lenin said that not me&#33;
<Gent> Vladimir, Marx argued that the petty bourgeoisie would join the bourgeoisie
<Vladimir_> tell that to lenin &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
<Gent> Vladimir, I know...I meant how can you stand by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao putting words in Marx&#39;s mouth?


Those are some of the jucier bits I guess which really explain where I think we differ. In short I say Marx&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution). Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat. I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society. Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

A lot of the crap in there is just me repeating stuff trying to make it sink in. Hope these sections help, and I hope I didn&#39;t take anything out of context, I tried to do fairly big chunks were certain specific points were made.

[YKTMX]

I know this thread will probably evolve into an interminable squabble but I&#39;ll simply state a matter of sincere opinion on my behalf. You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

[YKTMX]

I know this thread will probably evolve into an interminable squabble but I&#39;ll simply state a matter of sincere opinion on my behalf. You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

[YKTMX]

I know this thread will probably evolve into an interminable squabble but I&#39;ll simply state a matter of sincere opinion on my behalf. You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:16 PM
I say Marx&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution).
Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

If Marx had meant for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the entire proletariat, the praticaly application by Leninism, that being the leadership of a strong centralised political party, will invariable corrupt the theory, because it will have no other choice but to exact its control totally in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown througout the 20th century.

Marxism applied using the Leninist paradigm has always failed. There is no evdience to suppose it won&#39;t happen again.


Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat.

I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he&#39;s dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."


I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society.

I agree. Marx wrote about class antagonisms being the force behind change in societies. He talked about the working class being the last revolutionary class of history who would fight their exploitation and create communism. Communism being the final stage of historical development...From capitalism.


Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

Maybe, but it&#39;s never worked. In Russia Lenin had the opportunity to create a revolution, without a mass of working class people, so he did it. Russian peasents were largly illiterate and extremly superstitious and had no part of revolutionary activities, ie unions or connection with Urban unrest.

Lenin and Mao&#39;s interpretation of Marxism may have been necessary for their countries for their times, but it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that it works in general, or that their interpretations are actually what Marx was talking about.

You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:16 PM
I say Marx&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution).
Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

If Marx had meant for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the entire proletariat, the praticaly application by Leninism, that being the leadership of a strong centralised political party, will invariable corrupt the theory, because it will have no other choice but to exact its control totally in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown througout the 20th century.

Marxism applied using the Leninist paradigm has always failed. There is no evdience to suppose it won&#39;t happen again.


Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat.

I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he&#39;s dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."


I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society.

I agree. Marx wrote about class antagonisms being the force behind change in societies. He talked about the working class being the last revolutionary class of history who would fight their exploitation and create communism. Communism being the final stage of historical development...From capitalism.


Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

Maybe, but it&#39;s never worked. In Russia Lenin had the opportunity to create a revolution, without a mass of working class people, so he did it. Russian peasents were largly illiterate and extremly superstitious and had no part of revolutionary activities, ie unions or connection with Urban unrest.

Lenin and Mao&#39;s interpretation of Marxism may have been necessary for their countries for their times, but it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that it works in general, or that their interpretations are actually what Marx was talking about.

You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:16 PM
I say Marx&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution).
Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

If Marx had meant for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the entire proletariat, the praticaly application by Leninism, that being the leadership of a strong centralised political party, will invariable corrupt the theory, because it will have no other choice but to exact its control totally in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown througout the 20th century.

Marxism applied using the Leninist paradigm has always failed. There is no evdience to suppose it won&#39;t happen again.


Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat.

I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he&#39;s dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."


I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society.

I agree. Marx wrote about class antagonisms being the force behind change in societies. He talked about the working class being the last revolutionary class of history who would fight their exploitation and create communism. Communism being the final stage of historical development...From capitalism.


Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

Maybe, but it&#39;s never worked. In Russia Lenin had the opportunity to create a revolution, without a mass of working class people, so he did it. Russian peasents were largly illiterate and extremly superstitious and had no part of revolutionary activities, ie unions or connection with Urban unrest.

Lenin and Mao&#39;s interpretation of Marxism may have been necessary for their countries for their times, but it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that it works in general, or that their interpretations are actually what Marx was talking about.

You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:46 PM
You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis
I think that&#39;s very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

It does not mean that it could or should be applied now.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:46 PM
You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis
I think that&#39;s very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

It does not mean that it could or should be applied now.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:46 PM
You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis
I think that&#39;s very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

It does not mean that it could or should be applied now.

[NovelGentry]

I would agree with your statemetn about what Leninism is, but I disagree that you can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Russia was not in a position to fit what Marx described theoretically as I said in the argument it was a feudalist demi-capitalism where your proletariat is not the majority. Even many of the quotes that Vladimir brings up when talking about primitive democracy explain that it doesn&#39;t work because it is a democracy that keeps in power the minority, and the majority (the proletariat) has no real influence. The case in Russia is that your peasants are a majority by a long shot, and I don&#39;t ever recall Marx relating peasants and the proletariat on the same level. If anything the peasants want to see the provisional government overthrow the czar and introduce "free market" -- aka: the peasants want to see capitalism, because that is their chance to be paid, to buy their own things, and to do what they think would ge them rich.

Taking Russia from this dodgy form of fedual-capitalism into the USSR as early revolutionary socialism is denying the idea that you need a capitalist revolution to begin with. This is something I find completely against Marxist theories because Marx held the historical value of such transitions with great importance. Owing the revolutions of the bourgeoisie as those which make it possible for the proletariat to become a majority and owing to their rule that the proletariat would revolt. Instead the USSR is put in a position where there is an overwhelming number of peasants and supporters of the old provisional government who are still pushing for their bourgeoisie revolution. So you see two solutions to this over the two major leaders, the first, Lenin, comes up with the new economic policy, and the second, Stalin, comes up with the great purge. Granted these may have "worked," but it is something Marx would have never even thought an issue because of the already overwhelming majority which should have been the proletariat and the complete minority of bourgoiesie. Then you have the issue of industrialization, which had to be done, where under a capitalist society capitalism itself takes care of industrialization so it is a non-issue to any transitional government to communism.

As I argue in the debate, Marx makes it a point to show that petty-bourgeoisie and peasants are likely to join the struggle in an overthrow of capitalism. Not the case in going from feudalism.... why would they? Now they&#39;ve missed any opportunity they had to actually make money.

I don&#39;t take much issue at all with Lenin, in fact I think some of the things he did were brilliant and made socialism the truest of possibilities for the USSR, but I don&#39;t pretend that his practice is in any way a direct copy of the theories of Marx, it can&#39;t be based on the fact that Russia wasn&#39;t capitalism to begin with.


Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

This is not to say that in the future there will not be a revolution which more closely resembles the theories of Marx (i.e. One that actually moves from capitalism to socialism to communism and adheres almost directly to his theory). Thus I don&#39;t think Leninism is the pinnacle, it is simply the closist we&#39;ve come so far.

[NovelGentry]

I would agree with your statemetn about what Leninism is, but I disagree that you can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Russia was not in a position to fit what Marx described theoretically as I said in the argument it was a feudalist demi-capitalism where your proletariat is not the majority. Even many of the quotes that Vladimir brings up when talking about primitive democracy explain that it doesn&#39;t work because it is a democracy that keeps in power the minority, and the majority (the proletariat) has no real influence. The case in Russia is that your peasants are a majority by a long shot, and I don&#39;t ever recall Marx relating peasants and the proletariat on the same level. If anything the peasants want to see the provisional government overthrow the czar and introduce "free market" -- aka: the peasants want to see capitalism, because that is their chance to be paid, to buy their own things, and to do what they think would ge them rich.

Taking Russia from this dodgy form of fedual-capitalism into the USSR as early revolutionary socialism is denying the idea that you need a capitalist revolution to begin with. This is something I find completely against Marxist theories because Marx held the historical value of such transitions with great importance. Owing the revolutions of the bourgeoisie as those which make it possible for the proletariat to become a majority and owing to their rule that the proletariat would revolt. Instead the USSR is put in a position where there is an overwhelming number of peasants and supporters of the old provisional government who are still pushing for their bourgeoisie revolution. So you see two solutions to this over the two major leaders, the first, Lenin, comes up with the new economic policy, and the second, Stalin, comes up with the great purge. Granted these may have "worked," but it is something Marx would have never even thought an issue because of the already overwhelming majority which should have been the proletariat and the complete minority of bourgoiesie. Then you have the issue of industrialization, which had to be done, where under a capitalist society capitalism itself takes care of industrialization so it is a non-issue to any transitional government to communism.

As I argue in the debate, Marx makes it a point to show that petty-bourgeoisie and peasants are likely to join the struggle in an overthrow of capitalism. Not the case in going from feudalism.... why would they? Now they&#39;ve missed any opportunity they had to actually make money.

I don&#39;t take much issue at all with Lenin, in fact I think some of the things he did were brilliant and made socialism the truest of possibilities for the USSR, but I don&#39;t pretend that his practice is in any way a direct copy of the theories of Marx, it can&#39;t be based on the fact that Russia wasn&#39;t capitalism to begin with.


Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

This is not to say that in the future there will not be a revolution which more closely resembles the theories of Marx (i.e. One that actually moves from capitalism to socialism to communism and adheres almost directly to his theory). Thus I don&#39;t think Leninism is the pinnacle, it is simply the closist we&#39;ve come so far.

[NovelGentry]

I would agree with your statemetn about what Leninism is, but I disagree that you can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Russia was not in a position to fit what Marx described theoretically as I said in the argument it was a feudalist demi-capitalism where your proletariat is not the majority. Even many of the quotes that Vladimir brings up when talking about primitive democracy explain that it doesn&#39;t work because it is a democracy that keeps in power the minority, and the majority (the proletariat) has no real influence. The case in Russia is that your peasants are a majority by a long shot, and I don&#39;t ever recall Marx relating peasants and the proletariat on the same level. If anything the peasants want to see the provisional government overthrow the czar and introduce "free market" -- aka: the peasants want to see capitalism, because that is their chance to be paid, to buy their own things, and to do what they think would ge them rich.

Taking Russia from this dodgy form of fedual-capitalism into the USSR as early revolutionary socialism is denying the idea that you need a capitalist revolution to begin with. This is something I find completely against Marxist theories because Marx held the historical value of such transitions with great importance. Owing the revolutions of the bourgeoisie as those which make it possible for the proletariat to become a majority and owing to their rule that the proletariat would revolt. Instead the USSR is put in a position where there is an overwhelming number of peasants and supporters of the old provisional government who are still pushing for their bourgeoisie revolution. So you see two solutions to this over the two major leaders, the first, Lenin, comes up with the new economic policy, and the second, Stalin, comes up with the great purge. Granted these may have "worked," but it is something Marx would have never even thought an issue because of the already overwhelming majority which should have been the proletariat and the complete minority of bourgoiesie. Then you have the issue of industrialization, which had to be done, where under a capitalist society capitalism itself takes care of industrialization so it is a non-issue to any transitional government to communism.

As I argue in the debate, Marx makes it a point to show that petty-bourgeoisie and peasants are likely to join the struggle in an overthrow of capitalism. Not the case in going from feudalism.... why would they? Now they&#39;ve missed any opportunity they had to actually make money.

I don&#39;t take much issue at all with Lenin, in fact I think some of the things he did were brilliant and made socialism the truest of possibilities for the USSR, but I don&#39;t pretend that his practice is in any way a direct copy of the theories of Marx, it can&#39;t be based on the fact that Russia wasn&#39;t capitalism to begin with.


Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

This is not to say that in the future there will not be a revolution which more closely resembles the theories of Marx (i.e. One that actually moves from capitalism to socialism to communism and adheres almost directly to his theory). Thus I don&#39;t think Leninism is the pinnacle, it is simply the closist we&#39;ve come so far.

[NovelGentry]

Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

It may be impossible but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not what Marx meant. I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I&#39;m not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist. In distinguishing them as such, communists as a party, and the proletariat of the working class. If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn&#39;t have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)." Instead he makes very clear his definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka: the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Whether it&#39;s practical or not is the reason I think Marxism and Leninism differs in the first place.


I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he&#39;s dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."

I&#39;ve long maintained that Marx doesn&#39;t make half assed assertions. So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them. And as I responded to the othe quotation of you, I don&#39;t see him ever define the proletariat as anything but the entire working class, and had I thought he meant party, I think he damn well would have said so. Lastly, I think the reason Marx said that is because he recognized that his arguments were not necessarily a practical application but were instead based on historical proofs and what can only be seen as scientific method.

Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia&#39;s. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx&#39;s position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

[NovelGentry]

Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

It may be impossible but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not what Marx meant. I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I&#39;m not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist. In distinguishing them as such, communists as a party, and the proletariat of the working class. If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn&#39;t have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)." Instead he makes very clear his definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka: the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Whether it&#39;s practical or not is the reason I think Marxism and Leninism differs in the first place.


I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he&#39;s dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."

I&#39;ve long maintained that Marx doesn&#39;t make half assed assertions. So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them. And as I responded to the othe quotation of you, I don&#39;t see him ever define the proletariat as anything but the entire working class, and had I thought he meant party, I think he damn well would have said so. Lastly, I think the reason Marx said that is because he recognized that his arguments were not necessarily a practical application but were instead based on historical proofs and what can only be seen as scientific method.

Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia&#39;s. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx&#39;s position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

[NovelGentry]

Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

It may be impossible but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not what Marx meant. I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I&#39;m not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist. In distinguishing them as such, communists as a party, and the proletariat of the working class. If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn&#39;t have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)." Instead he makes very clear his definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka: the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Whether it&#39;s practical or not is the reason I think Marxism and Leninism differs in the first place.


I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he&#39;s dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."

I&#39;ve long maintained that Marx doesn&#39;t make half assed assertions. So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them. And as I responded to the othe quotation of you, I don&#39;t see him ever define the proletariat as anything but the entire working class, and had I thought he meant party, I think he damn well would have said so. Lastly, I think the reason Marx said that is because he recognized that his arguments were not necessarily a practical application but were instead based on historical proofs and what can only be seen as scientific method.

Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia&#39;s. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx&#39;s position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

[YKTMX]

I think that&#39;s very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

Yes, even Lenin said that. When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for in your circles (i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline) Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were neccessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it. That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what&#39;s needed for the time.


You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.



Lenin never said Russia could "jump a stage" on it&#39;s own. What he and Trotsky argued was that Russia, although backward, was still an imperialist nation. Therefore, social revolution was neccessary and possible in this country but that socialism was entirely dependant on this provoking revolutions in the Western, adavanced capitalisms. It is also a fact that in Russia at the time, the choice was not between "liberal democracy" or "socialism". It was a choice between Soviet Rule and a military dictatorship. Those who attack the October Revolution argue for on the side of Kornilov.

[YKTMX]

I think that&#39;s very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

Yes, even Lenin said that. When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for in your circles (i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline) Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were neccessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it. That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what&#39;s needed for the time.


You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.



Lenin never said Russia could "jump a stage" on it&#39;s own. What he and Trotsky argued was that Russia, although backward, was still an imperialist nation. Therefore, social revolution was neccessary and possible in this country but that socialism was entirely dependant on this provoking revolutions in the Western, adavanced capitalisms. It is also a fact that in Russia at the time, the choice was not between "liberal democracy" or "socialism". It was a choice between Soviet Rule and a military dictatorship. Those who attack the October Revolution argue for on the side of Kornilov.

[YKTMX]

I think that&#39;s very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

Yes, even Lenin said that. When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for in your circles (i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline) Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were neccessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it. That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what&#39;s needed for the time.


You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.



Lenin never said Russia could "jump a stage" on it&#39;s own. What he and Trotsky argued was that Russia, although backward, was still an imperialist nation. Therefore, social revolution was neccessary and possible in this country but that socialism was entirely dependant on this provoking revolutions in the Western, adavanced capitalisms. It is also a fact that in Russia at the time, the choice was not between "liberal democracy" or "socialism". It was a choice between Soviet Rule and a military dictatorship. Those who attack the October Revolution argue for on the side of Kornilov.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:26 PM
It may be impossible but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not what Marx meant.
I&#39;m not disputing that.


I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I&#39;m not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

My point is, I don&#39;t think that this is very important. What Marx may or may not have said is of little relevance to the actuality of events. If you attempt to achieve communism through a political party, you will inevitably end up with what we have seen througout the 20th Century.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only involve the entire proletariat if a political party, idealised in a centralised hierarchy, does not exist. And you cannot deny that this is what Marx called for, and organised.


Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist.

And?


If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn&#39;t have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)."

I agree.


the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class.

Practically impossible&#33; How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.


So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them.

But those definitions are open to interpretation, you cannot deny that.


Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia&#39;s. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx&#39;s position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

I never argued otherwise.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:26 PM
It may be impossible but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not what Marx meant.
I&#39;m not disputing that.


I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I&#39;m not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

My point is, I don&#39;t think that this is very important. What Marx may or may not have said is of little relevance to the actuality of events. If you attempt to achieve communism through a political party, you will inevitably end up with what we have seen througout the 20th Century.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only involve the entire proletariat if a political party, idealised in a centralised hierarchy, does not exist. And you cannot deny that this is what Marx called for, and organised.


Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist.

And?


If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn&#39;t have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)."

I agree.


the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class.

Practically impossible&#33; How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.


So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them.

But those definitions are open to interpretation, you cannot deny that.


Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia&#39;s. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx&#39;s position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

I never argued otherwise.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:26 PM
It may be impossible but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not what Marx meant.
I&#39;m not disputing that.


I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I&#39;m not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

My point is, I don&#39;t think that this is very important. What Marx may or may not have said is of little relevance to the actuality of events. If you attempt to achieve communism through a political party, you will inevitably end up with what we have seen througout the 20th Century.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only involve the entire proletariat if a political party, idealised in a centralised hierarchy, does not exist. And you cannot deny that this is what Marx called for, and organised.


Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist.

And?


If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn&#39;t have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)."

I agree.


the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class.

Practically impossible&#33; How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.


So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them.

But those definitions are open to interpretation, you cannot deny that.


Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia&#39;s. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx&#39;s position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

I never argued otherwise.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:42 PM
That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what&#39;s needed for the time.
These are baseless lies. Why do you continue making these unfounded accusations while still maintaining you understand what anarchism is? You clearly do not. I&#39;m sick and tired of reading your bullshit about anarchism. You either don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about or your a liar&#33;

Just stop it&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:42 PM
That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what&#39;s needed for the time.
These are baseless lies. Why do you continue making these unfounded accusations while still maintaining you understand what anarchism is? You clearly do not. I&#39;m sick and tired of reading your bullshit about anarchism. You either don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about or your a liar&#33;

Just stop it&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:42 PM
That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what&#39;s needed for the time.
These are baseless lies. Why do you continue making these unfounded accusations while still maintaining you understand what anarchism is? You clearly do not. I&#39;m sick and tired of reading your bullshit about anarchism. You either don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about or your a liar&#33;

Just stop it&#33;

[YKTMX]

Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc. If you can&#39;t stand an opposing position then don&#39;t read my posts. Here, I&#39;ll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):


... If there is a devil in human history, that devil is the principle of command. It alone, sustained by the ignorance and stupidity of the masses , without which it could not exist, is the source of all the catastrophes, all the crimes, and all the infamies of history.

[YKTMX]

Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc. If you can&#39;t stand an opposing position then don&#39;t read my posts. Here, I&#39;ll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):


... If there is a devil in human history, that devil is the principle of command. It alone, sustained by the ignorance and stupidity of the masses , without which it could not exist, is the source of all the catastrophes, all the crimes, and all the infamies of history.

[YKTMX]

Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc. If you can&#39;t stand an opposing position then don&#39;t read my posts. Here, I&#39;ll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):


... If there is a devil in human history, that devil is the principle of command. It alone, sustained by the ignorance and stupidity of the masses , without which it could not exist, is the source of all the catastrophes, all the crimes, and all the infamies of history.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:11 PM
Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc.
I understand what Marxism and Leninism is. I never pretend they are anything other than what they are. You on the other hand have absolutly no conception of what anarchism is or has been, other than the lies you here from your party leadership. It isn&#39;t me who needs to "get real."


If you can&#39;t stand an opposing position then don&#39;t read my posts.

It isn&#39;t the opposing position that I can&#39;t stand. It&#39;s your ignorance and lies which make no sense. If you want to attack anarchism, fine. But at least know what it is your attacking.


Here, I&#39;ll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):

and then what...?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:11 PM
Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc.
I understand what Marxism and Leninism is. I never pretend they are anything other than what they are. You on the other hand have absolutly no conception of what anarchism is or has been, other than the lies you here from your party leadership. It isn&#39;t me who needs to "get real."


If you can&#39;t stand an opposing position then don&#39;t read my posts.

It isn&#39;t the opposing position that I can&#39;t stand. It&#39;s your ignorance and lies which make no sense. If you want to attack anarchism, fine. But at least know what it is your attacking.


Here, I&#39;ll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):

and then what...?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:11 PM
Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc.
I understand what Marxism and Leninism is. I never pretend they are anything other than what they are. You on the other hand have absolutly no conception of what anarchism is or has been, other than the lies you here from your party leadership. It isn&#39;t me who needs to "get real."


If you can&#39;t stand an opposing position then don&#39;t read my posts.

It isn&#39;t the opposing position that I can&#39;t stand. It&#39;s your ignorance and lies which make no sense. If you want to attack anarchism, fine. But at least know what it is your attacking.


Here, I&#39;ll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):

and then what...?

[YKTMX]

But at least know what it is your attacking.

Why don&#39;t you enlighten then? I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( :lol: ) to be knocked down.


and then what...?

And then nothing. I&#39;ll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.

[YKTMX]

But at least know what it is your attacking.

Why don&#39;t you enlighten then? I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( :lol: ) to be knocked down.


and then what...?

And then nothing. I&#39;ll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.

[YKTMX]

But at least know what it is your attacking.

Why don&#39;t you enlighten then? I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( :lol: ) to be knocked down.


and then what...?

And then nothing. I&#39;ll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.

[T_SP]

Firstly I think your idea of what the &#39;Dictatorship of the Proletariat&#39; is, is wrong&#33;&#33; Sorry but it is.
DOTP= Proletariat rule over the &#39;old&#39; ruling class, essentially making the entire proletariat the &#39;ruling class&#39;.

This is a common mistake people make. Many say, as you have, that it is the Vanguards rule over the Proletariat, NOT TRUE.
I think Trotsky and Lenin probably both distorted Marx&#39;s teaching to suit themselves in someway but the Manifesto was and still is only a guideline, hell if Marx really did claim he was no Marxist himself then this is pure proof of that fact. Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of his works, both were Dialecticians and this is obvious when you read there many writings and both were firm users and believers in Historical materialism two of the main tools Marx himself developed.
To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

[T_SP]

Firstly I think your idea of what the &#39;Dictatorship of the Proletariat&#39; is, is wrong&#33;&#33; Sorry but it is.
DOTP= Proletariat rule over the &#39;old&#39; ruling class, essentially making the entire proletariat the &#39;ruling class&#39;.

This is a common mistake people make. Many say, as you have, that it is the Vanguards rule over the Proletariat, NOT TRUE.
I think Trotsky and Lenin probably both distorted Marx&#39;s teaching to suit themselves in someway but the Manifesto was and still is only a guideline, hell if Marx really did claim he was no Marxist himself then this is pure proof of that fact. Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of his works, both were Dialecticians and this is obvious when you read there many writings and both were firm users and believers in Historical materialism two of the main tools Marx himself developed.
To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

[T_SP]

Firstly I think your idea of what the &#39;Dictatorship of the Proletariat&#39; is, is wrong&#33;&#33; Sorry but it is.
DOTP= Proletariat rule over the &#39;old&#39; ruling class, essentially making the entire proletariat the &#39;ruling class&#39;.

This is a common mistake people make. Many say, as you have, that it is the Vanguards rule over the Proletariat, NOT TRUE.
I think Trotsky and Lenin probably both distorted Marx&#39;s teaching to suit themselves in someway but the Manifesto was and still is only a guideline, hell if Marx really did claim he was no Marxist himself then this is pure proof of that fact. Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of his works, both were Dialecticians and this is obvious when you read there many writings and both were firm users and believers in Historical materialism two of the main tools Marx himself developed.
To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

[NovelGentry]

Note: YouKnowTheyMurderedX and The Anarchist Tension -- please try to stay on track, if you want an Anarchist vs. Everything Else thread, you&#39;re more than welcome to make one.


Practically impossible&#33; How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.

I&#39;m not saying that there is to be no representation, or that every member of the proletariat is to somehow organize like the US Senate to make rules/laws on certain things. What I am denying is that the centralized nature of the vanguard party, particularly in Russia was one in which the committee was the primary democratic body. These are the people who argued and decided on things, maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I don&#39;t think anyone outside these committees was ever given a chance to influence the final decisions made by Lenin or Stalin.

How I see the organization of the proletariat as a ruling class is one in which ever proletariat has fair say, either popular democracy or something based on Instant Runoff Voting. From here it is the proletariats direct votes which would influence law. This isn&#39;t to say there is no executive branch who is to ensure that everything runs smoothly in the country/world/whatever is making the move... it is simply to say that the vanguard party, and for that matter dictatorship is not focused in the hands of a single man or even a single party. It would be no doubt that one party would probably be given the majority of these positions, not all parties represent the proletariats true desires, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the proletariat is excluded from things such as: replacing those people with new people if they&#39;re not doing things right (through democratic means that is) or being allowed to vote on the same things the party does which determines the future of the proletariat and the nation as a whole.


To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

It&#39;s not specifically Marxism vs. Leninism as if they conflict it is simply to represent their difference -- which is what makes them what they are as separate ideological methods.

[NovelGentry]

Note: YouKnowTheyMurderedX and The Anarchist Tension -- please try to stay on track, if you want an Anarchist vs. Everything Else thread, you&#39;re more than welcome to make one.


Practically impossible&#33; How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.

I&#39;m not saying that there is to be no representation, or that every member of the proletariat is to somehow organize like the US Senate to make rules/laws on certain things. What I am denying is that the centralized nature of the vanguard party, particularly in Russia was one in which the committee was the primary democratic body. These are the people who argued and decided on things, maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I don&#39;t think anyone outside these committees was ever given a chance to influence the final decisions made by Lenin or Stalin.

How I see the organization of the proletariat as a ruling class is one in which ever proletariat has fair say, either popular democracy or something based on Instant Runoff Voting. From here it is the proletariats direct votes which would influence law. This isn&#39;t to say there is no executive branch who is to ensure that everything runs smoothly in the country/world/whatever is making the move... it is simply to say that the vanguard party, and for that matter dictatorship is not focused in the hands of a single man or even a single party. It would be no doubt that one party would probably be given the majority of these positions, not all parties represent the proletariats true desires, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the proletariat is excluded from things such as: replacing those people with new people if they&#39;re not doing things right (through democratic means that is) or being allowed to vote on the same things the party does which determines the future of the proletariat and the nation as a whole.


To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

It&#39;s not specifically Marxism vs. Leninism as if they conflict it is simply to represent their difference -- which is what makes them what they are as separate ideological methods.

[NovelGentry]

Note: YouKnowTheyMurderedX and The Anarchist Tension -- please try to stay on track, if you want an Anarchist vs. Everything Else thread, you&#39;re more than welcome to make one.


Practically impossible&#33; How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.

I&#39;m not saying that there is to be no representation, or that every member of the proletariat is to somehow organize like the US Senate to make rules/laws on certain things. What I am denying is that the centralized nature of the vanguard party, particularly in Russia was one in which the committee was the primary democratic body. These are the people who argued and decided on things, maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I don&#39;t think anyone outside these committees was ever given a chance to influence the final decisions made by Lenin or Stalin.

How I see the organization of the proletariat as a ruling class is one in which ever proletariat has fair say, either popular democracy or something based on Instant Runoff Voting. From here it is the proletariats direct votes which would influence law. This isn&#39;t to say there is no executive branch who is to ensure that everything runs smoothly in the country/world/whatever is making the move... it is simply to say that the vanguard party, and for that matter dictatorship is not focused in the hands of a single man or even a single party. It would be no doubt that one party would probably be given the majority of these positions, not all parties represent the proletariats true desires, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the proletariat is excluded from things such as: replacing those people with new people if they&#39;re not doing things right (through democratic means that is) or being allowed to vote on the same things the party does which determines the future of the proletariat and the nation as a whole.


To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

It&#39;s not specifically Marxism vs. Leninism as if they conflict it is simply to represent their difference -- which is what makes them what they are as separate ideological methods.

[redstar2000]

You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis.

Not only that, but you can&#39;t be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion.

It&#39;s true "because we say so".


Those who attack the October Revolution argue for the side of Kornilov.

That&#39;s speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.


When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for...(i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline), Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were necessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it.

And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

Both Stalin and Trotsky supported these measures.


Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of [Marx&#39;s] works, both were Dialecticians...To say Marxism vs. Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competition here; it is Dialectics in motion.

Waving the dialectical "magic wand" will not support your hypothesis.

Attempting a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry is, by Marx&#39;s standards, complete folly.

When Lenin, supported by Trotsky, introduced the "New Economic Policy" and went whoring after foreign investments, he admitted, in effect, that Marx was right and further, that all of Lenin&#39;s own yap about "socialism" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was completely meaningless.

It did fool a lot of people though...and for quite a long period of time.

Now, there&#39;s no excuse for being fooled.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis.

Not only that, but you can&#39;t be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion.

It&#39;s true "because we say so".


Those who attack the October Revolution argue for the side of Kornilov.

That&#39;s speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.


When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for...(i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline), Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were necessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it.

And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

Both Stalin and Trotsky supported these measures.


Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of [Marx&#39;s] works, both were Dialecticians...To say Marxism vs. Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competition here; it is Dialectics in motion.

Waving the dialectical "magic wand" will not support your hypothesis.

Attempting a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry is, by Marx&#39;s standards, complete folly.

When Lenin, supported by Trotsky, introduced the "New Economic Policy" and went whoring after foreign investments, he admitted, in effect, that Marx was right and further, that all of Lenin&#39;s own yap about "socialism" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was completely meaningless.

It did fool a lot of people though...and for quite a long period of time.

Now, there&#39;s no excuse for being fooled.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis.

Not only that, but you can&#39;t be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion.

It&#39;s true "because we say so".


Those who attack the October Revolution argue for the side of Kornilov.

That&#39;s speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.


When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for...(i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline), Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were necessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it.

And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

Both Stalin and Trotsky supported these measures.


Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of [Marx&#39;s] works, both were Dialecticians...To say Marxism vs. Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competition here; it is Dialectics in motion.

Waving the dialectical "magic wand" will not support your hypothesis.

Attempting a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry is, by Marx&#39;s standards, complete folly.

When Lenin, supported by Trotsky, introduced the "New Economic Policy" and went whoring after foreign investments, he admitted, in effect, that Marx was right and further, that all of Lenin&#39;s own yap about "socialism" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was completely meaningless.

It did fool a lot of people though...and for quite a long period of time.

Now, there&#39;s no excuse for being fooled.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Xvall]

You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis.

With that logic, I suppose that everyone prior to the age of Lenin who declared themselves Marxists were obviously liars. I suppose Marx wasn&#39;t part of the &#39;revolutionary communist praxis&#39; either, considering that he obviously wasn&#39;t a Leninist.

[Xvall]

You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis.

With that logic, I suppose that everyone prior to the age of Lenin who declared themselves Marxists were obviously liars. I suppose Marx wasn&#39;t part of the &#39;revolutionary communist praxis&#39; either, considering that he obviously wasn&#39;t a Leninist.

[Xvall]

You can&#39;t be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis.

With that logic, I suppose that everyone prior to the age of Lenin who declared themselves Marxists were obviously liars. I suppose Marx wasn&#39;t part of the &#39;revolutionary communist praxis&#39; either, considering that he obviously wasn&#39;t a Leninist.

[Xvall]

I&#39;m not going to get into this Anarchism Vs. Leninism thing, but I just wanted to comment on the Bakunin quote.


I&#39;ll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote. Bakunin did not argue that the infamies of history occured because the &#39;masses are stupid&#39;; Bakunin clearly states that such infamies are due to the principle of command - The &#39;stupidity of the masses&#39;, however according to Bakunin, is simply helping keep it up. I think this is one of those instances that would best be further explained with an example:

The Salem Witch trials resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn&#39;t have gone on for long.

[Xvall]

I&#39;m not going to get into this Anarchism Vs. Leninism thing, but I just wanted to comment on the Bakunin quote.


I&#39;ll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote. Bakunin did not argue that the infamies of history occured because the &#39;masses are stupid&#39;; Bakunin clearly states that such infamies are due to the principle of command - The &#39;stupidity of the masses&#39;, however according to Bakunin, is simply helping keep it up. I think this is one of those instances that would best be further explained with an example:

The Salem Witch trials resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn&#39;t have gone on for long.

[Xvall]

I&#39;m not going to get into this Anarchism Vs. Leninism thing, but I just wanted to comment on the Bakunin quote.


I&#39;ll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote. Bakunin did not argue that the infamies of history occured because the &#39;masses are stupid&#39;; Bakunin clearly states that such infamies are due to the principle of command - The &#39;stupidity of the masses&#39;, however according to Bakunin, is simply helping keep it up. I think this is one of those instances that would best be further explained with an example:

The Salem Witch trials resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn&#39;t have gone on for long.

[YKTMX]

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there&#39;s no getting away from it.


Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn&#39;t have gone on for long.

Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren&#39;t "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it&#39;s pointless.

[YKTMX]

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there&#39;s no getting away from it.


Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn&#39;t have gone on for long.

Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren&#39;t "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it&#39;s pointless.

[YKTMX]

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there&#39;s no getting away from it.


Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn&#39;t have gone on for long.

Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren&#39;t "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it&#39;s pointless.

[YKTMX]

Not only that, but you can&#39;t be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Yes.


Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion

No.


It&#39;s true "because we say so".

Yes.


That&#39;s speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.

Strange. Since when did History (particuraly socialist revolutionary History) become irrelevant?

Although, in your defense, disregarding History does help when "re-thinking" the Communist project eh?


And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

The revolution was becoming increasingly isolated and events like Kronstadt definetly shook the regime. The Bolsheviks made some mistakes at this time, I have no reason to dispute that.

[YKTMX]

Not only that, but you can&#39;t be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Yes.


Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion

No.


It&#39;s true "because we say so".

Yes.


That&#39;s speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.

Strange. Since when did History (particuraly socialist revolutionary History) become irrelevant?

Although, in your defense, disregarding History does help when "re-thinking" the Communist project eh?


And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

The revolution was becoming increasingly isolated and events like Kronstadt definetly shook the regime. The Bolsheviks made some mistakes at this time, I have no reason to dispute that.

[YKTMX]

Not only that, but you can&#39;t be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Yes.


Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion

No.


It&#39;s true "because we say so".

Yes.


That&#39;s speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.

Strange. Since when did History (particuraly socialist revolutionary History) become irrelevant?

Although, in your defense, disregarding History does help when "re-thinking" the Communist project eh?


And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

The revolution was becoming increasingly isolated and events like Kronstadt definetly shook the regime. The Bolsheviks made some mistakes at this time, I have no reason to dispute that.

[DaCuBaN]

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion

I can&#39;t believe you quoted that, given the answers you gave... :lol: Nail...Head...Bang&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion

I can&#39;t believe you quoted that, given the answers you gave... :lol: Nail...Head...Bang&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion

I can&#39;t believe you quoted that, given the answers you gave... :lol: Nail...Head...Bang&#33;

[Xvall]

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there&#39;s no getting away from it.

No, to &#39;sustain&#39; is to keep something alive that would normally collapse on its own. It doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that whatever is &#39;sustaining&#39; something is in &#39;direct support&#39; for it. You can sustain something without supporting it; you can sustain something without even knowing that you are sustaining it.


The people of Salem weren&#39;t "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

Likewise, the average American isn&#39;t born stupid - the American media and religion, however, makes sure to correct these things. I never said that the people of Salem were born stupid; I specifically pointed out that the fault lied directly in the people who orchestrated these thing.


Stop trying to defend it, it&#39;s pointless.

No.

[Xvall]

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there&#39;s no getting away from it.

No, to &#39;sustain&#39; is to keep something alive that would normally collapse on its own. It doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that whatever is &#39;sustaining&#39; something is in &#39;direct support&#39; for it. You can sustain something without supporting it; you can sustain something without even knowing that you are sustaining it.


The people of Salem weren&#39;t "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

Likewise, the average American isn&#39;t born stupid - the American media and religion, however, makes sure to correct these things. I never said that the people of Salem were born stupid; I specifically pointed out that the fault lied directly in the people who orchestrated these thing.


Stop trying to defend it, it&#39;s pointless.

No.

[Xvall]

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there&#39;s no getting away from it.

No, to &#39;sustain&#39; is to keep something alive that would normally collapse on its own. It doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that whatever is &#39;sustaining&#39; something is in &#39;direct support&#39; for it. You can sustain something without supporting it; you can sustain something without even knowing that you are sustaining it.


The people of Salem weren&#39;t "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

Likewise, the average American isn&#39;t born stupid - the American media and religion, however, makes sure to correct these things. I never said that the people of Salem were born stupid; I specifically pointed out that the fault lied directly in the people who orchestrated these thing.


Stop trying to defend it, it&#39;s pointless.

No.