Stalin was a Faithful Marxist-Leninist

[antitrot]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embas...13/stal-ml.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/stal-ml.html).

STALIN WAS A FAITHFUL MARXIST-LENINIST

(from "EurekAlert!" http://www.eurekalert.org
Contact Henk Klomp [email protected]
31-70-3440714
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research)

Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless society until his death in 1953. This is the conclusion of researchers at Amsterdam University (UvA) who studied Stalin's annotations in books by Marx, Engels, and Lenin in his private library. The research was carried out in the form of a project funded by the Dutch research organisation NWO. Many people have viewed Stalin - who always considered himself Lenin's most faithful disciple - as having betrayed Marxist principles from the moment he came to power. Howerver, the researchers say that Stalin's words and deeds are in fact reconcilable.

The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society. Moreover, Stalin's correspondence and discussions with such Communist leaders as Mao Zedong and Palmiro Togliatti show a continuing faith in the spread of communism and "world revolution."

Stalin has often been accused of betraying Marxism because of the way he built up a centralised state and because of his principle of "socialism in one country." These political aims are supposed to have undermined the Marxist doctrines of a classless society and world revolution. Stalin's patriotism is also supposed not to fit in with the Marxist world view but to represent a return to ancient Russian traditions.

The Amsterdam historians say that Stalin was not in fact the originator of the idea of "socialism in one country." This principle states that an internationally isolated socialist state has long-term viability and constitutes an intervening phase on the way to the ultimate classless and stateless world society. The idea in fact originated with the German Social Democrat Georg Vollmar, and the orthodox Marxist Karl Kautsky also propounded the idea of an autarkic socialist state when explaining his Erfurt Programme. His comments on the Erfurt Programme were virtually the bible for Marxists in the early twentieth century. Thus the idea of socialism in one country was originally developed within the Socialist Second International, which the Russian Bolshevik party originally belonged to.

According to the researchers, Stalin's patriotism has a Jacobin origin. The Jacobins were a left-wing French political movement in the eighteenth century who aimed to use revolution to revive their fatherland. Stalin, too, saw this as his main aim, believinv that it could only be brought about through a revolutionary transformation. He considered the Tsarist-capitalist system as responsible for weakening the Russian state.

The political works in Stalin's private library are almost all by Marxist authors. Books by non-revolutionary Russian political thinkers are not included. The library consisted originally of some 19,500 titles, 5000 of them on political and related topics.



Further information:

Dr. Erik van Ree (UvA)
T +31 20 525 2470
Email [email protected]

[peaccenicked]

I posted this elsewhere but since you missed it.
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/...fheben/auf3.htm (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html/Aufheben/auf3.htm)

[TheDerminator]

I am afraid you are all theory and no spirit. There is a huge difference between the approach of Lenin and the approach of Stalin, and that is for Lenin the party was there to serve the interest of the working class, and thus Lenin possessed in his theory the spirit of socialism, but Stalin never gave a damn about the working class, only about the party, and even more specifically his power over the party. He did not possess one ounce of the spirit of socialism, and his commitment to international socialism is a bad fucking joke. He only committed himself to extending his own influence, and all his words, which possessed propaganda about his faithful Leninism, are travesty to the spirit of Lenin, and a travesty to the spirit of real international socialism. derminated.

[Thine Stalin]

Stalin did more for the people than lenin did, Lenin committed many of the same as stalin did, but we do not hear about him as a tyrant. Stalin brainwashed several generations into being communists, after they died or simply had no influence, idiots raised under stalin's predecessors had a revolution. Stalin created the first collective farming program, NOT lenin, Stalin didn't follow lenin, you are correct, he went beyond anything lenin ever did

[Kez]

Lenin fucked the system for the workers, stalin pissed all over the workers sytem

Lenin was a genius
Stalin was ok, but a bastard for killing so many real pure communists
if those communists hadnt have been killed, not as many people would have died in ww2
the soviet industrey would have been more powerful

fucking jack ass stalin
he was good at glorious plans, all 3 of them
but fuckked up society

comrade kamo

[red head]

greetings antitrot, its always good to see a pro-stalin point of view here. i think stalin was a good leader, acted in the best interest of his people, and contributed to his society much more than he hurt it. lenin set up the soviet union, but remember he was only in control for 6 years before he died. stalin advanced the country into the 20th centaury. people always ***** about the gulags, which lenin set up by the way, but there are things that people forget. the workers in the gulags were actually paid. yes, things were bad, but who in the world had it easy in the 1930's? the things that make stalin a good leader and not a great one was the corruption and burreaucracy that came about, and many senseless deaths. i believe mao rectified these problems almost completely in china. keep in mind however that stalin had no model to go by when creating the ussr.

[El Che]

Stalinism is red fashism and so is Leninism. DEMOCRACY is key. Acountable power comrades, acountable and removable.

[red head]

thats a nice ideal you have there el che, but it doesn't happen overnight. democracy (which i oppose in its truest form) must be worked towards and i believe stalin and lenin were both heading that direction. and neither were fascist. fascism is more than just a blanket term for any system with a lack of democracy, its a true political system that has existed in germany, italy, spain and others. as far as socialism in one country, stalin helped the international left-wing movement more than any moderate socialist who uses parlaimentary means to achieve socialism. while they were completely concerned with getting progressive laws passed in there country, stalin was giving aid to china, albania, north korea and others.

[TheDerminator]

Sad to read this stuff.
Our socialist movement is in paralysis, and part of the reason is that this guy Stalin was a mass murdering unethical bastard who used complete brutality to enforce his version of primitive socialism.
His brand of "socialism" was an affrontery to the human race, and it is appalling that any supposedly ethical person does not see the bastardom for what it was and what it is in retrospect.
No wonder people think the concept of "socialism" is a dinosaur, when there are people like antitrot, red head, Thine Stalin and TavareeshKamo who think this monster was at the very least "okay".
What is fucking "okay" about being a fucking mass murderer?
This bastard sullied the name of socialism. He was an insult to the memory of Lenin, and the introduction of "collective farms". Another bad fucking joke.
The Friends of the People had their sad collective farms, before the Soviet people had their sad collective farms. If someone on a collective farm did not like the way the party ran the collective farm he or she would end up in a fucking Gulag.
What is all this shit, "democracy (which I oppose in its truest form")?
Lenin critisised bougeios parliament democracy, not because he was against democracy, but because he thought bougeois parliamentary democracy, was no democratic enough. He thought quite rightly, that all people were doing were voting for a party who not just supported the bourgeois State, but at the same time, as soon as the election was over all control was in the hands of these political functionaries.
Because, there is no day to day participation and involvement of the people in maintaining control over their own lives, Lenin rightly saw termed this "parliamentary cretinism". However, to believe, that this made Lenin anti-democratic as El Che sees it is a huge theoretical blunder. And the not so strange thing is that both El Che and red head possess common ground.
For Lenin true democracy, would be when the working-class people controlled as much power over their own futures and lives as possible this is true democracy,. and these shit collective farms were never apart of true democracy.
There is a real horror in the fact that you have never rejected Stalinism. In the Bolshevik party Bukharin was a favourite and although Lenin reproached him for his mechanistic approach to Marxism, Lenin tolerated him as he tolerated Trotksy, even though he was critical of Trotsky on the trade union question. Trotsky thought that unions should be abolished and Lenin quite righty believed that even after the revolution, that trades had an important role.
All you see is traitorous degeneracy in Bukharin and Trotsky, but these men possessed the spirit of socialism just like Lenin. Lenin would have been fucking appalled that Bukharin ended up in front of a fucking firing squad, and that some bastard put an ice pick into Trotsky's head.
All you see is degeneracy. Your socialism lacks humanity. You would have kicked the poor widow of Bukharin in the face for greiving for the "degenerate". You have no depth of compassion in your "Communism". It is not communism that you possess as your political philosophy, is cruel brutal mechanical thinking that cannot see the heinious tragedy, that was played out by Stalin, and his cohorts. You are carrying on an atrocious tradition. An appalling atrocity, and you do not see the damage it has done to international socialism.
It is not just sad that you can not see the real degeneracy, it is shocking. derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 8:18 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)

[Moskitto]

I would have to say I agree with you for once Derminator.

And if anyone wants to know about Fascism, here's Mussolini's work on Fascism, It's also useful if IP claims that Mussolini was a socialist.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...rks/fascism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm)

don't know why I didn't include the link before

(Edited by Moskitto at 11:27 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from red head on 1:45 am on Feb. 13, 2002
i think stalin was a good leader, acted in the best interest of his people, and contributed to his society much more than he hurt it.Yeah, except for all of his people whose deaths he is responsible for.

[pogo]

I havent even read through all the replies and allready im pissed. To suggest Stalin was a good leader is horrendous. His contribution to the soviet union was self gratification. He did all he could, which included all the people he killed, to be more powerfull. Now to me that sounds a wee bit like capitalism. One man in charge is not the answer. The Dictatorship of the Proleteriat has nothing to do with a supreme dictator. Now, I can almost understand the killing of anti-revolutionaries in a revolution, but then to kill other communists and people working for the same revolution as you only to gain more power for yourself.... That is truely anti-communist and inherently, well, evil. And right now people like the PLP would tell me to be against stalin is to be against communism. Well I say toss off. Hitlers party was the National Socialist party. Becuase the word socialist is in there are we to support him as well? I say no. Stalin could have as many good intentions as anyone, and he would still be an evil man. He betrayed the revolution by hindering it, and deciding to minimize his contributing to its expansion. Do you know he told revolutionaries in other countries NOT to incite revolts? why the fuck not? ok, Ive said my bit. But to conclude.. Stalin was in fact a traitor to Marxism.

[Xvall]

Whether or not Stalin/Lenin/Mao/Whoever did something wrong, or didn't create the 'ideal system', it doesn't mean that they cannot be respected. Despite what most dictators do (Try to conquer the world), I think that Lenin was far from that.

- Drake Dracoli

[red head]

determinator-
how the hell can you come in here and tell me what "my kind of socialism" is just because i admire one man who brought a huge country to order and not only kept it together for 20+ years, but industrialized it and greatly increased its life expectancy as well? how can you tell me my socialism "lacks humanity"? do you think i sit around thinking "yeah murder is bad, but hey, its good for industrialization"? do you think i put machines above human life?
i am a communist because i believe everyone should have an equal say, and equal chance, and equal wages based on their abilities. i see corperations putting profit above human life, creating a hierchy, and killing millions in unnecessary wars. the worst effects have been felt in the 3rd world. stalin took over a poor war ravaged country barely out of the feudal ages. he organized labor and got food for people who were starving. he wasn't perfect, and needless killing is always horrible. but he did save and improve many lives in the long run. his continuing popularity in russia says a lot about what he did for the country. also, the biggest anti-stalin sources are the US media and Kruschev, both of whom had motivation to lie about stalin.
and don't try to trap me somehow by quoting me on opposing democracy. democracy isn't a blanket term for freedom any more that fascism isn't a blanket term for totalitarianism. democracy is majority rule, and complete majority rule means dictatorship of the majority. in an absolute democracy 51% of the people would have the ability to do anything to the other 49%. this is not in the best interest of the people, and the best interest of the people is my best interest. so please, learn a bit more about someone before you accuse them "of cruel brutal mechanical thinking".

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Moskitto on 5:00 am on Feb. 14, 2002
I would have to say I agree with you for once Derminator.

And if anyone wants to know about Fascism, here's Mussolini's work on Fascism, It's also useful if IP claims that Mussolini was a socialist.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:07 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


Musollini was a socialist before and during WW1 but converted to conservativism at the end of the war and moved even farther to the right around the 20's and early 30's. Then he began the fascist regime and banned all left-leaning party's.

As for Stalin, the only thing good I have to say about him is that he won WW2. He did a horrible job in imposing Communism in the U.S.S.R. First off, he killed off almost all of the original Bolshevik revolutionaries (including exhiling Trotsky, which in my opinion one of the near best revolutionaries in history) and completely perverted all of Lenin's ideals. Lenin would have pissed on Stalin if he were alive when he did all that shit.

[Moskitto]

I swear I put that link in there. But eitherway, those Mussolini quotes that IP posted are actually in Mussolini's document "What is Fascism" which also explains what the difference between Fascism and Socialism is. Mussolini even realises that Socialism is Democratic.

[El Che]

Maybe Determined would like to explain why he drags my name through the mud, what common ground do I share with stalinist fascists?

[Moskitto]

Derminators posts look intellegant and well layed out. You can tell this by the fact they are complicated and generally not very interesting to read. However deep down they show signs of rushed and highly emotional construction through his use of explicitives. I would suggest a superiority complex.

[El Che]

Again I must demand a reply.

[The Iron Heel]

A swedish professor (whose name escapes me) wrote an interesting book, bringing to light evidence that the Westren powers began a propoganda campaign, using civilian casulties and genocidal measures used by the Nazis and attributing these to the (seemingly) genocidal policies of Stalin. I've yet to read the book, but a brief overview I've seen seems quite convincing. I'll try to hunt down the source soon.

As for Mussolini, he was a clear opportunist. When he was the editor of the 2nd largest socialist publication in Italy, he wanted to be known as the Lenin of Italy, but that was quickly abandoned & discarded when a drastic shift to the right (& hunting down those Leninists he once identified with) seemed more profitable (for power, that is).

[MJM]

Iron Heel please post any info you find on the article and swedish professor.

[Forever capitalism]

Thine Crime you say Lenin was a tyrant yet have his picture as your representative logo. Smart huh?

[El Che]

Forever capitalist if you dont confine your self to the CvsS forum u WILL be banned.

[Kez]

derminator, im not a stalinist, although in the past i have sed that stalins "glorious 5 years plans" made defeating the fascists possibel, and also made it possible to compete with the capitalists
if im a stalinist, y am i trying to spread the youth revolution to around the world? as opposed to socialism in one country?
Stalin muredered many many people, including the best communismts the world has ever seen, and i have fiercely condemed them, and yet you seem to believe im a stalinist? u made a mistake with el che, i aslo demand you take me off ur fucked list.
who the fuck are you to give your comrades grief?

comrade kamo

[The Iron Heel]

TavareeshKamo, please, composure. He may have been a genocidal monster, or a true revolutionary whose been falsely attributed these acts by a gigantuc fabrication campaign. I submitt to you, that you should review all possible angles first before getting excited. That's the dialectical way, irrespective of where the 'facts' lead you.

And by extension...


Iron Heel please post any info you find on the article and swedish professor.

I'll do you one better, here is Ludo Martens Another view of Stalin (http://www.tiac.net/users/knut/Stalin/book.html) in its entirety.

Edit: It's a book, not an article.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 8:06 pm on Feb. 18, 2002)

[Kez]

who the fucks this guy with no name or avatar?
fucking hell

wtf u on about, im telling him that im not a friggin stalinist, not what stalin did/didnt do

fux sake
comrade kamo

[Iron Heel]

"who the fucks this guy with no name or avatar?
fucking hell"

Heh, who the fucks indeed, teeheehee. It was me, my account melted after I tried to change my password shortly beforehand. It worked for one post, then the next one it became anonymous, then after that the account became utterly inoperable. Not sure why. I have some experience with ikonboard, (but recently with 3.0, and this board is running beta 2.1.19). At any event, I've emailed the board's admin & created a new account.

"wtf u on about, im telling him that im not a friggin stalinist, not what stalin did/didnt do"

Wtf am I on about? First, I am attempting to keep a discussion civil (hence, productive), and again, it strikes me that you're coming accross as overemotional. Secondly, you're not a frigging stalinist, I gathered that part, I am, however, drawing attention to the notion that what stalinism is depends largely precisely on what he did/didnt do (and for the sakes of argument, notwithstanding what you consider yourself to be).

"fux sake"

Partial credits http://216.40.201.155/s/contrib/blackeye/stretch.gif.
__________________
Respectfully, Iron Heel.


(Edited by Iron Heel at 8:04 am on Feb. 19, 2002)

[El Che]

lol omg. Iron meet kamo ^^

[The Iron Heel]

Heh :P . Anyway, Malte retrieved my old account for me today, though he was as puzzled I was in regards to the nature of the error/bug that deleted my account.

/me makes a note not to mess with the profile again :) .

[vox]

Something that is lacking here is that it wasn't some Western Imperialist Government that brought Stalin's terrible crimes to light, but Kruschev. Now, unless the Stalin fans on this board are willing to call Kruschev a capitalist sympathizer, shut up, please.

Stalin was a brutal dictator. We know this much is true. However, what hasn't been mentioned is that he was a lousy Marxist. Let's not forget that he wrote, in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R:"

"[The Soviet government] relied on the economic laws that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy."

This is vulgar, mechanistic Marxism at its very worst.

First, it says that the Soviets made history in a rational fashion. They noted the appropriate law, which is supposed to be beyond human will, and enacted it, that is, they willed it. Is this Marxism?

Too, it's the Soviet government, not the working class, which is the agent of this transformation.

Also, Stalin does not look at the condition of the working class to determine that the Soviet Union is socialist, but makes a scientific sllyogism based on a sham law! Where there means of production are socialized, there is socialism, therefore the people rule. In the Soviet Union, the means of production were socialized, therefore the people ruled. In this way Stalin discounted the plight of the worker in the Soviet Union, who worked for the benefit of a bureaucratic collective, much like people labor for capitalists!

Without political as well as economic power, how can a Marxist say that socialism exists? Marx wanted a society in which the means of production were in the hands of the producers. In the Soviet Union, the government owned the means of production, and the workers had no say in the government!

Stalin was not only a brutal dictator, but a very bad Marxist, one who, like Lenin, thought that Marxism should operate as some sort of clockwork.

vox

(I relied heavily upon The Twilight of Capitalism by Michael Harrington in writing this post)

[The Iron Heel]

Heh, as for myself, I havne't made up my mind yet, but I'm willing to seek the truth with an open mind. That being said, let me address your points, vox.

"Something that is lacking here is that it wasn't some Western Imperialist Government that brought Stalin's terrible crimes to light, but Kruschev. Now, unless the Stalin fans on this board are willing to call Kruschev a capitalist sympathizer, shut up, please."

Thanks for saying please, heh. First of all, the question is what crimes did he make public? The 1936 purges? 'Genocide' in the Ukraine? What death tolls did he provide? What scope of crimes did Kruschev claim took place? This is where those who claim a fabrication of evidence come in. The figures quoted of those killed by Stalin are one of the most varied in the world (I have some familiarity with the relevant historiography), ranging between 2 and 60 millions fatalities. Of course Prof. Martens knows about Krushchev, perhaps you, should read what he has to say about Krueshchev's role prior to exclaiming the ultimate end of the discussion. He is not a highschool student, he is a scholar, a professor, and he did not forget that Krushchev existed, nor what he did.

"Stalin was a brutal dictator. We know this much is true. However, what hasn't been mentioned is that he was a lousy Marxist. Let's not forget that he wrote, in 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R:'

'[The Soviet government] relied on the economic laws that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy.'

This is vulgar, mechanistic Marxism at its very worst.

First, it says that the Soviets made history in a rational fashion. They noted the appropriate law, which is supposed to be beyond human will, and enacted it, that is, they willed it. Is this Marxism? "

It may very well be Marxist. And it seems to me that your own (or whoever you adopted that interpertation from) understanding of what that excerpt means is intellectually vulgar. I don't know where you get the impression that this (historical or economical law?) is 'supposed' to be beyond human efforts and wills (what exactly? And why beyond human efforts and wills?). I have read Stalin's aformentioned book, and I have my own problems with it, but you've really lost me here. I am truly puzzled.

"Too [ sic: Two ] , it's the Soviet government, not the working class, which is the agent of this transformation."

It is supposed to be the vangaurd of that class. That's prefectly in-tune with Marxism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, etc.

"Also, Stalin does not look at the condition of the working class to determine that the Soviet Union is socialist, but makes a scientific sllyogism based on a sham law! Where there means of production are socialized, there is socialism, therefore the people rule".

The people rule? I'm not sure what that's supposed to refer to, whilst the society is, again, still in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase, but all Stalin is stating there (Sham law? which law specifically?) that after the means of production are socialized and the exploitative system is abolished, socialist economic forms are created. This is socialism, not the final phase of communism, I hope you're familliar with this distinction as it is a pivotal Marxist tenant.

"In the Soviet Union, the means of production were socialized, therefore the people ruled."

The people ruled what? how? Do you mean revolted? Where does the concept of the vanguard play a role in your hoplessly confusing (to me) thoughts?

"In this way Stalin discounted the plight of the worker in the Soviet Union, who worked for the benefit of a bureaucratic collective, much like people labor for capitalists!"

In which way? Not letting 'the people rule'? Or maybe the conditions of work & workplace representation? So confusing.

"Without political as well as economic power, how can a Marxist say that socialism exists? Marx wanted a society in which the means of production were in the hands of the producers.[/b]"[/b]

The means of production are nationalized and socialized. There are no capitalists to extract surplus value from these, and the resources are, more-or-less, shared (even if a beauracratic class does arise, it profits from revenue, not surplus value, a huge difference) infinitely more so than under capitalism, even if the managment of which is controlled by the vanguard. Lastly, to Marxist a socialist state is a temporary one. Aside from the question whether this was a sucessful or failed socialist State, it was not communism. Socialism is not the goal, it is an interim phase towards a higher level (according to Marxists at least, and we are discussing Marxists here).

"oviet Union, the government owned the means of production, and the workers had no say in the government!"

Are we speaking about the nomenclatura, the beauracratic class that arised later on? That is not the same thing as demanding the people to have '(liberal/electoral) democractic-like' powers in a government which is supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, a vanguard. If you wish to criticize Lenin, or Stalin, through a social-democratic angle, that's fine, but you imply that it is a Marxist angle you are employing, and I find that to be far from the truth (that much I am clear on).

"Stalin was not only a brutal dictator, but a very bad Marxist, one who, like Lenin, thought that Marxism should operate as some sort of clockwork."

Again, you provide opinions and anecdotes (which are the status quo, hence, we are all familliar with them), seemingly basing that on one excerpt whose (mechanistic) style of writing bothers you more than the actual content, which you fall shor of addressing sufficiently, I think. Then you conclude with well-known anectodotes. But I myself, at least, am seeking well researched and well thought-out 'lucid' thoughts of this. There's little offered in your posts which will persuade me to lean on either direction (and again, I haven't decided ).

"vox

(I relied heavily upon The Twilight of Capitalism by Michael Harrington in writing this post)"

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure the tone (if not the level of articulation) is much the same. Michael Harrington is a social democrat (was the national chairman of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee or DSOC), not a Marxist. I expect him to be hostile to Lenin (not to mention Stalin). There's little reason to think he can leave an open mind to read Prof. Martens book. He already made up his mind, not just about Stalin, but Leninism and Marxism in general (which he profoundly misunderstands, I believe).
Neither have I been persuaded by his writings, nor this post. I, however, unlike some others, am willinmg to keep an open mind, and review all possible facts and angles. Oh well.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 5:27 am on Feb. 22, 2002)

[Kez]

*looks at that fuck off massive post and looks to the skies*

Indeed Khrushev was a genius, and the best leader ussr had after lenin.
However, did the ussr need some1 like stalin to create ussr into superpower? (not looking at deaths)

comrade kamo

[The Iron Heel]

Holly fuck. The same Krushchev who said "comrades, we have reached the final phase of communism" after intoroducing somewhat more of a variety of light consumer goods? That's the final phase of communism? That's the best leader of the U.S.S.R.?

looks at that fuck off massive post , what the fuck is that supposed to mean? That short uneducated replies is what you want this forum to consist of? Fine, it's your forum, but I'm afraid that I overestimated the depth of discussion here.

Take it away Kamo, the floor is yours to make expeltive-filled baseless uneducated replies, be it about the Shah of Iran not being a U.S. puppet, or Krushchev being the best leader of the U.S.S.R.

I give up. Have a nice fuckin day.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 8:55 pm on Feb. 22, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Iron heel I think you make sense.
Vox is making vague points.
Kamo looks lost and floundering.
Vox writes about Stalin
then finishes with a cheap shot at Lenin.
vox you say you have been with Leninists.
yet you see lenin in a light that suggest to me you
have not studied him properly.
Perhaps you could take a more direct approach which backs up your claims.

[The Iron Heel]

peaccenicked, thank you so much for taking five minutes of your time to read my oh-so lengthy post, perhaps this forum is not beyond hope after all.

They both seem to have their own agendas -- you might say that I too have one, but I am trying to illustrate my own attempt to seek the truth here, and I attempted to do this with the utmost clarity and lucidity.

Kamo's reply is based more on ego or something similiarly petty, rather, than an attempt to reasonably discuss the subject.

And vox, as I already commented, bases his 'argument' (which is to me, is as incoherent as Kamo's post is immature) upon a social democratic understanding of Marxism, which really is quite remote from the subject at hand. Basically, vox is asking, why can't Marxism make the dictatorship of the proletriat 'democratic', a question I'd be happy to address at greater length (despite Kamo's objection that posts in these forum should be fuckin brief), if it was not for the fact that it is hoplessly mixed with other pivotal misconceptions. But I did make a fair attempt (unlike some others here who apperently see this as a personal, not an intellectual discussion).

[Moskitto]

Rummel said that the highest Stalin's death toll could be was 120 million (although he settled on 65 million), but that is total bollux as far as I can see. The highest reasonable estimate is 20 million, maybe 30 million on the outside.

Russia is a big country and 60 million wouldn't sound unreasonable in a massive country, but it's population isn't very big. (160 million at the time of Stalin) and if these deaths happened mainly in 2 places (Ukraine and Siberia) then the bodies must have gone somewhere. I mean only 2 million died in Cambodia and there's big piles of skulls everywhere, In Siberia there's not.

Stalin's purges were not a "Genocide" (except the Ukrainian Famine.) "Democide" is the term to use. Genocide is targetting a specific ethnic group not a generic term for mass murder.

[peaccenicked]

Iron Heel
I can see your point as someone who has led many classes on the State and Revolution.
I have no problems with the concept of democratic dictatorship. One is form the other content.

It seems that some people dont like the word and see it as the antithesis of democracy. They dont see that it is the content of the dictatorship that is important.
Bourgeios dictatorship
proletarian dictatorship.
Both have can have democratic forms,
an undemocratic forms.
Vox quotes Stalin
[The Soviet government] relied on the economic laws that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy.'

The claim is not true. They did not socialise the means of production what was being socialised by confiscation in the revolution was clawed back by the condradictions
of the law of plan and the law of value in a relatively primitive economy. The plan increasingly produced commodities that had neither use or exchange value. hence the black market.
the revolution needed to be international for the law of value to have no influence on the economy.

[The Iron Heel]

Not only have I led such classes, I tought them :P (in the context of 20th Century history classes though). And I am far from a final authority on this, I hope that's clear since I commented enough times that I am still seeking the truth on this.

That being said, allow me to (this time briefly -- I have to get going) to address your points and ask some questions as well:

I think they did nationalize and socialize the majority of the economy (that is, these were not privately owned anymore). The successes/failures of planning, management and production approaches & standards notwithstanding (in a more limited sense, in a broader sense, very important indeed).

Now, I am a bit confused, so perhaps you could clarify the following for me:

I. You state that "The plan increasingly produced commodities that had neither use or exchange value. hence the black market."

Of course there was an emphasis on heavy industry vis.a.vis light/consumer goods. But no exchange or use value at all? Can you give specific examples? And which time period do you have in mind? Are you refering to forced collectivization? To the Kuibyshev's reforms? Or the more modest one implemented shortly thereafter? Changes to the Gosplan? Or perhaps you're not even refering to the 1930s, but events before or after... In short, please clarify.

II. You also state that "the revolution needed to be international for the law of value to have no influence on the economy." I am far more interested to learn what you mean by an 'international law of value' in general, and specifically what it means for it not to have an influence on the economy.

So, again, please clarify, and if you don't have much time, I'd much rather have II. (your understanding of the 'law of value') answered than I.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 11:15 pm on Feb. 22, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

THis a big job and I have a cold and I have just noticed a mistake I have made in my explanation. I ll get back to you when I have cleared the matter up in my head.

[El Che]

Iron Heal, I tend to associate vanguardism with lenin and not with Marx. I know Marx spoke of dictatorship of the proletariet, but he did so what once? And i also know for a fact that during his time he defended participation in established political system. This was the position he defended in the First International, against violent revolution. Marx was not an idealist, lenin on the other hand was. In my mind Leninism and vanguardism in general will lead to stalinism or worse, and even if Marx did agree that vanguardism was the way foward that matters not to me. Marx`s contribution is in his method, in exposing the truth for all to see. I wonder how the from dictatorship can have content of democracy... In any case if like me vox sees Marx as oposed to leninist vaguardism then his post makes sense to me, but i dont wish to put words in his mouth he can speak for him self. I dont agree with Leninist line and think Marx would have disaproved of "Marxist-Leninism".

[peaccenicked]

The plan increasingly produced commodities that had neither use or exchange value. hence the black market."
This should read there was no commodity production in the ussr.
I am talking about a general development in production
whereby the plan was increasingly producing dysfunctional products. indicating an absence of socialisation.

[The Iron Heel]

peaccenicked, no problem, take your time and elaborate when you feel better.

El Che, I disagree. Marx mentioned the role of the Communist Party to serve as the vanguard of the class, it is not a Leninist construct.

I do not think Marx would have objected to Marxism-Leninism, I actually think he would have embraced it.

To me, Leninism is Marxism applied to the epoch of Monopoly Capitalism, whereas 'Classical' Marxism (Marx's own approach & works, that is) is applicable to the era of Industrial Capitalism, the era in which Marx was writing in.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 2:49 am on Feb. 23, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Iron Heel, I think yesterday I reverted to some earlier thinking I had disposed of years ago. Still I am not sure if you are defending Stalins claim but if you want to examine the early political economy of
the USSR, I will go over old notes and books
I think that was a result of tiredness.
Nevertheless,
the reason I disposed of it was that I came into contact with Hillel Ticktin at Glasgow Uni, and in coming to grips
with his views.
I accepted the was no commodity production in the ussr
and that the production of substandard goods in the Ussr was proof that the economy had not been socialised. Ticktin pointed to numerous examples
a factory producing only left sided boots.
The lack of socialisation in the USSR, that was evidated
then as the bureaucratic plan acted as a fetter on production for need .
This might be lazy minded as I did not follow this road too far, but I inferred from the decline of Stalinism,
that this lack of socialisation was at it its beginnings
as I could not imagine that a climate of fear could be good for economic development in the long run and was in itself anti thetical to socialisation.
I was wondering if you are familiar with Ticktin's ideas.
I ve been arguing with him for years in a freindly enough manner, he has much more facts at his fingertips
I like to think I have had a little influence on him, although
he has undoubtely influenced me in matters of political economy. I think a modern theory of Imperialism has to begin with a critique of him.
One of the things I found useful about him was that he gave Stalinism a place in world history as accidental and anomalous to the course of general human development.
This might be a good starting point for looking at US
imperialism. The advent of a new Rome has not been predicted by marxists or theorised as a part of the whole of human history as far as I can see.I wonder if you have any thoughts on this?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:30 pm on Feb. 23, 2002)

[Kez]

Iron heel, calm the fuck down. geeeeez
firstly, no-1 gave u shit, andthe only person on this thread to give insults was you. so stop.
Secondly, the fact that u dont know me and yet call me imature is ridiculous, and i think u should look urself in the mirro, next time u wanna go into a pissy mood and start crying. now go sulk in ur own room
Vox is the most educated people on this forum, and yet you her/him shit

comrade kamo

[The Iron Heel]

He tells me to calm the fuck down, after telling me to fuck off for no reason. And then praises the mighty intellect of Vox. LOLLOL! Go sulk in your room, LOLOL! Boo-fuckin-hoo, what am I gonna do, Kamo's idiocy is too much to bear, Sniff. Your contribution to this thread is now complete, you fuckin troll.

And don't get your fuckin panties in a knot though, you've already made it clear you are both ignoarnt and mean-spirited, you seem to be satisfied with these accomplishments. Now you and Vox can debate existentutal philosophy, and how progressive it is. I'd be a mused if you were'nt serious. You are certainly beyond reproach, arne't ya. Teehee.

[The Iron Heel]

peaccenicked, I'm not defending anyone, I am trying to review this issue through all possible angles. My point was only that lack of coordination in the managment of production has (or can have) nothing to do with the level of socialization, merely with (exactly that), an inefficiency in the management (or central planning) of the economy. But my earlier point was that this deficiency was mainly limited to the light industry, to consumer goods. Since in other areas of the economy, such as heavy industry and the military expenditures we do not see those same problems, it's likely that this was simply a product of prioritization, rather than some sort of inherent deficiency. At any event, I am convinced that only an intesnive examination of the economic history of the U.S.S.R can lead us to any conclusive (if at all) understanding of this issue.

Of course, one can simply resort to anectodal & incoherent matphysical webs, such as Vox has elected to do, or simply tell anyone which slightly disagrees with you to fuck off, such as Kamo's approach (whose brilliance in this thread is truly astounding).


(Edited by The Iron Heel at 9:00 pm on Feb. 23, 2002)

[vox]

Iron Heel,

Perhaps you wish a discussion about Kruschev, based on the first paragraph of your repsonse, rather than one about Stalin? Surely, you're not denying that bodies, human bodies, were dug up, and you're not denying that those bodies were there because by Stalin's order? No, of course you aren't. Rather, you succumb to the temptation to play with numbers, or to question another's role, rather than to deal head on with the facts, and those facts are the unearthed corpses that Stalin gave, so generously, to the world.

At what point do the numbers stop counting? Is two million somehow understandable, but 80 million a crime? Are 4 million okay, but 60 million too many?

You question the numbers but you don't account, at all, for the action. Why not?

You go on to write:

"It may very well be Marxist. And it seems to me that your own (or whoever you adopted that interpertation from) understanding of what that excerpt means is intellectually vulgar. I don't know where you get the impression that this (historical or economical law?) is 'supposed' to be beyond human efforts and wills (what exactly? And why beyond human efforts and wills?)."

Since you're in the dark, I'll clue you in.

Marx claimed that capitalism was a prerequisite (surely you understand what that means) for socialism. The means of production must be in place before socialism can exist. This isn't really a question, it's basic Marx.

However, you question the "law." Okay, it's the law that the foundation of capital which exists in a society must be able to produce the commodities necessary for that society to exist, and must do so in such a manner that it doesn't lead backwards, to Feudalism, but forward, to socialism. Now, tell me, did Russia have such a system in place? No, it didn't. You may argue that it did, of course.

"Too [ sic: Two ] "

I wouldn't have said anything, but you made and issue of it. Too, in this context, means "also," and it's perfectly acceptable usage. Perhaps English isn't your first language, or perhaps you felt smug. In either case, be careful when correcting my grammar. A trip to www.dictionary.com may be in order for you.

"It is supposed to be the vangaurd of that class. That's prefectly in-tune with Marxism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, etc."

Etc? What's the etc?

Regardless, your statement that a 70 year "dictatorship" is what Marx had in mind is highly suspect.


In the Critque of the Gotha Programme, Marx wrote:

"(B)etween capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

However, Marx envisioned "transformation," whereas your Stalinist ethos say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in and of itself, socialism, which is clearly not the case.

You will also note that Marx HIMSELF separated the economic from the political: "There corresponds to this also a political transition period...." Marx, being wiser than either of us, understands that the economic transformation of a society is not the political transformation of a society. Your vulgar and deterministic Marxism, the Marxism of the Right, holds no sway with me.

"The people rule? I'm not sure what that's supposed to refer to, whilst the society is, again, still in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase, but all Stalin is stating there (Sham law? which law specifically?) that after the means of production are socialized and the exploitative system is abolished, socialist economic forms are created. This is socialism, not the final phase of communism, I hope you're familliar with this distinction as it is a pivotal Marxist tenant."

I've already spoken to "which law," but now I will argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT meant to exclude the actual PROLETARIAT!

Indeed, how can one say that the "vanguard," which I call self-appointed leaders, of the proletariat, "represent" the proletariat at all? And, if such members of a "vanguard" DO represent the proletariat, then why do they cower from democracy? Why do they cower from accountability? If they, as the Stalinist says, provide "socialist economic forms," then why do they (the "vanguard") need to maintain political power over the very proletariat they claim to represent? "You are free, but you will not be allowed to exercise this freedom. Just TRUST US. You are free."

Yes. And Ignorance is Strength, no doubt.

Perhaps the very worst thing about Iron's post is the intentional misunderstanding of what I wrote, or perhaps it wasn't intentional, though I think it was.

Here's a telling passage:

"In the Soviet Union, the means of production were socialized, therefore the people ruled."

The people ruled what? how? Do you mean revolted? Where does the concept of the vanguard play a role in your hoplessly confusing (to me) thoughts?

"In this way Stalin discounted the plight of the worker in the Soviet Union, who worked for the benefit of a bureaucratic collective, much like people labor for capitalists!"

In which way? Not letting 'the people rule'? Or maybe the conditions of work & workplace representation? So confusing.

He's confused because he, I think purposely, took the words out of context. Here's what I wrote:

"Where there means of production are socialized, there is socialism, therefore the people rule. In the Soviet Union, the means of production were socialized, therefore the people ruled."

Iron Heel decontextualized my words, that is, he took them out of context, in order to refute them. However, he didn't deal with the issue at hand.

My point was that Stalin said, much like Iron Heel, that since the capital of the country was "socialized," and in a state where the workers own the means of production, then the USSR was socialist, though the workers had no power AT ALL. Again, both Stalin and Iron Heel rely on the economic to predict, in the worst kind of mechanist Marxist fashion, the political, when Marx himself separated the two.

The point is that the gov't of the USSR said that the workers were in control, but the workers had no control of the gov't. Sounds familiar, huh? The backeward logic, that Iron Heel embraces, is that the Soviets claimed that, since the gov't owned the means of production, the workers owned the means of production, because they were a gov't of the workers.

But how can anyone say, with a straight face, that a gov't which does not allow democracy is in control of the workers? It's bullshit, of course, and easily recognized as such. No wonder Iron Heel is so confused. He agrees with Stalin.

Iron Heel goes on to say:

"The means of production are nationalized and socialized. There are no capitalists to extract surplus value from these, and the resources are, more-or-less, shared (even if a beauracratic class does arise, it profits from revenue, not surplus value, a huge difference) infinitely more so than under capitalism, even if the managment of which is controlled by the vanguard. Lastly, to Marxist a socialist state is a temporary one. Aside from the question whether this was a sucessful or failed socialist State, it was not communism. Socialism is not the goal, it is an interim phase towards a higher level (according to Marxists at least, and we are discussing Marxists here)."

Here he says that there are no capitalists to extract surplus value, so it MUST be socialist! He sounds a lot like Stalin.

When a worker labors for someone else, and that someone else OWNS all of the CAPITAL, then couldn't we call the owner of the capital a capitlalst? Yes, of course we can. If the gov't, in which the worker has no say, is the owner of the capital, then couldn't we call the gov't capitalist? Of course we could. Now, this is the easy argument for the USSR as State Capitalist, and I don't agree that it was, entirely. I would, however, very much like to see Iron Heel's Stalinst arguments against it, and also his defence of it!

"Are we speaking about the nomenclatura, the beauracratic class that arised later on? That is not the same thing as demanding the people to have '(liberal/electoral) democractic-like' powers in a government which is supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, a vanguard. If you wish to criticize Lenin, or Stalin, through a social-democratic angle, that's fine, but you imply that it is a Marxist angle you are employing, and I find that to be far from the truth (that much I am clear on)."

Here Iron Heel says that Marx didnt' want democratic participation of the proletariat. The very Marx who said that the proletariat is the only revolutionary class. Hee!

I guess Iron Heel knows better, huh?

Fact is, Iron Heel is now trying to distance himself from the Stalinist, and Leninist, tripe he spewed just a few short paragraphs ago. It's a pathetic undertaking, to be sure, for previously he argued that people didn't have to vote for there to be a democratic system, and now he's saying his position may be vulnerable to a democratic attack.

This boy just can't sit still, can he?

Iron Heel ends by saying that Stalin's mechanistic Marxism is just a "style of writing" and nothing more. He goes on to question whether I'm a Marxist at all!

Perhaps Iron Heel wants me to endorse violence (which I will not do, and which is a trick of the gov't). Perhaps Iron Heel is truly a Stalinist (which would only mean that he is vain and thick-headed). Perhaps Iron Heel truly does mean well, but thinks that he, and the intelligentsia, are somehow more profound than the worker (which would mean he's a good dog and a Leninist).

I hold with none of his vulgar, clockwork Marxism. Maybe Iron Heel wants to pretend it's 1849, but I do not.

I prefer a Marxism for my time, not his outdated, Stalinist fluff.

vox

(Edited by vox at 11:39 pm on Feb. 23, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

My sentiments precisely, sir. And I submit to you that it is in contradictions and hypocrisy that you are threading here. Calling me pig, then dissociating yourself from personal attacks, heh!, that strikes me as both elusive and cowardly. Cowardly, since you’ve yet to address any of my substantive thoughts towards your original post in question here.

My reply to your post (a page or two back), which I found highly ambiguous, is at another page. It took me 10 minutes to compose it, afterwhich I was told to fuck off and that it is too lengthy by one of your friends.

Apparently asking for clarification about what seemed to me (and I was not the only one) anecdotal conjecture and emotionalism and asking for facts, or mere logical coherence, was asking far too much. And, again, I was not the only one who saw these shortcomings. And I was civil at that point, and I did not personally attack anyone. However, this intellectual disagreement/critique for one of your friends was viewed as sheer insolence.

After being personally attacked then (told to fuck off, that is), I responded in kind, but not so in regards to vox, my contention remained wholly intellectual (and civil) when it came to him. Then (yes, it keeps going) I see something that earned my contempt towards vox (at the very least to doubt his aforementioned alleged superior intellect). At one of his posts, vox called Lenin a dog (at the relativism thread above) . Much like the thread here, with very little supportive facts or any substance whatsoever.

And I am told: 'Behold vox intellect is beyond your understanding, his intellect is a superior one, clear of doubt and bias (well, sort of, heh). Somehow I was a bit doubtful of this. And since I do have some understanding of existentualism (& I do believe it is idealistic, and neither a progressive nor dialectical philosophy), I see Vox speak here.

And he is demanding facts & elaborations, accusing of conjecture and personal attacks, and at the same breath calling me a pig, which he repeats in the relativist thread. A an aside, one would assume that since Che was a Marxist-Leninist, and that this is a Che forum, perhaps the anti-Leninist could at least refrain from calling him a dog, at least without any basis and merely in passing.

Hypocricy is the greatest luxury, vox. And I will quote you, therefore:


Perhaps conjecture can work wonders in your mind, but once you make it public, you need to prove it, son.

But I'm not without hope. I am willing to conceed to the chnace that you may genuinely lookover my writings in this thread, and that perhaps you will attempt to actually clarify the many contested points I raised. I argued that your position as was stated in this thread is both vague and flawed, you can still afford to try to answer in a civil manner, and to facilitate an intelectual discussion as opposed to a flamewar. It may happen.


(Edited by The Iron Heel at 8:58 am on Feb. 24, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Iron Heel,"an inefficiency in the management "
surely the same apology can be said for capitalism
which inneficently does not include workers in
managemment and pays lip service to 'worker participation' by asking workers to suggest ways to disipline the work force.
The point is surely a democratic plan is essential to socialism and if you are not apoligizing for Stalin you
must say that the well documented climate of fear he introduced, to murder Leninists and dissent was not merely an inadequacy of management.
Vox To say Stalin was a Leninist is mere a lie
If you say Stalin was a Leninist you have to say
he was a Marxist. Because He misused them both in exactly the same way.
He paid lip service to them.
You give Stalin credit were credit is not due.
What proof do you have that Lenin was a mechanical thinker.....you have shown none or even given an example. This seems an odd ommision in an arguement
with 'little' Leninists.

[The Iron Heel]

Well, no, I don't beleive so, because I see some important distictions. When I spoke of the level of socialization, I was speaking of the fact that even if we have deficient consumer goods, it may still be socialized (in any level), notwithstanding its deficiency. Moreover, I alluded to the possibilit that this may have been due to prioritization. That is, military goods were top-notch because it was a priority, reosources were expended into ensuring high qualitative standards. In consumer goods, this was less so. I, myself, am not aquainted enough with the economic history of the Soviet Union to be able to tell whether this was wise, necessary, or an error. So I will comment no frurther in regards to this.

As for Stalin reign of fear. Again, let me repeat that I am simply unsure the extent of this. This is why I am attempting to get input on this from both sides of the board (so long as they are based on 'something').

Now, it is important to note that when vox calls Stalin a Leninist, it has a negative connotation. It means, he supports the argument that Stalin crimes were genocidal in scope, and he attributes to Lenin similar actions (or potential of which). But when someone who believes the extent of Stalin's crimes has been lragely fabricated, and they call Stalin a Leninist, it has positive connotations. So tgiving to Staling the title of 'Leninist' is a double-edged sword, bearing both positive and negative references (depending on the who is giving the title).

But yet again, I reiterate, I am simply unsure which direction to lean towards. I am an historian by profession, and for me historical evidemce (and it's presumed authenticity) matters a great deal. I am not yet at the point where I am confident with the evidence I have in either direction.

The reason it seems as if I'm defenbding Stalin is simple. A lot more Stalinist views have been expressed here, but 'how' they've been expressed simply reflects (to me) the more simplistic main-stream intepretation, so I bring to light contrary points simply to show the other possibility. To encourage others to seek the truth with research, not with a priori already-set views.

And, of course, because I'm not sure, I'm often simply stating that: your view of Stalin is dependent upon what he actually did, something which may not be as clear as we are generally led to believe. Remember, I said may. But my convictions are real in regards to this, I feel very strongly about not being sure, though ultimately that may not last.

Gah, enough writing for now :) .

Edit: Oops, I was digressing and failed to address your inital point in its entirety. The analogy of central planning to capitalism has some merit, especially in the late days of the Soviet Union, but there are some critical differences. In capitalism, there is surplus value extracted from the workers, in the Soviet system this did not happen. One class (nomeclatura) eventually did rise up to have priveliges, but this, as I mentioned, was based on revenue, not surplus value.
Also, central planning is, as its name hints, a lot more central then capitalist entities, which are more organic, etc. The notion of democracy in the dictatorship of the proletriat is something I believe I adressed at some length already, I do not believe it is practical or (hence) desirable. But I also envision mechanisms, I want call them 'democratic or electoral', but ones that serve to lookover the system and ensure it is on being abused, corrputed, or mismanaged.


(Edited by The Iron Heel at 9:24 am on Feb. 24, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Must admit I feel more than a bit uncomfortable with the language of primitive socialism, such as the faceless "masses", the sub-human "lumpen-ploretariat" and the "dictatorship of the ploretariat".
Marx did not intend "lumpen" to mean sub-human, but the problem I have with it, is that criminality is not just assigned to the so-called underclass, and there are larger crimes than what individual murderer's do. If the word goes beyond criminality, there is also a lumpen bourgeoisie and in fact you might say the whole popular culture is more than a bit "lumpen". How far do we take the word "lumpen"?

As for "the dictatorship of the ploretariat" it was born in the aftermath of the Paris Commune, and it was because the government forces were allowed to retreat and regroup. They returned to smash the Commune, firing with cannons in to their "beloved" Paris.
Out of the ashes, Marx saw the necessity for a transitional period after the revolution wherein, the ploretariat would have to prevent counter-revolution.
Although, I believe in democratic socialism in advanced industrialised nations rather revolutionary conspiracies, it does not mean that there is no baby in the bathwater.
We only have to look back at the example of Allende in Chile, to see that there was a huge cost in lives for not stripping the enemy of the powers to create a counter force. Chile had no revolution as such, nor had Allende any conception of advanced socialism, but for all that it was a brave effort, and a collosal tragedy.
Unlike Marx, Allende did not learn the lessons of the Paris Commune, and I am afraid you cannot just blame Pinochet for the mass slaughter, to some extent Allende died by his own hand. He gave Pinochet the gun, the bullets, and the room to commit the evil crime.
Marx was right in his analysis, that you have to safeguard socialist gains through armament, but the "dictatorship of the ploretariat". No, my friend, the will of the majority, democracy, and the legitimate defence of democracy, and that includes nullifying the impact of those inside a socialist country who would overthrow democracy, for their own selfish interests.
Always, always in the name of Democracy, in the name of Freedom, try to learn something from the bastards. For socialists democracy and freedom are more than just names.
derminated.

[The Iron Heel]

Right when I'm editing, everyone is posting at once.

Very nice post, TheDerminator. It actually fits quite well with my edit, even though there was no possible way that was your original design.

Many years have passed since the Communist League and Marx's first formulation of Communist Theory. Many of it's tenants remain very relavent. Ironically enough, my avatar is Allende being stomped by the Iron Heel :) .

http://www.inlondon.com/community/images/images/clubs/london.gif

[vox]

Iron Heel,

You go on for a great length about what "others" have said, but you do nigh little in regard to what I've said.

You're sounding more like a cappie all the time.

Indeed. I made myself very clear, and I answered your objections in my last post. Now you ask for more "logical coherence," yet you've yet to show anywhere that I wasn't coherent. Indeed, you relied on taking things out of context to even ATTEMPT to show some sort of incoherence.

And, of course, all this post does is taunt. No where in your last post to me do you suggest anything new, and no where do you deal with what I said.

Calling me an idiot is fine, and it doesn't, of course, require any supporting quotes, which you sorely lack.

Maybe you do know something of "existentualism" (sic), thought, since you've twice misspelled it, I have to wonder, and I have to wonder how you think you can call it "Idealistic," based on nothing but your own bias.

You seem to want to set yourself up in opposition to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if you're a fraud, a scared and cowardly right-winger hiding behind a supposed Leftist identity to try to engage me.

However, when you accuse me of Idealism, I demand that you quote me, that you give evidence, otherwise shut your foul, Stalinist hole.

Indeed, you don't seem to quote me much at all, but prefer to act like some idiot Pat Robertson drone, all accusation and no proof.

You accuse me of hypocrisy, but you show no hypocrisy on my part.

You're good, IH, at handing out labels, but you're not so good when it comes to defending your Stalinism.

That's too bad. I recommend anyone who has just started to read this thread to go back to the beginning, see how IH took my words out of context (whcih he didn't, I think, deny) and then see how he states I said nothing, though surely I did, and sounds increasingly like a right-winger when confronted.

How very pathetic.

vox

[peaccenicked]

The history of stalin is well documented
There are many books by Trotsky.''Let history judge"
Mendevev. the memoirs of Zhukov are interesting.
You seem to think of democracy as a means of checks and balance mechanisms for management. Anything
else would be impractical. Marx does not envisage this at all. "the free development of each is the condition of all", the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary evil until this point. It is in essence the rule of the majority over the minority ie it is democratic in form. This majority
if socialised take full part in economic management and plan for an inclusion of the remaining minority. This Marx
viewed as the "abolition of the distinction between manual and mental labour."

(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:50 am on Feb. 24, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:09 am on Feb. 24, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

Yes, thank you vox, for once, inspite of calling me a capitalist and whatnot (you must average 2 insults of me per post, right?), your advice is actually one I approve of.

Please do read this thread from the begining, 'how very pathetic' rings true enough for me in regards to the esteemd no-substance vox. When he is pressured about lack of clarity he resorts to petti insults, and if pressured further, this social democrat will call any Marxist a right-winger, whilst at the same he can express the most intellectually vulgar comments on Marxism, which proves to me he read very little of Marx, and virtually nothing on Lenin, and he is invinsible.

Because, alas! He is beyond reproach or criticism, and he will never answer directly to questions relvant to the subject matter, only political and farm animal insults. This way, vox can't lose, and he can set loose to his wildest designs. Logicall coherence and objectivity matters not, because he can always personally attack (and, of course, accuse of being personally attack at the same breath). Oh the irony.

Edit: Peacc, yes Stalinist crimes are well documented, but the extent of them is not. The documentation I've seen leaves a lot of open questions to which I'm still seeking answers to. As for the dictatorship of thr proletriat, I don't believe it was meant to include the majority in the economic decision making (not in an electoral sense, at least). The dictatorship of the proletriat means that the vanguard ensures that the economy operates in the interests of the majority. And, also, as you mentioned in another thread, that one can openly and critically review the manner in which this process takes place. But for practicality and efficacy, the 'centralism' in democratic centralism then plays the role of ensuring effective implementation and planning. Of course, once the phase of communism arrives we can expect to see intrinsically rewarding and unrewarding labout shared, and I believe the refernce of abolishing mental and manual labour fits into this phase, rather than the dictatorship of the proletriat one. Please correct me though if this is not the case by providing a more complete passgae, as well as direct source the excerpt was quoted from.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 2:38 pm on Feb. 24, 2002)

[vox]

Iron Heel,

I'm afraid that you've not yet shown where I wasn't coherent. Indeed, I pointed out that you took a quote purposely out of context, and you've not answered that objection. Rather, you've laid down a right-winger style defense, accusing me of all sorts of atrocities, yet not once backing it up at all.

I'm sorry that you don't seem able to understand what I said about Stalinism, but that's not my fault. I believe that I've been very clear on the matter, but you choose to disparage me rather than my argument (which you decontextualized for your own vulgar purposes).

I am not beyond reproach or criticism, surely, and when you wish to answer me, rather than mock me, I'll be here to reply. It's a shame that you need to avoid the content of my post and concentrate on me instead, though it's not surprising.

vox

[vox]

Iron Heel writes:

"As for the dictatorship of thr proletriat, I don't believe it was meant to include the majority in the economic decision making (not in an electoral sense, at least). The dictatorship of the proletriat means that the vanguard ensures that the economy operates in the interests of the majority. And, also, as you mentioned in another thread, that one can openly and critically review the manner in which this process takes place. But for practicality and efficacy, the 'centralism' in democratic centralism then plays the role of ensuring effective implementation and planning."

Here, Iron Heel is clear that he opposes democratic processes. Though he says the process should be open so people may critically view it, he does not give the people, the masses, any power to do anything about it.

This, in a nutshell, is my objection to "Democratic" Centralism. It is democratic in name only.

vox

[peaccenicked]

As for the dictatorship of thr proletriat, I don't believe it was meant to include the majority in the economic decision making (not in an electoral sense, at least). The dictatorship of the proletriat means that the vanguard ensures that the economy operates in the interests of the majority."
This just is not true .
Lenin believed no such thing.
what have you read of his and tell me where to go
because I know that you cannot
you are simply lying . I ll give you a week. Then I will produce the evidence.
You shoud withdraw your false charges immediately.

[vox]

peaceknicked,

Just to be clear here, you're not addressing me, right? I was only quoting from Iron Heel.

I simply want it to be very clear that your argument is with Iron Heel, not with me. I'm a bit cagey recently about such things.

vox

[peaccenicked]

yes , I am not addressing you.

[The Iron Heel]

Wow, no insults, vox. You must have been smoking something (I suggest you do this more often).

Yes, unlike the academic social-democratic (so-called) Marxists argue, I do not promote democratization in the narroow electoral bourgoeis sense, but rather democratic centralizm. Yes, it is may not be the "democracy" of the liberal-democratic nationsate, but it is not meant to acculturate such a supreficial shortsighted 'democratic' model, and it's regretful that you, who consider yourself a Marxist (albeit from the right-wing angle of which) that you view democracy in such a limited and parochial fashion. To reiterate, no, democratic centralizm is not liberal-democracy, but it is not meant to reflect such appraoches to begin with. If you actually read Lenin's thoughts on this, you'd find that these considerations are addressed by him (and answered to my satisfaction).

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 8:40 pm on Feb. 24, 2002)

[Guest]

You know what's really ironic, it always seemed to me that vox tried to be like the main character from the Iron Heel. In any case, haha.

[TheDerminator]

Iron Heel, I do not blame our friend Vox too much over his confusion about the value of democratic centralism. You see it only a means to an end, resulting in the greatest decentralisation possible, because the latter is what is the end result is all about. It is about trusting people with power and control over their own lives, and this did not occur in Soviet Russia except in the Soviets before Stalin annihiliated their power.
Decentralisation is the key to giving as much control as possible to people. The emphasis is upon democracy more than it is centralism, and that is what you should understand.
We require democratic centralism as a part of our socialism, because it is our only real effective organisational tool, and that is something both Vox and our friend Rosa do not understand, by adopting workerist positions in relation to the leadership, which democratic centralism provides.
We are not shallow democrats handing power to bourgeios politicians, and Lenin saw this, but at the same time Lenin's "All power to the Soviet's" was not enough. It had to be all power to the people, as John Lennon, would have put it, and the people in Soviet Russia, never really had the power, nor do the people of Russia possess that power now, they have handed it, to bourgeois functionaries, just like the rest of the unfree world has done, for too long a time.
derminated.

[El Che]

Stalin was a murderous dog, and politcal vanguardism is the cause of Stalin, of all the Stalins. It is irelevante is Marx defended political vanguardism or not, to me it is, i really dont care because i know it wont work, i know its a crime and i sure as HELL know i want politcal freedom to question and to oppose if need be. If you or other like you Iron Heal wish to take that away from me then it is you i shall fight first because you poison my movement. I apologise if i am making the wrong judgement of your person`s political views, but only in that case. In any even I like derminator`s post about the necessity of safeguarding socialist gains by force, it makes alot more sense to me then dictatorship of the proletariet as you seem to interpret it. A dictatorship of the proletariet safegaurds something else, that being its own political power, the people are more its enemies then its friends, and they serve no "majority", they serve them selves.

The biggest blind is the one that does want to see.

(Edited by El Che at 9:18 pm on Feb. 25, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

Read my posts, seeking the truth is not a crime. I do not know which movement you represent and why you believe I poison it. I simply refuse to believe that Stalin was a murderous dog (though I would not use such emotional language), or that he was not, without a thorough review of the evidence through all possible angles.

And El Che, I reiterate again that Che was a Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism is a doctrine which promotes vanguardism and the dictatorship of the prolteriat as an intemediatory stage to communism. As was mentioned, centralization as an interim stage towards the ultimate decentralization (i.e. final phase of communism).

Now, before you go on a whim and charge me of poisening your movement, try to recall who Che was. You cannot adopt the name of Che for your 'movement', and then charge me and others that we are poisening this said movement by promoting some of the most essential tenats of Marxism-Leninism.

With all due respect, that strikes me as internally
contradictiry. There is a tendency within leftist-bourgois intellectuals to highlight the name of Che as a romatic warrior, a robin hood. I, however, while appreciating Che own noblity and altruism, see him for what he was: a Marxist-Leninist. So, I may be poisening your movement by stressing Marxist-Leninist ideals and constructs, but that is the case, Che does not belong in your movement.

Edit: El Che, see my citation of Che bellow in which he clearly support the dictatorship of the proleteriat. If you believe that the dictatorship of the proletriat is a concept that poisens 'your movement' I submit to you that not only am I a venemous factor, but Che himself is poisening your movement by advocating the exact same thing (see passage bellow).

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 10:04 pm on Feb. 25, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

To finish my thought, I am quite surprised how often I've had to defend the concept of the dictatorship of the proletriat, in a Che forum, and even by someone who calls himself El_Che.

I am somewhat baffled, considering Che's own affiliation, that I would need to defend the same approaches that Che promoted, as a Marxist-Leninist.

Frankly, I did not expect to do this. Che was not a social democrat, he was a revolutionary and a Marxist. Marxism in inexorably linked to the dictatorship of the proletriat. I really am genuniely puzzled why I'm in the minority of those who support this approach, considering Che's similar views on this, and that, again, this is a Che forum.

I am stating this without any intention of malice. I really am interested to learn how such sentiments could be justified. In a social democratic forum, sure. But in a Che forum?

[The Iron Heel]

My train of thought dosen't end, it seems. :)

El_Che, finally, I would like to submit to you a passage from Che himself:

"the vanguard group is ideologically more advanced than the mass. This latter knows new values, but to an insufficient degree. While, in the former, a qualitative change takes place that allows them to go to a sacrifice in their more advanced function, the latter are only partially able to see and must be submitted to stimuli and pressure of a certain intensity: that is proletarian dictatorship exercised not only upon the defeated class, but also individually on the triumphant class" (from: 'El Socialismo y el Hombre en Cuba').

[El Che]

So let me get this straight, your reponse is that you "refuse" to believe the fact that the crimes of stalin constitute? My last frase was more apropriate then i thought. And i also regret to inform you that i think for my self. Che was an idealist, i wish i could be one too, but allas i cant for i am true to myself and i see that marxist-leninism is wrong and will help noone. My movement is that of any responsible leftist, the kind that thinks for him left and lets go of the past. The kind that evolves and learns for the mistakes. Marxist-leninism, this marxism directed towards parxis has more to do with fascism then with marxism. Marxism is something else, its a school of thought that points the way foward. I daresay Leninist vanguardism is not the way, it never was.

If you want to play games with my name so be it, but i would rather you adressed the real issues. How many stalins do you need before you stop refusing to look truth in the face?

You are part of an extinct race. And thank god for that too.

[The Iron Heel]

Let me assure you that playing games is not my intention here.

Che was a Marxist-Leninist and so am I. All I was saying that I expected to see more Marxist-Leninists in a Che forum precisely because he was one. And that I was indeed surprised that somone named El_Che would think Marxism-Leninism poisens his movement, when Che himself was a Marxist-Leninist. I don't believe Che was an idealist (or at least on in respect to what we are discussing here), but I'll spare you the usual polemics, and I am growing tired of this thread, to be perfectly honest.

As for Stalin's crimes, the extent of which is still subject to study. You may be certain of what that extent was exactly -- I am not. My efforts to study this will not be swayed simply because you are so vehement about your conception of what it was.

So, as I stated countless times, I have not reached my own conclusions as to this, but I have in regards to Che. That is, I support his Marxist-Leninist stance.

Edit: One more thing regarding the extinct race. Marxist-Leninists are alive and well in the wrold, though not in developed nations, where I believe more right-wing revisionism is prevalent. But in the 3rd world where the need for 'practical' revolutionary measures is pivotal, Marxism-Leninism is not extinct. Your frame of reference should not be limited to the West, to the instituionally comftorble 'communism' of, let say, the Italian or French communist parties. Nations such as Columbia et al. simply do not have the luxury to play intellectual 'games' (no pun intended), their very survival is at stake. But if 'my race' is indeed extinct (thankfully, though I won't thank god ;) , it is not), then there really is very little hope left.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 1:05 am on Feb. 26, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

El che
democratic centalism is a form of organisation nothing to do with Stalin.
It is not about elitism or a climate of fear that is
the bourgeios ethos of counter revolutionary
bureaucratic socialism

[El Che]

Yes well thats great peace but you can only effectivate democratic centralism if the majority democraticly agrees with such a reform.

It not only about democracy you know, as well as democracy i also want a open soceity. Do you know what an open soceity is? its the one where there is transparency, where any issue can be discussed and criticised by soceity. Goverment can be criticised, church can be criticised, any individual can be criticised, and so on. This is an open soceity, and I state to you that this type of soceity has a different spirit, a different feel to it. You dont feel closed or traped, you feel freedom in the air. I am from Portugal, and while i can think of many ways to improve the "democracy" in my contry of one thing i am sure, i live in a open society. Take the anarchist Chomsky, does anyone listen to him? nop, does the propaganda machine do a good job keeping the masses out of tune with his type of views? yup. Why? because the US isnt very democratic. Many things need doing. But does the anarchist Chomsky get deported to alasca? or to a political prison? nop. Why? because the US is an open society, in which(sometimes there are some limitations on this in especific cases) any issue can discussed, and institution/individual criticised.


Your marxist-leninism (peace&iron) can not give us such a soceity, and that is why i say u are dinassours. No-one will give up this blessing open soceity constitutes. I certainly will not. I want all the marxism in the world, all the socialism in the world, i want change radical change. But i am of a genaration that will not go to the past, i want these things in democracy(true democracy) and in an open state of affairs. Furthermore, its the only way they are going to work, although u cant see that, it is non the less the truth.

[The Iron Heel]

That's where we disagree. No one is saying that Marxist-Leninists have no right to criticize every individual/institution, but the question is what sort of criticism one should allow for. And if you read closely you'd note that I expect they'd be mechanisms for that purpose, to ensure that there is no beauracratic class or tyrranny.

But what sort of criticism should one allow? Criticism by pro-capitalist forces (who let say, are funded by capitalist nation seeking to destabalize the new hypothetical socialist regime) ? The answer, I think, is no. And capitalists will also do the same as soon as 'our' freedom of speech is a threat, they don't need to be as fascistic as Hitler or even Salazar to start a wave of purges.

Your view of the U.S. as an open society ignore one of the very first statments I made in this thread. That so long as left is weak, they could care less. Incidentally, they couldn't deport him, it's a U.S. state :P . And, of course, Chomsky appeared on Canadian tv 20 times, on various European ones 40 times, but in his home country, the U.S., only 9 times. But he is not a threat so he needs to be phsyically silenced, again, the left is too weak and not too many of the masses have a chance to be exposed to his viewes.

Don't admire liberal-democracy too much, ultimately it is a bourgeois State, and if it is threatened all these so-called democratic rights you praise will be gone out the window.

Now, the reason so many revolutionary groups in the so-called 3rd World are Marxist-Leninist (and do reserach this) is because these democratic rights don't exist in their countries. But they don't exist because material conditions are that bad that leftist forces are, in fact, a threat -- hence, the facade is gone. Not that the freedom of speech they don't have in Columbia matters as the U.S. sprays chemical on their land and they have no food to eat, and are trapped between their country's military and govt.-sponsored deathsquads who erase whole villages.

In the West, we have the luxury to buy into the facade, but it is a facade. The compromise of the welfare state is largely based on directing some of the more severe forms of exploitation to the exploited World. Events happening in Nogeria, Columbia, etc. are far more drastic than the exploitation we see in the West. The fact they, therefore, lean towards practical and not intellectual Marxism (not to mention the fact that anarchsim is virtually non-existent due to unpractical nature), is due to the necessity of their conditions.

Marxism-Leninism could not haappen in the U.S., even the so-called Communism of large European Communist parties is mere social democraticism. Could social democratic policies help elevate the masses in the particular (WESTERN) nation it assumes power in? Sure. But not in the rest of the world. This, since it lets the capitalist class endure, and it buys into many capitalistic values. Even though we live in the West, we should always extend our frame of reference beyond our immediate circumstances, beyond the facade of the West. What is happening in nations which suffer the most from impereialist domination and capitalist exploitation?

Marxism-Leninism will not arise in the West in any apprecaible capacity until there is a major collapse. But it could happen in Cuba and advocated by one Che, precisely because nations which are developmentally lacking, but exploitationally (new word!) abundant, have little choice but practical revolutionary approaches.

The phase of communism will not happen after an Allende is ellected (and such an occurence would happen against great odds of capitalist domination of insititutions, media, etc.), the capitalists will not let socialist nations to quietly arise. Class struggle works both ways, they will not let the nations of the world pass quietly into communism, they will fight and struggle (and they possess enormous power to do so). And when it comes to time of emergency, when the facade is lifted, social democracy, anarchism, and intellectual Marxism simply do not have the practical effect of Marxism-Leninism.

And lastly, note that it is always more difficult to promote a doctrine which is actually a threat to the capitalists, if it becomes powerful. It's easier to be a social democrat, an intellectual Marxist, or even an anarchist, because they threat capitalists very slightly. Being a Marxist-Leninist is infinitely more 'unpopular' in the supreficial popular-culture stance dictated by the billionbaire-owned mainstream media & other such mediums. Eric Hobsbawm noted how capitalists in Germany in the 1930s, donated money to every single-party, including the SPD, except the communists, even though they traditionally supported the conservative party -- they did it just to be safe. But why not the communists, why the social democrats? Simple: under a communist party billionaires will no longer be so. Under Social democracy the capitalists will still be allowed to exist, keep a great portion of their property. So it's natural they supported every party except the one that is the most threatning, whereby exproriation would be most intense, but if the left dominates, at least they can rest assured that they did everything they could that the SPD and not KPD assumes power. Such examples are universal, they are not limited to that particular (though especially poignant) historical example.

[Michael De Panama]

In any system where there is a ruling class and a ruled class, it is not communistic. I don't give a fuck if it is a command economy, it just isn't communism. I am not saying that "TRUE COMMUNISM" is where there is no ruling class, because that would imply that this can still be reffered to as "communism". There is no "True" or "False" communism. It's either communism or not.

Stalin was not a communist. He was a fucking tyrant. He lied, killed, and exploited his people (much like any capitalist would), and gave the capitalists an example of "why communism doesn't work".

There is no authority in equality. A totalitarian like Stalin could never be a communist.

[peaccenicked]

Democratic centralism is not a society structure.
It is the actual nature of any organisation which votes
without a climate of fear.
If there is a structure, such things as accounts, archives,
printing press are held centrally. A party is made from
an aggreed constitution and program. Democracy is the dynamic of the party.
The closed society is one whose institutions are
beyond public accountability.
This nothing to do with democratic centralism which if practised properly would entail the publication of
every side of the political disputes inside the party.
Socialists have always been open and never afraid
of their ideas.
As Marx said"communists disdain to conceal their views"

[vox]

"Democratic centralism is not a society structure.
It is the actual nature of any organisation which votes
without a climate of fear."

So, you at least admit that there is an organizational structure, yes? However, what if I were, in this organization, just a little more "vanguard" than you? A little more DC than you?

Would I have more power?

Perhaps.

However, suppose I lead this "organization," for Democratic Centralism demands a leader. Would I then be more "equal" than you, who sits outside of the Party?

Perhaps.

Suppose, further, that a revolutionary movement found the Party ousting the Czar in order to create a communist state. Is there already a power structure in place to fill all of the old roles?

Yes.

And that's the downfall, isn't it?

Despite all of the intellecual and academic talk, the fact remains that Leninists seek to replace one repressive infrastructure with another, which has, in the form of a Democratic Centralist Party, already formed the needed alliances and suspicions of any good capitalist State.

Democratic Centralism holds no truck with Marx.

To speak of Marxist-Leninism is, I think, about on the same liines as speaking about Hindu-Christians, or Peaceful-Warriors. The first does not support the latter.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Vox,
I really think you have been hood winked and are speaking from a position of a capitalist distortion of history and you throw in a few classical anarchist blunders.
Democratic centralism woud be best practised with a rotation of leadership. This tends not to to happen as Parties are made up of people who have invested in the party more than others and bureaucrats are unwilling to sacrifice what they see as their property. There should be some form of reimbursement if a comade as sacrificed a great deal personally for the party and is removed from office and wont take up a position as an ordinary member of the party.ie feels rejected
On old elitist structure is bureaucratic is not worthy of the revolution and is bound for failure.
If you think you can do away with the problem of power
by getting rid of it before the revolution, I am willing
to spend some time in Toy town with your infantile disorder.

[vox]

"I really think you have been hood winked and are speaking from a position of a capitalist distortion of history and you throw in a few classical anarchist blunders."

Fair enough. Please point to specific examples.

"Democratic centralism woud be best practised with a rotation of leadership. This tends not to to happen as Parties are made up of people who have invested in the party more than others and bureaucrats are unwilling to sacrifice what they see as their property. There should be some form of reimbursement if a comade as sacrificed a great deal personally for the party and is removed from office and wont take up a position as an ordinary member of the party.ie feels rejected"

How do you provide, structurally, for this rotation in leadership? You acknowledge that this tends not to happen, but you provide no solution. I maintain, as I always have, the Democratic Centralism is stucturally flawed and will only serve to enforce existing power problematics.

"On old elitist structure is bureaucratic is not worthy of the revolution and is bound for failure."

Exactly what I think. Where we differ is that you think one elitist structure can be replaced by another. For this, Iron Heel calls me "right-wing." Hee! Actually, most would see this stance as less Authoritarian and more Leftist, but then Iron Heel is a Statist and a Stalinist apologist, and this isn't really the time to go into that. The point is, you've offered no solutions and are simply HOPING that the stucture will change.

"If you think you can do away with the problem of power
by getting rid of it before the revolution, I am willing
to spend some time in Toy town with your infantile disorder."

Here you posit that power is a structural component of any organization before the revolution (and, indeed, you still insist on a "revolution" in post-capitalist economic constructs). By saying this, you make clear your essentialist, Idealistic and somewhat Magical belief that in a socialist society there will be a fairyland of sweetbreads for all. Such is not the case of course.

Work, HARD work, something I reckon you're not too familiar with, will still need to be done, and human beings will still have to it. This does not do away with power constructs. Indeed, it's only through sheer and true democracy that we can do that, but Democratic Centralism is the exact antithesis of such a thing, relying on old power relations.

I'm afraid you've not convinced me, nor anyone else.

vox

(Edited by vox at 7:20 am on Feb. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

"comrade" you are an insulting bastard,
how dare you tell me I am not familiar with hard work.
You do not know anything of my personal history.
Is it your task to alienate anyone who disagrees with you. I am a member of the working class that you profess not to want to alienate. You are a hypocrit that should not be tolerated among decent people.
I demand an apology.
You do not know anything about democratic centralism,
that is where you require hard work. What you describe is bureaucratic centralism. You have not deciphered the difference. I would look the two terms up on a Google search and you would be suprised by the no of entries that show up the differences.
'' Here you posit that power is a structural component of any organization before the revolution "
This is an anarchist fraud and I have been to a few anarchist meetings.
power is a hard fact of life and how would you get rid of some one who is guilty of sexual harassment from a group as happened at the Glasgow anarchist group.
They expelled him.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:39 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

[vox]

Hey, peacenicked,

I, too, am a member of the working class. That's something we share. And you know? Maybe you're right. Maybe I am an "insulting bastard."

However, you go on to say:

"You are a hypocrit that should not be tolerated among decent people.
I demand an apology."

Sorry, but you get no apology. I stand by what I said. Oh, and if anyone isn't paying attention, you've NOT ANSWERED ME.

You say it's as easy as a Google search, but you're too lazy to do it? If you have so much animosity toward me, and you've shown that in this post, then why not do the Google search and explain the difference?

I say it's because you can't. I don't think you know too much about Marx, or Lenin, or Stalin. That's just my opinion, however. Feel free to prove that opinion wrong, or tell people to do an Internet search, at least.

Fact is, you avoided the question. You didn't answer, boy. You come on all pholosophical, but when it gets down to hard facts, you shimmy and shake like a right-wing coward, don'tcha?

Where's the philosophical answer for structural determinism? Nowhere to me found!!!

Where's the philosophical answer for the abuses of Democratic Centralism? A GOOGLE SEARCH? HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

In the end, you betray the most pathetic defense of all: masculinity.

You wrote (and grammar be damned):

"power is a hard fact of life and how would you get rid of some one who is guilty of sexual harassment from a group as happened at the Glasgow anarchist group.
They expelled him."

You didn't define the group. You didn't present the charges, let alone the evidence. All we have is your word, and, sorry, but you're not credible.

Now, if you'd like to answer me properly, rather than hurling cheap invective, I'm happy to answer.

No hard feelings,

vox

[peaccenicked]

I was a little upset with your outrageous insults.
Firstly, my example is from personal experience
and is not documented you are merely inferring I am a liar
I like most people dont like being verbally abused
and you hide behind your ideas every time you are confronted with the plain inhumanity of your behaviour.
Power is a hard fact of life, that example was an illustration. You are avoiding the substantial point although I friends in the anarchist movement, I even have freindly relations with the guy who commited sexual harassment, his son commited suicide two
years ago and I have no wish to drag this conversation
beyond its intention, to illustrate this necessary feature
of power in the workers movement. We do not start from ideal conditions.
"The proletariat does not recognise unity of action without freedom to discuss and criticise...There can be no mass party, no party of a class, without full clarity of essential shadings, without an open struggle between various tendencies, without informing the masses as to which leaders and which organisations of the party are pursuing this or that line. Without this, a party worthy of the name cannot be built.-- Lenin
This has nothing to do with Stalinism and if you did not
just take your ignorance as gospel, you might actually study the subject matter. Your criticism is entirely based on moronic anarchist prejudice which posits a concept of
leaderlessness and then proceeds to act like a vanguard
by producing a news letter and using it as a central organiser.
Structural determinism, my ass,
There only a few main types of structures working class
organisations can have
Bureaucratic centralism.
Democratic centralism
and a loose circle that pretends it has no centre because
it is scared to look at the problem of authority full in the face while passing off its ideas as being the authority on the workers movement.
This behaviour should be considered shameful.

[peaccenicked]

I have just read through this thread again.
'I, too, am a member of the working class. That's something we share. And you know? Maybe you're right. Maybe I am an "insulting bastard."

However, you go on to say:

"You are a hypocrit that should not be tolerated among decent people.
I demand an apology."

Sorry, but you get no apology. I stand by what I said. Oh, and if anyone isn't paying attention, you've NOT ANSWERED ME. '

Your big head is stuck firmly up your small arse.
I know it is small because you cant get it out.
And if you think I am going to follow your head up your arse you are profoundly mistaken.
You must mistake me for a bare fool or a passive slave
if you think for one minute, that I woud answer a question that is not any of your business.
I have heard the unemployed been attacked by the protestant work ethic for years, it serves one purpose
but to humiliate them.
And you have the audicity to call yourself a socialist nae a marxist. That is a filthy lie. Such bile credits you nothing. It is as horrible as Stalinism.
What in your whole brutalised existence gives you any right whatsoever to afront me with such puerile innuendo and thinking you deserve an answer to it.
You dont deserve the company of decent people because you are fundamentally indecent.
If anyone thinks that you have a right to ask me about my employment history, then are as sad as you.
I am not here to cure the behaviour of one rather sick
individual with some intellectual pretensions, who
apparentaly enjoys abusing his political opponents.
Your intellectual cover is a blatant fraud.
If you ever get your act together, you might get spotted as a human being
and not a debased bully.



(

(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:28 am on Mar. 3, 2002)

[vox]

"There only a few main types of structures working class
organisations can have
Bureaucratic centralism.
Democratic centralism
and a loose circle that pretends it has no centre because
it is scared to look at the problem of authority full in the face while passing off its ideas as being the authority on the workers movement.
This behaviour should be considered shameful."

You draw some sort of distinction between bureaucratic and democratic centralism? You suggest that you do, anyway. I don't see the difference.

Oh, and I didn't demand an answer about your "employment history." I don't even believe that I asked that question, did I?

Fact is, there is such a thing as strucural determinism, and saying "my ass" may dismiss the matter for you, but not for me.

vox

[El Che]

Ok I think we need to "chill out" out over here, and I mean both of you. Im guessing your both adults so if we where discussing in person you would what? fight it out? have a good old round of box or something?

This isn`t civilized, what do you gain from personal atacks going back and forth. If anything it gets in the way of your own defense of your own points of view. And it does no credit to either. Just keep it civil, just because its an indirect discussion doesnt mean we should act differently then we do in real contacts.

On the discussion its self, the main error, from what i can gather of peace`s stance, and certainly the main error in iron heals stance, is the misunderstanding of society, reality. You wish to subordinate everything to the worker class problematic. The whole of society. This will not be acepted by soceity in general, not only the rich priviledged bastards. Authority is necessary and I dont think anyone of good sense will question that, so is change necessary, so is further equality, among men and among nations. The perfectly equalitarian soceity, if such a thing may ever exist, is not within our grasp. We must advance worker condiction, and indeed we must end it, rather end priviledge. But this is a change that must be acepted by society, must come from soceity its self. You can not inforce something onto the majority for long, nor is that a responsible ethical thing to do. You must do what u can, realising what is possible. Democratic centralism and other centralisms or beurocrasims, if froms of organisation within the "party" "vanguard" or elected vanguard or whatever are still one faction of soceity i.e the one concerned if the worker movement, the socialist movement. This faction, it is a faction, of soceity can not impose its agenda onto the rest of society. Soceities are complex and dinamic, there is more going on then class struggle. We must work with the people, persue democratic agendas.

To assume the postion that democracy as it exists now in first world contries should be overthrown, because there are powers that interfere with that democratic process is foolish and down right lazy. Its much easier to say "fuck it, its all a mess what we need is a revolution and then all will be good" then it is to work with what already exists. But although it is an easier postion to assume it is, from the start, and unviable project. It will never fucking work, the perfect soceity will not come that easly, yup that right, you have to do it the hard way, no revolution can bail u out. Sure there are problems with the system, sure economic powers pull their strings to force their influences of the goverments, sure there is manipulation, sure the media is propaganda. These are the problems, not to major if i may say so, at least they dont have milicias runing around pysicaly intimidating you like they had in eat timor, you can say what u like, do what u like, and vote the way u like. Its a start. Anyway the simple point is this, nothing is perfect, there are indeed problems with our political system, but what you should atack, what you should fight are the problems and not the system its self. Democracy is a process, many things are involved when it comes to democracy. A contry where there is where the majority is uneducated is a contry where the majority is easlily manipulated, and vice-virsa. You have to give things time, we like history so much, we look to history to fundament our theories and yet we fail to see one important lesson history has to offer: change takes time, it is progressive. Sure the french revolution was "fast" but behind it where centuries of evolution in the direction of humanity. And after it we had emporer napoleon. Real change, real end to feudalism toke a few centuries more.

lets all get along.

[Kez]

Edging away maybe form the orignial thread, but can Dictatorshiop of the proleteriat actually be democratic?
So the control is only held by the workers, as opposed to the capitalists for the capitlaists.
Can we say that the situation now is infact Dictatorship of the Cpaitalists? but still in a "democratic" system?

comrade kamo

[peaccenicked]

"Work, HARD work, something I reckon you're not too familiar with, will still need to be done, and human beings will still have to it."
This does not take the form of a question but there is a question implicit. You do not escape, your crude mal practice, by adopting another one. Especially, when you make it appear in your next post that I am avoiding that implicit question.
I could say for instance,
Beating your wife is a bad thing something I am sure you are familiar with, It must be stopped.
Your approach is one of a slippery eel and does not escape any of my conclusions about you.
El Che, I am not one for arguing with bullies who squirm out of any exposure of their their malice. I am merely
defending myself from blatant chicanery.
To the stance of reducing to the working class problematic, I do not do this, I look at the class content of all political questions, raising each of them to the level of State, this does reduce but expands the scope
of each political question.
The vanguard, does nt try to impose its agenda, ie
the idea of socialism, it raises its agenda as all parties do.
Democracy does not exist as such but a very poor version of it, I have never argued against the right to vote, or a multi party State,
This is one of the differences between democratic centralism and bureaucratic centralism, which cannot be inanely cobbled together as one, they are opposing forms, one stifles debate the other demands it.
This is widely understood within the Trotskyist movement.
A form of organisation such as democratic centralism
is designed to be flexible, and cope with change,
ie from illegal conditions to legal ones and viceversa.
A form of organisation is not the content of its political arguments. It is not the party programme or its analysis. The form of organisation merely gives the process whereby decisions are reached.




(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:02 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[El Che]

peace,

Vox is alright, hes just vox. You gotta acept people as they are... coz they aint gonna change.

Point 1) Marxist-Leninist agenda is imposed by way of
revolution.

Point 2) This [revolution] constitutes a subordination of
everything social to the working class
problematic. Not only revolution its self, but
rather and more so, the way in which society is
viewed. It is a distorted one-sided view of the
same. One in which, alas, everything is subordi-
nated to the socialist agenda. Society, I tell
you, will not stand for it.

[peaccenicked]

Firstly, I defend myself from bullies. Vox is eminently
a bullying 'scum'. How he refers to me. He has all the trappings of a 'good' stalinist. It is not the first time, I have met such vicious types, and the movement is better off without them.
The marxist leninist agenda is raised
and in the revolution it is raised with the anarchist agenda, the capitalist agenda.
How do you impose an agenda, stuff your ideas down peoples throats, that is a matter of bullying discourse,
one of the things I am arguing against on this site.
Nothing is subordinated at all in views or in practice,
Try reading Lenin on women and you will find
that this question is nowhere subordinated, indeed,
it is pushed to the fore.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution
ABSTRACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First Published: September 1917 as a pamphlet by Priboi Publishers
Source: The Emancipation of Women: From the Writings of V.I. Lenin
Publisher: International Publishers
Transcribed and HTML Markup: Sally Ryan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



12. The substitution of a people's militia for the police is a reform that follows from the entire course of the revolution and that is now being introduced in most parts of Russia. We must explain to the people that in most of the bourgeois revolutions of the usual type, this reform was always extremely short-lived, and that the bourgeoisie-even the most democratic and republican--restored the police of the old, tsarist type, a police divorced from the people, commanded by the bourgeoisie and capable of oppressing the people in every way.

There is only one way to prevent the restoration of the police, and that is to create a people's militia and to fuse it with the army (the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the entire people). Service in this militia should extend to all citizens of both sexes between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five without exception, if these tentatively suggested age limits may be taken as indicating the participation of adolescents and old people. Capitalists must pay their workers, servants, etc., for days devoted to public service in the militia. Unless women are brought to take an independent part not only in political life generally, but also in daily and universal public service, it is no use talking about full and stable democracy, let alone socialism. And such "police" functions as care of the sick and of homeless children, food inspection, etc., will never be satisfactorily discharged until women are on an equal footing with men, not merely nominally but in reality.

The tasks which the proletariat must put before the people in order to safeguard, consolidate and develop the revolution are to prevent the restoration of the police and to enlist the organisational forces of the entire people in forming a people's militia.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women and Marxism - Lenin Index

[AgustoSandino]

Who is and who isn't in the working class?

[peaccenicked]

Everyone in the labour market, who need to work to sustain their livelihood or can be called apon to do so.
The capitalist class are the large scale employers.
The middleclass is largely abstract labourers.
Small property owners are middle class.
Absract labour is labour that is done to maintain the working class.
A short summary.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:28 am on Mar. 4, 2002)

[El Che]

Kamo, sorry i over looked your question there. To answer it directly, no i dont think "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be democratic. This is what I am talking about when i speak of one-sided aproch to soceity. You can not devide society in proletariat and non-proletariat, and then give the former rights and the later opression or whatever you may have in mind. Not to make the point that class struggle should be forgotten, but rather that it must contextualise its self with the rest of society. It is my view, that it can not brake violently from the same, and take the rains of power with the mighty vangaurd in front. This is a failed notion, one we must for go. Democracy is Democracy, do dictatorship can be fascist in form and democratic in content as peace would put it. This is my personal view, you will find many that disagree. I can only offer you this, what I am, what I think. I dont however purpose to own the truth so you must make up your own mind.


Augostos we have new "house rules" around here. Guess you need to be house broken! hee! lol. Refrain from posting your ignorant extremly ugly person out side the pen house in titled "capitalism Vs socialism" sic.

[peaccenicked]

' It is instructive to compare this general exposition of the idea of the state disappearing after the abolition of classes with the exposition contained in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels a few months later -- to be exact, in November 1847:

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of proletariat organised as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." (Pp. 3I and 37, seventh German edition, I906.)[9]
This is what it is all about.
We win the battle of democracy by showing that our methods are infinitely more democratic than that of the bourgeoisie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat
as it implies is not a classless society.
It is an intermediatary step towards it.
ie a necessary evil.
Ultimately, this form will disappear as classes disappear
and there will be no state at all, democratic or otherwise. Communism posits the end of power politics altogether.
Is the dictatorship of the proletariat democratic.
Yes. It is about majority rule.
Is the dictatorship necessary,unfortunately yes because we cannot get rid of all the old shit capitalism through up overnight.
And if we wait for capitalism to do that for us, we will be waiting forever.

[El Che]

Just read animal farm last night, and i would like to enter it into my defense of aint vangaurdism. Because the dumb horse that answers every problem with "I`ll work more" is getting srewed by the "elite" that using its intelectual superiority to effectivly replace the brougoise as the previlegde class. Im sorry but I dont trust anyone with power, not even my self. I demand democracy.

[The Iron Heel]

"`What if you do get a majority, a sweeping majority, on election day?' Mr. Wickson broke in to demand. `Suppose we refuse to turn the government over to you after you have captured it at the ballot-box?'

`That, also, have we considered,' Ernest replied. `And we shall give you an answer in terms of lead. Power you have proclaimed the king of words. Very good. Power it shall be. And in the day that we sweep to victory at the ballot-box, and you refuse to turn over to us the government we have constitutionally and peacefully captured, and you demand what we are going to do about it--in that day, I say, we shall answer you; and in roar of shell and shrapnel and in whine of machine-guns shall our answer be couched.

`You cannot escape us. It is true that you have read history aright. It is true that labor has from the beginning of history been in the dirt. And it is equally true that so long as you and yours and those that come after you have power, that labor shall remain in the dirt. I agree with you. I agree with all that you have said. Power will be the arbiter, as it always has been the arbiter. It is a struggle of classes. Just as your class dragged down the old feudal nobility, so shall it be dragged down by my class, the working class. If you will read your biology and your sociology as clearly as you do your history, you will see that this end I have described is inevitable. It does not matter whether it is in one year, ten, or a thousand--your class shall be dragged down. And it shall be done by power."

[HardcoreCommie]

I will say it was one of the few london books I enjoyed, but isn't it kinda cheese to use it, since it is your name.

[peaccenicked]

El che.
Democracy presupposes power.It is the rule of the majority over the minority.
Working class power is not owned by an elite but by the majority. If there is a referendum on capital punishment,
would you abstain.

[The Iron Heel]

Quote: from HardcoreCommie on 6:36 pm on Mar. 4, 2002
I will say it was one of the few london books I enjoyed, but isn't it kinda cheese to use it, since it is your name.


Heh. Busted. :)

[vox]

I'm a bully? Golly, and I thought I was just posting on a messageboard....

However, peacenicked wrote that cummunism demands "ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation."

He says that there must be ideolaogical unification, which means you have to agree with what he thinks, and that unified ideology will then be manifested in an organization. Well, if the first demand restricts what people are allowed to think, then wouldn't the material organization that follows to reinforce it demand a structure that disallows dissent? That is, indeed, completely undemocratic in nature?

Of course it does.

This is why peacenicked's cliches don't amount to much.

He and I both agree that the liberation of the working class is a good thing, and we both agree on a Marxist approach. Where we disagree is when he demands "ideological unification," which sounds like something more fitting the GOP than any Marxist movement.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"I'm a bully? Golly, and I thought I was just posting on a messageboard."
What you mean by "Lenninist Scum"

[vox]

Sorry, peacenicked, I forgot your rather dim mind. I'll explain further:

Bullying, to me, means the threat of a physical assault. Posting on a messageboard does not really have that threat, does it? Indeed, for one to cry "bully" on a messageboard on the Internet is to admit intellectual weakness, I think, but I've never accused you of being brainy.

What I mean by Leninist scum should be saelf-evident, or are you at that terrible academic stage where you don't think there is a common language? Are you a deconstructionist, peacenicked? If so, please tell, for then I can have great fun with you. You do rather talk like one, sometimes.... Hmmm....

vox

[peaccenicked]

What is an intellectual bully?
He use physical force or does he try to brow beat and ridicule his opponents. You are eminently such a bully.

[vox]

I can't help it that I'm right, peacenicked.

Learn to lose,

vox

[peaccenicked]

''Profile of a Bully
Adult bullies, like their schoolyard counterparts, tend to be insecure people with poor or non-existent social skills and little empathy. They turn this insecurity outwards, finding satisfaction in their ability to attack and diminish the capable people around them.

A workplace bully subjects the target to unjustified criticism and trivial fault-finding. In addition, he or she humiliates the target, especially in front of others, and ignores, overrules, isolates and excludes the target.

If the bully is the target's superior, he or she may: set the target up for failure by setting unrealistic goals or deadlines, or denying necessary information and resources; either overload the target with work or take all work away (sometimes replacing proper work with demeaning jobs); or increase responsibility while removing authority.

Regardless of specific tactics, the intimidation is driven by the bully's need to control others. "'
from article posted in general topics.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:14 pm on Mar. 10, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

If by right you mean right-wing, then you certainly have won, vox.

And it strikes me that amongst the many personal insults you directed towards me in this thread, you also labled me as right-wing (or a capi, as you put it). You who advocate Sartre as a true Marxist. Even if Sartre could be considered a Marxist (& I use the term even loosely), he would not be counted amongst the leftist in the Marxist continuum.

And, of course, all my philosphical charges against your position have been either hailed by insults, or recently by mere silence.

If that is what you call victory, then this is indeed a sad state of affairs.

[militantmindLAM]

it's funny how stalin was a leninist when he kick out not only lenin but marx

[El Che]

"If by right you mean right-wing, then you certainly have won, vox.

And it strikes me that amongst the many personal insults you directed towards me in this thread, you also labled me as right-wing (or a capi, as you put it). You who advocate Sartre as a true Marxist. Even if Sartre could be considered a Marxist (& I use the term even loosely), he would not be counted amongst the leftist in the Marxist continuum.

And, of course, all my philosphical charges against your position have been either hailed by insults, or recently by mere silence.

If that is what you call victory, then this is indeed a sad state of affairs."


Well I dont know about vox, he can speak for him self as he indeed does. But I consider you a right-winger because you advocate a fascist state of limited political&personal freedom.

[TITOMAn]

Yeah, Stalin was not a true Marxist, but if someone says that he was Leninist, than he is even more wrong. He abolished all Lenin´s laws:

1) Free and democratic elections and the right of recall for all officials.
2) No official to receive a wage higher than a skilled worker.
3) No standing army but the armed people.
4) Gradually, all the tasks of running the state to be carried out in turn by the workers: when everybody is a "bureaucrat" in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat.



This is what Lenin said: "Everywhere we issue the call for a world workers' revolution? Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrasemaking, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along the road of world socialist revolution upon which we have set out."



This is what Stalin said in interview for Comitern:
"Howard: Does this statement of yours mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions to bring about a world revolution?
Stalin: We never had any such plans or intentions. {Well Lenin had}
Howard: You appreciate, no doubt Mr Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression?
Stalin: This is the product of misunderstanding.
Howard: A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin: No, comic. Or perhaps tragi-comic?"
Roy Howard and Stalin. (Roy Howard-Stalin interview, March/April, Communist International, 1936.)

2 totally different thoughts.


And finally, here is something shocked me the most (from book "Revolution to counter-revolution" by Ted Grant):

By these means, Zinoviev and his supporters completely undermined the German leadership. The result was that, when the revolutionary wave broke in 1923, they were disoriented. Brandler went to Moscow to seek advise on what to do. Here accident played a role. Both Lenin and Trotsky were ill, and unable to see him. He was met instead by Stalin and Zinoviev, who gave him completely wrong advice. Repeating his error of October 1917, when he and Kamenev opposed the insurrection, Zinoviev expressed his open scepticism about revolutionary prospects in Germany. As always, the verbal radicalism of people with bureaucratic tendencies is only the reverse side of their innate conservatism and distrust of the masses. Zinoviev urged caution, and, in effect, advised the Germans to do nothing. Stalin was even more crudely opportunist. He differed from Zinoviev only in that he was not even interested in the problems of the German Revolution, which was only a distraction from his manoeuvres in the apparatus. Narrow minded and parochial, he had a deep-seated contempt for the workers of Western Europe, who he believed would never make a revolution. With his organic opportunism, Stalin urged the German party not to take any action. His advice to the German leaders was astonishing - "Let the fascists try first!"


I am sorry, but let the fascist try first? Is that Marxist? Hello!






(Edited by TITOMAn at 11:53 am on Mar. 12, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

Well I dont know about vox, he can speak for him self as he indeed does. But I consider you a right-winger because you advocate a fascist state of limited political&personal freedom.

Of course, Leninism = fascism. Thanks for the insights. Really, I expected more sophistication from you, El Che. Too bad I was proven incorrect on that front. Oh well.

[El Che]

You must forgive me. I call things by their names, it is sometimes brutaly honest.

[The Iron Heel]

Same here, but my charge against you is that your title of Leninism or my views thereof as fascism is without any basis. And the way you make such remarks in an off hand manner is something I find objectionable, not to mention oversimplistic & uneducated.

[El Che]

My dear friend its not simplistic, its just short. However I would be glad to enter into detail with you. You say you challenge my claim that Leninist theory is the effective appology of fascism yes? Tell me then, how do define Fascism. If we can first agree on a definition we can then enter into an indept anlises of Lenins theories to see if the state he would have us create fits the pre-defined requisites. How would you then, Iron Heal, define a Fascist state?

[Marxman]

Leninism = Marxism
Stalinism = Fascism

Stalin even killed Bolsheviks and all the marxists and why the hell do you all think he didn't support the revolution in Germany and let Hitler seize power?
By saying that he was a communist, it's simply foolish.

[The Iron Heel]

Leninism is not facism. Leninism is a rational theory, it does not promote class, racial, or any other segmented distictions as an end in itself. Fascists hate Marxists more than anything, and the Leninists the most out of all the Marxists. Your [El Che] view is simplistic since it ignores the historical legacy of facsism and its ideological tenants and intelectual basis. It views Leninism as some sort of authoritarian or totalitarian system (I disagree with that, of course), and from there you juxtapose that with facism, since facism is authritarian or totalitarian.

So the oversimplification works on two levels here. The confusion of the jargon which in itself is based upon a mistaken notion of Leninism. Leninism is a Marxist philosophy, fascism is capitalism without the mask.

And your post may be as brief as you wish it to be, but those were still offhand remakrs without any basis. It's like me saying that Kantianism equals a deontological dance party (whatever that means, heh). Then a Kantian may justly say that this statement is simplistic & without basis, and I would retort: 'no, it is merely a brief statement' and say nothing further. Dosen't make much sense to me. If you believe Leninism is facsism explain why, don't just throw those statements accompanied by nothing.

I explained why I believe facism contradicts Marxism(-Leninism) by giving a basic overview of fascism, fascism in an historical context, I am providing some substance with my argument (or rather defence) against what I precieve as utterly baseless statements. It makes little difference how lengthy a reply is, so long as the statements, content expressed therein has some explanations behind these. That we don't just utter exclamations out of a vaccum, that they are based on something. This is what seperates an intellectual discussion from let say a theological one.

But your undefined conception of facsism sounds to me as simplsitic as the anarchists who yells at the police officer: 'facist!' and thereby ends the defintion of fascism. Fascism is not just 'the state', it is not just authritarianism, not even totalitarianism, it has clear ideological tenants. And these, I believe, you utterly neglect (or fail even) to grasp by employing the infalamtory term 'facsist'. And while you are not spweing personal insults like one vox did (hence the reason I'm discussing this with you), the method, the type of intellectual-slush-emotionalist game is very similar in my opinion.

But by all means, prove me wrong and explain yourself with greater clarity.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 10:59 pm on Mar. 13, 2002)

[Guest]

Iron Heal,

I respect your views, but I consider them dangerous, this is the reason why I will not use kind words towards it. I dont believe it is emotional, but if it is, it is justified emotion.

The best point you made was that there are ideological differences between Fascism and Leninism[?] You are correct and you are incorrect at the same time. Yes there are idological differences, but these differences lie only in the particular nature of the state ideology its self. They ideologies them selves are different, but what is not different, and herein lies your incorrectness, is the fact that both states, the "right-wing fascist" and the "red-fascist" legitimate there existence in there ideology. They mistake them selves with it, they are it, they are the presonification, the realisation of it. And it, the ideology of the fascist state, whatever it maybe i.e right or left wing, is the unquestionable truth. Therefor the truth its self is unquestionable. One further similiarity is the forced assimilation of the ideology into the minds of its citizens. If this where not done, it would be much harder for the state to legitimate its self and to contain dissent. All things in common, except for the ideology its self, which again is irrelevant to the point because no ideology justifies a Fascist state. What other differences can you point out to me? I await.


You say in the begining of you post that Leninism is a rational theory that does not promote distinctions as an end in themselves. This is true, but the issue is not lenin`s view of class soceity, the issue is what he is going to do about it. Furthermore that is his contribution, he adds nothing to Marxism as theory for the abolition of distinctions. You go on to say that my views are simplistic since the ignore they legacy/ideology/intelectual basis of fascism. By legacy you mean the actual actions of actual right wing fascist states like the portuguese fascist state of salazar. You are wrong, I dont ignore my own history, far from it. But what I also dont ignore is that a white cat and a black cat are the same beast under their different appearences. If you analise the legacy of all the Marxist-Leninist states that have come to pass(and that still exist) to this day you will find it is much the same. If you wish to enter into detail here too, I will be glad to follow you anywhere you wish to go and point out the similarities that I identify. Then to put the iceing on the cake you say Lenin is neither authoritarian nor totalitarian. And to call him a fascist? well its a bloody insult. Here I`ll let Lenin answer for me:


"It is sheer mockery of the working and exploited people to speak of pure democracy, of democracy in general, of equality, freedom and universal rights when the workers and all working people are ill-fed, ill-clad, ruined (...)The bourgeoisie are compelled to be hypocritical and to describe as "popular government", democracy in general, or pure democracy, the ( bourgeois ) democratic republic which is, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the working people.(...)But Marxists, Communists, expose this hypocrisy, and tell the workers and the working people in general this frank and straightforward truth: the democratic republic, the Constituent Assembly, general elections, etc., are, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and for the emancipation of labor from the yoke of capital there is no other way but to replace this dictatorship with the dictatorship of the proletariat(...)The dictatorship of the proletariat alone can emancipate humanity from the oppression of capital, from the lies, falsehood and hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy — democracy for the rich — and establish democracy for the poor, that is, make the blessings of democracy really accessible to the workers and poor peasants, whereas now (even in the most democratic — bourgeois — republic) the blessings of democracy are, in fact, inaccessible to the vast majority of working people. (...) Because from a society in which one class opposes another there is no way out other than through the dictatorship of the oppressed class"------ "Democracy" and Dictatorship, Written December 23, 1918.

Acording to Lenin as long as there exists a class soceity, there must exist a fascist state in the name of the proletariet commonly denominated dictatorship of proletariet. Acording to Lenin, the interferance of capitalists with the democratic process altogether invalidate the same. It is worth nothing to Lenin. The political freedom we enjoy now, and for which so many in my contry fought for against salazar would, by lenin, be thrown out the window in a split second. Now thats what I find insulting.

There are problems with all the democracies in the world, but Lenin!? he is 100 times worse.

[El Che]

thats me ^

where it reads "is the unquestionable truth. Therefor the truth its self is unquestionable." it should read --the unquestionable truth. Therefor the state its self is unquestionable.

(Edited by El Che at 11:57 am on Mar. 14, 2002)

[The Iron Heel]

El Che,

I'm writing this in haste, so unfortunately my post is more brief than I would wish it to be.

Now, again I believe you are simply confused, I believe to you need to read both Marx & Lenin more intensively & extensively. I am not saying this out of malice or to demean you, I genuinely feel it would benefit you and broaden your scope. That being said,

When I mentioned that a facsist state imposes distinctions between human beings, in theory and practice (though granted this is more transperent in racialist as opposed to corportist forms of facsism), I definitely had historical examples to go with it.

Again, I wish I had more time right now, but let me attempt to answer that specific question you raised.

You asked: "All things in common, except for the ideology its self, which again is irrelevant to the point because no ideology justifies a Fascist state. What other differences can you point out to me? I await."

Okay let me briefly list some of these distinctions 'in practice' (as opposed to ideologically), let's use the U.S.S.R vs. NSDAP Germany as an example :

Nazi Germany :

- The inequality of ethnic groups is promoted, vigerously (that is, the point of the Final Solution Policy).

- The inequality between the genders is promoted (albeit less vigreously than the above).

- The existence of a capitalist class remains (so long as it is friendly to the authorities & does not belong to an undesriable ethnic group), that is, millionaires and multi millionaires are allowed to keep their excess wealth, extract surplus value, profit, or revenue, etc.

- People with physical limitations are deemed not worthy of survival. Survival of the fittest is viewed vulgarly, through phsyical animalist qualities only.

- The end result of the state is for a parochial Master Race, nationalistic & imperialistic aims.

U.S.S.R

- The equality of all human beings, regardless of their decsent, ethinic orgination, etc. is promoted.

- The equality between the genders is promoted. The U.S.S.R being the first nation-state in human history giving women completey equal political-legal rights, and having the first women govt. minister ever.

- The existence of the capitalist class is not tolerated. True, later we have a buearacratic sort-of upper class, but no millionaires & multi millionaires. Whatever excess welath this class has are: a. not as extreme, b. based upon revenue and not surplus value.

- People with physical limitations are not viewed as parasites to be liquidated. Part of this is compassion, but just as significantly, a correct understanding of natural selection. A disabled person may not be able to feed themsleves, but with help they may become a Stephan Hawking-like contributor to society. Again, this is in complete contradiction to the vulgarity of the social darwinism the fascists promote.

- The end result of the nation-state is its own dissolution. Not in having empires, slaves, extermination ethnically undesrieble groups (since such a concept does not exist). The end result promotes universality between human beings, whereas facsism is staunchly parochial and it aims to benefit only 'specific chosen people.

I could go on, but I have to go now.

In haste,

[El Che]

Remember that my charge is not that USSR was worse then Nazi germany, but rather that the USSR and all other leninist type states are fascist. It is this charge you must address.

[peaccenicked]

The USSR was Stalinist. It mudered the Leninists left
by the revolution including Trotsky. Fascism and stalinism have one thing in common they are both characterised by counter revolutionary violence.
There was a million members of the German Communist Party in Germany in the early 30's.
''Germany's KPD became the largest Communist Party outside the Soviet Union and was fairly successful in elections to the Reichstag: 62 (May, 1924), 45 (December, 1924), 54 (May, 1928), 77 (September, 1930), 89 (July, 1932) and 100 (November, 1932). Important members of the party included Ernst Thalmann, Willie Munzenberg, Ernst Toller, Walther Ulbricht, Clara Zetkin, John Heartfield and Ludwig Renn.

Ernst Thalmann emerged as the leader of the KPD and was the party's presidential candidate in 1932. He won 13.2 of the vote compared to the 30.1 received by Adolf Hitler. After the Nazi Party gained power the KPD was banned and its leaders imprisoned."

[El Che]

Address Leninist theory and proposals for society, not the USSR.

[Guest]

Stalin did not rtemain loyal to the marxist and lenist thought. Those two famous revolutionaries believed in a classles society where everyone shares the wealth. Before his death Russia had two very distinct societies, the rich politicians, and the poor poverty stricken russian citizens. Stalin cashed in at the right time to become a friend of Lenin's, his heart was never in it The only reason he became dictator is because of Lenins inability to say no.

[maoist3]

Vox: Yes, most people calling themselves pro-Stalin say Khruschev was pro-capitalist. One of the reasons you have to have a whip-hand at the top
is to keep infiltrators from being bribed.

For example, under Khruschev, Yeltsin became a regional party leader. Later his daughter was pretty much caught in multi-billion dollar corruption
involving U.$. banks. And of course, there is this
difficult-to-avoid-fact--that Yeltsin ended up
restoring open capitalism.

What many people on this list do not understand is the link between repression and the survival of socialism. Because of the attraction of state power,
people WILL join the Communist Party JUST to receive bribes from the West or the aspiring bourgeoisie inside the country. They will also join
to advance their careers. They never should have joined, but if you shoot some, this kind of persyn will be deterred. Khruschev let it be known that he would not
shoot the corrupt and self-seeking in the supposed Communist Party. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Union then went down the toilet.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1E712071

No one HAS to join the Party, but having joined you are supposed to be willing to give your life. That's what all these whiners on this list leave out--
the link amongst violence, Party commitment and corruption.


El Che: Stalin was accountable, precisely because his name was everywhere and well known. Everyone knew who blame and credit went to.

Anarchists in contrast try to leave it unclear and you cannot overthrow an anonymous oppressor. That's why a Leninist party is a step TOWARD accountability.

The only reason there are so many people on this list angry with Stalin is that he WAS accountable. Can you name all the Ross Perots in corporate
boardrooms today? Of course not. We only know Ross because he happened to run for President. Lenin, Stalin and Mao made the economy explicitly accountable.


Peacenicked: Trotsky testified before the anti-communist U.S. House committees,
gave away spying techniques of the Soviet Union, tried to incite Japan to attack the Soviet Union
and openly said he would ride a German advance to power in the Soviet Union. He was calling for civil
war in the Soviet Union, after Hitler had already moved
up his border with Stalin into Poland.
Why shouldn't Trotsky have been assassinated? The Soviet masses also hated Trotsky.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...cs/trotsky.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/trotsky.html)

[Mazdak]

What happened, in the first one or two pages of this thread, there was plenty of Stalinists/stalin supporters. How come i am now the only one?

Stalin was not a murderer. Collectivization is not a joke, but a step foward in communism. the Kulaks wre becoming cruel landlords and wanted desparatly to keep all their wealth. They tried to scare the poorer peasants into siding with them by sabotage. They deserved what they got. To say that stalin killed millions is stupid. As i have said before, many people have a habit of attaching 20 million casualties caused by WW2 to stalin. How did he cause them?!

[Nateddi]

Mazdak, they are all on TheLyceum.org

I suggest you sign up too, its a great board.

[Mazdak]

i will put some thought into it...