Lenin

[ReD_ReBeL]

ok i know some bout Lenin and i know of the ideological term Leninism but can someone plz tell me if Lenin did similar mass-murders as did Mao and Stalin and Hitler ? i dont mean like in wars like the civil war etc, i mean like Kuluks or opposition philosopers , the innocent kinda folk.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

NO!

[Martyr]

Hate lenin so it really doesnt matter it wont change my opinion about him.

[polemi-super-cised]

ok i know some bout Lenin and i know of the ideological term Leninism but can someone plz tell me if Lenin did similar mass-murders as did Mao and Stalin and Hitler?


Er... YES! Yes, he most certainly did!



i dont mean like in wars like the civil war etc, i mean like Kuluks or opposition philosopers, the innocent kinda folk.


Ok, first we need to clear up a few things. Lenin's plan to "liquidate the kulaks" as a class was inextricably linked to the "civil war". Indeed, comrade Ulyanov regarded civil war as both necessary and desirable - as the logical extension of Russia's internal class struggle. The "civil war" was to eliminate not only the 'White' monarchists, and the western imperialist threat, but anyone Lenin suspected of being counter-revolutionary.

This meant: the kulaks.
This meant: the Cossacks.
This meant: the bourgeoisie.
This meant: any rival socialist faction.
This meant: any worker who participated in a demonstration against the party.

Next:
> The "party purges" were started by Lenin.
> The ViCheka* (later the N.K.V.D.) was set up on Lenin's authority, and consistently supported by him when it came under fire from Bolshevik "moderates".
> The "Red Terror" was a Leninist institution.
> The famine in the Ukraine (early 1920s: millions die) was state- (Bolshevik Party / Lenin) -induced.

Policies of state-sponsored terror, and mass murders (we'll call this: totalitarianism), are a common feature of all vanguardist parties. The material conditions in "backward" Russia, 1917, just made everything a lot worse.

Lenin was a "bad man"! :)

*ViCheka: "All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Combatting of Counter-Revolution, Speculation and Administrative Crimes".

[YKTMX]

Er... YES! Yes, he most certainly did!


Any particular evidence, example or instances you would like to cite to support this claim?


The ViCheka* (later the N.K.V.D.) was set up on Lenin's authority, and consistently supported by him when it came under fire from Bolshevik "moderates".


Lenin also criticised excesses in the NKVD. He always asked for explanations for any actions taken.


The "Red Terror" was a Leninist institution.


Ooo, Kornilov lives!

'The Jews and the Reds are responsible for the Terror"



The famine in the Ukraine (early 1920s: millions die) was state- (Bolshevik Party / Lenin) -induced.


The Bolehviki cause crop failure? Oh, the Bolsheviki caused the civil war? The Bolsheviki caused smallpox? The Bolsheviki caused, emm...nasty things?


Lenin was a "bad man"!

That's the most intellectually rigorous comment in your post.

Well done. You've set a new standard for anarcho-ramblings.



The Bolsheviki caused, emm...the collapse of the Paris Commune.

[polemi-super-cised]

"Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! Hatred and contempt for the parties which defend them-the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and today's Left Socialist-Revolutionaries! The workers must crush the revolts of the kulaks with an iron hand, the kulaks who are forming an alliance with the foreign capitalists against the working people of their own country."


That would be Lenin.
Kulaks - class enemies.
SRs, Mensheviks, Left SRs (i.e. rival political parties) - class enemies.
The answer? "Ruthless war... ! Death to them! (etc. etc.)" What's that, mindless vanguardist ramblings?



"Once and for all it must be understood that we are engaged in the struggle not for the Cossacks but with the Cossacks; our task is the total subjugation and pacification of the Don."

[Italics and emphasis in original]


Policy in the Cossack regions; this was intensified by Lenin after it became apparent that the civil war would be won by the Bolsheviks. The Cossack identity was destroyed - tens of thousands were executed, and hundreds of thousands deported.



Doesn’t the class struggle in the epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism take the form of safeguarding the interests of the working class against the few, the groups and sections of workers who stubbornly cling to capitalist traditions and continue to regard the Soviet state in the old way... ?

Aren’t there many such scoundrels, even among the compositors in Soviet printing works, among the Sormovo and Putilov workers, etc.?

Where is the black list with the names of the lagging factories which since nationalisation have remained models of disorder, disintegration, dirt, hooliganism and parasitism? Nowhere to be found. But there are such factories. We shall not be able to do our duty unless we wage war against these “guardians of capitalist traditions”. We shall be jellyfish, not Communists, as long as we tolerated such factories.


Ooohh, it's your hero! Lenin, ranting on about counter-revolutionaries again: this time it's the working class who come under fire. Not the "enlightened" proletariat who submit to Bolshevik tyranny, of course, but the "lackeys of capitalism"! Incidentally, "the few" were actually "the many" - most workers had "lost faith" with the Bolshevik party by 1920. Guess what that means, children? More repression! :D *Ironic applause*

And again:


"We leave to ourselves [The Party...] the state power, only to ourselves. Consequently, it is necessary that everything should be subjected to the Soviet power and all the illusions about some kind of 'independence' on the part of detached layers of population or workers' co-operatives should be lived down as soon as possible."


Guess who? (A clue, for the intellectually short-sighted 'YouKnowTheyMurderedX': LEN_N. Fill in the blanks, comrade!)



Stanitsas and auls which conceal whites will be exterminated: the adult population will be shot; property will be confiscated; all people offering any assistance to the whites will be subject to shooting. ...all the adult relatives of those fighting against us will be arrested and shot... ...we will be forced to carry out 'Red Terror' in these places.


That's part of a telegram from Stalin to Lenin, confirming the implementation of a centrally directed policy of mass (Red) terror. Hence the "institutional" comment I made. Perhaps you'd be better off in an institution, for crazed vanguardist lunatics. :P You can keep Kornilov!



Lenin also criticised excesses in the NKVD.


Not at first. Kamenev and Bukharin (amongst others) wanted the Cheka to be subordinated to some sort of law - Lenin absolutely refused, maintaining Dzerzhinsky's ridiculous powers at all costs. The Cheka was only abandoned when it became clear that Lenin's Bolshevik state was failing - hence the "retreat" to NEP and a more "friendly" Communism. (Ahaha!)



The Bolehviki cause crop failure? Oh, the Bolsheviki caused the civil war? The Bolsheviki caused smallpox? The Bolsheviki caused, emm...nasty things?


You utter pile of wank! The Bolsheviks, as everybody (bar yourself) knows, carried the revolution into the villages by requisitioning the grain of the "kulaks". But the ignorant workers and Cheka soldiers they sent into the villages stole all the grain they could lay their filthy (blood-stained) hands on - including the seed for next year's crop, and the individual supplies and reserves of the poorest peasants.

Lenin had quotas for the grain requisitioning detachments to meet; often, these were compiled with no regard for local productive capabilities - but the Bolsheviks, for the most part, had the guns - so the peasants were either left to starve, or shot as counter-revolutionaries.

("The Party says there is grain in this village! So if we can't find any, it must be the fault of "kulaks" and the work of "saboteurs"! Raze the village and slaughter the inhabitants; maybe the next town will co-operate and fulfil their revolutionary duty!")

And yes: the Bolsheviks always intended to fight a civil war against their internal enemies. Lenin thought it necessary, as Russia was so backward - the civil war would mark the growing pains of the new socialist state... But the man was such a fool, grossly underestimating the strength of the combined white movement: it nearly cost him his precious revolution!

Lenin was...
...a "bad man"!

Let me guess, I'm a...
...counter-revolutionary? :P

[chebol]

No. You're an idiot.
I'll respond properly when I can be bothered chewing rags in my sleep.

[celticfire]

This is a class case of of bourgeois slandering - it's baseless.

It reminds me of that the kings press in England said about the American revolutionaries.

The Panthers were called racists, fascists, thugs, etc...and I think we can all agree they weren't!

Lenin literally saved Russia by ending Russia's participation in WW1. The NEP helped boost the economy so a socialist would could be built, and he defended the gains made by the revolution from counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries that wanted to bring the hated czar back.

How "bad" of Lenin, indeed! :rolleyes:

Read this:
The Bolsheviks Lead a Revolution That Shakes the World (http://www.rwor.org/a/027/socialism-communism-much-better-pt3.htm)

The ruling class constantly tries to equate communism with Nazism in order to discredit it, and make people fear it.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

@ polemi-super-cised:

Maybe you could place the links to your sources?

[celticfire]

polemi-super-cised: I would really love to see some sources too. <_<


I don&#39;t doubt at all there was excess during the Civil War. But...

1) You and you&#39;re bourgeois buddies greatly exaggerate it.
2) You ignore the AIM of that revolution and completely IGNORE what it accomplished.
3) You don&#39;t list one source.
4) Every revolution, riot, uprising, revolt, general strike, etc... will have some excess. Even anarchist/syndicalist uprisings have them. These things are open class struggles and turn violent. It is historically wrong and in line with the likes of Bill O&#39;reilly to distort history it such a way.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:02 PM
Hate lenin so it really doesnt matter it wont change my opinion about him.
Firstly why?

And secondly, Minh was a mass murderer. He made sure that most of the trotskyist movement, which was significant, and more powerful than the maoists in viet nam were killed off.

Lenin wasn&#39;t some crazy stalinesque murderer. The famines in Lenins time affected all of Russia including those that supported Lenin so to say he engineered them wouldbe foolish.

[polemi-super-cised]

This is a class case of of bourgeois slandering - it&#39;s baseless.


Baseless? I just quoted for you several of Lenin&#39;s articles, and lots of other Bolshevik-related nonsense&#33; This is called "source-work" - we analyse all sorts of sources from the historical period concerned, then draw conclusions based on what we read. My conclusion: Lenin was a "bad man"&#33;

Your conclusions, that I&#39;m a member of the bourgeoisie or whatever, are baseless. Your idolising of Lenin is also baseless.



I&#39;ll respond properly when I can be bothered chewing rags in my sleep.


Or: I&#39;ll respond properly when I can actually think of a counter-argument. Cretin. :)



Lenin literally saved Russia by ending Russia&#39;s participation in WW1. The NEP helped boost the economy so a socialist would could be built, and he defended the gains made by the revolution from counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries that wanted to bring the hated czar back.


Lenin was always against the &#39;Imperialist&#39; World War: correct. (Lenin devastated Russia by following the path towards civil war...) The N.E.P. boosted the Russian economy: also correct. But do you know what the N.E.P. was? It allowed free trade, and profit-making on the sale of grain. It was a concession to the petty-bourgeois peasants - now that&#39;s Socialism&#33; (Incidentally, there were very few amongst the &#39;whites&#39; who wanted to bring the tsar back - who were overt monarchists. Most favoured some sort of military dictatorship to stabilise Russia, then the convening of a Constituent Assembly to bring democracy to the shattered land...)


[b]
The famines in Lenins time affected all of Russia including those that supported Lenin so to say he engineered them wouldbe foolish.


Foolish, eh? Well, I tell you this: the civil war years (1917-1921) were times of terrible hardship in the cities and in the towns. Those who didn&#39;t starve went hungry. But Lenin looked after his own - party members never experienced these shortages; high ranking Bolshevik officials were able to "requisition" almost anything they needed, "for the good of the revolution".

What did Lenin care if the working class perished? That wasn&#39;t "his class", after all.

Sources:
1. &#39;Comrade Workers, Forward To The Last, Decisive Fight&#33;&#39; (Lenin) Available here. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/x01.htm)
2. You&#39;ll have to trust me on this one - it&#39;s from a Soviet Archive in the Don Cossack region; the author (a Bolshevik) is "T. Khodorovskii", the date August 1919.
3. &#39;The Character of our Newspapers&#39;. (Lenin) Available here. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/20.htm)
4. &#39;On the Petty-Bourgeois Parties&#39;. (Lenin) Again, you&#39;ll have to trust me: this was a speech given by Lenin in November 1918. It&#39;s transcribed in a book by Gregory Maximoff, "The Guillotine at Work".
5. As I mentioned, this is a telegram from Stalin to Lenin - found in the Communist party archives after 1991. It is dated October 1920.

Lots of other sources I&#39;ve looked at as whilst studying the Bolshevik revolution have informed my opinions. Not all of these are available online&#33; Scoff and mock me for "hiding resources" if you wish, but the sources are out there, they have been read and inwardly digested by myself and others, and the truth (i.e. Lenin was a "bad man") will be heard.



You ignore the AIM of that revolution and completely IGNORE what it accomplished.


No, I&#39;m all too aware what the aim of the revolution was - Communism. And I&#39;m equally aware of what was accomplished - a totalitarian state, built on the foundations of Leninism, responsible for horrific exploitation and suppression of workers&#39; interests, which set the leftist movement back perhaps a hundred years&#33;&#33; :angry:

Me and my "bourgeois butt-buddies" (the anarcho-Communists) are striving for classless society. And we know how to get there - vanguardists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists - you guys haven&#39;t a clue. :P

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:14 PM
Read this:
The Bolsheviks Lead a Revolution That Shakes the World (http://www.rwor.org/a/027/socialism-communism-much-better-pt3.htm)

Always links to the Revolution Magazine or to some Avakian litterature from you lot.
Never anything else&#33;

Buffet your theory: Expand&#33;


1) You and you&#39;re bourgeois butt-buddies greatly exaggerate it.

The RCP is still homophobic, how nice&#33;


Lenin wasn&#39;t some crazy stalinesque murderer. The famines in Lenins time affected all of Russia including those that supported Lenin so to say he engineered them wouldbe foolish.

I think polemi-super-cised proved that the Bolsheviks hadn&#39;t a clue what the conditions of the production of grain was like; which makes sense why that resulted in famine.

IMO Lenin really wasn&#39;t that much of a hero, not really a bad guy. His theory was just crap. And yes it did set us back a considerable amount of time.


Me and my "bourgeois butt-buddies" (the anarcho-Communists) are striving for classless society. And we know how to get there - vanguardists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists - you guys haven&#39;t a clue.

And what about us Council-Commies? I hope you don&#39;t persecute us because we have different roots.

[Led Zeppelin]

It&#39;s time to take out the garbage:


Ok, first we need to clear up a few things. Lenin&#39;s plan to "liquidate the kulaks" as a class was inextricably linked to the "civil war".

That was Stalin&#39;s "plan", not Lenin&#39;s.

And I agreed with his plan, obviously you take the word "liquidate" seriously.


Indeed, comrade Ulyanov regarded civil war as both necessary and desirable

No he didn&#39;t, prove this absurd claim.


The "civil war" was to eliminate not only the &#39;White&#39; monarchists, and the western imperialist threat, but anyone Lenin suspected of being counter-revolutionary.

This meant: the kulaks.


Contradiction, the kulaks came into being as a "large force" which needed to be "dealt with" after the civil war, not before, so saying that Lenin wanted the civil war to "get rid of them" is nonsense that you probably made up on the spot, or maybe those highschool history textbooks still have an effect on you.


This meant: the bourgeoisie.

No shit.

[polemi-super-cised]

And what about us Council-Commies? I hope you don&#39;t persecute us because we have different roots.


Eh? *Feigns ignorance* What&#39;s a Council-Commie? :blink: Enlighten me, comrade&#33;
My tirade was directed against &#39;vanguardism&#39; of any form. (Hence, Leninists, Stalinists etc. etc...)



It&#39;s time to take out the garbage:


Indeed: it&#39;s time to take out "Marxism-Leninism"&#33; :P



That was Stalin&#39;s "plan", not Lenin&#39;s.
[The liquidation of the Kulaks]


No - it was Lenin&#39;s plan. His ranting against the "bloodsucking" kulaks, the "vampires", the "parasites", ought to give you a clue. Lenin largely failed in his attempt to annihilate the kulaks; his efforts alienated the entire countryside and "the cradle of the revolution", Petrograd, almost collapsed due to starvation. (The population of the city decreased by around 70% in the civil war years&#33;)

Stalin&#39;s "collectivisation" (in the 1930s) was the logical extension of Lenin&#39;s pathological hatred of the peasantry; specifically, the petty-bourgeois kulaks.



Contradiction, the kulaks came into being as a "large force" which needed to be "dealt with" after the civil war, not before, so saying that Lenin wanted the civil war to "get rid of them" is nonsense that you probably made up on the spot, or maybe those highschool history textbooks still have an effect on you.


No contradiction&#33; Say, have you even read the high school history books? Your ignorance knows no bounds&#33; Lenin set up the "committees of village poor" (&#39;kombedy&#39;) to deal with the kulak "threat" in the early years of the civil war. These Bolshevised peasants were supposed to inform the authorities of those who were hoarding grain - the prosperous, petty-bourgeois kulaks. The fact that this policy failed miserably, and was later rescinded by Lenin, has no bearing on the truth of the matter: Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks always planned to "deal with" the kulaks as a class&#33;

Undoubtedly, after years of N.E.P., the "kulak" class grew and was easier to distinguish. That made Stalin&#39;s job relatively simple.



... obviously you take the word "liquidate" seriously.


Obviously Lenin and Stalin did.
How unfunny is that?



[me]
Indeed, comrade Ulyanov regarded civil war as both necessary and desirable

[you]
No he didn&#39;t, prove this absurd claim.


*Sigh*
Very well.
Here are some of Lenin&#39;s musings on the subject of civil war:



... we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created ... we fully regard civil wars, i.e. wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.

... civil war is the sharpest form of the class struggle; it is that point in the class struggle when clashes and battles, economic and political, repeating themselves, growing, broadening, becoming acute, turn into an armed struggle of one class against another.

... The only correct proletarian slogan is to transform the present imperialist war [WWI] into a civil war.


These are taken from: &#39;Socialism and War&#39; (Lenin), &#39;The Russian Revolution And Civil War&#39; (Lenin) and &#39;On the Slogan to Transform the Imperialist War Into a Civil War&#39; (Lenin). They are probably available online somewhere - I read the "tangible" copies in his &#39;Collected Works&#39; etc.

Lenin also subscribed to Clausewitz&#39;s famous thesis: "War is the Continuation of Politics by other (Violent) means". He regarded the kulaks, Cossacks, rival socialists, and "misguided" workers as political adversaries. So he took action in the political arena: banning demonstrations, closing the constituent assembly, raiding the offices of the SRs and Mensheviks and closing non-Bolshevik party presses.

He took action in the economic arena: "War Communism", broadly speaking, including the restrictions on workers&#39; rights and the horrendous practice of grain requisitioning at gunpoint.

Then he continued these policies in the civil war: executing or terrorising anyone not regarded as an ally (party member).


"Marxism-Leninism" is sheer nonsense.
And so is the political theory.

[Martyr]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Dec 16 2005, 07:56 AM--> (Clenched Fist @ Dec 16 2005, 07:56 AM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 10:02 PM
Hate lenin so it really doesnt matter it wont change my opinion about him.
Firstly why?

And secondly, Minh was a mass murderer. He made sure that most of the trotskyist movement, which was significant, and more powerful than the maoists in viet nam were killed off.

Lenin wasn&#39;t some crazy stalinesque murderer. The famines in Lenins time affected all of Russia including those that supported Lenin so to say he engineered them wouldbe foolish. [/b]
I&#39;ll tell you why how would you feel if a person wantd to take over your country in the name of some fuckin ideology made by two men who never worked a day in their life. Take over your traditions your culture everything Huh. Would you admire the same person. To me personally lenin and stalin are just a bunch of hypocrites who declared freedom in the name of sacrifice. They talked about liberation of everyone and they would not allow tradition and personal freedom to reign over there people. If you ever lived in a communist country or any of you then you would not be defending these people. Say what you want I don&#39;t care but someone has to stand up to his/her beliefs and I belief that lenin and stalin fucked up and they fucked up big time(Understament sorry).

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;[email protected] 17 2005, 01:05 AM
Eh? *Feigns ignorance* What&#39;s a Council-Commie? :blink: Enlighten me, comrade&#33;
My tirade was directed against &#39;vanguardism&#39; of any form. (Hence, Leninists, Stalinists etc. etc...)


Council-Communism is very similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism. We don&#39;t believe in a vanguard either. We believe the workers, students, and soldiers should form councils, with representatives revokable at all times and federate. These representatives are to only act as mouth pieces.

The two main differences between Council-Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists are:
1. Our roots originate from Marx, therefore we use alot of Marxist terminology.

2. We still use the terms "dictatorship of the prolitariat", and "socialism" when we refer to organising against the bourgoeis counter-strike to reclaim their property. The whole working-class is supressing the bourgoeis, and not some party ruling over the prolitariat. But, the way it seems these days, there is a thought among us that the term "dictatorship of the prolitariat"is a total misnomer and leaves an icky taste in our mouths.

We say "socialism" because during the time we are fighting against the capitalist offence its obvious that classes still exist within the society. After we crush the militant counter-strike, we have Communism&#33;

It&#39;s all semantics. We can all surely get over it, or adopt compatable terms.

[polemi-super-cised]

Council-Communism is very similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism. We don&#39;t believe in a vanguard either. We believe the workers, students, and soldiers should form councils, with representatives revokable at all times and federate. These representatives are to only act as mouth pieces.


That sounds cool. I&#39;m surprised that I&#39;ve not heard of the movement before... Do you guys hang out literally "underground"? Or maybe you have only two or three "disciples"&#33; Whatever. Can I join? :P



... there is a thought among us that the term "dictatorship of the proletariat"is a total misnomer and leaves an icky taste in our mouths.


Haha&#33; Yes, absolutely&#33;
And the reason for that?
Marxism-Leninism (vanguardism) brings nothing but misery to the world...

[Hiero]

Anyone who defends the Kulaks is an enemy of the proletariat and does not support proletariat liberation and the dictatorship of the proletariat. If someone defends the kulaks so passionately then they are a non marxist liberal and an enemy of the revolutionary proletariat and of Communists. So we should dismiss them as liberal trash, just as we would if someone was supporting any other reactionary class.

And Martyr you are making yourself look like an idiot, Ho Chi Minh was a Leninist.

[RevolverNo9]

There are those who will always live with their head under the sand. You know, it&#39;s just easier.

[pcb]

Ok lets start off in the begining. Oct (Nov old style) 1917 Revolution. Overthrow of a bourgeois government. withdrawal from 1st WW. Country poorest in Europe, all capital had flown the nest. Mar 1918 british, french and american forces occupy murmansk. Apr 1918 Japanese, USA and British forces land at Vladivostok. Civil War raging.
Maybe if Lenin had sat down with them he could have talked them around. I DON&#39;T THINK SO. Lenin did what he had to do to keep the revolution going. The fact that the european revolts lead to nothing did not help the revolutionary cause and with reactionary forces getting help from the Allies, he had to be strong. Do you think that the Whites would have been forgiving if they had won. The peasants themselves were divided into 3 classes the Kulaks being the rural bourgeoisie followed by the serednyaks and then the bednyaks. Lenin&#39;s power base was in the industrial proletriat so he needed to ensure that base was secure first, be it at the cost of the Kulaks. If he did not have all these problems do you think he would have wasted time on the Kulaks no I don&#39;t think so. Give Lenin some credit.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;cised+Dec 17 2005, 01:05 AM--> (polemi-super-cised @ Dec 17 2005, 01:05 AM) No contradiction&#33; Say, have you even read the high school history books? Your ignorance knows no bounds&#33; [/b]
Oooh, so if it&#39;s in high school textbooks, then it MUST be true. Clearly, the bourgeoisie isn&#39;t lying to us, they&#39;re just showing us the light of REAL communism&#33; :lol:


Lenin set up the "committees of village poor" (&#39;kombedy&#39;) to deal with the kulak "threat" in the early years of the civil war. These Bolshevised peasants were supposed to inform the authorities of those who were hoarding grain - the prosperous, petty-bourgeois kulaks. The fact that this policy failed miserably, and was later rescinded by Lenin, has no bearing on the truth of the matter: Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks always planned to "deal with" the kulaks as a class&#33;
I see nothing wrong with any of that.


*Sigh*
Very well.
Here are some of Lenin&#39;s musings on the subject of civil war:

Can you read?


Lenin
... we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created ... we fully regard civil wars, i.e. wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.

I.e. = that is, in case you forgot.


Lenin also subscribed to Clausewitz&#39;s famous thesis: "War is the Continuation of Politics by other (Violent) means". He regarded the kulaks, Cossacks, rival socialists, and "misguided" workers as political adversaries.

Good. The rest of your post is just a horribly coloured version of historical events.

[YKTMX]

Ho Chi Minh was a Leninist.



Correction:

Ho Chi Minh murdered Leninists.

He was a Stalinist oaf.

[celticfire]

- When people dismiss leaders like Ho Chi Minh ask yourself is it because he killed people? Why did he kill people? Is it really "who killed more" that matters?

It is like taking all the dead of the U.S. civil war, all the people who died of disease (which was much more than those who died of bullets), and in battle, and in dislocation, and in suppression of slave revolts, and in the struggle of Black people to overthrow their owners.... and saying "Between 2 and 3 million people died under Lincoln." Is Lincoln then a "mass murderer who killed 2 or three million people?"

Lincoln may not have killed two million people, but his armed forces did kill many confederate soldiers (and, on the reactionary side, Lincoln did order the execution of hundreds of Indian rebels in Minnesota in a mass hanging).

Here&#39;s a question:
Who killed more people in Combodia?
A) Pol Pot & The Khmer Rouge :huh:
B) American carpet bombing :D
C) Stalin&#39;s purges :rolleyes:

If you answered A you&#39;re almost there, but missed it. If you answered B -- you&#39;re right&#33; And if you answered C you need to go study some more history. The New York Times wrote: "A million people died under Pol Pot" -- and if you don&#39;t read that carefully you would think "Pol Pot killed a million people." In fact most of the people who died "under Pol Pot" died of famine and disease and dislocation caused by the massive U.S. carpet bombing of that impoverished country and people and infrastructure.

Answering, debunking and analyzing the charges of anticommunists is an extremely important project -- a whole ideological counter-offensive that has to be waged (and victoriously&#33;) as part of the preparations for a new wave of proletarian revolutoin.

As part of that, it is extremely important to get our method correct. We have to stand for truth. We have to look at reality fearlessly. And when we answer their lies, we have to separate out several things: what they say that is false, what they say that utilized (and distorts) truth or half-truths, and the conclusions they draw from this.

And we also have to point out that many forces who are "added in" to the communist cause (like Pol Pot) really were not communists in any real sense.

Check this shit out: SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT&#33; (http://www.thisiscommunism.org/)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;cised
Eh? *Feigns ignorance* What&#39;s a Council-Commie? :blink: Enlighten me, comrade&#33;

Check out this thread -- Council Communist Literature, Any recommendations? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44010) -- for information on some Council Communist writers and links to their work.

Also this is an interesting paper -- The Convergence of Marxism and Anarchism? September 8, 2004 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094664165&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- certainly provokes some thought on the subject.

[Lauren]

“Comrades&#33; The revolt by the five kulak volost&#39;s must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example.
1.You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers.
2.Publish their names.
3.Take away all of their grain.
4.Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday&#39;s telegram.
This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let&#39;s choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks.
Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.
Yours, Lenin
P.S. Use your toughest people for this." - Lenin
"Particular obstructive workers who refuse to submit to disciplinary measures will be subject, as non-workers, to discharge and confinement in concentration camps." – Lenin
and lets not forget Kronstadt. but it&#39;s hardly on the level of Mao, Hitler and Stalin. It&#39;s not even close.

[Guerrilla22]

Is Lincoln then a "mass murderer

He most certainly is. He order the continual of the genocide of the US&#39; indigeneous population.

[farleft]

What pisses me off the most about Lennin&Trothead is that they squashed the Kronstadt sailors.

Those sailors were the revolution&#33;

The sailors from the Kronstadt were demanding that the Soviet government get back to the ideals and promises of the Great October Socialist Revolution four year earlier: All Power To The Soviets, to the People&#33; They demanded, among other things, a multi-Party state, freedom of speech, an end to terror and privilege, and true Soviet democracy.

The Kronstadt rebellion was, in fact, the last fight to defend the ideals of the Revolution. That Bolshevik leaders like Lenin and Trotsky failed to recognize this and give their support to the sailors; that they failed to meet and negotiate with them, but instead sent the Red Army to defeat them, meant that the Revolution had already lost its way. It had started to devour its own supporters.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:31 PM
What pisses me off the most about Lennin&Trothead is that they squashed the Kronstadt sailors.

Those sailors were the revolution&#33;

The sailors from the Kronstadt were demanding that the Soviet government get back to the ideals and promises of the Great October Socialist Revolution four year earlier: All Power To The Soviets, to the People&#33; They demanded, among other things, a multi-Party state, freedom of speech, an end to terror and privilege, and true Soviet democracy.

The Kronstadt rebellion was, in fact, the last fight to defend the ideals of the Revolution. That Bolshevik leaders like Lenin and Trotsky failed to recognize this and give their support to the sailors; that they failed to meet and negotiate with them, but instead sent the Red Army to defeat them, meant that the Revolution had already lost its way. It had started to devour its own supporters.
Trotsky spilling the he truth on Krondstadt (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/kronstadt/trotsky_hue_cry.html)

[Luís Henrique]

*Sigh*
Very well.
Here are some of Lenin&#39;s musings on the subject of civil war:



... we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created ... we fully regard civil wars, i.e. wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.

So, you believe that wars waged by the oppresed against the oppressing class - the slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, wage-workers against the capitalists, are not legitimate, progressive, or necessary? Or what else is your point?



... civil war is the sharpest form of the class struggle; it is that point in the class struggle when clashes and battles, economic and political, repeating themselves, growing, broadening, becoming acute, turn into an armed struggle of one class against another.

Like, say the Paris Commune? What is your problem with this?



... The only correct proletarian slogan is to transform the present imperialist war [WWI] into a civil war.


And your proposal would be?

Frankly, you are using a dishonest debate tactic. You are taking Lenin quotes about the necessity of civil war in general and equating them to a support to the particular events that we call Civil War.

Any earnest working-class fighter knows that the bourgeois will resist revolution with the most implacable violence, and that violence will need to be overcome. That&#39;s not our desire, we don&#39;t think "awesome, we love killing and being killed". We think, "if it is necessary, so be it". Which means, of course, that we expect that the armed struggle for revolution will be as short and little bloody as we can make it.

The Civil War - the historical event in Russia - wasn&#39;t desired or predicted by Lenin, Trotsky, or any of the bolsheviks. It happened because the reactionaries could find enough strenght among themselves and abroad to reignite a fight that they had already lost once.


No - it was Lenin&#39;s plan. His ranting against the "bloodsucking" kulaks, the "vampires", the "parasites", ought to give you a clue. Lenin largely failed in his attempt to annihilate the kulaks; his efforts alienated the entire countryside and "the cradle of the revolution", Petrograd, almost collapsed due to starvation. (The population of the city decreased by around 70% in the civil war years&#33;)

Well. Before the Russian Revolution, where were the kulaks? With very few exceptions - those who managed to become moneylenders, for instance - they were oppressed under the brutal boots of the Russian landed aristocracy. Their condition as proprietaries of land came out of the Revolution itself. Without the landed aristocracy exploitation and oppression, the peasantry would, of course, become increasingly differentiated, with the majority tending to proletarisation, while a minority - kulaks - became succesful petty bourgeois, some of them in a clear trend to become small capitalists.

During most of the civil war, however, the whole of the Russian peasantry remained essentially loyal to the revolution. Obviously: the petty bourgeois is loyal to his property, and, in their case, their property stemed directly from the revolution. Which is not to mean that there weren&#39;t some excessively smart kulaks speculating with the general scarcity of food during the CW, nor that there weren&#39;t stupid and authoritarian orders from the bolshevik government to take grain from the peasants without any reasonable provision for future years.

The real policy to eliminate the kulaks was put into effect by Stalin in the early 30&#39;s (not that other bolsheviks, like Trotsky and Preobrazhenski, for instance, hadn&#39;t hinted in such direction before that).


Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks always planned to "deal with" the kulaks as a class&#33;

Well, as you state by yourself, the kulaks were a segment of the petty bourgeoisie. If we are to stablish a classless society, we certainly will have to "deal with" the petty bourgeoisie. This doesn&#39;t mean that we have to deal with it through its physical elimination. So you are again being dishonest: you are conflating the necessity to eliminate social classes with the idea of eliminating the individual members of those classes.

You are, by the way, not alone in such confusion: Josip Vissarionovitch also indulged in it.


He regarded the kulaks, Cossacks, rival socialists, and "misguided" workers as political adversaries. So he took action in the political arena: banning demonstrations, closing the constituent assembly, raiding the offices of the SRs and Mensheviks and closing non-Bolshevik party presses.

The fact that the right-wing SRs and the Mensheviks openly adhered to counter-revolution - I mean, armed struggle against the Soviets - is, of course immaterial to the issue, isn&#39;t it?


"Marxism-Leninism" is sheer nonsense.

Of course it is, but with criticisms like yours, I predict it is going to be a long-lived nonsense.


Eh? *Feigns ignorance* What&#39;s a Council-Commie? :blink: Enlighten me, comrade&#33;

Always nice to see a naive attempt to stablish a political bound be butted in such sarcastic way.

Down here, it would be more common to ask "what is an anarchist", since their number here is so small... but, hey, we do know that small numbers is not the same as political bankrupcy, don&#39;t we?


My tirade was directed against &#39;vanguardism&#39; of any form. (Hence, Leninists, Stalinists etc. etc...)

"Propaganda through example", for instance?

Luís Henrique

[farleft]

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog+Dec 19 2005, 04:30 PM--> (RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog @ Dec 19 2005, 04:30 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 03:31 PM
What pisses me off the most about Lennin&Trothead is that they squashed the Kronstadt sailors.

Those sailors were the revolution&#33;

The sailors from the Kronstadt were demanding that the Soviet government get back to the ideals and promises of the Great October Socialist Revolution four year earlier: All Power To The Soviets, to the People&#33; They demanded, among other things, a multi-Party state, freedom of speech, an end to terror and privilege, and true Soviet democracy.

The Kronstadt rebellion was, in fact, the last fight to defend the ideals of the Revolution. That Bolshevik leaders like Lenin and Trotsky failed to recognize this and give their support to the sailors; that they failed to meet and negotiate with them, but instead sent the Red Army to defeat them, meant that the Revolution had already lost its way. It had started to devour its own supporters.
Trotsky spilling the he truth on Krondstadt (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/kronstadt/trotsky_hue_cry.html) [/b]
That writing by Trotsky is insufficient in defending those actions taken against the Kronstadt sailors. I require some actual evidence.

Also this is not a thread about Trotsky, it&#39;s about Lenin, though might be a good idea to start one about him as well.

[YKTMX]

I require some actual evidence.



New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks&#39; position (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

There you go.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:53 PM

I require some actual evidence.



New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks&#39; position (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

There you go.
Thanks for that, was a good read.

While that does clarify some "hazy" areas in my knowledge I still find it hard to believe that the same people who instigated the revolution would be working against communist values, I seems far more plausible that these sailors where too "extreme left-wing" for the likes of Trotsky.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;[email protected] 15 2005, 11:29 PM
Indeed, comrade Ulyanov regarded civil war as both necessary and desirable - as the logical extension of Russia&#39;s internal class struggle. The "civil war" was to eliminate not only the &#39;White&#39; monarchists, and the western imperialist threat, but anyone Lenin suspected of being counter-revolutionary.

Actually if you both reading Lenin&#39;s writings until about 3 or 4 months before October, he consistently pointed out that a peaceful revolution could have been accomplished by the Soviet leaders in an instant, if they had given ordered it. But their reformism and time-wasting allowed the right-wing and counter-revolution to strengthen and consolidate itself and to become an actual force in society. It was only after the rise of Kornilov that Lenin began advocating the necessity of civil war as the only method in which the right-wing could be pushed back and defeated. He very clearly argued that the Soviets should take power, even with a reformist and petit-bourgeois leadership and that under those conditions, the Bolsheviks would limit themselves to peacefully winning over the Soviet.

[Fidelbrand]

No matter what you say, you are still Lenin-reincarnated. The resemblance is shocking.

[Led Zeppelin]

No - it was Lenin&#39;s plan.

No it wasn&#39;t, why the hell would Lenin make plans to liquidate the class that he himself created for a purpose?

He didn&#39;t, instead Stalin liquidated them after they served their purpose.


Stalin&#39;s "collectivisation" (in the 1930s) was the logical extension of Lenin&#39;s pathological hatred of the peasantry; specifically, the petty-bourgeois kulaks.


Don&#39;t be silly, Lenin didn&#39;t have a "pathological hatred of the peasantry", on the contrary; he considered them a revolutionary force&#33;


No contradiction&#33; Say, have you even read the high school history books?

No I haven&#39;t, that&#39;s why I can read through your bullshit.


Lenin set up the "committees of village poor" (&#39;kombedy&#39;) to deal with the kulak "threat" in the early years of the civil war. These Bolshevised peasants were supposed to inform the authorities of those who were hoarding grain - the prosperous, petty-bourgeois kulaks. The fact that this policy failed miserably, and was later rescinded by Lenin, has no bearing on the truth of the matter: Lenin&#39;s Bolsheviks always planned to "deal with" the kulaks as a class&#33;


First of all where is the source?

Secondly, it doesn&#39;t matter, the NEP created and developed the Kulak class, so it is indeed a contradiction.


Undoubtedly, after years of N.E.P., the "kulak" class grew and was easier to distinguish. That made Stalin&#39;s job relatively simple.

So by your logic Lenin let the class grow and at the same time he "dealt with them" as a class?

If that is not a contradiction you need to redefine that word.


Obviously Lenin and Stalin did.
How unfunny is that?


No they didn&#39;t, again; prove it.

You can&#39;t just claim something and expect me to take your word for it, I&#39;ve learned to not do that long ago, hence why I disregarded my high school history text books as crap.

[jaycee]

lenin was a real revolutionary who was instrumental in the only ever succesful working class revolution. But as it degenerated Lenins views like all the Bolsheviks became more and more tied up with the needs of the Russian state which increasingly became aforce above and against the soviets and workers. Towards the end of his life he startedt ot realise that the revolution had degenerated to a massive extent and realised that the state apperatus was acting &#39;as if it were controled by some secret force, refusing to obey its masters hand&#39; however it was the left communists who really saw the extent of its degenerationand were the first to classify it as state capitalist. Lenin died a revolutionary, but if he had stayed in power he would have either acted similaly to stalin or joined the left opposition.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;[email protected] 17 2005, 01:14 AM



[me]
Indeed, comrade Ulyanov regarded civil war as both necessary and desirable

[you]
No he didn&#39;t, prove this absurd claim.


*Sigh*
Very well.
Here are some of Lenin&#39;s musings on the subject of civil war:



... we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created ... we fully regard civil wars, i.e. wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.

... civil war is the sharpest form of the class struggle; it is that point in the class struggle when clashes and battles, economic and political, repeating themselves, growing, broadening, becoming acute, turn into an armed struggle of one class against another.

... The only correct proletarian slogan is to transform the present imperialist war [WWI] into a civil war.

True, Lenin regarded civil war as a great step forward, an open class war as replacing an imperialist war. There&#39;s nothing wrong or warmongering in this, it&#39;s just realization of the fact that a revolution of the oppressed against the oppressors probably will lead to civil war.

However:
"By seizing complete power, [...] the soviets may yet secure a peaceful development of the revolution, the people&#39;s peaceful election of deputies, a peaceful combat between the parties in the soviets, testing the parties&#39; programs in practice, peaceful transfer of power from one party to the other."
- Rabotsji Putj nr 20 and 21, 26 and 27 october 1917.

Lenin and the Bolshevics kept open the possibility of a peaceful revolution, and an immiediate implementation of democracy, for as long as possible.

History gives the term &#39;vanguard party&#39; many different meanings. This can make a discussion of Leninist theory and Lenin&#39;s part in history obscure.

[sadiq.basha]

i am new to this site and have just started reading communism.
i just would like to comment "THAT U JUST CANT&#39;T TRUST BOURGIES LITERATURE"
Remember when there is a war there is not time for soft heart
There was war between Revolutionary and counter revolutionary.
Lenin or for that matter Stalin could nit give any cahnce to the counter revolutionary as that we see of the paris commune

[Re-visionist 05]

Yeah, Lenin may have killed some people, but its rediculous to criticise him for his behavior, and completly look over the fact that George Washington was a ruthless commander who burned and pillaged the Iroquois people. Social change on that scale usually has some violence involved with it, especially when your taking a pretty much medievil nation, into a modern industrial power.

[Wiesty]

I dont know about him being a mass murderer, but im sure he was responsible for many deaths, as is every leader, back then and today. Alot more deaths were probably casued especially because it was post revolution.