Log in

View Full Version : A Reply to Social-Democrat



red_che
6th June 2006, 11:30
Here are some lies to Leninism refuted by Stalin from his above-entitled work:

First lie. In the author's opinion, "Lenin wants to restrict the Party, to convert it into a narrow organisation of profcssionals" (p. 2). But Lenin says: "It should not be thought that Party organisations must consist solely of professional revolutionaries. We need the most diversified organisations of every type, rank and shade, from extremely narrow and secret organisations to very broad and free ones" (Minutes, p. 240).

Second lie. According to the author, Lenin wants to "bring into the Party only committee members" (p. 2). But Lenin says: "All groups, circles, sub-committees, etc., must enjoy the status of committee institutions, or of branches of committees. Some of them will openly express a wish to join the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and, provided that this is endorsed by the committee, will join it" (see "A Letter to a Comrade," p . 1 7).

Third lie. In the author's opinion, "Lenin is demanding the establishment of the domination of intellectuals in the Party" (p. 5). But Lenin says: "The committees should contain . . . as far as possible, all the principal leaders of the working-class movement from among the workers themselves" (see "A Letter to a Comrade," pp. 7-8), i.e., the voices of the advanced workers must predominate not only in all other organisations, but also in the committees.

Fourth lie. The author says that the passage quoted on page 12 of my pamphlet: "the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism," etc. -- is "entirely a fabrication" (p. 6). As a matter of fact, I simply took and translated this passage from What Is To Be Done? This is what we read in that book, on page 29: "The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism, but the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology nevertheless spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class still more." This is the passage that is translated on page 12 of my pamphlet. This is what our "critic" called a fabrication! I do not know whether to ascribe this to the author's absent-mindedness or chicanery.

Fifth lie. In the author's opinion, "Lenin does not say anywhere that the workers strive towards socialism of 'natural necessity'" (p. 7). But Lenin says that the "working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism" (What Is To Be Done?, p. 29).

Sixth lie. The author ascribes to me the idea that "socialism is introduced into the working class from without by the intelligentsia" (p. 7), whereas I say that Social-Democracy (read: Socialism) (and not only Social-Democratic intellectuals) introduces socialist consciousness into the movement (p. 18).

Seventh lie. In the author's opinion, Lenin says that socialist ideology arose "quite independently of the working-class movement" (p. 9). But such an idea certainly never entered Lenin's head. He says that socialist ideology arose "quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement" (What Is To Be Done?, p. 21).
(italics and emphasis are mine)

red_che
13th June 2006, 06:08
Guys! 52 views and no comments at all? I think someone or anyone doesn't seem to know how to react on this, especially those rabid anti-Stalin guys! ;)

apathy maybe
13th June 2006, 06:27
This is about Leninism not Stalinism. Besides there is not anything to refute. We are not Social Democrats.

Leninism is about bringing revolution a certain way that history has shown to be flawed. If you wish to start a debate about a particular please do.

red_che
13th June 2006, 10:53
This is about Leninism not Stalinism.

Stalin is a Leninist.


Leninism is about bringing revolution a certain way that history has shown to be flawed.

Based on your flawed analysis. ;)


If you wish to start a debate about a particular please do.

I just wanna know what people think of that passage.

ÑóẊîöʼn
13th June 2006, 13:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:54 AM

Leninism is about bringing revolution a certain way that history has shown to be flawed.

Based on your flawed analysis. ;)
It's actually self-evident. Look at the countries in which Leninist theory has been put into practice, such as Russia.

Lamanov
13th June 2006, 18:34
Originally posted by red che
Guys! 52 views and no comments at all? I think someone or anyone doesn't seem to know how to react on this, especially those rabid anti-Stalin guys!

Oh, but we do know how to "react" - we simply ignore the obsolete: lack of reaction itslef stems form the utter unimportance of Stalin's thoughts.

red_che
14th June 2006, 04:24
It's actually self-evident. Look at the countries in which Leninist theory has been put into practice, such as Russia.

Oh! And how about these so-called "new thoughts or new trends" in the communist movement? How did it become unflawed? :blink:


Oh, but we do know how to "react" - we simply ignore the obsolete:

Oh, and you think your "view" isn't obsolete? Such confidence huh! :huh:


lack of reaction itslef stems form the utter unimportance of Stalin's thoughts.

I would like to believe so, but I am more inclined to believe that you can't refute any of Lenin's or Stalin's thoughts. :(

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th June 2006, 06:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:25 AM

It's actually self-evident. Look at the countries in which Leninist theory has been put into practice, such as Russia.

Oh! And how about these so-called "new thoughts or new trends" in the communist movement? How did it become unflawed? :blink:
Red Herring. I made no mention whatsoever of "new thoughts or trends"

red_che
14th June 2006, 07:42
If so, what are you referring then?

If Leninism is a "flawed" theory, then what is not?

Janus
14th June 2006, 09:57
If Leninism is a "flawed" theory, then what is not?
What do you mean? Are you saying that Leninism is flawless?


Oh, but we do know how to "react" - we simply ignore the obsolete
Pretty much, yeah. I would think that redstar would've moved this to History.

ComradeOm
14th June 2006, 13:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:09 AM
Guys! 52 views and no comments at all?
What do you want? If I want Lenin&#39;s refutations of social democracy then I can read some of his works first hand. I don&#39;t need them to come through the Glorious Leader <_<

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th June 2006, 15:13
If so, what are you referring then?

If Leninism is a "flawed" theory, then what is not?

I was not commenting on any other political theory other than Leninism. If I was I would have mentioned them.