To Leninists

[Matty_UK]

Even though I'm generally more of an anarchist I was trying to defend Leninist Socialism to someone but even though I could say it has failed in the past because technology had not developed enough to make socialism more productive than capitalism, he kept saying but it always ends up with a new seperate priveledged class who cling to power. Which let's face it has been true in the past.

I was just wondering do the Leninists here accept that and just think it won't be so bad if the society has become wealthier as a result of socialism? Or do they think that more suitable material conditions would somehow prevent the rise of an oppressive bureaucracy?

[socialistfuture]

im no leninist, tho socialist to some degree -
...
because technology had not developed enough to make socialism more productive than capitalism, he kept saying but it always ends up with a new seperate priveledged class who cling to power
the more someone gets often the more they want, same with power or wealth. so making things more productive means that more has to be done, sumone wants to do less and get more - it means that socialism and capitalism are both wanting more and more, growth, which means sumone has to control the growth. so sumone is in a position of power and they often like it and will not reliquish it.

give sumone power and position along with material rewards (or they give it to themselves) and sumone else less because there is only so much to go around. and u have the same inequality that the revolution was meant to end. or if there is equal, is there equal work and reward? what uf sumone wants less, and sumone else is greedy and they want more? human nature must be factored into things like socialism.

personally i think too communism is obsessed with leadership to its detriment. u get fucked up leaders and people who cant think for themselves cause they follow - the masses, and today - so many are lost, they follow desire, money and fashion. they have no dream or desire to make things better and fix the worlds problems, and end things like poverty (or vastly lessen it) etc.

sorry if strayed from ure question - maybe changed it - leninism didnt fail because of technology- it did what it wanted - modernised and that didnt fix things, so look at growth models and limits on that and the effects of power and control on people.
lenin was not democratic enough some would argue, maybe a lesson not learnt by those who continue to follow him.

[Whitten]

The problem with the system in the past was that they were badly organised. At the times of teh revolution Lenin didnt really have a system planned out, he had a bunch of theories and stuff but he pretty much was just making it up as he went along when it came to organising the state. This resulted in the beurocracy. All leninists dont advocate the same state structure, a simple rethink, completly different from the USSR, allow a marxist-leninist state to exist in a way which is far more democratic and responsive to the people than even the best examples of this in existing capitalist states.

[Qabane]

Perhaps its just me, but Lenin was robbed of an opportunity to show how brilliant his pragmatic socialist policies really were.

People forget that he did not intend for Stalin to take power. People also forget that he shifted from a fixed economy to a mobile, partial 'free trade' system during the crisis in the early years of the revolution.

Lenin's theory has admittedly lost potency with the rapid expansion of real-time, electronic economics. But that does not dimension his brilliance as more than just a theorist - as a revolution who succeeded in capturing power in an incredibly hostile environment and laid the seeds for the first socialist superpower.

Qabane (comrade)

[Leo]

but Lenin was robbed of an opportunity to show how brilliant his pragmatic socialist policies really were.

This reminds me, Lenin was actually robbed once. Once, after visiting a school in suburbs, his car was stopped by bandits who were posing as the police. They took Lenin's wallet and then compelled him to walk to the nearest police station.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:36 AM
Perhaps its just me, but Lenin was robbed of an opportunity to show how brilliant his pragmatic socialist policies really were.

People forget that he did not intend for Stalin to take power. People also forget that he shifted from a fixed economy to a mobile, partial 'free trade' system during the crisis in the early years of the revolution.

Lenin's theory has admittedly lost potency with the rapid expansion of real-time, electronic economics. But that does not dimension his brilliance as more than just a theorist - as a revolution who succeeded in capturing power in an incredibly hostile environment and laid the seeds for the first socialist superpower.

Qabane (comrade)
Lenin suffered 3 strokes in his lifetime, he became almost sort of senile after this. Because he was in this state Stalin was able to sieze power.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Im a leninist and beuracracy is not a leninist ideal. If there is true democratic centralism and the worker soviets control the means of production, than there should be no class other than the workering class since officials would be recallable at any moment by the soviets.

[Rawthentic]

Im no Leninist, and I understand that Leninism is the reason why nearly all so-called socialist countries have ended up in gangster capitalism. Thats why I have been leaning more and more towards anarchism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:53 PM
Im no Leninist, and I understand that Leninism is the reason why nearly all so-called socialist countries have ended up in gangster capitalism. Thats why I have been leaning more and more towards anarchism.
Because all the countries that have had anarchism have ended up....oh sorry I forgot that anarchism has never led a single anti-capitalist revolution. I forgot that anarchists simply sit on the sidelines and cirticize leninists.

[KC]

Because all the countries that have had anarchism have ended up....oh sorry I forgot that anarchism has never led a single anti-capitalist revolution. I forgot that anarchists simply sit on the sidelines and cirticize leninists.

His entire revolutionary outlook is based around the "evils" of "Leninism" and that "Leninism" is why all of the proletarian revolutions in the world have failed. Quite funny, coming from a guy who had Che as his avatar and is now a member of the FPM, which supports Cuba.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Well I am no Leninist, Anarchist instead so I will not defend the horrors and crimes of Leninism/Stalinism and all that violent history.

What I will do is say i'd rather be IN the sidelines than engaging in mass terror against the people. And if you wanna example of the Anarchists taking power check out Spain in the 1930s or the communes in the US in the 1960s. They really "fucked things up" if you ask me, in a good way.

[KC]

Well I am no Leninist, Anarchist instead so I will not defend the horrors and crimes of Leninism/Stalinism and all that violent history.

What I will do is say i'd rather be IN the sidelines than engaging in mass terror against the people. And if you wanna example of the Anarchists taking power check out Spain in the 1930s or the communes in the US in the 1960s. They really "fucked things up" if you ask me, in a good way.

The anarchists "really 'fucked things up'"? Aren't you an anarchist?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:55 AM
Well I am no Leninist, Anarchist instead so I will not defend the horrors and crimes of Leninism/Stalinism and all that violent history.

What I will do is say i'd rather be IN the sidelines than engaging in mass terror against the people. And if you wanna example of the Anarchists taking power check out Spain in the 1930s or the communes in the US in the 1960s. They really "fucked things up" if you ask me, in a good way.
Spain? That's it? One failed revolution? Oh and the mini hippy communes don't count theres actually hiarchy there, at least at the one I've been to briefly.

I won't defend stalinism, but 'Leninism' is the only ideology which has had any success at overthrowing capitalism. Criticize all you want but that doesn't change the fact that your ideology parades around a failed revolution like it's some big fucking deal.

[Leo]

PA,


Well I am no Leninist, Anarchist instead so I will not defend the horrors and crimes of Leninism/Stalinism and all that violent history.

" :o Oh those horrible crimes commited by those horrible monsters!"

That&#39;s just unrealistically hysterical <_<


And if you wanna example of the Anarchists taking power check out Spain in the 1930s

Yeah, and check out how they sold the workers out.

LH,


Im a leninist and beuracracy is not a leninist ideal.

But it is a "leninist" practice.


If there is true democratic centralism

That term is a contradiction in itself.


I won&#39;t defend stalinism, but &#39;Leninism&#39; is the only ideology which has had any success at overthrowing capitalism.

And than continue developing it in top speed. Good job&#33;

KC,


His entire revolutionary outlook is based around the "evils" of "Leninism" and that "Leninism" is why all of the proletarian revolutions in the world have failed. Quite funny, coming from a guy who had Che as his avatar and is now a member of the FPM, which supports Cuba.

Just out of curiosity, why is this guy in the FPM anyway? Isn&#39;t he also in the CL?

[KC]

But it is a "leninist" practice.

Why did you put that in quotes?



Just out of curiosity, why is this guy in the FPM anyway? Isn&#39;t he also in the CL?

I have no idea why he&#39;s in the FPM and no he&#39;s not in the League. If he were I&#39;d give him a swift kick in the ass.

[LoneRed]

Ha, Oh good ol&#39; Hasta

[RedStruggle]

was just wondering do the Leninists here accept that and just think it won&#39;t be so bad if the society has become wealthier as a result of socialism

This really depends on your definition of wealth. If you are talking in terms of people having access to a greater range of commodities with great real income, then I would have to say certainly not.

Although it is undeniable that Capitalism, a system based upon the private ownership of means of production, results in vast inequalities in the dstribution, a more fundamental form form of exploitation that is of greater importance (and cannot be mitigated by government policies to re-distribute income or any form of state capitalism) is the alienation of Human beings from their fundamental species nature, where labour is not merely a commodity that we exchange with a capitalist in exchange for other commodities (or rather money, which is a representation of the value of labour) but rather is something we do &#39;as an end unto itself&#39;. Under Capitalism, the basis of all economic activity is the production of commodities - as Marx says in the first lines of Capital - the wealth of Capitalist society is represented by a vast accumulation of commodities - a commodity being a good or service which is produced solely for the purpose of exchange. The proletariat is alienated (seperated from) from the products of labour, and labour is viewed solely as a commodity.

[Rawthentic]

To KC, yeah, I had Che on my avatar, he represents a universal symbol of revolution, so get over it. And I am an FPM member, where does it explicitly say that they are Leninist? I support Cuba, but I have my serious differences with Castro and the CCP. Im also a CL member, so Im waiting for my swift kick in the ass. I dont just mix it up with libertarians, Leninists are revoutionaries as well, im not sectarian.

I believe that Leninism can only work in 3rd world, underdeveloped nations, where it can defeat capitalism ( or more like semi-feudalism), but I dont beleive that it is the road to a communist society. In advanced capitalist nations, Leninism is shit, it has no place because the proletariat is advanced and the material conditions are achieved.

Those who deny what Leninism has caused are like the Holocaust revisionists.

[Leo]

Originally posted by KC
Why did you put that in quotes?

Beacuse Lenin really didn&#39;t do anything to support the development of bureaucracy himself. In fact, Lenin was against the idea from the beginning (see. April Thesis) and when he noticed that there was a new ruling class he tried to stop it (hopelessly). However, when Bolsheviks found themselves as the new heads of state, they needed a bureaocracy to get things done. When we look at the conditions in Russia, what matters is economical conditions - not actions and abolutely not theories of individual leaders. Economy always ultimately determines. The october revolution and the bolshevik practice is not examined objectively, nor is Lenin who is either seen as an angel or as a demon. There are no angels or demons in reality however, as we both know. And what happens when the practice which an individaul is involved in is mixed with that individuals personal theories (which doesn&#39;t match each other) and an &#39;ism&#39; is added at the end of the name, is simply a form of propaganda.

[Leo]

I believe that Leninism can only work in 3rd world, underdeveloped nations, where it can defeat capitalism

But what you describe as &#39;Leninism&#39; here was historically simply develoing capitalism. Only the revolution in Russia was originally a workers revolution. Rest of the &#39;leninist&#39; experiments were not, in any way, class struggles. In Russia, the material conditions were against working class. Bolshevik &#39;aristocracy&#39; needed to get things done, and the only option they had because of the conditions was assigning middle cadres. Soon, that collective bureaocratic class of middle cadres took power and started consciously developing capitalism under a strong command economy. This is the same process Germany went through in late nineteenth centurty and Japan went through in early twentieth century. As capitalism developed, the command system got more relaxed, and finally gave us todays Russia. As for other experiments, workers were never involved to begin with, or they were defeated by the local red bourgeoise before the revolution. So what you describe as &#39;Leninism&#39; doesn&#39;t defeat capitalism, it is radically developing capitalism, and doesn&#39;t have anything to do with Lenin.


In advanced capitalist nations, Leninism is shit

And again, in advanced capitalist nations, what you call &#39;Leninism&#39; is simply social democracy.

Real Leninism, Leninism as a theory, Lenin&#39;s theories, can be blamed for many serious problems of the communist movement, including its take on imperialism, its take on national liberation, its take on trade unions etc. It can also be said that Lenin blew off the only chance of the Russian Revolution to survive with Brest-Litovsk. Yet, we can&#39;t blame Leninism on the development of capitalism in Russia, as it was gonna happen, with or without Lenin.

[KC]

To KC, yeah, I had Che on my avatar, he represents a universal symbol of revolution, so get over it.

Ah; so even though you are vehemently opposed to his actions as a revolutionary, you still support him? That doesn&#39;t make any sense at all.


And I am an FPM member, where does it explicitly say that they are Leninist?

I don&#39;t think I said anything about the FPM being "Leninist".


Im also a CL member, so Im waiting for my swift kick in the ass.

You&#39;ll get it when I meet you in person. No joke.


I believe that Leninism can only work in 3rd world, underdeveloped nations, where it can defeat capitalism ( or more like semi-feudalism), but I dont beleive that it is the road to a communist society. In advanced capitalist nations, Leninism is shit, it has no place because the proletariat is advanced and the material conditions are achieved.

Those who deny what Leninism has caused are like the Holocaust revisionists.

How do you define "Leninism"?


Beacuse Lenin really didn&#39;t do anything to support the development of bureaucracy himself. In fact, Lenin was against the idea from the beginning (see. April Thesis) and when he noticed that there was a new ruling class he tried to stop it (hopelessly). However, when Bolsheviks found themselves as the new heads of state, they needed a bureaocracy to get things done. When we look at the conditions in Russia, what matters is economical conditions - not actions and abolutely not theories of individual leaders. Economy always ultimately determines. The october revolution and the bolshevik practice is not examined objectively, nor is Lenin who is either seen as an angel or as a demon. There are no angels or demons in reality however, as we both know. And what happens when the practice which an individaul is involved in is mixed with that individuals personal theories (which doesn&#39;t match each other) and an &#39;ism&#39; is added at the end of the name, is simply a form of propaganda.

I wasn&#39;t sure if you did that just because he didn&#39;t capitalize "Leninism" or what, but I&#39;m glad you cleared that up because that position is one I&#39;ve defended for a long time and I completely agree with it.

The term "Leninism" and its corresponding ideology really has little or nothing to do with Lenin or his theories. Of course, when you say this, people call you a "Leninist". :rolleyes:



Real Leninism, Leninism as a theory, Lenin&#39;s theories, can be blamed for many serious problems of the communist movement, including its take on imperialism, its take on national liberation, its take on trade unions etc.

I disagree. I think that the misinterpretation and hijacking of Lenin&#39;s theories is to blame, but this isn&#39;t the fault of Lenin; this same thing happened to Marx and continues to happen to Marx today.

Also, wasn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s position on "national liberation" against "imperialism" the same as yours? I seem to remember Miles providing a quote to that extent, but I don&#39;t remember where it is from.

Could you please expand on what you mean by blaming Lenin&#39;s theories for the problems of the communist movement? What theories are those and why?


It can also be said that Lenin blew off the only chance of the Russian Revolution to survive with Brest-Litovsk

How is that? Because of the territory they lost that had a significant portion of Russian workers and resources vital to Russia? What else was there that he could do?

[LoneRed]

Whats all this hostility?

where is it coming from?

[Leo]

I wasn&#39;t sure if you did that just because he didn&#39;t capitalize "Leninism" or what, but I&#39;m glad you cleared that up because that position is one I&#39;ve defended for a long time and I completely agree with it.

Good&#33; :)


The term "Leninism" and its corresponding ideology really has little or nothing to do with Lenin or his theories. Of course, when you say this, people call you a "Leninist".

Yeah, &#39;stoning of devils&#39; is common practice in the left.


Also, wasn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s position on "national liberation" against "imperialism" the same as yours? I seem to remember Miles providing a quote to that extent, but I don&#39;t remember where it is from.

I did debate with Miles on this topic (so did Dev and Alf as a matter of fact), but I don&#39;t think it reached a conclusion. Basically, Lenin&#39;s position, as you figured it correctly, "national liberation" against "imperialism", is opposed to mine, which is originating from Rosa Luxemburg and is basically saying "national liberation" is literally impossible and "imperialism" in practice. This comes from saying that the idea of uniting around the nation is always opposing the idea of uniting around the class. Class line is always opposed to the national line. When there is a unity around the nation, this means that workers are united around, and are subject to the interests of the national bourgeoise. As Marx says, richness has two sources: nature and labour. Every state or proto-state of the national bourgeoise has some influence over labour force and controls some natural resources and those institutions always need more and more of those sources and this need to grow makes imperialism the natural policy of every state or proto-state. Lenin&#39;s idea of "national liberation" against "imperialism", is supporting the weaker imperial power against the well-established one. It is like saying petty-bourgeoise against the bourgeoise. I accept that it was a pragmatic idea, but not a communist one, not at all.


Could you please expand on what you mean by blaming Lenin&#39;s theories for the problems of the communist movement? What theories are those and why?

The most crucial one is the "national liberation" against "imperialism" thing which I talked about above. I would seriously doubt his intentions if he wasn&#39;t the same person who said "turn the imperialist war into a civil war", but now I just think that theory wasn&#39;t really his strong side. Anyway, the resulys were absolutely catasthrophic. Here is a summary of the early results of Lenin&#39;s policy from the International Review, a publication of the ICC


Originally posted by International Review
From October 1917, the Bolsheviks pushed for the independence of the countries which the Czarist empire had kept subjugated: the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, Armenia etc... They believed that such an attitude would guarantee the revolutionary proletariat indispensable support for its efforts to retain power while waiting for the maturation and explosion of the proletarian revolution in the great European countries, especially Germany. These hope were never to be fulfilled:

· Finland: the Soviet government recognised its independence on the 18th of December 1917. The working class movement in this country was very strong: it was on the revolutionary ascent, it had strong links with the Russian workers and had actively participated in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. It was not a question of a country dominated by feudalism, but a very developed capitalist territory. And the Finnish bourgeoisie used the Soviet power&#39;s gift in order to crush the workers&#39; insurrection that broke out in January 1918. This struggle lasted nearly 3 months but, despite the resolute support the Soviets gave to the Finnish workers, the new state was able to destroy the revolutionary movement, thanks to German troops whom they called on to help them;

· The Ukraine: the local nationalist movement did not represent a real bourgeois movement, but rather obliquely expressed the vague resentments of the peasants against the Russian landlords and above all the Poles. The proletariat in this region came from all over Russia and was very developed. In these conditions the band of nationalist adventurers that set up the &#39;Ukraine Rada&#39; (Vinnickenko, Petlyura etc.) rapidly sought the patronage of German and Austrian imperialism. At the same time it dedicated all its forces to attacking the workers&#39; soviets, which had been formed in Kharkov and other cities. The French general Tabouis who, because of the collapse of the central powers, replaced the German influence, employed Ukrainian reactionary bands in the war of the White Guards against the Soviets.

"Ukrainian nationalism... was a mere whim, a folly of a few dozen petty bourgeois intellectuals without the slightest roots in the economic, political or psychological relationships of the country; it was without any historical tradition, since the Ukraine never formed a nation or government, was without any national culture... To what was at first a mere farce they lent such importance that the farce became a matter of the most deadly seriousness - not as a serious national movement for which, afterwards as before, there are no roots at all, but as a shingle and rallying flag of counter-revolution. At Brest, out of this addled egg crept the German bayonets" (Rosa Luxemburg, idem, pages 382-2);

· The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): the workers&#39; soviets took power in this zone at the same moment as the October revolution. &#39;National liberation&#39; was carried out by British marines: "With the termination of hostilities against Germany, British naval units appeared in the Baltic. The Estonian Soviet Republic collapsed in January 1919. The Latvian Soviet Republic held out in Riga for five months and then succumbed to the threat of British naval guns" (E.H.Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 1, page 317)

· In Asiatic Russia, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan: "A Bashkir government under one Validov, which had proclaimed an autonomous Bashkir state after the October revolution, went over to the Orenburg Cossacks who were in open warfare against the Soviet Government; and this was typical of the prevailing attitude of the nationalists" (idem, page 324). For its part the &#39;national-revolutionary&#39; government of Kokanda (in central Asia), with a programme that included the imposition of Islamic law, the defence of private property, and the forced seclusion of women, unleashed a fierce war against the workers&#39; Soviet of Tashkent (the principal industrial city of Russian Turkestan).

· In Caucasia a Transcaucasian republic was formed, and its tutelage was fought over between Turkey, Germany and Great Britain. This caused it to break up into 3 &#39;independent&#39; republics (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), which fiercely confronted each other, urged on in turn by each of the contesting powers. The three republics supported with all their forces the British troops in their battle against the Baku workers&#39; Soviet, which from 1917-20 suffered bombardment and massacres by the British;

· Turkey: from the beginning the Soviet government supported the &#39;revolutionary nationalist&#39; Kemal Ataturk. Radek, a member of the CI, exhorted the recently formed Turkish Communist Party thus: "Your first task, as soon as you have formed as an independent party, will be to support the movement for the national freedom of Turkey" (Acts of the first four Congresses of the CI). The result was a catastrophe: Kemal crushed without leniency the strikes and demonstrations of the young Turkish proletariat and, if for a time he allied with the Soviet government, it was only done to put pressure on the British troops who were occupying Constantinople, and on the Greeks who had occupied large parts of Western Turkey. However, once the Greeks had been defeated and having offered British imperialism his fidelity if they left Constantinople, Kemal broke off the alliance with the Soviets and offered the British the head of the Turkish Communist Party, which was viciously persecuted.

· The case of Poland should also be mentioned. The national emancipation of Poland was almost a dogma in the Second International. When Rosa Luxemburg, at the end of the 19th century, demonstrated that this slogan was now erroneous and dangerous since capitalist development had tightly bound the Polish bourgeoisie to the Russian Czarist imperial caste, she provoked a stormy polemic inside the International. But the truth was that the workers of Warsaw, Lodz and elsewhere were at the vanguard of the 1905 revolution and had produced revolutionaries as outstanding as Rosa. Lenin had recognised that "The experience of the 1905 revolution demonstrated that even in these two nations (he is referring to Poland and Finland) the leading classes, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, renounced the revolutionary struggle for liberty and had looked for a rapprochement with the leading classes in Russia and with the Czarist monarchy out of fear of the revolutionary proletariat of Finland and Poland" (minutes of the Prague party conference, 1912).

Unfortunately the Bolsheviks held onto the dogma of &#39;the right of nations to self-determination&#39;, and from October 1917 on they promoted the independence of Poland. On 29 August 1918 the Council of Peoples Commissars declared "All treaties and acts concluded by the government of the former Russian Empire with the government of Prussia or of the Austro-Hungarian Empire concerning Poland, in view of their incompatibility with the principle of the self-determination of nations and with the revolutionary sense of right of the Russian people, which recognises the indefeasible right of the Polish people to independence and unity, are hereby irrevocably rescinded" (quoted in E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol 1, p 293).

While it was correct that the proletarian bastion should denounce and annul the secret treaties of the bourgeois government, it was a serious error to do so in the name of &#39;principles&#39; which were not on a proletarian terrain, but a bourgeois one, viz the &#39;right of nations&#39;. This was rapidly demonstrated in practice. Poland fell under the iron dictatorship of Pilsudski, the veteran social patriot, who smashed the workers&#39; strikes, allied Poland with France and Britain, and actively supported the counter-revolution of the White Armies by invading the Ukraine in 1920.

When in response to this aggression the troops of the Red Army entered Polish territory and advanced on Warsaw in the hope that the workers would rise up against the bourgeoisie, a new catastrophe befell the cause of the world revolution: the workers of Warsaw, the same workers who had made the 1905 revolution, fell in behind the &#39;Polish Nation&#39; and participated in the defence of the city against the soviet troops. This was the tragic consequence of years of propaganda about the &#39;national liberation&#39; of Poland by the Second International and then by the proletarian bastion in Russia.

Also, to a lesser extent, his substitutionalism and Kautskyism also caused problems problems. Also, and more importantly, there is the support given to syndicalism which was also a very significant problem. He also has errors on transitional state and socialism, but those are mostly irrelevant semantics issues.


I disagree. I think that the misinterpretation and hijacking of Lenin&#39;s theories is to blame, but this isn&#39;t the fault of Lenin

I don&#39;t think we can make such generalization. Especially substitutionalism and Kautskyism had become much, much bigger because of misinterpretation and hijacking. However, the biggest problem, I think, is the national question, and altough it has been misinterpreted and hijacked too, just by itself it is a problem which is big enough.


How is that? Because of the territory they lost that had a significant portion of Russian workers and resources vital to Russia? What else was there that he could do?

No, it wasn&#39;t about the territory they lost. It was about making peace with an imperialist nation-state which had only six months before a proletarian revolution. Which was exhausted after a long, hard war. Even if Russia hadn&#39;t signed the peace treaty, if they held on for six months and (if I&#39;m not mistaken) there wasn&#39;t even active conflict between the German forces. SPD would not have Freikorps to fight against revolutionaries, as the people who would make the Freikorps would be in the Russian border. And imagine the Red Army entering Germany to assist the Spartacist Revolution&#33; We could have been living in a much different world then, it was the greatest chance the proletariat had lost. Of course, I know what Lenin was thinking when he signed Brest-Litovsk, but only if he could be more insightful, and he could have been as he was an experienced revolutionary and there were insightful people among the Bolsheviks...

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:24 AM
I won&#39;t defend stalinism, but &#39;Leninism&#39; is the only ideology which has had any success at overthrowing capitalism.
would you be a dear and give me a list of these countries and how they were capitalist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

DELETED

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by chimx+Oct 17 2006, 07:29 PM--> (chimx @ Oct 17 2006, 07:29 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 04:24 AM
I won&#39;t defend stalinism, but &#39;Leninism&#39; is the only ideology which has had any success at overthrowing capitalism.
would you be a dear and give me a list of these countries and how they were capitalist. [/b]
the USSR, Cuba, China, etc... maybe just temporarily but it did accomplish overthrowing capitalism while anarchism has accomplished blaming stalinists for a failed semi-anarchist revolution :lol:

[Rawthentic]

Nope, those nations were semi-feudal. Look comrades, Im not here to make enemies, and Im sorry if thats how I presented myself. I have Leninist friends and such, I am no sectarian.


I could&#39;ve sworn you&#39;ve called Cuba an evil authoritan dictatorship
No I didnt. Its hard not to make enemies like this...


so even though you are vehemently opposed to his actions as a revolutionary
I am not


Yet, we can&#39;t blame Leninism on the development of capitalism in Russia, as it was gonna happen, with or without Lenin.
Yeah, thats the shit that Im talking about. Communist revolutions can only be successful in advanced capitalist nations, not underdeveloped, 3rd world nations. So, I believe that Leninism is useful for national liberation, but is of no use with the advanced workers in an imperialist state.


What does good material conditions have to do with Leninism?
Alot. Leninism has only been useful in underdeveloped nations, where the conditions for a communist revolution were not there, so they had to "make the apple fall", and accelerate them, which caused state capitalism. You see, all these nations that had successful Leninist revolutions must become capitalist, they cannot skip it.


You&#39;ll get it when I meet you in person. No joke.

if thats what you want, go ahead. Why not instead work together as members?


wtf? Most of the shit done seriously went against Leninist theory.
what was done seriously?


How do you define "Leninism"?
correct me if I am wrong, but in practice: strict party hierarchy, democratic centralism, inevitable beauracracy and the development of a new ruling class, due to the fact that these revolutions were not in advanced nations, and had to defeat capitalism, while still in a feudal or semi-feudal nation

[Rawthentic]

<_<

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I&#39;m on the FPMs mailing list. Today they sent me an email saying they are contemplating breaking the alliance between them, the CL and the IPWA because the CL and IPWA don&#39;t consider Cuba a worker&#39;s state or socialist and that is a contradiction of party principles.

1. That was a proposal made by one branch of the FPM. The whole movement hasn&#39;t decided on it yet.

2. I&#39;m not positive how you got on that list, but it&#39;s meant for members and supporting members only; and the business on it is also not meant to be made public, unless it&#39;s mentioned otherwise. Nothing too sensitive is ever said on it, but the point remains. I think you should email [email protected] to let them know you&#39;re on the list, but not a member or supporting member.

3. The reasons that the branch in question proposed an official break from the IWPA (though they did say they wanted to continue cooperating where posible with the CL), were alot more than the question of Cuba. Maybe you should re-read the email.

[KC]

correct me if I am wrong, but in practice: strict party hierarchy, democratic centralism, inevitable beauracracy and the development of a new ruling class, due to the fact that these revolutions were not in advanced nations, and had to defeat capitalism, while still in a feudal or semi-feudal nation

So you&#39;re defining "Leninism" as such? None of that has anything to do with Lenin, except the "democratic centralism" part, which isn&#39;t nearly enough to characterize an entire ideology.

Would you like to try again?

[Rawthentic]

Not exactly. If in theory thats not it, then the rest of what I descrbed is just the result of it. Sorry bro

[KC]

Well, you can&#39;t say that that&#39;s the result of an ideology if the ideology doesn&#39;t exist. That&#39;s why I&#39;m trying to get you to either define "Leninism" or recognize that it doesn&#39;t exist.

[chimx]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Oct 18 2006, 01:03 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Oct 18 2006, 01:03 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:29 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 04:24 AM
I won&#39;t defend stalinism, but &#39;Leninism&#39; is the only ideology which has had any success at overthrowing capitalism.
would you be a dear and give me a list of these countries and how they were capitalist.
the USSR, Cuba, China, etc... maybe just temporarily but it did accomplish overthrowing capitalism while anarchism has accomplished blaming stalinists for a failed semi-anarchist revolution :lol: [/b]
All of those countries were predominately agrarian based with very little actual industrialization. proletarians in all of these countries were the extreme minority to that of the massive rural sector. they were not capitalist, but generally had closer connections to feudalism than anything.

thus, the only thing "leninism" has succeeded in doing, is transitioning backwards agrarian states into industrialized capitalist nations via state-run economies.

[Leo]

the USSR, Cuba, China, etc... maybe just temporarily but it did accomplish overthrowing capitalism

I hate to tell this to you but you really don&#39;t understand what capitalism is.

[Rawthentic]

I hate to tell this to you but you really don&#39;t understand what capitalism is.
Give &#39;em to it straight.

Look KC, I know that in theory, Leninism is not what I described, but whatever you make of it, what I said was the result of that. Things dont always come out as theory puts it out. Thats why its important to learn from history so that we can mold the future we want.

[KC]

Look KC, I know that in theory, Leninism is not what I described, but whatever you make of it, what I said was the result of that. Things dont always come out as theory puts it out. Thats why its important to learn from history so that we can mold the future we want.

Does this mean that you are recognizing that "Leninism" really doesn&#39;t have anything to do with Lenin?

[chimx]

leninism in theory: professional revolutionaries*, organized around the tenets of democratic centralism, for the sole purpose of revolution**, and believing that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

*the necessity of a professional group to "educate" the proletarians is a divergence from marxism and would come to have repercussions on the bolshevik government.

**this in particular is a blatant divergence from marxism as this concept was the basis of marx&#39;s attacks on the Blanquists in the 1870s.

[Guest1]

Marx&#39;s attack was not on organized revolutionaries, it&#39;s where those revolutionaries come from.

The Blanquists were a secret conspiratorial group. Marx didn&#39;t have only criticism for them. Their problem was that they just did everything without any link to workers at all. The Bolsheviks organized themselves and trained their revolutionaries, yes. But they had a very large party which had elements of illegal (secret) and legal (open) organizing, and they fluctuated between the two as the conditions required. They worked within unions, amongst students, amongsts peasants, in the army, etc...

The Blanquists had no such work amongst the masses. Workers never joined them.

[KC]

leninism in theory: professional revolutionaries*, organized around the tenets of democratic centralism, for the sole purpose of revolution**, and believing that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

*the necessity of a professional group to "educate" the proletarians is a divergence from marxism and would come to have repercussions on the bolshevik government.

**this in particular is a blatant divergence from marxism as this concept was the basis of marx&#39;s attacks on the Blanquists in the 1870s.

Substantiate this with quotes from Lenin.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 18 2006, 05:13 PM
Marx&#39;s attack was not on organized revolutionaries, it&#39;s where those revolutionaries come from.

The Blanquists were a secret conspiratorial group. Marx didn&#39;t have only criticism for them. Their problem was that they just did everything without any link to workers at all. The Bolsheviks organized themselves and trained their revolutionaries, yes. But they had a very large party which had elements of illegal (secret) and legal (open) organizing, and they fluctuated between the two as the conditions required. They worked within unions, amongst students, amongsts peasants, in the army, etc...

The Blanquists had no such work amongst the masses. Workers never joined them.
following the 1872 hague conference, marx specifically stated if the bourgeois have created the necessary institutions for democratic transition, such as in America, Britain, and Holland, than those facilities can be used for the obtainment of proletarian dictatorship instead of revolutionary means. Thus, any group whose platform is centered around the abandonment of democratic means for revolutionary usurpation, is diverging from Marx. This includes blanquists as well as bolsheviks.

KC: go read imperialism, what is to be done? and all the other relavent books lenin wrote. i don&#39;t have the time to find quotations for you. this is common held knowledge. if you are trying to make a point, just say it instead of beating around the bush.

[KC]

KC: go read imperialism, what is to be done? and all the other relavent books lenin wrote. i don&#39;t have the time to find quotations for you. this is common held knowledge. if you are trying to make a point, just say it instead of beating around the bush.

My point is that this "common held knowledge" is wrong. A great example of this is what Lenin meant by the vanguard. Did he mean a section of the proletariat that is the most advanced and class conscious that leads the rest of the proletariat through revolution? Most people would say yes. But Lenin disagrees with them. I am currently writing an essay on the subject of the vanguard, which might be out in the next issue of Workers&#39; Republic if I finish it in time, which discusses Marx/Engel&#39;s conception of the vanguard, Lenin&#39;s conception of the vanguard, and its vulgarization and distortion by "Marxist-Leninists".


Originally posted by [email protected] State & Revolution
The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat.

It is completely obvious from this quote alone that the vanguard is the proletariat itself and not a section within the proletariat. This is upheld throughout State & Revolution as well as What Is To Be Done? I am currently researching the rest of his works as to confirm my thesis.

The reason I have asked for quotations regarding the subject of the professional revolutionary is because I haven&#39;t had time to study the topic indepth enough as to know where he has talked about this and what he meant by it.

[chimx]

oic. in my opinion, you should be careful about exclusively looking at Lenin is theory, without supplementing with it Lenin in practice. I&#39;ve always viewed "leninism" as an amalgamation of both.

[KC]

That isn&#39;t necessarily correct, since practice is formed due to material conditions present in the society in which it occurs.

[chimx]

but i am not speaking of war communism. we can trace contradictions before that. take your quotation from state and revolution:


Originally posted by lenin in 1917+--> (lenin in 1917)The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat.[/b]

contrast that with the speech he made on april 28 of 1918 (i believe):


lenin
If we are no anarchists, we must recognise the necessity of a State, that is a forcible transition from Capitalism to Socialism. The kind of force will be determined by the degree of the development of the revolutionary class concerned . . . . Therefore no essential contradiction can exist between the Soviet, that is, the Socialist democracy, and the exercise of dictatorial power by a single person

[KC]

Do you have a link to the speech so that I can read it in its full context?

[Leo]

Chimx;


leninism in theory: professional revolutionaries (the necessity of a professional group to "educate" the proletarians is a divergence from marxism and would come to have repercussions on the bolshevik government.) , organized around the tenets of democratic centralism, for the sole purpose of revolution

I actually don&#39;t think this is correct. The October Revolution, for example, was not organized by the Bolshevik Party, but it was organized by Petrograd and Moscow Workers Councils Military Commitees. Lenin truly had no intentions to make a coup d&#39;etat, to sieze the power himself. He analyized the role of revolutionary militants correctly in the bolshevik-menshevik debate, saying that the role of the militants should be raising class consciousness, holding right positions and defending those positions in a pragmatic way, wheras mensheviks hoped to have a big organization which they would be able to "order" to make a revolution, eventually. However Lenin never managed to make a complete break from social democracy and Kautskyism. He was just theoretically not strong enough to do so. The problem of substitutionalism came from Lenin&#39;s Kautskyism. For example, those words of Kautsky:


Originally posted by Kautsky in his New draft program of the Austrian Social&#045;Democratic Party+--> (Kautsky in his New draft program of the Austrian Social&#045;Democratic Party)Socialist consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue (...) Socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern Socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without and not something that arose within it spontaneously[/b]

were "profoundly true" (What is to be done) according to Lenin.


Lenin in What is to be Done
Only a party that will organize really nation-wide exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time. The word "nation-wide" has a very profound meaning. The overwhelming majority of the non-working-class exposers (and in order to become the vanguard, we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and level-headed businessmen” and "consciousness could only be brought to [the workers] from without. . . the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness

This substitutionalism Lenin had was one of his self-contradictions. It was substitution of consciousness. This self-contradiction was representing Lenin&#39;s incomplete break with social democracy and Kautskyism.

As for democratic centralism, I would say Bordiga:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/wo...c-principle.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)

[Leo]

Do you have a link to the speech so that I can read it in its full context?

That parapgraph is quoted by Kautsky in "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" written in 1918 as a critique of Lenin. Here&#39;s the bit Kautsky quoted:


Originally posted by Kautsky qtd. Lenin+--> (Kautsky qtd. Lenin)The closer we approach the complete suppression of the bourgeoisie, the more dangerous the factor of petty bourgeois anarchism will be for us. The struggle against it can only be carried on by force. If we are no anarchists, we must recognise the necessity of a State, that is a forcible transition from Capitalism to Socialism. The kind of force will be determined by the degree of the development of the revolutionary class concerned, as well as by special circumstances, such as reactionary war and the form taken by the opposition of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Therefore no essential contradiction can exist between the Soviet, that is, the Socialist democracy, and the exercise of dictatorial power by a single person.[/b]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/19...tprole/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1918/dictprole/ch09.htm)

The actual quote can be find in a pamhplet called The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, made up of Lenin speaches, is “Harmonious Organisation” and Dictatorship:


Lenin
That in the history of revolutionary movements the dictatorship of individuals was very often the expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes has been shown by the irrefutable experience of history. Undoubtedly, the dictatorship of individuals was compatible with bourgeois democracy. On this point, how ever, the bourgeois denigrators of the Soviet system, as well as their petty-bourgeois henchmen, always display sleight of hand: on the one hand, they declare the Soviet system to be something absurd, anarchistic and savage, and carefully pass over in silence all our historical examples and theoretical arguments which prove that the Soviets are a higher form of democracy, and what is more, the beginning of a socialist form of democracy; on the other hand, they demand of us a higher democracy than bourgeois democracy and say: personal dictatorship is absolutely incompatible with your, Bolshevik (i.e., not bourgeois, but socialist ), Soviet democracy.

These are exceedingly poor arguments. If we are not anarchists, we must admit that the state, that is, coercion, is necessary for the transition from capitalism to socialism. The form of coercion is determined by the degree of development of the given revolutionary class, and also by special circumstances, such as, for example, the legacy of a long and reactionary war and the forms of resistance put up by the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. There is, therefore, absolutely no contradiction in principle between Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial powers by individuals. The difference between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship is that the former strikes at the exploiting minority in the interests of the exploited majority, and that it is exercised—also through individuals—not only by the working and exploited people, but also by organisations which are built in such a way as to rouse these people to history-making activity. (The Soviet organisations are organisations of this kind.)

In regard to the second question, concerning the significance of individual dictatorial powers from the point of view of the specific tasks of the present moment, it must be said that large-scale machine industry—which is precisely the material source, the productive source, the foundation of socialism—calls for absolute and strict unity of will, which directs the joint labours of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. The technical, economic and historical necessity of this is obvious, and all those who have thought about socialism have always regarded it as one of the conditions of socialism. But how can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one.

Given ideal class-consciousness and discipline on the part of those participating in the common work, this subordination would be something like the mild leadership of a conductor of an orchestra.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...ar/x03.htm#sec7 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm#sec7)

[chimx]

Originally posted by Leo
I actually don&#39;t think this is correct. The October Revolution, for example, was not organized by the Bolshevik Party, but it was organized by Petrograd and Moscow Workers Councils Military Commitees. Lenin truly had no intentions to make a coup d&#39;etat, to sieze the power himself. He analyized the role of revolutionary militants correctly in the bolshevik-menshevik debate, saying that the role of the militants should be raising class consciousness, holding right positions and defending those positions in a pragmatic way, wheras mensheviks hoped to have a big organization which they would be able to "order" to make a revolution, eventually.

The Military Revolutionary Committee, of which I must assume you are referring, was in fact organized by the Bolsheviks. It was a Bolshevik resolution proposed to the Petrograd Soviet on October 9th. The central body of the MRC was led by 3 bolsheviks and 2 Left-SRs. to quote historian Alexander Rabinowitch: "the Military Revolutionary Committee" was "the institution used by the Bolsheviks . . . to subvert and overthrow the Provisional Government"

While I agree that Lenin was not foolish enough to try and seize power himself. He was a pragmatist, which is why the October revolution was always done under the pretenses of popular uprising led by multiple parties and groups. But following the october revolution, with the suppression of the constituent assembly and the ascension of bolsheviks to sole political power, the reality of bolshevism presented itself. That is what i mean when i say lenin was, more than anything, a pragmatist and an opportunist.

and KC: i can&#39;t find an online copy of the speech. it is quoted by Karl Kautsky in his book The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which was written a few months after the speech was given.

[chimx]

thanks leo, for giving the original quote, i have never been able to find it. its interesting that kautsky took some liberties with the original quotation, but still i think the original point stands.

i also find lenin&#39;s romanticized dictatorship in the last line to be particular interesting. Maesto Lenin... :-)

[Leo]

The Military Revolutionary Committee, of which I must assume you are referring, was in fact organized by the Bolsheviks.

Not just them, it was dominated by the Bolsheviks, and it was their idea but there were workers from other parties, and workers who weren&#39;t partisans at all who organized it as well. As you also say:


It was a Bolshevik resolution proposed to the Petrograd Soviet on October 9th. The central body of the MRC was led by 3 bolsheviks and 2 Left-SRs. to quote historian Alexander Rabinowitch: "the Military Revolutionary Committee" was "the institution used by the Bolsheviks . . . to subvert and overthrow the Provisional Government"


He was a pragmatist

Oh, absolutely.


Maesto Lenin... :-)

He did like Beethoven after all :lol:

[Leo]

thanks leo, for giving the original quote, i have never been able to find it. its interesting that kautsky took some liberties with the original quotation, but still i think the original point stands.

You are welcome.

Well, I actually think that this quote is irrelevant to your point as Lenin is talking about how the organization in the industrial factories should be instead of how political leadership should be excercised here.

[chimx]

its funny that the quote is prefaced with "ideal class consciousness".

if we are to believe state and revolution, that the vanguard needs to subordinate itself to the will of the armed working people, does this only mean one should subordinate itself if the vanguard (or the despot/maestro of the vanguard) feels that the working people&#39;s consciousness is ideal. what if it isn&#39;t ideal? are we to assume that the maestro can take further dictatorial measures?

[Leo]

its funny that the quote is prefaced with "ideal class consciousness".

Yet how can there be a succesful proletarian revolution without ideal proletarian consciousness?


if we are to believe state and revolution, that the vanguard needs to subordinate itself to the will of the armed working people, does this only mean one should subordinate itself if the vanguard (or the despot/maestro of the vanguard) feels that the working people&#39;s consciousness is ideal. what if it isn&#39;t ideal? are we to assume that the maestro can take further dictatorial measures?

Well, I don&#39;t think that the vanguard is really involved here to begin with and the &#39;maestros&#39; are (supposed to be) the ones who are elected by councils to organize labour, as this was written in 1918 and Lenin hadn&#39;t started his endless attempts to justify "wartime communism policy".

[chimx]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18 2006, 07:43 PM
Yet how can there be a succesful proletarian revolution without ideal proletarian consciousness?
considering that the majority of russian working people&#39;s were in support of the SRs over the bolsheviks in november of 1917, given the elections to the constituent assembly, you tell me&#33; :-p

[Leo]

considering that the majority of russian working people&#39;s were in support of the SRs over the bolsheviks in november of 1917, given the elections to the constituent assembly, you tell me&#33; :-p

I already did&#33;


a succesful proletarian revolution without ideal proletarian consciousness?

:lol:

[chimx]

maybe maybe.

i kind of wanna return to that quote again. it was read prior to the implementation of war communism, yes, but i can&#39;t help but think this mentality of industry despotism allowed for the removal of proletarian power in the workplace all the easier. what are your thoughts?

[Leo]

i kind of wanna return to that quote again. it was read prior to the implementation of war communism, yes, but i can&#39;t help but think this mentality of industry despotism allowed for the removal of proletarian power in the workplace all the easier. what are your thoughts?

I am not sure, really... Theoretically, someone will have to work on organization in an industrial factory, as thousands of workers can&#39;t really meet up in a hall to discuss how to do the work. Their best bet would be forming a council in which workers would rotate participation and decide which monthly projects they will work on, and workers electing organizational commitees for each specific project the factory is working on. This is, however, simply a speculation. I wouldn&#39;t say that this policy, all by itself at least, caused or allowed the removal of proletarian power. In this text, Lenin is describing the factory committees, and I haven&#39;t studied the factory commitees in detail, but I would say that the removal of proletarian power was replacing factory commitees with bourgeois experts.

[chimx]

but the discussion of dictatorship in factories in the quote was done so in the same breath as his response to critics of soviet despotism generally. why the insistence on this kind of language? did lenin mean to have dictators recallable?

[Leo]

but the discussion of dictatorship in factories in the quote was done so in the same breath as his response to critics of soviet despotism generally.

I think it was done in response to critics of the program applied in the factories. What he means by soviet democracy, is some sort of a collective decision making mechanism in a workplace which I am no expert at the details. The soviet phraseology can be confusing, as the meanings of terms changed pretty frequantly (&#33;).


why the insistence on this kind of language? did lenin mean to have dictators recallable?

Well, that you will have to ask Lenin :lol: I guess It goes to the analysis of dictators as a manifestation of the ruling class, I don&#39;t know, do you think that one word is such a big deal?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18 2006, 08:51 PM
I don&#39;t know, do you think that one word is such a big deal?
not on its own, no. but in conjunction with what we know of the bolshevik rule from history, maybe?

[Rawthentic]

Haha, I like how this thread on Leninism has been taken over by libertarians. I guess the Leninists have lost this one&#33; :D

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18 2006, 04:24 AM

the USSR, Cuba, China, etc... maybe just temporarily but it did accomplish overthrowing capitalism

I hate to tell this to you but you really don&#39;t understand what capitalism is.
:roll: Really?

[chimx]

LeftyHenry. see my original reply to you:


Originally posted by chimx
All of those countries were predominately agrarian based with very little actual industrialization. proletarians in all of these countries were the extreme minority to that of the massive rural sector. they were not capitalist, but generally had closer connections to feudalism than anything.

thus, the only thing "leninism" has succeeded in doing, is transitioning backwards agrarian states into industrialized capitalist nations via state-run economies.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well eventually, yes they became capitalist but at least temporarily there was worker control and socialism. The soviets were in control at one point, and private property was abolished. Living standards for the working class increased an astonishing amount...

[chimx]

maybe, but that&#39;s not what we were originally arguing. you said that marxism-leninism is the only ideology that has successfully overthrown capitalism, as opposed to anarchism. my point was there has not been a single capitalist country over thrown.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Exactly Chimx. The Soviets, Cuban Communists, Vietnamese Communists etc overthrew one set of corrupt regimes and replaced them with another: bureacratic state capitalism.

For anyone to think that any of these countries represents socialism and anything but capitalism, does not know the meaning of those two words.

[PRC-UTE]

In Cuba, a general strike helped bring down Batista. There wage earning proletarians have taken power. It&#39;s not really comparable to Vietnam, China, etc.

[anomaly]

Cuba is only a &#39;socialist&#39; nation if you are an ardent Castroist. I trust no &#39;revolutionary&#39; would really support a dictator who suppresses leftists who oppose him...

[KC]

Haha, I like how this thread on Leninism has been taken over by libertarians. I guess the Leninists have lost this one

Define Leninism and back it up with quotes from Lenin.


Cuba is only a &#39;socialist&#39; nation if you are an ardent Castroist.

Define &#39;castroist&#39;.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 04:29 am
Cuba is only a &#39;socialist&#39; nation if you are an ardent Castroist. I trust no &#39;revolutionary&#39; would really support a dictator who suppresses leftists who oppose him...
Side with the leftists all you want. I side with the workers who waged the revolution there.

[armedpoet]

The problems with Leninism lie in &#39;democratic centralism&#39;.

The 21st century revolution will not be socialist, anarchist, communist, syndicalist etc.

It is a movement of diversity that for the most part looks beyond dogma.

"Fuck you and your whole list of isms" ;)

[KC]

The 21st century revolution will not be socialist, anarchist, communist, syndicalist etc.

It is a movement of diversity that for the most part looks beyond dogma.

Yeah&#33; Fuck the system, d00d&#33; Smash the state&#33;

Now pass me that joint.

[armedpoet]

"Yeah&#33; Fuck the system, d00d&#33; Smash the state&#33;"

Ah no.

I simply prefer a multitude to a homogenized vanguard.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 24, 2006 01:28 pm
Yeah&#33; Fuck the system, d00d&#33; Smash the state&#33;

Now pass me that joint.
What is this? Seriously, you just come across as an idiot when post things like this?

[KC]

Ah no.

I simply prefer a multitude to a homogenized vanguard.

You don&#39;t even know what the vanguard of this movement is.

[armedpoet]

Which "movement" do you refer to? The movement of your bowls?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You don&#39;t even know what the vanguard of this movement is.

Could you explain to us then?


Yeah&#33; Fuck the system, d00d&#33; Smash the state&#33;

Kindergarten.


Which "movement" do you refer to? The movement of your bowls?

The true poet :lol:



The problems with Leninism lie in &#39;democratic centralism&#39;.

The 21st century revolution will not be socialist, anarchist, communist, syndicalist etc.

It is a movement of diversity that for the most part looks beyond dogma.

"Fuck you and your whole list of isms"

Well said.

[armedpoet]

Seriously for a second though. There is no vanguard in the global justice movement. The international labour movement is dead. State Communism for the most part is dead.

The global justice movement is a multitude.

It could not be anything else.

[KC]

“The theory of class struggle, applied by Marx to the question of the state and the socialist revolution, leads as a matter of course to the recognition of the political rule of the proletariat, of its dictatorship, i.e., of undivided power directly backed by the armed force of the people. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be achieved only by the proletariat becoming the ruling class, capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system.

"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy.

"By educating the workers&#39; party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. By contrast, the opportunism now prevailing trains the members of the workers&#39; party to be the representatives of the better-paid workers, who lose touch with the masses, "get along" fairly well under capitalism, and sell their birthright for a mass of pottage, i.e., renounce their role as revolutionary leaders of the people against the bourgeoisie.”

How does Lenin use the word “vanguard” in this instance? He says “Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat” but what does he mean by this? Does he mean the vanguard section of the proletariat, i.e. a vanguard within the proletariat, as the most class conscious and revolutionary section of the proletariat? No. He means the proletariat as the vanguard. The proletariat, he is saying, is the vanguard of the struggle of all exploited classes. This can be seen quite clearly in two instances in this quote. In the second paragraph he says “the proletariat needs state power…to lead the enormous mass of the population – the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians – in the work of organizing a socialist economy.”

Thus in this instance he is giving the proletariat as a whole the leading role; he is saying that the proletariat itself is a vanguard and that its leading role is that of leading the other classes “in the work of organizing a socialist economy.”
In the third paragraph he says “Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.” In this instance he is speaking of the proletariat itself, educated by Marxism, being “the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people.” “Working and exploited people” in this instance means the same as it did two paragraphs earlier when he concretely identified who he was talking about – the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and semi-proletarians.

But what does he mean when he says “vanguard of the proletariat”? It certainly sounds like he is talking about the vanguard as a special section of the proletariat, and it is commonly (mis)interpreted this way. However, this is not the case. He is using this in the exact same sense that Marx used “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean that the proletariat is being dictated over, or that there is a special group of dictators within the proletariat that should lead the proletariat; rather, it means the dictatorship of society by the proletarian class itself. In the same sense Lenin uses it to mean the leadership of society by the proletarian class itself. He wasn’t speaking of a revolutionary group within the proletariat, but, rather, the proletariat itself as the revolutionary group, as the vanguard.

Lenin goes on to state exactly what he means by “vanguard”:

"The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat."

Here he explicitly states that the proletariat is the “armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people”. There is no doubt left as to what is meant by the vanguard; this quote fully explains Lenin’s conception of the vanguard.

He goes on:

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy."

Here he explicitly states that “the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors” is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the dictatorship of the vanguard of the oppressed and exploited, i.e. the proletariat.

[armedpoet]

And so where do the Bolshevik Party come into this?

I agree with Lenin&#39;s idea of the proletariat vanguard, however irrevelent it may be under the current hegemony, but the fact of the matter is Lenin&#39;s concept of a proletariat vanguard never came to fruition because the Bolshevik Party took control.

[KC]

And so where do the Bolshevik Party come into this?

I agree with Lenin&#39;s idea of the proletariat vanguard, however irrevelent it may be under the current hegemony, but the fact of the matter is Lenin&#39;s concept of a proletariat vanguard never came to fruition because the Bolshevik Party took control.

The Bolshevik Party was the proletarian vanguard because the vast majority of proletarians in Russia were members.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The Bolshevik Party was the proletarian vanguard because the vast majority of proletarians in Russia were members.
What time period are you talking about?

Second, could it not be that people were member of the party because that gave them, say, economic benefits, for instance?

[Rawthentic]

Fuck your vanguard. I only believe that the vanguard are those that have class-consciousness before the proletariat. But yeah, fuck the Leninist vanguard, personality cults, and democratic centralism. Time for a new world order. I respect what Castro and Cuba has done in contrast with the capitalist world, but people have the ability to smash all forms of authority, whether it proclaims itself revolutionary or not.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

State Communism for the most part is dead.

State Communism = socialism? If so, millions of people in Cuba, Colombia, India, Nepal, the Philippines, Turkey, and a host of other countries disagree with you.

But what are they in the face of 8 or 9 "situationists". Clearly the current trend is towards "surealism" and "situationism". :rolleyes:

[LoneRed]

None of those countries are remotely socialist. India?? Are you kidding me. ha

Turkey?

nope

[JC1]

Those countrys have signifigant communist mov&#39;ts.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Thank you.

[KC]

Fuck your vanguard. I only believe that the vanguard are those that have class-consciousness before the proletariat. But yeah, fuck the Leninist vanguard, personality cults, and democratic centralism.

Did you even read my post? I refuted your "evil Leninist vanguard" shit. Go back and read it.


State Communism = socialism? If so, millions of people in Cuba, Colombia, India, Nepal, the Philippines, Turkey, and a host of other countries disagree with you.

And none of those are either.


Those countrys have signifigant communist mov&#39;ts.

What&#39;s your point? That doesn&#39;t make them either "State Communist" or socialist. Or are you saying that they&#39;re fighting for "State Communism" or socialism?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It&#39;s pretty obvious.

What&#39;s up with the tedious affixation on petty semantics around here?

They&#39;re fighting for socialism, which some here (and on the far-left in general) term "State Socialism" (with capital letters and all&#33; :lol:).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:08 pm
Fuck your vanguard. I only believe that the vanguard are those that have class-consciousness before the proletariat. But yeah, fuck the Leninist vanguard, personality cults, and democratic centralism. Time for a new world order. I respect what Castro and Cuba has done in contrast with the capitalist world, but people have the ability to smash all forms of authority, whether it proclaims itself revolutionary or not.
Or the vanguard are those elected by the proletariat to represent them....

[armedpoet]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 24, 2006 10:58 pm
But what are they in the face of 8 or 9 "situationists". Clearly the current trend is towards "surealism" and "situationism". :rolleyes:
Luckily unlike a lot of &#39;revolutionaries&#39; my beliefs do not have to be popular in order for me to believe in them.

There is no current trend towards surrealism and situationism because as popular movements they are dead but that does not mean that I cannot apply &#39;the revolution of every day life&#39;, for instance, to my life.


people have the ability to smash all forms of authority, whether it proclaims itself revolutionary or not.

Indeed. I do not support state socialism as it is somewhat of a paradox (a state is a capitalist ideal) but I concede that many socialist states may be part of the means of transition towards global socialism.

A toast to the old left but it is time to write our own manifestos.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:08 pm
I only believe that the vanguard are those that have class-consciousness before the proletariat. But yeah, fuck the Leninist vanguard, personality cults, and democratic centralism. Time for a new world order. I respect what Castro and Cuba has done in contrast with the capitalist world, but people have the ability to smash all forms of authority, whether it proclaims itself revolutionary or not.

I only believe that the vanguard are those that have class-consciousness before the proletariat.
So if the bourgeoisie are class conscious before the workers, the bourgeoisie are the vanguard of communist revolution?

That sentence makes no sense.


But yeah, fuck the Leninist vanguard, personality cults, and democratic centralism.
Who said anything about personality cults?

Futhermore, nobody advocates a "Leninist vanguard". A vanguard is a vanguard is a vanguard, the adjective "Leninist" is a bit redundant.

Democratic Centralism is just the means of organizing a democratic worker&#39;s party. I fail to see what any revolution should like to "fuck" about it.


Time for a new world order.
Great. Let&#39;s try fascism&#33;


I respect what Castro and Cuba has done in contrast with the capitalist world, but people have the ability to smash all forms of authority, whether it proclaims itself revolutionary or not.
People have the ability to smash authority, whether it regards itself revolutionary or not. Wow. Wonderful insight. People have the ability to smash authority. So what? I have the ability to drive with my knees. Not impressive.

Second, revolutions cannot and will not occur without authority. In fact, the entire purpose of revolutions is to CHANGE authority from that of the bourgeoisie to that of the proletariat. Communist revolution seeks to put authority in the hands of the masses. If that frightens you; if you&#39;re afraid of the authority of the working class, then you are not a revolutionary.

"Anti-authoritarianism", in the manner that it is used, accomplishes nothing. Without authority, commodities will not be produced...society would be absolutely chaotic. We only seek to put authority in the hands of the workers. You still gotta be at work on time, you still can&#39;t kill a guy for no reason...etc.

Now, "authoritarianism" in the means of autocratic, one-man rule also accomplishes nothing and is contrary to the empowerment of the working class. Questioning the revolutionary party, questioning the government, arguing new ideas are all crucial to the development and success of socialism. There certainly are harms involved in attempting to create a homogenous society, which nobody wants. People have this misconception that anybody who isn&#39;t an anarchist is an "authoritarian" in the sense that they want the rule of a minority over a majority. This could not be farther from the truth&#33; If we wanted to keep a minority rule, we&#39;d just perpetuate capitalism.

The fact is, socialism is inherently "libetarian" because it leads to stateless, classless society. "Authoritarian socialism" does not exist. People who declare themselves authoritarians are full of shit, and people who call others authoritarians have no idea what they&#39;re talking about.

[armedpoet]

"Authoritarian socialism" does not exist.

Really?

Tell that to the soviets who died at Kronstadt.

[Louis Pio]

Kronstadt my arse, the same old broken tune (sorry but am tired and weary).
Just one thing, in the smashing of the kronstadt rebellion, which in my oppinion was counterevolutionary (Kronstadt rebellion that is), the workers of the city of kronstadt took part because they saw it for what it was, a threat to any form of workers government. Now were they "evil leninists, doing satans biding"? Nah... Stop the friggin one liners and discuss instead of painting everything black and white. Are a lot of factors to Kronstadt, a topic worth discussing if u like a threadmill, but then oppinions should be put forward and explained instead of oneliners...

[black magick hustla]

SovietPants, do you agree with the concept of a "vanguard party"? I mean, every movement has a vanguard--that is for sure--but not necessarily organized into an orderly power structure.

[armedpoet]

Kronstadt was only an extension of the Bolshevik Party agenda.

The process of alienating the Russian masses from the Revolution had begun almost immediately after Lenin and his party had gained power.

Crass discrimination in rations and housing, suppression of every political right, continued persecution and arrests, early became the order of the day.

To call "the pride and glory of the revolution.... the reddest of the red" counter revolutionaries is pathetic.

Explain how any of these demands are counter revolutionary.

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.

2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.

3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.

4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.

5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.

6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.

7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.

8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.

9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.

10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.

11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.

12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.

13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.

14. We demand the institution of mobile workers&#39; control groups.

15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

Power back to the soviets&#33;

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 24, 2006 01:29 pm

And so where do the Bolshevik Party come into this?

I agree with Lenin&#39;s idea of the proletariat vanguard, however irrevelent it may be under the current hegemony, but the fact of the matter is Lenin&#39;s concept of a proletariat vanguard never came to fruition because the Bolshevik Party took control.

The Bolshevik Party was the proletarian vanguard because the vast majority of proletarians in Russia were members.
The Democratic Party has the most workers under their wing than any other political party in the US. Does that make them the proletarian vanguard in the US?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We just had two threads on Kronstadt.. find em if you want to see what people have to say.


There is no current trend towards surrealism and situationism because as popular movements they are dead but that does not mean that I cannot apply &#39;the revolution of every day life&#39;, for instance, to my life.

Sure you can; but that&#39;s little more than bourgeois individualism. You can choose not to eat at McDonalds... and it&#39;ll still exist (trust me, I know from experience).

But we&#39;re trying to overthrow capitalism, which requires the unity of the oppressed. One person eating out of dumpsters and writing cool slogans on bathroom walls ain&#39;t gonna do it.

[which doctor]

Why is individualism bourgeois?

In my opinion individual action and communal action do not contra dict eachother, but only build upon on each other.

[armedpoet]

Well your assumptions are grand and typical.

Reading revolutionary literature is "bourgeois individualism"?

So how dare say you should I grasp theory to apply to the struggle?

Should I memorize irrelevant doctrines and sell newspapers?

Ask your average worker in any western country what they think of the struggle against Capitalism and let me know the response.

"How can we expect anyone to listen if we are using the same old voice. We need noise, new art for the real people." - Refused.

[KC]

It&#39;s pretty obvious.

What&#39;s up with the tedious affixation on petty semantics around here?

They&#39;re fighting for socialism, which some here (and on the far-left in general) term "State Socialism" (with capital letters and all&#33;

I didn&#39;t read careful enough.



Or the vanguard are those elected by the proletariat to represent them....


Or the vanguard is the proletariat itself. (See above post)



There is no current trend towards surrealism and situationism because as popular movements they are dead but that does not mean that I cannot apply &#39;the revolution of every day life&#39;, for instance, to my life.

Have fun making yourself feel better.



Indeed. I do not support state socialism as it is somewhat of a paradox (a state is a capitalist ideal)

Yeah because, you know, states didn&#39;t exist before that. :rolleyes:


So what? I have the ability to drive with my knees. Not impressive.

Actually, that&#39;s a little impressive. :blush:


SovietPants, do you agree with the concept of a "vanguard party"? I mean, every movement has a vanguard--that is for sure--but not necessarily organized into an orderly power structure.

Obviously, the proletariat needs to organize itself...



The Democratic Party has the most workers under their wing than any other political party in the US. Does that make them the proletarian vanguard in the US?

Sorry, but
1. The Democratic Party doesn&#39;t have the majority of workers in the US as members. In fact, the majority of workers don&#39;t even vote.
2. The Democratic Party isn&#39;t a revolutionary proletarian party whose goal is to bring about proletarian rule and the transition from capitalism to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dictatorship of the proletariat to the higher stages of communism.

Guess who did have those two things? (Hint: The Bolsheviks)



Sure you can; but that&#39;s little more than bourgeois individualism. You can choose not to eat at McDonalds... and it&#39;ll still exist (trust me, I know from experience).

That sucks. Their double cheeseburkers are fuckin tasty.


Why is individualism bourgeois?

In my opinion individual action and communal action do not contra dict eachother, but only build upon on each other.

"Individualism" and "lifestylism" are shit, and will not accomplish anything. It doesn&#39;t "build upon" the movement at all. In fact, it has people focus on some bullshit and makes them believe that they&#39;ll actually make a difference by doing that crap.



Reading revolutionary literature is "bourgeois individualism"?

No, it&#39;s reading. Being a lifestylist is the same thing as being a "bourgeois individualist". Since you&#39;re a lifestylist (or have come off that way in this thread), that&#39;s what you are. Deal with it. Reading isn&#39;t gonna solve anything if the only thing you do is dumpster dive or be a vegan or whatever the fuck you do.



So how dare say you should I grasp theory to apply to the struggle?

Should I memorize irrelevant doctrines and sell newspapers?

Although I wouldn&#39;t recommend it, selling newspapers would be better than the shit you&#39;re doing now, because at least that way you&#39;d be spreading the word. Of course, you don&#39;t understand the left and see it all as "memorizing irrelevant doctrines and selling newspapers." I suggest you stick to your lifestylist shit, start voting democrat (after all, they&#39;re progressive, right?&#33;) and leave the real shit to us, because you&#39;re not doing much anyways.



Ask your average worker in any western country what they think of the struggle against Capitalism and let me know the response.


Yeah, and dumpster diving or being vegan or tagging shit with political slogans is really gonna change that. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but you really just showed your absolute ignorance when it comes to marxist theory.

[LoneRed]

i see what you mean CDL, but saying that those countries are socialist, and saying they advocate it are two completely different things. None of those countries are socialist, but probably have "socialist" movements there, im not arguing that last point

[armedpoet]

And you really just showed why leninists are irrelevant.


Since you&#39;re a lifestylist (or have come off that way in this thread), that&#39;s what you are.

Why? By questioning the idea of a vanguard? By finding practical applications for situationist theory? Or simply because I disagree with you?

For the record I am as opposed to lifestylists as much as my more typical Marxist comrades.


selling newspapers would be better than the shit you&#39;re doing now, because at least that way you&#39;d be spreading the word.

And what would that be?

Do you know what I am doing now?

I&#39;m not going to beat my own drum and list of the shit that I am involved in but it is a hell of a lot more productive than posting rhetoric to an online forum :)


Yeah because, you know, states didn&#39;t exist before that.

A state is still a Capitalist ideal and in all historical examples has been used as tool of oppression.


I suggest you stick to your lifestylist shit, start voting democrat (after all, they&#39;re progressive, right?&#33;) and leave the real shit to us, because you&#39;re not doing much anyways.

Wow you must convert a lot of people to your cause&#33;

Btw I don&#39;t live in the US and if voting changed anything it would be illegal.

[KC]

And you really just showed why leninists are irrelevant.

I&#39;m not a "Leninist".


Why?



There is no current trend towards surrealism and situationism because as popular movements they are dead but that does not mean that I cannot apply &#39;the revolution of every day life&#39;, for instance, to my life.



A state is still a Capitalist ideal and in all historical examples has been used as tool of oppression.


A precapitalist state is a capitalist ideal? A feudal state is a capitalist ideal? :huh:

[armedpoet]

How do you propose a socialist state functioning within a global neoliberal system?

Because the concept of a state predates Capitalism it does not mean that a state is not a Capitalist ideal.

[Leo]

Well, lots of stuff had been going on in this thread...

Anyway, Khayembii;

“The theory of class struggle, applied by Marx to the question of the state and the socialist revolution, leads as a matter of course to the recognition of the political rule of the proletariat, of its dictatorship, i.e., of undivided power directly backed by the armed force of the people. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be achieved only by the proletariat becoming the ruling class, capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system.

"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy.

"By educating the workers&#39; party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. By contrast, the opportunism now prevailing trains the members of the workers&#39; party to be the representatives of the better-paid workers, who lose touch with the masses, "get along" fairly well under capitalism, and sell their birthright for a mass of pottage, i.e., renounce their role as revolutionary leaders of the people against the bourgeoisie.”

How does Lenin use the word “vanguard” in this instance? He says “Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat” but what does he mean by this? Does he mean the vanguard section of the proletariat, i.e. a vanguard within the proletariat, as the most class conscious and revolutionary section of the proletariat? No. He means the proletariat as the vanguard. The proletariat, he is saying, is the vanguard of the struggle of all exploited classes. This can be seen quite clearly in two instances in this quote. In the second paragraph he says “the proletariat needs state power…to lead the enormous mass of the population – the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians – in the work of organizing a socialist economy.”

Thus in this instance he is giving the proletariat as a whole the leading role; he is saying that the proletariat itself is a vanguard and that its leading role is that of leading the other classes “in the work of organizing a socialist economy.”
In the third paragraph he says “Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.” In this instance he is speaking of the proletariat itself, educated by Marxism, being “the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people.” “Working and exploited people” in this instance means the same as it did two paragraphs earlier when he concretely identified who he was talking about – the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and semi-proletarians.

But what does he mean when he says “vanguard of the proletariat”? It certainly sounds like he is talking about the vanguard as a special section of the proletariat, and it is commonly (mis)interpreted this way. However, this is not the case. He is using this in the exact same sense that Marx used “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean that the proletariat is being dictated over, or that there is a special group of dictators within the proletariat that should lead the proletariat; rather, it means the dictatorship of society by the proletarian class itself. In the same sense Lenin uses it to mean the leadership of society by the proletarian class itself. He wasn’t speaking of a revolutionary group within the proletariat, but, rather, the proletariat itself as the revolutionary group, as the vanguard.

Lenin goes on to state exactly what he means by “vanguard”:

"The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat."

Here he explicitly states that the proletariat is the “armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people”. There is no doubt left as to what is meant by the vanguard; this quote fully explains Lenin’s conception of the vanguard.

He goes on:

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy."

Here he explicitly states that “the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors” is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the dictatorship of the vanguard of the oppressed and exploited, i.e. the proletariat.

:) This is good thinking. However I think there is an unfortunate confusion that is destroying the idea you propose. I don&#39;t think Lenin ment the same thing when talking about "vanguard of the oppressed (people)" and “vanguard of the proletariat”. This quote:


Originally posted by Lenin
"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy."

applies only on the condtions of Russia. It is well known that Lenin hoped that the proletariat would lead the other classes oppressed by the Tsarist regime into building a socialist economy as there weren&#39;t enough proletarians, however we know very well that it didn&#39;t work. The petty bourgeoisie and semi-proletarians have, as we both know, a higher class status than proletarians. This creates a conflict of interests. As for the peasantry, it works very differently... I will leave by saying "peasantry" was a feudal concept by than and had became "agricultural workers" by now. This would go into a huge different topic, if you want you can split the thread on it. Anyway, Lenin&#39;s idea of proletariat as the vanguarad of the people didn&#39;t work, it was simply hopeful thinking, too hopeful in fact.

As for the “vanguard of the proletariat”, that concept came from 1903, Bolshevik Menshevik debate. Mensheviks had the idea of a mass party, led by the leadership around Martov to revolution, which was to give the equation of revolution=party. It was obviously Kautskyist, and had nothing to do with an actual proletarian revolution. Lenin said that there should be a “vanguard of the proletariat” or revolutionary militants who were to raise class consciousness, therefore Lenin actually recognized the true role of the party and its revolutionary militants, whom he called the vanguard, and he also showed that he understood the nature of proletarian revolution. Lenin never said that “vanguard of the proletariat” was going to take power, quite the contrary he recognized that it was the proletariat itself which was going to take power. Yet there were lots of faults in Lenin&#39;s idea og the vanguard. Lenin could not escape Kautskyism for example, and said that the vanguard must "attract other classes... sober politicians and level-headed businessmen" and that "the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness". Also, Lenin&#39;s idea of professional revolutionaries was pretty wrong. He thought that the most class consciousness workers should be taken out of the factories in order to be professional revolutionaries for example which is a pretty idiotic idea. You want the class consciouss workers in the factory. We must remember that Lenin never worked in a proper job in his life to see where such ideas are coming from.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i see what you mean CDL, but saying that those countries are socialist, and saying they advocate it are two completely different things. None of those countries are socialist, but probably have "socialist" movements there, im not arguing that last point

Ugh. The point was, a self-labeled "situationist" claimed that the "State Communism (socialism)" was dead.

I pointed to millions in Cuba (which is socialist), Colombia (where the 20,000 strong FARC-EP continues to wage revolutionary war against the comprador-bourgeois state), India (where there are strong armed communist guerrilla movements), Nepal (where armed communist guerrillas control 80% of the country), the Philippines (where a strong armed communist guerrilla movement has been fighting for decades), Turkey (where a growing armed communist movement exists), and "a host of other countries" where people are fighting for socialism.

I said that the millions of people in these places involved in these struggles wouldn&#39;t agree with the "situationists" analysis that "State Communism is dead".

Does that clear things up?

[Leo]

Turkey (where a growing armed communist movement exists)

:lol: Oh really? Who told you this? Maybe you should stop trusting that person.

[KC]

This is good thinking. However I think there is an unfortunate confusion that is destroying the idea you propose. I don&#39;t think Lenin ment the same thing when talking about "vanguard of the oppressed (people)" and “vanguard of the proletariat”. This quote:


Originally posted by Lenin
"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy."

applies only on the condtions of Russia. It is well known that Lenin hoped that the proletariat would lead the other classes oppressed by the Tsarist regime into building a socialist economy as there weren&#39;t enough proletarians, however we know very well that it didn&#39;t work. The petty bourgeoisie and semi-proletarians have, as we both know, a higher class status than proletarians. This creates a conflict of interests. As for the peasantry, it works very differently... I will leave by saying "peasantry" was a feudal concept by than and had became "agricultural workers" by now. This would go into a huge different topic, if you want you can split the thread on it. Anyway, Lenin&#39;s idea of proletariat as the vanguarad of the people didn&#39;t work, it was simply hopeful thinking, too hopeful in fact.

I wasn&#39;t attempting to reconcile Lenin&#39;s theories with any belief that I hold; I was merely explaining Lenin&#39;s theory. So in that sense I agree with you.


Lenin said that there should be a “vanguard of the proletariat” or revolutionary militants who were to raise class consciousness, therefore Lenin actually recognized the true role of the party and its revolutionary militants, whom he called the vanguard, and he also showed that he understood the nature of proletarian revolution. Lenin never said that “vanguard of the proletariat” was going to take power, quite the contrary he recognized that it was the proletariat itself which was going to take power.

I know that he wrote on this subject in What Is To Be Done? but do you know of any other works that he wrote about this subject?


Yet there were lots of faults in Lenin&#39;s idea og the vanguard. Lenin could not escape Kautskyism for example, and said that the vanguard must "attract other classes... sober politicians and level-headed businessmen"

I find absolutely no problem with "attracting other classes" such as "sober politicians and level-headed businessmen" but they shouldn&#39;t have any role in the organization. This is, of course, a point on which I disagree with Lenin.


and that "the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness".

I&#39;m still on the fence about this one. Because there really hasn&#39;t been a working class revolution that had revolutionary proletarian consciousness, but then one could claim that revolutions that have had class consciousness have gained it from the study of marxism. It&#39;s really a murky issue and one that I don&#39;t really think should be emphasized as much as it is.

After all, proletarians can gain class consciousness themselves by reading Marx. Does this go against what Lenin has claimed or does it still mean that it came "from without", i.e. by studying Marx?


Also, Lenin&#39;s idea of professional revolutionaries was pretty wrong. He thought that the most class consciousness workers should be taken out of the factories in order to be professional revolutionaries for example which is a pretty idiotic idea. You want the class consciouss workers in the factory. We must remember that Lenin never worked in a proper job in his life to see where such ideas are coming from.

Do you know where I can read more on this subject? Preferrably works by Lenin himself.

[Leo]

I wasn&#39;t attempting to reconcile Lenin&#39;s theories with any belief that I hold; I was merely explaining Lenin&#39;s theory. So in that sense I agree with you.

Well, yes. I was just explaining that "vanguard of the oppressed (people)" and “vanguard of the proletariat” weren&#39;t the same thing.


I know that he wrote on this subject in What Is To Be Done? but do you know of any other works that he wrote about this subject?

I don&#39;t recall a specific one, but I think after coining the term with What is To Be Done?, he used it in his writings. Also, anytime he was talking about soviet power and soviets taking power, the understanding of the role of militants are presented. Simply look at the April Thesis, if nothing else.


I find absolutely no problem with "attracting other classes" such as "sober politicians and level-headed businessmen" but they shouldn&#39;t have any role in the organization.

Obviously.


I&#39;m still on the fence about this one. Because there really hasn&#39;t been a working class revolution that had revolutionary proletarian consciousness, but then one could claim that revolutions that have had class consciousness have gained it from the study of marxism. It&#39;s really a murky issue and one that I don&#39;t really think should be emphasized as much as it is.

Well, this goes into the nature of the crisis of capitalism and class struggle. I would say that there really hasn&#39;t been the working class revolution that had revolutionary proletarian consciousness, but there certainly were many symptoms of this world revolution, where we saw workers struggles for their daily needs led them to forming councils aiming political power, and even siezing that power for a short period of time. I don&#39;t think studying marxism is an absolute necessity for a worker in order to be class consciousness. The struggle that would be born out of a worker&#39;s daily needs would teach him the most important aspects of marxism, even if he doesn&#39;t know how to read and write. I think that after seing the 1905 Revolution; the mass strike and the emergence of workers councils, Lenin was convinced that he was, at least partially, wrong on what he said.


After all, proletarians can gain class consciousness themselves by reading Marx. Does this go against what Lenin has claimed or does it still mean that it came "from without", i.e. by studying Marx?

And now we are coming to the crux of the discussion: party and class. Mass class consciousness can only rise from the struggle. But what happens when the level of struggle is low? How can workers gain class consciousness at such period? This is where reading revolutionary literature is perhaps the only way of achieving class consciousness for a worker who isn&#39;t involved in a struggle, even a small one. We can even say that this is how revolutionary proletarian militants emerge. Otherwise, only trade union consciousness can be developed, and that consciousness can be replaced with true class consciousness only when the workers engage in an actual struggle and see how the union sells them out. I&#39;ve been thinking a lot about understanding the relationship between the level of the crisis of capitalism, the level of class struggle and the level of class consciousness. I actually hope to come up with a formulation. Deep, deep topic.

As for the original question, would studying Marx count as "from without", it&#39;s really semantics isn&#39;t it? I mean it is obviously clear that we can&#39;t make a generalization about this, considering that there are many important proletarian theorists who can influence workers as well. So it is not about who Marx was, wether he was "from without" or not; it&#39;s about what he was talking about.


Do you know where I can read more on this subject? Preferrably works by Lenin himself.

Ah, on the professional revolutionaries, most famously it was in the documents from the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, but I don&#39;t know a specific link. I will look into it.

[cmdrdeathguts]

okay, so Lenin.

1. First, stupid stuff. There is nothing inherently oppressive about a proletarian vanguard, except if you&#39;re a bourgeois. Lenin did not "pervert" the nice, "humanist", "libertarian" Marx, but more or less inherited what he could. and lifestylism is wank.

2. The vanguard and power. The standard Leninist (and Marxist...) schema is that, in lean times, the Party is generally a small one with dedicated activists (although not, as is often assumed, full-timers) doing little more than lying in wait, keeping the candle burning. Then, when a revolutionary situation develops, the work reaches fever pitch - the party&#39;s doors are explicitly thrown open. The vanguard leads the assault on bourgeois power. Here the theories diverge, but it is generally agreed that the revolutionary power-structures form the basis of the new State. so, whether that&#39;s the soviets (as in Lenin and Trotsky and, for that matter, councilist lefts) or the Party itself (as in Mao) is largely up to the particular party. What the vanguard does not do is conspiratorially &#39;trick&#39; the working class into making a revolution after which the party will assume a dictatorship and direct things according to its whims. That is the opinion of certain early anarchists and utopians, and not anybody else.

3. Lenin and consciousness. Most complaints are directed at "that" paragraph from WITBD, torn from context and somewhat mistranslated. In 1903, under conditions of Tsarist absolutism and political disenfranchisement, not to mention the rather primitive standards of communication technology, it was probably more or less true that working-class consciousness would not get very far &#39;on its own&#39; - or at least it would not be an unreasonable or elitist assumption to make. is is difficult to see an illiterate factory worker kicking back after a 14 hour shift with a cuppa and Capital. Spontaneously, the worker is a big old ball f revolutionary potential - and while it doesn&#39;t often take much to spring this energy from its prison, the intervention of one who has attained a fuller consciousness, an "advanced worker", can be a big factor. It is difficult to draw specific conclusions about 1905 - after all, it did fail. there&#39;s more to revolutionary consciousness than simply realising that a revolution would be nice.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17, 2006 02:57 am

Well I am no Leninist, Anarchist instead so I will not defend the horrors and crimes of Leninism/Stalinism and all that violent history.

What I will do is say i&#39;d rather be IN the sidelines than engaging in mass terror against the people. And if you wanna example of the Anarchists taking power check out Spain in the 1930s or the communes in the US in the 1960s. They really "fucked things up" if you ask me, in a good way.

The anarchists "really &#39;fucked things up&#39;"? Aren&#39;t you an anarchist?
I meant fucking things up in a good way. as in fucking up the state and fucking up capitalism and traditional society. Fucking things up in a good way, the things that need to be fucked up. Some people like to use old language like "abolishing the capitalist means of production" and so on that many people nowadays don&#39;t understand so I like to use language that EVERYONE understand so I like to tell people instead of saying Anarchists want to "abolish the state and all" I say that we anarchists want to "Fuck up the state and fuck up capitalism"

That&#39;s something that everyone can understand fully right away. ;) ;)

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 04:24 am

Spain? That&#39;s it? One failed revolution? Oh and the mini hippy communes don&#39;t count theres actually hiarchy there, at least at the one I&#39;ve been to briefly.

I won&#39;t defend stalinism, but &#39;Leninism&#39; is the only ideology which has had any success at overthrowing capitalism. Criticize all you want but that doesn&#39;t change the fact that your ideology parades around a failed revolution like it&#39;s some big fucking deal.
Problem is Leninism IS Stalinism, in practice. Lenin destroyed any remnants of worker control and created a vast state capitalist enterprise. Lenin was an enemy of socialism and an authoritarian who did not use power in a just manner and instead used it an oppressive manner. Lenin took what could have been a socialist revolution and turned it capitalist.

[bezdomni]

Problem is Leninism IS Stalinism, in practice. Lenin destroyed any remnants of worker control and created a vast state capitalist enterprise. Lenin was an enemy of socialism and an authoritarian who did not use power in a just manner and instead used it an oppressive manner. Lenin took what could have been a socialist revolution and turned it capitalist.

Said like a true bourgeois liberal&#33;

Now care to prove it?

[chimx]

i would think a stalinist such as yourself would appreciate the accusation that leninism is stalinism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:09 am

Problem is Leninism IS Stalinism, in practice. Lenin destroyed any remnants of worker control and created a vast state capitalist enterprise. Lenin was an enemy of socialism and an authoritarian who did not use power in a just manner and instead used it an oppressive manner. Lenin took what could have been a socialist revolution and turned it capitalist.
LOL&#33;&#33; What worker control? You think there was worker control under the Tsar and the interim government which starved the proletariat? The proletariat were in control only because of the Bolshevik Revolution&#33; Lenin established the first worker&#39;s state run by soviets even under massive outside pressure. Now tell me, what have the anarchists done?

[Rawthentic]

Anarchism has the potential to lead an authentic communist revolution in an advanced captalist nation, where the conditions for communist revolution would be ripe. I support Leninism only in the underdeveloped nations, but I reject that it can bring about communism, especially in nations with similar conditions where Leninist revolutions were"successful", because there are more feudal than capitalist relations. One cannot skip this historical process.

Like I said, the prospect for some worker control was defeated when the Bolsheviks established their Party as the ruling class.

[KC]

Like I said, the prospect for some worker control was defeated when the Bolsheviks established their Party as the ruling class.


Like I said, the Bolshevik Party was the majority of the working class.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 03, 2006 01:34 am


Like I said, the prospect for some worker control was defeated when the Bolsheviks established their Party as the ruling class.


Like I said, the Bolshevik Party was the majority of the working class.
and there where like 1.25 workers in russia at that time

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Anarchism has the potential to lead an authentic communist revolution in an advanced captalist nation, where the conditions for communist revolution would be ripe. I support Leninism only in the underdeveloped nations, but I reject that it can bring about communism, especially in nations with similar conditions where Leninist revolutions were"successful", because there are more feudal than capitalist relations. One cannot skip this historical process.


Anarchism does not have the potential to lead a revolution because exactly that, no one leads. There is no organization. That is why every anarchist movement has been crushed, and many &#39;leninist&#39; movements have succeeded in overthrowing capitalism/monarchy




Like I said, the prospect for some worker control was defeated when the Bolsheviks established their Party as the ruling class.

How can a party be a class?

[chimx]

please name one capitalist country that a leninist movement has overthrown.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Cuba

[KC]

and there where like 1.25 workers in russia at that time

If you want to argue that then that&#39;s a completely different issue.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 01:04 pm
please name one capitalist country that a leninist movement has overthrown.
That is rich coming from an anarchist.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Hiero+November 02, 2006 10:31 pm--> (Hiero @ November 02, 2006 10:31 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 01:04 pm
please name one capitalist country that a leninist movement has overthrown.
That is rich coming from an anarchist. [/b]
Why? He&#39;s just refuting LeftyHenry&#39;s claim that Leninism has successfully toppled many capitalist nations.

[chimx]

exactly. i am not a fan of this condescending leninist opinion that only they are capable of over throwing capitalism. no leninist movement has ever toppled capitalism. russia, cuba, china, and korea were backwards agrarian states. hey were dominated by peasants and the petite bourgeois. the classical proletariat had not developed and was an extreme minority.

the only thing leninism has ever accomplished is over throwing backwards feudal states. i&#39;m not trying to knock it or anything, we can do that elsewhere, i&#39;m just stating a fact and asking you to please be careful with your denunciation of anarchist movements.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:12 am
exactly. i am not a fan of this condescending leninist opinion that only they are capable of over throwing capitalism. no leninist movement has ever toppled capitalism. russia, cuba, china, and korea were backwards agrarian states. hey were dominated by peasants and the petite bourgeois. the classical proletariat had not developed and was an extreme minority.

the only thing leninism has ever accomplished is over throwing backwards feudal states. i&#39;m not trying to knock it or anything, we can do that elsewhere, i&#39;m just stating a fact and asking you to please be careful with your denunciation of anarchist movements.
:D Great post&#33;&#33; I agree&#33;

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2006 04:19 pm

I believe that Leninism can only work in 3rd world, underdeveloped nations, where it can defeat capitalism

But what you describe as &#39;Leninism&#39; here was historically simply develoing capitalism. Only the revolution in Russia was originally a workers revolution. Rest of the &#39;leninist&#39; experiments were not, in any way, class struggles. In Russia, the material conditions were against working class. Bolshevik &#39;aristocracy&#39; needed to get things done, and the only option they had because of the conditions was assigning middle cadres. Soon, that collective bureaocratic class of middle cadres took power and started consciously developing capitalism under a strong command economy. This is the same process Germany went through in late nineteenth centurty and Japan went through in early twentieth century. As capitalism developed, the command system got more relaxed, and finally gave us todays Russia. As for other experiments, workers were never involved to begin with, or they were defeated by the local red bourgeoise before the revolution. So what you describe as &#39;Leninism&#39; doesn&#39;t defeat capitalism, it is radically developing capitalism, and doesn&#39;t have anything to do with Lenin.
Cheers Leo this is the sort of materialist answer I was looking for.

Could you or someone else elaborate on this a bit further, please?

[Leo]

Cheers Leo this is the sort of materialist answer I was looking for.

Could you or someone else elaborate on this a bit further, please?

What do you specifically want me to elaborate?

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2006 07:16 am

Cheers Leo this is the sort of materialist answer I was looking for.

Could you or someone else elaborate on this a bit further, please?

What do you specifically want me to elaborate?
You know, I&#39;m not entirerely sure you CAN elaborate that any further to be honest.

[Leo]

You know, I&#39;m not entirerely sure you CAN elaborate that any further to be honest.

I study economy, you&#39;ll be surprised to see what I can do :P

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2006 06:33 pm

You know, I&#39;m not entirerely sure you CAN elaborate that any further to be honest.

I study economy, you&#39;ll be surprised to see what I can do :P
Give it a go then. :D

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2006 09:16 pm

Cheers Leo this is the sort of materialist answer I was looking for.

Could you or someone else elaborate on this a bit further, please?

What do you specifically want me to elaborate?

Erm.....I&#39;m not sure what I wanted you to elaborate on actually, I had some general idea in my mind but now I read it, I can&#39;t think of anything. Perhaps a bit more info about German and Japanese command economys?