The man at the top

[tatu]

If a communist elite were to lead a revolution, would they be willing to relinquish their position at the top when the dictatorship of the proletariat is complete?

[Amusing Scrotum]

If a communist elite were to lead a revolution, would they be willing to relinquish their position at the top when the dictatorship of the proletariat is complete?

Two words - Russia, Lenin.

Enough said.

[Led Zeppelin]

would they be willing to relinquish their position at the top when the dictatorship of the proletariat is complete?

Yes, if they are real Communists that is.


Two words - Russia, Lenin.

Lenin gave up his position in 1922, while still being alive.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2005, 04:45 PM
Lenin gave up his position in 1922, while still being alive.
Yes, but the first of his strokes was in May that year while the second was in December. And I don't know if he "gave up" his position. He probably just wasn't able to do it as effectively.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, but the first of his strokes was in May that year while the second was in December. And I don't know if he "gave up" his position. He probably just wasn't able to do it as effectively.

He remained a member of the CC and politburo.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Lenin gave up his position in 1922, while still being alive.

Yes he did. However his works, laid the foundations that allowed Stalin to rule, unapposed, for three decades, as one of the most tyrannical and brutal dictators of the twentieth century.

To answer the orginal question -


If a communist elite were to lead a revolution, would they be willing to relinquish their position at the top when the dictatorship of the proletariat is complete?

No. An elite leading the revolution, inevitabely, leads to the revolution being spoiled in some way. It makes the revolution a coup instead of a revoluton, leading to a continuation of the previous society, just with a different ruling class.

Now admittedly the elite vanguard has positive aspects, however the cons far outweigh the pros. If this wasn't the case, then Socialism would have suceeded and remained in Russia, China etc.
Now as I firmly support Cuba, you may see it at as hypocritical that I oppose Lenin and Stalin, and not Castro. However I will venture to say that the only reason Cuba still remains Semi-Socialist, is that workers democracies, absent in the most part within Russia, have been set up reasonably successfully in Cuba.

I think its about time every Communist looks at the failures of Russia, China etc. and realises that Leninism is a failed child of Marxism. That must only be used as a guide as to what not to do. Every political movement other than Communism, realises that if a certain ideology from that movement failed, they must reassess their ideas. Communists haven't, which is a hurdle that, in my opinion, we need to jump, before we can really advance.

[enigma2517]

Now admittedly the elite vanguard has positive aspects, however the cons far outweigh the pros. If this wasn't the case, then Socialism would have suceeded and remained in Russia, China etc.

Your first statement is true to an extent. Centralized leadership is often times easier, though not necessarily the most efficient method.

However, you can't blame the "failure" of Russia on Leninism. It was a precapitalist society, the material conditions to create a socialist state simply weren't present.

Yes, there are many things wrong with Leninism. A quick examination of the current parties around the world today will show you that the idealogy has degenerated into reformism. Not a pretty sight.

There are lots of other critiques I'm sure you can think of too. The point is, however, that the collapse of the Soviet Union does not really exhibit the weakness of Leninism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Your first statement is true to an extent. Centralized leadership is often times easier, though not necessarily the most efficient method.

However, you can't blame the "failure" of Russia on Leninism. It was a precapitalist society, the material conditions to create a socialist state simply weren't present.

Yes, there are many things wrong with Leninism. A quick examination of the current parties around the world today will show you that the idealogy has degenerated into reformism. Not a pretty sight.

There are lots of other critiques I'm sure you can think of too. The point is, however, that the collapse of the Soviet Union does not really exhibit the weakness of Leninism.

Of course you can't blame the collapse of Russia on Lenin. However you cannot absolve Leninism of any blame. Under Lenin the foundations were definately laid for the future Russia. Now this poses two questions -

1. Did Lenin want Totalitarianism instead of Socialism?
I suspect not.

2. Did Lenin not realise what his ideas would lead to?
I suspect Lenin did not foresee the failures of his ideology. This inevitably discredits Leninism as an ideology of any worth.

If someone could show me a country which followed Leninism and didn't end up with a Russian type beaurocracy. I would reconsider my position regarding Leninism. Until then I will remain critical of Leninism as a worthy strand of thought.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Lenin went --> Stalin came --> The USSR went to pot.

Who knows what would have happened if either Lenin had lived or Trotsky had taken over.

[Led Zeppelin]

If someone could show me a country which followed Leninism and didn't end up with a Russian type beaurocracy. I would reconsider my position regarding Leninism. Until then I will remain critical of Leninism as a worthy strand of thought.

That's my point, no country has really followed Leninism.

Do you know of any country which did this:

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership." Lenin

The USSR took the first steps to achieve this by doing the, as Lenin said "transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership", but it didn't follow Lenin after that, it didn't put all officials without exception subject to recall, it didn't reduce their salaries to the level of ordinary workmen's wages. (also, it must be noted that Lenin is talking about a nation which is materially ready for socialism, the USSR wasn't, so it had to first build the material basis)

That is why Stalin (or post Lenin USSR) was Leninist to a certain extent, they were "not really" Leninist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

That's my point, no country has really followed Leninism.

Perhaps I should have said a country that followed what Lenin did, not what he said. Saying and writing something, is completely different to actualy doing something. Politicians say one thing and do another all the time, what makes you think Lenin was any different, because, he said he wasn't? Please, don't insult your own intelligence.


"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership." Lenin

These aims seem very similar to the demands of the Kronstadt Sailors. Remember them. Crushed by Lenin and Trotsky for trying to exercise their rights. Workers Rights. All they asked for was their right to choose how they were Governed and they were destroyed. You see the difference between what Lenin preached and what he did. He may have said he wanted workers control, however, actually he created a system of Governance that completely ignored the workers. This is what the Leninists follow, the system of Governance he created and this is where my problem with Leninism is.


The USSR took the first steps to achieve this by doing the, as Lenin said "transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership", but it didn't follow Lenin after that, it didn't put all officials without exception subject to recall, it didn't reduce their salaries to the level of ordinary workmen's wages. (also, it must be noted that Lenin is talking about a nation which is materially ready for socialism, the USSR wasn't, so it had to first build the material basis)

Thats alot of did nots. So what did Lenin do. He nationalised the industries, not socialised them. Theres a difference. The difference being that after the industries were nationalised, Unions were supressed and workers forced to work at gunpoint. Socialism? I don't think so.
Also why during his period in office, couldn't Lenin put in mechanisms for workers control?
Why, because he had no intention to. Saying the material conditions where not there for Socialism is a cop-out. You had Unions, Industry, a revolutionised population etc. There was enough there to warrant some form of worker control. However, as ever, power without accountability, corrupts.
Basically Lenin hampered Socialism, because, he believed a people who had risen up to overthrow the exploitative system they lived under, a people who wanted only a say in how they lived. Lenin believed these same people couldn't be trusted to Govern themselves. Now ask yourself, how similar are Lenins' opinions, to the opinions held by the political elites of today?


That is why Stalin (or post Lenin USSR) was Leninist to a certain extent, they were "not really" Leninist.

How so?
Stalin kept and expanded on the vicous Secret State Lenin started. Any faction of society, including Anarchists, Marxists and later Trotskyists, that disagreed with either Lenin or Stalin. Disappeared convienetely.
Stalin if anything was a "better" Leninist, than Lenin ever was.

[Led Zeppelin]

Perhaps I should have said a country that followed what Lenin did, not what he said. Saying and writing something, is completely different to actualy doing something. Politicians say one thing and do another all the time, what makes you think Lenin was any different, because, he said he wasn't? Please, don't insult your own intelligence.


Lenin only had 4 years to do "what he wrote", he couldn't do all that he wrote in 4 years, that is ridiculous, it took the USSR 15 years to build the material conditions required for socialism.


These aims seem very similar to the demands of the Kronstadt Sailors.

Lenin dealt with this issue correctly:

"I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia--a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire." Lenin


Thats alot of did nots. So what did Lenin do. He nationalised the industries, not socialised them. Theres a difference. The difference being that after the industries were nationalised, Unions were supressed and workers forced to work at gunpoint. Socialism? I don't think so.
Also why during his period in office, couldn't Lenin put in mechanisms for workers control?

Because Lenin only "ruled" the USSR for 4 years and the USSR didn't have the material conditions for socialism during that time.


How so?
Stalin kept and expanded on the vicous Secret State Lenin started. Any faction of society, including Anarchists, Marxists and later Trotskyists, that disagreed with either Lenin or Stalin. Disappeared convienetely.
Stalin if anything was a "better" Leninist, than Lenin ever was.

I am referring to the democracy "issue".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Lenin only had 4 years to do "what he wrote", he couldn't do all that he wrote in 4 years, that is ridiculous, it took the USSR 15 years to build the material conditions required for socialism.

Yet he still had time to write everything. ;)

Maybe he didn't have enough time, but he could have used that time alot more efficiently than he did.


Lenin dealt with this issue correctly:

"I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia--a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire." Lenin

How did he deal with this efficiently. All they wanted was what he promised.


Because Lenin only "ruled" the USSR for 4 years and the USSR didn't have the material conditions for socialism during that time.

Yet he had the "material conditions" to set the foundations for a police state?

Cuba doesn't really have the required "material conditions for socialism", yet Cuba has created mechanisms for workers control.


I am referring to the democracy "issue".

Yes and I am referring to how Lenin created the conditions, that meant the "democracy issue" became impossible to achieve.

[Socialistpenguin]

I apologise, but I must interject here.
First off:

How did he deal with this efficiently. All they wanted was what he promised.
Consider the situation. It's during the Civil War. There are armies of 21 countries killing your people, infiltrating your organisations as agent provocateurs, and thus, it is extremely hard to trust anyone. Now, anarchist naval workers are organising a rebellion, tell me, what would YOU do in such a situation? Now, I do not condone the killing of the Kronstadt Sailors, but I can see Lenin's and Trotsky's points of view. Hue and Cry over Kronstadt- Trostky (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/trotsky/hue_and_cry_kronstadt_trotsky.asp)


Yet he had the "material conditions" to set the foundations for a police state?
Again, I trust you know the conditions of the Civil War, Reds v Whites? How would YOU have handled government, under the attacks of 21 countries' armies?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Consider the situation. It's during the Civil War. There are armies of 21 countries killing your people, infiltrating your organisations as agent provocateurs, and thus, it is extremely hard to trust anyone. Now, anarchist naval workers are organising a rebellion, tell me, what would YOU do in such a situation? Now, I do not condone the killing of the Kronstadt Sailors, but I can see Lenin's and Trotsky's points of view.

The Civil War had ended. Thanks largely to the efforts of the Kronstadt sailors. Before their uprising, the sailors were considered the most loyal solidiers of the revolution. The situation was bad, but when your most loyal workers and best defenders of the revolution, ask for something in return for their sacrifice. I think some leeway should be allowed. It was obvious they did not want to overthrow the Bolsheviks, they just wanted some appreciation and rights.

Also labeling them Anarchists is absurd, considering their past history.


Again, I trust you know the conditions of the Civil War, Reds v Whites? How would YOU have handled government, under the attacks of 21 countries' armies?

The Civil War had ended. The aggressors were gone. The Kronstadt sailors had defeated them. Hypothetical questions regarding the Civil War are not what is being debated.

[Socialistpenguin]

The Civil War had ended. Thanks largely to the efforts of the Kronstadt sailors. Before their uprising, the sailors were considered the most loyal solidiers of the revolution. The situation was bad, but when your most loyal workers and best defenders of the revolution, ask for something in return for their sacrifice. I think some leeway should be allowed. It was obvious they did not want to overthrow the Bolsheviks, they just wanted some appreciation and rights.

Also labeling them Anarchists is absurd, considering their past history.

Granted, true enough. I was merely inferring that the Civil War would set a lot of people on edge, and if I may quote Wikipedia,

This asserted that the revolt had "undoubtedly been prepared by French counterintelligence" Full article here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion)
As for my last remark, apologies, I was reading a wikipedia article at the time, and slipped into my writing.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Granted, true enough. I was merely inferring that the Civil War would set a lot of people on edge

Yeah, I accept the Civil War left people on edge. Notably the peasant farmers who had their crops stolen off them for "War Communism", if they refused, they were liquedated. Now if I were them I would be on edge.

However the ensuing paranoia cannot, in my opinion, justify what happened to the Kronstadt sailors or other left wing political dissedents.

[Led Zeppelin]

I apologise, but I must interject here.

It would have been better if you didn't.


Consider the situation. It's during the Civil War. There are armies of 21 countries killing your people, infiltrating your organisations as agent provocateurs, and thus, it is extremely hard to trust anyone. Now, anarchist naval workers are organising a rebellion, tell me, what would YOU do in such a situation? Now, I do not condone the killing of the Kronstadt Sailors, but I can see Lenin's and Trotsky's points of view.

As "Armchair.Socialism." pointed out the rebellion did not happen during the civil war, it doesn't matter if it did since the Kronstadt sailors were pro bourgeois democracy, i.e., they wanted to overthrow the Soviet regime and install a bourgeois-democracy, a bourgeois-democracy being a bourgeois dictatorship.

As Lenin said they would have failed in doing this, a new Tsar would have taken over instead of the Constituent Assembly.


Thanks largely to the efforts of the Kronstadt sailors.

You made this up, the Kronstadt sailors were of minimal importance during the civil war.


It was obvious they did not want to overthrow the Bolsheviks

Actually they did want to overthrow the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime:

"The resolution demanded free elections in the soviets with the participation of anarchists and Left SRs, legalisation of the socialist parties and the anarchists, abolition of the Political Departments [in the fleet] and the Special Purpose Detachments, removal of the zagraditelnye ottyady [Armed troops used to prevent unauthorised trade], restoration of free trade, and the freeing of political prisoners." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, pp. 5-6]


Also labeling them Anarchists is absurd, considering their past history.

There were definitely Anarchists among them, see their second demand:

"2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties."


The aggressors were gone. The Kronstadt sailors had defeated them.

Are you saying that the Kronstadt sailors won the civil war single-handedly?


Yeah, I accept the Civil War left people on edge. Notably the peasant farmers who had their crops stolen off them for "War Communism", if they refused, they were liquedated.

They were not "liquidated", their crops were taken by the government whether they liked it or not, there were people starving in the cities.


However the ensuing paranoia cannot, in my opinion, justify what happened to the Kronstadt sailors or other left wing political dissedents.

No, preserving the Soviet regime can justify it.


Yet he had the "material conditions" to set the foundations for a police state?

Police state, dictatorship of the proletariat, call it what you want.


Cuba doesn't really have the required "material conditions for socialism", yet Cuba has created mechanisms for workers control.


And what "mechanisms" are those?

[Amusing Scrotum]

As "Armchair.Socialism." pointed out the rebellion did not happen during the civil war, it doesn't matter if it did since the Kronstadt sailors were pro bourgeois democracy, i.e., they wanted to overthrow the Soviet regime and install a bourgeois-democracy, a bourgeois-democracy being a bourgeois dictatorship.

As Lenin said they would have failed in doing this, a new Tsar would have taken over instead of the Constituent Assembly.

Only a Leninist would think that the workers, wanted to install a bourgeois democracy. All they wanted, was a chance to have some say on the running of their lives, without the fear of being locked up.

Demand 3 - "The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations."

Hardly bourgeois democracy.


You made this up, the Kronstadt sailors were of minimal importance during the civil war.

The Kronstadt sailors were very loyal and important solidiers, in both the revolution and the civil war.


Actually they did want to overthrow the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime:

"The resolution demanded free elections in the soviets with the participation of anarchists and Left SRs, legalisation of the socialist parties and the anarchists, abolition of the Political Departments [in the fleet] and the Special Purpose Detachments, removal of the zagraditelnye ottyady [Armed troops used to prevent unauthorised trade], restoration of free trade, and the freeing of political prisoners." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, pp. 5-6]

How the hell are free elections, in which Anarchists and Socialists stand, an attack on Bolshevik Socialism. The only Socialists who view other Socialists and Anarchists as counter revolutionaries, are authoritarian idiots. Lenin didn't want elections, because he didn't want to risk losing power. If any other world leader did this, you would call them a dictator.


There were definitely Anarchists among them, see their second demand:

"2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties."

Because I don't want segregation or slavery. Does that mean I'm black?

They weren't some group of nasty Anarchists, who wanted to destroy everything. They were workers who wanted their promised political rights. By labelling them Anarchists, you try to block this out. Its like when Bush or Blair label suicide bombers, "freedom haters". Its a way to avoid the blatantly obvious truth.


Are you saying that the Kronstadt sailors won the civil war single-handedly?

No, but they played an important part.


They were not "liquidated", their crops were taken by the government whether they liked it or not, there were people starving in the cities.

If they refused to hand over their crops, they were imprisoned or shot. If they did hand their crops over, they starved.


No, preserving the Soviet regime can justify it.

The fact that you used the word "regime", says it all.


Police state, dictatorship of the proletariat, call it what you want.

Maybe calling it a "Dictatorial Police State", would satisfy you.


And what "mechanisms" are those?

I think everyone by know has read Companero De Liberato's links regarding Cuban democracy. He posts them often enough.