what lenin said after the war - unplugging the 'memory whole

[peaccenicked]

''What does follow is that we shall be extending democracy in the workers' organisations, without turning it into a fetish; that we shall redouble our attention to the struggle against bureaucratic practices; and that we shall take special care to rectify any unwarranted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, no matter who points them out. '' Lenin 1921
This not the unquestioning obedience of the militarisation of the whole country.
Does this sound like the words of a 'scum' dictator
These are the words of someone worthy of Che Guevara's respect..
Chomsky and vox are complict in the bourgeois misrepresentation of the Russian Revolution and the notion that all revolutions lead to dictatorship by neglecting to mention Lenin's statements after the war,
neglecting to mention the huge force used against the russian people.
It ammounts to outright intellectual dishonesty
"History is the record of man’s efforts to transform the real into the ideal. It is therefore a mirror in which man can look himself in the eye. Thus the idea of history is nothing less than the notion of honesty which provokes us to measure our performance." -- William Appleman Williams
It is clear that the anarchists have no interest in studying History, merely taking a quote out of the context of history. This I hope have exposed this quote
as unadultareted eclectic charlatanism.
This makes me think that Chomsky and Vox have only the anarchist eclecticism and not taken the dialectical approach which demands an all sided study of the "self movement' of an object in history.
I await the next chestnut drawn out of the anarchist text books. If you are short for sources I could probably find some for you. To quote Vox "I am only trying to be helpful'' I am quite familiar with tese texts and how to smash their one sidedness to smithereens.





(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:47 am on Mar. 12, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:35 am on Mar. 17, 2002)

[militantmindLAM]

lenin was just a pric as stalin

[peaccenicked]

hmm, how informative?

[militantmindLAM]

well if u want me to be informitive.... i think his philosophy bolshevism is bull shit in the sense that it will end up exactly the same as this "democracy" we have is the beautiful u s of a

[peaccenicked]

I am interested to know how you came to that conclusion.

[militantmindLAM]

imagine the dictatorship of the workers, it sounds great doesn't it. but what happens when the proletarian get to overwhelming they send a smaller group of peolpe to speak for all the workers, and what happens when that get to overwhelming, they send they send 1 person to speak for the people. therefore in turns into a dictator ship of 1.

[peaccenicked]

I can see the logic in your words.
The dictatorhips of the worker does not sound that great. I want to see a classless society, in which there is no dictatorship. There exists no state and there are no governed.
I don't see anyway of reaching there without the dictatorship of the workers, taking power from the capitalists and then organising society in a way that
get rids of the State, ultimately.
Do you see any other way to acheive this ultimate goal ?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:35 am on Mar. 12, 2002)

[militantmindLAM]

castro said that "it is time for the exploiters to be exploited by the the exploited"
no matter what people are being exploited

[peaccenicked]

Are you saying there is no way out of capitalism?

[militantmindLAM]

no i'm saying the through leninism there will still be exploited be it whether it is the workers doing it or not. get me

[anarchoveganLAM]

What we need to get us out of capitalism is socialism. End of story, with a stateless socialist society we can live freely and collectively!

Fuck LENIN!

[Rosa]

To amarchovegan: yes, freely to opress the weaker ones...ccc...must disagree with you:the state as protection system is needed.
If you think that all of the people are "inherently good", you're wrong.
opressive system as capitalism had established bcs state wasn't protective enough.
P.S. Interesting information that person with such a great ideals has a necrofilic-sexual-desires.

[peaccenicked]

The goal of Stateless Socialism is indeed the way
out of Capitalism but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that it is the end of story. There is the whole question of
transition from capitalism to socialism. All we have learned so far on this thread that the idea of the dictatorship of the proleteriat as a transitional form is
not the one for the anarchists. What is their idea of transition, there seems to be no clear idea beyond a spontaneous revolution, to a world wide consensus.
That does not explain transition, it draws two aspects of transition to gether and present it as a whole.
There must be more to it than this surely?

[anarchoveganLAM]

the anarchist view on transition? well, i can not speak for all of us (for i am not of an 'anarchist vanguard party' haha) but i know i agree with popular vote. if the majority of the people believe that we need change, then we must show that. that will come with labor unions, general strike, and etc.
look up anarcho-syndicalism for more information on transition.
i do not believe the proletariat should get revenge on the ruling class, because thats just hypocritical...

[peaccenicked]

"The popular vote"
How do you suggest to win the popular vote?
Is it by abstaining from elections?
Or is It putting forward a Programme in front on the electorate?
Would you put Unions in a position of government, if so
Who would protect the workers rights.
What has revenge on the ruling class got to do with a form of a political party?

[anarchoveganLAM]

no, i was meaning more in the sence of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. the thing is that you seriously should look up the spanish anarchist movement, durruti, and anarcho-syndicalism to know exactly what i am talking about. with organization, education, and such comes popular vote. as in popular vote, i do not mean as it is used during the campaigning here, but as in a majority of people wanting change. this will be the hardest part of change, is convincing/educationg/organizing the masses. but we can not have represenatives speaking for us, deciding what we want though.

[peaccenicked]

The dictatorship of the proletariat, is for Marx and Engels, the nature of the transitional period between capitalism and socialism. Revenge is not the motive if the
transition and you will find this motive nowhere in Lenin's work. All that I have read on this that There was a Kulak uprising and Lenin ordered that several hundred of them be hanged. This he saw as detterence.
I am personally against the death sentence. I was impressed with the Film ''The Last Emperor'' in which
the emperor becomes a gardener. A pleasant enough job I used to do it myself.
To me, the dictatorship of the proletariat can be carried out without brutality, only the ammount of brutality needed for self defence or defence of the revolution.
The counter revolution is largely war against the revolution. There is no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be vengeful, it is merely designed to abolish private property.
As to representative democracy.
I am for the Sovietisation of life under capitalism.
During the general strike there was one in Fife.
Glossary definition of
Soviets

Meaning "council" in Russian, soviets were elected local, municipal, and regional councils in Russia and later the Soviet Union. Before the October Revolution of 1917, an estimated 900 soviets were in existence.

Soviets were representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers in a given locale (rural soviets were a mix of peasants and soldiers, while urban soviets were a mix of workers and soldiers). The Soviets were bodies whose members were volunteers; people who were involved did so to strengthen their class position in Russian politics. Soviets gained political power after the Bolshevik revolution, acting as the local executive bodies of government. Delegates were elected from Soviets to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, where the foundation of the Soviet government was intended to rest. Gradually, however, soviets began to lose their power because of the extremely harsh conditions brought on by the Civil War , and by the late 1920s became top-down extensions of the "Communist" party. ''
By the late twenties Stalin had instituted personal dictatorship.
Lenin was against personal dictatorship but he had definitely the most influence in the Bolshevik party.
''Lenin also seems to have had a limited appetite for personal aggrandizement. On January 29, 1919, we find Lenin rejecting a suggestion from the historian N. A. Rozhkov that he (Lenin) implement a personal dictatorship''
Whereas Stalin murdered all of the bolsheviks and their families and friends.
As to convincing the masses, is that not the same as leading the masses from a backward poltical view point to an advanced one.
Marx in a letter to Bracke dismissed the Lassalean programme so as to lead followers of that programme towards his own principles.