The Wave of Anti-Lenin/Anti-Leninism

[Nikkolas]

I'm not too sure where exactly to put this....so I apologize if it is not in the right locale.

I am new here and I've recently taken up efforts to research a lot about communism. I enjoy reading people's opinions and thoughts on ideas as much as I do reading the ideas written by the authro. However, one common principle I've discovered in my vairety of searching boards is when someone calls themselves a communist they rapidly say they are not "Leninists." One person on a forum wrote how her ideology of coummunism was pure Marxism while denouncing Lenin's works as "perversions." I think there are 3 main reasons for this outcome.

1. Marxism-Leninism is inherently authoritarian and leads merely to the suppression of the workers under State Capitalism- Such thoughts are slightly valid due to the wave of pseudo-Leninist doctrines adopted by pseudo-communist regimes in the 20th Century but Lenin’s work towards the end of his life showed he himself recognized that the Party’s position can be abused. An exeprt from Lenin’s Testament:

“All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.”

He also acknowledged that the Soviet body was carried over from the Czarist political body and needed extensive reform. Had any of these measures been taken the horror of Stalin’s rise to power and the absolute totalitarian state the USSR came to be known as would most probably not have occurred.

2. Contrary to his specific wishes, Lenin as the “father” of the Russian Revolution and the first proletarian revolution was deified in both East and Western circles of Marxism. Largely though, the propaganda of Stalin and his using Lenin’s legacy as leverage was the main root of it all. “Lenin was a saintly, noble man who could do no wrong” was the image many Russians and foreigners were led to believe. However, in recent years with both the collapse of the Soviet Union and revelation of certain documents, that myth has been utterly destroyed. Yet, what we are left with is hardly preferable; a vacuum in which the myth of sainthood has been filled with the myth that Lenin was Stalin before Stalin. Such atrocious books as Lenin: A New Biography paints him as a sociopathic despot and most other “credible” sources now claim him to be nothing more than a Proto-Stalin in lieu of facts such as he supported things Stalin did not like the emancipation of women, the removal of the age-old anti-Semitism in Russia, teaching the largely literate populace to read, not liquidating the Party, democratic centralism. We go from Lenin being a messiah to him being the root of all evil. The East and the West will never learn. Lenin, the man and the leader was and is an enigma displaying both cruel and inspirational views..like ALL leaders. No leader is perfect.

And finally...
3. Political opportunists and climate-savvy communists are not blind to status Lenin has been lowered to in most circles. The bourgeoisie are doing everything within their power to burn down, bury and then cement over Lenin’s legacy. As the vast majority of people in this world are fed by these bourgeoisie and our ideal is to spread our ideals to the masses, denouncing Lenin is a way of saying “what was will never be” while simultaneously extricating yourself and what you stand for from the social stigma instituted on the people by those in power. To defend Lenin would be to automatically go against what has been programmed into these persons’ minds and thus you lose the potential of possibly winning them over to Marxist ideology. I find it very sickening that these people call themselves communists. Siding with the establishment’s propaganda machine to destroy the product of another country’s propaganda machine is the epitome of all we stride to undo!

I beg you, my comrades, why bicker over Lenin? Assaulting him and declaring his ideas perversions of Marxism is simply dividing us in a world that already seeks to dismantle us. We can not afford to aid them in their efforts. We must unite. Marxist-Leninists, Anarcho-Communists, we all want one thing: communism and freedom from the state. However, we have a massive political, economical, social and super-machine as our opposition. We can debate over who was right and who was wrong when we’ve succeeded in removing this power and attempting to institute our dream. People can claim Leninism leads to atrocities because we had a half-century of sham Leninism run by power-hungry people who used Marxism as a crutch. Who's to say similar fates would not have befallen other forms of communism had they taken root? We may as well be sitting here and talking about how we should stop defending Anarcho-Communism.

But that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

[elmo sez]

I wish people would stop fighting over Lenin too , he did some good things and some bad, lets move on, however there is still a large conflict of interest between lenninists etc and anarchists , lenninists looking for a transitional stage , and anarchists looking for no state.

So what i think we need to do is to stop arguing over lenin and the past as Nikkolas said, and begin to move on and see how we can all work together for a communist future

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Lenninists" [sic] aren't the only people who understand the need for a socialist workers' state in the transition to communism; all scientific (Marxist) communists do.

[Forward Union]

I beg you, my comrades, why bicker over Lenin? Assaulting him and declaring his ideas perversions of Marxism is simply dividing us in a world that already seeks to dismantle us. We can not afford to aid them in their efforts. We must unite. Marxist-Leninists, Anarcho-Communists, we all want one thing: communism and freedom from the state.

We bicker because we disagree, Authorotarians and Libertarians can't unite or even agree on a theoretical basis (well, perhaps in some areas), we are simply far too different.

In practice I'd be more than willing to work with authorotarian communists, and have done in the past. But the simpel fact is that, the aims, principals, practices and structures of our organisations are too different to be a united force. And whats more neither of us want to unite.

[bcbm]

I think the outright rejection of any major figure or tendency on the left is a mistake. Most revolutionary leaders and situations have something to offer, we merely need to seperate what we need and what works from what we don't need and doesn't work.

[elmo sez]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19 2006, 03:18 PM
"Lenninists" [sic] aren't the only people who understand the need for a socialist workers' state in the transition to communism; all scientific (Marxist) communists do.
hence the lenninists etc :rolleyes:

[Nikkolas]

Originally posted by elmo sez+Aug 19 2006, 10:43 PM--> (elmo sez @ Aug 19 2006, 10:43 PM)
Compañ[email protected] 19 2006, 03:18 PM
"Lenninists" [sic] aren't the only people who understand the need for a socialist workers' state in the transition to communism; all scientific (Marxist) communists do.
hence the lenninists etc :rolleyes: [/b]
What do you mean by that?

[elmo sez]

i thought CompañeroDeLibertad was responding to my post , just read from my first post again .

[Dyst]

1. There is no such thing as Leninism. Communism =\= Soviet, and anyone who doesn't understand that is not a communist.

2. We got to get over the anarchist vs. communist thing. What's the difference?! In any case, it's a minor one and of little concern if you look at our enemy. Divided we fall.

3. In any case, any attempt of establishing communism in Soviet, whatever flavour, would have been a failure. Material conditions, anybody? Sure, the society was ripe for a revolution, but not a communist one. The point is, the material conditions are here now. Let's stop talking about past and done.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+Aug 19 2006, 03:18 PM--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ Aug 19 2006, 03:18 PM) "Lenninists" [sic] aren't the only people who understand the need for a socialist workers' state in the transition to communism; all scientific (Marxist) communists do. [/b]

Apart from the fact that Marx never spoke of a "socialist workers' state" in such terms, even if "all scientific (Marxist) communists" could agree upon the name of such form, it's content would remain the reason for theoretical and practical division within the "all-communist" spectrum.


Dyst
2. We got to get over the anarchist vs. communist thing. What's the difference?! In any case, it's a minor one and of little concern if you look at our enemy. Divided we fall.

Well, those that stepped out of the narrow field of their ideological limitations and recognized the proletarian revolutionary Praxis as the means of transcending the division within the movement are infact "getting over" the mentioned dispute.

Of course, such people are rarity.

Besides, differences are not what I would call "minor".

[IronColumn]

Russia could have had a communist revolution, indeed it was in the beginning stages of one with the workers running the factories democratically and beginning to organize at the regional level. Then Lenin and the Bolsheviks destroyed it, and implemented their own pathetic rendition of socialism, complete with gestapo police and a one party state and party functionaries running factories.

To say that the material conditions had not been ripe completely ignores the fact that the proletariat was organizing itself in a communistic manner. If the material conditions were unripe, then the proletariat would not have organized itself as it did. All mechanistic versions of the Russian Revolution (mainly coming from the Mensheviks who wanted to establish a bourgeois state that was known as such, as opposed to the Bolsheviks who wanted to hide it behind the language of communism) were completely disproved by the heroic workers themselves.

If the proletariat was unanimously communist, then by definition the material conditions had to allow communism (or perhaps annul the materialistic hypothesis). That set of ideas that claims Russia wasn't ready (even being the fifth largest industrial power at the time of the war) tends to absolve the Leninists of any real culpability while at the same time patronizingly telling the proletariat it was going too fast.

In conclusion, I don't want a fascist police state calling itself a worker's paradise.

[Nikkolas]

Russia could have had a communist revolution, indeed it was in the beginning stages of one with the workers running the factories democratically and beginning to organize at the regional level. Then Lenin and the Bolsheviks destroyed it, and implemented their own pathetic rendition of socialism, complete with gestapo police and a one party state and party functionaries running factories.

First and foremost, do not attempt to compare the Cheka to the gestapo. There is no comparison other than they were secret police. The reasons the two emerged also differed: the Cheka came about to deal with real threats to the revolution in imperialist powers invading and siding with local remnants of Tsarist leaders, other Socialists and everyone else who opposed the Bolsheviks. The Gestapo were already technically in existence as they were born from the Prussian Secret Police. And to say the Bolsheviks ruined the proletarian revolution is the height of misinformation that has burrowed its way into the mind of the average person today.


To say that the material conditions had not been ripe completely ignores the fact that the proletariat was organizing itself in a communistic manner. If the material conditions were unripe, then the proletariat would not have organized itself as it did. All mechanistic versions of the Russian Revolution (mainly coming from the Mensheviks who wanted to establish a bourgeois state that was known as such, as opposed to the Bolsheviks who wanted to hide it behind the language of communism) were completely disproved by the heroic workers themselves.

That completely ignores the fact that the Soviets were a major form of government, the Commitern was composed of well over a million people when first created (half of them from the liberated nations that had been part of the Russian Empire). It is actively shown that the masses supported the Bolsheviks through the October Revolution and through the Civil War. If they had not, that fledgling government that hung on by a thread would have been destroyed. The workers did organize and their organization was encouraged. If you want to bring up the age-old Krondstadt point, Lenin suspected foreign involvement which was proven. Furthermore, White generals were said to have had a hand in it. Finally, they were demanding impossible things for the completely destroyed Russian economy to give.

Or If you are referring to the dissolving of the Cinstituent Assembly - another commonly cited point that Bolshevism=anti-democracy in bourgeoisie historical books - that was done rather smartly. The Socialist Revolutionaries were fundamentally split along lines and could not reach an agreement. Having a body ruled by a group that is so unquestioningly divided is rather poor and would achieve nothing except what the Mensheviks, Cadets and indeed even the S.R.s had promised before the October Revolution: land and peace and food. Note that NONE of this happened under the Provisional Government. But, in hardly any time at all, the Bolsheviks achieved:

“The Declaration of Rights of Working People was adopted overwhelmingly by the congress. The main points of this were: an immediate end to the war, and nationalization of land and industry, with the land to be distributed to the poorer and landless peasants.”

And that happened.



If the proletariat was unanimously communist, then by definition the material conditions had to allow communism (or perhaps annul the materialistic hypothesis). That set of ideas that claims Russia wasn't ready (even being the fifth largest industrial power at the time of the war) tends to absolve the Leninists of any real culpability while at the same time patronizingly telling the proletariat it was going too fast.

The proletariat you speak of was a very small minority. As of the end of the Civil War, that small minority was nearly non-existent. Actual industrialized efforts had dwindled very drastically. The proletariat can not move to communism when their numbers are falling at the hundreds of thousands. Hence why the Bolsheviks voted in the NEP which most of them heartily detested but knew if there was any chance of keeping the populace of Russia alive let alone the revolution, that they needed to see sense.


In conclusion, I don't want a fascist police state calling itself a worker's paradise.

That would describe the Soviet Union under Stalin and after. They did actually arrest people and put them in asylums for leaving their “paradise.” As far as I know, that was not done under Lenin and the early years of the USSR and Russia after the Revolution.

Please, comrade, differentiate between Lenin and Stalin. Not doing so is exactly what the foreign powers - the same powers that rushed in after the Bolsheviks took power to destroy it and the workers - have attempted to force through for years. I do not ask you support it but to be so against it is counter-productive to the cause yo and I share.

[Q]

I completely agree with Nikkolas, fighting over Lenin is silly.
Lenin was right with his democratic centralism ("discuss about everything, but unite when a decision is made"), a better form of democracy is quite difficult to accomplish.

Lenin did notice the dangers of the upcomming bureaucracy and thus the degeneration of the revolution, he warned against this process on a great number of occasions, declaring that the Russian revolution was doomed if the revolution did not spread to at least Western-Europe. The comments about material conditions that were made earlier were right on this.

Lenin ofcourse also made errors, the most serious one was not recognizing the important role of the Soviets in 1905. Only to correct this attitude in 1917.

Anyway, Lenin had nothing to do with the authoritarianism. And would despice the oppurtunistic "communists" that are denouncing his ideas nowadays because those idiots want to "save" Marxism...

[Rawthentic]

I believe that it is absurd to stop debating Leninism vs. libertarianism. They are two very different communist versions. People will not stop attacking Lenin because of what it has created and the danger it still poses in the communist movement. Libertarians want freedom from the inherent authoritarianism that Leninism creates. In order for the revolutionary movement to move on as a legitmate force and create an opportunity for a communist society, I believe that Leninism must be done away with. I find it hard to understand why Leninists are so dogmatic and why they hold on so dearly to Lenin.

[Nikkolas]

I find it hard to understand why Leninists are so dogmatic and why they hold on so dearly to Lenin.

That's rather simple: Lenin is as much a part of Marxism as Marx and Engels. Whether you agree or disagree with him, his work is critical to young revolutionaries. Of course the prime example is The State and Revolution but any number of his works is well-discussed and regarded today. Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism being another good example. His concerns on imperialism and very clear anti-colonialism still influences peoples views on these matters of this day in and beyond the Communist community.

And again, to the response of the "dangers" of Leninism, that is very subjective. You can offer how "dangerous" his ideas were because of several failed attempts to replicate it and subsequent tragedies. Say some other communist had influenced the course of communist uprisings: Bukharin or Goldman. Who is to claim their ideas would not result in atrocities and bastardizations of their cause? You can offer the "proof Leninism is a failure because a group of power-hungry fools used "Leninism" as their surface ideology to appeal to the public. It is no different than the bourgeoisie lies and it should be met with the same scorn. You can offer the "evidence" Leninism failed but I reject it because for the simple facts it was not purely Marxism-Leninism nor do we have any idea how the past may have turned out had other communist roads been taken.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:20 AM
That's rather simple: Lenin is as much a part of Marxism as Marx and Engels. Whether you agree or disagree with him, his work is critical to young revolutionaries. Of course the prime example is The State and Revolution but any number of his works is well-discussed and regarded today. Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism being another good example. His concerns on imperialism and very clear anti-colonialism still influences peoples views on these matters of this day in and beyond the Communist community.
That's circular logic. What you seem to be claiming is that, because those who would agree with a Leninist interpretation of Marxism would still consider Lenin important, that therefore means that Leninism is the only interpretation of Marxism.

Not only is that not the case, but there are many Leninist tenents that are nowhere to be found in the work of Marx and Engels. Which is why, when defending Lenin against accusations of breaking with Marx, Leninists are so much keener on quoting Lenin than Marx himself.

[Nikkolas]

Perhaps they prefer some of his ideas and quotes to marx's? It's not really a crime. I'm sure everyone has a theorist and Marxist politician they may like as much as Marx. And if not, it still is a rather unimportant point. I don't tell people that their ideas are perversions of Marxism. The fact is, as stated in my first post, people now are rapidly moving away from Lenin and more importanrtantly, shouting from the rooftops that they don't like Lenin,, and it's most likely due to the political climate and historical inaccuracies pumped out by the "historians" who want to discredit him.

[KC]

Not only is that not the case, but there are many Leninist tenents that are nowhere to be found in the work of Marx and Engels. Which is why, when defending Lenin against accusations of breaking with Marx, Leninists are so much keener on quoting Lenin than Marx himself.

Could you provide some examples?

[Nikkolas]

I want to further stress one thing that is truly the crux of my philosophy and the ideas I share with my fellows. We do not place Lenin beyond the realm of error. We do not consider him, the Bolsheviks and the Revolution they brought about infallible. What we do believe in is objectivity. The anti-Leninists on the socialist and capitalist side both can see nothing besides the failings of Lenin and tehe Russian Revolution. That is hardly just and I will not support such bias distortions. It is well-documented psychologically that people abused grow to internalize the message of their abuser. The bourgeoisie have done a maliciously excellent job of this over the decades and my fellow comrades have grown to believe it. I do not ask you to support Lenin. I ask you to examine what he did with a clear eye as I have done and even your fellows have done. Check the topic "Lenin and the Bolsheviks" on this forum. LSD, while not supporting Lenin, admits Lenin was a genius and an excellent theorist. You can belive your own idea of communism while not rejecting others.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:23 PM
The anti-Leninists on the socialist and capitalist side both can see nothing besides the failings of Lenin and tehe Russian Revolution.
Rubbish. The root of the failing is not Lenin, but the whole idea of the workers' state. States always lead to the rule of a small elite over the workers (and peasants, where applicable) no matter their founders' intentions. That's what happened in Russia, China, etc. and it will happen again if further attempts are made to create "proletarian" dictatorships. See http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci.../Socialism.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Socialism.html)


It is well-documented psychologically that people abused grow to internalize the message of their abuser.

Which is what Leninists do with their support for hierarchy.

[KC]

Rubbish. The root of the failing is not Lenin, but the whole idea of the workers' state. States always lead to the rule of a small elite over the workers (and peasants, where applicable) no matter their founders' intentions. That's what happened in Russia, China, etc. and it will happen again if further attempts are made to create "proletarian" dictatorships. See http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci.../Socialism.html

That was a shit link. The author obviously doesn't understand the Marxist definition of the word 'state' and also has a horrible understanding of Marxist theory in general.

[Morpheus]

The author is me, and I do understand the Marxist definition of the word 'state' as well as Marxist theory. If there are flaws in the article point them out - calling things "shit" or accusing me of ignorance doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's really just namecalling, not logical debate.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 08:43 PM


Rubbish. The root of the failing is not Lenin, but the whole idea of the workers' state. States always lead to the rule of a small elite over the workers (and peasants, where applicable) no matter their founders' intentions. That's what happened in Russia, China, etc. and it will happen again if further attempts are made to create "proletarian" dictatorships. See http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci.../Socialism.html

That was a shit link. The author obviously doesn't understand the Marxist definition of the word 'state' and also has a horrible understanding of Marxist theory in general.
The Marxist definition of the state is so unbelievably vague, it's barely a definition. However, Marx repeatedly discussed the centralisation of state control in his letters and work, so one must assume that any state that he envisioned was a centralised one.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state" - Communist Manifesto

A centralised state cannot be democratic as centralisation requires hierarchy and thus any state in the Marxist definition is antithetical to workers liberation.

Lenin realised this state in Russia as did Mao in China and Castro in Cuba and each occasions of this practical application of Marx's theories failed precisely for the reason predicted by Bakunin and Malatesta at the time of the First International.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21 2006, 08:13 PM
The Marxist definition of the state is so unbelievably vague, it's barely a definition. However, Marx repeatedly discussed the centralisation of state control in his letters and work, so one must assume that any state that he envisioned was a centralised one.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state" - Communist Manifesto

That was in 1848 when Germany was divisioned in small principalities, but with the expirience of the Paris Commune he changed his views towards the communal de-centralization.

Marx says in his Draft for the Civil War in France in 1971: "[A]ll France organised into self-working and self-governing communes [...] the suffrage for the national representation not a matter of sleight-of-hand for an all-powerful government, but the deliberate expression of organised communes, the state functions reduced to a few functions for general national purposes."

In the same text he speaks of: "the Commune — the political form of the social emancipation, of the liberation of labour from the usurpations (slave-holding) of the monopolists of the means of labour, created by the labourers themselves or forming the gift of nature. As the state machinery and parliamentarism are not the real life of the ruling classes, but only the organised general organs of their dominion, so the Commune is not the social movement of the working class and therefore of a general regeneration of mankind, but the organised means of action."

Both Marx and Engels put their signature under the text for the 1872 German edition Preface to the Communist Manifesto - written by Marx - where he states: "The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.)"

[refferences edited]

[The Feral Underclass]

Marx may have changed his position on the state in terms of having a centralised organ of control to create working class liberation, but he did not change his opinion that a state was in fact a centralised organ of control.

[Nikkolas]

Which is what Leninists do with their support for hierarchy.

No, that's completely false. The anarchist position on lenin and everything from the Bolshevik Revolution onward is that it was merely a new state, a new power oppressing the workers and other baseless slander. It is the truth. Check any article o the Revolution written by Anarchists on Google. Or articles on Kronstadt. The myth of that event will live on for years it seems in the Anarchist mindset.

The fact is that this is a fundamental disagreement. But, even if it is, any objective look at the Revolution by its opponents undergoes very subjective reasoning and out-and-out lies or conveniently left-out facts. And I stand by my point: all this is pointless. We share a base ideology but break over how to get at what we desire when there is still a superstructure of factors in our way that oppose Lenininists and Anarcho-Communists alike.

[Lamanov]

TAT:

In any case, both centralization or de-centralization, Marx pursued "working class liberation", a means for self-emancipation of the working class. This was always his starting premise, he certanly did not "get to it" later.

What changed was the way in which liberation is institutionally performed according to objective conditions. Thus for different periods (1848 and 1871) he supports different means of action.

"All France organised into self-working and self-governing communes..." - this is communal de-centralization in best defined manner. In the CWIF (1871) he writes about the introduction of mandat impératif, the imperative mandate -- a manner of functioning direct democracy.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusion that Marx always considered state a centralized form of organization. Best I can do is to say that he was very vague. He never wrote a single piece of paper which deals with the phenomenon of the state as such primarily.

[CrazyModerate]

Actions do speak louder than words, and as nice and pretty and airey fairy as his statements were, the reality is he brutally put down protest, and the leaders who followed him were some of the most violent and brutal despots in the history of the world. If Lenin really cared about the people, he would have done more to facilitate a nation which respected human rights.

[IronColumn]

Letter from Marx and Engels to Liebknecht, 1879:
"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. We cannot, therefore, cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves."

Trade union consciousness? Lenin is not a Marxist, and neither are you. The qualitative difference between the Paris Commune and Bolshevik Russia, one a festival of life and democracy, and the other a police state ruled with an iron hand, shows the true difference between actual Marxists and pedants spouting meaningless phraseology while they build state capitalism.

[Nikkolas]

. If Lenin really cared about the people, he would have done more to facilitate a nation which respected human rights.

Human rights violations? Hm... I suppose that would be War Communism and Cheka in the Red Terror, right? Well, it was awar. You need food for people in the war such as the soldiers so they can fight with caused War Communism. Further, the Red Terror sprung up in the response to a variety of factors:

1. An attempt on Lenin's life and 2 other Russian Bolshevik party officials murdered.
2. 26 Bolshevik officials killed on British orders
3. The ravaging and brutal White army that shot anyone without tria.
4. The people oppising the Bolsheviks had slogans like "death to the Jews and commisars."

YYou see, they weren't fighting a humane force. The Red Terror happened because of the White Terror.

As for human rights, would you call the emancipation of women humane? Women, once the Bolsheviks took charge, could get divorced, not marry at all, have abortions, equal pay, right to vote.... Sounds humane. Also, other countries formerly part of the Russian Empire became independent. Their nation was equally represented with every other country and they had the right to self-determination.

So..yes. The anti-human rights Bolshevik Party was not a monstrous state terror organization. They were smart men in a desperate situation. Whatever you can say of the Red Terror, it was justified and the second bit I said shows they were far from indifferent to the rights of people.

[encephalon]

The problem with party rule is that "marxists" forget a very basic marxist concept: class membership means class interests, and a person will work in their own class interest. Those on top will always work towards their own interests, not the interests of the great many. The Communist party did not act in the interest of all; it acted in the interest of the members of the communist party.

Not to say some good things didn't come out of it, but merely that the class interests of the state were not those of the working class. Whenever you set up a ruling group, this will always happen--if you're a marxist then you especially should know it, but even non-marxists are very aware of the concept. If the ruling class is not the great majority, then the operation of a state or any other organizational structure will work against the great majority.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 01:00 PM

Not only is that not the case, but there are many Leninist tenents that are nowhere to be found in the work of Marx and Engels. Which is why, when defending Lenin against accusations of breaking with Marx, Leninists are so much keener on quoting Lenin than Marx himself.

Could you provide some examples?
Sure, though I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

Do you want examples of where I think Lenin broke from Marx, or examples of where I think particular groups/individuals cite Lenin as a defence against claims of breaking from Marx, as opposed to Marx himself?

[KC]

Examples of where you think Lenin broke from Marx.

[The Grinch]

Ok, before I start, just to make clear I'm not saying that Lenin is necessarily wrong to break with Lenin in any of these cases. I don't see Marx as some holy writ that can't be changed. But I think being clear about the fact that happened is crucial to being able to analyse whether those breaks were a good thing or not.

To start, compare this:

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

(Lenin, What is to be Done)

with what Engels describes as Marx's position here:

Marx ... entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion

(Engels, Introduction to the Manifesto)

That position would seem to be confirmed by Marx himself:

We cannot therefore cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philosophical leaders.

(Marx, circular letter to the leaders of the German Socialist Workers Party, 1879)

That's the polar opposite of the view that

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement.

(Lenin, What is to be Done)

And, the idea that you have a party, which remains a distinct entity, yet has somehow merged with the entire proletariat:

The dictatorship of the working class is being implemented by the Bolshevik Party, the party which as far back as 1905 and even earlier merged with the entire revolutionary proletariat.

(Lenin, Letter to the Workers and Peasants Apropos the Victory Over Kolchak, 1919)

runs directly counter to the idea that the emancipation of the proletariat is a self-emancipation.

(I'm delibarately sticking specifically to Lenin here, simply because I don't know if you're a Trotskyist or not).

Next I'll move onto the question of whether Russia under Lenin was the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat or not.

Fortunately, Engels gives us a very plain qualification of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually is.

If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown.

(Engels, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891)

So the question here is very simple. Did the Bolsheviks implement a democratic republic, the specific form, with no qualification whatsoever, of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The answer to that I think is obviously no, though you may naturally disagree.

Now, while I don't subscribe to it, I think the argument that the Bolsheviks had no choice due to the conditions in Russia at the time is a valid one. However, that doesn't alter the fact that it's an argument in favour of the abandoment of the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not an attempt to defend it as such.

Because we have a specific example of what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like:

...do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

(Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune)

And Marx said quite clearly about the Paris Commune (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that:

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.

(Marx, The Civil War in France)

and surely that is precisely what the Bolsheviks did in Russia?

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:33 PM
Letter from Marx and Engels to Liebknecht, 1879:
"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. We cannot, therefore, cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves."

Trade union consciousness? Lenin is not a Marxist, and neither are you. The qualitative difference between the Paris Commune and Bolshevik Russia, one a festival of life and democracy, and the other a police state ruled with an iron hand, shows the true difference between actual Marxists and pedants spouting meaningless phraseology while they build state capitalism.
A great post. I totally agree.

Please let the pro-Leninsts reply to this.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:33 PM
Letter from Marx and Engels to Liebknecht, 1879:
"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. We cannot, therefore, cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves."

Trade union consciousness? Lenin is not a Marxist, and neither are you. The qualitative difference between the Paris Commune and Bolshevik Russia, one a festival of life and democracy, and the other a police state ruled with an iron hand, shows the true difference between actual Marxists and pedants spouting meaningless phraseology while they build state capitalism.
I need to read further into this issue, but didn't Lenin eventually end up withdrawing from this "trade union consciousness" comment at some moment, when barricades were being set up, formations of soviets, etc.?

[Nikkolas]

Trade union consciousness? Lenin is not a Marxist, and neither are you. The qualitative difference between the Paris Commune and Bolshevik Russia, one a festival of life and democracy, and the other a police state ruled with an iron hand, shows the true difference between actual Marxists and pedants spouting meaningless phraseology while they build state capitalism.

I don’t think a lot of people would count you as a Marxist, either. Your lies and misinterpretations are worthy of hacks like Richard Pipes and the bourgeoisie. I may be alone in this, but when someone so blatantly falsifies and distorts factual history, they lose any right to call themselves anything other than a partisan zealot.

I love how your kind attack us for defending Lenin. But, you see, we are defending because you’re attacking. Lenin and the Bolsheviks faced odds that are hardly comparable to those at the Paris Commune. Similarly, they had the lesson of those at the Paris Commune. They knew, should they fail, everything would be destroyed. It’s called war. It’s called imperial intervention. It’s called economic collapse. That is still barely half what the Bolsheviks had to contend with. It was a “police state” under “state capitalism” after foreign powers had blockaded and cut off all trade with the government in an attempt to punish the Bolsheviks. They did this, effectively, by killing off the Bolsheviks’ support ie. The workers via starvation. They did not even suppress democracy and other political parties until the time of the brutal civil war which caused waves of mass murders of workers by the Whites. They did not institute any capitalism into the economy until the NEP which was the only way to keep everyone from dying. A betrayal of their cause? Yes. But practical and an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY.

[The Grinch]

So is it fair to sum up your position as "Lenin did break clearly from Marx, but it was necessary for him to do so?"

[IronColumn]

If Russia was under extenuating circumstances, then after the war (1921) it should have certainly reverted back to a liberty loving country. The fact that this did not happen, and that socialism never did materialise in any Leninist country (even those not under duress comparable to Russia) is proof alone of the bankrupt Bolshevik position.

Leninism, as a model, cannot build socialism. It historically has only built state capitalism, as well as crushing other libertarian social revolutions such as, of course Russia, Spain in 1936, Hungary in 1956, France in 1968, etc.

[bezdomni]

Leninism, as a model, cannot build socialism. It historically has only built state capitalism, as well as crushing other libertarian social revolutions such as, of course Russia, Spain in 1936, Hungary in 1956, France in 1968, etc.
Many (myself included) will argue that the USSR's actions in Spain were not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

Anyway, it is not like Spain was some glorious sucessful anarchist revolution - the republicans were a clusterfuck of communists (both stalinists and trotskyists), anarchists and anti-fascists. To say it was an explicitly anti-leninist (which is what I assume you mean by "libertarian) revolution is to ignore a large part of the revolution.

[Nikkolas]

If Russia was under extenuating circumstances, then after the war (1921) it should have certainly reverted back to a liberty loving country. The fact that this did not happen, and that socialism never did materialise in any Leninist country (even those not under duress comparable to Russia) is proof alone of the bankrupt Bolshevik position.

A. Incorrect. Lenin, as clearly shown in his works, was very aware of what was happening. As professed in documents from 1921 and then his testament in 1922, he was very opposed to the growing centralization of power and bureaucracy.

B. There were no “Leninist” countries. Because they all installed Stalinist regimes. Mao instituted the Cultural Revolution which killed millions. I don’t recall any policy like that in the Bolsheviks. I do recall millions dying from a war. In other “Leninist” countries all democracy was stamped out. They did not suffer from the extreme circumstances the Bolsheviks did. Much of Lenin’s documents and his ideas were suppressed by Stalin. The whole “Socialism in One Country” idea is proof enough of that. They did not follow the Bolshevik example because the Bolshevik example was hidden widely from the public by Stalin after he LIQUIDATED everyone involved with the Bolshevik example.


Leninism, as a model, cannot build socialism. It historically has only built state capitalism, as well as crushing other libertarian social revolutions such as, of course Russia, Spain in 1936, Hungary in 1956, France in 1968, etc.

You are merely spouting Stalinist oppression. You can not compare Stalin’s USSR to Bolshevik regime. First off, Lenin opposed the USSR. He wanted a republic with self-determination of each country. Stalin sabotaged this by killing Bolsheviks in George and beginning his steady conquering of Russia’s neighbors. See my quote. Serge knew. He was THERE. Bolshevism did not lay the goundwork for the horror of Stalinism.


So is it fair to sum up your position as "Lenin did break clearly from Marx, but it was necessary for him to do so?"

He didn’t break cleary from Marx. He did not always follow Marx’s position but that does not mean he “clearly” went against what Marx had written. As I said, if you knew anything about the horrid condition of Russia when it adopted the NEP, you would see that the Bolsheviks adopting it was the only way to save the life of the proletariat and the peasants, let alone lead them to communism. I suppose they should have continued with their economic policy and let everyone die? That would have been much better.

Also, the restriction of certain rights were mostly temporary measures. Stalin however, kept these measures in place. He was General Secretary and held a high place in every part of the government. He could disrupt things he didn’t want done nearly everytime and that was one of them.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:58 AM
[He didn’t break cleary from Marx. He did not always follow Marx’s position but that does not mean he “clearly” went against what Marx had written. As I said, if you knew anything about the horrid condition of Russia when it adopted the NEP, you would see that the Bolsheviks adopting it was the only way to save the life of the proletariat and the peasants, let alone lead them to communism. I suppose they should have continued with their economic policy and let everyone die? That would have been much better.
So your entire response to me listing opposing quotes from Marx and Lenin side by side is to go "no, not so"? Not the most convincing argument I've ever heard, I'll be honest.

So, to break it down. Do you believe that a state can be truthfully seen as the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat without worker's democracy?

Oh, and what evidence is there of Lenin moving against Stalin while he was still alive?

[Nikkolas]

Edit: I'm gonna agree to disagree. I made this topic for agreement and unity of goals. That is falling to pieces. I'm gonna stop arguing for right now.

[LSD]

Human rights violations? Hm... I suppose that would be War Communism and Cheka in the Red Terror, right? Well, it was awar. You need food for people in the war such as the soldiers so they can fight with caused War Communism.

Incorrect. Lenin, as clearly shown in his works, was very aware of what was happening. As professed in documents from 1921 and then his testament in 1922, he was very opposed to the growing centralization of power and bureaucracy.

That would describe the Soviet Union under Stalin and after. They did actually arrest people and put them in asylums for leaving their “paradise.” As far as I know, that was not done under Lenin and the early years of the USSR and Russia after the Revolution.

And that's the holy Trotskyist trinity isn't it? Lenin didn't implement proletarian government when he was alive because "times weren't right", after he died Stalin perverted his ideas, if only Trotsky had taken over instead the USSR would have worked.

It's a nice theory, very clean. But it doesn't really leave much room for verifiability, does it? Basically the theory postulates that "real" Leninism has never been put into practice and that we should ignore everything that "Leninists" have done and consider only what what the man himself wrote.

Now, as Communists and Anarchists we should be used to unverified theories. After all, there has yet to be a proletarian governed society so we're all rellying upon theory and speculation.

But the thing about Leninism is that, like it or not, a whole bunch of people have tried to put it into effect. Were a good number of them inspired (or even funded) by Stalin and his successors? Of course. But not all of them.

Like him or hate him, Lenin has been the iconic figure of the international revolutionary left for nearly 100 years. In the minds of millions, his name has been appended to that of Marx.

And yet, we are expected to believe that not once have his actual theories been put into effect? That every single one of his "adherents" were corrupt or imperialist or "Stalinist"?

Doesn't that seem awfully convenient?

It may not be "fair" to link Leninism to Stalinism, but in the end they are politically inseperable and the one has lead to the other every single time it's been attempted.

Does that mean that Trotsky was wrong and Leninism can't actually work? I have no idea. But at this point, it doesn't really even matter. Leninism's time is done. It may never have gotten a "fair shake", but it's gotten 83 years of virtually unchallenged leadership and it's enough.

We've allowed dead Russians to set our course for long enough. It's time to take back the wheel.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:22 AM
Like him or hate him, Lenin has been the iconic figure of the international revolutionary left for nearly 100 years. In the minds of millions, his name has been appended to that of Marx.

And yet, we are expected to believe that not once have his actual theories been put into effect? That every single one of his "adherents" were corrupt or imperialist or "Stalinist"?

Not only that: by refusing to put a clear demarcation line between Marx and Lenin, all our starting premises have been identified as something easily corrupted and always up for abuse. This dogmatic approach of irreversibly connecting Marx and Lenin resulted in irreversible identification between Marx and Stalin, Mao, etc.

That's why we have this ideological interpretation of Communism: "yeah, it's good in theory, but it's always bad in practice." "Yeah, well, Marx may be OK, but look at Stalin, his follower. It's always ment to be that way." etc etc.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:41 AM
Leninism, as a model, cannot build socialism. It historically has only built state capitalism, as well as crushing other libertarian social revolutions such as, of course Russia, Spain in 1936, Hungary in 1956, France in 1968, etc.
The only revolution that followed the central principles of Marx and Lenin (embraced democratic centralism, created armed population, created by that of the urban proletariat, etc.), was that of Russia. The only reason that Soviet democracy broke down, was because of the material conditions within that country. Worker revolts across Europe were crushed, industrialized countries enforced a economic blockade on the country while intervening with a strong millitary force, the large White Army was spearing into Red Russia, and the general post-WW1 economic blues colliding with that of the following factors destroyed the whole country. Russian Civillization was literally almost wiped out. It was the "authoritarian" and "state capitalist" tactics of Lenin that saved tens of millions of people. If Lenin didn't seize grain from the kulaks, the Russian economy and state would likely fall, famine would occur in urban centers, it would most likely spread to rural areas, chao would insue, and 50 million people would most likely die instead of 2,000,000 people.

As for the revolutions that you pointed out, you can say that they had a "vangaurd" leading them. CNT wage-earners elected representives from their workplaces in order to represent themselves in the early spring of 1936 on a nation-wide scale, using a form of "democratic centralism". POUM created a sort of "vangaurd", from their revolutionary base in many urban areas also. There was a "hierarchy", a sort of "leadership", that existed amongst these anarchist groups. Hell, Hungary even embraced democratic centralism. It even had it's own leader.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by "RedDali"

The only revolution that followed the central principles of Marx and Lenin (embraced democratic centralism, created armed population, created by that of the urban proletariat, etc.), was that of Russia.
Where does Marx support "democratic centralism" please? Direct quote if you would. It's very telling that you don't consider the Paris Commune to be a valid example of a Marxist revolution.
The only reason that Soviet democracy broke down, was because of the material conditions within that country. Worker revolts across Europe were crushed, industrialized countries enforced a economic blockade on the country while intervening with a strong millitary force, the large White Army was spearing into Red Russia, and the general post-WW1 economic blues colliding with that of the following factors destroyed the whole country. Russian Civillization was literally almost wiped out. It was the "authoritarian" and "state capitalist" tactics of Lenin that saved tens of millions of people. If Lenin didn't seize grain from the kulaks, the Russian economy and state would likely fall, famine would occur in urban centers, it would most likely spread to rural areas, chao would insue, and 50 million people would most likely die instead of 2,000,000 people.

Firstly, surely it's always going to be the case that revolutions are a time of social and military upheaveal. Do you honestly think Marx wasn't aware of that?

That aside, what attempts were there to implement full worker's democracy in the post civil war period?

Because, it seems pretty clear to me what happened in Russia, and it was specifically warned against by Engels.

The worst thing that can befall the leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents ... he is compelled to represent not his party nor his class, but the class for whom the conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in that awkward position is irrevocably lost.'

(Engels, The Peasant War in Germany)

How is that not precisely what happened in Russia? And the idea that the Bolshevik experiment was a success is hardly borne out by history. Surely, as a scientific socialist, you should look at the end results?

As for the revolutions that you pointed out, you can say that they had a "vangaurd" leading them. CNT wage-earners elected representives from their workplaces in order to represent themselves in the early spring of 1936 on a nation-wide scale, using a form of "democratic centralism". POUM created a sort of "vangaurd", from their revolutionary base in many urban areas also. There was a "hierarchy", a sort of "leadership", that existed amongst these anarchist groups. Hell, Hungary even embraced democratic centralism. It even had it's own leader.
Yes, although they didn't ban factions. And it certainly wasn't the Leninist conception of democratic centralism.But, in particular, anarchists seem to suffer from a highly selective view of the CNT. The inability to abolish the state instantly (which I'd argue is always going to be unfeasible) wrongfooted them, to the point where they ended up traipsing dutifully into the Popular Front government, instead of fighting for the revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Grinch+Aug 25 2006, 04:36 PM--> (The Grinch @ Aug 25 2006, 04:36 PM)
"RedDali"

The only revolution that followed the central principles of Marx and Lenin (embraced democratic centralism, created armed population, created by that of the urban proletariat, etc.), was that of Russia.
Where does Marx support "democratic centralism" please? Direct quote if you would. It's very telling that you don't consider the Paris Commune to be a valid example of a Marxist revolution.
The only reason that Soviet democracy broke down, was because of the material conditions within that country. Worker revolts across Europe were crushed, industrialized countries enforced a economic blockade on the country while intervening with a strong millitary force, the large White Army was spearing into Red Russia, and the general post-WW1 economic blues colliding with that of the following factors destroyed the whole country. Russian Civillization was literally almost wiped out. It was the "authoritarian" and "state capitalist" tactics of Lenin that saved tens of millions of people. If Lenin didn't seize grain from the kulaks, the Russian economy and state would likely fall, famine would occur in urban centers, it would most likely spread to rural areas, chao would insue, and 50 million people would most likely die instead of 2,000,000 people.

Firstly, surely it's always going to be the case that revolutions are a time of social and military upheaveal. Do you honestly think Marx wasn't aware of that?

That aside, what attempts were there to implement full worker's democracy in the post civil war period?

Because, it seems pretty clear to me what happened in Russia, and it was specifically warned against by Engels.

The worst thing that can befall the leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents ... he is compelled to represent not his party nor his class, but the class for whom the conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in that awkward position is irrevocably lost.'

(Engels, The Peasant War in Germany)

How is that not precisely what happened in Russia? And the idea that the Bolshevik experiment was a success is hardly borne out by history. Surely, as a scientific socialist, you should look at the end results?

As for the revolutions that you pointed out, you can say that they had a "vangaurd" leading them. CNT wage-earners elected representives from their workplaces in order to represent themselves in the early spring of 1936 on a nation-wide scale, using a form of "democratic centralism". POUM created a sort of "vangaurd", from their revolutionary base in many urban areas also. There was a "hierarchy", a sort of "leadership", that existed amongst these anarchist groups. Hell, Hungary even embraced democratic centralism. It even had it's own leader.
Yes, although they didn't ban factions. And it certainly wasn't the Leninist conception of democratic centralism.But, in particular, anarchists seem to suffer from a highly selective view of the CNT. The inability to abolish the state instantly (which I'd argue is always going to be unfeasible) wrongfooted them, to the point where they ended up traipsing dutifully into the Popular Front government, instead of fighting for the revolution. [/b]
"Where does Marx support "democratic centralism" please? Direct quote if you would. It's very telling that you don't consider the Paris Commune to be a valid example of a Marxist revolution"

I was saying that the Paris Commune WAS a valid example of a marxist revolution. I am saying that Marx supported "democratic centralism" through his support of the political body that was temporarily implemented in Paris in 1871, in which community and workplace councils were set up and elected representives to the Central Committee. These representives received wages that were no larger than that of the common Parisian worker. It was a sort of "indirect" support for the working body of the Paris Commune.

"Firstly, surely it's always going to be the case that revolutions are a time of social and military upheaveal. Do you honestly think Marx wasn't aware of that?"

Did I say that it wasn't a time of social and millitary upheaval? I was only casting out the anarchists and left marxists that were suggesting that Leninism will create a inherently corrupt system. They use the Russian Revolution as a perfect example of Leninism's failure; in which they completely ignore the material conditions within the country at that time which truly destroyed the revolution.

"That aside, what attempts were there to implement full worker's democracy in the post civil war period?"

There were no attempts to reinstall worker's democracy in the post-Civil War period. The Left Opposition attempted to rearm the working class, reintroduce worker millitias, and to again encourage self-managment in factories, but the power of the bureaucracy outweighed them.

"Because, it seems pretty clear to me what happened in Russia, and it was specifically warned against by Engels."

That is really interesting. I have never read that before.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:33 PM
Letter from Marx and Engels to Liebknecht, 1879:
"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. We cannot, therefore, cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves."
Do you think the Russian Revolution wasn't lead by the working class? We don't think workers are stupid, despite what your Anarchy FAQ site saids.

As for that Engels quote, you have taken it completely out of context.

[The Grey Blur]

That was a brilliant read

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by RedDali

Do you think the Russian Revolution wasn't lead by the working class? We don't think workers are stupid, despite what your Anarchy FAQ site saids.Do you agree with Lenin that the proletariat had ceased to exist as a class in Russia? (And the issue of the class composition of the Bolsheviks was so serious that the Worker's Opposition faction put out a call for all non-proletariat elements to be expelled in 1921).


As for that Engels quote, you have taken it completely out of context. How is it out of context? Did Engels actually mean that many workers couldn't become enlighted socialists because they were too busy slaving in the factories?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Grinch+Aug 26 2006, 01:56 AM--> (The Grinch @ Aug 26 2006, 01:56 AM)
RedDali

Do you think the Russian Revolution wasn't lead by the working class? We don't think workers are stupid, despite what your Anarchy FAQ site saids.Do you agree with Lenin that the proletariat had ceased to exist as a class in Russia? (And the issue of the class composition of the Bolsheviks was so serious that the Worker's Opposition faction put out a call for all non-proletariat elements to be expelled in 1921).


As for that Engels quote, you have taken it completely out of context. How is it out of context? Did Engels actually mean that many workers couldn't become enlighted socialists because they were too busy slaving in the factories? [/b]
No, the proletariat still existed in Russia at that time :) . After the Civil War, most labour elements were virtually absent. Former Soviet leaders attempted to restore worker's control, but they failed.

As for the Engels' quote, I fear that I might of misinterprated it. Here is the whole quote:

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost. We have seen examples of this in recent times. We need only be reminded of the position taken in the last French provisional government by the representatives of the proletariat, though they represented only a very low level of proletarian development. Whoever can still look forward to official positions after having become familiar with the experiences of the February government ⠮ot to speak of our own noble German provisional governments and imperial regencies ⠩s either foolish beyond measure, or at best pays only lip service to the extreme revolutionary party.

Muenzer's position at the head of the "eternal council" of Muehlhausen was indeed much more precarious than that of any modern revolutionary regent. Not only the movement of his time, but the whole century, was not ripe for the realisation of the ideas for which he himself had only begun to grope. The class which he represented not only was not developed enough and incapable of subduing and transforming the whole of society, but it was just beginning to come into existence. The social transformation that he pictured in his fantasy was so little grounded in the then existing economic conditions that the latter were a preparation for a social system diametrically opposed to that of which he dreamt. Nevertheless, he was bound to his preachings of Christian equality and evangelical community of possessions. He was at least compelled to make an attempt at their realisation. Community of all possessions, universal and equal labour duty, and the abolition of an authority were proclaimed. In reality, Muehlhausen remained a republican imperial city with a somewhat democratic constitution, with a senate elected by universal suffrage and under the control of a forum, and with the hastily improvised feeding of the poor. The social change, which so horrified the Protestant middle-class contemporaries, in reality never went beyond a feeble and unconscious attempt prematurely to establish the bourgeois society of a later period.

Engels wrote how the productive forces weren't developed enough for a strange type of "utopian" socialism to "work" in Germany at that time. It is basically a critique of the implementation of utopian socialism. You ignore the fact that they [The Boshleviks] knew full well that that fate of the USSR rested in the revolutions of advanced countries. Russia, which only started advancing towards capitalism during the 1900s, was virtually dependant on that of those revolutions. Though the socialization of the means of production depends on the full development of capitalism, you take a Menshevik position and decide that we shouldn't push for a better society in any occasion, but rather sit on your ass and "wait things out".

[The Grinch]

I meant how do you think Iron Column has taken that Engels quote out of context. ;)

Obviously the quote I gave was a reference to the utopian socialists, but I don't think that makes it any less relevant to Russia.

And I still haven't seen any evidence of Marx supporting vanguardism. It's certainly possible to take Lenin's position on this. What isn't possible, is to take it as well as Marx's. The two are contradictory.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 26 2006, 08:31 PM
I meant how do you think Iron Column has taken that Engels quote out of context. ;)

Obviously the quote I gave was a reference to the utopian socialists, but I don't think that makes it any less relevant to Russia.

And I still haven't seen any evidence of Marx supporting vanguardism. It's certainly possible to take Lenin's position on this. What isn't possible, is to take it as well as Marx's. The two are contradictory.
I meant how do you think Iron Column has taken that Engels quote out of context. ;)

Obviously the quote I gave was a reference to the utopian socialists, but I don't think that makes it any less relevant to Russia.

I admit that I screwed up there. I think that it was relevant to Russia. But the Boshleviks knew that any movement towards socialism in Russia would be doomed unless revolutions occured in Germany and other industrial countries. That quote doesn't sham Leninism in anyway, simply because Lenin followed that quote and even wrote that capitalism would be restored and a bureaucracy would develop if the Soviet Union was forced into the conditions of economic and political isolation. The growing support of the proletariat by the peasant class within Russia, as well as the mass revolutionary spasms erupting in anti-colonial Africa and Asia, as well as the thousands of strikes and insurrections occuring in Europe, made it appear that conditions were ripe in Russia.

Maybe if the Spartakists didn't follow the dialectic of spontaneity, in which only a few hundred workers participated in revolutionary Berlin due to lack of organization, we would see a new wonderful socialist world, that had it's very roots in the Russian Revolution. Through the left communist split with vangaurdists and even the reformists, various sections of the German working class were left isolated. There was a mass insurrection in Southren Germany shortly after the crushed ultra-leftist revolt in Berlin; it was also crushed. Over the next 5 years into the 1920s, there was other mass revolts in many urban centers across the whole country, which failed due to the lack of political organization and the national unity of the working class.

And I still haven't seen any evidence of Marx supporting vanguardism. It's certainly possible to take Lenin's position on this. What isn't possible, is to take it as well as Marx's. The two are contradictory.

Sure, I got one:
Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League by Marx and Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

"As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization."

It is this document that seperated the Marxists from the Bakuninists; it was this document that all autonomist marxists ignore. Marx pratically endorsed democratic centralism through his declaration that the Paris Commune was the essential "dictatorship of the proletariat". He continued to show his support for a vangaurd in The Civil War in France. Therefore, it is not us who are the revisionists, it is the ridiculous left communists that are the true "anti-marxists".

[Labor Shall Rule]

Is that link working? My computor is pretty slow and I have been unable to really load up any site at this current time.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I have done some further studying and was able to discover some crucial facts about that Engels' quote that you provided from furtherly examing the work and asking for help along the way. Reading any political work means that you can't take one passage out, as if it was the bible, you need to examine it and read the whole thing. Marx was addressing the issue of non-proletarian elements seeking to enter the socialist movement, expecially in Germany which was the hot spot of socialism at that time. He was expecially concerned with the influence that petty-bourgeois and bourgeois members could have if they were allowed into positions of leadership. In the paragraph following the celebrated quote, Marx writes:

If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In such a petty-bourgeois country as Germany these ideas certainly have their own justification. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers' Party. if these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. The time, moreover, seems to have come. How the Party can tolerate the authors of this article in its midst any longer is to us incomprehensible. But if the leadership of the Party should fall more or less into the hands of such people then the Party will simply be castrated and proletarian energy will be at an end.

As a matter of fact fact, this quote points at the 1903 split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, which centered precisely around this question! "Leninism" is above all concerned with maintaining the hegemony of the working class and the theory of historical materialism in the party. It is an ideology of class warfare before anything else, but especially class warfare within the ranks of the movement. To ignore the class composition of the movement, and the antagonisms between classes that reproduce themselves within the movement, is to invite certain defeat, and so "Leninists" put primary emphasis on combating bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideological influences over the working class. "Leninists" take this strategic imperative directly from the conceptions forumlated by Marx here and elsewhere.

Now let us examine the next paragraph, which contains this quote.


As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. But it is to be hoped that things will not come to that.


Again, this is a vindication, and not a repuidation of Leninism! Marx is clear; he is taking about direct representatives and members of the ruling and middle classes who wish to introduce socialism from above, such as Fabians, or "benevolent" capitalists with an Owenite complex. Again, the key point of "Leninism", or "vanguardism", is precisely what Marx has outlined here - to safeguard the political movement of the working class from alien class forces that would try to co-opt it on the basis of some illusions in class cooperation/collaboration, diffusing it, weakening it, diluting it to the point of ineffectiveness. Marx is not talking about socialist intellectuals who may belong to the petty-bourgeoisie, and he certainly is not talking about intelligent workers who rise through the ranks of the party. He is talking about very specific groups that proliferated in his day, descriptions of which you can read in the final section of the Communist Manifesto. Certainly what he is saying here does not and never has applied to the Bolsheviks, who made their ultimate play for power only when they were assured that they the support of the urban proletariat, as was evidenced by the results of the Constituent Assembly elections that took place before the October Revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Furthermore, Leninism is the adaptation and continuation of marxist theory. Left communism is the sham of marxist theory.

[Vargha Poralli]

Whether you like him or not without lenin and bolsheviks the young socialist state wud hav been strangled in its infancy (Churchill called for it).One must remember what happened to paris commune.

As far as Krondasdt is concerned both the sides (anarchists and bolsheviks) had over reacted at that time.If Trotsky didnt put down the rebellion ruthlessly it wud have beeen put down anyway by teh white army.

And one must also understand that regardless the cult of personality around him lenin is just an ordinary man who is bound to make mistakes.and not every one will agreee with your decisions especially if you are the head of soviet russia at that time.

So instead of fighting amongst ourselves whether lenin is right or wrong what we really do is to study from the past experiences his successes and failures and work out a good theory or strategy for a successfull revolution worldwide if thsi is not a site to fight amopngst ourselves and wqho will win.

[Labor Shall Rule]

If we had a ultra-leftist revolution in Russia, instead of that of a Leninist revolution, we would of most likely seen the destruction of both socialism and even civilization. Within months (more like weeks) of the seizure of power by the soviets, intervening forces and the White Army would swiftly wipe them out. Due to petty nationalist, political, and even religous fights, the working class would be divided and most likely engage in battles for Russia. Due to the lack of centralization and action in order to distribute basic necceties to urban centers, many cities across the country would most likely diverge into intense famine and it would most likely spread to rural areas, where tens of millions of people will die of famine. It was through Lenin's "party dictatorship", his seizure of grain, and implementation of the NEP, that 100 million people in Russia survived. It was through intense organization, that millions of workers across Russia participated in the first worker's revolution ever created.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:22 AM
I have done some further studying and was able to discover some crucial facts about that Engels' quote that you provided from furtherly examing the work and asking for help along the way. Reading any political work means that you can't take one passage out, as if it was the bible, you need to examine it and read the whole thing. Marx was addressing the issue of non-proletarian elements seeking to enter the socialist movement, expecially in Germany which was the hot spot of socialism at that time. He was expecially concerned with the influence that petty-bourgeois and bourgeois members could have if they were allowed into positions of leadership. In the paragraph following the celebrated quote, Marx writes:

If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In such a petty-bourgeois country as Germany these ideas certainly have their own justification. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers' Party. if these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. The time, moreover, seems to have come. How the Party can tolerate the authors of this article in its midst any longer is to us incomprehensible. But if the leadership of the Party should fall more or less into the hands of such people then the Party will simply be castrated and proletarian energy will be at an end.

As a matter of fact fact, this quote points at the 1903 split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, which centered precisely around this question! "Leninism" is above all concerned with maintaining the hegemony of the working class and the theory of historical materialism in the party. It is an ideology of class warfare before anything else, but especially class warfare within the ranks of the movement. To ignore the class composition of the movement, and the antagonisms between classes that reproduce themselves within the movement, is to invite certain defeat, and so "Leninists" put primary emphasis on combating bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideological influences over the working class. "Leninists" take this strategic imperative directly from the conceptions forumlated by Marx here and elsewhere.


But, is it not also the case, that one of the main arguments between Lenin and the Worker's Opposition faction was on precisely that question? The Worker's Opposition called for the expulsion of non-proletariat elements from the party, the fact they saw that as necessary shows quite how big the problem had grown within the Bolshevik party. And they were not supported on that by Lenin.

And what that doesn't seem to do is counter the main crux of my argument. Which is this. The specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic republic, with unconditional democracy. Hence, by that standard, Russia was not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

As shown by this quote by prominent Bolshevik, Lozovsky.

It is necessary to make an absolutely clear and categorical reservation that the workers in each enterprise should not get the impression that the enterprise belongs to them."

(Cited at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/...TRY09.HTM#fn24) (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/factory/FACTRY09.HTM#fn24))

That surely, by any defination, is an outright repudidation of worker's control by the Bolsheviks? Now let us examine the next paragraph, which contains this quote.



As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. But it is to be hoped that things will not come to that.


Again, this is a vindication, and not a repuidation of Leninism! Marx is clear; he is taking about direct representatives and members of the ruling and middle classes who wish to introduce socialism from above, such as Fabians, or "benevolent" capitalists with an Owenite complex. Again, the key point of "Leninism", or "vanguardism", is precisely what Marx has outlined here - to safeguard the political movement of the working class from alien class forces that would try to co-opt it on the basis of some illusions in class cooperation/collaboration, diffusing it, weakening it, diluting it to the point of ineffectiveness. Marx is not talking about socialist intellectuals who may belong to the petty-bourgeoisie, and he certainly is not talking about intelligent workers who rise through the ranks of the party. He is talking about very specific groups that proliferated in his day, descriptions of which you can read in the final section of the Communist Manifesto. Certainly what he is saying here does not and never has applied to the Bolsheviks, who made their ultimate play for power only when they were assured that they the support of the urban proletariat, as was evidenced by the results of the Constituent Assembly elections that took place before the October Revolution.

No, but he is talking about the concept of emancipation from outside the class. And I'd argue that vanguardism is precisely that. It's the attempt to substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole, with the dictatorship of the party. And whether or not the party is mostly made up of proletariat elements doesn't actually alter that.

And the words of Lenin himself show us what that theory leads to. Contrary to your assertion on another thread, Lenin did not merely aim authoritarian tactics against that the bourgeoisie, but clearly and explictly against the workers.

Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves.

(Lenin, Speech at the Fourth Conference of Gubernia Extraordinary Commissions)

That is a clear and open indicator that the dictatorship of the party sees itself as being able to legitimately oppress those workers who would challenge it.

Or as Trotsky put it in 1921 in an attack on the Worker's Opposition:

They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy

If the Worker's Opposition are guilty of fetishising worker's democracy, than so was Marx!

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 29 2006, 01:15 AM
But, is it not also the case, that one of the main arguments between Lenin and the Worker's Opposition faction was on precisely that question? The Worker's Opposition called for the expulsion of non-proletariat elements from the party, the fact they saw that as necessary shows quite how big the problem had grown within the Bolshevik party. And they were not supported on that by Lenin.

And what that doesn't seem to do is counter the main crux of my argument. Which is this. The specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic republic, with unconditional democracy. Hence, by that standard, Russia was not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

As shown by this quote by prominent Bolshevik, Lozovsky.

It is necessary to make an absolutely clear and categorical reservation that the workers in each enterprise should not get the impression that the enterprise belongs to them."

(Cited at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/...TRY09.HTM#fn24) (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/factory/FACTRY09.HTM#fn24))

That surely, by any defination, is an outright repudidation of worker's control by the Bolsheviks? Now let us examine the next paragraph, which contains this quote.

As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. But it is to be hoped that things will not come to that.

No, but he is talking about the concept of emancipation from outside the class. And I'd argue that vanguardism is precisely that. It's the attempt to substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole, with the dictatorship of the party. And whether or not the party is mostly made up of proletariat elements doesn't actually alter that.

And the words of Lenin himself show us what that theory leads to. Contrary to your assertion on another thread, Lenin did not merely aim authoritarian tactics against that the bourgeoisie, but clearly and explictly against the workers.

Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves.

(Lenin, Speech at the Fourth Conference of Gubernia Extraordinary Commissions)

That is a clear and open indicator that the dictatorship of the party sees itself as being able to legitimately oppress those workers who would challenge it.

Or as Trotsky put it in 1921 in an attack on the Worker's Opposition:

They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy

If the Worker's Opposition are guilty of fetishising worker's democracy, than so was Marx!
But, is it not also the case, that one of the main arguments between Lenin and the Worker's Opposition faction was on precisely that question? The Worker's Opposition called for the expulsion of non-proletariat elements from the party, the fact they saw that as necessary shows quite how big the problem had grown within the Bolshevik party. And they were not supported on that by Lenin.

In 1921, the Boshleviks tried to please the Worker's Opposition and DID conduct a membership purge of various unneeded peasant and petty bourgeois elements.

"The Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, in 1921, condemned the Workers' Opposition for factionalism, but adopted some of its proposals, including conducting a purge of the Party and organizing better supply of workers, to improve workers' living conditions. Several leaders of the Workers' Opposition, including Shlyapnikov, were elected to the Party Central Committee. Nevertheless, Party leaders subsequently undertook a campaign to subordinate trade unions to the Party and to harass and intimidate those who opposed this campaign."

Worker's Opposition-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_Opposition)

"And what that doesn't seem to do is counter the main crux of my argument. Which is this. The specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic republic, with unconditional democracy. Hence, by that standard, Russia was not the dictatorship of the proletariat."

It was a democratic republic in a sense when it was implemented, but it is impossible for democratic principles to exist in a country of so many authoritarian critics. Even Rosa Luxemburg stated that she would be suprised if democracy would arise under any kind of socialist experiment there, Boshlevik or anarchist. One has to understand the material conditions that Russia was under, in order to understand the actions of the Boshleviks.

As shown by this quote by prominent Bolshevik, Lozovsky.

It is necessary to make an absolutely clear and categorical reservation that the workers in each enterprise should not get the impression that the enterprise belongs to them."

Lozovsky was part of the more conservative element within the Bolshevik Party. He opposed any type of collectivization of agriculture and he normally critiqued the party's policy towards worker's control. He adopted a strange form of trade unionist reformism, in which he believed that winning considerable economic victories through a evolutionary process would lead the working class towards socialism. In 1918, Lenin personally demanded and ordered that he be removed from the Bolshevik Party due to his strange political conduct. He continued his support of both capitalism and trade unionism throughout his life, before Stalin killed him in a series of anti-semetic attacks on the Jewish population of Russia.

Lenin: Concerning the Expulsion from the Party of S. A. Lozovsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/30a.htm)

"That surely, by any defination, is an outright repudidation of worker's control by the Bolsheviks?"

Nope.

"No, but he is talking about the concept of emancipation from outside the class. And I'd argue that vanguardism is precisely that. It's the attempt to substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole, with the dictatorship of the party. And whether or not the party is mostly made up of proletariat elements doesn't actually alter that."

Who do you think the Bolsheviks were? Who do you think joined the Red Army and supported them during the rough Civil War? How do you think Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin gained their position on the Central Committee? Who do you think had a position within the Politboro? Who do you think had political positions after the implementation of democratic centralism in 1917 and 1918? What portion of the vast population of Russia was armed by the Bolsheviks? Vangaurdism is the recognition that political organization needs to exist in order to create socialism. IT doesn't believe that the intellectual class should educate the workers, but rather revolutionary sections of the working class that are responsible for the revolution occuring in the firstplace. The anarchist revolution in Spain had a vangaurd. Every single revolution has a vangaurd.

And the words of Lenin himself show us what that theory leads to. Contrary to your assertion on another thread, Lenin did not merely aim authoritarian tactics against that the bourgeoisie, but clearly and explictly against the workers.

Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves.

Not all workers will be willing to create socialism. Do you think that the Spartakists and Spanish anarchists didn't kill workers? You are wrong. When the Freikorps were attempting to crush the growing disorganized revolt in Berlin, they turned for support in the protestant and fiercely nationalist sections of the working class, quickly recruiting and arming them to crush the rebellion. What was the main counter-revolutionary force of Franco's Army? The Catholic working class in urban areas across Southren Spain and rural areas towards the north.

Lenin recognized the counter-revolutionary fervour of nationalism and religon, but he tolerated it. He tolerated the non-popular Menshevik Party, the Orthodox Church, and even far-right governments in Baltic areas. With this mistake in the name of your conception of "democracy", we saw religous leaders demanding the overthrowell of the Bolshevik government, the railroad workers strike and desperate terrorist attacks by the Mensheviks, and a large-scale participation of new Baltic armies with that of the Germans, White Army, and even the French government. If people oppose the interests of the working class, then you must oppose it, no matter which class it comes from.

"That is a clear and open indicator that the dictatorship of the party sees itself as being able to legitimately oppress those workers who would challenge it."

If a small group of workers demanded the replacement of the Tsar, I would fight against them.

They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy

Trotsky is recognizing that a reactionary period in Russia would not be healthy place to give birth to worker's democracy. By this time period, some workers and most of the peasants of Russia was standing in bitter opposition to that of the long term class interests of the proletariat. Religous nuts, former Tsarists, invading imperial armies, fascists, and factionalist nationalists were getting popular in Russia; where the workers were quite tired and psychologically effected with war weariness, poverty produced by the economic blockade of the country, famine, and need produced by the cruel malice of the bourgeoisie. People wished that the once popular Bolsheviks surrender to the White Army, in order to get back to the pre-revolutionary conditions of capitalism. This generated popular working class support for the NEP, in which capitalism was reinstalled in the country and the foreign blockade ended with capital now flowing in from European countries. It fueled and furtherly generated the bureaucracy.

You need to examine the Russian Revolution in order to truly understand Leninism and Marxism alltogether. You need to recognize the former conditions within Russia at that time. You would realize that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were forced to reexamine their agenda as revolution failed in Germany and Eastren Europe. They once had the chance at focusing on the creation of socialism in Russia, but were forced to divert their aims through the isolation of the revolution and further economic destruction of Russia because of this. Lenin was forced to create NEP, or risk further Civil War and economic devastation. Lenin was forced to seize grain from peasants, or risk a even worse famine that would kill millions of more people. Lenin was forced to seize direct control of the means of production, due to the fact that stricter economic planning was needed as the Civil War and economic war created by the imperialist countries of the world started to ruin the whole country. People do things for a reason.

[The Grinch]

RD, one thing I'm still not sure of is this. Do you believe that Russia under Lenin was a worker's state? If so, what period do you think this was the case in, and what criteria are you using to qualify it as such?

[IronColumn]

The unmentionable: the idea that the USSR was a fascist state speaking in soothing marxist diction while representing a very reactionary policy. Workers not allowed to organize outside of state approved trade unions, the emasculation of the soviets to the point where democracy was stifled, the bringing in of old "white" elements to manage the factories and the armies in a heirarchical manner, the outlawing of all other political parties (anarchists and left SRs included) and their organs of communication. . .all put in place while Lenin was in power as a crude facsimile of Robespierre, the original people's dictator.

The senseless attitude of the Leninists on all issues pertaining to socialism and its practice (enumerated in this brief discussion alone), their pedantic referencing of the same leaders they think tried to build socialism, the absolute rigidity of their thought-all highly reminescent of the markedly irrational character of fascist beliefs, no?

These so called Marxists refuse any critical inquiry concerning their beloved dictators, taking their oppurtunistic phrases at face value without comparing them in any way to the actual historical situation. In the same way, I could argue that the US did not mean to kill 3 million or so Vietnamese (it was just a well intentioned accident!), simply because Dean Rusk, LBJ, Nixon et al. said that they were trying to be compassionate and surgical in their methods.

It's a shame one of the most lucid and investigative minds in all history would be appropriated by such crude dogmatists and turned into an instrument of state capitalist domination.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 31 2006, 10:38 PM
RD, one thing I'm still not sure of is this. Do you believe that Russia under Lenin was a worker's state? If so, what period do you think this was the case in, and what criteria are you using to qualify it as such?
The 1917-1918 period of soviet democracy within Russia was a great example of a "worker's state". This political occurance followed the principles laid down by Marx and defended by Lenin, in which all recallable public officials were elected through the soviet system. Almost all factories were self-managed by workers and land was redistributed to poor peasants. Worker millitias were formed under the flag of the Red Army, and all of the czarist discrimatory laws on homosexuals and jews were thrown out the window. From the left "marxist" and anarchist historical interpretations of the Russian Revolution, Russia would of most likely saw the rise of the bureaucracy even if the revolution spread to advanced capitalist countries due to the fact that "power corrupts".

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:10 AM
The unmentionable: the idea that the USSR was a fascist state speaking in soothing marxist diction while representing a very reactionary policy. Workers not allowed to organize outside of state approved trade unions, the emasculation of the soviets to the point where democracy was stifled, the bringing in of old "white" elements to manage the factories and the armies in a heirarchical manner, the outlawing of all other political parties (anarchists and left SRs included) and their organs of communication. . .all put in place while Lenin was in power as a crude facsimile of Robespierre, the original people's dictator.

The senseless attitude of the Leninists on all issues pertaining to socialism and its practice (enumerated in this brief discussion alone), their pedantic referencing of the same leaders they think tried to build socialism, the absolute rigidity of their thought-all highly reminescent of the markedly irrational character of fascist beliefs, no?

These so called Marxists refuse any critical inquiry concerning their beloved dictators, taking their oppurtunistic phrases at face value without comparing them in any way to the actual historical situation. In the same way, I could argue that the US did not mean to kill 3 million or so Vietnamese (it was just a well intentioned accident!), simply because Dean Rusk, LBJ, Nixon et al. said that they were trying to be compassionate and surgical in their methods.

It's a shame one of the most lucid and investigative minds in all history would be appropriated by such crude dogmatists and turned into an instrument of state capitalist domination.
What would you guys do if you were in Lenin's position? Have a more "libertarian" revolution? Destroy the state? How will you retain control? Will every single city and community in Russia unite under a organized system of worker councils and federations? What will you guys do when the kulaks refused to give up their food?