Leninism

[Dyst]

I wonder why, all of a sudden (or so it seems to me, at least) many people, particularily anarchists and other libertarian communists, use the term "Leninism" when they refer to a system, supposedly communist, which is governed by a large authoritarian state, or a revolution fronted by a small elite, known as a vanguard?

Holy fucking cow, long sentence.

Anyways, I see Lenin as one of very many "communist leaders" who participated in a failed communist revolution. There are, of course, multiple reasons why the communist revolution would fail (as most see it). One of them is in many opinion that the party would remain in power in and after the revolution, though he is certainly not alone to commit this mistake. He is by most people not viewed of as as "vicious" as Stalin, Mao, etc. Allthough he supposedly rigged elections and probably had quite a few people murdered (I'm not sure).

What I wonder, anyways, is why people here have started using Leninism as a term for someone who advocates a revolution led by a vanguard and/or wants to install "the Party" in power after revolution. Politically, Lenin had many views, not all of which are in conflict with for example anarchists. Most of which taken directly from Marx. Why do you focus entirely on his views on the vanguard and party, and why have you selected Lenin as the person to represent these views, although others have been more directly in support of such views?

I am not saying I hold the view that the revolution should be led by a vanguard or that the state should still function (for long) after the revolution. I am simply wondering why Lenin is the one in particular chosen for such views.

I think, in Lenins time and place, anything other than state control after the revolution would be hard to imagine, and, not least, could be a disaster.

[rebelworker]

Lenin was the guy, for all intents and purposes was the leader of the Bolshevik party that in practice put in position a dictatorship of the Party.

It is true there were many other people of importnace in the Party who advocated the same thing, and Trotsky was far more authoritarian than lenin, but he is seen by many as "the" leader of the Bolshevik revolution and all other immulate him.

There is also the fact that within Authoritarian circles there is a real battle for the "legacy" of lenin. Trotskyists claim they were the real successors to Lenins ideas, Stalin claimed the same. Stalinist and Maoist thought is respectivly identified as Marx-Lenin-Stalin or Marx-Lenin-Mao thought.

Lenin was the main theoretician of the Modern Vanguard Party Model, thus leninism cuts thorugh alot of the crap of different tendencies trying to distance themselves from one another. I would agree that Marx put forward much of what Lenin Practiced, and even politically manouvered in a similar way(which I think is a legitmate criticism of Marx) but Lenin "went all the way" as it were.

Hope this helps clairify a bit.

PS you wont find huge statues erected for many other Bolshevik functionaries, remeber his bodie is on Public display in Moscow.

[Janus]

I am simply wondering why Lenin is the one in particular chosen for such views.
It's true that Lenin was not the first to come up with the idea of a vanguard or elite leading the revolution. Rather it was Louis Auguste Blanqui.

But it was Lenin who became famous and really put the idea out there through his successes in the Bolshevik revolution that got him the fame.

Of course, Lenin also had economic theories that he is also famous for but since it is mainly his theories concerning the state and the vanguard that were represented and practiced in the USSR which influenced the communist movement greatly. This influence is difficult to wear off and his conceptions of the state and how to get there that have been the most important part of his theories which is why they are often the most heavily criticized.

[Dyst]

Thanks for the responses.

To summarize, it is probably because Lenin was perhaps the most prominant leader of a revolution which ended in an authoritarian society.

It is useful for us to distance ourselves from Lenin because he was the one who led the Russian 'communist' revolution, which was of course the Great Evil according to Western media. Not to mention it actually was an authoritarian class society.

Now I wonder why the "new" libertarian marxism, perhaps influenced more by anarchism, technocracy, etc. than Lenin/Mao, etc., whose goal is not state power or political representation but an actual popular revolution, doesn't create a new term for itself, in order to more clearly distinguish itself from the Party bunch?

Something like neo-communism or something completely different.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:33 PM
Now I wonder why the "new" libertarian marxism, perhaps influenced more by anarchism, technocracy, etc. than Lenin/Mao, etc., whose goal is not state power or political representation but an actual popular revolution, doesn't create a new term for itself, in order to more clearly distinguish itself from the Party bunch?

Something like neo-communism or something completely different.
I suppose a lot would use the term Left Communist and others would use libertarian Marxist (not that both are necessarily the same), but both might be too broad a term for others. Of course, there's individual categories like Council Communist, Autonomous Marxism, Open Marxism for various different particular approaches, but these may more specific than what you're thinking of...

[rebelworker]

Dont forget Anarchist Communism, which is growing in popularity worldwide. It is heavily influenced by Marxist economics but has a more libertarian and quite frankly communist perspective on revolution.

You can check www.braodleft.org to see the sections on anarchist and left communism.

Also marxist Humanism.

The Problem with most "autonomist Marxists" is that the dont have groups to represent them so they kind of get left in the dust.

It takes more than good ideas to win a revolution, something anarchists have had to learn a great deal from over history.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:33 PM
It is useful for us to distance ourselves from Lenin because he was the one who led the Russian 'communist' revolution, which was of course the Great Evil according to Western media. Not to mention it actually was an authoritarian class society.
Or we could stick with Leninism, and just adapt it to fit the modern enviroment and not put some practically-fascist dictator in power but instead follow Lenin's theory and do things right next time?



whoops, I forgot to do it:

bloody opportunists..... <_<

[RedJacobin]

It&#39;s because the October Revolution was most important event in the 20th century. It had such a huge impact on history that even political forces today that are opposed to it can&#39;t ignore it, but have to engage with it in some way.


Originally posted by Dyst
It is useful for us to distance ourselves from Lenin because he was the one who led the Russian &#39;communist&#39; revolution, which was of course the Great Evil according to Western media. Not to mention it actually was an authoritarian class society.
I think there&#39;s a lot of opportunism in this approach.

If you&#39;re against Lenin because you think he had wrong ideas and carried out wrong policies, that&#39;s fine and should be debated.

But, if you&#39;re against Lenin because it&#39;s "useful," because it&#39;s politically expedient to not have to wade through all the anti-communist garbage pumped out by the Western media and education system, then the only thing you&#39;re doing is propping up that media and education system. If your politics are based on what&#39;s acceptable, you&#39;re going to prevent people from listening to ALL radical ideas in the end.

[YKTMX]

which is governed by a large authoritarian state, or a revolution fronted by a small elite, known as a vanguard?

The vanguard is not an "elite". It&#39;s simply a collection of class conscious workers. Anarchists are opposed to class conscious workers, favouring petty bourgeois violence and lifestylism instead.


Anyways, I see Lenin as one of very many "communist leaders" who participated in a failed communist revolution.

Newsflash:

Communist overthrow Kerensky government and establish socialist republic&#33;


Allthough he supposedly rigged elections and probably had quite a few people murdered (I&#39;m not sure).

I&#39;m not sure about "rigged elections", but he certainly did have people murdered - not nearly enough people, but that was one of the problems.


I am simply wondering why Lenin is the one in particular chosen for such views.

The Anarchists are bitter for several reasons: the failure of Makhno&#39;s movement, the Red victory in the Civil war, the "repression" of anarchists and, of course, the defeat of the pogromist rebellion at Kronstadt. I wouldn&#39;t worry about it too much, let them huff and puff if they choose.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Dyst
To summarize, it is probably because Lenin was perhaps the most prominent leader of a revolution which ended in an authoritarian society.
The authoritarian aspect doesn’t enter into it. Its merely because Lenin was the most prominent Marxist we’ve seen since Marx. Its that simple.


Now I wonder why the "new" libertarian marxism, perhaps influenced more by anarchism, technocracy, etc. than Lenin/Mao, etc., whose goal is not state power or political representation but an actual popular revolution, doesn&#39;t create a new term for itself, in order to more clearly distinguish itself from the Party bunch?
You’ve touched on this yourself. What do you call it - is it libertarian, anarchist, technocratic? This liberal Marxism has yet to coalesce into a single identifiable ideology. No one has yet sat down and penned a defining work on it. The is no State and Revolution for example.

[Hit The North]

In anarchist mythology, Leninism is guilty of substitutionalism.

It substitutes the masses with the working class; substitutes the working class with the party; substitutes the party with the bureaucracy.

The problem with this is that it doesn&#39;t directly emerge from a marxist conception of the vanguard, which is distorted by Leninism; but more as a consequence of the material and historical counterveiling forces against the revolution. Namely:

1. The backward economic conditions of Russia, further degraded by the imperialist war before the revolution and the civil war after.

2. The relative immaturity of a minority working class which also sacrificed itself in the civil war.

3. The preponderance of a largely illiterate and culturally backward peasant population.

4. The failure of the revolution to take root in Germany, France and Italy and Britain.

Against these tidal obstacles we find a Bolshevik government trying to steer a course and hold power for the revolution. In these stormy waters, principles and the rule book are the first things thrown overboard. Survival becomes the only directive. Lenin and his party proved themselves adept at pragmatic politics - much to the horror of more "principled" revolutionaries. But then the Bolsheviks were in the business of government and were struggling against more pressing concerns like a major famine and an international embargo by world capitalism.

Were all of the Bolsheviks decisions wise ones? Unlikely. But that&#39;s life. At least the Bolsheviks took power when no one else would or were capable of doing.

Under Stalin, that grip on power was tightened even when the situation in the Soviet Union was stable enough to allow a flowering of workers democracy. But that&#39;s another story, subject to its own plot lines.

Anarchists also accuse Leninism of being intrinsically authoritarian. Well, comrades, there is nothing more authoritarian than a revolution. No doubt that authoritarianism was more marked, again due to the special conditions of repression and illegality under which revolutionaries had to operate in Tsarist Russia. But what would you prefer: an army of Lenins or an army of Plekhanovs (who returned to Russia to support the bourgeois Kerensky government against Lenin - and, by extension, the continuation of a bloody war which was killing millions of Russians)?

Personally, I don&#39;t see much milleage in communists calling themselves Leninist because the special features of Leninism are a result of it being an adaptation of Marxism to the particular conditions of Russia. Most of the important stuff which has maintained relevance, we can find in Marx anyway.

One important point in this whole debate is the danger of rejecting the concept of the vanguard because we don&#39;t like the way it manifested itself in the soviet experience. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As other comrades have pointed out, the vanguard, as conceived in Marxism, is merely the most advanced (i.e. class conscious) layer of the working class. How that vanguard is organised is open to the particular conditions we find ouselves in and is less important than it being organised and united enough to act as a poll of attraction to other less confident or politically conscious workers.

The vanguard (that is, everyone on this forum and in the streets of the world willing to organise against capitalism and for communism) will necessarily have a different relationship with the class in developed capitalism than the Bolsheviks had with our Russian counterparts. The modern working class is highly educated, highly differentiated and highly democratic. The idea that such a class would embark upon a revolution and then allow itself to be subordinated to a clique is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, revolutions don&#39;t happen out of thin air and don&#39;t happen at all unless its most class conscious members are agitating, educating and organising.

The problem in the West (and else where) isn&#39;t the existence of a vanguard, or even its absense. The problem is its current disunity.

[Dean]

I would say that a realistic and free communist development can be referred to as "Allendist" in reference to the late Chilean president who was assassinated by the US. Salvador Allende managed to do many things that made his people freer and more equal under a democratic, marxist administration but pressure from US businesses and the CIA destroyed his government and installed dictator Pinochet.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:37 PM
I would say that a realistic and free communist development can be referred to as "Allendist" in reference to the late Chilean president who was assassinated by the US. Salvador Allende managed to do many things that made his people freer and more equal under a democratic, marxist administration but pressure from US businesses and the CIA destroyed his government and installed dictator Pinochet.
Which only demonstrates the truth of revolutionary theory - of which Leninism is one particular model.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:37 AM
I would say that a realistic and free communist development can be referred to as "Allendist" in reference to the late Chilean president who was assassinated by the US. Salvador Allende managed to do many things that made his people freer and more equal under a democratic, marxist administration but pressure from US businesses and the CIA destroyed his government and installed dictator Pinochet.
not only pressure from imperialist powers, but also hesitation to arm the workers and defend the conquests the working class managed to take from the buorgoise. The chilean working class was fully mobilized and conscious, but unarmed.

[rebelworker]

There has been so much bullshit spewed in the last few posts from defenders of Lenin i dont know were to start.

Firstly Anarchist do not reject the class concious workers. The Charicatures painted by Leninist continue to amuse me.

Serrious Class Struggle Anarchism (the majority of organised anarchist worldwide) are in favor of a workers led revolution and a supression of the old ruling class, the burocratic intelectuals who wish to become the new ruling class (leninists and the like) and smash any far right forces that would bring us back to the past.

Lenin, Trotsky and all other major thinkers in the Bolshevik Party continually pushed for anti worker policies in order the "surcumvent the infatile russian working class".

As if communism was possible by side steping the workers. Bolshevism at its foundations is a very anti worker practice. Trotsky was the worst kind of boss, and Lenin was the second worse kind of polititian (I will never go as far as to forget the horrors of Facism).

If there ever was any relevance to the logic behind Bolshevik practice during the russian revolution ( I would argue there wasnt) It is now clear that the same logic (backward minority working class) is no longer even debateable.

The fact that there still exists in the first world, currents that suport the logic of Leninism is a tribute to the class asperations of the new wave of Burocrats and oportunists who dont want to have to actaully do any real work, just order around others in a guilt free envyroment.

Posters above were right to see the need to move on from the obvious failures of Leninism (that is of course unless you want to be a manager with a red hat on) and move to a move anti authoritarian path to workers management, the cornerstone and only real path to communism.

Interesting Allende is brought up here as the single most political influence in his life was an anarchist cobbler. Unfortuantely he didnt lisen enough to the anarchist critique of power and chose the Social welfare state instead of the path of workers revolution.

There have been flaws in anarchist practice in the past, but these have been recognised and corrected by anarchist militants and left wing communists.
The lifstyleism that has been adopted by some individuals dose not reflect the totality of anarchist thought. Only Straw man detractors like whinning leninists could ever stand by this as fact.

A quick read of "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control" (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html), the well documented acount of the workers Movement during the russian revolution, shows the anti worker politics of Bolshevism.

And there is an abundance of good anarchist communist theory available at these web pages to give you an idea of the scope of anti authoritarian communism.


Anarchist Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/)

Anarkismo,International Anarchist Communist Views & News (http://www.anarkismo.net)

Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation online theory (http://www.zabalaza.net/theory.htm)

Downloadable books (http://www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/downloads.htm)

Anarchism online (http://www.anarchism.ws/pdf.html)

Class struggle anarchists near you (http://broadleft.org/anarchis.htm)

Here is a good non sectraian "socialism from below" resource
Prole.info (http://prole.info/)

[Iranon]

rebelworker; first, you can&#39;t say you&#39;ve corrected the problems of past existing Anarchism when no existing Anarchist movement (i.e., a revolutionary one in a revolution) has moved past those problems - atleast, not one I&#39;m aware of.

Secondly, the point of Leninism is that it was an advancement of Marxism that holds many points that are important today - Imperialism still occurs and is still of relevance to the revolution.

Thirdly, Lenin had the balls to tell those "by-the-book" Marxists who clamour about economic conditions being incorrect to go fly a kite and proceeded to take hold of a government that - no matter what you say - did improve the quality of life for most Russians. I&#39;d say this is by far the most important contribution Lenin made.

As far as Marxism-Leninism being a dead-end road; look at the Black Panther Party (who used the term "Marxist-Leninist" to denote their Maoism as "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" wasn&#39;t being used then). Look at how the success of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)&#33;

Please, avoid (Ultra)sectarianism and debate using theory and not propaganda.

[KC]

Thirdly, Lenin had the balls to tell those "by-the-book" Marxists who clamour about economic conditions being incorrect to go fly a kite

Something Marx definitely would have agreed with.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Secondly, the point of Leninism is that it was an advancement of Marxism that holds many points that are important today - Imperialism still occurs and is still of relevance to the revolution.

If it was an advancement why did it not achieve anything in terms of communism?


Thirdly, Lenin had the balls to tell those "by-the-book" Marxists who clamour about economic conditions being incorrect to go fly a kite and proceeded to take hold of a government that - no matter what you say - did improve the quality of life for most Russians. I&#39;d say this is by far the most important contribution Lenin made.

Because of Lenin-stalin, etc, there is now modern capitalism in Russia. The revolution helped smash the feudal baggage in Russia. But I dont really see anything "marxist" about it. Capitalists destroy feudalism, communists destroy capitalism.


Look at how the success of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)&#33;

Yes, in another REALLY BACKWARDS third world country. Oh and the successes they&#39;ve had are again in abolishing feudal baggage. They haven&#39;t created "communism" or "socialism." What they are doing is bringing their country into this century. So in a sense they are "on the road" to communism but they aren&#39;t creating it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:45 PM
not only pressure from imperialist powers, but also hesitation to arm the workers and defend the conquests the working class managed to take from the buorgoise. The chilean working class was fully mobilized and conscious, but unarmed.
The criticisms of him have some validity. However, his statements indicate that he intended to actuate marxist development by peaceful means, and with a true reverence for humanity and human life.

Though I do not accept that he can really be held as the cause for the failure of the Chilean revolution. It is clear that U.S. influence caused the "economy to scream" as Kissinger put it and brought about the coup of &#39;73.

It is good to see another supporter of the late Allende. He has been ignored too much by the contemporary left as a respectable figure from whom we can learn much.

[anomaly]

Though what Vladimir said in State and Revolution may, on the surface, seem partially &#39;compatible&#39; with anarchist politics, looking at what his Bolshevik party actually did dispels this myth. Lenin felt that his party should take the lead, that it should absorb the &#39;revolutionary vanguard&#39; itself. Going over the writings of both Lenin and Trotsky, the insistence upon the supremacy of the party is apparent.

There are many on revleft who feel that the Russian revolution was &#39;on the right path&#39; to socialism or communism. They also agree in large part with Lenin&#39;s writings, most who I talk with preferring State and Revolution over What Is To Be Done. They also agree with a leading role for the &#39;Party&#39;. As such, I think the label &#39;Leninism&#39; is the most accurate one. But sure, I&#39;ll give them &#39;Trotskyism&#39; if they really want it. :P

However, the real events of the Russian revolution, the real result, and the real things Lenin did are often in sharp contrast to what he said. That is very important.

[KC]

Though what Vladimir said in State and Revolution may, on the surface, seem partially &#39;compatible&#39; with anarchist politics, looking at what his Bolshevik party actually did dispels this myth.

So what Lenin said in State & Revolution is incompatible with anarchist politics because of what the Bolsheviks did? That doesn&#39;t make sense.


Lenin felt that his party should take the lead, that it should absorb the &#39;revolutionary vanguard&#39; itself.

What does this have to do with the validity of the theories laid out in State & Revolution?


the... things Lenin did are often in sharp contrast to what he said.

So why are you separating his theory from his actions here, yet earlier you used his actions to claim that his theory wasn&#39;t compatible with anarchist politics? Isn&#39;t that a little hypocritical?

[Comrade-Z]

The vanguard is not an "elite". It&#39;s simply a collection of class conscious workers. Anarchists are opposed to class conscious workers, favouring petty bourgeois violence and lifestylism instead.


As other comrades have pointed out, the vanguard, as conceived in Marxism, is merely the most advanced (i.e. class conscious) layer of the working class.

Here&#39;s an idea. I shall call it "Leninism without the crap."

1. The most class conscious proletarians may find it useful to form a unified "vanguard" organization of some sort, which they can use to ignite, participate in, and theoretically contribute to communist revolution.

2. The vanguard is not to assume any power of command over the revolutionary movement. As the most class conscious members of the proletariat, they realize that "the revolution must be the work of the workers themselves." Therefore, the vanguard "leads" by example and by theoretical persuation, rather than command. If they are unable to advance the revolution in this manner (for example, if there are just so many reactionary elements of the proletariat that they need to be violently striven against and commanded) and so that the vanguard concludes that it is the only organization that can comphrehend "what needs to be done," then the time for revolution is not ripe anyways.

Notice how I bolded "proletarians." This is to stress that this vanguard organization must consist only of proletarians. No petty-bourgeois intellectuals such as Lenin or Bakunin allowed. (Although they may still contribute ideas to the organization from the outside.) The thing is, these petty-bourgeois intellectuals simply do not have the same interests as the workers, and their alliegiance cannot be trusted, no matter how long they have been contributing to "the movement." Their position naturally disposes them to a preference for managerial positions in society. They, in general, find the idea of "the management of things instead of people" hard to follow.

Of course, the Bolshevik Party was nothing like this. Its leadership was made up almost entirely of petty-bourgeois intellectuals (if I recall rightly, the only proletarian on the politburo was Tomsky, and the only other proletarian in the Central Committee was Schliapnikov?) And of course, it is not good enough to simply have a proletarian background, for a change in social function to a "professional manager of revolution" in a leadership position entails a change in consciousness. The members of the vanguard must concurrently be proletarians as well (employed in wage-labor or surviving off of wage-labor in some fashion). And the Bolshevik Party most certainly did assume the power of command over the entire proletariat.

The question I will pose now is, how is the vanguard described above any different from the FAI during the Spanish Civil War? :P

[More Fire for the People]

However, the real events of the Russian revolution, the real result, and the real things Lenin did are often in sharp contrast to what he said. That is very important.
Like nearly leaving the Bolshevik party over its reluctance to embrace the radical mass line of the Russian workers? Also a vanguard cannot substitute itself for working class activity, it is class conscious working class activity.

[KC]

1. The most class conscious proletarians may find it useful to form a unified "vanguard" organization of some sort, which they can use to ignite, participate in, and theoretically contribute to communist revolution.

A "vanguard organization" isn&#39;t a vanguard. Therefore, your second point about the vanguard "taking power" has nothing to do with the concept of the vanguard.

[More Fire for the People]

A "vanguard organization" isn&#39;t a vanguard.
I&#39;m &#39;iffy&#39; on this statement. Certainly a vanguard party does not constitute the vanguard as a whole but vanguard organizations are certainly possible and I would argue under some conditions necessary.

[KC]

I&#39;m &#39;iffy&#39; on this statement. Certainly a vanguard party does not constitute the vanguard as a whole but vanguard organizations are certainly possible and I would argue under some conditions necessary.

What I was clarifying is that the vanguard isn&#39;t an organization but a classifcation of people in regards to their status within the movement. Of course, it&#39;s possible for members of the vanguard to form organizations, but the vanguard itself isn&#39;t an organization.

[Comrade-Z]

A "vanguard organization" isn&#39;t a vanguard.

Then how do you define what constitutes the "vanguard" in any given situation? Whoever calls themselves the "vanguard"? Whatever workers look to have the sharpest ideas and most revolutionary wherewithal, time and time again? If the latter is the case, then I have no objection to that, of course. But this vanguard must not assume the power of command over the entire revolutionary proletariat. In any case, if they ever wanted to try to assume a position of command, they would have to gather themselves into a definite organization in order to do that--the Bolshevik Party, for instance. I doubt the Bolsheviks would have been able to govern over the entire proletariat (and Russian society in general) through loose networks of individuals.

[bolshevik butcher]

Wait so the most advanced elements of the working class should not try and tightly organise themselves in a disciplined manner so taht they can form a formidable force in a revolutionary party but instead should remain as a loose network of individuals that is easily broaken and no doubt not nearly ass efficent in organisational tems or capable of leading the protaletariat.

[Comrade-Z]

Wait so the most advanced elements of the working class should not try and tightly organise themselves in a disciplined manner so taht they can form a formidable force in a revolutionary party but instead should remain as a loose network of individuals that is easily broaken and no doubt not nearly ass efficent in organisational tems or capable of leading the protaletariat.

Well, Khayembii Communique seems to think that this is a viable option. I suppose I agree. I mean, just because a group is "undisciplined" (?) and loosely affiliated doesn&#39;t mean that the group can&#39;t be effective. Although personally, I had assumed that the "vanguard" would form themselves into a close-knit (though internally ultra-democratic) organization.

Like the FAI during the Spanish Civil War, for instance (or something like that. I&#39;m not actually too familiar with how the FAI operated). It would be an organization to spearhead efforts and offer theoretical "guidiance" or "leadership" in the form of non-binding proposals and reasoned recommendations to the revolutionary proletariat as a whole.

[Connolly]

Dont mean to cause a &#39;stir&#39; - but would you class us here as "advanced" elements of the working class - and therefore class conscious?

I fail to see how we are class conscious. It being aware of the position within the capitalist system, having sight of what exactly we want, seeing the steps and direction needed to install proletarian production relations (if we even know what that is).

We do not satisfy all of those requirements - nor could we since the material conditions for such information and foresight have not come into existance.

So how could there be "advanced" members of the proletariat, unless almost all proletarians are &#39;advanced&#39; too - since it requires productive forces for class consciousness to come into being.

I can only conclude that we are "theorists" with alot of us feeling &#39;false&#39; consciousness - nothing more.

Unless of course you dont believe class consciousness comes about through the productive forces of society (as Marx predicted) - but rather through the hands of those who "bring it to you" - and possibly risk accepting a false consciousness instead of a revolutionary class one - which is most likely through such means :rolleyes: (as we have seen in the past). If you accept this method - ignoring the productive forces - then you could simply create communism from any time throughout capitalisms duration as an economic mode. Rubbish.

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree with the latter sentiment. Although wether the FAI actually practised this is another debate entirley, as lenin said we must patiently explain to the working class. By discpline i mean a party that organises under hte principles of democratic centralism and acts according to the will of the majoraty.

[Connolly]

That was aimed at clenched fist by the way :D

[A Suvorov]

I think the current increase in usage of the term &#39;Leninist&#39; is an attempt (perhaps even on a subconcious level) to get back to the &#39;roots&#39; of communism- sort of a &#39;communist fundamentalist&#39; idea, I suppose.

With so many revisionist &#39;isms&#39; running around, it&#39;s a wonder more people don&#39;t chuck it all and go back to the basics. Lenin was the first and best proponent of practical communist revolution, and the only one who has ever even come close to pulling it off. Given a few more years to even things out in Russia- and ensure Stalin didn&#39;t succeed him- I daresay he just might have done it up right, and the world would be a much different place than it is today.

[apathy maybe]

A Suvorov: You&#39;re kidding right? You can&#39;t be serious can you? The original question was about why non-Leninists call others Leninists.

As to the "roots of communism", well the roots of Marxism would be Marx I guess, Kropotkin could be called a "root" of anarchist-communism and I&#39;m sure there are other communisms.

The reason isms exist is to say what a person is in relation to another person. To explain in one word a persons beliefs.

Lenin was also not the best (and it could be argued not the first) "proponent of practical communist revolution". The revolution had already broken out while he was on the other side of Germany. Bah.

[STI]

Thirdly, Lenin had the balls to tell those "by-the-book" Marxists who clamour about economic conditions being incorrect to go fly a kite and proceeded to take hold of a government that - no matter what you say - did improve the quality of life for most Russians. I&#39;d say this is by far the most important contribution Lenin made.

Yes, of course conditions improved in Russia following the revolution.... I didn&#39;t that it was ever at issue.

And it&#39;s because of this fact that all communists should support Leninist revolutions in the third world.

What we shouldn&#39;t do is kid ourselves about what will end up happening. Class society will not be gradually abolished... advanced capitalism will emerge (more quickly than otherwise).

Still better than what would happen would otherwise happen, but by no means "the way to go" in the first world if you want to establish a classless society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

National liberation struggles and socialist revolutions in "the third world" serve to destabilize imperialism, which can lead to socialist revolutions in the first world.

[ComradeRed]

So, wait, using the (eh) Leninists logic here, Newtonian mechanics doesn&#39;t exist because Newton never called it such <_<

As for the idea that Lenin is good because he improved the lives of Russians everywhere, no argument here that he improved the lives of Russians...because historical materialism indicates that capitalist revolutionaries like Lenin often improve the standards of living over feudal societies like Tsarist Russia.

So that makes Lenin and Leninism part of communism? No, it is nothing more than a catalytic form of capitalism. It is capitalism.

That is based off of historical materialism applied to the Soviet Union and China...just look at those Socialist paradises now&#33; "Free" market nations.

That&#39;s what is designed to happen with Leninism in all its forms. That&#39;s because of materialism and no amount of idealism can change it, so sorry.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 21 2006, 11:07 PM
Dont mean to cause a &#39;stir&#39; - but would you class us here as "advanced" elements of the working class - and therefore class conscious?

I fail to see how we are class conscious. It being aware of the position within the capitalist system, having sight of what exactly we want, seeing the steps and direction needed to install proletarian production relations (if we even know what that is).

We do not satisfy all of those requirements - nor could we since the material conditions for such information and foresight have not come into existance.

So how could there be "advanced" members of the proletariat, unless almost all proletarians are &#39;advanced&#39; too - since it requires productive forces for class consciousness to come into being.

I can only conclude that we are "theorists" with alot of us feeling &#39;false&#39; consciousness - nothing more.

Unless of course you dont believe class consciousness comes about through the productive forces of society (as Marx predicted) - but rather through the hands of those who "bring it to you" - and possibly risk accepting a false consciousness instead of a revolutionary class one - which is most likely through such means :rolleyes: (as we have seen in the past). If you accept this method - ignoring the productive forces - then you could simply create communism from any time throughout capitalisms duration as an economic mode. Rubbish.
Of course I believe that the productive forces bring about class consciousness. However the most advanced elements, the socialsits if you will learn from theory, and history. This is where we differ from the mass working class who learn from events.

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 22 2006, 05:49 AM
National liberation struggles and socialist revolutions in "the third world" serve to destabilize imperialism, which can lead to socialist revolutions in the first world.
My point exactly&#33; Imperialism is the enemy.

FORWARD&#33;