Socialism vs Leninism

[Soyuz]

I want to see how many of you are socialist and how many Leninists. I am a leninist. I am for a stronger central government comparing you you soiclaists that want anarchy. Anarchy will never work because people cant control themselfs. I believe in people controlling themselfs but there is supposed tobe government that steps in when peole dont control themselfs.

[RedAnarchist]

When i first became a Communist, i was Trotskyist, then i became more Anarcho-Communist. I now consider myself just a general Communist.

[Soyuz]

I was born is Russia and I know how CCCP worked. I oved it. It just needed some minor changes but in Russia we did have a strong government and everything ran smoothly. But if you have a anarchy caounty its just people running around and fighting for themselfs. There is no economy, no military, no power, freedom to do everything and to kill each other too....

[Black Dagger]

Soyuz, I think you just made redstars' day :)

[Soyuz]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 11:36 PM
Soyuz, I think you just made redstars' day :)
If you have no point of posting then dont. I make my own days and I think on my own.

[D_Bokk]

I first believed in Democratic Socialism in which there would be no need for a violent revolution because all a politician needed to do was tell the people about Socialism and they will vote for Socialist politicians... heh. I was so naive back then.

After reading some of Che's writings, I then started to believe more so in Leninism completely, but after having an in depth debate with a Stalinist on a different board - I realized how wrong he [the Stalinist] was. I was trying to separate Stalin and Lenin because I don't think Lenin should be looked on the same level as Stalin, and I still don't.

Anyway, I now know more about about the USSR, Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky and I have come to a new conclusion. I believe in a Dictatorial Vanguard after the revolution. The Vanguard's main purpose is to lay the ground work for Socialism, create laws forbidding counter-revolutionary changes and revamp the educational system - after this has been accomplished the only goal left for them to is to set up a democratic socialist state, to take power away from the state and give it to those who deserve it, the proletariat. I would hope this could be done before there's a major change in leadership, or we may have another USSR on our hands.

So I am a Leninist-Democratic Socialist.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Soyuz+Jun 10 2005, 07:38 PM--> (Soyuz @ Jun 10 2005, 07:38 PM)
Black [email protected] 10 2005, 11:36 PM
Soyuz, I think you just made redstars' day :)
If you have no point of posting then dont. I make my own days and I think on my own. [/b]
Comrade, I think you misunderstand what Black Dagger wrote. To "make someone's day" is an English colloquialism meaning that you said or did something that was very interesting and/or noteworthy to someone else.

Miles

[Soyuz]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Jun 11 2005, 02:14 AM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Jun 11 2005, 02:14 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 11:19 PM
I want to see how many of you are socialist and how many Leninists. I am a leninist. I am for a stronger central government comparing you you soiclaists that want anarchy. Anarchy will never work because people cant control themselfs. I believe in people controlling themselfs but there is supposed tobe government that steps in when peole dont control themselfs.
Though I am not a Leninist, it is obvious in this post that you don't even have the basic grasp of the Leninist reasoning for the state post-revolution. [/b]
You go by the book. I go by experiance. Thats the difference between us.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:19 PM
I want to see how many of you are socialist and how many Leninists. I am a leninist. I am for a stronger central government comparing you you soiclaists that want anarchy. Anarchy will never work because people cant control themselfs. I believe in people controlling themselfs but there is supposed tobe government that steps in when peole dont control themselfs.
If people can't be trusted to control themselves then how can you trust the people of the government? Who will control the people of the government when they don't control themselves?

[enigma2517]

Privet comrade

So I guess your argument boils down to this.

Human nature=kill everything just because we can

We are savages, we can't control ourselves without (as you said) somebody watching over us.

So since human nature is so falliable we instead give all the power to very select few people. But aren't they just as falliable as us? Are they superhumans? And you know, its not like giving somebody power gives them the oppertunity to exploit it. Centralization never turned out too good. Not because the people who made trouble were "evil" right from the start. Just the opposite, I think many authoritarian communists out there were quite sincere in their aims. However, once you get in the position of bureaucrat, they will start acting just like any other bureaucrat thats been in that same position for the last thousand years!

A good example would be Zimbardo's prison study. Ordinary students that became guards at a prison (given nightsticks, uniforms, authority most of all) soon started acting like guards and began commencing in abusive behavoir. Was it because they were bad people? Not at all.

I lived in the Soyuz too my friend. But I disagree with you, things did not work well at all. It was state capitalism. And it would be interesting to note that the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain came much closer to acheiving the state of communism in a few years than the USSR did in 75.

Meditate on that for awhile. And learn about anarchism while you're at it, I feel that you are largely misinformed on the subject (you confuse the archiaic term with the political theory)

[More Fire for the People]

I am not a Marxist-Leninist, but I do agree with alot of what Lenin wrote.
The same goes for Trotsky and Mao.

So you're Russian? The only Russian words I know are 'tsena' and 'krasno'.

[Holocaustpulp]

Soyuz: Lenin only advocates centralization for the revolutionary movement, not the revolutionary product (according to his writings, not his actions). Leninism is defined by his doctrines, those of which were utterly desecrated by the post-revolution centralization of the Bolshevik government. If you advocate such policy as that of Lenin's post-revolutionary actions, then you are not Leninist at all.

I myself believe revolution is inevitable. I hold dear many of the points that Lenin makes, but am not willing to delcare myself an outright Leninist due to being in limbo on the philosophical and logical structuring of the party. However, Lenin is an adovocate of socialism (i.e., he is Marxist), so I do not understand why you named the post "Socialism vs Leninism"; they are virtually the same thing (if not the latter being a facet of the former).

- Holocaustpulp

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:19 PM
I want to see how many of you are socialist and how many Leninists. I am a leninist. I am for a stronger central government comparing you you soiclaists that want anarchy. Anarchy will never work because people cant control themselfs. I believe in people controlling themselfs but there is supposed tobe government that steps in when peole dont control themselfs.
I find it strange that you call yourself a leninist on the one hand, but are saying that you want a strong central leadership. It was - after all - Lenin who said: "all power to the soviets". Wanting a strong bureaucratic leadership would more or less place you in the category of the stalinists.

I want to draw your attention to this text written by Lenin: The State and Revolution (http://www.marxist.net/lenin/staterev/index.html)

Furthermore since I'm a Trotskyist I would advice you to read this text as well: The Class, The Party and the Leadership (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/cpl/index.html). Also Lessons of October (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2frame.htm?lessons.htm) and Trotsky's Transitional Programme (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/programme/soviet.htm) would be good texts to read.

These texts talk about the theory of democratic centralism in depth. They will show how a system with workers' democracy and representatives (who work for an average workers' wage) of the working class at every level who can be called back at any time and others elected works. To me this would be what the transitional state looks like.

[workersunity]

You could say i am a council communist, beleiving that workers councils, and workers militias will cary out the revolution, only will socialism be achieved when its carried out by the people not some elitist vanguard

[julianer]

No difference between Leninism and socialism.

Lenin's basic idea was that of a disciplined, revolutionary party, but this was to help make a successful revolution not to build a strong state.

Like Marx and Engels, Lenin wanted the state to completely disappear and for people to manage their own lives - that's what all communists want.

However, the Russian civil war killed the majority of the revolutionary workers and there was no one left to do the work of the soviets. As a result the party substituted itself for the class and the soviets because it was the only effective organisation left.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:29 PM
I was born is Russia and I know how CCCP worked. I oved it. It just needed some minor changes but in Russia we did have a strong government and everything ran smoothly. But if you have a anarchy caounty its just people running around and fighting for themselfs. There is no economy, no military, no power, freedom to do everything and to kill each other too....
Lenin made a country where the people couldn't control the leaders. All Lenin wanted was to be a despot, so he latched onto a popular movement (communism) and ran with it.

If you liked the CCCP/USSR... then you should check out North Korea or China. They have a similar system. I.E. no control of the state by the workers.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Clarksist+Jun 15 2005, 03:24 PM--> (Clarksist @ Jun 15 2005, 03:24 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 11:29 PM
I was born is Russia and I know how CCCP worked. I oved it. It just needed some minor changes but in Russia we did have a strong government and everything ran smoothly. But if you have a anarchy caounty its just people running around and fighting for themselfs. There is no economy, no military, no power, freedom to do everything and to kill each other too....
Lenin made a country where the people couldn't control the leaders. All Lenin wanted was to be a despot, so he latched onto a popular movement (communism) and ran with it.

If you liked the CCCP/USSR... then you should check out North Korea or China. They have a similar system. I.E. no control of the state by the workers. [/b]
Wow, your a moron.
Lenin and other revolutionaries which don't get quite the fame due to a post-humous personality cult established a union of socialist republics that were based on democratic centralism.

That is, there is only communities and the state or frequently known today as a unitary state. This unitary state was based upon proletarian democracy.

Lenin only served as the elected Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars from 1917-1924. Shorter than the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Was Bill Clinton a despot (note: I said despot not asshat)?

[Black Dagger]

Was Bill Clinton a despot (note: I said despot not asshat)?

That's not a valid comparison. The fact that Lenin may have had a shorter 'term in office' than a 'democratically-elected' leader in a capitalist republic does not change the nature of his rule. He could have ruled for 6 months or 6 years, a dictatorship is a dictatorship.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Lenin made a country where the people couldn't control the leaders. All Lenin wanted was to be a despot,


Lenin wasn't a despot. Admitadely he was the effective head of a deictatorial government, but he himself was not a dictator. He needed votes from the Party just like anyone else would.


so he latched onto a popular movement (communism) and ran with it.

That's completely untrue, Lenin had huge commitment as a Marxist going way back to before the revolution. For Lenin as a theorist the dictatorial stage of government was a means to an end. It was only once the Bolsheviks were in power that Lenin realised the dictatorship would have to be a more significant phase, due to the problems of the civil war and the backwardness of the country.
Arguably too, he or his sucessor would have relinquished that power when the russia was developed enough to survive with a true government of the people, though obviously we'll never know because of the way Stalin perverted it.

I should probably point out I'm not a card carrying Leninist, I just think you need to have a better understanding of the facts...

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:29 AM
I was born is Russia and I know how CCCP worked. I oved it. It just needed some minor changes but in Russia we did have a strong government and everything ran smoothly. But if you have a anarchy caounty its just people running around and fighting for themselfs. There is no economy, no military, no power, freedom to do everything and to kill each other too....
Things didn't run smoothly, the country fell apart.