Castro, the last true leader?

[damn the capitalism]

is Castro the last true leader left for the communist?

[Dirty Commie]

Only if we doesn't step up to replace him after he dies. But he has several younger people in his cabinet, as well as many Communists around the world that could be leaders of a revolutionry government, including many of the people in this web ring.
As much as I'd like to say so, I am not one of them.
I try, but suck at leadership skills. I dunno, every one I know in person hates me because I am a communist and won't listen to my 'propaganda' Even though they are too dumb to spell 'I am a capitalist brain washed pig'

I just realized that I have no friends my age.
I am so totally depressed.

[soul83]

Then teach them the truth about communism Dirty Commie !!! Teach them the beauty of socialism !!!
Regarding friends... You've got me !! LOL !!

[Dirty Commie]

I have tried for YEARS, they are all teen age brainwashed right wing panzee @$$ hard core cappies, they won't listen without steering the conversation to video games. It is hopeless for 95% of young poeple.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I realize how hard it can be to convince others of the truth and value of a Communist revolution, but we are your friend, Commie.

[Dirty Commie]

Thanks, I feel better, or maybe it's the coffee in my blood finally kicking in since this morning.

[damn the capitalism]

hey dirtycommie and victorcommie, i want to open a discussion and know about your opinion,and not reading your personnal discussion about friendship!:-D
So pleaze stop this,and it's a better way to do this via e-mail!

[redstar2000]

The problem, damn the capitalism, is that your question is not a very good one.

The phrase "last true leader" suggests that when Fidel retires or dies, it will be the end of the line for us.

I can see why you would make an assumption like that; all of 20th century communism revolved around various and sundry "great leaders" and those who wanted to be. It was once thought that all you had to do was "pick a great leader" and "follow and obey" and communism would be achieved.

I hope we are finally in the process of learning better than that. Communist revolution is something achieved by an entire class; it is not the result of clever maneuvers by a "gifted elite" or "grand historical figure".

In a way, it would be good if Fidel is that "last true leader"...perhaps then we'd get that stupid "leadership monkey" off our backs and realize that we must all be "leaders" or communism ain't gonna happen.

I can't help but smile, though, when someone mentions "leadership skills" in a serious tone of voice.

For example, sincerity is very important; if you can fake that, you're on your way to the top.

:cool:

[damn the capitalism]

i will tell something professor doctor redstar ,your replies always seem too stupid for me ,u r trying always to pretend or doing ht wise phlosopher ,and everytime u r proving to me that u r a big mouth with your stupid slogans and your rediculous point of views ,u r always oppose and object and protest for every question!

u got to thank god that i didn't reply to u in our last discussion about mubarak,coz u would hate and your mother too coz both of u would be insulted in a very bad way, u know why, coz as i told i just want from which reference do u got your opinion or who is the retarded kid who is telling u such wrong and bad things!

So pleaze when u will see my name once again posted in a forum, pleaze be a good boy and don't try to post your replies to me coz they make me laugh and because
u r proving me that u r a professional big mouth!

[Subcomandante Marcos]

Where is all that anger coming from !!!

Well. I completely support redstar2000 since Communisn is not about following a leader or seeing on him/her the future of an entire country. Communisn, as the word suggests, is about everyone, Che himself wrote that what the revolution needed was a new kind of man, not the one who is selfish, or slef-centered, or ambicius. What we need is solidarity, brotherhood and cooperation.

But of course we need someone to leads us there, or to lead someone there, but the EZLN is the perfect example of colectivity. Marcos doesnt want to figure more than his fellow brothers, the point of wearing a mask is that they speak as a whole and not as a person. Although individualism is important.

Maybe when fidel retires we will not have a public figure representing the true feeling of the revolution, a true fighter and not some phony politician. But an idea doesnt die with a man, it lives in our hearts

[Sensitive]

Well, I think a mass socialist party should lead the next revolution. I don't think the whole proletariat will ever be truly class conscious until after the revolution. Once we have 20-50% of the population educated and in the mass socialist party, then we can just make massive protests in DC and seize power. Write a new constitution and build a new socialist government and country.

Remember that the bourgeois parties only have tiny memberships (and the majority of the members know absolutely nothing about what their party really stands for) in comparison to the entire population of the US:

Democrats - 39,000,000
Republicans - 30,000,000

The US has 280,000,000 citizens.

Education and organization of the masses is the path to victory!

(Edited by Sensitive at 5:28 pm on April 30, 2003)

[SoldaderaDeZapata]

I completely agree with Subcomandante Marcos, there is a leader needed of course and juss as he said...individualism is important...& i think it is important for the ppl of Cuba as well.

[Dirty Commie]

sensitive, At one time, 20%of the voters in the usa were in the communist party, early in the 1920's but membership fell rapidly, we would need at LEAST 40% of the populus to stage a revolution, and would need a large majority after the coup.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:24 pm on April 30, 2003
The problem, damn the capitalism, is that your question is not a very good one.

The phrase "last true leader" suggests that when Fidel retires or dies, it will be the end of the line for us.

I can see why you would make an assumption like that; all of 20th century communism revolved around various and sundry "great leaders" and those who wanted to be. It was once thought that all you had to do was "pick a great leader" and "follow and obey" and communism would be achieved.

I hope we are finally in the process of learning better than that. Communist revolution is something achieved by an entire class; it is not the result of clever maneuvers by a "gifted elite" or "grand historical figure".

In a way, it would be good if Fidel is that "last true leader"...perhaps then we'd get that stupid "leadership monkey" off our backs and realize that we must all be "leaders" or communism ain't gonna happen.

I can't help but smile, though, when someone mentions "leadership skills" in a serious tone of voice.

For example, sincerity is very important; if you can fake that, you're on your way to the top.

:cool:


Obviously I profoundly disagree with you here, but lets not have a debate about it since we have before. What I want to ask you is that, you do not consider yourself a Leninist at all? and you consider yourself a Marxist? but Marx advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat, so you propose a dictatorship with no leader?


Also, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il the only great leaders we have, but they will not be the last, or at least it will be a tragedy if they are.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 8:08 pm on May 1, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

Kim Jong is a great leader ? Are you fucking serious ? So it doesn't matter how phsycotic and barabric a guy is as long as he's a communist ? What the fuck ?

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 9:00 pm on May 1, 2003
Kim Jong is a great leader ? Are you fucking serious ? So it doesn't matter how phsycotic and barabric a guy is as long as he's a communist ? What the fuck ?

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=3527&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=3527&start=0)

I've discussed it a little here. And on well over 20 other occasions, so....

Read that and then I may answer any other quetions. In short it does matter how psychotic and barbaric someone is, however Kim Jong Il is not.

[Donut Master]

Excuse me, but I do belive your beloved Kimg Jong is a neo-Stalinist, xenophobic, self-absorbed nuclear weapon-obsessed Elvis fan. That's pretty psychotic in my book.

The only leftist group I have seen in support of N. Korea is the Spartacus League of the US, and if you haven't met these fellows before, let me assure you... they're nuts. They take immidiate and unquestioning solidarity with any declared enemy of the US, and called N. Korea a "true worker's state" that deserves the right to produce nuclear weapons.

And Redstar, I completely agree. We need to lose our "dependancy" on leaders. The movement is supposed to be about emancipation of the masses, not idol worship.

[redstar2000]

Well, CM, to answer your question briefly, no, I am in no sense a "Leninist"...though I might well have been one in Petrograd in 1917. Being determines consciousness, as you know, and in the heady atmosphere of that time and place, I might well have been a Leninist, a Trotskyist or, perhaps given my mind-set, a "Kollontai-ist"...as she may have been the most thoroughly left Bolshevik and was sufficiently prominent to be in the politburo. (She quit in disgust when the politburo refused to provide direct military assistance to the communist uprising in Finland...that was subsequently crushed by German troops.)

Yes, Marx did indeed call for a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...a quasi-state apparatus that would have as its primary purpose the final crushing of bourgeois counter-revolutionary resistance.

There is no indication, in theory or in practice, that Marx endorsed either personal dictatorship in the form of "a great leader" or any kind of "elite" dictatorship over the working class itself. Marx's own practice as General Secretary of the First International demonstrated his idea of "leadership"--vigorous advocacy for what he believed to be the correct position on this or that; rigorous respect for the decision-making authority of the membership.

The concept of a "vanguard leadership" and an elite dictatorship was a Leninist "patch" on the Marxist "program"...its purpose was to allow the program to be run on a "backward operating system": a semi-feudal society dominated by a superstitious peasantry.

Don't get me wrong, CM, Leninism "works" in that environment. Of course it can't really achieve socialism, much less communism. But it does create the neccessary material conditions for the transition from feudalism to capitalism at a historically rapid pace...and does so in an era in which the emerging bourgeoisie in those semi-feudal countries are too "feeble" to resist the demands of imperialism.

What is really harmful about Leninism is the attempt to apply it in advanced capitalist countries. The working class is sufficiently advanced as to understand almost at once that Leninism will simply replace old bosses with new ones. Who needs that?

In practice, the Leninist parties in the west have been almost always reformist, even if the rhetoric was sometimes better. The German KPD was probably the "best" of the lot; the French CPF was almost certainly the worst. But all the accounts I have come across report a "stifling" mental atmosphere in which obedience to authority was the "highest virtue" of a communist. No wonder they've all flopped!

The actual effect of 20th century Leninism in the west has been to discredit Marx (see the parade of threads on this board about how we need to "re-brand" ourselves to escape his "demonic reputation" ). This will take decades of work to overcome.

Just in case you were wondering, I am not now nor will I ever be a candidate for "leader" of anything. :cheesy:

:cool:




(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:02 pm on May 1, 2003)

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 1:47 pm on May 1, 2003
sensitive, At one time, 20%of the voters in the usa were in the communist party, early in the 1920's but membership fell rapidly, we would need at LEAST 40% of the populus to stage a revolution, and would need a large majority after the coup.
No, back in the Communist Party USA glory days (before the 1950s) they had around 70,000 members and 20,000 members in the Young Communist League.

---

Also, regarding North Korea, yes they do most definitely deserve to have nuclear weapons to keep the US imperialists out. All countries need whatever it takes to stop U$ imperialist scum from invading. And don't believe anything you read in the U$ propaganda media (about any country, especially Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela)!

[Kapitan Andrey]

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 9:30 pm on April 30, 2003

I just realized that I have no friends my age.



Yea, comrad...I know this...I feel the same...
Of course, there is a kind'a "communists" in our city, but...one of them are KPRF(Kommunist Party of Russian Federation), that sitting on their ASSES in our parlament...others are teenagers or older(15-24)...but they are FUCKING-stalinists!!! I'm against them...I can't find people like me...fans of Che, true revolutioneers, clever-handsome people...I can meet only rednecks on my way...

And whole this situation around me is SO messy...BUT I WILLN'T SURRENDER!!!

Hasta La Victoria Siempre!!!
Always to Victory!!!

[Sensitive]

Kapitan Andrey, at least you guys actually have some communists in government. Better than nothing. Here in the US we don't even have a single social-democrat in Congress, not to mention a socialist or Marxist. We have a lot of fascists and theocrats in Congress though.

[El Barbudo]

Castro is a dictator. He killed 14 people because they didnt agree with his dictatorship. THERES NO COMMUNISM IN CUBA! DONT BE FOOLED BY CASTRO BROTHERS!

[thursday night]

I don't have the patience to talk to idiots who cannot spell well and do not bother to turn of the caps locks. I've mad hundreds of posts in defense of Cuba, and Chairman Mao has made hundreds in defense of the DPRK. Thus, I will not do so yet again but you can view my many, many posts across the board (surprise surprise, little nerds like Donut Master don't even bother to reply to most of them).

[damn the capitalism]

THURSDAY NIGHT AND CHAIRMAN MAO, I AGRREE WITH WHAT U R SAYING ,BUT PLEAZE DON'T POST ANOTHER OPINION TO THIS FORUM AS LONG AS PEOPLES LIKE BARBARUDO AND RESTAR2000 PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND PROVING THEIR WEAK POINTS OF VIEW ,LIKE WHEN RED STAR SAID ,DICTATORSHIP WITHOUT A LEADER ,IF THIS WOULD HAPPEN SO WE WILL FIND TOO MUCH ANARCHY AND TERRORISM AND CHAOS IN A COUNTRY.
A GOOD LEADER IS THAT WHO GOT DEMOCRACY IN THE PARTY,THE PARTY MEMBER MUST UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLES TO GIVE THEIR OPINION TO THIS LEADER.
BUT THERE MUST BE A LEADER ! aND YOU WON'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE MUST BE A LEADER,SO HOW ARE YOU INVOLVED IN COMMUNISM AND YOU BELEIVE IN IT AND AS WE FIND THAT LENIN WAS A LEADER ALONG WITH CASTRO MAO KHRUSHCHEV,STALIN,TITO,KIM JONG, (WHEREVER THEY GOOD OR NOT) ,BUT ALWAYS THERE WAS A LEADER!
AND A DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT CAN 'T WORK WITHOUT THEIR LEADER !
EVERYTHING GOT A LEADER COZ WE ARE NOT LIVING IN A ZOO !
AND THANX CHARIMAN MAO AND THURSDAY NIGHT, BE SURE THAT EVERYONE HERE ID SO HARD TO CONVINCE HIM,COZ THEY PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND THEY ARE NOT READY TO SAY :YES U R RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG!

NOTE:
I TOLD U 100 OF TIMES MR REDSTAR,I DON'T WANT TO FIND YOUR OPINION IN MY FORUM OKAY!
DON'T U UNDERSTAND OR WHAT?

[redstar2000]

"Always there was a leader." -- damn the capitalism

Looking for a job, dtc?

Actually, with your attitude, it's kind of hard to figure out just what your objections to capitalism are.

You even think that you "own" a thread and can "keep out" the people you don't like. :cheesy:

The only view that I know you hold for certain is your faith in that U.S.-puppet Mubarak that runs your country right now...you think he is a "great leader".

That's just pathetic! :o

Thursday night, it may have escaped your notice, but the particular "little nerd" Donut Master is new to the board and has probably not had the opportunity to read your numerous posts.

This is always a problem at a board like che-lives; there are always new members; questions that were debated at length are raised again and again.

If you feel, like I sometimes do, that it's "too much trouble" to write the same thing over and over again, post a link(s) to the relevant thread(s).

And by the way, he might be a "really big nerd", so watch your mouth. ;)

:cool:

[damn the capitalism]

yes ,i did that mr fuckin red ashhole star coz u r always protesting and you r such a bi pretender to know all the world politics,u r not an egyptian so u can't say nothing about mubarak,okay!u don't understand anything ,at least i'm proud to be an egyptien but i don't think that u r proud to live in such hypocrite damned country!
u know nothing ,u say a very retaded opinion that make me and my friends laugh so much(really) ,so i think now if u got a self respect ,do not post your stupid opinion in my subjects!okay?

AND FUCK YOU !AND IF ONCE AGAIN I FIND YOUR NAME POSTED IN MY SUBJECTS, U WILL NOT BE HAPPY COZ YOUR MOTHER WILL BE INSULTED,U KNOW WHY COZ I'M A BIG RUDE ASSHOLE!
AND DAMN YOUR OPINION ,AND I SAID 1000 TIME SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

[redstar2000]

"I'M A BIG RUDE ASSHOLE." -- damn the capitalism

You do make a convincing case for that opinion, dtc.

:cool:

[damn the capitalism]

yes that's right ,so fuck yourself and don't talk!
:-DDDDDDDDDDDDDare u stupid?
no no no u must defenitley be soooooo stupiud,u r being insulted and humulieted from my part ,are u enjoying this?
i think really that u don't have any self respect! ,coz if i was in your place i would shut my mouth instead of being insulted everyday

[redstar2000]

One can only be insulted, dtc, by someone whose opinion one respects.

The barking of dogs is no insult to the cat.

:cool:

[Kapitan Andrey]

Stop it guys...

redstar2000...please, don't talk to him, or it will never ends...

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:58 pm on May 1, 2003
Well, CM, to answer your question briefly, no, I am in no sense a "Leninist"...though I might well have been one in Petrograd in 1917. Being determines consciousness, as you know, and in the heady atmosphere of that time and place, I might well have been a Leninist, a Trotskyist or, perhaps given my mind-set, a "Kollontai-ist"...as she may have been the most thoroughly left Bolshevik and was sufficiently prominent to be in the politburo. (She quit in disgust when the politburo refused to provide direct military assistance to the communist uprising in Finland...that was subsequently crushed by German troops.)

Yes, Marx did indeed call for a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...a quasi-state apparatus that would have as its primary purpose the final crushing of bourgeois counter-revolutionary resistance.

There is no indication, in theory or in practice, that Marx endorsed either personal dictatorship in the form of "a great leader" or any kind of "elite" dictatorship over the working class itself. Marx's own practice as General Secretary of the First International demonstrated his idea of "leadership"--vigorous advocacy for what he believed to be the correct position on this or that; rigorous respect for the decision-making authority of the membership.

The concept of a "vanguard leadership" and an elite dictatorship was a Leninist "patch" on the Marxist "program"...its purpose was to allow the program to be run on a "backward operating system": a semi-feudal society dominated by a superstitious peasantry.

Don't get me wrong, CM, Leninism "works" in that environment. Of course it can't really achieve socialism, much less communism. But it does create the neccessary material conditions for the transition from feudalism to capitalism at a historically rapid pace...and does so in an era in which the emerging bourgeoisie in those semi-feudal countries are too "feeble" to resist the demands of imperialism.

What is really harmful about Leninism is the attempt to apply it in advanced capitalist countries. The working class is sufficiently advanced as to understand almost at once that Leninism will simply replace old bosses with new ones. Who needs that?

In practice, the Leninist parties in the west have been almost always reformist, even if the rhetoric was sometimes better. The German KPD was probably the "best" of the lot; the French CPF was almost certainly the worst. But all the accounts I have come across report a "stifling" mental atmosphere in which obedience to authority was the "highest virtue" of a communist. No wonder they've all flopped!

The actual effect of 20th century Leninism in the west has been to discredit Marx (see the parade of threads on this board about how we need to "re-brand" ourselves to escape his "demonic reputation" ). This will take decades of work to overcome.

Just in case you were wondering, I am not now nor will I ever be a candidate for "leader" of anything. :cheesy:

:cool:




(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:02 pm on May 1, 2003)


You say that you oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of a ‘great leader’ or any kind of ‘elite’. The decisions of membership to any body are of course extremely important. If I am to take an example…. In the DPRK, it is exclusively a dictatorship of the proletariat, of the proletarian party over the masses. Kim Jong Il figures not as a dictator but as the leader of the party of the dictatorship. The party itself operates in a practical style, with the decisions of the membership fully taken into account. I believe you witnessed my description of the political system in the DPRK, so I need not explain it.

Leninism is not a ‘patch’ on the Marxist ‘program’ but a natural development of Marxist theory to allow the practice and success of Marxism in a political system.

’The working class is sufficiently advanced as to understand almost at once that Leninism will simply replace old bosses with new ones. Who needs that?’

The world is not a struggle between leaders, followers and rebels. It’s a struggle between classes and class thought. Both Capitalists and Socialists have leaders, the difference is that socialist leaders lead human kinds desire for and progression towards a mass orientated society of independent and creative nature. Where as the capitalist leaders hold back the wheel of time to maintain an oppressive and divisive system of society.

I always thought that revisionism is a tendency towards bourgeois thought, infection of bourgeois ideas in socialism. Leninist parties do exist in the west, I am a member of an organisation that has a purely Leninist membership. We always see the Trotskyists and revisionists making noises against Leninism (although Trotskyists do consider themselves as followers of Lenin). Most notable about their claims that we are not democratic and so forth is that they use many of the same bourgeois ideas on democracy the reactionary ruling class use.

Well, I am not a leader of anything either, but I do know some leaders; some that I know are strong willed, highly intelligent and skilled individuals.


’Excuse me, but I do belive your beloved Kimg Jong is a neo-Stalinist, xenophobic, self-absorbed nuclear weapon-obsessed Elvis fan. That's pretty psychotic in my book.

The only leftist group I have seen in support of N. Korea is the Spartacus League of the US, and if you haven't met these fellows before, let me assure you... they're nuts. They take immidiate and unquestioning solidarity with any declared enemy of the US, and called N. Korea a "true worker's state" that deserves the right to produce nuclear weapons.' - Donut Master

I have argued this countless times…. Anyway, I know there to be hundreds of leftist groups in support of the DPRK, I am a member of one and know at least 5 others in my country. Kim Jong Il is not xenophobic, the DPRK constantly looks for global anti-imperialist solidarity, and to I, as a foreigner and Comrades of mine who are foreigners to Korea, they are extremely curteous and accommodating.

[kylie]

the spartacist league supports the DPRK? considering their continual betrayal of their leftist roots-an example being their refusal to call for the defeat of imperialist invasion, i doubt this is really the case.
many articles have been created revealing this, and can be found at http://www.bolshevik.org/1917abcd.html#S

(Edited by feoric at 5:04 pm on May 3, 2003)

[damn the capitalism]

yes mr red star every day you are proving me that u don't have any self respect ,from today i'll count the days that u r insulted and humilieted by me ,coz i thin a person who don't have a self respect enjoy this soooooo much ,u know why coz you are just like a retarded kid ,who don't understand that being insulted is the most bad thing that can ahappen to a human being in world!
it's really surprising me of this slogan which belonged to the kids:the barking of dogs.......
i think that with this u make me ,laugh so much mr red star coz u r considering yourself as an animal!
so i think that i will call u mr Animal!:-DDDD
it's so pathetic small kid....i mean small animal!

[Saint-Just]

You are so good at insulting people damm the capitalism. I think you are one of countless victims of the condescension inherent in the language redstar2000 uses. I just ignore it since he is actually quite good at debating.

[damn the capitalism]

so chairman mao,it's him that forced me to do this ,first he was criticizing everybody's opinion,then he criticized me, then he told soooooooooo damned wrong things about egypt and the history of egypt ,i don't know from which stupid reference he got his knowledge about egypt and their leader,he insulted mubarak and his policies,he was attacking his policy,his policy that if it wasn't there ,the egyptians would suffer and would pay a very big price,!he was humuliating my country ,because of this i begin to insult him everytime i see him posted his name in a thread!

[ComradeRiley]

dirty commie i'll be your friend, all communists are my friends and are welcome in my house

[metalero]

comrades, rading all these post i have come to realize what´s the big problem of the leftist movements. "SECTARISM" i have seen whole parties fighting and criticizing each other while, capitalists keep taking over the means of productions. leninist, troskist, maoist, stalinist, guevarist...those are just superficial barriers that divides the efforts. Marx establish the proletariat dictatorship not as the one stablished by many "communist" states where burecocracy and state capitalim reigned, but rather as a trully needed stage wher the proletariat and population organized tehir interests and ideals to make sure the system works fo everybody, and stage where counterevolutionaries won´t give up their power and would do anything to anihilate the revolution...anarchists think that just after the revolution the system is gonna be reached by itslef ..you can´just go from one antagonistic stage into others where the production forces totally changes...

"..If the strife is divided, there won´t be popular victory in the fight"

[redstar2000]

Well, CM, my basic response to your post is that you simply assert things to be true that seem to me to be dubious or wrong.

Perhaps on paper the procedures that you describe in North Korea exist...in fact, perhaps they exist in reality...but neither you nor I have any first-hand reliable knowledge of what really goes on there.

Looking at revolutions where we do have a multitude of first-hand sources, such as Russia or Spain or the May 1968 events in France, what is the first thing we notice? The tremendous ferment among the masses, the raging debates, the furious controversies, the struggle not merely against the material power of the old ruling class but against what Marx called "all the old shit."

Where is even the faintest hint, the merest trace of such ferment in North Korea? All we hear from North Korea (be it true or not) is "praise to the Great Leader".

CM, do you really believe that communism is simply a bunch of hard-working ants busy doing ant-stuff without a thought of anything else?

What a stunted, dismal, boring vision of communism.

Marx had a name for this (as he had for many things): he called it barracks communism and Prussian communism. He had a pretty low opinion of it. :cheesy:

So do I.

It has been asserted millions of times that Leninism is a "natural development" of Marxism...but that doesn't make it true. There is nothing in Marx about vanguard parties or "great leaders". There is nothing in Marx about "socialist" revolutions in pre-capitalist countries. The notion of "professional revolutionary" cannot be found in Marx, nor the idea that the working class can "only develop trade-union consciousness". No reference can be found in Marx to the idea of "democratic centralism". Even the idea of socialism as a transition stage to communism is un-Marxist...Marx spoke simply of a lower and higher stage of communism, and only in terms of distribution of the products and wealth created by the new society. There is nothing in Marx about worker-peasant alliances or "people's democracies" not to mention the wonderful Soviet neologism "the toiling intelligentsia" (meaning: bureaucrats, apparatchiki).

In fact, the only real "Marxist" work by Lenin is Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism. (I'm not counting State and Revolution because he just copied everything from Marx and Engels in that one.)

Lenin -- along with Hilferding and Luxembourg -- did draw a logical extension of Marx's thought in that work. When we oppose U.S. imperialism everywhere in the world today, we are carrying on the political consequences of that tradition.

But, that's it, CM. All the rest of Leninism is a patch. If it were written "Marxism + Leninism", the relationship, both historical and logical, would be a lot clearer.

(Maoism, by the way, is a logical extension of Leninism...if your group called itself "Leninist-Maoist" that would be much closer to an accurate ideological description.)

On one matter, you seem to have missed my point altogether. I said that the working class in the advanced capitalist countries have been quick to recognize Leninism as just a new bunch of boss-wannabes...and somehow you converted that into a non-class issue of abstract leaders, followers, and rebels. No, it is a class issue: all bosses are bad!

The fact that other political tendencies have noted the undemocratic nature of "democratic" centralism and use that observation in polemics against Leninism is not of much concern to me; the kinds of people that I think you are referring to have not exactly been models of democratic practice themselves.

But it concerns me, and should concern you even more, that you actually know some folks who are itching to get their greedy paws on the "levers of power".

By the time they could possibly seize power, I'll already be wormshit; what might they do to you if you get out of line?

Think about it.

:cool:

PS: Imagine what "damn the capitalism" would say to me if I understood Arabic? :biggrin:

[damn the capitalism]

don't give any attention chairman mao ,coz what he have already post sound shit to everyone and to me ,he will always protest and opposing your ideas as u told ,so don't waste your time with him!

[Saint-Just]

I would be a little annoyed if someone defamed certain aspects of my country, damm the capitalism. But redstar2000 has not done this to my country yet, so I am not yet annoyed at him. I think redstar2000 opposes most posts here because no one shares the exact same ideology he has with the level of knowledge he has on it.

Now I am tempted to go with damm the capitalism's analysis of your argument, that it justs 'sound[s] shit to everyone'...

'Well, CM, my basic response to your post is that you simply assert things to be true that seem to me to be dubious or wrong.'

I think thats unfair, I did assert many things without substantiating them, however, they are not dubious or wrong. Furthermore, I think I did create a reasonable analytical debate for some of what I said.

The DPRK has been in existence for over years, the examples you mention were short-lived situations possibly?

You cite many leninist ideas that cannot be found in Marx, this is why Leninism is a development of Marxism, because it expounds the necessary reality of Marxism; its foundations being Marxism, and all ideas drawn from Leninism are ideas that were inspired in the first-instance by Lenin's knowledge of Marx.

These people want the 'leavers of power' simply because they want the means to create the society our ideology can construct.

It depends what you mean by 'get out of line'. I should imagine I could be acted upon if I were to do certain things. These people are not demons, they are extremely pleasant and gentile people.

I know I did not answer all your points, I never have, because I don't have that much time and am always tired from working. Anyway you don't have to argue it because I will just agree that we should disagree and not argue it too much.

[El Barbudo]

i absolutely agree with redstar.

[Sensitive]

Excellent posts, Chairman Mao.

[redstar2000]

CM, I don't wish to be "unfair" or to hold you to a higher standard than I set for myself. None of us are in any position to substantiate "to the hilt" everything we say on a message board.

Nevertheless, if you want to say that B is a "logical extension" or "development" of A, then there has to be some connection between the two that is more than simple terminology...or assertion.

To the best of my knowledge, the sum total of the writings of Marx and Engels on how communists should organize themselves is zero...except that passing remark in Section II of the Manifesto where it is specifically said that "the communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties".

You can argue, of course, that Lenin "filled in" those "blank spaces" in Marxism with his own idea for a "vanguard party" of "professional revolutionaries".

Is his idea Marxist? And is his idea any good?

The documented answer is clearly no to the first question. As to the second question, the experience of history is that Leninism works...but only in pre-capitalist countries. In the advanced capitalist countries, it has pretty much always degenerated into what Lenin himself properly called "parliamentary cretinism".

So when you assert that Leninism is a "development" of Marxism, this seems to me to be a case of saying something is true when, upon critical examination, it is clearly not true.

:cool:

By the way, CM, I'm aware that time presses upon us all...and I don't expect you or anyone to reply to my posts in the next 24 hours "or else." :cheesy: Take your time and reply if and when it is convenient for you. I always look forward to the most serious discussions on this board and hope you feel the same. ;)

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:15 pm on May 4, 2003)

[damn the capitalism]

Serious , i feel that too much peoples don't tak your opinions as serious ,coz their opinions you don't take serious!
Maybe one day if somebode teach how to respect the peoples and their opinion and even respect yourself,maybe they will listen to you!

[kylie]

redstar2000, i think you value marxism too much. your main arguement against Lenin seems to be that he was not orthodox to marxism.
It has been asserted millions of times that Leninism is a "natural development" of Marxism...but that doesn't make it true. There is nothing in Marx about vanguard parties or "great leaders". There is nothing in Marx about "socialist" revolutions in pre-capitalist countries. The notion of "professional revolutionary" cannot be found in Marx, nor the idea that the working class can "only develop trade-union consciousness". No reference can be found in Marx to the idea of "democratic centralism". Even the idea of socialism as a transition stage to communism is un-Marxist...Marx spoke simply of a lower and higher stage of communism, and only in terms of distribution of the products and wealth created by the new society. There is nothing in Marx about worker-peasant alliances or "people's democracies" not to mention the wonderful Soviet neologism "the toiling intelligentsia" (meaning: bureaucrats, apparatchiki).

well my response is that this does not matter. Lenins work can be justifiable without Marx, as can its derivatives. For someone who says that worshipping should be shameful, you come dangerously close to this in relation to Marx.

. As to the second question, the experience of history is that Leninism works...but only in pre-capitalist countries. In the advanced capitalist countries, it has pretty much always degenerated into what Lenin himself properly called "parliamentary cretinism".

Leninism isnt meant to originate in advanced capitalist countries, and couldnt. This is where the permanent revolution comes into play, finally spreading into those advanced countries.

[redstar2000]

Feoric, I probably wouldn't be nearly as much of a "hardass" on this subject if the Leninists followed your suggestion...and simply dropped their "Marxist" pretensions altogether.

As I said to Chairman Mao in another thread, if his group called itself "Leninist-Maoist", that would make both ideological and historical sense. Maoism is very directly derived from Leninism; it is Leninism v.2.0.

But you know, feoric, they are not going to do that...any more then Coke is going to drop Coke Classic. Too many people are aware, at least dimly, that Marx and Engels have "something to do" with the idea of emancipation from wage-slavery.

That's "too good" to let go of, even though all the Leninists that I've heard of or read about have, at best, very distant plans in that direction. The immediate Leninist plan in every country is: "Put Us in Power and we'll treat you better than the bosses you have now." But they want to be bosses...and I think that's very clear in everything they say.

And that perspective has nothing in common with Marxism.

Now, as to "worshiping Marx", I want you to look up this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...pic=536&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=536&start=0)

Not very "worshipful" am I, when I think Marx was wrong?

As to the Leninist-Maoist global strategy--that "socialism" will sweep across the pre-capitalist and semi-feudal countries, chopping out the material supports of the imperialist countries...causing, at long last, proletarian revolution in the "west"--I'm sceptical, to say the least.

First, because if Marx was right, you can't "skip" stages of class society...and his judgment appears to have been confirmed by the restoration of capitalism in Russia and China.

Secondly, because the "kind" of "socialism" that Leninism-Maoism creates is um, er, not exactly what we had in mind.

I mean, who the hell wants to live in a fucking barracks...even one with red flags tacked to the walls?

:cool:

[kylie]

damn the capitalism, in response to these posts im seeing all over the forum about redstar2000, may i ask what the basis of this is?
if it is ideological, then why not argue you points, like most people at che-lives.com do.
if it is personal, then take it to pm or chit-chat. if this is the case, then also the warnings to ignore redstar2000 are not really neccessary, im sure people are capable of judging this themselves, and in any case isnt relevent to forums such as 'politics'.

Not very "worshipful" am I, when I think Marx was wrong?
ok, well from posts i had read, it seemed you were a Marxist. can i ask what you are then? you're not a Leninist, going by this topic, and so therefore not a maoist/stalinist/etc. and i doubt you're an anarchist, with a name like 'redstar'.

[redstar2000]

I am sure that there will be those who will reliably denounce my "outrageous arrogance" for putting it this way but...

I try to be a "Marxist" in the same sense Marx himself was a Marxist.

To be critical, to be sceptical, to at least try to think about these things scientifically, to insist on real evidence, to call things by their real names...and to absolutely refuse to accept anything on the basis of "it's true because I said so."

And having said that, it's also true that I have considerable respect for syndicalist practice. I'm intrigued about the possibilities of combining Marxist theory and the best anarcho-syndicalist tendencies...the ones that take class struggle seriously.

And the traditional labels don't really mean very much any more anyway. So I'll take my initial stand on the Communist Manifesto and just go from there.

And who knows what the future will bring?

:cool:

[CompadreGuerrillera]

hey dirty commie. 95% of the youth is hopeless??
i was a hopeless youth not 1 year ago, im 14 and i just last year got interested in communism, i stay myself a socialist, but to say that 95% of the youth is hopeless is just plain stupid unless your saying that i am the 5 %
but seriously, my freinds are socialists, anarchists, and even a few commies, and i think we make up for a LITTLE more than 5 % give us some more credit:)

[ComradeRiley]

I think REDSTAR2000 is very intelligent and makes some very good points, he should not be ignored

[Dirty Commie]

I stand by my number, yes, some of us are educated and know the truth, but where I live so many of the kids are either:

ultra right wingers

dont give a damn at all, only for their parents money to go to the mall

or in some case, call themselves socialists because they think it is better than communism and they don't even know who Marx was.

This is the 95% of which I speak, I know that some truly care but the VAST majority doesn't give a rats ass about any thing.
I turn fourteen in june and have met in person NO ONE who understands what happens in the world.

I truely belive that nine out of ten people under the age of 18 in amerikkka don't have the slightest clue about what is happening with the world.

I will give this countries youth more credit when I meet more of them who use their brain.

Wel I'm glad to see you who cares.
I have not been a hopeless youth for the last two years, I began reading Lenin in the sixth grade.