where the bolsheviks communist?

[bur372]

The bolskeviks where lennist and lenin wrote about how it was important to have dictatorship in the name od the proletariat and the importance of the state. wouldn't this mean that the bolskeviks were directly against the ideas of communisim.

[Kez]

Lenin never said "in the name" of the proles, he said "by the" proles.

Huge difference comrade, where the working class becomes the ruling class in society

[Che NJ]

They were definately communist, but I don't know for how long. I wouldn't call their end result communist.


where the bolsheviks communist?
Were*

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:48 PM
The bolskeviks where lennist and lenin wrote about how it was important to have dictatorship in the name od the proletariat and the importance of the state. wouldn't this mean that the bolskeviks were directly against the ideas of communisim.
It would indeed. Lenin's concept of a vanguard party leading the masses and it's commitment to the dictatorship of the proletariat was directly opposed to the syndicalist principle established by the IWMA that 'the emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves'. However in order to gain power he knew that he had to gain the support of the masses. This was done through [false] libertarian propaganda.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:42 AM
It would indeed. Lenin's concept of a vanguard party leading the masses and it's commitment to the dictatorship of the proletariat was directly opposed to the syndicalist principle established by the IWMA that 'the emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves'. However in order to gain power he knew that he had to gain the support of the masses. This was done through [false] libertarian propaganda.
[emphasis added]

This is also marxist formula.

[Hate Is Art]

The bolskeviks where lennist and lenin wrote about how it was important to have dictatorship in the name od the proletariat and the importance of the state.

The transitiory state between Capitilism and Communism in order to provide Communism with a chance to suceed. Some people have other ideas *cough*Staling*cough* but that doesn't make them 'non-marxists' just Leninists.

[Led Zeppelin]

The bolskeviks where lennist and lenin wrote about how it was important to have dictatorship in the name od the proletariat and the importance of the state. wouldn't this mean that the bolskeviks were directly against the ideas of communisim.


The Bolshevisk were Marxist not Leninist, since Leninism did not exist in those days.

Marx also "wrote about how it was important to have dictatorship in the name of the proletariat", i'm not sure what you mean by "the importance of the state", I think you heard about Lenin's "State and Revolution" and assumed that it must be a glorification of the state, it isn't.


Lenin's concept of a vanguard party leading the masses and it's commitment to the dictatorship of the proletariat was directly opposed to the syndicalist principle established by the IWMA that 'the emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves'.

This was not really "Lenin's concept", more like Blanqui's concept.


'the emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves'.

Lenin also said this, the difference is that you claim that the vanguard is not a section of the working class, while in reality it is the most advanced section of it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is also marxist formula.

That's what he was saying. He quoted it from the IWMA, of which Marx was a part.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 1 2005, 04:45 AM
The Bolshevisk were Marxist not Leninist, since Leninism did not exist in those days.
Bolsheviks were marxists as much as the mensheviks. A marxist here and there, and that's about it. In reality, these men followed the political formulas of their organisation - regardless of their claims to marxism - mensheviks were reformists and bosheviks were leninist. How come? Because leading figure was Lenin, and the party programme was his political creation, and his political practice was a clear brake with classical marxism right from the start.

Just because they didn't call it that until he died, it doesn't mean that it didn't shape the party right from the start.

If you follow the leninist conceptions - you have absolutely no right to call yourself a classical marxist and not a leninist.


Lenin also said this, the difference is that you claim that the vanguard is not a section of the working class, while in reality it is the most advanced section of it.

So if you observe more deeply you come to a conclusion that bolsheviks were not a proletarian vanguard at all, because none of the leading figures were workers - but middle class inteligentsia.

So if you ought to call bolsheviks a 'vanguard' you must not say that they are a 'vanguard of the proletariat', but simply a "proletarianized vanguard party". If you do - you would be spreading a common misconception.

'the emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves'. - this stood the test of time especially with the "vanguardist" experiments proving it as nececary.

___

@ CompaneroDeLibertad : oh, aight, I didn't notice right away that he's talking about the International.

[black magick hustla]

IWMA

The IWMA wasn't marxist at all. Most of them where just revolutionary syndicalists.

Syndicalism doesn't equates marxism.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:48 PM
The bolskeviks where lennist and lenin wrote about how it was important to have dictatorship in the name od the proletariat and the importance of the state. wouldn't this mean that the bolskeviks were directly against the ideas of communisim.
No, the bolsheviks were NOT communists. They Did not revolutionise a developed country and thus under marxist/communist principal were not communist.

That philosophy is marxist-leninism.

Lenin chose to short-circuit this system instead by starting a revolution in undeveloped imperial Russia.

[Led Zeppelin]

Bolsheviks were marxists as much as the mensheviks. A marxist here and there, and that's about it. In reality, these men followed the political formulas of their organisation - regardless of their claims to marxism - mensheviks were reformists and bosheviks were leninist. How come? Because leading figure was Lenin, and the party programme was his political creation, and his political practice was a clear brake with classical marxism right from the start.


Marxism is not a dogma, it's a theory.

"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer." Marx


If you follow the leninist conceptions - you have absolutely no right to call yourself a classical marxist and not a leninist.

In this sentence "classical Marxist" is "orthodox Marxist", "orthodox Marxists" aren't Marxist at all.


So if you observe more deeply you come to a conclusion that bolsheviks were not a proletarian vanguard at all, because none of the leading figures were workers - but middle class inteligentsia.


Professional revolutionaries are ploretariat.


'the emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves'. - this stood the test of time especially with the "vanguardist" experiments proving it as nececary.


The bourgeois theorists could have said the same; "the emancipation of the bourgeois must be brought about by the bourgeois themselves", that isn't what happened, bourgeois vanguards led the bourgeois revolutions.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Marxism is not a dogma, it's a theory.[/b]

Ugh. Right. Are you sure you quoted a right person? :lol:

Actually - it's a science. And, excuse me - leninism is not.


"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer." Marx

That flips on to my side, not yours you silly stalinist. :lol:


Marxism is not a dogma, it's a theory.
In this sentence "classical Marxist" is "orthodox Marxist", "orthodox Marxists" aren't Marxist at all.

There is no such thing as "ortodox marxists". Just marxist. Lenin, indeed, called himself a marxist. But what good of being a marxist when you're wrong.

Bolshevik "marxists" following "maxist Lenin" were just a bunch of "marxists with wrong ideas".


Professional revolutionaries are ploretariat.

So boslheviks were not professional revolutionaries. Thank you.


The bourgeois theorists could have said the same; "the emancipation of the bourgeois must be brought about by the bourgeois themselves", that isn't what happened, bourgeois vanguards led the bourgeois revolutions.

:lol:

Well, of course - and this is the point so pay attention - "Bourgeois vanguard" was not a bunch of petty barons and feudal masters. They are bourgeois.

I don't think you undestand the concept of a "class vanguard". I think that you have yet to realize that "class" part is there for a better reason than one offered by Stalin and his petty followers.

"Class vanguard" comes from the class.


I retire. Debating stalinists is just not fun. Level of reasoning drops to a very minimum.


Marmot
The IWMA wasn't marxist at all. Most of them where just revolutionary syndicalists.

Syndicalism doesn't equates marxism.

I have a funny feeling if Marx were alive today that he would join the IWW.
Revolutionary syndicalism in practice is more closer to marxist conceptions then most of "marxist parties" out there.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ugh. Right. Are you sure you quoted a right person?

Actually - it's a science. And, excuse me - leninism is not.

Did this add anything to the discussion? No it didn't.


That flips on to my side, not yours you silly stalinist.

No it "flips on to my side", you see Marx as the "universal reformer", therefore you deny the continuation of Marxism by other Marxists.


Typical stalinist bulshit - twisting what I say. I'll ask again - are you sure youre quoting a right person? Are you on a right thread for that matter?

Cut the crap please.


There is no such thing as "ortodox marxists". Just marxist. Lenin, indeed, called himself a marxist. But what good of being a marxist when you're wrong.


Yes there is, orthodox Marxists oppose the continuation of Marxist theory by Lenin and others.


Bolshevik "marxists" following "maxist Lenin" were just a bunch of "marxists with wrong ideas".


That's why you are a orthodox Marxist, because you say Lenin was not Marxist while in reality he was.


Well, of course - and this is the point so pay attention - "Bourgeois vanguard" was not a bunch of petty barons and feudal masters. They are bourgeois.

I don't think you undestand the concept of a "class vanguard". I think that you have yet to realize that "class" part is there for a better reason than one offered by Stalin and his petty followers.

"Class vanguard" comes from the class.


Why are you ignoring my posts and repeating your nonsense? I already said that professional revolutionaries are proletariat, just because you say "no" doesn't make it true.


I retire. Debating stalinists is just not fun. Level of reasoning drops to a very minimum.

You just wasted 4 minutes of my time.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Sep 2 2005, 12:03 PM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Sep 2 2005, 12:03 PM) No it "flips on to my side", you see Marx as the "universal reformer", therefore you deny the continuation of Marxism by other Marxists. [/b]
Go to marxists.org and tell me which people were "continuing marxism" on the path of Lenin. Radek, Bukharin, Zinoviev? Big fucking deal. When you add the second part of your "continuation" (stalinism) you end up to denounce most of good leninists (leninists that potentialy could mean someting) themselves (Trotsky, Cliff, etc.).

That "continuation" today means nothing.

By your logic marxists like Luxemburg, Mattick, Bodriga, Liebknecht, Zetkin, Pannekoek, Gramsci etc. are not marxists but just a bunch of dogmats.

Wake up. Stalin is dead. Stalinism died with him.


Eric Cartman
Jesus Christ Kyle, get with the programe. :rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

The above post is not worth responding too, since it's not a refutation, actually it's not even an attempt at a refutation, stop wasting my time.

[Le People]

If you ask me, Stalinism died when the current fell in '89. We must take up the banner of Trotsky!

[Iepilei]

The establishment of a educated vanguard does nothing more than create a knowledged-based class society. Plato's Republic, anyone?

:ph34r:

[Led Zeppelin]

If you ask me, Stalinism died when the current fell in '89. We must take up the banner of Trotsky!


Theories are not "dead" if there are still a large amount of parties adhering to them.


The establishment of a educated vanguard does nothing more than create a knowledged-based class society. Plato's Republic, anyone?


The "educated vanguard" raises the consciousness of the proletariat to their level.

[谢梓唯]

I believe many people, esp. those who live in the west, are inclined to demonize the word "dictatorship" which they regard as the equivalent of cruelty,greed,violation of human rights, or Hitler.

Excuse me for my humble viewpoint, but I believe in a immature society where political and economic system are yet to be established or developing, where people are undereducated, dictatorship is unavoidable because the so-called democracy brings no more benefit to this society than the dictatorship does.

Now if we get more close to what dictatorship is like, we are approaching the essence of communism.

[Axel1917]

I dont' have time to post at length, but the following work does well in dispelling capitalist lies, myths, etc. about Lenin and the Bolsheviks:

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp

[bezdomni]

The Bolsheviks were the majority faction of the Isrka that supported Lenin and his actions on the editorial board of their paper. The Mensheviks were against Lenin (they were mostly petit-bourgois revisionists). Trotsky originally sided with the mensheviks, but ended up allying with the Bolsheviks and Lenin because he didn't like the dogmatic attitude of the Mensheviks and was repelled by their revisionist ideas.

The Bolshevik Party was the revolutionary vanguard in Russia. Some will argue that Lenin was a dictator, but he actually allowed as much democracy as is possible when fighting a civil war. Russia granted universal adult suffrage decades before the US did.

Lenin did not believe in totalitarian dictatorship, he believed in democratic centralism. TROTSKY WAS A LENINIST, MOST COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST GROUPS TODAY ARE LENINIST IN SOME ASPECT!

The only reason there was any form of dictatorship in revolutionary Russia is because there were 22 invading armies that were united against the Bolsheviks. That has never occured before in history, and still has not occured. People cannot be guaranteed full rights when there is a civil war going on. Later on in his life, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all agreed that there were very bad aspects of War Communism policies.

Of course there were some problems in Russia, but there are problems in every revolutionary country. I think the biggest problem was Stalin taking over after Lenin's unfortunate death. If Trotsky had become General Secretary like Lenin wanted, then the Soviet Union would still be here today.


Note: Some people who call themselves Marxist-Leninsts are actually Stalinists who are afraid to call themselves Stalinists. In my experience I have met two sorts of Stalinists. The sort who believe Stalin was a democratic and caring leader...they truly believe that he did nothing wrong. And then the sort who believe that communism can only be acheived by totalitarian dictatorship.

All Trotskyists are Leninists. The true Leninist doctine has more to do with agricultural countries being the first to revolt and then industrialized countries will have revolutions and help the non-industrialized countries. He basis this idea on imperialism, which is the highest form of capitalism. I recommend you actually READ Lenin, to understand his ideas. Don't just read quotes, they are easily taken out of context.