lenin, a revisionist?

[damn the capitalism]

i was talking about this before with redstar 2000:
so why peoples don't confess or discuss abot lenin being a revisionist !
i'm saying this because of lenin's new economic policy in the early 20's (NEP),So leninin brought capitalist specialists from many imperialist and capitalist countries as france and england even from the usa to help him and help the ussr and it's industries and land reform and in the agriculture!wasn't lenin a revisionist when he went on the capitalist camp,didn't he revise marx ideas and the communist manifesto?
i 'm saying this because we always consider khrushev as a revisionist,but what about lenin who went straight to the capitalists he also allowed a little bit of free marketing an land owning t few peoples, isn't this wrong and against communism?
Maybe in stalin's or lenin's day no one could open his mouth because of the secret police and because he would be killed, but what about now ,shouldn't we look to what lenin did ?

[Cassius Clay]

You know in some cases geopolitics does take priority over ideology. However I still fail to see how even this could be used to make a claim that Lenin was a revisionist with the soul argument being the NEP. First of all Lenin allways stressed that it was 'A temporary' step, otherwise the Soviet Union would of collapsed or faced huge starvation. Also it must be remembered that what was the Russian Empire had barely entered Capitalism, simply put it had to go through some sought of 'Capitalist' stage in order to progress onto Socialism. This is hardly revisionism, indeed the opposite.

[damn the capitalism]

i think that capitalism maybe is the final step of socialism ,it's like what is happenning in Cina ,so this country have reached the peak and the highest level of communism ,so now they are trying to change little by little their policies into capitalism,but at least they didn't begin with capitalism as a transition step to communism , i agree with u that lenin was forced to do this,maybe if he didn't estabilish the NEP may be the ussr would collapse so early, but in term that he went to the capitalist side so why not considering him as a revisionist ,so he did what Joseo Tito and Khruchev did 40 years later!so i think we must be honest and not llie to ourselves and consider lenin as a pure man who didn't revised the communist ideas ,just because he is LENIN!

[Pete]

I thought that revisionists where the people who tried to reinterpret Lenin and Marx's ideas.

[damn the capitalism]

yes crazy pete ,but what about lenin reinterpret marx ideas ,it's like for exemple when your father is telling you to not steal money,and he is a big robber

[Saint-Just]

Marx never thought of a revolution in Russia. Communism as a cake; one half was baked by Marx, one half by Lenin. Lenin showed a revolution could happen in Russia and propounded the relevant theory for all subsequent revolutions.

As Lenin said, 'one step backwards, two steps forwards' and he was undoubtedly correct. If the NEP had not been temporary then he could certainly be accused of being revisionist, however he did exactly what he said and it was indeed a temporary step.

I would suggest that all Marxist-Leninists would do the same today. At the time some people in the CPSU did say that the policy was ideologically undesirable, however they soon kept quiet when it worked and when finally the policy died away after its success. The NEP was a very small idelogical matter, and cannot be used to accuse Lenin of being revisionist.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 9:57 am on April 18, 2003
Communism as a cake; one half was baked by Marx, one half by Lenin.That is a great line, Chairman Mao.

[damn the capitalism]

so chairman mao ,as i said before ,lenin was forced to use the NEP ,but in fact i think that going to the capitalist side even if it was just for a short period ,is a kind of revisionism ,so lenin by this ,i think he revised his own ideas and all his speeches against the whites in the early 20's and i think it was a kind of hypocrisy !
and as i said we are hiding and escaping from the reality and we are liying to ourselves just because it's LENIN who did this,so lenin is the godfather of proletariat and communism so he can't be wrong or commit a mistake, JUST BECAUSE IT'S LENIN!
:-d I THINK IF IT WAS KHRUCHEV WHO USED THE NEP ,ALL THE COMMUNISTS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD ACCUSE HIM AS A REVISIONIST:-D WHY?
BECAUSE HE IS KHRUCHEV ,BUT LENIN IS AN ANGEL AND HE CAN'T BE A REVISIONIST EVEN IF HE WENT TO THE CAPITALIST SIDE,WHY ANOTHER TIME?
BECAUSE HE IS LENIN!
AND THANX!

[Pete]

Lenin was a realist, his situation forced him to be so. He did what he had to for the revolution to survive, if he didn't do what he did Russia would have failed and fallen to the whites or a new revolution.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from damn the capitalism on 6:00 pm on April 18, 2003
so chairman mao ,as i said before ,lenin was forced to use the NEP ,but in fact i think that going to the capitalist side even if it was just for a short period ,is a kind of revisionism ,so lenin by this ,i think he revised his own ideas and all his speeches against the whites in the early 20's and i think it was a kind of hypocrisy !
and as i said we are hiding and escaping from the reality and we are liying to ourselves just because it's LENIN who did this,so lenin is the godfather of proletariat and communism so he can't be wrong or commit a mistake, JUST BECAUSE IT'S LENIN!
:-d I THINK IF IT WAS KHRUCHEV WHO USED THE NEP ,ALL THE COMMUNISTS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD ACCUSE HIM AS A REVISIONIST:-D WHY?
BECAUSE HE IS KHRUCHEV ,BUT LENIN IS AN ANGEL AND HE CAN'T BE A REVISIONIST EVEN IF HE WENT TO THE CAPITALIST SIDE,WHY ANOTHER TIME?
BECAUSE HE IS LENIN!
AND THANX!


If Khrushchev acted like Lenin I do not think he would be criticised by Marxist-Leninists. This is because Khrushchev's reverting to capitalism was permanent, and he never suggested it would be temporary, in addition he rejected class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It is my view that the NEP was the step that should of been taken earlier, they introduced socialism to quickly, realised it and so reverted to a form of capitalism with the NEP. This was not capitalism in the whole economy, simple in one sector, the peasant economy.

This is why Lenin's policies cannot be compared as similar to those of Khrushchev. The NEP was proven to be simply temporary. It is as said by Cassius Clay: 'go through some sought of 'Capitalist' stage in order to progress onto Socialism.'

Revisionism reverts to capitalism permanently in order to destroy socialism. Revisionism denies the teachings of Marx and Lenin and ignores class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin never ignored any of those concepts.

Lenin and the majority of the CPSU knew that the economic decline that the USSR was in had to be reversed and that the only way to do it was with the NEP. The NEP was in aid of socialism, it was to give economic growth once again, in order that the USSR could then completely embrace socialism.

Lastly, as I said before, Marx did not ever specify policies such as the NEP to be wrong. In fact he suggested that before socialism there must be capitalism, and it must have progressed to a high enough stage that a country be economically capable of socialism. All countries such as China, Cuba, DPRK used this theory and policies such as the NEP to stimulate growth before introducing socialism to as high degree as was seen in Stalin's years or the later years of Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro. And such policies are still used today in certain circumstances.

As I said before it was Lenin who propounded a large part of the practice of revolutionary socialist nations. He did not disagree with Marx but developed Marxist theory to practice.

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 9:57 am on April 18, 2003
Communism as a cake; one half was baked by Marx, one half by Lenin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a great line, Chairman Mao.

Thank you.

[damn the capitalism]

Lastly, as I said before, Marx did not ever specify policies such as the NEP to be wrong. In fact he suggested that before socialism there must be capitalism, and it must have progressed to a high enough stage that a country be economically capable of socialism.

According to these lines said by chairman mao, i would like to say that u r playing with words when you say temporary or permanent using of capitalism in the first stages of constructing communism ,in conclusion lenin went to the capitalist side after that he had declined and insulted the imperialism and capitalism ,so don't u think that it's a kind of hypocrisy(among with revisionism)?????? marx beleive in the distatorship of proletariat and he was against capitalism (i think that is so clear from Das Kapital) so how after studying marxism and being against capitalism , lenin went to the capitalist countries even if it's a transition or temporary period!
in the same time u said that marx suggest that before socialism there must be capitalism ,marx meant by that ,that socialism must be etabilished in a country with a capitalist base as england or france or germany ,he never dreamed about socialism in russia !but i think marx would never giove an excuse to lenin of using the NEP coz capitalism according to marx represent the Devil , and there's no permanent devil or temporary devil, coz devil is devil!

i just want to know why we don't use our mind to confess that lenin got a kind of hypocrisy and revisionist ideas , he is not a god so he got the right to make mistakes,and i think we got the right to accuse him!
but finally it wont happen coz people won't accuse him coz:he is lenin (as i said before)

[El Barbudo]

however, gorbatchev is a revisionist, right?

But Lenin cant be a revisionist, cause he IS communism. you cant be a communist revisionist if you are communism

[damn the capitalism]

hey el barbudo:lenin can't be a revisionist coz he is the Communism!
you wrote what i said ,that we can't judge him!
but u can judge your brother if he is telling you to not steal money and he is a bank robber, coz here you can see his hypocrisy and the revisionism of his idea!
don't steal and he is a thief!that what lenin did :damn the capitalist,and he went to the capitalits!
i think he is hypocrite with himself and he contradicted his own idea and finally he revised his idea even if it just for a short period !if u don't judge peoples and talk about their mistakes and their good things ,then u know nothing about democracy and you are living under the shadow of a dictator that u r afraid of him ,even if this dictator is not here in our age and our time,but u took this habit from a long time that we can't judge a great person like lenin ,just give him excuses!!!!
Note:
by accusing lenin i don't think it's a kind of revisionism ,i only think and use my mind, and i got the democracy of judging and affirming my ideas and finnaly i still beleive in communist ideas!
but it's us who created this word called: REVISIONISM!

[Saint-Just]

I think you are being far too puritanical. What Lenin did was in the interest of socialism, without the NEP the USSR would of likely gone into irretrievable economic decline. He did not turn the USSR into a capitalist nation for a temporary period. He turned one sector of the economy towards free market operation. The main industries remained under state control.

You are correct that Marx did not predict socialism in Russia. However, he could not predict that through an amalgamation of a socialist leadership, socialist policies and a few brief capitalist policies that Russia could become a superpower within 30 years from being a backard, smei-feudal society and proceed to then implement a socialist system of society fully.

[kylie]

marx beleive in the distatorship of proletariat
this was a phrase used and created by Lenin.

i just want to know why we don't use our mind to confess that lenin got a kind of hypocrisy and revisionist ideas , he is not a god so he got the right to make mistakes,and i think we got the right to accuse him!
he was not hypocritical, when his views changed, he did not try and hide this or still hold up his previous claims. an example being his acceptance that russia had not been as advanced in capitalism as he thought.

dictator
Lenin was chairman, not dictator. there was occasions when his proposals were rejected by the other members of the council(i forget its name), and therefore did not happen.



(Edited by feoric at 6:55 pm on April 19, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from feoric on 6:54 pm on April 19, 2003
marx beleive in the distatorship of proletariat
this was a phrase used and created by Lenin.

i just want to know why we don't use our mind to confess that lenin got a kind of hypocrisy and revisionist ideas , he is not a god so he got the right to make mistakes,and i think we got the right to accuse him!
he was not hypocritical, when his views changed, he did not try and hide this or still hold up his previous claims. an example being his acceptance that russia had not been as advanced in capitalism as he thought.

dictator
Lenin was chairman, not dictator. there was occasions when his proposals were rejected by the other members of the council(i forget its name), and therefore did not happen.



(Edited by feoric at 6:55 pm on April 19, 2003)


marx beleive in the distatorship of proletariat
'this was a phrase used and created by Lenin.'

This phrase was not created by Lenin, but by Marx:

'the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat.'
["Marx to J. Wedemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.]
He also said:
'There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.'
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]
'This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally'
[Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 1, p. 223.]

I agree with the other things you say precisely. The body that criticised him on the highest level was the politburo, if thats the name you were looking for.

[damn the capitalism]

hey mr feoric Teacher ,teach me more :-D :-D
no and nooooo lenin was a dictator and most of the peoples that lived in his time said that he is a dictator ,even kameneiv said that and trotsky acclaimed this too in the first period of the brest -litovsk treaty!
u got to know that he was a dictator from a long time in the early of 1900's and in 1903 at a congress of the social democrats in london and most of the members of the party accused himbecause he wanted to lead the party by a dictator way and without using democray and he said that the party must be ruled with only one Dictator so julious martov disagree with him and that's was the reasons of the separation of the party to bolshevics and menshevis!
it was because of his dictaor way ! maybe he was a democrat in the party but he was dictator to his peoples and to the civiliens !
and do not play with words and say : it's was only temporary period to go to the capitalists! be fair and courageous enough and say:it's a hypocrisy , HYPOCRISYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
yes it's a hypocricy ,so before going to the capitalists he wasn't suppose to insult them ,maybe he may got an excuse!
it's a hypocrisy when u refusewd some princiuples and then use these principles!
yes it's hypocrisy and u don't have enough courage to accuse him ,coz you are a coward!
and marx and engels beleived as i said in the dictatorship of proletariat and if you like to know the reference of this sentences ,so u can read the second chapter of the mannifesto of the communist party by marx! so go to the one who is telling u such false things and tell him that he know shit! before discussing with some one ,know the reference and the evidence of what you're saying !
and to chairman mao who said that i'm far too puritanical so i would liketo say that it's us who create the word revisionism and we are using it in a wrong way ,but if u want to be so precised of using this word ,so lenin is a hypocryte and a revisionist! u r saying that lenin did this to help the communism and to help his principles and his country and his peoples!but do not forget that Tito and khruchev were accused to be revisionists just because they cared about their peoples and their countries!
so pleaze if we are precised so we must confess of lenin being a revisionist even if it's just for a short period and many peoples in the party who were beleiving in hard line socialism accused him!

[damn the capitalism]

thanx chairman mao of giving the reference that marx affirm the dictatorship of proletariat! we can see this to on the principles of communism by marx and engels!and from the communist manifesto on the declaration of marx of the dictatorship of proletariat in the second chapter!and also in the critic of the gotha program!

[redstar2000]

Damn the capitalism, don't get too "hung up" on the word revisionism.

As I noted in the thread on Tito, the word has become a rhetorical tool now and doesn't really have any precise meaning any more.

I'm not sure whether Lenin's NEP was the best thing to do at the time; there are arguments on both sides of that question.

But I don't think it's fair to accuse Lenin of "hypocrisy"...he was very honest that the NEP was a "retreat" and to call a retreat a retreat is not being hypocritical.

Likewise, I think to call Lenin a "dictator" is going too far...he did indeed, on occasion, lose votes in the Politburo, though I think he always succeeded in getting those losses reversed in the end.

You have to remember what enormous prestige he had among other revolutionaries at that time. Even people who thought he was seriously wrong about this or that question still had immense respect for his views.

Perhaps that should not have been the case, and people should have been "tougher" with Lenin when they thought they were right and Lenin was wrong.

But I don't think it's really useful to fall back on labels like "revisionist" or "dictator". Revolutionary ideas should stand or fall on their merits, not on who happened to put them forward.

I understand that it can be frustrating to talk to people who "will not hear a word" against Lenin (much less Marx)...even though both of them were humans and. like all humans, made mistakes and even blunders.

The best response to this sort of thing that I know of is to simply develop an appropriate critique of a particular idea or policy and then insist on the facts/evidence/logic of the matter.

Real communists understand that "nothing is beyond criticism" and will listen to what you have to say. Those who treat Marxism as a "secular religion" won't.

But remember, just because we listen doesn't mean that we will necessarily agree with your criticism...we can decide, after hearing you, that Lenin was right and you are wrong.

So, the better and more thought-out your criticism and the more evidence you can bring to bear on the matter, the better your chances of convincing us.

It is very much like any other science; to change people's views, you have to show them why your view is more useful, explains things better, has more fruitful possibilities for future revolutionary practice.

It's hard, but it's the only way that works.

:cool:

[Severian]

Look, the only reason they nationalized so much stuff to start with was because of military necessity. In the middle of the Civil War, they had to take every part of the economy away from the capitalist class to deny them a place to stand, a weapon to fight with.

The Bolsheviks knew this. They explained it. That's why they called it "war communism."

Economically, there was no conceivable reason to nationalize everything. It wasn't possible to implement socialism in one fell swoop. It would have been far preferable to take stuff over step-by-step, as workers learned to administer it, learned the relationship between their workplace and the rest of the economy.

Maybe spending more time on intermediate steps of partial workers' control, maybe just nationalizing the larger enterprises first.

So naturally the Bolsheviks retreated from this as soon as the Civil War was over. If it wasn't for the Civil War, they never would have gone that far to start with.

And BTW, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a phrase used by Marx, repeatedly. Of course, it shouldn't be a catchphrase or an excuse for having pointless arguments about words.

Any more than revisionism should be, as Redstar correctly points out.

[damn the capitalism]

hey mr red star ,u r so clever ,isn't it? so finally if i bring all the evidence that prove that lenin is a dictator ,u will accuse me of being a capitalist and that i know shit about communism!
maybe u didn't answer my question ,i think that u 've escaped from it or maybe u r didn't got the enough wisdom to answer me ,the question is:
about lenin being hypocrite person ,u told that he is not ,but what i say is LENIN INSULTED THE WHITES ON THE CIVIL WAR AND HE INSULTED THE POLICY THAT USED ALL THE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES IN THEIR WAR AGAINST THE BOLSHEVICS, SO HE INSULTED THEM ,AND THEN HE WENT TO THE CAPITALIST SIDE TO HELP HIM ,SO DIDN'T U FIND THIS A HYPOCRISY, !FOR EXEMPLE,INSULTING THE THIEVES AND U R A BANK ROBBER ISN'T A HYPOCRISY???
THINK ABOUT IT!!!! LENIN INSULTED THEM AND THEN HE USED THEM AND WENT TO THEIR POLICIES BY USING THE NEP!

What about war communism ?was this the only and the last lenin way to treat his people,this approve his dictator way ,using the force !did cstro for exempple did so in cuba ,in cuba the peoples agreed with hiom and they like him ,because of this he didn't use so much violence and force like lenin ,this approve his dictator way and WITH THIS,WE FIND THAT THE DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT , WAS A DICTATORSHIP AGAINST PROLETARIAT!
so to find another way to maintain that disturbance he use the NEP,by a question ,if lenin were still alive i think he would accuse lenin of being a hypocrite and a revisionist!okay?noway!
and to prove himself right he said what means :the creed must not hide the reality(sorry for my poor english)
to be fair i don't think that what lenin did was wrong at all ,don't get me wrong,he was forced to do this ,but the fact that he got a lot of faith in communism and despite of this he makes the capitalists specialists being his allies, so why first he insulted them??
So another thing to prove his dictator way: the Cheka (the secret police ) was always there to use the force against the landowners ,he didn't negotiate with them ,he only used the force!
as i said before ,in the 2nd congress of the social dmocrats ,he was accused by his friends and julious martov of being dictator even he was accused by leon trotsky, so u will tell me that allthese peoples in the party confessed that they were wrong and that they thought wrong about him!but the fact that they said that ONLY when the bolshevik revolution have won!so why they didn't say that before, so inside themselves they said that he was a dictator from a long time ago !
he gave the right to the proletariat to protest ,but the final decision was his own decision!
another thin,when the the workers of Krondstat (supporters of bolsheviks)protested against lenin's policy trotsky got the orders by lenin to use the force against them ,trotsky(under the orders of lenin) acted with the utmost severity, and he killed many peoples,!was this the only way to lenin,using the force and being a dictator !only a democrat in the party but a dictator against his peoples!
the nep involved all the bolsheviks in contradiction,despite his public acceptance of it at the 10th party congress ,trotsky remained an implacable oppenent of any deviation from hard-line socialism,and he didn't agrree so much with it!
finally i would like to say that yes i'm accusing him ,just because he was so strict in communism ,and then he used the nep!being a dictator,their no question!hwe was a dictator ,what show us this ,is the using of war communism!yes it was his only way of the early years of a communism ,but it's a dictator way to kill many peoples !dictatot to his peoples but democrat in the party: it's the only definition that i got to define lenin policy!
finally i like this guy ,and accusing him doesn't mean that i'm against him ,but we got to be honestand say the good thing and the negativ thing!

[damn the capitalism]

i want just make a correction in the 2nd paragraph ,the 8th line,in my last post!
so i wanted to say :IF MARX WAS STILL ALIVE instead of IF LENIN WAS STILL ALIVE!

[kylie]

This phrase was not created by Lenin, but by Marx:


i was sure this was by Lenin, but checking it, it seems you're right.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from feoric on 12:14 pm on April 28, 2003

This phrase was not created by Lenin, but by Marx:


i was sure this was by Lenin, but checking it, it seems you're right.

I think you are referring to where I corrected you on the concpetion of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a requirement for socialism and the waging of class struggle.

It is easily mistaken since Lenin expounded on the theory Marx created. So I can understand how you made the mistake. I only corrected you in order to alter your perspective of Marx and Lenin, not sure if it has.