Lenin against Trotsky - ultimate proof of trotskyism being i

[Revolution Hero]

Lenin wrote in “Military program of proletarian revolution”: “Thirdly, victorious socialism in one country doesn’t exclude all wars at once. In contrary, it presupposes them. The development of capitalism happens in high extent unevenly in different countries. It can’t be otherwise in the time of commodity production. Hence unalterable conclusion follows: socialism can’t win in all countries simultaneously. It will win originally in one or few countries, and the rest will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois during the certain period of time. It must cause not only clashes, but also a direct aspiration of bourgeois class of other countries for the defeat of victorious proletariat of socialistic state. In these cases the war from our side would have been valid and just. It would have been war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from bourgeois class. Engels was completely right, when he directly admitted the possibility of “defensive wars” of already victorious proletariat in his letter to Kautsky in September 12, 1882. He meant exactly the defense of victorious proletariat against the bourgeois class of other countries.” ( vol. 30, p. 133)

This was written in 1916, a year after the famous genius conclusion about the possibility of victory of socialism in one or few countries, which originally appeared in Lenin’s work “About the slogan of the United States of Europe”; and a year before the Great October Revolution.
There is no doubt that Lenin foresaw Russian socialistic revolution. There is no doubt that Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism in Russia.
The quote listed above is the ultimate proof for this, but there would be always some trotskyists around to slander and misinterpret Comrade Lenin. In order not to let it happen I am going to provide the quote with objective analyses.

“The development of capitalism happens in high extent unevenly in different countries.”

This is the main feature of imperialistic capitalism.
Imperialism is characterized by the struggle for the economical spheres of influence between different advanced and developing capitalistic states (imperialistic states). This struggle goes on mainly in the interests of monopolistic capital of rival states and results in capturing new dependant countries, which inevitably fall under the influence of one or another (or even a group of) imperialistic state(s). The captured states have pre-bourgeois social-economical system and are described as backward at the beginning. But foreign imperialistic capital brings in development to these countries, by fastening the process of capitalization; therefore past backward countries become developing capitalistic countries.
We see that capitalistic states can be advanced, developing and backward. The latter eventually become developing. Capitalistic states are also divided in two groups: imperialistic and those which are exploited by imperialistic capital. In some states capitalism have already reached its highest point of development, while in other states it’s just starts its development. Therefore, capitalism develops unevenly in different countries.


“Hence unalterable conclusion follows: socialism can’t win in all countries simultaneously.”

It is obvious that socialistic revolution happens as a result of revolutionary situation, which arise during both political and economical crises. Unevenly developed capitalistic states distinguish from each other by different internal economical, social and political processes. Hence, revolutionary situation (which is the most important guarantee of successful socialistic revolution) may arise in one (or few, but definitely not all) capitalistic state(s).
The working people of the country, which is ready for the socialistic revolution, must be also ready to struggle for socialism. If the working masses are not prepared and organized socialistic revolution will fail. The level of revolutionary mass activity is another factor, which determines success of revolutionary movement.
Socialistic revolution is the first step, if it is successful socialistic building follows. No doubt that socialistic building will result in the victory of socialism.

Lenin says in the support:” It will win originally in one or few countries, and the rest will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois during the certain period of time.”

Does it need to be explained? The following explanation is for the smart trotskyists only, but truly smart comrades can also enjoy it.
What will educated trotskyist (of course this education is only of one- side character, so called narrow education) say as a reply on the quote above? Obviously he/she will not have anything to answer on it, as Lenin said it as clear as he could. Lenin said that socialism would win originally in one or few countries, while other countries will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois (is it world socialistic state? Unfortunately, not at all, but it is just the beginning of creation of the world socialistic state). In contrary, trotskyists say that socialism can be built only in the worldwide scale, only after the successful world revolution. (how naïve! It will take probably 500 years or longer for the world revolution to win. How long should we wait Mr. Trotskyists?) This is pure contradiction. This contradiction proves that Trotskyism doesn’t conform to Leninism, but parasitizes on the great theory. What will Mr. Trotskyists say us on this?
They will probably say: “… but Russian case (the task of building socialism after the Great October Revolution and the end of the Civil War) is different. Russia was backward semi-feudal country, which was not ready for socialism at all.” That is what they will tell us. It is not only the confusion of trotskyist thought and contradiction to the Marxist-Leninist theory, but also a last try to protect Judas Trotsky. This is death agony of all trotskyists. We Marxist-Leninists have millions of arguments on their last attempt to pervert Leninism.
First of all this trotskyist statement is anti-leninist and totally contradicts to the quote above.
You, Mr. Trotskyists say that Russia wasn’t ready for socialism, as it was backward semi-feudal state. This is very wrong and ignorant to say (try to finally memorize this, as I have said it many times before).
First of all Russia was one of the imperialistic states. Russia was one of the most powerful imperialistic states of that period. Lenin put Czarist Russia in one row with such states as England, Germany, Austria, France and the United States. This is fact!
Secondly, Russia had the strongest and organized proletarian vanguard in Europe. RSDRP was the only true Marxist party of that time. Lenin admitted that developed capitalistic Europe is full of opportunists and these opportunists played the dominant role in European workers’ movement. This is another fact!
Thirdly, the History itself has proved all trotskyists that IT WAS POSSIBLE TO BUILD SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND THEN SPREAD SOCIALISM TO THE HALF OF THE WORLD’S STATES. History showed us what world revolution really means. This is ultimate fact!

Trotskyists probably will not read this till the end, but quote analyses goes on…

Lenin says:” It must cause not only clashes, but also a direct aspiration of bourgeois class of other countries for the defeat of victorious proletariat of socialistic state. In these cases the war from our side would have been valid and just.”

Victory of the socialistic revolution and the victory of socialism definitely cause the reaction of the bourgeois class of imperialistic states. The victory of socialism in one or few countries creates a dangerous situation to all capitalistic states for the following reasons:
1.Certain capitalistic states lose its past partners or “dependant partners”.
2.Capitalists lose resources, which were exploited by them previously.
3.Capitalists lose commodity market to some extent.
4.The most important. International character of each socialistic victory is apparent. The revolutionary activity of working masses in the capitalistic states rises as the answer on the socialistic revolution and socialistic victory of one or few countries.

That is why capitalists try by all means to prevent socialistic victory. Capitalists use different methods, such as sabotage, supporting internal counter-revolutionary movement and even direct and open military intervention, in order to stop revolutionary task of building socialistic state or to destroy socialism itself.
The main principle of each socialistic revolution is that REVOLUTION HAS TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT ITSELF. Working people have to fight against external bourgeois aggression in the cases of danger. Socialistic state needs to have a strong army in order to protect itself, in order to defend socialism.
It has to be noted that socialistic state use its army only in the defensive aims. Socialistic external policy is the policy of peace and justice. Indeed, Lenin was for peaceful coexistence with all capitalistic states. Socialism and aggressive international policy are incompatible.

Lenin says:” Engels was completely right, when he directly admitted the possibility of “defensive wars” of already victorious proletariat in his letter to Kautsky in September 12, 1882. He meant exactly the defense of victorious proletariat against the bourgeois class of other countries.”

Lenin refers to Engels. No comments…


From the quote, which starts this thread, we see that unlike pessimistic Trotsky, Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism originally in one or few countries. One can conclude that Lenin never had supported Trotsky’s “theory of the permanent revolution”. And this will be the correct conclusion!
Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are incompatible!

[bolshevik1917]

Yawn...are you still here?

No one is impressed with your old 1905 Lenin quotes by the way. Why dont we talk about something interesting like the frame up trials?

[bolshevik1917]

Just to show everyone how funny your last post was

RH says

“There is no doubt that Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism in Russia.”

And

“Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism originally in one or few countries.”

Lenin says



"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."
Lenin. (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 160-1.)


"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious." (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72.)


"The Congress considers the only reliable guarantee of the consolidation of the socialist revolution that has been victorious in Russia to be its conversion into a world working-class revolution." (LCW, from Resolution on War and Peace, Vol. 27. p. 119.)


"We shall achieve final victory only when we succeed at last in conclusively smashing international imperialism, which relies on the tremendous strength of its equipment and discipline. But we shall achieve victory only together with all the workers of other countries, of the whole worldÉ" (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 231.)


"To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries." (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 372-3.)


"We never harboured the illusion that the forces of the proletariat and the revolutionary people of any one country, however heroic and however organised and disciplined they might be, could overthrow international imperialism. That can be done only by the joint efforts of the workers of the world We never deceived ourselves into thinking this could be done by the efforts of one country alone. We knew that our efforts were inevitably leading to a worldwide revolution, and that the war begun by the imperialist governments could not be stopped by the efforts of those governments themselves. It can be stopped only by the efforts of all workers; and when we came to power, our task was to retain that power, that torch of socialism, so that it might scatter as many sparks as possible to add to the growing flames of socialist revolution." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 24-5.)


"From the very beginning of the October Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main question facing us. Not merely because from now on all the states of the world are being firmly linked by imperialism into one, dirty, bloody mass, but because the complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia We have never been so near to world proletarian revolution as we are now. We have proved we were not mistaken in banking on world proletarian revolution Even if they crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add fuel to the flames that will consume them all." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 151-64.)


"The transformation of our Russian Revolution into a socialist revolution was not a dubious venture but a necessity, for there was no other alternative: Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably destroy the independence and freedom of Russia if the world socialist revolution, world Bolshevism, does not triumph." (LCW, Vol. 28, p. 188.)


"Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective - the overthrow of capitalism - has been achieved. We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task in to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states." (LCW, Vol. 29, pp. 151-64.)


"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army We always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." (LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8.)


"The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means." (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 431.)


"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions And there is absolutely nothing terrible in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)

[Revolution Hero]

You have proved and showed nothing, but your stupidity and misunderstanding of Lenin.
First of all you said:” No one is impressed with your old 1905 Lenin quotes by the way. Why dont we talk about something interesting like the frame up trials?”

If you haven’t noticed I presented only ONE quote from Lenin. And it was not “old 1905” quote, the quote is taken from the work, which was written in 1916. I said it in my post, but you preferred to ignore it.
What’s up with the trials? Do you try to change topic?
You ignored all post and came up with the same quotes you posted in “History”.

Quote:” Just to show everyone how funny your last post was
RH says
“There is no doubt that Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism in Russia.”
And
“Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism originally in one or few countries.””


If you didn’t get that Lenin had been confident in the victory of socialism in one country from the quote above, you must be a complete fool. Read the quote and try to comprehend, moreover try to comprehend to my explanation and analyses (I made this especially for you, considering your abilities).
Just like I said Lenin had put it as clear as he could. If you think that statement: “Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism originally in one or few countries” is funny, then you make fun out of Lenin, as Lenin said it himself (again read the quote).

The quotes from Lenin mentioned by you don’t contradict to the one mentioned by me. You and all have to distinguish victory of socialism and final victory of socialism. Victory of socialism originally in one country is possible, but this victory is not final and complete victory of socialism, as bourgeois countries can easily destroy victorious socialistic state. Therefore socialism will take final victory when it will be victorious in a certain number of countries, so these countries would be able to protect each other from the intervention and other attacks. Finally, complete victory of socialism is the victory of socialism in the worldwide scale.
What must be understood is that final victory of socialism doesn’t exclude victory of socialism originally in one country. Moreover victory of socialism originally in one country is the first step to the final victory of socialism.


What about the quote I mentioned? Just like I predicted, anti-leninist trotskyist has nothing to say on it…

[Xvall]

RH, stop flaming and throwing around accusations. With a name like bolshevik1917 I highly doubt that he is any sort of anti-leninist.

[Edelweiss]

You know already have the ssmae discussion in 4 or 5 threads, yould please stop creataing new threads for new arguments? Thank you.

[bolshevik1917]

If your quote is from 1916 then it remains BEFORE the revolution. I reckon this is the only quote of its kind, I am also sure Lenin would never have repeated it after 1918/19.

Capitalism cannot exist in one country alone, neither can socialism.

My quotes demostrate Lenins internationalism. Lenin says 'The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible'

Then you had Stalin saying he 'never had such intentions' to build socialism on a world scale.

And then theres the fact that socialism was never acheived. The USSR remained a deformed workers state.

[bolshevik1917]

Further investigation reveals the quote of Lenins you produce has been taken out of context. Trotsky explains in his polemic "The third international after Lenin" which I am now in the process of trying to obtain a copy.

Anyway, for the first time in weeks I had a bit of free time, so I decided to look into your argument a bit more (open minded chap that I am). Here is my input.

The first thing I feel I should point out is there is a difference between socialist revolution, which occurs in individual states at different times due to the national traditions and stages of development, and socialism itself, which can only occur with a world wide socialist federation of states, that have already gone way beyond the level of development of capitalism.

You went on a little rant here (squeezing in as many digs as possible)

"What will educated trotskyist (of course this education is only of one- side character, so called narrow education) say as a reply on the quote above? Obviously he/she will not have anything to answer on it, as Lenin said it as clear as he could. Lenin said that socialism would win originally in one or few countries, while other countries will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois (is it world socialistic state? Unfortunately, not at all, but it is just the beginning of creation of the world socialistic state). In contrary, trotskyists say that socialism can be built only in the worldwide scale, only after the successful world revolution. (how naïve! It will take probably 500 years or longer for the world revolution to win. How long should we wait Mr. Trotskyists?) This is pure contradiction. This contradiction proves that Trotskyism doesn’t conform to Leninism, but parasitizes on the great theory. What will Mr. Trotskyists say us on this?"

The trouble with your argument is that in focusing on the unevenness of capitalist development. You ignore the commonality this brings, by sucking in all countries into the world market, which creates world economics and world politics, and world revolution. Thus, capitallist economic development does not only heighten contradictions within and between states but also leads to an evening out of industry at the same time, ie China and Brazil are catching up and overtaking Britain in *certain sectors, increasing the contradiction between advanced development and backwardness within these countries, just as there are third world conditions developing in Britain (Like Transport).

World revolution is not a question of 500 years of development, which would be to more than double the length of capitalism, which is already in its period of senile decay, or death agony, as Lenin explained.

Again I must have upset you here..

" You, Mr. Trotskyists say that Russia wasn’t ready for socialism, as it was backward semi-feudal state. This is very wrong and ignorant to say (try to finally memorize this, as I have said it many times before).
First of all Russia was one of the imperialistic states. Russia was one of the most powerful imperialistic states of that period. Lenin put Czarist Russia in one row with such states as England, Germany, Austria, France and the United States. This is fact!"

However, Part of the complexity of the contradictions of imperialist development which you do not understand is that Russia is a third world country in relation to Germany, France and the US, but a first world country in its relations with the Ukraine, Moldova, and central Asian states.

"Secondly, Russia had the strongest and organized proletarian vanguard in Europe. RSDRP was the only true Marxist party of that time. Lenin admitted that developed capitalistic Europe is full of opportunists and these opportunists played the dominant role in European workers’ movement. This is another fact!"

*This is wrong. 1) the vanguard is not the working class, which in Russia was the weakest in Europe. 2) the strength of the vanguard was not in its economic development, although this is something for you to think about, but in the leadership of Lenin - which you have confused with economic development, thus reducing the significance of Lenin's intervention.

"Thirdly, the History itself has proved all trotskyists that IT WAS POSSIBLE TO BUILD SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND THEN SPREAD SOCIALISM TO THE HALF OF THE WORLD’S STATES. History showed us what world revolution really means. This is ultimate fact!"

*except that they didn't build socialism, and if they did it would not be possible for the USSR to hagve gone back to capitalism, but on the contrary the rest of the world would have gone over to socialism.

"It has to be noted that socialistic state use its army only in the defensive aims. Socialistic external policy is the policy of peace and justice. Indeed, Lenin was for peaceful coexistence with all capitalistic states. Socialism and aggressive international policy are incompatible."

Then why the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact that carved up Poland in 1938, or the deal between Stalin and Churchill that gave the USSR Poland and Britain Greece? etc etc.

And your last wee outburst

"From the quote, which starts this thread, we see that unlike pessimistic Trotsky, Lenin was confident in the victory of socialism originally in one or few countries. One can conclude that Lenin never had supported Trotsky’s “theory of the permanent revolution”. And this will be the correct conclusion!
Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are incompatible!"

*If not the permanent revolution then it must be the theory of two stages - what role did the bourgeoisie play? You goe on about the working class without understanding the class nature of the different theories, and that only thepermanent revolution is working calss in its composition and therefore internationalist.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Drake Drakoli:” RH, stop flaming and throwing around accusations. With a name like bolshevik1917 I highly doubt that he is any sort of anti-leninist.”

Names are fictions. Consider what man says and then give him a characteristic, which will be his new name…

Quote from bolshevik1917:” If your quote is from 1916 then it remains BEFORE the revolution.”

Does it matter? Do you want to say that Lenin didn’t think about revolution in 1916? When he said that socialism could be built in one country, he thought exactly about socialistic victory as a result of victorious revolution.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” I reckon this is the only quote of its kind”

Not actually, you can find another quote of this kind in the work “About the Slogan of the United States of Europe”(1915)

Quote from bolshevik1917:” I am also sure Lenin would never have repeated it after 1918/19.”

Lenin did repeat it, but it was repeated in practical, rather than theoretical manner...

Quote from bolshevik1917:” My quotes demostrate Lenins internationalism. Lenin says 'The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible'”

Again, you ignore what I have said before. Final victory of socialism is different from victory of socialism in one country (read my previous post).

Quote from bolshevik1917:” And then theres the fact that socialism was never acheived. The USSR remained a deformed workers state.”

Find any definition of socialism and compare it with actual practical experience of the Soviet Union and you will find no contradictions between theory and practice…

Quote from bolshevik1917:” The trouble with your argument is that in focusing on the unevenness of capitalist development. You ignore the commonality this brings, by sucking in all countries into the world market, which creates world economics and world politics, and world revolution.”

This of course should not be ignored. Each revolution definitely undermines imperialistic system. But revolution in one country not necessarily leads to the revolutions in other countries, it leads to the high political activity of working masses of another countries, but this activity not necessarily transforms into the revolutionary action. Sometimes such revolutionary attempts leads to failure, as they are mainly of spontaneously chaotic character.
Export of revolution is also a wrong strategy; Lenin pointed this out many times.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” Thus, capitallist economic development does not only heighten contradictions within and between states but also leads to an evening out of industry at the same time, ie China and Brazil are catching up and overtaking Britain in certain sectors, increasing the contradiction between advanced development and backwardness within these countries”

First of all China’s example can’t be applied here, as China is on its way of reaching socialism. And actually UK is way far from China in the rates of productivity.
Uneven capitalists development is explained by the imperialistic system in which one states exploit another states. For example Brazil is exploited by the US capital, the standards of brazilian workers’ life are lower than the standards of workers’ life in US or UK. This is an example of social unevenness of capitalistic development. The same situation is with the economical unevenness; for example Brazil’s economy can’t be compared with US or UK economy.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” World revolution is not a question of 500 years of development, which would be to more than double the length of capitalism”

How long do you think it will take for the World revolution to win, then?

Quote from bolshevik1917:” However, Part of the complexity of the contradictions of imperialist development which you do not understand is that Russia is a third world country in relation to Germany, France and the US”

Actually I do understand imperialistic development of capitalism.
Czarist Russia was the country, which was ready for the revolution better than any other, as you say “first world countries” (it is a bourgeois term, isn’t it?). Even Lenin had pointed this out.
Russian Empire gathered all contradictions of imperialism in one point and that was the reason of its revolutionary explosion.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” This is wrong. 1) the vanguard is not the working class, which in Russia was the weakest in Europe. 2) the strength of the vanguard was not in its economic development, although this is something for you to think about, but in the leadership of Lenin - which you have confused with economic development”

Oh, you don’t know what proletarian vanguard is, do you? Proletarian vanguard is formed of conscious working class. This is from the basics.
Also, you misunderstood me here. I didn’t connect the strength of proletarian vanguard with the economical development, but I talked about proletarian vanguard itself. Leadership of Lenin was very important factor, indeed if not Lenin nothing had happened.
So, this is not wrong, but right. Russian Communists Party was the strongest revolutionary organization of that time. This is fact. I mentioned it in order to show European incapability to start its own revolution.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” except that they didn't build socialism, and if they did it would not be possible for the USSR to hagve gone back to capitalism”

This doesn’t prove that USSR was not socialistic state. Here, we can talk about final victory of socialism. If final victory of socialism had happened, then USSR wouldn’t have collapsed. Do you remember my statement that final victory of socialism (victory in the world scale) is the guarantee of impossibility of capitalistic restoration? It can be perfectly applied here.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” Then why the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact that carved up Poland in 1938, or the deal between Stalin and Churchill that gave the USSR Poland and Britain Greece?”

Don’t see any aggression here.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” If not the permanent revolution then it must be the theory of two stages”

What theory do you talk about? If you talk about theory of two stages of communism, then I have to say that this is pure Marxist-Leninist teaching. First stage is socialism; second stage is communism.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” You goe on about the working class without understanding the class nature of the different theories, and that only thepermanent revolution is working calss in its composition and therefore internationalist.”

Trotsky’s permanent revolution will ruin proletariat one day. You forget that trotskyist were anti-sovietists; therefore anti-socialists, the same as bourgeois class. You are not the one who can teach me about class interests, which stands behind different teachings.

Again, you have talked about different topics, running away from Lenin’s quote. Try to give your own comments to it; we all want to see how you will go against Lenin. So, you finally have to prove that trotskyists are not Leninists.

[Revolution Hero]

Here are the quotes from Lenin, which shows his confidence in the victory of socialism in Russia:

Lenin wrote in “The next tasks of the Soviet Power”(1918):

“We, party of Bolsheviks, convinced Russia. We won Russia from rich for the poor, from exploiters for the working people. We have to rule over Russia now.” (LCW, vol. 36, p. 172)

Lenin wrote in the same work:

“It must be thought over, that besides the ability to convince, besides the ability to win in the civil war, the ability to practically organize is necessary in order to be successful in state governing. This is the most difficult task, as we have to build new organization of the deepest, economical foundations of lives of ten millions and ten millions of people. And this is the most gratifying task, as only after it’s accomplishment (in the main and fundamental traits) it will be possible to say that Russia became not only soviet, but also socialistic republic (SOCIALISTIC!!! R.H.). (LCW, VOL.36, P. 173)

It is written in the same work:

“Realization of socialism will be determined by our success in combining soviet power and soviet organization with the newest progress of capitalism” (LCW, vol.36, p. 173)

From the interview Lenin gave to Japanese correspondent Fuse in 1920:

“Question: “You said, that feudalism had needed many years for the transition into capitalism, and that is why socialism would need many years for the transition from capitalism. What period of time will it take for such transition?”
Lenin’s answer: ”It is hard to determine the period; not much time is needed to overthrow the old regime, but it is impossible to create a new regime in a short time. We have proceeded to the implementation of the plan of industrial and agricultural electrification.
Communism is unrealizable without electrification and our plan of electrification is made for ten years under the most favorable conditions. This is our minimum period for the creation of a new system.” (LCW, vol. 41, p. 132-133)

From Lenin's interview to the American newspaper "World" (February 21, 1920):
Question: "When do you think building of communism will be completed in Russia?"
Lenin's answer: "We are going to electrify our whole industrial system by the means of creation of electric power station in Ural and other places. Our engineers say that we will need 10 years. The completion of electrification is the first important step towards communistic organization of economical life of the society. Our whole industry will get energy from the common source, which will be able to supply all of its branches in the same extent. This will remove unproductive competition in the search of oil and will create a firm economical basis for the enterprises of manufacturing industry, without which we may not hope to reach such level of exchange of commodities, which would conform to the principles of communism." (vol. 40, p. 156)

From Lenin's speech on the 3rd Congress of trade unions (April 8, 1920): "Our main slogan- more and closer to the individuality, more labor discipline, catch up with the rest, to work with the military resoluteness, firmness, self sacrifice, casting aside group interests, sacrificing private interests! We wouldn't be able to win without this. And if we make this party decision come into life as one man through three million of workers and then through dozens million of peasants, who will feel moral authority, people's strength, sacrificing themselves for the victory of socialism, we will be absolutely and completely undefeatable! (Storm of applause.)" (vol. 40, p. 313).

From Lenin’s speech on the 8th All-Russian Congress of the Soviets (the end of 1920):”Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country. Otherwise the country stays small-peasant and we have to clearly realize this. We are weaker than capitalism not only in the world scale, but also inside the country. Everybody knows this. We have realized this and we would carry business till the moment when economic basis would transfer into large-industrial from small-peasant condition. Only then, when the country is electrified, when industry, agriculture and transport would be based on modern large-industry, only then we will finally win.” (vol.42, p. 159)

From Lenin’s speech on the plenum of Moscow’s Soviet (20th November, 1922):”Socialism is not already a question of far future, or some kind of abstract picture, or some kind of icon. We remained old and bad opinion about icons. We dragged socialism to the daily life and we have to investigate here. This is the task of our day; this is the task of our epoch. Let me finish my speech with expression of confidence that no matter how difficult this task is, no matter how new this task is, in comparison with our previous task and how many difficulties it causes,- we all together, not tomorrow, but in few years, we all will accomplish this task no matter what it will cost us, so NEP’s Russia will become socialistic (!!!-R.H.) Russia. (vol. 45, p. 309)

[Xvall]

Names are fictions. Consider what man says and then give him a characteristic, which will be his new name…

Regardless, I do not see how he expresses any sort of anti-leninist ideology in his posts. You seem to just be under the impression that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you said is an 'Anti-Leinist, Trostskyist'; much in the way that the capitalists on this board think everyone who disagrees with them are nothing but 'Anti-American, Communist Flith'.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 10:05 am on Feb. 1, 2003
Names are fictions. Consider what man says and then give him a characteristic, which will be his new name…

Regardless, I do not see how he expresses any sort of anti-leninist ideology in his posts. You seem to just be under the impression that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you said is an 'Anti-Leinist, Trostskyist'; much in the way that the capitalists on this board think everyone who disagrees with them are nothing but 'Anti-American, Communist Flith'.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with Lenin on such important question, as possibility of victory of socialism originally in one country is anti-leninists.

[Xvall]

Then I guess we have a lot of anti-leninsts on this site.

[HS The Whap]

Revolution Hero > Drake

Revolution can't happen in all places at the same time, a nations leaders should be MORE concerned with their own nation rather than with foreign affairs. Even Stalin exported revolutoin when he deemed necessary, but the liberals label that as "imperialism"...

[Xvall]

I dont' see why you are pointing me out. I wasn't taking part in the debate, I never claimed that revolution can happen everywhere at the same time. The only thing I did was try to convince Revolution Hero that bolshevik was not an 'anti-leninst trotskyist'.

[HS The Whap]

Well drake, after RH revealed that inconvinient truism, you concluded that this truism makes most people on this site anti-Leninist. What kind of "internationalism" does this Bolshevik fella support? Is it in agreement with RH's definition?

[Xvall]

I am not sure what kind of 'internationalism' he supports. However, I am fairly confident that he is not any sort of anti-leninist. He will have to answer that himself. For example. There are many people on this board that do not agree with Stalin's policies. However, I do not think that this makes themm all anti-stalinists.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 2:39 am on Feb. 1, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

"a nations leaders should be MORE concerned with their own nation rather than with foreign affairs"

This is what you may call Kautskyism/Stalinism. It is my beleif that (in the words of Marx) the worker has no country. Although nations will revolt at different times socialism cannot exist in one or two countries.

RH calls me all sorts of names, he is a bitter sectarian though, I am used to his type by now. And thankyou Drake for speaking up for me.

As for your quotes RH I will look over them in the morning (in their original works) and get back to you.

One funny thing I see is that you say China is acheiving socialism. Your having a laugh right??

[Edelweiss]

RH is totally obseessed to proof that Trotzky was "anti-Leninist". This is a debate which is maybe important for the ideological war between the various Stalin and Trotzky cults/sects, but shure not for the future of socialism, or for the future of mankind.

[HS The Whap]

I see that you have to be a Stalinist to put your own workers first.

"It is my beleif that (in the words of Marx) the worker has no country"

This is idiocy! This is pure rhetoric, but its not pragmatic. It isn't anti-revolutionary to develop the nation when its survival depends on it. When the imperialists invaded russia to crush the revolution, russians should not have focused on the european situation. Of course the workers of the world are equally screwed under capitalism, Marx is right. Marx was trying to imply that the working class should not support their bourgeois government, but support their own interests. If they overthrow that government, its only sensible to secure the revolution and not be exposed, what you are proposing will never work and will be crushed.

[Xvall]

That statement was also meant as a reply to the common belief that communists seek to 'steal' the country from the working class, when in actuality they do not own it.

[bolshevik1917]

It is not anti-revolutionary to develop the movement when its survival depends on it. If Europe was to have a single or a handfull of trade unions the national 'states' would be small and weak. Revolution will come through the unions next time around, remember that.

Lenin was a supporter of the European and worldwide trade union idea, as were many other great Marxists. Granted thats not just an excuse to support it, but if you look into things it seems like the way forward.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 11:22 am on Feb. 1, 2003
Then I guess we have a lot of anti-leninsts on this site.


Exactly...

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 12:44 pm on Feb. 1, 2003


As for your quotes RH I will look over them in the morning (in their original works) and get back to you.

One funny thing I see is that you say China is acheiving socialism. Your having a laugh right??


So, bolshevik1917, you know Russian, don't you? I took the quotes from original works and translated them myself...You can check them if you don't trust me. Nothing will change really...
Just like I said before Lenin was confident about victory of socialism in Russia. The last quote shows it better than the rest. You still think that it is funny, don't you? It is not good to make fun out of a great man, you know...

China is moving towards socialism and your opinion can't change the reality. They chosed the proper way, which is long transition with a free market system. You can think whatever you want, but I will laugh at you when China will finally become socialistic...

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Malte on 12:54 pm on Feb. 1, 2003
RH is totally obseessed to proof that Trotzky was "anti-Leninist". This is a debate which is maybe important for the ideological war between the various Stalin and Trotzky cults/sects, but shure not for the future of socialism, or for the future of mankind.


This debate is important fro the whole communist movement. Comrades have to see what a renegade anti-leninist Trotsky was.
Finally, it must be clear that trotskyist strategy will always lead to failure of the revolutionary movement.

HS The Whap is completely right, revolution has to proetct itself; therefore it must concentrate on establishing socialism first, only then socialistic state would be able to help revolutionary movements all over the world.

[Xvall]

This debate is important fro the whole communist movement. Comrades have to see what a renegade anti-leninist Trotsky was.

Like I stated before. I can not agree with this; because this is simply your opinion on Trotsky. You do not represent the whole of the communist movement, nor is it up to you to decide what qualifies as anti-leninism and anti-communism. If someone was an anti-leninist, they would likely admit it flat out, just as communists and socialists admit that they strongly oppose capitalism. Anti-leninism is not something that people hide from the public. Although Trotsky may not have had the exact same beliefs that Lenin had, I strongly doubt he was an anti-leninist.

[bolshevik1917]

But RH, according to Stalin it was never the USSR's intention to spread worldwide revolution.

And yes I do have a Russian speaking comrade if needs be.

On the subject of China (perhaps it deserves a thread of its own) the chinese revolution began like the russian revolution ended - distorted.

Heres a great analysis http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/9/chinese_...revolution.html (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/9/chinese_revolution.html)

[Larissa]

I found this at: http://www.zmag.org/WITBU/witbu04.html

"Trotsky thought Lenin's plan was naive on one point. He was convinced that in a revolutionary upheaval the workers would go further than Lenin outlined and so he supported a drive toward the establishment of a proletariat state dictatorship. "Trotsky favored democracy among the workers at the same time that he advocated the suppression of all other classes by the proletariat." 22 Lenin on the other hand favored a broad national Russian Democracy within the limits considered desirable by the leaders of the governing Bolshevik Party. The two were able to work together; though they disagreed about the goal they agreed on the main steps toward it. "

Some time ago, and somewhere (don't remeber where,,honestly) I read that Lenin once said something like: beware of Stalin...and Trotsky has a brilliant mind. I¿ll try to find where I read that.

[Xvall]

Possibly this, Larissa.

ttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/index.htm (http://ttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/index.htm)

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 3:42 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

[Larissa]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 5:38 pm on Feb. 1, 2003
Possibly this, Larissa.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/index.htm Yes! Thank you, Drake.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from Drake Dracoli:” Like I stated before. I can not agree with this; because this is simply your opinion on Trotsky.”

This is not my subjective opinion, like you tried to present it, but it is objective truth. Lenin was confident about victory of socialism in whatever single country and particularly in Russia. Trotsky and trotskyists say that it is not possible to achieve victory of socialism in one country. What else do you need to hear? This is the main contradiction between two theories, and this contradiction is enough to conclude that trotskyists are anti-leninists.

Quote from Drake Dracoli:” You do not represent the whole of the communist movement, nor is it up to you to decide what qualifies as anti-leninism and anti-communism.”

Lol, you are right. Who am I to represent the whole communist movement? But I am Marxist-Leninist; hence I represent Marxism-Leninism as a whole, just like bolshevik1917 represents Trotskyism as a whole.
What I said was that this debate would be good for the comrades to finally decide which side they would follow: Leninism or Trotskyism, no doubt that these theories are mutually exclusive.
You said that it was not up to me to decide, “what qualifies as anti-leninism and anti-communism.” This is a wrong statement. I don’t just say that all trotskyists are anti-leninists, but I prove this. And if you could not agree with me after reading previous arguments then I am sincerely sorry for you…

Quote from Drake Dracoli:” If someone was an anti-leninist, they would likely admit it flat out, just as communists and socialists admit that they strongly oppose capitalism.”

Exactly, Drake Dracoli. All trotskyists try to prove that Lenin and Trotsky were friends and agreed on everything. They even say that Lenin supported trotsky’s permanent revolution (I proved the opposite already). Any trotskyist will never tell you that he is anti-leninist, but each of them will be glad to deform Lenin’s teaching, trying to prove you that Lenin actually agreed with Trotsky. Who was Trotsky for Lenin to agree with? Lenin himself admitted in the year 1921 or 1922 (don’t actually remember) that Trotsky had a very bad understanding of Marxism, when they disagreed on the trade-unions issue.
Trotskyism hides its anti-leninist nature, and this makes this theory hypocritical; therefore dangerous…


Quote from bolshevik1917:” But RH, according to Stalin it was never the USSR's intention to spread worldwide revolution.”

Lenin also had never said that Russia would spread worldwide revolution.
Worldwide revolution is not something, which has to be spread. It happens as the result of historical process, during which socialistic revolutions arise in the different countries. At the same time, each socialistic revolution happens as the result of the revolutionary situation, which is the product of internal development of each country. Hence revolution can’t be brought from the outside.
No doubt that each socialistic revolution is the part of the worldwide revolution, as the latter consists of the numerous revolutions, which happens at a different time.
The state of victorious socialism, following the principle of the proletarian internationalism, has to help other revolutions (distinguish help from spreading!). This can be military and economical help as well. Moreover the state of victorious socialism serves as example for proletarians all over the world, raising mass activity and political consciousness.
This is very ignorant to say that USSR was a state, limited by its own self-interests. (it can be said about China, but definitely not about USSR). Many trotskyists prefer to ignore such important facts as those which prove international character of the first socialistic state; for example trotskyists ignore that USSR supported Communist Parties all over the world, helped each progressive revolutionary movement, supported non-capitalistic states economically. This is called by the term, which probably is uncommon to trotskyists, this term is PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM.


The site Larissa referred to gives us some good information to think about.
Quote:” "Trotsky favored democracy among the workers at the same time that he advocated the suppression of all other classes by the proletariat."

I would like to underline this: “SUPPRESSION OF ALL CLASSES BY THE PROLETARIAT.” Exactly! Trotsky’s plan of industrialization was to develop industry at the expense of exploiting peasantry by setting high taxes. This means that Trotsky wanted to suppress not only bourgeois class, but also peasantry. This is not democratic, you know…this is another contradiction between Trotskyism and Leninism.

Quote:” Lenin on the other hand favored a broad national Russian Democracy within the limits considered desirable by the leaders of the governing Bolshevik Party.”

This must not be misunderstood. Lenin supported socialistic democracy, which is democracy for all working people: proletariat in the union with peasantry and intelligentsia.

Quote:” The two were able to work together; though they disagreed about the goal they agreed on the main steps toward it. "

This sentence doesn’t make any logical sense. How can two persons disagree about the goal, but agree “on the main steps toward it”?

[Xvall]

Lenin was confident about victory of socialism in whatever single country and particularly in Russia.

Agreed.

Trotsky and trotskyists say that it is not possible to achieve victory of socialism in one country. What else do you need to hear?

If that is true, then I do not agree with it. I believe that the victory of socialism in one country is quite possible.

But I am Marxist-Leninist; hence I represent Marxism-Leninism as a whole, just like bolshevik1917 represents Trotskyism as a whole.

Acknowledged. However I hope that you would not judge all Trotskyists by one; Just as I would expect people not to judge all Stalinists by the opinion of one.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 8:55 am on Feb. 4, 2003
Lenin was confident about victory of socialism in whatever single country and particularly in Russia.

Agreed.

Trotsky and trotskyists say that it is not possible to achieve victory of socialism in one country. What else do you need to hear?

If that is true, then I do not agree with it. I believe that the victory of socialism in one country is quite possible.

But I am Marxist-Leninist; hence I represent Marxism-Leninism as a whole, just like bolshevik1917 represents Trotskyism as a whole.

Acknowledged. However I hope that you would not judge all Trotskyists by one; Just as I would expect people not to judge all Stalinists by the opinion of one.

Quote:” If that is true, then I do not agree with it.”

This is very true.
It is good that you don’t agree with it, this is fucking insane theory; each rational comrade must disagree with trotskyist bullshit…

Quote:” I hope that you would not judge all Trotskyists by one”

Trotskyists are all nice until they open their mouth in order to spread their trotskyist propaganda. Some of them are quite, for example there was one trotskyist here, who had never participated in the debates with me, but said only one thing, admitting that trotskyists became counter-revolutionists and pointing that this position was taken for the right reason.
To say the truth all trotskyists are the same, all of them say that it is impossible to achieve socialism in one country. There are very typical and this allowed me to create undefeatable strategy against them…

[RED PARTIZAN]

So what you are trying to say is that the USSR has been a success and should be followed in example?...Why did the whole soviet system(including each of the puppet satelite states) collapse?...because of their nationalistic views towards progress.they were all there to support the USSR,"for the good of the motherland"(licking soviet asses in order to receive generous aid and support).all they cared about was of the prosperity of there own countries and national movements.if there was absolute solidarity in Marxist thought then they would have all united under one banner or rather one entity for a worker has no country and no race(we are all humans for the matter)...that was not the case.The post Lenin USSR thought in terms of influence and dominance over other countries and only funded movements under the condition that they took there orders and were controlled directly from the Kremlin.This is no form of enlightened Marxism but a form of imperialism.I mean is it possible for different marxist states to enter into confrontation when they are fighting for the same goal ,the ultimate victory of socialism followed by communism then by anarchy?For in a perfect marxist society there should be no national borders.A united army and a united marxist leadership (consisting of all nationalities) should have been created in order to fight the common enemies of the world.Capitalism,poverty and injustice.The Stalinist(isolationist) formula on internationalism should be discarded and not be repeated for our revolution would have be doomed from the start eg..USSR

[Larissa]

Welcome Red Partizan, hope you enoy this Forum.

[Larissa]

"If that is true, then I do not agree with it. I believe that the victory of socialism in one country is quite possible. "

I agree with you Drake.

[RED PARTIZAN]

In ANY one country?

[Larissa]

CUBA, for instance.

[RED PARTIZAN]

Yes but is Cuba self-sufficient?...Unfortunately if things in Cuba continue like this they will turn into another China or Vietnam and become capitalist

[Larissa]

Red Partizan,

I will try to find a posting I saw in this Forum some time ago. It was an article of the World's Bank point of view about the Cuban economy. It was very interesting because they admitted that Cuba did very well despite the lack of resources and the way the embargo affected its economy (actually strangled them)...and no IMF funds!! Hopefully I'll find it and repost the link to it. It is very much worth reading it!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from RED PARTIZAN:” So what you are trying to say is that the USSR has been a success and should be followed in example?...”

What’s your problem red partisan? Can’t you read or can’t you comprehend?
That is not what I said and not what I meant, though I don’t agree with your rotten post, that was not what I meant.
I proved that Trotskyism is incompatible with Marxism- Leninism. And if you say that socialism in one country is impossible then you directly attack Lenin, just admit it.

I don’t want to discuss your off-topic post here, but I will start a new thread for our discussion.