Practice what you preach - Lenin was a bearded- hypocrite

[ravengod]

In 1917 Lenin proclaimed power to the working class
instead he assumed all government to himself
he preached the existence of a minimal state in which there would be no police and no state interference( similar to a liberal view)
instead he organized the most fearsome security service and means of opression
killing hundred of thousands
i simply think lenin was a fuck up
he simply saw himself as the boss
and that s stupid

[ComradeJunichi]

Where do you get your information?

Power to the working class, so did you expect to see the millions of workers in Russia in power? He did not stage himself the whole government.

"Existance of a minimal state in which there would be no politce and no state inference"

What does that mean?

Just after revolution, everyone doesn't become a loyal communist and share bread. It's not that simple.

"Lenin was a fuck up, saw himself as the boss"

Riiight. He saw himself as a member of the vanguard party, which was something he did 'preach'.


Why is everyone so anti-Lenin all of a sudden? I've seen at least 4-5 threads on how "Lenin sucked, and he was a big poopoo head".

[ravengod]

whaaaaaatt??????????????
how can anyone agree with such an inadequacy between his propaganda and his deeds?
do u still think that the noble purpose excuses evry means used however anti humanitarian and even anti doctrine they may be?
sorry but i think this point of view belongs to a past
which should be buried in order to make things the best way possible
incurable utopists!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Revolution Hero]

Ravengod, I advise you to calm down and read some books on the subject you have taken a decision to talk about. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, YOU MADE MANY MISTAKES, WHICH POINT ON YOUR IGNORANCE

You said:"In 1917 Lenin proclaimed power to the working class
instead he assumed all government to himself "

I laugh at this one.
First of all, working class and peasants implemented their power through the instituions called SOVIETS.
Secondly, Lenin never had a lot of power. Moreover he warned party of Stalin's tendency to accumulate power in his hands.


Quote:"he preached the existence of a minimal state in which there would be no police and no state interference( similar to a liberal view)"

I laugh at this one also. Have you ever read any of Lenin's works?
Lenin was for socialistic state and this have nothing to do with being "similar to a liberal".

You said:"instead he organized the most fearsome security service and means of opression
killing hundred of thousands "

Those "hundred of thousands" were killed for the right reason, as these "victims" were bourgeois class representatives and supporters of capitalism.
Revolution can be violent, as it sometimes leads to the civil war. At this moment one have to decide which side to join. It's simple: if you don't kill them, they will kill you. After all, capitalists HAVE NO RIGHT ON EXISTENCE!

Quote:"do u still think that the noble purpose excuses evry means used however anti humanitarian and even anti doctrine they may be?"

Is anti-humanitarian supposed to mean anti-capitalist?
You know, sometimes "noble" aim should be reached by the violent means. I see nothing wrong in killing reactionary capitalists, who oppose socialistic revolution.

Quote:" sorry but i think this point of view belongs to a past "

This is what YOUR subjective mind thinks.

Quote:"i simply think lenin was a fuck up "

ravengod, aren't you feeling yourself like a fucking bastard now?

[Blibblob]

Yes, Lenin was the semi good guy, and then Stalin took it and fucked it up. Dont blame Lenin, blame Stalin.

And Trotsky was the better one, Lenin had some good points, and Stalin took them and fucked with them.

[Som]

Why is everyone so anti-Lenin all of a sudden? I've seen at least 4-5 threads on how "Lenin sucked, and he was a big poopoo head".

Well at least its better than the delusion that Lenin was some grand great guy, and that only Stalin had to do with the degradation of it, and well... the turn to Stalinism.
Though its not Lenin's fault on his own, Its the Bolsheviks as a whole. While Lenin was in charge, he still didn't have a sort of total control that later come through.

I laugh at this one.
First of all, working class and peasants implemented their power through the instituions called SOVIETS.

Thats all great and fine, On paper, but thats only where it was, It didn't take long before the local soviets power was undermined and the power was continually concentrated into the party beurocracy.

The soviets had little real power, even under Lenin.

Those "hundred of thousands" were killed for the right reason, as these "victims" were bourgeois class representatives and supporters of capitalism.
Revolution can be violent, as it sometimes leads to the civil war. At this moment one have to decide which side to join. It's simple: if you don't kill them, they will kill you. After all, capitalists HAVE NO RIGHT ON EXISTENCE!

Except that it wasn't just capitalists, It was ANYONE who didn't side with the bolsheviks. For example, anarchists, even though they were active organizers during the revolution, creating workers councils and organizing, were hunted down and killed by the cheka.

Lenin started the beurocracy and authoritarianism that is sometimes solely attributed to Stalins rule.

[Anonymous]

stalin rise to power had nothing to do with lenin.....

stalin used the same tacticsnapoleon used in the frence revolution, he acumulated power and started a self-propaganda machine... lenin had NOTHING to do with his rise to power...

[Som]

stalin rise to power had nothing to do with lenin.....

stalin used the same tacticsnapoleon used in the frence revolution, he acumulated power and started a self-propaganda machine... lenin had NOTHING to do with his rise to power...

You misunderstood what I meant, Lenin and the bolsheviks buerocracy and authoritarian rule created the means of Stalin's rise. Had Stalin not come to power, Trotsky would have with similiar brutality and murder, many things that were solely attributed to Stalinism were started under Lenin.

[Blackberry]

Think this should be added:

'State and Revolution' was written well before the revolution, and by the time 1918 came, many of his values changed. State and Revolution therefore becomes largely irrelevant to Lenin of later years.

[Jaha]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 5:08 pm on Jan. 22, 2003
You said:"instead he organized the most fearsome security service and means of opression
killing hundred of thousands "

Those "hundred of thousands" were killed for the right reason, as these "victims" were bourgeois class representatives and supporters of capitalism.
Revolution can be violent, as it sometimes leads to the civil war. At this moment one have to decide which side to join. It's simple: if you don't kill them, they will kill you. After all, capitalists HAVE NO RIGHT ON EXISTENCE!


Rev Hero, murder cannot be justified. so dont try to.

The capitalists might not have agreed, but what could they have done?

Progress lets the weak die, but progress never kills....

[Anonymous]

murder CAN be justifyed...

in self defence, and in some wars...

inocent killing cannotbe justifyed... but murder can....

[Ian]

let's not forget Lenin did own 9 rolls royce's

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Som:” Thats all great and fine, On paper, but thats only where it was, It didn't take long before the local soviets power was undermined and the power was continually concentrated into the party beurocracy. The soviets had little real power, even under Lenin.”

I have noticed that you always appear suddenly, saying unbelievable shit like the one above. Prove what you had said!
Soviets didn’t have a lot of power, but still they could influence on the settlement of local problems of different character. These self-governmental institutions were meant for ordinary people to exercise power. If you don’t agree try to prove the opposite.

Quote from Som:” Except that it wasn't just capitalists, It was ANYONE who didn't side with the bolsheviks. For example, anarchists, even though they were active organizers during the revolution, creating workers councils and organizing, were hunted down and killed by the cheka.”

Anarchist fought against Soviet Power, they fought against Red Army, and they fought against socialistic state. Hence, CheKa’s decision was completely right…
Anarchists please forgive me, but those anarchists were not good at all. They helped counter-revolutionary movement by fighting against revolutionary state.

Quote from Som:” many things that were solely attributed to Stalinism were started under Lenin.”

Name me those “things”, so I will be more specific when arguing this one.


Quote from Jaha:” murder cannot be justified. so dont try to.”

Death of one exploiter gives life to thousands of workers…This is a very good justification for revolutionary intolerance to the bourgeois class. It is just a bloody part of class struggle and this part is of a great significance.

Quote:” The capitalists might not have agreed, but what could they have done? “

They fought against revolutionary proletariat, peasantry and soldiers.

Quote:” Progress lets the weak die, but progress never kills....”

This statement can’t be applied to the revolutionary progress. Socialistic revolution will always cause the will of capitalists to restore their reactionary system; if this leads to civil war, then violent deaths from both sides are inevitable.

Quote:” let's not forget Lenin did own 9 rolls royce's”

…which was expropriated from killed Czar. Moreover this car wasn’t considered as luxury, but a mean of conveyance.

[ravengod]

Those "hundred of thousands" were killed for the right reason
said revolution hero

i hate to say that you people are sick

[Blasphemy]

i agree with you, ravengod. violence, no matter in which form, is fundementaly wrong. taking someone else's life, for whatever reason or cause, is a crime. even the most murderous, violent capitalist, such as george bush, has the most basic human right, the right for life.

the notion that it is okay to kill anti-communists is twisted. legitimizing the killing of people due to their political orientations can simply backfire, because you can't legitimatize the killing of anti-communist without legitimatizing the killing of communists,.

[Som]

I have noticed that you always appear suddenly, saying unbelievable shit like the one above. Prove what you had said!

Would it make you more comfortable if I.. slowly appeared?

Soviets didn’t have a lot of power, but still they could influence on the settlement of local problems of different character. These self-governmental institutions were meant for ordinary people to exercise power. If you don’t agree try to prove the opposite.

The soviets started off at the very beginning with actual power, and were actually democratic institutions. they lost their power rather quickly, and by 1920 there was no trace of worker democracy, and single man management was apointed by the party.
There was no self-government, they tried to give an illusion of it, but it was very quickly a party buerocracy, ordinary people had no say.

Anarchist fought against Soviet Power, they fought against Red Army, and they fought against socialistic state. Hence, CheKa’s decision was completely right…
Anarchists please forgive me, but those anarchists were not good at all. They helped counter-revolutionary movement by fighting against revolutionary state.

Anarchists originally helped the bolsheviks, and were active in organizing things like workers councils. The anarchists were against the bolsheviks and the red army when it started to show its authoritarian nature. They fought against it only when they saw that it was necesary.
It wasn't just the anarchists either, it was the socialist revolutionaries, and anyone that wasn't the bolsheviks.
The bolsheviks stole the revolution.

Name me those “things”, so I will be more specific when arguing this one.

Well, theres alot really, the creation of authoritarian undemocratic state where the masses had no real power and the party beurocracy was in control, forced collectivization, silencing of all opposition, so on and so forth.
Basically the structure of the soviet state.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from ravengod:” Those "hundred of thousands" were killed for the right reason
said revolution hero
i hate to say that you people are sick”

And

Quote from Blasphemy:” i agree with you, ravengod. violence, no matter in which form, is fundementaly wrong. taking someone else's life, for whatever reason or cause, is a crime.”

Then you guys have nothing to do in REVOLUTION, sometimes it becomes violent, but I see it just not for you…
Communists are not pacifists. We don’t support imperialistic wars, but we do support wars against imperialists, we do support revolutionary wars for freedom and liberation…Violence is a part of any war; if there had been no violence, then there would not have been any progress…


Quote from Som:” they lost their power rather quickly, and by 1920 there was no trace of worker democracy, and single man management was apointed by the party.
There was no self-government, they tried to give an illusion of it, but it was very quickly a party buerocracy, ordinary people had no say.”

Again, you have proved nothing.
You talk about democracy for workers and party bureaucracy, but you forgetting the fact that workers had the first priority to enter the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Isn’t it democracy for workers?
People, who were not members of the Communist Party, were elected as People’s Deputies to the Soviets. It was not illusion, unlike bourgeois democracy, socialistic democracy never creates illusions of any sort; Soviets functioned and you can’t negate it. Moreover I have some relatives who worked in the Soviet, so I know what I talk about…
Also there was no “single man management”. Central Committee and Politburo made the most important decisions. BTW these organs were collective.

Quote from Som:” The anarchists were against the bolsheviks and the red army when it started to show its authoritarian nature.”

According to anarchists, state=authority. Socialism=state=authority. Anarchists against state as a whole, no matter if it is capitalistic or socialistic. Their reaction was rational, but wrong.
You probably don’t know this, but many anarchists became Marxist-Leninists during the revolution. And those of them who fought against socialistic state, fought against socialism as a whole. Socialistic revolution has to protect itself, even against anarchists.

Quote from Som:” It wasn't just the anarchists either, it was the socialist revolutionaries, and anyone that wasn't the bolsheviks.”

Do you know that socialist revolutionist tried to assassin Lenin? Socialist revolutionists became counter-revolutionists and the part of reactionary force; they fought against Bolsheviks together with the bourgeois class, Mensheviks and anarchists. What a nice reactionary company, isn’t it?

Quote from Som:” The bolsheviks stole the revolution.”

Bolsheviks organized revolution; Bolsheviks protected revolution.

Quote from Som:” the creation of authoritarian undemocratic state where the masses had no real power and the party beurocracy was in control”

I talked about masses and power previously.
Talking about party, I would like to say, that any person could enter the party if he/she really wished it. Moreover it was party of COMMUNISTS, you know this word means a lot. It was party of the working people for the working people. Members didn’t have any private interests, but worked all together towards common goal. The party was very numerous; it consisted of about 20 million of people.

Quote:” forced collectivization, silencing of all opposition”

Truly working people were not against collectivization, party activists explained its principles to them and they agreed to follow state’s policy.

That’s right, opposition “had no say”. There should be only one ideology, as it is the only true ideology, its name is Marxism-Leninism. Others are enemies…

[Som]

Again, you have proved nothing.
You talk about democracy for workers and party bureaucracy, but you forgetting the fact that workers had the first priority to enter the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Isn’t it democracy for workers?

This is an entirely other argument all together, but its still an oligarchy, just because its an oligarchy which gives workers priority to join, doesn't make it a democracy, democracy is where the masses rule, oligarchies are where a few rule, since the communist party was the only real power, it was an oligarchy.

People, who were not members of the Communist Party, were elected as People’s Deputies to the Soviets. It was not illusion, unlike bourgeois democracy, socialistic democracy never creates illusions of any sort; Soviets functioned and you can’t negate it.

They functioned as what? They were powerless, they were appointed, the only elections they had ran without competition.

Also there was no “single man management”. Central Committee and Politburo made the most important decisions. BTW these organs were collective.

I was talking about the factories and the like. At the very beginning of the revolution, workplace councils were created to democratically run industry. The party quickly disbanding democratic industry and appointed single-man management of the factories.

According to anarchists, state=authority. Socialism=state=authority. Anarchists against state as a whole, no matter if it is capitalistic or socialistic. Their reaction was rational, but wrong.

Just because anarchists are principly against the state, doesn't mean they're stubborn and unyielding. There were 4 anarchists on the board that planned the original strike. Live i've said, anarchists were active creating workers democracy as the circumstances permitted, they organized labor unions and councils, and worked with the bolsheviks as necesary, but the cheka then hunted down and kill a large number of them.

Bolsheviks organized revolution; Bolsheviks protected revolution.

Bolsheviks were the main organizers of the revolution, others were involved.
They then pulled the revolution from the people, and consolidated the power within the bolsheviks instead of the working class.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Som:” This is an entirely other argument all together, but its still an oligarchy, just because its an oligarchy which gives workers priority to join, doesn't make it a democracy, democracy is where the masses rule, oligarchies are where a few rule, since the communist party was the only real power, it was an oligarchy.”

What you said could be described as a thought confusion, which was caused by the lack of Marxist understanding of state.
Each state has a government, which makes the most important decisions. When we talk about bourgeois government, we mean government, which defends the interests of the bourgeois class; hence only capitalists can enjoy democracy. In contrary, when we talk about socialistic government, we mean a government which defends the interests of all working people, as it consists of the people, who come from the working spheres and represent different classes, such as proletariat, peasantry and a group of intelligentsia; hence working people can enjoy democracy. This is applicable to any type of socialistic state.
Oligarchy is different from the latter; so if you confused yourself, don’t try to confuse others…

Quote from Som:” They functioned as what? They were powerless, they were appointed, the only elections they had ran without competition.”

Soviets functioned as local self-governmental institutions. They didn’t have a lot of power, in comparison with Central Committees of each Republic and Politburo. I don’t negate this. But soviets were able to make decisions on the issues of local character.
People’s deputies were elected by the people; that’s why they were called PEOPLE’S deputies. Your “appointment story” is just too far away from historical reality.

Quote from Som:” I was talking about the factories and the like. At the very beginning of the revolution, workplace councils were created to democratically run industry. The party quickly disbanding democratic industry and appointed single-man management of the factories.”

You are mistaken again. Collective organs ran the factories; very often these organs were formed of the workers. Each factory had its local party organization, so some workers were party members. Obviously, workers of the socialistic state were able to influence on the work of their factory, as special workers’ meetings were gathered regularly.

Quote from Som:” Just because anarchists are principly against the state, doesn't mean they're stubborn and unyielding.”

Actually they were stubborn. They violated socialistic law exactly for this reason.

Quote from Som:” they organized labor unions and councils, and worked with the bolsheviks as necesary, but the cheka then hunted down and kill a large number of them.”

Anarchists fought against Red Army. That was enough reason to hunt them down.

Quote from Som:” Bolsheviks were the main organizers of the revolution, others were involved.”

Indeed, others were also involved. But then they started to show their anti-marxist tendency of solving different political problems. Then they directly struggled against Bolsheviks. So, all Bolsheviks had to do was to fight back.

Quote from Som:” They then pulled the revolution from the people, and consolidated the power within the bolsheviks instead of the working class.”

Bolsheviks protected socialistic revolution from white army, bourgeois class of foreign countries and other counter-revolutionists for the PEOPLE. I already explained what socialistic democracy is…