Lenin

[ioncannon152]

I'm curious as to why Lenin took power away from the Soviets, several years after the Russian Revolution, and moved it to the Bolshevik Party.

How did he do it and why?

Why didn't the proletariat revolt?


Also, can the Paris Commune (or Spain) be taken as historical proof that communism CAN work?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:12 PM
Also, can the Paris Commune (or Spain) be taken as historical proof that communism CAN work?
Not really. But it's a clear proof that there's a historical tendency towards it.


I'm curious as to why Lenin took power away from the Soviets, several years after the Russian Revolution, and moved it to the Bolshevik Party.

How did he do it and why?

Why didn't the proletariat revolt?

Well, the Soviets were cut of absolute power right from the start (after February days) with the Central Executive Committee and the party representation system which defected its proletarian homogenity. Later, with the 7th November uprising the new "People's Commisars" (central government with Lenin on top) started to supress the Soviets, cooperatives and the factory committees with implementation of bureaucratic means, with an excuse of the civil war crisis.

So basicly, "he" (they) did it with bypassing them, and did it because they could.

The culmination of this suppression was the defeat of Kronstadt commune and the Workers' Opposition within the party.

During NEP, party was subjugated by the same means it concidered necessary but reversable (if necessary, which was a huge mistake) - the rise of bureaucratic class.

-----[Edit]---------------

Hmm.. I expected a fast responce from the Leninists... "Lenin was a great proletarian leader ... a true Marxist thinker ... established democracy for Russia ... we must follow his example ... or we're doomed ... read the S&R where he says blah blah blah"

I'm waiting.

[ComradeOm]

Lenin was a great proletarian leader ... a true Marxist thinker ... established democracy for Russia ... we must follow his example ... or we're doomed ... read the S&R where he says blah blah blah" :cool:

In reality the Bolsheviks were the only real revolutionary party within the Soviets. What those who object to Lenin really hate about the man is that he chose revolution over co-operation with the bourgeoisie.

[Lamanov]

Coup d'Etat = Revolution (from a Leninist dictionary)

:lol:


Originally posted by ComradeOm
In reality the Bolsheviks were the only real revolutionary party within the Soviets.

What about the Anarchists who literally helped the Bolsheviks to power in November days?


What those who object to Lenin really hate about the man is that he chose revolution over co-operation with the bourgeoisie.

I object the fact that his politics were - in his relationship to the revolutionary proletariat, its democratic and revolutionary tendency, its soviets and factory committees -- once he reached 'to power' - a 100% replica of the previous bourgeois domination.

You heard tales about legendary Lenin of the April Theses, S&R and the Ten Days That Shook The World. I know the facts about Lenin of Tcheka, Red Terror, bueraucracy, NEP and Kronstadt.

I know the facts that only Russia's urban proletariat was revolutionary in that experiment.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 25 2005, 09:32 PM
Coup d'Etat = Revolution (from a Leninist dictionary)

:lol:
Now you're denying that what Russia saw was a revolution?


What about the Anarchists who literally helped the Bolsheviks to power in November days?
I said "revolutionary party" ;)

The Soviets were divided between the reformists and revolutionaries. Guess which the Bolsheviks were.


I object the fact that his politics were - in his relationship to the revolutionary proletariat, its democratic and revolutionary tendency, its soviets and factory committees -- once he reached 'to power' - a 100% replica of the previous bourgeois domination.
And what was the alternative? That's the problem with those who criticise Lenin, you fail to grasp that to be totally democratic, the "ideal" socialist society, would've meant giving power to the peasants. Is anyone that stupid?


You heard tales about legendary Lenin of the April Theses, S&R and the Ten Days That Shook The World. I know the facts about Lenin of Tcheka, Red Terror, bueraucracy, NEP and Kronstadt.
I'm not saying that mistakes were not made. However those that you have listed were necessary at the time. Lenin wasn't dreaming up arguments on an internet forum, he was putting Marxism in practice in the real world and in pretty poor conditions.

I'll go into more detail on the individual points there if you really want.


I know the facts that only Russia's urban proletariat was revolutionary in that experiment.
You're denying historical fact. If that were true then the peasants, who made up the vast bulk of the population, would've crushed any revolution. The peasants were a revolutionary class for a time. Obviously that changed once they had their land which prevented the Bolsheviks from adapting a more democratic state.

And while the peasants were a useful tool it was of course the proletariat who led the revolution.

[Lamanov]

Russia did see a revolution, but it wasn't the Bolshevik coup which can count as a "revolution". Revolution in Russia was a long process which ended with the defeat of the revolutionary proletariat and the establishment of state capitalism. It's precisely because of the differed elements of cause, process and effect which cannot give us the right to characterize it as "proletarian".

Lenin did not put "Marxism in practice"! Nice myth, though.

Hope of "soon revolution in the west" and writing a propagandist State and Revolution which made absolutely no significant realization in Lenin's practice next to his "vanguardist" sectarianism cannot be considered a "Marxist practice".

:lol:

Stop using the fucking paradigm of dead and irretrievable history.

Come to tha 3rd millennium, maan!

[commie anarchist rebel]

[QUOTE]What about the Anarchists who literally helped the Bolsheviks to power in November days?


I totaly agree with this statment without the anarchists the bolstaviks would have failed (witch in the end they did anyways) and wat did lenin do to thank the anarchist he stabed em i the back and put em in prison and sent them to exile

like lenin had some good ideas dont get me wrong but once the revolutionaries gained power his ideas changed

[ioncannon152]

Could you guys provide links where i can learn more about the russian revolution?

Preferably a simple introduction to what happened, analysed from a marxist perspective.

Thx.


Not really. But it's a clear proof that there's a historical tendency towards it.
I thought the Paris Commune and the Spanish Anarchist Collectives worked quite well, didn't they?

[Kez]

http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:47 AM
I thought the Paris Commune and the Spanish Anarchist Collectives worked quite well, didn't they?
I'm not sure about Spain; honestly, my knowledge is very vague, but I'll do some reading (studdying, that is) on the matter soon.

As for the Paris Commune - yes, it worked quite fine, counting on the fact that it was a recallable representative democracy and that it happened 130 years ago(!). Of course, as you know, communism works on the principles of direct democracy. Industrial development over 130 years and more to come is the factor which makes it possible for the future.

So we can acomplish not only another Paris Commune, but we will see something even better.

[Storming Heaven]

I'm a long way from being any kind of expert on Lenin or Bolshevism, but from what I can gather it seems to me that Lenin may have been afraid of the socialist movement in Russia degenerating into a sort of Menshevik reformism. This I think was the root of his authoritarianism and his decision to forbid factions within the Party.

Could anyone throw any light on the strengths/weaknesses of this conjecture?