What exactly is wrong with the Leninism?

[Vanguard1917]

I've noticed that there are a lot of knee-jerk reactions to Leninism on here, and not a lot of debate about what exactly is wrong with the Leninist idea of the vanguard.

This is what i think a vanguard is, and why it is vital in a climate of class conflict:

1) In its nature, capitalist society creates different levels of consciousness within the working class. In times of class struggle, some workers possess high levels of class consciousness, some possess "medium" levels, and others, low levels.

2) The revolutionary party must bring together the most class conscious workers in order to lead the rest of the working class towards revolution. Through this, the collective level of class consciousness of the whole working class is raised.

3) In capitalist society, a mass party can, at best, only be a reformist party. In other words, allowing backward, non-class conscious workers into the party means bringing capitalist elements into the party.

4) Without the strong leadership of a revolutionary party, the working class as a whole will be more readily influenced by bourgeois leaders. If revolutionaries shy away from their duty to lead the movement, capitalist political forces will gladly fill the vacuum.

5) Hence, without a revolutionary workers' party, there can be no revolutionary working class.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:34 PM
I've noticed that there are a lot of knee-jerk reactions to Leninism on here, and not a lot of debate about what exactly is wrong with the Leninist idea of the vanguard.


Probably because we've gone over this shit too many times to count. Looks like we'll have to do so again.



1) In its nature, capitalist society creates different levels of consciousness within the working class. In times of class struggle, some workers possess high levels of class consciousness, some possess "medium" levels, and others, low levels.

Alright.


2) The revolutionary party must bring together the most class conscious workers in order to lead the rest of the working class towards revolution. Through this, the collective level of class consciousness of the whole working class is raised.


Why should the party provide this? The most revolutionary movements we've had yet, The Paris Commune and Barcelona spain, were all accomplished without a party.


3) In capitalist society, a mass party can, at best, only be a reformist party. In other words, allowing backward, non-class conscious workers into the party means bringing capitalist elements into the party.

Yes, parties are reformist. But as for allowing capitalist elements into a "revolutionary" party, you need only look to the highest echelons of the party leadership. They have a silver spoon shoved up their ass and are first people to become capitalists once the party officially declares they're no longer "socialist"


4) Without the strong leadership of a revolutionary party, the working class as a whole will be more readily influenced by bourgeois leaders. If revolutionaries shy away from their duty to lead the movement, capitalist political forces will gladly fill the vacuum.

By having the party and state, you guarantee a return to capitalism.


5) Hence, without a revolutionary workers' party, there can be no revolutionary working class.

Spain 36?



Anyways, read this.
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085068162&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Sorry but, leninism has been discussed more than it deserves.

[Poum_1936]

The awakening of the masses, their active particpation, creativeness and initiative is the heart of any revolution. The masses move to transform society. If they did not immediatly succeed, that was not for the lack of trying, but because every time they were thrown back by their leaders, who stubbornly refused to take the power when it was presented to them on a plate.

How many times have we seen this happen? Germany 1918, 1920 and 1923; Britain in 1926 and 1945; France 1936 and 1968; Portugal 1974-75; Italy 1919-1920, 1943 and 69 and throughout the 70's; Pakistan 1968-69; Chile 1970-73 and Im sure there is plenty of other places.

And Spain 36 was by no means an exception.

And thats why a party is needed. Not to control the masses. The masses can have a knack for being far more radicalized then a party leadership. But to explain what needs to be done and expose the reformist leaders for what they are, pretty looking and sounding class collaborationists who will throw the revolution and often times letting it drown in blood.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:16 PM

And thats why a party is needed. Not to control the masses. The masses can have a knack for being far more radicalized then a party leadership. But to explain what needs to be done and expose the reformist leaders for what they are, pretty looking and sounding class collaborationists who will throw the revolution and often times letting it drown in blood.
Well in that sense, a party is still unnesessary. If the masses are radicalized, they will know what to do. Just look at the examples you mentioned. It's up to us to make sure they're radicalized.

A party is just a liability. When the masses become too radical for the party's more conservative leadership's liking, the party will step in to "tone things down".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sorry but, leninism has been discussed more than it deserves.

I think it deserves alot more (and I'm not a "Leninist")! It has been the ideology of the only revolutions in history to transcend capitalism in any meaningful way for a sustained amount of time.

[More Fire for the People]

I just love this quote by Marx and Engels,

"We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down..."

Any Communist Party or militia's task is to empower the masses to liberate themselves, not to be liberated by an élite -- this is Marxism.

[Led Zeppelin]

I just love this quote by Marx and Engels

I just love what Marx and Engels did in real life, i.e., work in Communist parties and organizations.


"We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down..."

I never heard Lenin saying otherwise.


The awakening of the masses, their active particpation, creativeness and initiative is the heart of any revolution. The masses move to transform society. If they did not immediatly succeed, that was not for the lack of trying, but because every time they were thrown back by their leaders, who stubbornly refused to take the power when it was presented to them on a plate.


Wrong, in every revolution the masses were lead by parties, vanguards and leaders.


How many times have we seen this happen? Germany 1918, 1920 and 1923; Britain in 1926 and 1945; France 1936 and 1968; Portugal 1974-75; Italy 1919-1920, 1943 and 69 and throughout the 70's; Pakistan 1968-69; Chile 1970-73 and Im sure there is plenty of other places.


The parties, vanguards and leaders only do what the masses allow them to do, if the masses don't want to go "all the way" then the leaders are "screwed", if the masses want to "go ahead" then revolution takes place, see Russia, China, Iran, France etc.


And thats why a party is needed. Not to control the masses. The masses can have a knack for being far more radicalized then a party leadership. But to explain what needs to be done and expose the reformist leaders for what they are, pretty looking and sounding class collaborationists who will throw the revolution and often times letting it drown in blood.

First you attack the party then you support it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are other forms of parties than Leninist.

[Led Zeppelin]

There are other forms of parties than Leninist.

I thought we were discussing Leninism? See the original post and the title of the thread.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:37 PM

Sorry but, leninism has been discussed more than it deserves.

I think it deserves alot more (and I'm not a "Leninist")! It has been the ideology of the only revolutions in history to transcend capitalism in any meaningful way for a sustained amount of time.
Transcend capitalism? All they did was impose state-monopoly capitalism in which the worker had the same amouunt of power as he does now; absolutely none.

[Lamanov]

For now here's a thread with an indepth (more less) discussion on what leninism is.

>>Leninism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35417&hl=leninism)


Right now I have no time to respond at an original post, but I hope I'll get to it eventualy. :ph34r:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I thought we were discussing Leninism? See the original post and the title of the thread.

Try to pay attention.


Originally posted by you+--> (you)First you attack the party then you support it?[/b]


me
There are other forms of parties than Leninist.

[Led Zeppelin]

We were discussing Leninism, i.e., Leninist parties, so why would the other person bring up "other parties"?

I am really getting tired of repeating myself.

[slim]

Marxism- Leninism,

Is your custom title of admin your actual position on this site because it doesnt reflect on the other title you have (CC)?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:53 PM
Marxism- Leninism,

Is your custom title of admin your actual position on this site because it doesnt reflect on the other title you have (CC)?
:lol:

Stalinist syndrome, authority complex, communication disorder and what not. Typical.

:hammer: :hammer: HAIL OUR SELF PROCLAIMED ADMINISTRATOR AND OUR
COMMUNIST-MARXIST-LENINIST-STALIN-WAS-MARXIST LEADER LEADER :hammer: :hammer:
*sing "International" everyone*

[Led Zeppelin]

If I really were an admin DJ-TC's post wouldn't have been there.

[Lamanov]

It's there for a reason.

You are acting like you own the community.

[Led Zeppelin]

It's there for a reason.

Yes, to piss me off.


You are acting like you own the community.

No I don't, I know I don't "own the community", I know i'm not an admin, I know I have minimal affect on board policy.

Now stop derailing threads.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We were discussing Leninism, i.e., Leninist parties, so why would the other person bring up "other parties"?

The role of a party came up in the discussion. You acused the poster of attacking "the party," and I simply pointed out that parties can take forms other than Leninist.


I am really getting tired of repeating myself.

So stop.

[LSD]

This thread has completely degenerated.

Marxism-Leninism, CompaneroDeLibertad, this is getting ridiculous. Stop flaming and spamming now or you'll both get warning points.

Seriously, calm the fuck down!