Log in

View Full Version : The Question of Leadership



Marx Lenin Stalin
9th November 2006, 23:29
The following is a major theoretical contribution to how Marxism-Leninism will be applied in the 21st century. It will be further expanded upon in a pamphlet presented by the PAB free of charge. Everything included here has been written by Chairman MLS.

On Leadership - The Question that is vital to the working class and defending the revolution.

1. Why is Leadership needed at all?

The dopey anarchists and so called "anti authoritarians" will tell us that no leaders are neccessary, and that is it "anti" democratic. Of course, as Marxist-Leninists we disagree with this point of view entirely. It proves how no Anarchist movement has ever, will ever, can ever come to power. Can ever lead the working class. Organize the working class.

Will a leaderless anarchistic movement be bad in practice? No! Because it will never even be in practice! This is a crucial point that needs to be fully understood by all revolutionaries: anti-authoritarian philsophies will not and can not do anything to revolution as it betrays basic principles of Marxism.

Historically, leadership has always been needed to change society - one way or another. Comrades Lenin and Stalin created the world's first ever socialist state and destroyed capitalism in no small party because of their leadership. On the other side, the abomination and great enemy of the working class, Adolf Hitler, also changed society but this time for the worse. He was a bastard, but he understood something about leadership and he knew how to gain the trust of the average German worker.

For the dictatorship of the proletariat to exist, the workers will need leadership. You need the dictatorship of the proleteriat to overthrow the ruling, capitalist class. The ruling capitalist class has leaders therefore the working class, the proletriat must have our own leaders! But which kind? The kind that will seek the abolishment of bourgeois rule!


2. In what Form should the Leadership be in?

The form of leadership shall be two fold: There shall be a revolutionary vanguard, n the tradition of Lenin, of only the most dedicated, the most loyal, the most committed of the revolutionary working class. This is what the PAB is to represent.

In addition, there shall be a Leader which will oversee and lead the vanguard and the entire working class in their struggle to not only defeat, but maintain and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletetariat. In the tradition of Stalin, another Marxist-Leninist, the leader will be a fine example of both the courage, bravery, and self-sacrifice that is needed to achieve final victory.

3. How is a Leader Chosen?

This once again, is a point that divides Marxists and Anarchists. Marxists and "anti authoritarians". Revolutionaries from non-revolutionaries.

You see, the liberal way, the reformist way is to hold bourgeois elections and have candidates run for office of leadership. This process Marxist-Leninist reject completely! This process the Party of American Bolsheviks reject completely! A leader can not, must not, that is a revolutionary leader of the working class can not, must not be chosen the bourgeois way, the liberal way, the reformist way.

The Leader of the working class does not wait to be chosen, does not wait to be selected. For he rejects bourgeois politics and bourgeois elections and bourgeois democracy.

So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution! I come forth not as some tyrant, not as some monster (that is what the anarchists and liberals will say. No it's not a coincidence they same the same) I come forth as a manifestation of the working class! As their representative!

There is no room for bourgeois politics here- either we believe in revolution or we don't. Either we believe in the the dictatorship of the proleteriat or we don't. There can be no middle ground, there not can be bourgeois reasoning, there can be no great "compromise". The international working class and the cause of revolution are far too important. You see this is exactly, this is what precisely, this is essentially what separates Marxism-Leninism from anarchism, from liberalism, from "left" utopian communism, from Trotskyist revisionism, but all the other so called "revolutionary" isms - while the other "revolutionary" movements try to talk about revolution and criticize Marxist-Leninist movements, the party of Marxism-Leninism acts and creates those movements and creates those revolutions and creates the process of destroying capitalism one stage at a time!

4. What kind of Leader do we want?

This is another critical question - the working class must know what kind of leader should represent them and their party. Or else any charlatan, any government informant, any renegade, any revisionist can come in and hijack the whole thing as has been done previously in Marxist-Leninist countries: Khrushev comes to mind in particular.

So what kind of Leader do we want? The Leader must have certain characteristics: the Leader must be brave, loyal, honest, sincere, courgeous in the face of the enemies of the working class while dedicated and committed to the revolutionary movement. The Leader must be strong, he must be at all times working as the finest representation of the revolutionary working class. He must be with the workers, with their needs and with their concerns. He must be knowledgable and he must be a leader not because you, or I, or anyone else says so, but because the Leader has shown himself, no, has proved himself consistently time and time again.

Finally, The Leader must be respected by the vast majority of the working class.

5. What Kind of Power should the Leader have?

Another valuable question. Is a Leader's power limitless? No. The revolutionary Leader, as a representative of the working class, as its essence, must have the full respect and authority of the workers. Without it, the whole process of leadership will be impossible. The decisions of the Leader, once verified and approved of the Central Committee, by the vanguard, must be accepted by the workers. This is critical. Decisions made by the working party, by the working vanguard, by the Leader of the Party, must

However, to ensure that the Leader is actually working in the best interest of the revolution, he is subject to recall by the party. He is allowed to be questioned, debated, and yes, criticized by the party. Though once a decision is made by the Leader and approved of, the debate must end and unity in the face of our common enemies must begin.

There are times, rare times, when the Leader, in the face of chaos, or turmoil or in the case that the entire revolution and the dictatorship of the proleteriat is at risk, where he must make decisions without the Party approval, and without allowing debate or discussion beforehand. When these rare instances come, the Leader must be obeyed by all.

6. How much money should the Leader make?

To once again ensure that we have a Leader that is working for the international working class, the Leader, as Lenin dicatates, will only make as much money as the average worker. This again, is critical. The Leader cannot know about the working class, the leader cannot be with the working class, the Leader cannot have the working class mindset, if he is not working class himself!

Leaders like this are rare. Fortunately, the Party of American Bolsheviks has found such a Leader. We urge all serious and dedicated comrades to join our party and join a movement that is truly interested in making a revolution, not just talking about one.

- Chairman MLS

RedLenin
10th November 2006, 02:41
So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all

Ha. Ok. So this guy rises up and declares himself the leader of the working class. How can he be the leader of the working class if the class itself didn't even have a choice in it? What is to stop some bourgeoisie reactionary from, by force, declaring himself "leader of the proletariat"? What is to stop him from leading the working class into capitalism? You are holding on to the most absolutely rediculus faith i have ever heard of. You seem to just hope that a leader will arise, have full power over everything, and, hopefully lead the workers to socialism. You certainly have a tremendous faith in authority, not to mention a dangerous niavety in regards to counter revolution.


The dopey anarchists and so called "anti authoritarians" will tell us that no leaders are neccessary

No, we do believe leaders are necessary. However, we believe that leaders need to be elected, recallable, and directly accountable to the workers themselves. Do you want the rule of the actually working class, or simply the role of a leader claiming to represent the class? If you choose the second option, I think Marx would disagree with you.


the party of Marxism-Leninism acts and creates those movements and creates those revolutions and creates the process of destroying capitalism one stage at a time!

Oh yeah, right on. Because we all know that the Soviet Union, under the leadership of the great Stalin, leader of the Proletariat, totally abolished the capitalist system. :rolleyes: Plus, how exactly do you advocate world revolution when Stalin supported the idea of "socialism in one country"? Look what happened: Russia reverted to capitalism. If the anarchists and libertarian marxists succeeded in the revolution, instead of the Bolshiviks, and actually had the Soviets as the ultimate structure of power, the revolution may very well have spread. But because of totalitarian ideologies like that of Stalin, the Soviet Union was doomed to isolation and faliure.


No. The revolutionary Leader, as a representative of the working class, as its essence, must have the full respect and authority of the workers. Without it, the whole process of leadership will be impossible. The decisions of the Leader, once verified and approved of the Central Committee, by the vanguard, must be accepted by the workers.

Ok. So an elite clique of self-proclaimed 'professional revolutionaries' tell the workers what to do and force them to do it. How exactly is that rule by the working class? That is clearly rule over the working class, creating a new class of beurocrats. Congradulations, you will have effectively instituted rule by an elite over the workers.


There are times, rare times, when the Leader, in the face of chaos, or turmoil or in the case that the entire revolution and the dictatorship of the proleteriat is at risk, where he must make decisions without the Party approval, and without allowing debate or discussion beforehand. When these rare instances come, the Leader must be obeyed by all.

Ok. So the leader declares a "War on Bourgeoisism", claiming that it will be a possibly indefinite war. Plus, he claims that it is a time of chaos and turmoil and, as such, he needs total control. Congradulations, you have just handed all power to a single guy, as opposed to an elite clique.



Leaders like this are rare. Fortunately, the Party of American Bolsheviks has found such a Leader. We urge all serious and dedicated comrades to join our party and join a movement that is truly interested in making a revolution, not just talking about one.

Ok Chairman, you and your three comrades have a fun time abolishing capitalism. :rolleyes:

RevolutionaryMarxist
10th November 2006, 02:48
I agree on the points against Anarchism due to Anarchist's decentrallized leadership, which is the greatest manifestation of idealism that I personally have seen in the leftist movement.

Practically, a leader is seldom elected by a democratic workers congress because no matter what, the material conditions will never allow a full election for such, because such international contact between billions is nearly impossible, and no leader could be chosen, and while the debates are going on, the authoritarian bourgeois will slaughter the movement at its roots.

The ideal leader is that - a ideal. If the ideal leader comes we will see or not.


So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution!

If a Leader arises, the working class will decide if the leader is worthy of their trust. If he is, they will follow him, if he is not, they will overthrow him, if its the true "dictatorship of the proletariat".

In general, many of the theoretical points of this brief article are true.

Cryotank Screams
10th November 2006, 02:50
So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution! I come forth not as some tyrant, not as some monster (that is what the anarchists and liberals will say. No it's not a coincidence they same the same) I come forth as a manifestation of the working class! As their representative!

That is called autocracy, and I am sure Mussolini would agree with what you just said, :rolleyes: . Why does the proletariat need a leader? Why can't they lead themselves? Have you no faith in the working class?

After all of society is held up by the working class, they are the Atlas of the world; all leaders do is claim their achievements, contributions, and riches for themselves.


The following is a major theoretical contribution to how Marxism-Leninism will be applied in the 21st century.

Your so transparent, vain, shallow, and pathetic it's unbelievable. If you have to say it’s major contribution, then it’s not a major contribution, and truly it’s the reader whom decides if it’s a major contribution or not, not you! Lol.

chimx
10th November 2006, 03:27
I don't really understand the point of your "essay" (which is in desperate need of grammatical corrections). I can understand why Lenin and Stalin directed so much of their writings at anarchists in the early to mid 20th century, as it was a popular trend of the left.

But in the 21st century, it is a pretty marginalized movement. Wouldn't it be more practical to denounce Social Democrats or Liberalism than Anarchism, an ideology that the grand majority of the population are unfamiliar with.

What's the point other than being argumentative on an irrelevant internet forum?

which doctor
10th November 2006, 04:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:27 pm
I can understand why Lenin and Stalin directed so much of their writings at anarchists in the early to mid 20th century, as it was a popular trend of the left.
It was more than just a "popular trend." It was a valid threat to the soviet state.

chimx
10th November 2006, 05:26
well i meant in the late 19th and early 20th century generally. the point is the same.

ahab
10th November 2006, 05:57
Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 11:29 pm
The following is a major theoretical contribution to how Marxism-Leninism will be applied in the 21st century. It will be further expanded upon in a pamphlet presented by the PAB free of charge. Everything included here has been written by Chairman MLS.

On Leadership - The Question that is vital to the working class and defending the revolution.

1. Why is Leadership needed at all?

The dopey anarchists and so called "anti authoritarians" will tell us that no leaders are neccessary, and that is it "anti" democratic. Of course, as Marxist-Leninists we disagree with this point of view entirely. It proves how no Anarchist movement has ever, will ever, can ever come to power. Can ever lead the working class. Organize the working class.

Will a leaderless anarchistic movement be bad in practice? No! Because it will never even be in practice! This is a crucial point that needs to be fully understood by all revolutionaries: anti-authoritarian philsophies will not and can not do anything to revolution as it betrays basic principles of Marxism.

Historically, leadership has always been needed to change society - one way or another. Comrades Lenin and Stalin created the world's first ever socialist state and destroyed capitalism in no small party because of their leadership. On the other side, the abomination and great enemy of the working class, Adolf Hitler, also changed society but this time for the worse. He was a bastard, but he understood something about leadership and he knew how to gain the trust of the average German worker.

For the dictatorship of the proletariat to exist, the workers will need leadership. You need the dictatorship of the proleteriat to overthrow the ruling, capitalist class. The ruling capitalist class has leaders therefore the working class, the proletriat must have our own leaders! But which kind? The kind that will seek the abolishment of bourgeois rule!


2. In what Form should the Leadership be in?

The form of leadership shall be two fold: There shall be a revolutionary vanguard, n the tradition of Lenin, of only the most dedicated, the most loyal, the most committed of the revolutionary working class. This is what the PAB is to represent.

In addition, there shall be a Leader which will oversee and lead the vanguard and the entire working class in their struggle to not only defeat, but maintain and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletetariat. In the tradition of Stalin, another Marxist-Leninist, the leader will be a fine example of both the courage, bravery, and self-sacrifice that is needed to achieve final victory.

3. How is a Leader Chosen?

This once again, is a point that divides Marxists and Anarchists. Marxists and "anti authoritarians". Revolutionaries from non-revolutionaries.

You see, the liberal way, the reformist way is to hold bourgeois elections and have candidates run for office of leadership. This process Marxist-Leninist reject completely! This process the Party of American Bolsheviks reject completely! A leader can not, must not, that is a revolutionary leader of the working class can not, must not be chosen the bourgeois way, the liberal way, the reformist way.

The Leader of the working class does not wait to be chosen, does not wait to be selected. For he rejects bourgeois politics and bourgeois elections and bourgeois democracy.

So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution! I come forth not as some tyrant, not as some monster (that is what the anarchists and liberals will say. No it's not a coincidence they same the same) I come forth as a manifestation of the working class! As their representative!

There is no room for bourgeois politics here- either we believe in revolution or we don't. Either we believe in the the dictatorship of the proleteriat or we don't. There can be no middle ground, there not can be bourgeois reasoning, there can be no great "compromise". The international working class and the cause of revolution are far too important. You see this is exactly, this is what precisely, this is essentially what separates Marxism-Leninism from anarchism, from liberalism, from "left" utopian communism, from Trotskyist revisionism, but all the other so called "revolutionary" isms - while the other "revolutionary" movements try to talk about revolution and criticize Marxist-Leninist movements, the party of Marxism-Leninism acts and creates those movements and creates those revolutions and creates the process of destroying capitalism one stage at a time!

4. What kind of Leader do we want?

This is another critical question - the working class must know what kind of leader should represent them and their party. Or else any charlatan, any government informant, any renegade, any revisionist can come in and hijack the whole thing as has been done previously in Marxist-Leninist countries: Khrushev comes to mind in particular.

So what kind of Leader do we want? The Leader must have certain characteristics: the Leader must be brave, loyal, honest, sincere, courgeous in the face of the enemies of the working class while dedicated and committed to the revolutionary movement. The Leader must be strong, he must be at all times working as the finest representation of the revolutionary working class. He must be with the workers, with their needs and with their concerns. He must be knowledgable and he must be a leader not because you, or I, or anyone else says so, but because the Leader has shown himself, no, has proved himself consistently time and time again.

Finally, The Leader must be respected by the vast majority of the working class.

5. What Kind of Power should the Leader have?

Another valuable question. Is a Leader's power limitless? No. The revolutionary Leader, as a representative of the working class, as its essence, must have the full respect and authority of the workers. Without it, the whole process of leadership will be impossible. The decisions of the Leader, once verified and approved of the Central Committee, by the vanguard, must be accepted by the workers. This is critical. Decisions made by the working party, by the working vanguard, by the Leader of the Party, must

However, to ensure that the Leader is actually working in the best interest of the revolution, he is subject to recall by the party. He is allowed to be questioned, debated, and yes, criticized by the party. Though once a decision is made by the Leader and approved of, the debate must end and unity in the face of our common enemies must begin.

There are times, rare times, when the Leader, in the face of chaos, or turmoil or in the case that the entire revolution and the dictatorship of the proleteriat is at risk, where he must make decisions without the Party approval, and without allowing debate or discussion beforehand. When these rare instances come, the Leader must be obeyed by all.

6. How much money should the Leader make?

To once again ensure that we have a Leader that is working for the international working class, the Leader, as Lenin dicatates, will only make as much money as the average worker. This again, is critical. The Leader cannot know about the working class, the leader cannot be with the working class, the Leader cannot have the working class mindset, if he is not working class himself!

Leaders like this are rare. Fortunately, the Party of American Bolsheviks has found such a Leader. We urge all serious and dedicated comrades to join our party and join a movement that is truly interested in making a revolution, not just talking about one.

- Chairman MLS
fuck that, we dont need a fuckin leader

loveme4whoiam
10th November 2006, 08:49
I am not even going to waste my time reading this - when an author begins his work by saying "this is a major theoretical contribution", people actually read it as "wanker. Self-obsessed wanker at that".

For the love of Jebus and Snoopy MLS do you do this on purpose? Have you decided to waste your time entertaining everyone on Revleft, because you're certainly not making them think and you aren't making them angry.

I think there should be the position of Jester of RevLeft awarded to MLS - anyone who agrees, say "meh".

apathy maybe
10th November 2006, 10:35
You certainly are putting a lot of effort into this trolling business. I seriously think I should go and find some dinosaurs. And that point seems to be to be doubly valid, 'cause your sort are dinosaurs.

Two main points, Stalin was a fuckwit and a joke (sort of like you, but actually dangerous to the proletariat), and more to the point did not create "the world's first ever socialist state and destroyed capitalism [within it]" with or without Lenin's help. In fact I would have to say that the only "good" thing that Stalin did was get rid of some other scum from the Bolsheviks (pity he didn't then purge himself).

Second point, we do not want, or need a leader. You may believe that you need a leader, actually, you seem to have the leadership bug. You seem to believe that the proletariat need a leader, and coincidently that leader is you. Well fuck you.

Actually I have three points. Money? Fuck off and die scum fucking piece of shit. And that is a compliment. I am generally fine with Leninists (even if I do like to tease them), but you are scum (an insult I generally reserve for capitalists and politicians).

Nilats
10th November 2006, 18:27
I believe that this is an incredibly powerful, very well thought out contribution to Marxism Leninism. The Chairman of the this party made the case very clearly why leadership is necessary.

Nilats
10th November 2006, 18:40
Originally posted by cobra90x+November 10, 2006 02:41 am--> (cobra90x @ November 10, 2006 02:41 am)

No, we do believe leaders are necessary. [/b]
You might wanna tell that to a few of your friends: :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
fuck that, we dont need a fuckin leader



Scarlet Hammer
Why does the proletariat need a leader? Why can't they lead themselves?

MLS is correct that the typical anarchist point of view is against the necessity of leadership.

chimx
10th November 2006, 18:44
Nilats appears to be a sock for MLS

Cryotank Screams
10th November 2006, 18:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:44 pm
Nilats appears to be a sock for MLS
Or perhaps MLS himself?

Nilats
10th November 2006, 18:47
Maybe you two are each others socks. You say the same thing pretty much. Just get bourgeois sources and attack Marxism Leninism all day.

Red October
10th November 2006, 18:58
Meh

you sound like an egotistical fuckwad MLS. what makes you think you're the one to lead the proletariate? you're a joke, and if no one here takes you seriously, the proletariate certainly wont.

Nilats
11th November 2006, 20:45
That's a very nasty personal attack "red" october. The Chairman wrote a very long, very serious groundbreaking analysis of leadership, why it is necessary and what type of leader the working class wants and needs.

This is highly recommended for all comrades.

Nilats
11th November 2006, 20:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 03:27 am
But in the 21st century, it is a pretty marginalized movement. Wouldn't it be more practical to denounce Social Democrats or Liberalism than Anarchism, an ideology that the grand majority of the population are unfamiliar with.

What's the point other than being argumentative on an irrelevant internet forum?
Did you read the Chairman's post? In full? Because it wasn't about anarchism, it was about the role of leadership in revolutionary and post-revolutionary society and how that leadership would be implemented. It does make the comparison of the different left theories on leadership but it is not about anarchism.

This is a major contribution to Marxism Leninism theory on the role of leadership and leaders in a revolution and should be seriously read and studied by all.

MrDoom
11th November 2006, 21:12
So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution! I come forth not as some tyrant, not as some monster (that is what the anarchists and liberals will say. No it's not a coincidence they same the same) I come forth as a manifestation of the working class! As their representative!
By "rises up", you mean "purges everyone else before they become the leader". :rolleyes:

So what happens when two (or more) people stand up and declare themselves the leader?

Guns of Brixton
12th November 2006, 00:52
Please, MLS and Nilats, you are too childish and embarass yourselves. Anybody can read a few revolutionary texts and attempt to regurgitate what they have read. That does not make you a leader. It makes you an ass.

I have seen so many of your infantile ilk. Most do not last more than a couple of years as "revolutionaries". Then they go on to thier next petty-bourgeois self-involved infatuation. If you are serious and aim to, some day, become real revolutionaries, you should criticize yourselves now for your petty-bourgeois affectations.

A revolutionary leader is humble. A revolutionary leader does not put on airs and pretend to be more than he is. A revloutionary leader does not play at revolution - it is serious business and calls for grown up attitudes, sensibilities and behavior.

If you are honestly trying to be a marxist leninist, you should apologize to this forum for inflicting your arrogant petty-bourgeois childishness. You should humbly not try to justify your foolishness.

Actually, I can't tell. If you are in fact an anarchist carrying out an elaborate hoax then, fuck you - because you are not being honest. This is a straw dog and does not represent marxist leninist concepts of leadership. It might, from your view, be kind of funny to put up a childish and silly characterization of "stalinists". I admit that I, at first laughed at MLS's declaration of chairmanship of the proletarian party. But, really, this is serious stuff and I am no longer amused.


Adolf Hitler ... understood something about leadership and he knew how to gain the trust of the average German worker.


Hitler led with the backing of corporate capitalists with sophestry and suppression of the working class. He understood nothing about proletarian leadership, only about reactionary leadership.

Leadership is not some kind of de-classed concept. There is capitalist leadership and there is proletarian leadership.

Proletarian leaders concentrate, express and execute the revolutionary will of the working class.



2. In what Form should the Leadership be in?

The form of leadership shall be two fold: There shall be a revolutionary vanguard, n the tradition of Lenin, of only the most dedicated, the most loyal, the most committed of the revolutionary working class. This is what the PAB is to represent.

In addition, there shall be a Leader which will oversee and lead the vanguard and the entire working class in their struggle to not only defeat, but maintain and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletetariat. In the tradition of Stalin, another Marxist-Leninist, the leader will be a fine example of both the courage, bravery, and self-sacrifice that is needed to achieve final victory.


Revolutionary leadership is not primarily about form, it is about content. It is not enough to be "the most dedicated, the most loyal, the most committed" and it is not enough to be "a fine example of courage, bravery, and self-sacrafice". Being a good Boy Scount (brave, loyal, honest, sincere, courgeous in the face of the enemies) is not sufficient to be a revolutionary leader.

Revolutionary leaders grasp revolutionary theory and class analysis and apply it to the concrete task of making revolution in practice. Revolutionary leaders are forged in the heat of the class struggle.

Revolutionalry leadership does not "oversee and lead the vanguard" in the way you envision. A proletarian leader actively listens and concentrates the correct line developed by the working class in the class struggle. You should study some dialectics. Understand what the Mao and the chinese communist party meant by "the mass line". Maybe read some of the stuff that Lenin and Stalin said about revolutionary leadership (or re-read it, because you certainly have not understood it.)

You say:



He must be knowledgable and he must be a leader not because you, or I, or anyone else says so, but because the Leader has shown himself, no, has proved himself consistently time and time again.

Finally, The Leader must be respected by the vast majority of the working class.


Which is good paraphrasing from revolutionary texts and is true, but your behavior does not demonstrate any understanding of this. Are you "respected by the vast majority of the working class"? Have you shown and proved yourself "consistently time and time again"?

But, even here, you got it wrong, because you are just role-playing and do not really understand what you are saying. It is not enough to be "knowledgeable". Any bourgeois academic can accumulate knowledge - it is their "capital". Revolutionary leadership must be in the realms of ideology, philosophy, political theory and practice, economic theory, analysis of the revolutionary and ruling classes, theory of knowledge, the strategy and tactics of revolution.



So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution! I come forth not as some tyrant, not as some monster (that is what the anarchists and liberals will say. No it's not a coincidence they same the same) I come forth as a manifestation of the working class! As their representative!


This is the section that most clearly indicates that this is a hoax. So again, MLS if you are an anarchist, then fuck you for this ugly and distorted representation of Marxist Leninists. But, MLS, if you are truly just a delusioned kid trying to be a marxist revolutionary, you need to come clean, admit and criticize your childishness, shut up for a while because you are an ass and a fool who only do harm, and humbly study marxism leninism and participate mass economic or political struggle for a few years.

I can picture MLS (the anarchist hoaxter) sniggering at me if I attempt to seriously respond to this shit, and the snide arrogance of that pisses me off.

This is really so silly that it does not deserve a response. MLS: Study some dialectics man. Mao's 4 essays on philosophy is a good start. Read Lenin's "What is to be Done". And, get out of your dorm room and spend a few years actively fighting for the working class. Then, when you can see what an assinine fool you are being, you will begin learning to become a marxist leninist.

It looks like MLS and Nilats are the same person. If not, then you are two adolescent boys and the entire membership of your party. But, Nilats said:



I believe that this is an incredibly powerful, very well thought out contribution to Marxism Leninism. The Chairman of the this party made the case very clearly why leadership is necessary.


Which is so silly. This "incredibly powerful" "contribution to Marxism-Leninism" reads like a freshman college paper in some hack academic class on marxism. If I were your professor, I'd give you a C+ and tell you to dig deeper because it is too shallow and is wrong in too many details. It is certainly not a theoretical document because it says nothing that has not been said before, and shows a poor understanding of dialectics and of Marxism-Leninism.

Keyser
12th November 2006, 07:25
The Chairman wrote a very long, very serious groundbreaking analysis of leadership, why it is necessary and what type of leader the working class wants and needs.

No he did not.

What was long about it? Das Kapital is long, this rant on 'leadership' by some teenage with a fetish for muderous anti-working class tyrants like that dickshit Stalin is not long, groundbreaking or in any way a 'contribution' to any ideological development in Marxism.

It's either crap trolling or this MLS dude really is a delusional fuckwit and thinks he is the next mass mudering monster (sorry, meant leader :P ).

Look at how Nilats writing, in it's style and choice of words etc... is more or less the same as MLS. Sock puppet or it's MLS with a different name.

Can someone ban both of these users please. Also ban anyone else who keeps banging on about the joke that is the PAB.

red_che
13th November 2006, 07:39
MLS

First of all, are you really a Chairman of a Communist Party? Just curious to know... Another thing, what is PAB? Pardon me for my ignorance on this matter.

Now on to your essay. I agree that the working class needs a vanguard, and I agree to your assertion that the Anarchists are to be doomed into oblivion for not having a vanguard of their own. They will simply vanish into thin air as the proletarian revolution proceeds on to victory. However, I have some discomfort on certain issues you have raised.


So how is the Leader of the proleteriat found then? He is not! The Leader of the working class, instead, rises up and declares himself to all: yes I am that leader of the working class, I am that capable revolutionary Leader ready to dedicate myself to world revolution! I come forth not as some tyrant, not as some monster (that is what the anarchists and liberals will say. No it's not a coincidence they same the same) I come forth as a manifestation of the working class! As their representative!

In the tradition of Lenin and Stalin (as you fondly tell so), a Leader or the leaders of the working class does not proclaim himself/themselves to be the leader. The working class movement, as it progresses, will shape for itself a leader or leaders, just as how Marx, or Engels, or Lenin or Stalin or Mao or the several communist parties have surfaced. The leader/s will not simply stand up above the workers and proclaim himself/themselves to be their leader. It is his/their actions and practices that will make him/them the leader/s of the working class and that the working class will recognize him/them as their leader/s.


The decisions of the Leader, once verified and approved of the Central Committee, by the vanguard, must be accepted by the workers. This is critical. Decisions made by the working party, by the working vanguard, by the Leader of the Party, must

How can you make it accepted by the workers. By force? I'm afraid this is not how it is to be. But rather I should say the decisions of the party must be explained to the workers and the workers must be encouraged/persuaded to follow it.


Fortunately, the Party of American Bolsheviks has found such a Leader. We urge all serious and dedicated comrades to join our party and join a movement that is truly interested in making a revolution, not just talking about one.

Oh, there it is the answer to the second of my first two questions. The Party of American Bolsheviks. Oh, is this a faction which came from Avakian's RCP, or just a new one?

chimx
13th November 2006, 08:38
Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+November 10, 2006 06:46 pm--> (Scarlet Hammer @ November 10, 2006 06:46 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 02:44 pm
Nilats appears to be a sock for MLS
Or perhaps MLS himself? [/b]
A sock is just a server that a user can bounce his shit off of. of course it is MLS. someone should just delete this account.

Demogorgon
13th November 2006, 08:50
It is sadly not unknown for revolutionary leaders to give into their egos and become tyrants.

This is quite a unique case though. Soeone giving into their ego and wantng to be a tyrant before they are a leader :lol:

Messiah
14th November 2006, 11:41
This MLS clearly the greatest satirist of Leninist thought of our time. Kudos.

He's like a Stephen Colbert for the radical left.