About (anti) Leninism

[ClydeBarrow]

Hi,
I'm not a Leninist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have noticed that a lot of people here are really anti-Lenin and anti-Leninism, even in the case of past historical events, such as the Russian Revolution.
My question to these people is:
What would you rather have had happen?

Sure, Lenin was a bureaucrat and authoritarian who had a lot of bad ideas such as "vanguardism," but does that mean we should disown him entirely?
In my opinion, Leninism was a progressive force that helped the development of capitalism in a semi-feudal, backwards Russia, and thereby brought it (and the world) closer to the achievement of communism.
Russia, back then, obviously wasn't at the historical stage of development that accomodates communism, so why bother pretending that it was, and that Makhno or whoever else could have achieved better conditions for the working people? Would it have been better to let the provisional government under Kerensky to run its historically consistent, bourgeois liberal course?
What are your thoughts/opinions? I'm open to suggestions! :)


By the way, if you are a Leninist and are going to argue that Russia really was communist and that Leninism is the way of the future, don't bother telling me about it, 'cause I don't want to hear it! ;) This question is just for those hardcore anti-Lenin people out there.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Lenin had some legitimate ideas. After all, he claimed to be a Marxist. In my opinion, however, Leninism perpetuates stereotypes about communism that, in my opinion, must diminish for a new, anarcho-communist movement to succeed. Personally, I object to Marxism, too, if one has an authoritarian interpretation of it (dictatorship of the proletariat & centralization). However, I have more respect for Marx because his ideas were more revolutionary.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 3 2006, 10:02 PM
Lenin had some legitimate ideas. After all, he claimed to be a Marxist. In my opinion, however, Leninism perpetuates stereotypes about communism that, in my opinion, must diminish for a new, anarcho-communist movement to succeed. Personally, I object to Marxism, too, if one has an authoritarian interpretation of it (dictatorship of the proletariat & centralization). However, I have more respect for Marx because his ideas were more revolutionary.

Leninism perpetuates stereotypes about communism that, in my opinion, must diminish for a new, anarcho-communist movement to succeed.
What are the "stereotypes" that Leninism perpetuates, and since when was everybody an "anarcho-communist"? Anarcho-communism seems like a place people go when they don't want to offend anybody or can't make up their mind.


Personally, I object to Marxism, too, if one has an authoritarian interpretation of it (dictatorship of the proletariat & centralization).
And what do you propose instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Even anarchists recognize the need of the DoP, they deviate from most Marxists because they think the DoP is contradictory to statism.


However, I have more respect for Marx because his ideas were more revolutionary.
And how do we calculate "revolutionaryness"? Is there a scale?

[violencia.Proletariat]

In my opinion, Leninism was a progressive force that helped the development of capitalism in a semi-feudal, backwards Russia, and thereby brought it (and the world) closer to the achievement of communism.

Of course! Closer but not ANYWHERE close, but at least to the next step of historical development.


but I have noticed that a lot of people here are really anti-Lenin and anti-Leninism, even in the case of past historical events, such as the Russian Revolution.

Many of the leninists here are in the first world, and most of the people who oppose leninism here are also in the first world. It is worthless for those in advanced capitalist countries! It works for those in third world and backwards countries though, and thats fine.


so why bother pretending that it was

Tell it to the leninists

[Zingu]

Leninism is revolutionary in post-feudal countries...the October Revolution was a complete success. But just like 1848, it renders into being into the dominant ideology the ruling class uses in a capitalist system, hence, it is no longer revolutionary at all.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:51 PM
What are the "stereotypes" that Leninism perpetuates, and since when was everybody an "anarcho-communist"? Anarcho-communism seems like a place people go when they don't want to offend anybody or can't make up their mind.

And what do you propose instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Even anarchists recognize the need of the DoP, they deviate from most Marxists because they think the DoP is contradictory to statism.

And how do we calculate "revolutionaryness"? Is there a scale?
Leninism perpertuates the idea that all forms of communism result in a dictatorship of the proletariat, and, consequently, authoritarianism. It perpetuates the vision of communism being the ideology of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, anarcho-communism has nothing to do with a failure to decide. I believe in anarchism, and, in my opinion, being communist is a requirement for being anarchist. I also appreciate Marxist theory (aside from certain aspects), and I feel that anarcho-communism is a title that better suits me. If I were to call myself a libertarian socialist, it might seem like I am afraid to call myself an anarchist or a communist, which I am proud to call myself.

Also, I was saying Marx's ideas were more revolutionary in the sense that they were more unique and never before seen.

[bezdomni]

Leninism perpertuates the idea that all forms of communism result in a dictatorship of the proletariat, and, consequently, authoritarianism.
The DoP was established by Marx, not Lenin. In class society, there will always be one class exercising its "dictatorship" over another. Under capitalism, we have the bourgeoisie - with socialism, we have the proletariat.

The DoP is based on democracy - not tyranny. If it is tyrannical, it's not the DoP. The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to end the necesity of the state and abolish the class system - not to set up a "leninist bureaucracy" as the anarchists seem to think.

I can understand the anarchist opposition to the DoP, since anarchism is based on immediate classless society after a revolution with no intermediary state. However, one who believes that communism is a necessary prerequisite to anarchism should believe that there is need for a democratic centralizied state to abolish the class system.

Could you explain anarcho-communism a bit more? I truly do not understand it. How is being a communist necessary to being an anarchist? The two ideas seem to be contradictory on some levels (statist and anti-statist).

I'll give you that Marx's ideas were "newer" than Lenin's - but that does not make Lenin's ideas invalid or "less revolutionary". There are many philosophers with "new" ideas - but that does not necessarily make them revolutionary.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 12:46 AM
The DoP was established by Marx, not Lenin.
Actually it was established by Babeuf during the French Revolution. Marx was one of many in a long line of revolutionaries to use the term.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ClydeBarrow
My question to these people is: What would you rather have had happen?

It would have been very "helpful" had Lenin lived longer...and fully restored capitalism in Russia by, say, 1930 or so. Things were going that way until the late 1920s when "that devil" Stalin halted the process and made a plausible case for "socialism in one country".

Had there been "no Stalin", then communism in the "west" would have developed along an entirely different path...no "vanguard party mythology", no babble about "iron Bolshevik discipline" or "the workers' socialist motherland", etc.

It would have been seen as self-evident that Leninism as a paradigm was totally irrelevant to proletarian struggle in the "west".

It would have saved us enormous difficulties!

The "accidents" of history can be most annoying. :lol:

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

[ClydeBarrow]

Hi again,

So we all pretty much agree that Leninism is progressive in "underdeveloped" countries, especially with regards to industrial development, but is actually an impediment to progress in those "developed" countries.

However, redstar200, I have a question or two for you (and for anyone else who wants to respond):



It would have been very "helpful" had Lenin lived longer...and fully restored capitalism in Russia by, say, 1930 or so. Things were going that way until the late 1920s when "that devil" Stalin halted the process and made a plausible case for "socialism in one country".

Do you think that state-capitalism, as was the economic system in the USSR, is as effective (or more, or less) than free-market capitalism in achieving material progress in "underdeveloped" countries? You're saying that the free-market reforms of Lenin's "NEP" were a step in the right direction, even though those reforms were directly contrary to the aims of the Revolution.
In my opinion, state-capitalism, if coexistant with an "open" bourgeois democracy, can achieve the same material development as free-market capitalism, but with far less casualties on the part of the working people (i.e. guaranteed employment, social security, healthcare, working conditions, etc.). The problems in the USSR were resultant from a confusion as to what the actual material aims of the economic policy should be, and from a general lack of political democracy to keep the bureaucracy in check. I think that had the USSR continued under a "NEP" style policy, rather than fully "restoring capitalism" as you have put it, and, at the same time, allowed the development of bourgeois political democracy, then, by this time, Russia could be operating under a social democracy not so different from those in Western Europe today (maybe even better-off).

This brings up another related question. Democratic socialism, state-socialism, state-capitalism, and "welfare capitalism" are all really variations of the same economic system, but with differing degrees of state-intervention (or, conversely, "market freedom"). Or am I completely wrong?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ClydeBarrow
Do you think that state-capitalism, as was the economic system in the USSR, is as effective (or more, or less) than free-market capitalism in achieving material progress in "underdeveloped" countries?

Probably faster in the short-run and about the same in the long-run.


You're saying that the free-market reforms of Lenin's "NEP" were a step in the right direction, even though those reforms were directly contrary to the aims of the Revolution.

The "aims of the revolution" were "out of sync" with history's agenda for Russia at that time...the passage from feudalism to capitalism. The NEP was "in sync" and that's why it worked. Stalin's 5-year-plans were also "in sync"...but they took place under the illusion of "socialism" -- thus drastically complicating the tasks of communists in the "west".

From 1925 or so onwards, if you told someone in the U.S. that you were a "communist", it was understood to mean that the "Russian model" was "your baby!" :o

Sort of like going to a party to meet attractive potential mates while wearing a fresh turd on your shoulder! :lol:

I do not think the combination of state-monopoly capitalism and the institutions of bourgeois "democracy" mix well together...at least we've never seen anything like that up to now. Indeed, state-monopoly capitalism itself even in large rich countries appears to be "naturally unstable"...like one of those huge "artificial" atoms that naturally "decays" back into a smaller and more stable isotope.

State-monopoly capitalism is "what Leninists do"...but thus far they've never done it well enough to "make it stick".

Yes, it's quite possible that the NEP would have evolved into a social democracy -- perhaps along the lines of the Weimar Republic. But, don't forget, social democracy is capitalism...just a somewhat less malignant form.

And also unstable, as we've seen in recent decades. "Pro-working class reforms" under any form of capitalism are always transient.

They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! :lol:

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

[YKTMX]

Isn't this a happy-clappy gathering.

"So, we can all agree that we need an anarcho-syndicalist-communo-council-left-situationist collective to change the world".


Good, I'm glad that's sorted. I'll go and get the tents, you guys bring the beer.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:08 PM
Isn't this a happy-clappy gathering.

"So, we can all agree that we need an anarcho-syndicalist-communo-council-left-situationist collective to change the world".


Good, I'm glad that's sorted. I'll go and get the tents, you guys bring the beer.
This is by far the best post I have ever read on this forum.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This one really made me laugh out loud, something I hardly ever do, bravo!

[Axel1917]

Anti-Leninism derives from Bourgeois propaganda and Stalinist falsification of Bolshevism. The anti-Leninists, are in reality, anti-Marxists, given that Lenin made many important contributions to Marxism. The nonsense against Lenin and the October Revolution was refuted in Ted Grant's book, Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution. Online at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp

[redstar2000]

Also, kids, don't forget to check out the really cool pictures of Chairman Ted!

Ted Grant Internet Archive Image Gallery (http://www.tedgrant.org/images/gallery/)

Look for the one where he's got a cane to inflict "iron Bolshevik discipline". :lol:

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

[Dyst]

Isn't this a happy-clappy gathering.

"So, we can all agree that we need an anarcho-syndicalist-communo-council-left-situationist collective to change the world".


Good, I'm glad that's sorted. I'll go and get the tents, you guys bring the beer.


Sounds neat. Seriously.

[anomaly]

The simple reason why anarchists oppose Leninism is because a highly centralized state ruled by a Party is not what we want next time around. But it is what the Leninists want. I have heard no good reasons to be a Leninist in the first place through all my time on this board.


Originally posted by YKTMX
"So, we can all agree that we need an anarcho-syndicalist-communo-council-left-situationist collective to change the world".
Actually, we want the people to change the world. An idea completely unknown in that Trot mind of yours, huh?

I know, I know...we anarchists don't want any 'iron Bolshevik discipline'. "You can't do that!" screams the Trot! :lol:

Oh yea...we also see nothing wrong with the 'backward masses' leading the way...another Leninist sin!

[KC]

An idea completely unknown in that Trot mind of yours


we anarchists don't want any 'iron Bolshevik discipline'.


"You can't do that!" screams the Trot!

Now you can't even come up with your own insults.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:11 PM

An idea completely unknown in that Trot mind of yours


we anarchists don't want any 'iron Bolshevik discipline'.


"You can't do that!" screams the Trot!

Now you can't even come up with your own insults.
I am always glad to piss you off. :)

Actually, 'iron Bolshevik discipline' was written by your Saint Vladimir. I merely quote him.

And I routinely make fun of Trots, yes. Have a problem with it?

By the way, whose insults was I using? Redstar's? I'll admit, he has some good ones, but I essentially just make fun of Vladimir.

[YKTMX]

Actually, 'iron Bolshevik discipline' was written by your Saint Vladimir. I merely quote him.

Yeah, so what? WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT? Socialists should be organised and disciplined. Yeah, that's got to be the worst idea ever.

"Fancy having a revolution?"
"When?"
"Dunno, like, next week sometime?"
"If you like, man, whatever, I'm not bothered"
"What about tuesday, then?"
"Ah shit man, I can't, I'm seeing Judas Priest on Tuesday night"
"Really, that blows man"
"Wanna get high and knock over some traffic cones instead?"
"YEAH!"

- anomaly and Keiza discussing anti-Leninism



And I routinely make fun of Trots, yes. Have a problem with it?


The word Trot is a Stalinist insult.

It debases the argument a bit.

I mean, instead of writing "anarcho-syndicalist-communo-council-left-situationist ", I could just write "hippy bedwetter", but I don't.

Because I'm respectful :lol:

[anomaly]

Originally posted by YKTMX
disciplined
The problem with this idea is that when we have discipline, we must have someone who is disciplining. And who will do that? And are you so naive to believe that the 'kind leaders' will just 'give up' their power once the revolution is done? Because history says otherwise.


"Fancy having a revolution?"
"When?"
"Dunno, like, next week sometime?"
"If you like, man, whatever, I'm not bothered"
"What about tuesday, then?"
"Ah shit man, I can't, I'm seeing Judas Priest on Tuesday night"
"Really, that blows man"
"Wanna get high and knock over some traffic cones instead?"
"YEAH!"
Keiza...let's go do it. Somehow, this bastard found our conversation. :lol:

[black magick hustla]

i like hippie bedwetters

they are much better than leninist despotisms ;)

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:18 AM
It would have been very "helpful" had Lenin lived longer...and fully restored capitalism in Russia by, say, 1930 or so. Things were going that way until the late 1920s when "that devil" Stalin halted the process and made a plausible case for "socialism in one country".
If Lenin had lived longer the USSR's economic policies probably would have been the same, IMO. The switch from the NEP to the five year plans was first proposed by Trotsky, not Stalin. Stalin originally opposed Trotaky's proposal, but was later forced to change his mind (after expelling Trotsky) due to the scissors crisis. The same crisis would have forced Lenin to do the same thing had he lived long enough. Given what happened in the early '20s Stalinism was basically inevitably (barring something extreme like a sucessful imperialist invasion, another revolution or an asteroid flattening Moscow), even if someone other than Stalin implemented it. By 1922 Russia's course for the next 15 years was stuck.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:59 AM

The problem with this idea is that when we have discipline, we must have someone who is disciplining. And who will do that? And are you so naive to believe that the 'kind leaders' will just 'give up' their power once the revolution is done? Because history says otherwise.


Ever hear of "self-discipline"? What about democracy, as in, the election of leadership by the people with immediate recall.

Also, when the leadership has the same material interests (as in, a person working in a coal mine makes the same as a government official) as the working class, there is no new class being established.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
Also, when the leadership has the same material interests
When we have 'leaders', their material interests are always different then those of their subjects. Power corrupts, and those with it do not give it away easily.

And don&#39;t kid yourself. You don&#39;t want any so-called &#39;self-discipline&#39;. You want the vanguard to do the disciplining&#33; <_<

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:59 AM
Ever hear of "self-discipline"? What about democracy, as in, the election of leadership by the people with immediate recall.

Also, when the leadership has the same material interests (as in, a person working in a coal mine makes the same as a government official) as the working class, there is no new class being established.
If the leadership is the one doing the disciplining then it&#39;s not self-discipline. It&#39;s only self-discipline if you discipline yourself, not if someone else disciplines you.