Question on Leninism

[Red Menace]

Now, I never really agreed with Leninism, up until this point. I have been reading about it, and as my political understanding increases, i have come to like Leninism a little bit more. But I do have a question. Regarding Lenin's theory on there being full-time revolutionaries. What exactly do they do? Do they prevent corruption by leading revolts against present and future leaders? I'm confused?

[bezdomni]

Full-timers usually get some small amount of money from a communist party so they can spend less time having to work and more time contributing to revolutionary politics and doing things among the masses.

It's pretty simple, really.

(If you don't like Leninists, then why do you have a hammer and sickle avatar, and a quote by a Marxist-Leninist in your sig?)

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:37 pm
Full-timers usually get some small amount of money from a communist party so they can spend less time having to work and more time contributing to revolutionary politics and doing things among the masses.

It's pretty simple, really.

(If you don't like Leninists, then why do you have a hammer and sickle avatar, and a quote by a Marxist-Leninist in your sig?)
no, i never said I did like Leninists. I just said I didn't neccesarily agree with some of the things they believed, but as my political understanding has grown, I have grown more accepting of Lenin's theory.

(and my avatar, isn't a hammer, its a cross and sickle, sybolizing my christian beliefs, but i'd really rather not argue about my avatar, cause I know someone will say something)

[BobKKKindle$]

Full Time Revolutionaries form part of the Vanguard Revolution - Lenin believed that in the absence of an organised and dedicated vanugard, the workers would fail to undergo the process of class consciousness and the revolution would never occur. Lenin believed that this vanguard had to lead the proletariat into revolution themselves - he spoke of the proletariat only being able to gain power and consciousness from an outside force and not indepdendtly.. Once the revolution has occurred, the Vanguard plays a role in guiding the change to the Socialist Mode of Producition through control of economic assets and political institutions.

I am of course not a Leninist, as I believe that the nature of the revolution that overthrows Capitalism will to a great extent determine the society that follows, and thus a revolution based on centralisation and heirachy will not accomplish a socialist society. Leninists are not able to explain why the USSR turned into a deformed worker's state and eventually a State-Capitalist-imperialist nation.


A small, tight, solid nucleus of the most dependable, experienced and hardened workers having trustworthy representatives in the main regions and connected by all the rules of secrecy with the organization of revolutionaries can quite capably, with the widest support of the masses and without any formal organization, fulfill all functions of a professional organization, in a manner desirable to a Social-Democratic movement What is to be Done?

No matter what you say I am going to challenge you your avatar. Do you think that communism and religion are reconcilable? In the past, Religion has been used to excuse exploitative systems of economic and social heirachy on the basis they were ordained from a higher being. What would you describe yourself as ideologically, given that your avatar suggests your religous beliefs intersect with your politics?

Even if God did exist, we would have to abolish him

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 11:40 pm

A small, tight, solid nucleus of the most dependable, experienced and hardened workers having trustworthy representatives in the main regions and connected by all the rules of secrecy with the organization of revolutionaries can quite capably, with the widest support of the masses and without any formal organization, fulfill all functions of a professional organization, in a manner desirable to a Social-Democratic movement What is to be Done?

No matter what you say I am going to challenge you your avatar. Do you think that communism and religion are reconcilable? In the past, Religion has been used to excuse exploitative systems of economic and social heirachy on the basis they were ordained from a higher being. What would you describe yourself as ideologically, given that your avatar suggests your religous beliefs intersect with your politics?

Even if God did exist, we would have to abolish him
I don't believe what most christians believe. I follow only the teachings of christ, nothing else. I don't really believe anything in the Bible happened, that they are merely stories on how to live ones life, and even then i don't follow them that much. I think religion should be a private thing that should not be discussed. It should be taboo.

I have no problem with the abolition of churches or organized religion. I am in fact of supporting the abolition of organized religion.

Ultimately my politics are my religion. My religion is my politics.

[chimx]

No matter what you say I am going to challenge you your avatar. Do you think that communism and religion are reconcilable?

yes, of course they are. religion is dynamic, not static, and has successful adapted itself to all previous forms of economic paradigms and the classes they serve (ie. classical, feudal, capital). what reason would this have to change?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 06:48 am

No matter what you say I am going to challenge you your avatar. Do you think that communism and religion are reconcilable?

yes, of course they are. religion is dynamic, not static, and has successful adapted itself to all previous forms of economic paradigms and the classes they serve (ie. classical, feudal, capital). what reason would this have to change?
Doesn't this tell you something? Religion is a human construct, primarily used for societal control, not some form of divine metaphysics. Communism represents not just a shift in class dynamics but an end to class society in its totality. Religion is dynamic because its been altered in order to fit the economic paradigm of the time as a tool of control. Its incompatible with materialism and I doubt it will exist in a communist society.

[BobKKKindle$]

On first impressions your politics seemed absurd, but what you posted is rather reasonable - one of the most interesting and reasonable comments from a theist in terms of religion and leftism :)


yes, of course they are. religion is dynamic, not static, and has successful adapted itself to all previous forms of economic paradigms and the classes they serve (ie. classical, feudal, capital). what reason would this have to change?

The only way in which religion has changed over time, if at all (as is certainly not the case in Islamic Theocracies like Iran where the patterns of repression, particuarly of women, are the same as they were at the time when Islam was founded) is in adapting to better serve the ruling class to suppress the proletariat.

Religion no longer fully serves the purpose of justifying economic exploitation through the idea that it is ordained from god, rather, religion's primary role in the 21st century, I feel, is as a way of preventing the proletariat from realising the fundamental class antagonism by focusing their attention and frutstration on national, cultural, and religous antagonisms - so that the proletariat does not struggle against the classes that exploit them (ie Capitalists within their own countries and across the world), but rather different cultural, national, and religous groups which the proletariat perceives as being in somewhat exploitative, 'evil' and worthy of their fear and opposition. These anatagonisms are of course, 'false' - the way in which the proletariat can realize power and emancipation is through overthrowing capitalism.

This role of religion is somewhat more specific to the United States and Western Countries. In other parts of the world, for example, in the middle east, religion may have a different form of repression under Capitalism.

One could say with respect to the above that religion is similar to fascism, in that it helps the capitalist class to mediate class struggle through anatagonism displacement.

Thus, if class struggle does not exist - that is, a socialist revolution occurs, there would be no place for religion, and religion is primarily a tool of the ruling class, and the ruling class would not exist.

[chimx]

You are forgetting Marxism 101. Cultural, political, and legal institutions--what Marx called the superstructure--do not direct historical progress. Production relations do. Any new production relationship, communism included*, will have its own superstructure, and representative of the class commanding society. It is not such an absurdity to think that religious institutions can quite easily evolve to serve a communist epoch, especially considering the popularity of leftist Christianity today (marxist theology, liberation theology, minjung movement, etc)

The transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe provides us with an example of how religion plays into this picture. Obviously as a feudal state, 18th century theologians believed that monarchs obtain their divine right to rule from god. This is why an Italian pope would place the crown on the head of a French king.

With the onset of the French revolution, the bourgeoisie did not view this cultural institution as inherently antithetical to the values of capitalist enterprise. Instead they worked to adapt religious institutions to the new production relationship. When Napoleon was crowned king, he very symbolicaly took the crown out of the Pope's hands and crowned himself king. It was through meritocracy and capital accumulation that one obtained power under this new historical epoch, not through divine right. Religion, being dynamic, shifted to serve the new production relationship.**

This is not to say that some of the bourgeois didn't seek to destroy religion. Robespierre created the Cult of the Supreme Being, while other more radical Frenchmen created the Cult of Reason. It is too bad communists don't more often look at this failure of these groups, and why a staunch anti-theism is culturally alienating.



*obviously if we are speaking of communism we are speaking of a classless society, but in the abstract the idea still applies.

**this is not to say that religious institutions, as remnants of a preexisting order, can't be a conservative force. Simply that through struggle, religion can inevitably adapt. another wonderful example of this is again in the french revolution, when lower members of church abandoned their positions as representatives of the old order and sided with the 3rd estate and took the tennis court oath.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12, 2006 04:34 am
Regarding Lenin's theory on there being full-time revolutionaries. What exactly do they do?
When I was a district organiser for the SWP, my responsibilities were, primarily, to build an SWP branch within the district. This meant, essentially, building a "presence". This included organising paper sales (we were set targets) and working within established campaign groups for campaigns chosen for attention by the Central Committee.

I discovered that the majority of my time was spent harassing people who had foolishly given their names and addresses at some point and had made its way back to the "centre" (the name given to the central HQ in London).

I also realised that people gave me superficial respect and put unnecessary faith into me instead of actually realising that it was in fact themselves who were responsible for organising themselves, not me.

I received £800 a month and had my travel expenses covered.


Do they prevent corruption by leading revolts against present and future leaders? I'm confused?

Full-time members or 'district organisers' are just apart of the chain of command. They're foot soldiers who take orders from the Central Committee and help develop branches/groups of the Party who follow the party line.

There role is to lead and ensure that what the party says is being adhered to.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2006 10:52 am
I received £800 a month and had my travel expenses covered.
Damn, I'm going to move to the UK and become a Cliffite trot! :blink:

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 02:20 am
On first impressions your politics seemed absurd, but what you posted is rather reasonable - one of the most interesting and reasonable comments from a theist in terms of religion and leftism :)


Who? Me? or chimx?

[The1337Marxist]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12, 2006 06:20 am
Ultimately my politics are my religion. My religion is my politics.
If this is your opinion I have a hard time conceiving how you can expect anyone to take you seriously. Politics are best left out of your own natural need for a hope in the form of your own personal religious beliefs and vise versa.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 12, 2006 04:52 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 12, 2006 04:52 am)
Red [email protected] 12, 2006 04:34 am
Regarding Lenin's theory on there being full-time revolutionaries. What exactly do they do?
When I was a district organiser for the SWP, my responsibilities were, primarily, to build an SWP branch within the district. This meant, essentially, building a "presence". This included organising paper sales (we were set targets) and working within established campaign groups for campaigns chosen for attention by the Central Committee. [/b]
AFAIK, Lenin was never a member of the British SWP.

Really, that applies to most of the secondhand descriptions of what Lenin meant by professional revolutionaries: they have little to do with what Lenin actually said and did.

Red Menace, I recommend reading "What is to be Done" if you want to know how Lenin answered your question. Also take a look at the history of what the Bolshevik Party did.

[RedSabine]

The guy who started this thread wanted to discuss leninism, not his religious beleifs. Besides, he said that he beleieved in the teachings of christ, not the church. Jesus was a communist.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by The1337Marxist+December 12, 2006 10:54 pm--> (The1337Marxist @ December 12, 2006 10:54 pm)
Red [email protected] 12, 2006 06:20 am
Ultimately my politics are my religion. My religion is my politics.
If this is your opinion I have a hard time conceiving how you can expect anyone to take you seriously. Politics are best left out of your own natural need for a hope in the form of your own personal religious beliefs and vise versa. [/b]
How so? My religious beliefs are intertwined with my political beliefs. I believe in the teachings of Christ *I don't mean to preach, but you guys brought me to this* he tought to take care of the sick and the poor. He tought to look out for them, and to always question authority. Those are as well my political beliefs. That is why I call myself a Communist. Because I care about, and will fight for, who jesus fought for, and eventually died for.

I'm not trying to push Christianity on any of you. I could give a shit if any of you are christian or not. It's your choice. What your doing has apparently worked out for you, and what I have done has worked out for me. I'm just bringing up Christ to make a point.