Lenin and Mass Terror

[condor]

How many of you believe in mass terror against capitalism's enemies, as Lenin did? Under what circumstances?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because the ousted bourgeoisie have their own allies within the ranks of the lumpenproletariat, as well as thugs, gangsters, hooligans, etc.

See my signature: socialist terror is an expression of the aggravation of the class struggle AFTER the revolution. :)

[condor]

Even executing people for belonging to a certain class?

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror"
M. Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka

Doesn't this sound uncomfortably close to Pol Pot?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:13 am
Even executing people for belonging to a certain class?

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror"
M. Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka

Doesn't this sound uncomfortably close to Pol Pot?
Many people cannot so easily assimilate into another class.

I will admit, however, that there were instances in which innocent children were very mistreated (even the czar's sick son and his daughter).

Not every bourgeois or petit-bourgeois can become the next Engels (as a CAPITALIST who subsidized Marx) or Lenin (as a lawyer), respectively.



Oh, and Pol Pot was merely another deranged agrarian "socialist" like Mao and Russia's Ukrainian anarchists (mainly SRs).

[condor]

How would you apply Mass Terror to a modern socialist state like Venezuela? I just meant the executing people of a different class with Pol Pot.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:26 am
How would you apply Mass Terror to a modern socialist state like Venezuela? I just meant the executing people of a different class with Pol Pot.
^^^ My main beef with mass terror is that it isn't effective on the "national" level. The Red Terror was so-so. Like most other posters here, the revolution has to be GLOBAL. Then and only then can the THREAT of mass terror be realized.

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the ousted classes will be demoralized enough to assimilate, knowing that they've got nowhere to go.

And do NOT ever compare the policies of agrarian "socialists" with those of Marxists.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:43 pm
Even executing people for belonging to a certain class?

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror"
M. Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka


Do you really know why Cheka was institutionalised ? Do you know why and when Red Terror was initiated ?

In fact Lenin and Bolsheviks were too linient initially after the victory of the October Revolution. Too linient that the entire battalion who stood in defense of Kerensky were just asked to go home and many Kadets and Mensheviks were allowed to do things that will be totally unacceptable in any country in the time of emergency.


Doesn't this sound uncomfortably close to Pol Pot?

Better read some good historical account of October Revolution and Polpot before making stupid comparisons.



How would you apply Mass Terror to a modern socialist state like Venezuela?

FYI Venezuela is not a modern Socialist state - yet. Even then it had met with some sort of violence.


I just meant the executing people of a different class with Pol Pot.

Polpoy was an insane person no way comparable to Bolsheviks.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is obvious that we should press our demands peacefully for as long as we can, but preparing for the inevitable moment when the ruling class uses plots, terror, assasinations, sabotage, and all-out civil war against us. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did this; they wished to even incorporate the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, bourgeois parties in their own respect, in the Soviets until their treachery became evident. I think we all have a preference of doing things as peaceful as possible, but material conditions are not always compatible with our preferences, and sadly, we have to flex violence in order to further our objectives. And once again, the historic sin of going blood drunk during the course of revolutionary change might be present since this factor of coercion and force is being introduced to the conflict.

Sadistic, senseless killings do not further our goals and are not justified - they are properly deemed "excesses" and are unfortunately inevitable, because human beings are not perfect. The only valid question is, do the inevitable excesses of a revolution outweigh the inevitable mass destruction and loss of life of another imperialist world war? I don't think so - and every liberal and "pacifist" that wasn't placed in Opposing Ideologies yet should realize that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:45 am
I think we all have a preference of doing things as peaceful as possible, but material conditions are not always compatible with our preferences, and sadly, we have to flex violence in order to further our objectives. And sadly, the historic sin of going blood drunk during the course of revolutionary change might be present since this factor of coercion and force is being introduced to the conflict.
All of that is indeed part and parcel of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle. :(

Did Charles I get away scot-free after conspiring to ruin England's bourgeois revolution by selling out to foreign powers?

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:59 pm
How many of you believe in mass terror against capitalism's enemies, as Lenin did? Under what circumstances?
Being among capitalism's enemies, I'm not enchanted by the idea. As for the would-be imitators of gulag "communism" and the holy inquisition, I endorse intensive psychotherapy and a more wholesome diet.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:13 pm
Even executing people for belonging to a certain class?

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror"
M. Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka

Doesn't this sound uncomfortably close to Pol Pot?
Are you aware of what was occuring in Ukraine during that time period? It was a hotbed of the kulaks and the nationalist bourgeoisie, who found support in the Greens, Germans, Austrians, Denikin, the British and French, and several other imperialist and counterrevolutionary foes. In 1927, the kulaks across Ukraine began a grain strike; grain delivered to the cities was down to 4.8 million tons from 6.8 million the previous year, causing malnutrition to triple within the urban centers. It was a fight for survival on the part of the Bolsheviks, who resigned to these grotesque measures in certain undocumented occasions that resulted in resounding casualties, if I may also make this clear, these actions are not even as close to as brutal as the Whites were, who killed tens of thousands of Jews at this time; if Robert Conquest wants to equate someone to the Nazis, it certainly isn't the Bolsheviks, but the enemies that were fighting them in the sphere of Ukraine.

[condor]

I never expressed a principled objection to mass terror, I simply inquired about its extent and wether it become excessive or paranoid. I ask these question for clarification, not to attack Lenin. If you told me what the c200,000 people executed between 1918-21 did and how they were tried, it might help. Any unaccountable, undemocratic state terror seems very dangerous and likely to be abused.

If you tell people socialism might kill you for being a member of a certain class, presumably simply related as well, bourgeois theories of communist dictatorships find it easier to gain precedence, even if they are unjustified.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:20 pm

Oh, and Pol Pot was merely another deranged agrarian "socialist" like Mao and Russia's Ukrainian anarchists (mainly SRs).


there is no comparision between the ukrainian anarchists and Pol Pot.
saying that is kind of like when capitalists refer to Nazi germany as socialist

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:50 pm


Did Charles I get away scot-free after conspiring to ruin England's bourgeois revolution by selling out to foreign powers?
That was Louis Capet.
Charles Stuart was charged with levying civil war against the Commonwealth.
Both had fair trials in which they claimed rights not subject to law.
The Cromwellians by that time had executed many of the Levellers as well but the Terror came later, with the Restoration.
The Levellers and not the Cromwellians represented the wave of the future, even though Revolutionaries long retained Cromwellian fantasies.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by abbielives!+June 30, 2007 08:22 pm--> (abbielives! @ June 30, 2007 08:22 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 06:20 pm

Oh, and Pol Pot was merely another deranged agrarian "socialist" like Mao and Russia's Ukrainian anarchists (mainly SRs).


there is no comparision between the ukrainian anarchists and Pol Pot.
saying that is kind of like when capitalists refer to Nazi germany as socialist [/b]
Why do you say that? They were both primarily based around the peasantry, so I can see the comparison.

[bezdomni]

Oh, and Pol Pot was merely another deranged agrarian "socialist" like Mao and Russia's Ukrainian anarchists (mainly SRs).

How the fuck can you seriously compare Pol Pot to Mao? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Mao was a revolutionary communist just like Marx, Engels or Lenin!

[Janus]

How many of you believe in mass terror against capitalism's enemies, as Lenin did?
I'm assuming you meant the enemies of communism. Of course, it would depend on what exactly one means by "mass terror" but since it usually requires some sort of institutionalized repression i.e. secret police, I think it would be quite a dangerous move.

Past threads:
what should be done with the bourgeois? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57417&hl=bourgeois*)
what should be done with the capitalists? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57504&hl=+should++bourgeois*)
how would the bourgeois be dealt with? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59001&hl=+should++bourgeois*)

[chimx]

How the fuck can you seriously compare Pol Pot to Mao?

They both emphasized revolution coming from the peasantry rather than the proletariat. They both emphasized a return to the country side, such as Mao's "down to the countryside movement", though this was mainly to stop the chaos of the cultural revolution Maoism always had an agrarian emphasis.

The only huge difference is that when Pol Pot killed a million people it was in his agrarian displacement campaign, while Mao killed his millions it anti-landlord or intellectual terror campaigns.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by RedDali+June 30, 2007 08:43 pm--> (RedDali @ June 30, 2007 08:43 pm)
Originally posted by abbielives!@June 30, 2007 08:22 pm

[email protected] 30, 2007 06:20 pm

Oh, and Pol Pot was merely another deranged agrarian "socialist" like Mao and Russia's Ukrainian anarchists (mainly SRs).


there is no comparision between the ukrainian anarchists and Pol Pot.
saying that is kind of like when capitalists refer to Nazi germany as socialist
Why do you say that? They were both primarily based around the peasantry, so I can see the comparison. [/b]

im not denying that they were both mainly peasant movements
(incidentally the choice between workers and peasents is a false one since they are interdependant)

pol pot can be disigushed from Ukrainian anarchists or Mao in that pol pot saw city life as inherently bad and moved everyone into the country

[Vargha Poralli]

Well to make a point Polpot never represented the intrests of Peasants. The khemer rouge was a movement which represented the intrests of an urban utopian reactionaries not peasants.

And comparing PolPot with anybody - Ukrainian anarchists or Mao diminishes the Polpot's atrocity.

[RedArmyFaction]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:59 pm
How many of you believe in mass terror against capitalism's enemies, as Lenin did? Under what circumstances?
This is a very good question. I think mass terror is simply just a natural measure to any revolutionary government. In highly developed countries with highly established market economies, violence is need more so because of the power of the bourgeois who want to retain their power of wealth.

However, where economies are less developed, mass terror, i feel isn't really required to the same level. I do think it's required to eliminate all political enemies.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:13 pm
Even executing people for belonging to a certain class?


The Bolsheviks didn't execute individuals for just belonging to a certain class. However, they did execute certain individuals for counter-revolutionary activity.

Plus, many people forget that it wasn't the Bolsheviks who were the most vicious during the Civil War, it was the counter-revolutionaries

[bombeverything]

I think mass terror is simply just a natural measure to any revolutionary government.

In the sense of maintaining party control I would say that mass terror was necessary. I don't feel it was justified though. Now I am not by any means opposed to the idea of using violence against the bourgeoisie. In fact I fully support it. However the government did not just crush counter-revolutionaries, they also murdered socialists and anarchists. The working class was a threat to the Soviet state.

Alcaeos> But how was "counter revolutionary activity" defined? You talk about the civil war but many revolutionaries who fought alongside the reds were later executed.


Why do you say that? They were both primarily based around the peasantry, so I can see the comparison.

I don't think that is right at all. Because they were both based around the peasantry they were the same? :huh:

[Social Greenman]

I don't believe capitalist have anything to worry about when it comes to Leninism and it various stripes. Workers, and people with some education, which lacks in Third World Countries, won't follow a vanguard. The Soviet fiasco with it's history of brutality is known and can be read in any library. I still can't figure out why Lenin is almost worshiped as a man-god with some people?

In the new society, when the means of production is under public ownership, people will have more common sense. Those who do arson or harm other people will be locked up. It's that simple--perhaps too simple for some here. How many of you met a capitalist? I am betting they don't look any different than anyone else and there are not very many of them either. Does it matter what class anybody comes from? Maintain law and order and civil rights when society changes. The idea of Mass Terror is just blood revenge being that it was based on the French Revolution of "off with the head".


"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror"
M. Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka

According to the quote, anyone was accused simply because they may have not agree with Leninist policies. Jews, Russians, along with the capitalist mionority (there were so few of them in Russia) and anyone else were sent to gulags to work as slave labor. I don't doubt if this M. Latsis was one of the Black Hundreds in service for the Kremlin. People like that sear their own conscience to torture or kill people. Kinda ironic modern Leninist yelp about "wage slavery". Leninst are as smooth talking as a snake oil salesmen. Leninism and its various stripes should remain in the dustbin of history as a failure never to be resurrected as a Christ, IMHO.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Social Greenman, it depends on the material conditions. If you are in a materially deprived and backward country that had it's economic superstructure already destroyed by a global war, while also having the cities malnourished by a grain strike and foreign blockade, as well as a civil war raging on, you would be more likely to be intolerant towards your foes due to the emergency situation that exists.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:15 pm

How the fuck can you seriously compare Pol Pot to Mao?

They both emphasized revolution coming from the peasantry rather than the proletariat. They both emphasized a return to the country side, such as Mao's "down to the countryside movement", though this was mainly to stop the chaos of the cultural revolution Maoism always had an agrarian emphasis.


Can you find a source where Mao emphasized the peasantry over the proleteriat?

Mao always stated that the proleteriat were the head of the revolution. However in a country where millions of peasants outnumber the proleteriat it means that their is going to be alot of work directed at that class.

You people are so stupid. Peasants were dying from common illness because they didn't have basic knowledge and were still relying on religion to heal. Mao and the Communist Party were correct in sending students to educate peasants. This increased the living age greatly by bringing modern techniques to the peasants.

What excactly did you want? Just like the western critics of the time, they wanted the students to stay and study techniques that could only be used on small section of society, while the peasantry lags behind in feudalism dying of the common cold.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:27 am
Social Greenman, it depends on the material conditions. If you are in a materially deprived and backward country that had it's economic superstructure already destroyed by a global war, while also having the cities malnourished by a grain strike and foreign blockade, as well as a civil war raging on, you would be more likely to be intolerant towards your foes due to the emergency situation that exists.
Yeah but that doesn't explain everything. Bolshevik politics also played a role.

[Social Greenman]

RedDali wrote:


Social Greenman, it depends on the material conditions. If you are in a materially deprived and backward country that had it's economic superstructure already destroyed by a global war, while also having the cities malnourished by a grain strike and foreign blockade, as well as a civil war raging on, you would be more likely to be intolerant towards your foes due to the emergency situation that exists.

The capitalist are changing the material conditions in Third World Countries by outsourcing manufacturing jobs from the U.S. and other western nations just to sell those products back at a very high profit. Roads are built, schools are built, people eat better and the medium income increases. Workers are not going to see any exploitation and will side with their government against Leninist agitation.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 05, 2007 07:11 am
I don't believe capitalists have anything to worry about when it comes to Leninism and its various stripes. Workers, and people with some education, which lacks in Third World Countries, won't follow a vanguard. The Soviet fiasco with it's history of brutality is known and can be read in any library. I still can't figure out why Lenin is almost worshiped as a man-god with some people?


....
Leninism and its various stripes should remain in the dustbin of history as a failure never to be resurrected as a Christ, IMHO.
Leninism is past the dustbin: it's landfill. But the past is never dead and often it's not even past.

In Russia as in France, the threat of the Reaction pushed the Revolution into the hands of the psychotics in its own ranks. In any future Revolution, the Reaction will arise, so at the very least we need therapy for our psychotics.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 05, 2007 03:30 pm
The capitalist are changing the material conditions in Third World Countries by outsourcing manufacturing jobs from the U.S. and other western nations just to sell those products back at a very high profit. Roads are built, schools are built, people eat better and the medium income increases. Workers are not going to see any exploitation and will side with their government against Leninist agitation.
So, what are you saying? That conditions will never get tremendously terrible; that a combination of economic miracles and political maneuvering that faces no obstacles or conflicting interests will meet every revolutionary experiment in the near future? What is this about "workers are not going to see any exploitation", and that they are going to "side" with their government against "Leninist" agitation? Revolutions are not exclusively "Leninist", and suggesting that the government should side against revolutionary elements that are militant and class conscious is obviously thoroughly counterrevolutionary.

[Social Greenman]

RedDali,

Economic crisis come, goes and repeats. When the capitalist come and brings prosperity you better believe the worker will side with those that put food on the table. They won't consider the idea of being exploited by the capitalist. Do you work anywhere? Despite the low pay where I work the workers do a good job with the product working in unison. Instead of complaining about the low pay they work over-time. Not all Revolutions are Leninist and I stand corrected.

CornetJoyce wrote:


Leninism is past the dustbin: it's landfill. But the past is never dead and often it's not even past.

A landfill--I love it. However, Leninism not only failed, it fell apart. Instead of moving on many are trying to blame certain individuals. They won't consider the material conditions which made those individuals make those decisions in policies. If the ideology was ironclad those decisions would not have had no effect in the long run.


In Russia as in France, the threat of the Reaction pushed the Revolution into the hands of the psychotics in its own ranks. In any future Revolution, the Reaction will arise, so at the very least we need therapy for our psychotics.

The Revolution was already in the hands of the psychotic wanting blood revenge. Here is an excerpt from the World Socialist Website:

The real significance of Lenin's order to hang a hundred kulaks is that it provides new insight into his character and his way of thinking. There is abundant evidence in the 40 volumes of Lenin's writing that he, like Stalin, believed that "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." It is a well established fact that Lenin made a special study of the Jacobin terror and advocated the use of terror, if it helped the cause of the revolution. But it is one thing to write about the theory of terror and quite another (sic) put it into actual practice. Orders like the one to hang the kulaks show that Lenin was prepared to get blood on his hands. And this new information has led people to reinterpret Lenin. Aleksandr Yakovlev, a former Leninist and a former member of the Politburo, makes this quite clear when he says: "Some people in our country have revised their judgement of Lenin solely on the basis of new documents which illustrate Lenin's brutality. It certainly does change the image, which in the past has been hammered into our heads."

http://www.wsws.org/correspo/1998/mar1998/leni-m06.shtml

[Vargha Poralli]

A landfill--I love it. However, Leninism not only failed, it fell apart. Instead of moving on many are trying to blame certain individuals. They won't consider the material conditions which made those individuals make those decisions in policies. If the ideology was ironclad those decisions would not have had no effect in the long run.

Well if you are not aware of the fact we often understand the material conditions that lead to the degeneration of Russian Revolution. What is the purpose of history ? To learn from it so as not to repeat it.

Circumstances gave Bolsheviks a chance to lead the Russian Workers and Peasants in to a revolution. It would have been foolish for them to avoid that chance that had presented itself. And contrary to all your bullshit Lenin and Bolsheviks did committed themselves not to power in Russia but a World revolution against capitalism and to put aa end to exploitation of man by man. But certainly revolutions failed every where except in Russia forcing the Bolsheviks to defend the revolution from external threat a task which eventually lead to the disintergration of Soviet Union because of internal contradictions.



The Revolution was already in the hands of the psychotic wanting blood revenge.

Bull shit. The Bolsheviks and Soviets were incredibly linient towards their enemies. The terror was not started until many Bolshevik Cadres were murdered at the height of Civil War and also an attempt on Lenin's life himself.

Look man if you want revolution you cannot accomplish any thing with Olive branches and doves. What about the terror unleashed by Anarchists during Spanish Civil war ? Violence is needed whether we like it or not.

[CornetJoyce]

The Bolsheviks .... were incredibly linient towards their enemies.

And their "enemies" were anyone who criticized their megalomania.



The terror was not started until many Bolshevik Cadres were murdered at the height of Civil War and also an attempt on Lenin's life himself.


A "reason" proclaimed by terrorists of all stripes.



Violence is needed whether we like it or not.

The violence of the battlefield is not the violence of the torture chamber.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:41 am

The Bolsheviks .... were incredibly linient towards their enemies.

And their "enemies" were anyone who criticized their megalomania.
And their enemies criticisms did not end with words.






The terror was not started until many Bolshevik Cadres were murdered at the height of Civil War and also an attempt on Lenin's life himself.


A "reason" proclaimed by terrorists of all stripes.


Yes terrorist is a term termed by ruling class to demonise their enemies. You are in perfect allaince with them :rolleyes: .




Violence is needed whether we like it or not.

The violence of the battlefield is not the violence of the torture chamber.

:rolleyes: . Bolsheviks didn't have any torture chambers.

[Social Greenman]

g.gram...What is coming out of the Archive is what I am referring too. To end exploitation of man by man is a contradiction when the use of terror is justified and practiced. The Bolsheviks did have torture chambers at their disposal since the Czarist regime use them often.



g.gram quote:
The terror was not started until many Bolshevik Cadres were murdered at the height of Civil War and also an attempt on Lenin's life himself.

CornetJoyce quote:
A "reason" proclaimed by terrorists of all stripes.

g. gram quote
Yes terrorist is a term termed by ruling class to demonise their enemies. You are in perfect alliance with them.

Nice character assassination. She is correct. Many people were getting killed and not just the Bolsheviks. The sad part was the Bolsheviks took up the terror where the Czarist government left off.

Here is a good PDF file:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L4oQa9sYDAkC

[Labor Shall Rule]

Social Greenman, I believe you quoted something from the World Socialist Website; you took that quote from an article entitled An exchange of letters on the BBC documentary Lenin’s Secret Files, in which Chris Marsden of the Socialist Equality Party in Britain sent several correspondents to the directors and producers of Lenin's Secret Files — a slanted biography of Lenin that Robert Service was even involved in. It portrayed Lenin as a bloodthirsty, violent, power-hungry monster that was comparable to Satan himself. I can tell that you didn't read this article, considering that your quote was from William Cran; the producer of the anti-communist documentary, who was actually responding to Marsden in that paragraph that you stupidly copied-and-pasted into this thread. Cran, obviously, is not a communist; he produced a documentary that unscientifically approached Lenin with a biased pseudo-science formulated by the spin doctors of anti-communism. I would recommend that you read the entire article, before you make yourself look more ridiculous than you already do.

An exchange of letters on the BBC documentary Lenin's Secret Files (http://www.wsws.org/correspo/1998/mar1998/leni-m06.shtml)

As for Lenin, and his so-called "special study of Jacobin terror", your findings from that paragraph are clearly ahistorical — he did not have any interest in the fate of the Czar and his family, who symbolized the cruelty of an oppressive and outmoded social system, but rather, he was interested in the necessary historical struggle against this system. The Jacobins represented the most revolutionary sections of the petit-bourgeoisie; they played a crucial role as the vanguard and shock troops of the French Revolution, embodying the growing political power of the bourgeoisie. In that time period, they represented the necessary historical struggle against their backward and outmoded social system also. Lenin, Trotsky and the other Bolshevik leaders placed themselves in the Jacobin tradition, notwithstanding the necessary historical limitations of that analogy. Trotsky once said that the Jacobins were "adequate to the epoch and its tasks.” He also stressed that “...no ruling class has ever voluntarily and peacefully abdicated.” This was so in 1789, and in 1917. In other words, the Bolsheviks never ruled out either violence or pacifism — staying true to their revolutionary tradition of genuine leadership that examined the situation for what it was, instead on some sort of moral handbook.

As for Lenin's order to "hang the kulaks", I once again, don't think you have approached this from an historical viewpoint. If you actually read the order, it was an order to take care of exploiting parts of the peasantry and inspire the rest of the populous to continue that in Penza, which was a region that was experiencing a bloody revolt at that moment in time. It was a hotbed of reaction; the kulaks actually conscripted many peasants into the Czechoslovak Legions, as well as Denikin and Wrangel's army further on in the conflict. There was, after all, a major struggle going on with people dying on all sides by the tens of thousands. The White Terror was started far before the Red Terror; the Japanese massacred thousands of workers in occupied Vladivostok and Siberia, Kolchak actually ordered for no prisoners to be taken during his campaigns, Denikin fabricated outrageous claims of the brutality of the Bolsheviks in order to have show trials of a few thousand workers, and the Cossacks and Anti-semitic rebels would blow into villages and clear out the entire area in Gestapo-like killings.

[Social Greenman]

Uh, RedDali...I did provide a link to that very article in my original post and I did read it thank you. Anyone who says anything bad about Lenin is just...is just...just not fair and its slanted and un-scientific and I am going to have a temper tantrum...

Am I a candidate for a firing squad or for a hemp neck tie?

[CornetJoyce]

g.gram quote:
The terror was not started until many Bolshevik Cadres were murdered at the height of Civil War and also an attempt on Lenin's life himself.

CornetJoyce quote:
A "reason" proclaimed by terrorists of all stripes.

g. gram quote
Yes terrorist is a term termed by ruling class to demonise their enemies. You are in perfect alliance with them.




Actually, terror is the policy of the ruling class.

"It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government." said Robespierre. "Does your government therefore resemble despotism?"

and especially new ruling classes

"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which
terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue"

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 07, 2007 06:31 am
Uh, RedDali...I did provide a link to that very article in my original post and I did read it thank you. Anyone who says anything bad about Lenin is just...is just...just not fair and its slanted and un-scientific and I am going to have a temper tantrum...

Am I a candidate for a firing squad or for a hemp neck tie?
But you tried to present it as a legitimate socialist critique of Lenin as a murderous pig. If you read the article, you would understand what was happening in it, and it was actually a critique of anti-communists by members of the Socialist Equality Party.

[Social Greenman]

Socialist critique or not the Bolsheviks were not popular and many wanted them removed from power. However, even one of your own, Dmitri Volkogonovbut, wrote books on both Lenin and Stalin. When he researched the Archive to write on Lenin he found Lenin as brutal as Stalin at times. That was enough to end his career as a Leninist.

By the way, the Soviet Archive is on the internet. I know you will have a fit that it is a government link. Why is it that the only so-called reliable information can only come from the writings or lips of a Leninist? Here is the link:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intro.html

Here is a small taste:


Having come to power in October 1917 by means of a coup d'‚tat, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks spent the next few years struggling to maintain their rule against widespread popular opposition. They had overthrown the provisional democratic government and were inherently hostile to any form of popular participation in politics. In the name of the revolutionary cause, they employed ruthless methods to suppress real or perceived political enemies. The small, elite group of Bolshevik revolutionaries which formed the core of the newly established Communist Party dictatorship ruled by decree, enforced with terror.

This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin. As many of these archival documents show, there was little input from below. The party elite determined the goals of the state and the means of achieving them in almost complete isolation from the people. They believed that the interests of the individual were to be sacrificed to those of the state, which was advancing a sacred social task. Stalin's "revolution from above" sought to build socialism by means of forced collectivization and industrialization, programs that entailed tremendous human suffering and loss of life.

This excerpt is found here at this link:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html

I am taking my leave from this forum to return to my studies of American Socialism and Judaism. It's my life and I will do as I please with it. I also work for a living so trying to post here would make me neglectful in my duties as a family man. Also, I really don't have that much interest in Russian history which, unfortunately, I am being forced to look into it. It was fun to post and the responses were exactly as I expected them to be right down to the ridicule. Shalom.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The Bolsheviks were popular; they were known for organizing and agitating amongst the working class for decades, and for winning several victories for them prior to their seizure of power. It was not nothing but a was a putsch, or coup d’état, it was the popular sentiments of the workers that were finally unleashed after years of frustration and disillusion amidst a capitalist crisis.

The Petersburg metal workers union held a meeting with 700 to 800 workers present, and it elected a Bolshevik majority to the union’s interim directing board. Their press circulation of their newspaper was far larger than any of the other parties — The Menshevik newspaper, Luch, had a press run of about 16,000 per issue. But Pravda, the Bolshevik daily, had a press run of 40,000. Well before the Bolsheviks obtained a majority inside the Petrograd Soviet, they were in the leadership of the most important factory committees. A study of the resolutions passed by local assemblies shows that there was a broad-based and enthusiastic response to the slogans and principal demands of the Bolshevik Party. In Moscow, which was less developed politically than Petrograd, the month of October 1917 saw more than 50,000 workers pass resolutions in support of the Bolshevik demand for the transfer of power to the soviets. The elections to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which assembled on the eve of the October Revolution, produced an astonishing transformation: the Bolsheviks’ share of the delegates rose to 390, the Socialist-Revolutionaries’ share fell to 160 and the Mensheviks, to 72. After Kornilov attempted to establish a joint-dictatorship of him and Kerensky, 126 local Soviets demanded that the Petrograd Soviet take power. And by October, over 17 Provincial capitals had adopted a the resolution for the Bolsheviks to seize political power. This was a popular revolution, not a putsch.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Also, for the accusations that they were "inherently hostile" to participation with other parties, I find this to be completely ridiculous. At the height of the Civil War, Wilson actually proposed that negotiations for a coalition government would be restarted; he invited the Menshevik, Bolshevik, Socialist Revolutionary, and even several White Guard leaders to meet at the Novaya Zemlya Island. The Bolsheviks were the only ones to accept this offer. The Bolsheviks actually participated and compromised with the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries for an entire year; they did this even when these bourgeois parties were funding Latvian mercenaries, the Czechoslovak Legion, while welcoming a disruption of food supply lines by encouraging the kulak strike. It was not until September that the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were pushed out of the Soviets — the Bolsheviks finally took such efforts when they almost fueled a mutiny that could of seized strategical locations and jeopardized their position, when they assassinated the German ambassador in order to crumble the already shaky relationship between Germany and Russia, and when they assassinated key leaders during a course of a few weeks.

As for Lenin being as brutal as Stalin — I think you fail to see the difference between military actions taken during a bloody civil war and famine, and the wholesale slaughtering of millions of former political partisans of the October Revolution. While Lenin killed armed counterrevolutionaries, Stalin killed revolutionaries themselves.

[Vargha Poralli]

It useless arguing with these hypocrites RedDali. They criticise so much for the usage of terror by Bolsheviks but they nevr open mouth about the usage of Terror by Anarchists against the fascists in Spainish Revolution or the bloody history of the propaganda by Deed.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:34 am
It useless arguing with these hypocrites RedDali. They criticise so much for the usage of terror by Bolsheviks but they nevr open mouth about the usage of Terror by Anarchists against the fascists in Spainish Revolution or the bloody history of the propaganda by Deed.
I guess they forget about their moments where they unearthed the corpses of several nuns and danced with them in the streets, when they burnt churches and cathedrals to the ground, and when priests were stabbed and shot. It's sad that someone like Social Greenman could fall for the lies of ideologues - such as Robert Conquest, who hardly deserve the title of 'historian'.

[Sky]

For the Soviet state to have used force against its opponents as a matter of self-defense would also have been consistent with the acts of the Socialist Revolutionaries and other terrorists. Up to July 1918, 4000 Soviet activists had been murdered by terrorists. In the period August-September, prior to the assassination attempt on Lenin, another 6400 had been killed. As a matter of self-defense, the soviet state merely set out to proportionately respond to the conduct of its adversaries. Overall, Rusian sources show 6000 people were executed by the organs of the soviet state in 1918, including many corrupt officials, hooligans, and common criminals. By contrast, the Kolchak “government” murdered some 25,000 people in the Ekaterinburg area alone in the period November 1918 to July 1919. The “All Great Don Host” meted out 25,000 death sentences in the Don province during May 1918 to February 1919. During its occupation of parts of Ukraine, the Denikin government pursued genocide against the Jews, murdering up to 200,000 of them. The White Guard regime in Finland executed or killed in concentration camps some 25,000 workers during the brief civil war in Finland. Engels wrote: “When there is no reactionary violence, against which it is necessary to fight, there can be no talk of any kind of revolutionary violence.” Marxism, having explained the objective role of violence in history, was the first to resolve the question of the conscious use of violence by the workers in its revolutionary struggle for communism. The Marxist formulation of the question of violence proceeds from the objective laws and conditions of the class struggle. It requires that violence be reduced to the necessary minimum at each stage of struggle. In the Russian Civil War, the reactionary forces, represented by General Kornilov, vowed: “We must save Russia even if means setting fire to half of it and shed the blood of three-fourths of all Russians.” Admiral Kolchak ordered one of his generals “to follow the example of the Japanese, who, in the Amur region, had exterminated the local population.”

[Luís Henrique]

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror"

This, of course, is totally unacceptable - and would result in the elimination of half of the Bolshevik Central Committee if applied. But


Doesn't this sound uncomfortably close to Pol Pot?

No, it doesn't. Pol Pot's regime was even worse than this, because its terror did not apply to the "accused", but to the general populace (not to speak of its anti-Chinese overt racism). Besides, of course, Pol Pot was the actual leader of his regime in Cambodia, while Latsis, while evidently holding a huge amount of power, was a man in the second or third rank in the hierarchy.

Luís Henrique