On Lenin

[vox]

Readers of this forum already know that I'm against the Leninist ideal of Democratic Centralism.

This is my final thread on the matter.

Lenin proposed a "vaguard party" which would lead the proletartiat. This, of course, assumes that the proletariat needs to be led.

Beyond that, Lenin instituted Democratic Centralism. Now, this Democratic Centralism relies on the Vanguard Party to adhere, and propagate, the decisions made by the few who are allowed to have a voice, but those few don't have to actually do anything, of course. In fact, the Vanguard Party doesn't have to do much.

They rely on the ideal that they are working in the interest of the "working class." And, using the worst kind of circular logic imaginable, if the Vangaurd is representing the proletariat, then the proletariat must be represented!

No where is the working class actually considered, of course, for this is Leninism. The point is to consolidate power. I've shown this in other posts.

It's unfortunate that vulgar Marxists wish to expound Leninism, for they misunderstand Marx in doing so.

And, of course, they reveal themsleves as power-mad elitists.

vox

[El Che]

Although I can not call my self a Marxist, due to lack of Marxist study, I must say, that as an El_Chest I fully agree.

[vox]

Thanks, El Che. It's appreciated.

vox

[Supermodel]

Sounds on target to me vox.

[peaccenicked]

"Vanguard
Opposite of Mass.

In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass, are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history.

The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle under capitalism, stipulates that the working class, the mass, needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalism and in the building of Socialism. The Communist vanguard is theoretically made up of the forefront of workers who are engaged in direct struggles against the capitalist state, and who occupy an advanced position in constructively and creatively building the socalist movement. " This is from a glossary of terms.
Here we see the denial of reality in Vox's position, for him there is no vanguard, all there is the mass.
In another thread he refers to the critical mass of workers.
This critical mass he claims do not need leadership.
Does it organise at all? How does it organise?
Will it not try to lead other workers outside it towards it?
Let us clear up this little question.
I am interested in hearing other solutions to this problem. ie this transition without a vanguard!
Is there a historical example we can learn from?
Or is this merely an anarchist instruction not to organise?
Why do anarchists organise?
Can you put this thread to use and answer me?

[The Iron Heel]

Leninists are vulgar Marxists who misunderstood Marx?

Marx promoted the idea of centralized power during the transintionary socialist phase. Much like the Leninists this centralized body is called a communist party. It seems to me that a vanguard is more-or-less a Synonym to that notion of centralized power Marx held, one which is encompassed with in his dictatorship of the proletariat concept, a dictatorship which, Marx maintained, would be led by a communist party. I see nothing in this thread to indicate to me otherwise. I hear charges of intellectual vulgarity against the Leninists, but I however, see it embodied in the revisionists here.

(Edited by The Iron Heel at 8:56 pm on Mar. 14, 2002)

[vox]

Any vanguard that wishes to speak for the working class supposes that the vanguard itself is more advanced then the working class, thereby settin itslef above and apart from the worker.

Democratic Centralism demands, in Lenin's words, "blind obedience"" to the Party, rather than to the class. In a very nice bit of circular logic, Leninists proclaim that the Party is the same as the class, but that's clearly not the case.

No Leninist can deny, in good faith, the elitist nature of Leninism, I think. To do so is to revise Lenin beyond comprehension.

vox

[Revolution Hero]

Marxism-Leninism is a very flexible theory and it has to be changed , according to the exact historical situation. Lenin was talking about the time when he lived, and he knew that it would be changed in the future.
Those who criticize Lenin can't be called true communists. Those who criticize the true communist are called opportunists. Lenin was the true communist, and those who are against his theory are fucking traitors!!!!

[peaccenicked]

Democratic centralism does not demand blind obedience.
from the working class. This is a complete and utter lie and fabrication taken from one quote from Lenin in times of brutal civil war. After the war he states the exact opposite.
Where does Gramsci visualise blind obedience or demand it.

[El Che]

"Those who criticize the true communist are called opportunists. Lenin was the true communist, and those who are against his theory are fucking traitors!!!!"

This is exactly what we are talking about.

[TheDerminator]

On one hand I can see where El Che is coming from. All this "traitor" stuff is another version of vox and his "scum" stuff. I am just wondering who the "we" are? If it is El Che and vox it is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black in its sectarianism.
My empathies are with Revolutionary Hero and peaccenicked. The anti-Leninist bandwagon is something the BORGS are on board, and swallow the BORG version of the historical role of Lenin shows a pseudo-democratic shallow interpretation of history.
I mean having a conversation with vox is like being in contact with an old broken down scratched record constantly repeating Michael Harrington, Michael Harrington, Michael Harrington, ad nauseuam.
Harrington hasn't got his stuff on-line, and do we really want to shelf out money on some book that has no conception of the role of Lenin in history. It is clear vox is a confused "Marxist" when Chomskyian anarchism is spouted as an alternative to Leninism.
Why doesn't vox create a new thread giving the main evidence that Harrington provides instead of haraguing us with Harrington! Harrington! Harrington!
Scum! Scum! Scum!
vox is hiding behind the name of Harrington, and it is as peaccenicked points out the tactics of an intellectual bully, just in the same manner of the "I know nothing" Socratic method is suited to an intellectual bully. vox is not sharing the "wisdom" of Harrington with the community, and it really does sound like vox knows nothing.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed.

Can anyone show me the elitism?
Is to become non elitist to become less committed, less resolute?
I invite anarchists and the 'democratic' marxist to planet
earth, please leave Zog for a moment.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,

No idea, as to your reference to 'democratic Marxist'
Are you supporting bureaucratic centralism? Resolute and committed to what? Gave up "the faceless mass" a long time ago, like to think of people as people these days.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

Sorry did not see your post.
'democtratic Marxist' is the name vox put forward as
an alternative to Leninist.
resolute ans committed to the fight against capitalism.
It is a simple fact that some workers become active
and others passive faced or faceless.
Who are the faceless. Those not recognized, as humans
in their own right.
Should I write group of individuals of the workers and procede to name them.
perhaps you have a solution.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,.

Fair dinkums, my only point is that we should not make the same error as the BORGS and view the working class as a faceless "mass". I just thing "people" is a more human word to use, and I do not see it as semantics.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 6:25 pm on Mar. 17, 2002)

[komsomol]

Hmmmmmm Liberal Communism will work, but then again Communism has never existed in the last few centuries in the developed world.

[El Che]

Communism has never existed period.

[Michael De Panama]

I completely agree with Vox's opinion on Lenin. Lenin's ideas simply did not work, and led to the establishment of power of Stalin, the ****-faced pig. Communism is a system that denounces authority. Once there is an authority, there is a division of classes. If the proletariat needed to be guided by an authority, they would keep the bourgeoisie.

[TheDerminator]

Moloch, I agree with El Che. There never has been a Communist nation. If you recognise that for Marx Communism was the highest stage of Socialism, it shows full nature of the bad joke that primitive socialism = Communism! It is the BORG version of history.

Michael De Panama,

You are another one sold on the BORG version of history. It matters not, that it is coming from you, vox, libereco, El Che, Chomsky, etc. Even from the direction of ultra-democratic anarchism, it is still peddling the same lie that Leninism = Stalinism, that democratic centralism = bureaucratic centralism, that socialist leadership = authoratarianism.

There is the lie. The lie = The BORG version of history.

If U don't stop peddling the BORG lies, you become part of the problem!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

Deminator
How about 'long suffering masses' does that sound as good as 'long suffering people.' The former emphasises the ammount.Surely it is the context of the word and the way it is said, otherwise it is political correctness gone mad.

[komsomol]

Quote: from El Che on 9:38 pm on Mar. 17, 2002
Communism has never existed period.


i thought that, then i thought it existed in a remote island somewhere, in the past.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
I do not see it as "political correctness gone mad".
Massess = a quantity.
People = a quantity.

Massess = faceless quantity

People have faces.

The mass is a crude materialist designation, it treats people like a substantive material quantity, instead of a human quantity. Masses is a generalism that contains no personal warmth.
It is not semantic, and it is not "P.C." gone mad, it is just being human, and moving terminology onwards.
The same can be said of the "dictatorship of the ploretariat". Is it "P.C." gone mad to replace it with the "demorcratic rule of the majority representing the interests of the working class" or is it just a recognition, that the old terminology is of another epoch.
Language modifies itself, and it is retrogressive to hang onto a dead language. It is dead, and I for one have no wish to revive it, only its essential content, and given a modern form.
These anachronistic terms are dead weight on the movement, and are of a bygone age. It is not a simple equation of accept anathema to the BORGS = surrender to the BORGS.
It is a recognition, that the BORGS have changed the goal posts, and to stubbornly operate in the old way is a "no compromise" mentality. We have to always up date tactics, and it is tactical commonsense to see there have been cultural changes which make the old terminology not only obsolete, but an albatross around the neck of any future international socialist movement.
There is no recourse to semantics or P.C., just the recognition, that there is essential form, and if that form is an anachronism, it is indeed obsolete.
Language is not unimportant, since it carries the content and to be stuck in a historical time warp is indeed a siege mentality of "no compromise". Something Lenin explicitly tried to exorcise from the socialist movement.

Moloch,
If you think the highest stage of Communism has been reached by solitary backward primitive socialist Cuba, it just shows the complete depth of your ignorance.
Not a great surprise, coming from anarchist, but maybe we kind of expect you to know the difference between international global socialism through out all countries in an advanced industrialised civilisation and the small scale socialist experiment in Cuba!
I guess it was too much to ask!
Durp!

May the Force with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 8:04 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

[vox]

I have to wonder, did the reality of party authoritarianism and the monolithic bureaucratic apparatus procede directly from Leninism? I think we have to answer yes.

Too, was Stalin made possible by Leninism? Again, I think the answer is yes. If one argues the familiar "cult of personality" theory about Stalin, then one endorse the Great Man theory of history and disregards historical materialism by doing so.

vox

[peaccenicked]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=154 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=154)

[TheDerminator]

vox,

"I have to wonder, did the reality of party authoritarianism and the monolithic bureaucratic apparatus procede directly from Leninism? I think we have to answer yes."
You are seeing simplistic historical chronology, instead of understanding that democratic centralism was rooted in the belief by Lenin that socialism can be grounded in revolutionary practise. Something that Karl Marx did not reject.
Marx was ambivalent on the subject.
Marx thought revolution would be necessary in some countries whereas others like Britain would require a democratic vote. You are mechanically transposing our understanding of history in retrospect onto Lenin.
You have to think of Russia before the Revolution and realise that it was a fledgling democracy, and that a well-intentioned socialist such as Lenin was; saw a widow of opportunity to create by revolution the "dictatorship of the ploretariat" which was invented by Karl Marx in the wake of the tragic end to the Paris Commune.
Lenin had a niave approach and that is not disputed by me. The tactic and the decision were theoretical erros, of that I have no doubts, but at the same time, you and Harrington are a million miles out when you think the political Engels is detached from the political Marx, and there can be no case for detaching Lenin from either Marx or Engels.
In politics, Marx and Engels spoke in unison, and the The Communist Manifesto as well as the letters of philosophically mature Marx reflect their oneness of voice in the sphere of politics. The letter to Bracke by Marx in particular can leave one in no doubt as to the commonality in their political positions.

"Too, was Stalin made possible by Leninism? Again, I think the answer is yes. If one argues the familiar "cult of personality" theory about Stalin, then one endorse the Great Man theory of history and disregards historical materialism by doing so.

The same argument applies, you are seeing a simplistic chronology of events without placing the development of Lenisism into Stalinism into a historical perspective rooted in "revolution and rooted in the dictatorship of the ploretariat"

The "Great Man of history theory".
Think of that vox. It returns to the role of the individual by Plekhanov.
It is a grave error in materialist theory.

It falls apart with one name Karl Marx.

The role of the individual is immense. Plekhanov got it seriously wrong.

Think about it vox, there have only been five really major philosophers in terms of scope and depth.

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Marx.

No Marx without a Hegel, no Hegel without a Kant, no Kant without an Aristotle, no Aristotle without a Plato.

The only one a few BORG academics might disagree with would be the relationship between Kant and Aristotle, but the subject matter of Critique of Pure Reason tells another story, and it is Kant, not Hegel who rescued the dialectic from antiquity.
Only five major philosophers vox, you have to think about that one.
Ofcourse, Gramsci was another Democratic Centralist, and Gramsci emphasised the role culture can play in creating a vibrant socialist movement. Is there any sphere more dominated by outstanding individuals.
Would not even science have had a much harder road to travel without all the scientists that most intelligent teenagers can name. There are literally dozens.
Finally, what about the role of Jesus Christ in history. Imagine, if Jesus had been a Mohammed. Think on it vox. The last time I looked, a book said the human race has existed for just over 30,000 years as a species.
Perhaps the latest information makes oldler. Whatever.
It took 26,000 years for there to be the Sumerian Empire in Mesopotamia. 26,000 years! There is speculation that there was an older civilization in Pakistan around 5,000 years ago, but it is still a matter of controversy.
We can say that it was not until Thales very roughly estimated to have lived from 625-546 BC that there was an end to only religious philosophy. So, that is roughly 27,500 years of religious philosophy.
Between Aristotle and Descartes there is two thousand year winter with a tiny respite in the time of Charlemagne. Think on it. Out of just over 30,000 years, roughly 29, 500 are a deep winter of religious dogma. As for Ancient Greece, Thales, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides and Socrates were the five most needed philosophers, before Plato.
Back to Jesus Christ. If Christ has been like a Mohammed, surely the instance of the Taliban gives you some idea, that it would have been an even deeper winter. Christianity held up progress from the end of the philosphical schools under St. Justian up until Descartes wrote his Discourse on Method, so what like would things have been with a stricter religion than Christianity? We do not need to guess. We can predict with absolute certainty that the winter of religious dogma would have lasted much much longer.
It does not matter that the books on philosophy were preserved in the East. It only matters where the ideas within the books could surface. It was no accident that Spinoza end up in Holland.
The role of the individual within history is an extremely important role. Plekhanov got it wrong, and the name Karl Marx proves the point as much as the name of Jesus Christ.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[vox]

TheDerminator,

I'm not sure I understand your point about Lenin. I'm saying that Lenin's model created the proper conditions for the rise of Stalin. You say I'm decontextualizing, but I really don't see how I'm doing that.

Another thing I don't understand is how the Great Man theory of history can be reconciled with historical materialism. If you wish to reject historical materialism, or materialism in general, I won't try to stop you. However, I'm very confused about just how the Great Man theory can be argued from a Marxist standpoint.

vox

[TheDerminator]

vox,

You are decontextualising because you are not relating Lenin + revolution = Marx + revolution or democracy.

You are decontextualising because you are not relating Lenin revolution + democratic centralism = Marx + dictatorship of the ploretariat.

I do not reject historical materialism completely, in that I believe the economic is an objective within consciousness, and that once the economic conditions are created, as Engels said, he and believend the economic becomes the ultimate determinant for social consciousness. It is not a simple either or.
All, I am saying is that Plekhanov was reductive in removing the huge conscious infrastructure as a driving force, and I honestly do not believe a Marx or an Engels could have written the same book as Plekhanov, because the had a greater understanding of the necessity for the superstructure.
It is too reductive as an assessment of the role of the individual in history.
Marx never thought of himself as a selfist, and he often said "All I know is that I am not a Marxist. I do not believe for a second that he was disclaiming his life work with this statement, as is the BORG interpretation.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[vox]

I suppose this is a difference of opinion, for I don't believe that Marxism is compatible with democratic centralism. I've talked about this before so won't go into it again here.

"I believe the economic is an objective within consciousness..."

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that the economic structure of a society is within human consciousness? If so, I disagree.

We both seem to reject, however, the mechanistic Marx that complete economic determinism would seem to demand. I think an interesting discussion could be had about the relative autonomy of the suerstructure from the base, or, alternatively, if in Late Capitalism there hasn't been a bizarre unification of superstructure and base, or even whether Late Capitalism is a valid concept at all. I would suggest, however, that such a topic merits its own thread.

vox

[TheDerminator]

I think, you are very wrong about the incompatability of Marxism, and democratic centralism, but until you respond in the other thread, about what kind of social democractic organisation that you advocate, it is futile to regurgitate the same arguments. If all you possess is anarchism, you know my views on anarchist disorgansation.
I am saying that every economic system is created in the functional knowledge of economic necessity within consciousness. The structure of the economic superstructure was all that the BORGS need to concentrate upon, and its creation was a conscious creation as the history of England validates.
The transformation of the laws of the land was the transitional phase of development, and this transition has been depicted concretely by the English Marxist historian Christopher Hill.
Both Lenin and Gramsci rejected "complete economic determinism" Lenin: "that the political is primary to the economic is the ABC of Marxism". economic determinism, and ofcourse so did both Marx and Engels. The famous letter to Bracke is proof of their non-reductive standpoint.
The "unification" always existed, in the sense that there is always an essential superstructure. Some form of superstructure must exist. Unification, may not be the appropiate word, but there is certainly always an inherent interconnection, which is the actual form of the economic relations in BORG| society.
There can be no artificial separation of the economic base from the economic superstructure, and this would be a theoretical error. That superstructure must always be present.
As for "Late Capitalism". Well, you know that I only call the economic system capitalism, and that I see the latter as the creation of the BORGS, and that I see this as BORG society; thus capitalism is for me still reductionism.
There are differences between advanced BORG society, and the BORG society in the days of Marx, but the main difference is universal sufferage, a political difference.
The huge take off, of commodity fetishism, isn't anything that would have suprised Karl Marx too much.
The static relations of capital, are exactly that; static relations. If all Late Capitalism = is the boom of commodity fetishism + the boom of multi-nationals; there is no great change to the base, only the economic superstructure.
Surely, you make a differentiation, between the static never changing relations and the actual superstructure?
Marx only underestimated the role of the economic superstructure, but he still hit the nail on the head with commodity fetishism, since that is the driving force of all "advanced" economics in the economic superstructure.
I agree, that it should have its own thread. May be you can start it, with your own opinions.

May the Force with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 10:35 pm on Mar. 24, 2002)