Leninism

[CCCPneubauten]

I have been reading up on his works and I am in the throws of either supporting it or hating it.

IS there any Leninist that can win me over?

What is the diffrence between Troskyism and Leninism?

Anyone?

Thanks.

[Morpheus]

Trotskyism is one form of Leninism; they consider themselves leninists. There are other forms as well, like Stalinism and Maoism.

You should read http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secHcon.html

[CCCPneubauten]

That is great, I always loved that site, but I am still trying to get a Leninist's viewpoint. WHY should I join their ranks, what makes them good, why des it seem to be that Leninism turns into an oppressive dictatorship, ect?

[TC]

Cause the US and UK rely on 'Big Lie' propaganda techniques the same way that the Nazis did, and there are a lot of poorly educated people in those countries which actually believe it. Thats why marxist-leninist revolutions 'seem' to turn into 'oppressive dictatorships', to dumb americans and people in the commonwealth; however in reality they don't.

[JC1]

WHY should I join their ranks, what makes them good

Becuase Marxism-Leninism is the only tendency that has actualy orginizied political combat orginization's of the working class. In the US, the Communist League ( http://www.communistleague.org/ ) is the most advanced orginization of our class.

However, Leninism will only appeal to you if youre a member of the working class. If youre a middle class radical, you will feel more at home with local anarchist clique.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Middle class radicals are not oppressed by capitalism to the same extent. For this reason, they are typically able to keep emotion out of political philosophy. Leninists, however, take their roots from the working class, which, when given the opportunity to have a "dictatorship of the proletariat", will want nothing more than to get revenge for what was done to them. A new bourgeoisies emerges and all that happens is a loss of life.

Leninists are authoritarian and perpertuate an ideology that is old-fashioned and contrary to what is good for the proletariat of the modern day. You should avoid Leninist philosophy.

[JC1]

First of all, Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, thank you. Thank you for being honest enough to admit you’re a member of the middle class, and unlike your anarchist cohort's, don’t masquerade as a worker.


Middle class radicals are not oppressed by capitalism to the same extent.

Indeed, the modern day petit-bourgeois is a appendage to capital. The existence of the petit-bourgeoisie is tied to that of the bourgeoisie. That's why middle class radicalism becomes inevitably bankrupt.


For this reason, they are typically able to keep emotion out of political philosophy.

This is because they don’t have emotional or material investment in the struggle. The struggle is a game for them, whereas the working class is in it to win. There is no plan B.


Leninists, however, take their roots from the working class, which, when given the opportunity to have a "dictatorship of the proletariat", will want nothing more than to get revenge for what was done to them.

Actually, we will want more then that. We will want to transform the world, not simple revenge.


Leninists are authoritarian and perpetuate an ideology that is old-fashioned

That old fashioned ideology of victory through unity ? The anarchist hatred of unity is a reflection of his own classes state of disunity (His class being the petit-bourgeoisie).This class characteristic is the source of his opposition to organized units of political combat.

Anarchism cringes when it hear's the slogan of the worker's, "Organize!". This is because it is the antithesis of the petit-bourgeoisie's atomized nature to unite.


and contrary to what is good for the proletariat of the modern day.

So worker's don’t know what is good for them? They need anarchist's to tell them what to think?


You should avoid Leninist philosophy.

You avoid Leninism, you avoid proletarian insurrection.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Anarchists do not agree on everything. The main argument of anarchism is that the state is unnecessary. Anarchism disagrees with a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have no problem with the workers uniting; however, I do not see a centralized workers state surviving. Anarchism has had a much better track record when it comes to implementation, in my opinion, and most anarchist predictions about centralization leading to corruption have proved correct.

Workers can unite without attempting to take control of the weapons the bourgeoisies have used to oppress them. The temptation the workers will have to use their new found power is the same reason reformism fails. It requires the accumulation of power and lacks sufficient checks and balances.

Anarchism avoids the centralization of Leninist and Marxist dictatorships of the proletariat, and, for that reason, it is much more practical. It is understandable that the proletariat appreciates Leninism for its more aggressive stance against capitalist. Anarchism, however, involves the careful use of violence and other tactics to achieve a real change.

As much as I hate to say it, the intelligentsia is an important part in achieving a true revolution. The theories of Gramsci and other leftist intellectuals play an important part in creating a communist society. If the proletariat does not combine with the intelligentsia, it will fail. Countless revolutions and examples of social change have required different groups of people. Would the feminist movement work without men? The civil rights movement without whites? I have my doubts. The upper class will remain firm in how it retains its more, and, without those who understand the system to intervene, revolution will be difficult. Intellectuals are educated men and women typically find themselves achieving a lifestyle different from the proletariat.

Leninism is rooted in achieving a better life for the modern day proletariat. Those who were oppressed achieve the lifestyle they wanted, by gaining control fo the state, and their goal is complete. The middle class has time to reflect on the neccessity of achieving a complete social change, and their guidance is required for any revolution.

[bezdomni]

Leninists are authoritarian and perpertuate an ideology that is old-fashioned and contrary to what is good for the proletariat of the modern day. You should avoid Leninist philosophy.

Yeah, nothing is more authoritarian than the establishment of democratic worker's councils, international revolution, and the establishment of an expedient state.

I trust that you haven't read anything by Lenin, but rather petit-bourgeois interpretations of Lenin?

State and Revolution enjoys a reputation as being a libertarian doctrine.

Any "authoritarian" Leninist has either accepted a debasement of Leninism (ie: Stalinism or Maoism) or terribly misunderstands Lenin.

It should be noted that I am a Trotskyist, and I have a bias against Stalinism and authoritarianism.

[anomaly]

clownpenisanarchy said:

State and Revolution enjoys a reputation as being a libertarian doctrine.
Yes, this is true. But what about Lenin's other famous work, What Is To Be Done? In this work, Lenin several times speaks of despotism very approvingly.


It should be noted that I am a Trotskyist
Viva la social democracy! :lol:

JC1 said:

They need anarchist's to tell them what to think?
Historically, you Leninists have thought that you should tell the proletariat what to think.

CCCPPneubauten said:

WHY should I join their ranks, what makes them good, why des it seem to be that Leninism turns into an oppressive dictatorship, ect?
You shouldn't join their ranks. Leninism turns into an oppressive dictatorship because Leninists have had this odd thought that they could transform a feudal society into a communist one. To do this, Leninists say we need a vanguard to lead the working class, they say the working class simply cannot do it themselves. And inside the 'Communist Party', the wonderful principle of 'democratic centralism' operates, which is, of course, entirely undemocratic. When the Party takes power, it asserts itself as the new ruling class, despite its hefty socialist rhetoric.

TragicClown said:

however in reality they don't.
So Mao and Stalin and Kruschev etc. etc. just appeared to be tyrants? :lol:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:20 AM
Yes, this is true. But what about Lenin's other famous work, What Is To Be Done? In this work, Lenin several times speaks of despotism very approvingly.
Newsflash: So did Marx. If you want liberal democracy then feel free to join Labour.


And inside the 'Communist Party', the wonderful principle of 'democratic centralism' operates, which is, of course, entirely undemocratic.
Asking people to abide by a democratically arrived party line... shocking :o

[TC]

So Mao and Stalin and Kruschev etc. etc. just appeared to be tyrants?

Yes, they just appeared to be tyrants in the west (Well, except of course during WWII when the Americans decided that Stalin was fighting for freedom, since part of the American/British/Nazi propaganda strategy requires a single enemy and they already picked one http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/history/images/WW2_Poster.jpg). However they didn't appear to be tyrants in the Soviet Union and China. Stalin and Mao are very popular in the former Soviet Union and China today...Kruschev is less popular but not because he was a tyrant, only because he didn't handle the Cuban missile crisis very well in public opinion.

Likewise Saddam Hussein just appeared to have weapons of mass destruction, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam just appeared to attack US ships in the gulf of Tonkin, the Spanish just appeared to blow up the USS Mainein Havana harbor. None of these things actually happened, but they seemed to the eyes of stupid westerners who believed the propaganda.

[redstar2000]

On Leninism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082734280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Leninism: A Radical Middle Class Ideology (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1136115064&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Stalin and Mao are very popular in the former Soviet Union and China today...Kruschev is less popular but not because he was a tyrant, only because he didn't handle the Cuban missile crisis very well in public opinion.

I am afraid i must disagree with this.

Both Mao and Stalin had large personality cults, its only been 50 years, there will of course be a large impact on society even after this long.

Kruschev didnt, hence, people see him as a stop gap, he was not a "great man" of history. But good for him y'know, not brainwashing people an all, its something he can be proud of :lol: .

Just look at anyone with a personality cult, people never seem to hate them. Unless you can see through the bull.

[dannie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:10 PM

So Mao and Stalin and Kruschev etc. etc. just appeared to be tyrants?

.... However they didn't appear to be tyrants in the Soviet Union and China. Stalin and Mao are very popular in the former Soviet Union and China today....
Maybe that's because a lot of people have fallen in extreme poverty in the last few years in russia, instead of just poverty under stalin's rule (I remember seeing a documentary where a russian from siberia said, i wouldn't mind another stalin because back then i could get water from my tap). that doesn't mean stalin was a good ol' chap

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:20 AM



It should be noted that I am a Trotskyist
Viva la social democracy! :lol:

I'm confused.

You accuse me of supporting despotism, which Leninism inherently turns into...and then criticize Trotskyism as being nothing more than social democracy.

In what way is Trotskyism not a revolutionary ideology?

[anomaly]

ComradeOm said:

So did Marx.
I don't believe Marx ever spoke of wanting a Stalin-like figure leading having nearly absolute power. Marx did speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but not a despot.


Asking people to abide by a democratically arrived party line... shocking
If you think 'democratic centralism' was democratic in any sense of the word, well, you've got some major problems.

clownpenisanarchy said:

In what way is Trotskyism not a revolutionary ideology?
Again, ArmchairSocialism wrote what I consider to be a very good essay on this very topic. It's in the theory section. In short, though, If you've ever been on a Trotskyist forum (I was in one, about a year ago), or been 'with' a Trotskyist party, it is rather clear that they want reformism. In fact, the 'socialist' society the Trots were suggesting back on the old forum was just a 'hyped-up' Sweden state. The very fact that most Trotskyist parties participate in bourgeois democracy should be evidence enough that Trotskyism has fallen into the ranks of reformism.

TragicClown wrote:

Yes, they just appeared to be tyrants
:lol:
And did the GLF just appear to kill millions? Did Stalin just 'appear' to hold absolute power? Even our Trot friend clownpenisanarchy can vouch for the authoritarianism of Stalin.

True enough, Leninism did successfully modernize the countries in which it took root. And it would probably work again in another feudal nation (although, and perhaps I am too staunchly anti-Leninist here, I think there are other methods besides 'free market' capitalism or Leninism). However, to even suggest Leninist strategies to overthrow modern capitalism is rather ahistorical. Why have a party to lead the proletariat when no such party is needed?

[CCCPneubauten]

Well, how do you guys feel Leninism would work in say a non-feudal country, such as the US, UK, or France?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:14 AM

Again, ArmchairSocialism wrote what I consider to be a very good essay on this very topic. It's in the theory section. In short, though, If you've ever been on a Trotskyist forum (I was in one, about a year ago), or been 'with' a Trotskyist party, it is rather clear that they want reformism. In fact, the 'socialist' society the Trots were suggesting back on the old forum was just a 'hyped-up' Sweden state. The very fact that most Trotskyist parties participate in bourgeois democracy should be evidence enough that Trotskyism has fallen into the ranks of reformism.



I always hear this about Leninist/Trotskyist parties, but I haven't experienced it. I'm with Worker's International League (part of the CMI), and I haven't heard any "reformist" rhetoric. I'll agree that parties like SWP that masquarade as Trotskyist are reformist, but the ideas of Trotsky were revolutionary. Reformists don't usually lead the Red Army. :-p

I guess I can see how Trotskyism could be misinterpreted, especially with the SWP and it's similar groups, but to call the SWP Trotskyist is like calling China Communist. :P

All they do is sell fucking magazines. Same with ISO.



Even our Trot friend clownpenisanarchy can vouch for the authoritarianism of Stalin.
Indeed I can. ;)

[workers unity]

>> However, Leninism will only appeal to you if youre a member of the working class. If youre a middle class radical, you will feel more at home with local anarchist clique.

In my experiences talking and working with members of the working class, Leninism where not forgotten (and it is for the most part outside of history), is not seen as a significantly capable tool. Many peoples respect the history and accomplishments of it, but seem uncapable of looking to it as their own present struggle.

Much is different from 1917.

Why are these terms used to alienate and insult? You see there is nothing of use in making a complete connection between the petite-bourgeoisie and anarchism other than to make an illusion out of real class lines. For you anarchist and petite-bourgeoisie becomes the same and you no longer make real class analysis but ideological class analysis. Completely useless except to confuse peoples who don't know enough to make any real distinction.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:14 AM
I don't believe Marx ever spoke of wanting a Stalin-like figure leading having nearly absolute power. Marx did speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but not a despot.
Care to point out just where in WITBD Lenin asks "Comrade Stalin" to step forward and rule with an iron fist?


If you think 'democratic centralism' was democratic in any sense of the word, well, you've got some major problems.
Let me see... the party members vote and the solution that they arrive at is adapted by all. You'd rather people vote and then continue to do whatever the fuck they like? Sort've defeats the purpose, no?

[Orthodox Marxist]

DP

[Orthodox Marxist]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt Lenin's last letter a complete denouncing of Stalin and trotsky.

[bezdomni]

Yeah, but mostly Stalin. It's up on the marxists.org website if you want to read it.

I've already had this debate on another thread in the history section with a Maoist, and several times in the streets of Rhode Island with Stalinists.

They seem to be incapable of understanding that Stalinism is a failure of an ideology, and that Lenin did not want Stalin to have any real power, because he was "rude and abrasive".

Of course, Stalinists will say that this letter is a bunch of "bourgeois lies and misrepresentations", or something to that calibur.

But this isn't (yet another pointless debate) of Stalin and Trotsky. It's history, let it be.

[CCCPneubauten]

So...Leninism...was it a failure or just not applied at the correct time?

Or was it nixed by Stalin and turned into a mass of papers and gulags?

Can Leninism work or will it be prone to what happened to it in the USSR?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Although the leninists will throw a fit and tell you otherwise...


So...Leninism...was it a failure or just not applied at the correct time?

It DOES NOT obtain communism. Where it has been applied succesfully is in really backwards third world countries. It succeeds in industrializing the country and bringing it into modern capitalism, which is a necessary step towards communism (it creates a proletariat which is necessary for marxist theory to work) ,according to Marx, even though these countries are still FAR away from obtaining communism.


Can Leninism work or will it be prone to what happened to it in the USSR?

Who does it work for is the question. It works for those undeveloped backwards countries usually. Has it ever worked or even been succesful in the advanced capitalist countries (Western Europe, US) NO! What is known is that they havent had the material conditions to even create communism where its been succesful.

[bezdomni]

It DOES NOT obtain communism. Where it has been applied succesfully is in really backwards third world countries. It succeeds in industrializing the country and bringing it into modern capitalism, which is a necessary step towards communism (it creates a proletariat which is necessary for marxist theory to work) ,according to Marx, even though these countries are still FAR away from obtaining communism.
Leninism doesn't work when it is applied in one country, obviously. However, if a developed nation were to have a revolution immediately after a developing nation - it should work.

Let's say a developed country like Germany developed socialism and united with the bolsheviks in Russia. The German infrastrcture and class system would be ripe for sharing its political and economic power with Russia. Russia would have developed with the help of socialist Germany and the rest of the developed capitalist countries that revolted at the time.

Russian socialism failed because of bureaucracy that was established during the civil war. There were no other successful revolutions to help the Soviets, therefore the USSR was open to an imperialist invasion. After the imperialists were fought off and the civil war was won, the bureaucracy still lingered and international help never came. At this point the Left Opposition began calling for international revolution (which the material conditions were ready for), but the Stalinists chose an isolationist "socialism in one country" method. Instead of developing with the help of developed countries, they developed "by themselves" and the bureaucracy crystallized.

Leninism does not want revolution in only "backwards" nations. We want revolution everywhere! However, material conditions dictate that revolution is most likely to occur in developing nations - due to imperialism and globalization. The last time I checked, the workers are a lot worse off in Latin America and Asia than they are in the USA. I'm not saying that the workers in the USA are not exploited or treated poorly (only MIM would say that!), but there are few in the US that do not benefit from imperialism.

Most people overlook this part of Leninism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
Let's say a developed country like Germany developed socialism and united with the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Wouldn't have helped...Germany was not "developed enough" either.

As a matter of fact, Germany was starving at the time of its weak bourgeois "revolution" -- the British naval blockade of Germany continued long after the shooting was over.

Germany also was overrun by demobilized soldiers (who kept their weapons) with very reactionary ideas.

There was also a substantial reactionary peasant class.

Even if the Spartakist Bund had won in Berlin, it's very unlikely that they would have been able to extend their power outside the city or even stay in power in Berlin very long.

Things were just really different back then.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Social Greenman]

JC1 wrote:


However, Leninism will only appeal to you if youre a member of the working class. If youre a middle class radical, you will feel more at home with local anarchist clique.

When was this written in stone? I am working class and I don't see any appeal to Leninism whatsoever. So, who made the determination that those who sell their labor-power to the capitalist class and make enough money to be middle class are not proletariet? I understand what a petty-bourgeoisie is and I see very few of them these days. On the other hand, I do know of workers who work in highly automated factories and make very good money. Still, they are exploited at the point of production. Problem is they don't know or understand that their labor makes the capitalist wealthy. They are better off than other workers no doubt. They don't complain except about what taxes they have to pay out. But then...isn't it capitalist propaganda that keeps all workers mis-informed and docile?

[CCCPneubauten]

How about...Trotskyism?

What's the deal with that. Wikipedia isn't telling much.

[bezdomni]

There's a few threads on Trotskyism.

This one is good in the middle, but it turns into crap when RedStar gets accused of being a drug-addled moron.

Xanthus puts up many great arguments though.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=46981&st=50 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46981&st=50)

[anomaly]

Eh, that one's ok. But I much prefer this one:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47241

Although, this one also gets away from Trotskyism after a while. But, this is a good essay on Trotskyism.