Difference between Bolshevism and Communism [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

21st July 2007, 19:43

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21, 2007 06:34 pm
This was the only way to drive the most democratic revolution in human history, and any slander you hear that tells you otherwise is just that, slander.
What quantifies as "slander"? Anything that disagree's with your primitive analysis of events or something else?

ecoanarchist, it is a matter of contention whether "Lenin's way" is the "only way" and obviously there are many people who think differently. It's also an utterly baseless assertion in any case not more so because Spanish anarchists were able to achieve more in terms of a transition to a communist society in three years than the Bolsheviks ever did in 70.

Also, the notion that it was the "most democratic" revolution in history is also baseless. Unless of course you believe that strict centralisation and hierarchy, entryism and the political suppression of workers is "most democratic".

Call that sladner if you will; it doesn't alter the facts that the Bolsheviks and Leninists destroyed and have destroyed every revolution they have ever had taken control of.

Bolshevism was betrayed and drowned in blood by the bureaucratic counter-revolution of Stalin.

If the Bolsheviks thought bureaucracy was a threat to the revolution, they would have destroyed it to begin with. Of course they didn't think that, they accepted it as a necessary part of the "workers" state and it was that belief in state structure that led to Stalin. In other words it was an inevitable consequence.

Bolshevism is a bankrupt and falsified ideology that should be thrown on the historical rubbish heap, never to be looked at again.

Labor Shall Rule

21st July 2007, 20:48

The Anarchist Tension, please refer to my posts in the thread I made about the vanguard. I refered to the Bolsheviks and their formation of a bureaucracy in that thread, which I think you should respond to.

Ecoanarchist, I highly recommend that thread. It clears any misgivings or misconceptions that you may have about Bolshevism.

The truth about the vanguard; or in other words, the defense of Bolshevism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68856&st=0)

Lenin and Trotsky reacted to material conditions; industry had declined by 15-20% with their economic superstructure completely wrecked from a world war and now a civil war, famine was stalking every street corner in the cities, a foreign blockade had isolated the entire country, and now armies were surrounding them from all sides. In the final analysis, the rule of the working class is only assured when it is materially possible for the working class to dissolve itself as a class, therefore, we do not stick to moralistic garbage on our principles, but first and foremost, on the reality of the situation in which we are trying to put our principles into practice. The economic problems (to which all political problems are tied) were at that time insurmountable. No ruling party could have done much better or worse. There were no fast and easy solutions. Only a vapid idealist would consider the economic and political problems facing Russia at the time as entirely seperate. It is only by doing so that one can demand with full force on the one hand an immediate solution to all economic problems and then cringe when those solutions take political forms that don't align with the ideals of democracy.

I would argue if "every" Marxist-Leninist party was even truly what they claimed to be; their programme, tactics, and class base is of the utmost importance, and as history has taught us, many parties became reliant on the peasantry and proprietors, degraded themselves to opportunism and class collaborationist tactics, and subordinated themselves to a bureaucratic stratum or the capitalists themselves. That is not to say that the "idea" of vanguardism is somehow flawed - rather because the historical and material conditions in which these parties were formed made it impossible for them to develop, and instead caused them to rot from the inside out, with thousands of sects forming like pieces of flesh falling off a rotting corpse. But the anarchist conception of history reduces every historical event to a struggle between the formless masses and the conspiracies of the leaders. The notion that party could represent the interests of a class (and actually be supported by a majority of that class) is alien to individuals such as yourself, The Anarchist Tension.

As for your insistance to draw the conclusion that the inevitable outcome of the Bolsheviks' actions were Stalinism, I answered that point, but you ignored it.

So, uhm, did you even read that entire post? As Trotsky said, "the present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism not simply a bloody line but a whole river of blood. The annihilation of all the older generation of Bolsheviks, an important part of the middle generation which participated in the civil war, and that part of the youth that took up most seriously the Bolshevik traditions, shows not only a political but a thoroughly physical incompatibility between Bolshevism and Stalinism. How can this not be seen?" If Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not even institute these wartime measures, the bureaucracy would of eventually instituted them themselves. Perhaps the Bolsheviks shouldn't of placed in these measures of building up and mobilizing their military, utilizing their secret police, reconstructing their economic superstructure by laying the groundworks for heavy industry through their command economy, and handing out several concessions to the peasantry and small proprietors, but then again, what would of the concequences been if they did not do such things? If the revolutionary army is not a unified, centralized force when surrounded on all sides by hostile enemies (with far greater resources), then there may as well be no revolution to begin with. What is the point of fighting, when you will inevitably be defeated? The reaction of Stalinism was first and foremost a product of historical and material circumstances, and not the categorical rejection of revolutionary democracy.

RedCat

21st July 2007, 21:18

Not really great differences (if any).
Perhaps we could use the term bolshvism as a specification referred to a specific historic period or context, being more related to features as tactics and strategy, but no real difference with any other radical socialist current

The Feral Underclass

21st July 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:48 pm
The Anarchist Tension, please refer to my posts in the thread I made about the vanguard. I refered to the Bolsheviks and their formation of a bureaucracy in that thread, which I think you should respond to.
I have no interest in listening to your dogma. It's uninteresting and offers nothing new for me to discuss.

ComradeOm

21st July 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 08:30 pm
I have no interest in listening to your dogma. It's uninteresting and offers nothing new for me to discuss.
You've not changed TAT. Not that I blame you for being dogmatic, sectarian and incapable of contributing to a debate - that's something of a survival trait around here. You're just more honest about it than most.

Here's a suggestion though - if you're unwilling to listen to someone else's points then do us all a favour and restrict yourself to making the odd rude joke. Because frankly the more you rail against the Leninist predisposition to ascribe to a "one true way", the hypocritical your own refusal to countenance counter-arguments becomes.

The Feral Underclass

21st July 2007, 21:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:42 pm
Here's a suggestion though - if you're unwilling to listen to someone else's points then do us all a favour and restrict yourself to making the odd rude joke.
I don't appreciate being patronised, least of all when I'm confident I've earnt my right to ignore the same boring arguments spewed by you people. If you offer some great new insight or revelation on this subject then I am fully prepared to both listen and be proven wrong. Otherwise, I'll take my leave and continue ignoring you.

Because frankly the more you rail against the Leninist predisposition to ascribe to a "one true way", the hypocritical your own refusal to countenance counter-arguments becomes

My counternance of Leninism is well documented over 4 years of posts. If you interact with the search options you'll be able to review those opinions without me having to waste my time repeating them in this thread or indeed the dozens of others.

Labor Shall Rule

21st July 2007, 22:16

So, you've earned the right to ***** and moan in every thread that a new member posts that leans towards supporting some trend of 'vanguardism'?

All that I have to say is that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all, because it certainly does not contribute to this board, and none of these new members will even have posts of their own under their belt if they can't ask questions or post their opinions, so it is also stupid to tell them to refer to their 'search option'. If you can't debate without resorting to 'I am sick of this', then don't post in these threads. I don't want your garbage in here. Ecoanarchist asked a question that could fuel a discussion that would further enlighten him and motivate him to take steps forward - it would educate him, make him a more intelligent person; however, if you are going to contribute nothing but a horde of miserable rambles, and how you are not interested in engaging in discussion because you 'been there, done that', then don't post here.

RedCat

21st July 2007, 22:25

panish anarchists were able to achieve more in terms of a transition to a communist society in three years than the Bolsheviks ever did in 70."""""

well,respect to them but they weren't even able to nationalise banks leaving them under the rule of bourgeoisie

The Feral Underclass

21st July 2007, 22:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:25 pm
panish anarchists were able to achieve more in terms of a transition to a communist society in three years than the Bolsheviks ever did in 70."""""

well,respect to them but they weren't even able to nationalise banks leaving them under the rule of bourgeoisie
Are you referring to Spain?

ComradeOm

22nd July 2007, 00:37

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 08:55 pm
I don't appreciate being patronised, least of all when I'm confident I've earnt my right to ignore the same boring arguments spewed by you people.
Earned? Are you fucking kidding me? This is an internet forum - you don't get medals for sticking around when everyone else has gone home. Don't even try and pretend that you've somehow earned the right to ignore other posters you elitist fuck. You've got no free pass to stick your fingers in your ears when someone challenges your position.

I can sympathise with you to a degree - 90% of these threads are full of shite and the other 10% have been repeated a thousand times over. Unfortunately much of this is because of egocentric posters like yourself jump into a thread, issue a few sectarian broadsides without even the semblance of debate, and generally drag the whole thread down with you. So there's a definite limit to my sympathy.

If you've seen it all before then do us all a favour and don't post. Do what I do and fuck off for awhile. Or ignore the thread and keep the sectarian bullshit to yourself. I can assure you that it won't be missed. If you've got nothing constructive to say then shut the fuck up.

ecoanarchist

22nd July 2007, 00:41

Ok, might I change my question...Who or whats fault was it that caused all of this death and misery that I hear of, especially post world war 2? If it was the Bolsheviks, then why did they fail in stopping Stalin's rise to power (I never have nor ever will acknowledge Stalin as anything other than the cold hearted murderer that he is), or was it, "necessity", foreign intervention?

I do distinguish the fairly steep degradation of communist ideals, to clarify that, I do not feel that Communist Russia was a fair depiction of communism.

ComradeOm

22nd July 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:41 pm
Ok, might I change my question...Who or whats fault was it that caused all of this death and misery that I hear of, especially post world war 2?That is of course the big question. Where you stand on the leftist political spectrum today is largely determined by how you answer that. So don't expect a single definitive answer ;)

The most common Marxist response, probably, is that the material conditions in 1917 were simply unable to sustain the Revolution or create a socialist state. Russia could not hope to overcome these disadvantages without simultaneous revolutions in the industrialised West... which, although close, did not occur. You'll often get variants of this, especially from Trotskyites, but I'll leave it to them to explain their position.

Anarchists on the other hand tend to solely blame the Bolsheviks and their programme. To their mind the rise of the bureaucratic class was the inevitable result of a centralised party coming to power.

ecoanarchist

22nd July 2007, 01:36

I feel that the reason for the bureaucracy was probably a mixture of both the conditions present, but also the centralization of power. As soon as the revolution changed from concentrating on the workers, to a party that could withstand and unite a country from the threat of Nazi Germany?

The Feral Underclass

22nd July 2007, 12:25

Originally posted by ComradeOm+July 22, 2007 12:37 am--> (ComradeOm @ July 22, 2007 12:37 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 08:55 pm
I don't appreciate being patronised, least of all when I'm confident I've earnt my right to ignore the same boring arguments spewed by you people.
Earned? Are you fucking kidding me? This is an internet forum - you don't get medals for sticking around when everyone else has gone home. Don't even try and pretend that you've somehow earned the right to ignore other posters you elitist fuck. You've got no free pass to stick your fingers in your ears when someone challenges your position. [/b]
Like I said to RedDali, I've been active on the left since I was 13. That's Eleven years ago. I have even had the misfortunte of being a district organiser for a vanguardist party so I think that this quantifies as me earning my right to ignore what I've heard you people say (I use to say it) for the last decade.

I think I am entitled to stick my fingers in my ears when all I hear is the same old thing over and over again. It's boring and I have no interest in engaging this subject with you people anymore or until I decide I want to; unless of course you have some new insight to offer.

The chances of that seem to be extremely slim.

If you've got nothing constructive to say then shut the fuck up.

For the record, I'm only responding to your attack on me. I'm sorry if you don't accept that my first post in this thread was "constructive" but I suppose you wouldn't consider the truth about your defunct ideology to be necessarily constructive I'd imagine. That's just your tuff luck.

In future perhaps you'd afford me the courtesy of refraining from the bouts of emotionalism; swearing and calling me names isn't particularly the constructive attitude I suspect you're trying to force upon me.

I think taking a leaf out of your own book would probably help.

Coggeh

22nd July 2007, 13:18

People who criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviks and who can't take that material conditions at the time set back the Bolshevik movement are just plain ignorant and like living in a happy fairyland where the revolution goes perfectly and all is well .

RedCat

22nd July 2007, 14:34

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 21, 2007 09:27 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 21, 2007 09:27 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 10:25 pm
panish anarchists were able to achieve more in terms of a transition to a communist society in three years than the Bolsheviks ever did in 70."""""

well,respect to them but they weren't even able to nationalise banks leaving them under the rule of bourgeoisie
Are you referring to Spain? [/b]
yes

The Feral Underclass

22nd July 2007, 14:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:18 pm
People who criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviks and who can't take that material conditions at the time set back the Bolshevik movement are just plain ignorant and like living in a happy fairyland where the revolution goes perfectly and all is well .
Perhaps you should try and understand the anarchist position before you try to attack it.

The Feral Underclass

22nd July 2007, 14:47

Originally posted by RedCat+July 22, 2007 02:34 pm--> (RedCat @ July 22, 2007 02:34 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 09:27 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 10:25 pm
panish anarchists were able to achieve more in terms of a transition to a communist society in three years than the Bolsheviks ever did in 70."""""

well,respect to them but they weren't even able to nationalise banks leaving them under the rule of bourgeoisie
Are you referring to Spain?
yes [/b]
You're right, it was a mistake not to take control of the Banks in collectivised area's but this connects with an overall failure to maintain anarchist ideology in it's operations against the state overall.

Aurora

22nd July 2007, 15:53

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 22, 2007 01:44 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 22, 2007 01:44 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 01:18 pm
People who criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviks and who can't take that material conditions at the time set back the Bolshevik movement are just plain ignorant and like living in a happy fairyland where the revolution goes perfectly and all is well .
Perhaps you should try and understand the anarchist position before you try to attack it. [/b]
Coggy didnt mention anarchists....LOL

CyM said it best i think,it is hugely important to look at the circumstances at the time for example if you took just what the bolsheviks did on there own they look like monsters but you have to recognise that they were facing a counter-revolution and the measures they took were nessesary to protect the democracy the soviets brought.

ecoanarchist

22nd July 2007, 16:17

Then why the post world war 2 atrocities? Of course, Im sure the United States placed a very intense hold on the Soviet Union and their were still recovering from WW2, but is that enough to justify the conditions afterwards?

Im not arguing, I just dont quite understand what happened.

The Feral Underclass

22nd July 2007, 17:11

Originally posted by Anarion+July 22, 2007 03:53 pm--> (Anarion @ July 22, 2007 03:53 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 01:44 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 01:18 pm
People who criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviks and who can't take that material conditions at the time set back the Bolshevik movement are just plain ignorant and like living in a happy fairyland where the revolution goes perfectly and all is well .
Perhaps you should try and understand the anarchist position before you try to attack it.
Coggy didnt mention anarchists....LOL [/b]
Who else is he talking?

the measures they [Bolsheviks] took were nessesary to protect the democracy the soviets brought.

There are always going to be necessary measures; the problem here is how those measures are applied. Leninism is not capable of creating a communist society because of the application of these measures you people assert are "necessary", as if they were the only way to defend a revolution.

Leninism has been applied the same way with the same justifications for the same reasons countless times and each time has resulted in the same consequences. The measures you assert are necessary will not achieve communism; they will only achieve a strong centralised state bureaucracy and ultimately a return to capitalism - This is historical fact.

Blankly shouting "it was the material circumstances, we had to do it this way because it was necessary" is not an excuse anymore. You don't have to do it that way and there are other measures that can be taken in order to safeguard a revolution and ultimately begin a real transition to communism.

Rawthentic

22nd July 2007, 20:26

Blankly shouting "it was the material circumstances, we had to do it this way because it was necessary" is not an excuse anymore. You don't have to do it that way and there are other measures that can be taken in order to safeguard a revolution and ultimately begin a real transition to communism.
Like what? Decentralize and abolish all evil authority in the face of staunch counter-revolution and semi-feudalism? I don't blame you TAT, anarchists dont hold a materialist understanding, your whole "ideology" is based on morality and how "evil" the state is.

To think that the same would happen everywhere in the world is a mechanistic and idealist interpretation of things (once again, I can't blame you). If the workers took political power in the US through their soviets and other mass organizations, would everything happen the same? Uhh..no. Why? Because there are different material conditions the dictate what happens.

And its always good to see how the Venezuelan workers who have created worker's councils and expropriated the capitalists still study Lenin and the great relevance of his theories to their struggle. After all, they are the real revolutionaries and are worrying about creating a revolutionary worker's state. Go tell them how Lenin is evil and how his theories are defunct.

The Feral Underclass

22nd July 2007, 21:44

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 22, 2007 08:26 pm
there are different material conditions the dictate what happens.
I haven't ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Leninists apply the same paradigm to revolutionary situations and that in the end they do not begin a transitional stage that will lead to communism.

Go tell them how Lenin is evil and how his theories are defunct.
I won't need to.

Rawthentic

22nd July 2007, 22:21

Of course, because you can't. They know a lot better than you and I that Lenin is someone that they look up to, and that wont change no matter how much anarchist rhetoric is spewed around.

His theories are well and alive, and as I said, the Venezuelan workers prove it better than I can on this forum.

Coggeh

22nd July 2007, 23:29

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 08:44 pm
I haven't ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Leninists apply the same paradigm to revolutionary situations and that in the end they do not begin a transitional stage that will lead to communism.
Firstly,Let’s look at what happened in Russia in 1917. The deprivations of world war had driven millions of workers to hostility against the Russian state and capitalists. Millions of peasants, held in semi-feudal bondage, demanded land and freedom. During and after the first revolution (February 1917) the workers set up their own organizations to try to govern - the soviets.

But a pro-capitalist government continued to exist, the Provisional Government. Between February and October the most consistent revolutionary party, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky, grew by tens of thousands. This party was able to lead the soviets to take power and overthrow the Provisional Government.

Counter-revolution-Post war crumbled economy-peasantry/white rebellions .. and of course the famous ! Kronstadt rebellion "where the anarchist/peasantry stood up to the evil face of Leninism and soviet elitism" -which hit Lenin like a bolt of light and so he had to install the NEP rather than continue with war communism .

When this is all coming to an end Lenin dies left oppositionists to Stalinism are thrown out, Trotsky goes into exile and Stalin takes over This is not a characteristic leninism creates it just happened . As was said before you have to learn from history's mistakes and push on from it .

ecoanarchist

23rd July 2007, 00:46

Thank you Coggy, that was well written.

So do you think the proper motions were in effect, had someone more like lenin instead of Stalin taken power, in your opinion?

Coggeh

23rd July 2007, 00:51

Well Trotsky was set to continue the movement but Stalin leeched the revolution and set it towards a different backwards path .

So yes if Trotsky took over things would have been alot different IMO.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 00:51

No, because masses create history, not individuals. By the time Stalin usurped power, the soviets had been emasculated as well as losing power through the introduction of one man management.

Coggeh

23rd July 2007, 00:54

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 22, 2007 11:51 pm
No, because masses create history, not individuals. By the time Stalin usurped power, the soviets had been emasculated as well as losing power through the introduction of one man management.
Masses do create history but leaders and the party steer the masses in the right direction and set political trends in movements .

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 01:00

What I am trying to say is that at the point of the counter-revolution, a change in leadership would not have brought proletarian leadership back, it would be part of it, but I think the whole thing would be a greater upheaval, short of an entire social revolution though.

Coggeh

23rd July 2007, 01:21

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 23, 2007 12:00 am
What I am trying to say is that at the point of the counter-revolution, a change in leadership would not have brought proletarian leadership back, it would be part of it, but I think the whole thing would be a greater upheaval, short of an entire social revolution though.
Do you mind elaborating more ?

I kind of get were your saying but I'm fairly slow lol i spose theirs better way to put it but you know what i mean .

Guest1

23rd July 2007, 10:56

I think what he's trying to say, and I agree with him, is that the revolution had already lost its steam due to the crisis Russia was in, and a change of leadership would have meant a party fighting that collapse as opposed to thriving on it, but the collapse couldn't have been prevented.

I don't think much could have been done differently in Russia, the death of the German revolution, in my opinion, guaranteed Stalinism as well as Fascism.

Sad story.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 16:46

Originally posted by Coggy+July 22, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Coggy @ July 22, 2007 11:29 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 08:44 pm
I haven't ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Leninists apply the same paradigm to revolutionary situations and that in the end they do not begin a transitional stage that will lead to communism.
Firstly,Let’s look at what happened in Russia in 1917. The deprivations of world war had driven millions of workers to hostility against the Russian state and capitalists. Millions of peasants, held in semi-feudal bondage, demanded land and freedom. During and after the first revolution (February 1917) the workers set up their own organizations to try to govern - the soviets.

But a pro-capitalist government continued to exist, the Provisional Government. Between February and October the most consistent revolutionary party, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky, grew by tens of thousands. This party was able to lead the soviets to take power and overthrow the Provisional Government.

Counter-revolution-Post war crumbled economy-peasantry/white rebellions .. and of course the famous ! Kronstadt rebellion "where the anarchist/peasantry stood up to the evil face of Leninism and soviet elitism" -which hit Lenin like a bolt of light and so he had to install the NEP rather than continue with war communism .

When this is all coming to an end Lenin dies left oppositionists to Stalinism are thrown out, Trotsky goes into exile and Stalin takes over This is not a characteristic leninism creates it just happened . As was said before you have to learn from history's mistakes and push on from it . [/b]
Once again the same mantra has been repeated to me but my point hasn't been addressed.

23rd July 2007, 17:59

Once again the same mantra has been repeated to me but my point hasn't been addressed.

Assuming the following is your point:

I haven't ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Leninists apply the same paradigm to revolutionary situations and that in the end they do not begin a transitional stage that will lead to communism.

you are going to have to define what you mean by "Leninism" as it means different things to different people. Also, which revolutionary situations do you consider "Leninist" and why?

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 19:56

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 23, 2007 05:59 pm

I haven't ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Leninists apply the same paradigm to revolutionary situations and that in the end they do not begin a transitional stage that will lead to communism.

you are going to have to define what you mean by "Leninism" as it means different things to different people.
The essence of Leninism is the advocation of centralised and institutionalised political authority i.e. a state lead by the most conscious "workers" (although historically these leaders have not been workers but middle class intellectuals).

Also, which revolutionary situations

Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 19:58

Of course, centralized into the hands of the proletariat, and lead by the most conscious workers, thats logical.

And yes, since the class struggle is a political struggle, the working class must seize political power or there will be no revolution, there never has been. By political power I of course mean the soviets and other mass organizations.

23rd July 2007, 20:01

The essence of Leninism is the advocation of centralised and institutionalised political authority i.e. a state lead by the most conscious "workers" (although historically these leaders have not been workers but middle class intellectuals).

How is this different from Marxism?

Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam.

"and why?"

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 20:06

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 23, 2007 08:01 pm

The essence of Leninism is the advocation of centralised and institutionalised political authority i.e. a state lead by the most conscious "workers" (although historically these leaders have not been workers but middle class intellectuals).

How is this different from Marxism?
That's totally irrelevant. Stop hijacking these discussions with your obsessions with semantics and either address the point or fuck off.

Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam.

"and why?"

The answer to that question is so painfully obvious I feel embarrassed for you.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 20:17

That's totally irrelevant. Stop hijacking these discussions with your obsessions with semantics and either address the point or fuck off.
You're the troll here, others recognize it, and we don't give a fuck how long you've been on this board. What Zampano said was correct, what you called "Leninism" there is nothing more than Marxism.

The answer to that question is so painfully obvious I feel embarrassed for you.
So, Cuba, China, Vietnam, had socialist revolutions in which "Leninist" states were created?

Are there any different types of states? Do you know what a state is, or are you playing your typical morality game here?

23rd July 2007, 20:18

That's totally irrelevant. Stop hijacking these discussions with your obsessions with semantics and either address the point or fuck off.

It is completely relevant. You are attacking what you call "Leninism" and defining it as Marxism. If you are going to attack Marxism then do so, but it is intellectually dishonest for you to make up an empty phrase in order to propagandize against Lenin and the Bolsheviks. If you are going to attack the Bolsheviks then do so. If you are going to attack Marxism then do so. If you are going to attack Lenin then do so.

But since you have yet to define what Leninism actually is, you can't really use it in a discussion or a debate, because the moment someone asks what you mean by that, you don't know. Get over it and stop using the empty phrase.

The answer to that question is so painfully obvious I feel embarrassed for you.

Well then it would be easy for you to provide it.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 22:17

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 23, 2007 08:17 pm

That's totally irrelevant. Stop hijacking these discussions with your obsessions with semantics and either address the point or fuck off.
You're the troll here, others recognize it, and we don't give a fuck how long you've been on this board. What Zampano said was correct, what you called "Leninism" there is nothing more than Marxism.
It's interesting how you call me a troll because I attack your beliefs. So, essentially anyone who disagree's with your point of view is a troll.

others recognize it, and we don't give a fuck how long you've been on this board. What Zampano said was correct, what you called "Leninism" there is nothing more than Marxism.

I have never claimed otherwise. In fact, I have stated on several occasions that I am more than happy to refer to it as Marxism. It makes absolutely no difference at all to my argument; an argument that you have both failed to address, instead evading it by turning this discussion into one of pointless semantics.

It makes absolutely no difference whether I refer to your beliefs as Leninism or Marxism - it does not change the essence of my assertion.

Are there any different types of states? Do you know what a state is, or are you playing your typical morality game here?

That doesn't even make sense! When you know what you're talking about, then I'll respond to your questions.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 22:22

Of course it makes sense, you keep saying that these revolutions created "Leninist" states, so I want to know if you think there are any other types of states that workers create. Because after all, a state is an organ of class rule, not an evil monster.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 22:27

Originally posted by Zampanò@July 23, 2007 08:18 pm

That's totally irrelevant. Stop hijacking these discussions with your obsessions with semantics and either address the point or fuck off.

It is completely relevant.
I fail to see how.

You are attacking what you call "Leninism" and defining it as Marxism.

No I'm no. I'm attacking a set of beliefs that I refer to as Leninism but which you define as Marxism. Fine. I have no problem with that.

If you are going to attack Marxism then do so

According to you I already have...

but it is intellectually dishonest for you to make up an empty phrase in order to propagandize against Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

I'm flattered that you belief me to be so intellectually savvy that I did, all by myself, invent the phrase "Leninism" but unfortunately that honour does not lie with me.

If you are going to attack the Bolsheviks then do so.

I have done so several times, in this thread and others.

If you are going to attack Marxism then do so. If you are going to attack Lenin then do so.

This entire post is an evasion, either calculated or through your stupidity. Which ever it is irrelevant, suffice to say you have not in fact addressed my argument.

But since you have yet to define what Leninism actually is, you can't really use it in a discussion or a debate, because the moment someone asks what you mean by that, you don't know.

I have defined it to you at least twice in the last week. You apparently do not accept that definition.

Regardless, I am happy to call it Marxism.

The answer to that question is so painfully obvious I feel embarrassed for you.

Well then it would be easy for you to provide it.

I'm not here to educate you. I don't know what you're trying to do here but I’m incredibly suspicious of such impertinent questions.

Either debate my point or stop responding to my posts. Until then I have nothing more to say to you on this utter banality.

23rd July 2007, 22:28

I have never claimed otherwise. In fact, I have stated on several occasions that I am more than happy to refer to it as Marxism. It makes absolutely no difference at all to my argument; an argument that you have both failed to address, instead evading it by turning this discussion into one of pointless semantics.

It makes absolutely no difference whether I refer to your beliefs as Leninism or Marxism - it does not change the essence of my assertion.

Then why use an empty term like Leninism?

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 22:29

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 23, 2007 10:22 pm
a state is an organ of class rule, not an evil monster.
I don't understand how you can honestly think I should take you seriously when you seem to be under the impression that I oppose the state because It's an "evil monster".

When you have afforded me the same courtesy of understanding my beliefs as I have yours then I am prepared to discuss this issue with you. If you want to carry on acting like a child then count me out.

PRC-UTE

23rd July 2007, 22:54

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
Like I said to RedDali, I've been active on the left since I was 13. That's Eleven years ago. I have even had the misfortunte of being a district organiser for a vanguardist party so I think that this quantifies as me earning my right to ignore what I've heard you people say (I use to say it) for the last decade.

It was the SWP you were an organiser in if I remember correctly.

Using the SWP as an example to use for your attacks on Leninism makes as much sense as using RAAN to attack anarchist ideology - the SWP varies widely from the rest of the marxist-leninism.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 22:59

I don't understand how you can honestly think I should take you seriously when you seem to be under the impression that I oppose the state because It's an "evil monster".
Thats the impression that you give off, instead of taking it objectively and saying that the state is indeed an organ of class rule.

And I understand your beliefs quite well by now.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 23:02

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 23, 2007 10:59 pm
I understand your beliefs quite well by now.
Clearly that is not the case.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2007, 23:04

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+July 23, 2007 10:54 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ July 23, 2007 10:54 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
Like I said to RedDali, I've been active on the left since I was 13. That's Eleven years ago. I have even had the misfortunte of being a district organiser for a vanguardist party so I think that this quantifies as me earning my right to ignore what I've heard you people say (I use to say it) for the last decade.

It was the SWP you were an organiser in if I remember correctly.

Using the SWP as an example to use for your attacks on Leninism makes as much sense as using RAAN to attack anarchist ideology - the SWP varies widely from the rest of the marxist-leninism. [/b]
Back in my day (under Tony Cliff) the SWP was far more radical than it is now. I'm not entirely sure what your comment really means, but the SWP back then was a model Leninist vanguardist party.

PRC-UTE

23rd July 2007, 23:44

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 23, 2007 10:04 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 23, 2007 10:04 pm)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 23, 2007 10:54 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
Like I said to RedDali, I've been active on the left since I was 13. That's Eleven years ago. I have even had the misfortunte of being a district organiser for a vanguardist party so I think that this quantifies as me earning my right to ignore what I've heard you people say (I use to say it) for the last decade.

It was the SWP you were an organiser in if I remember correctly.

Using the SWP as an example to use for your attacks on Leninism makes as much sense as using RAAN to attack anarchist ideology - the SWP varies widely from the rest of the marxist-leninism.
Back in my day (under Tony Cliff) the SWP was far more radical than it is now. I'm not entirely sure what your comment really means, but the SWP back then was a model Leninist vanguardist party. [/b]
My comment meant that their methodology varied from the rest of the Marxist parties in Britain. That was my impression from a distance but anyway I accept your point that they were more radical in your day.

Axel1917

23rd July 2007, 23:51

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+July 23, 2007 10:04 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ July 23, 2007 10:04 pm)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 23, 2007 10:54 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:25 am
Like I said to RedDali, I've been active on the left since I was 13. That's Eleven years ago. I have even had the misfortunte of being a district organiser for a vanguardist party so I think that this quantifies as me earning my right to ignore what I've heard you people say (I use to say it) for the last decade.

It was the SWP you were an organiser in if I remember correctly.

Using the SWP as an example to use for your attacks on Leninism makes as much sense as using RAAN to attack anarchist ideology - the SWP varies widely from the rest of the marxist-leninism.
Back in my day (under Tony Cliff) the SWP was far more radical than it is now. I'm not entirely sure what your comment really means, but the SWP back then was a model Leninist vanguardist party. [/b]
Schactmanite nonsense is not Leninism, obviously. The SWP is a sectarian group that will never win over the bulk of the working class. The whole organization is based on crap theory, and the only possible result therefore is nothing in practice.

ecoanarchist

24th July 2007, 03:34

Ok, I have a suggestion. How about everyone leaves everyone else alone, and we get back to the question...

Im sure every idealogy could work with a few tweaks here and there, and the best thing we can do is to work together to allow those revolutions to happen, without coercing another one.

WORK TOGETHER
God damn =]

In the end, your all similar. You all want everyone to have the most freedom possible, you all want equal rights for everyone. The only argument against each other is how to achieve that. The greatest thing we can do is to stick together.

We have enemies. They are the fascists, the capitalists, the authoritarians, not eachother.

You know that obnoxious patriotic american saying, United we stand, divided we fall?
Well, that goes for us too.

If we spent less time arguing amongst ourselves, and devising the path to our enemies destruction, then maybe we could get more done.

Fighting amongst ourselves only makes our enemies stronger, cooperation makes US stronger.

Sure, you guys disagree, instead of breaking it down into a personal matter, just discuss how your two ideas can work together. I dont want to sound like some fucking cheerleader, but its true. Its the only thing we can do to survive.

Now back to the question, the difference...

ecoanarchist

24th July 2007, 15:56

And now no one is answering...

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2007, 16:07

There is nothing to answer.

apathy maybe

24th July 2007, 16:08

The problem is, that while we might think we want the same thing, it is obvious that we disagree with how to get there.

And it is mine and many other people's opinion that the Leninist way to achieve anarchy simply doesn't work. And if they try and impose that on us, well then, they become the enemy.

We can work together, but only while we have a common goal. And when that aim converges (as it will if anyone tries to set up another state), then...

(Of course, I'm using "state" in the anarchist sense. I don't care what anyone else means by the word.)

Rawthentic

24th July 2007, 16:47

Of course, I'm using "state" in the anarchist sense. I don't care what anyone else means by the word
And theres the problem. I see the state in the materialist sense, a violent organ that enforces the rule of a class. Under a working people's republic is ceases to be a state in the usual sense of the word, but its purpose is same: maintain proletarian power. The form that this revolutionary society takes I think we can agree with quite well.

apathy maybe

24th July 2007, 16:54

You're a funny fellow. Throwing words like "materialist" around. I don't care what you mean by the word "state", if you want to criticise what I have said, do so on the basis of my definition (the anarchist definition based on power), not on semantics.

And based on my definition, the state is a bad thing. And the Leninist paradigm historically has lead to the re-imposition of state power over everyone. Fuck that.

Rawthentic

24th July 2007, 16:57

I dont throw "materialist" around for the sake of it, I use it because thats how my definition is arrived to. All class societies have states, thats objective, post-revolutionary society is no different (just the class that is in power.)

And the Russian Revolution lead to the capitalist class being returned to power, but thats not because the state is evil, there were complex class forces and material conditions that played into that.

Vargha Poralli

24th July 2007, 16:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:26 pm
And now no one is answering...
Well I think your qustion was already answered ... here. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68979&view=findpost&p=1292351641)

If you want to be know what communism is then check out my signature.

and its full contenet is

Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time. Communism has followed from large-scale industry and its consequences, from the establishment of the world market, of the concomitant uninhibited competition, ever more violent and more universal trade crises, which have already become fully fledged crises of the world market, from the creation of the proletariat and the concentration of capital, from the ensuing class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.

The Communists and Karl Heinzen (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

ecoanarchist

24th July 2007, 20:18

Ok, so what happened. What allowed the authoritarian state take over the revolution?

Was it a failure of the vanguard party, of leninism, and if so, is that a product of Leninism, or outside forces?

Otherwise, what happened?

Rawthentic

24th July 2007, 20:30

Frankly, there was no world revolution. The Bolsheviks and the Russian working class had high hopes for a proletarian revolution in Germany, which of course never manifested itself. Take into account the small size of the Russian proletariat in a country after a world war and struggling to escape feudalism.

And the counter-revolutionary forces it was surrounded by.

The point here is that if there is no world revolution, proletarian revolutions in single regions or countries inevitably degenerate.

This analysis (although brief) is compared to the anarchist "analysis" of how the evil state took power over everyone.

ecoanarchist

24th July 2007, 20:34

Allright, so why did they continue to degrade themselves after they gained some stability from after the war. You could argue about the constant conflicts, but they really dragged themselves down.
*Im talking mainly about the state of human rights in russia at the moment*

Labor Shall Rule

24th July 2007, 20:35

It's interesting how you call me a troll because I attack your beliefs. So, essentially anyone who disagree's with your point of view is a troll.

I don't think they are calling you a 'troll' because you attack their beliefs, but rather, that they are calling you that because you attack their beliefs without offering a logical basis to do so - you have made a series of one-sentence attacks that generalize what you think about Leninism.

bloody_capitalist_sham

24th July 2007, 20:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:18 pm
Ok, so what happened. What allowed the authoritarian state take over the revolution?

Was it a failure of the vanguard party, of leninism, and if so, is that a product of Leninism, or outside forces?

Otherwise, what happened?
The Russian Civil War is what derailed the revolution.

Lenin

The workers have simply abandoned their factories; they have had to settle down in the country and have ceased to be workers

this he noted as a response to the crisis of the civil war.

production had dropped by 35% after the civil war compared to before the civil war.

So simply, the workers state, stop functioning because it had be forced into extreme conditions.

The Bolsheviks had to substitute a bureaucracy to start the NEP etc. Lenin then said that Russia was a workers state with bureaucratic deformations.

Rawthentic

24th July 2007, 20:36

There was never any stability, how could there be? This isnt about "human rights" this is about analyzing how and why the proletariat lost power in Russia.

Aurora

24th July 2007, 23:06

Originally posted by BCS
Lenin then said that Russia was a workers state with bureaucratic deformations.
Comrade can you point me in the direction of where Lenin said this?

Rawthentic

25th July 2007, 03:45

Lenin never said that, thats more of a trotskyist thing.

My opinion is that it was state-capitalist, but please this is not the place to debate that, someone make a new thread if they wish.

ecoanarchist

25th July 2007, 03:48

I wont disagree about it turning into state capitalism, I just want to know how Leninims or Bolshevism failed to keep it together, and what allowed it to turn into state capitalism.

Rawthentic

25th July 2007, 03:50

ComradeRed, its your turn to come up to the plate.

(He's the Marxist scientist here, he can do it better than I.)

Taboo Tongue

25th July 2007, 05:38

Historical Materialism says societies move from one class society to the next; based on their technology.

Originally posted by RedStar2000
Savagry: hunter-gatherer societies with no fixed classes at all--sometimes called "primitive communism", no private property outside the realm of personal and usually portable possessions, a very primitive technology of hand-tools, no agriculture or domesticated animals, etc.
Barbarism (nomadism): the rise of private property in animals (and women), the emergence of the clan or extended family as a proto-class, etc.
Oriental despotism: the rise of agriculture and private property in land and people (slavery), the despot as "god" or "appointed by god" and ultimate "owner" of everything, the emergence of "clergy", etc. (Marx called it "oriental" because it looked "eastern" from the Euro-centric attitudes of the 19th century--but the Roman Empire was, of course, a despotism as much as anything found in Persia or China.)
Feudalism: the replacement of a single despot by a small number of mini-despots who owned huge tracts of agricultural holdings, with laborors being the property of the estate rather than the "lord" (serfs).
Capitalism: a new and much larger class of mini-despots who own the means of production and distribution and exploit the labor of those who don't; the end of private property in people.Possibly socialism\(first stage of) communism next.

Leninism differs in saying that you are able to skip over class societies. Go from a predominantly feudal society to a socialist society. And then proceed to communism.
As seen\attempted in all "Communist States" (USSR PRC Cuba DPRK SRV et. all)

note: communism is a (classless) society not so much a doctrine.

Rawthentic

25th July 2007, 06:20

Taboo, that is simply not true. One cannot "skip" class societies, but they can be accelerated, as was attempted in Russia, as long as the proletariat is in power.

Vargha Poralli

25th July 2007, 08:13

Originally posted by Anarion+--> (Anarion)Comrade can you point me in the direction of where Lenin said this?[/b]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected]
Lenin never said that, thats more of a trotskyist thing.

Well indeed Lenin siad something on that line

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

Lenin
While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: “Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?” The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that. (Bukharin : “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets,[3] and that will be answer enough.

But that is not all. Our Party Programme—a document which the author of the ABC of Communism knows very well—shows that ours is a workers’ state with a bureacratic twist to it. We have had to mark it with this dismal, shall I say, tag. There you have the reality of the transition. Well, is it right to say that in a state that has taken this shape in practice the trade unions have nothing to protect, or that we can do without them in protecting the material and spiritual interests of the massively organised proletariat? No, this reasoning is theoretically quite wrong. It takes us into the sphere of abstraction or an ideal we shall achieve in 15 or 20 years’ time, and I am not so sure that we shall have achieved it even by then. What we actually have before us is a reality of which we have a good deal of knowledge, provided, that is, we keep our heads, and do not let ourselves be carried awav by intellectualist talk or abstract reasoning, or by what may appear to be “theory” but is in fact error and misapprehension of the peculiarities of transition. We now have a state under which it is the business of the massively organised proletariat to protect itself, while we, for our part, must use these workers’ organisations to protect the workers from their state, and to get them to protect our state. Both forms of protection are achieved through the peculiar interweaving of our state measures and our agreeing or “coalescing” with our trade unions.

That work was a part of polemic against Trotsky and Bhukharin in Trade Union debate.

Janus

26th July 2007, 06:14

The original question is somewhat misleading since Bolshevism is a form of communism like Marxism.

I wont disagree about it turning into state capitalism, I just want to know how Leninims or Bolshevism failed to keep it together, and what allowed it to turn into state capitalism.
Please use the search function, we've discussed Lenin and his project/ideology countless times.

Taboo Tongue

26th July 2007, 06:50

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Taboo, that is simply not true. One cannot "skip" class societies, but they can be accelerated, as was attempted in Russia, as long as the proletariat is in power.
Well I definitely agree class societies can't be skipped. And I would even go further and say that they were accelerated in Russia (from backwards to world leader).
But then why call yourself "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? Instead of something like "Union of Soviet Lead Republics"? showing they were leading an accelerated capitalism, not socialism. It may be just a name but it does carry great implications.
When was the proletariat in power? Petrograd March-October 1917, only time I can remember clearly.

Note: I'm in this for learning just as much as debating.

Rawthentic

26th July 2007, 17:05

About the USSR title, I agree, they were not socialist, but the proletariat did seize power in October 1917.

Vargha Poralli

26th July 2007, 17:17

Originally posted by Taboo Tongue+July 26, 2007 11:20 am--> (Taboo Tongue @ July 26, 2007 11:20 am)
Voz de la Gente [email protected] 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Taboo, that is simply not true. One cannot "skip" class societies, but they can be accelerated, as was attempted in Russia, as long as the proletariat is in power.
Well I definitely agree class societies can't be skipped. And I would even go further and say that they were accelerated in Russia (from backwards to world leader).
But then why call yourself "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? Instead of something like "Union of Soviet Lead Republics"? showing they were leading an accelerated capitalism, not socialism. It may be just a name but it does carry great implications.
When was the proletariat in power? Petrograd March-October 1917, only time I can remember clearly.

Note: I'm in this for learning just as much as debating. [/b]
Well you could get some Idea from reading Lenin I have quoted just before you post. I have put more emphasis on it.

When was the proletariat in power? Petrograd March-October 1917, only time I can remember clearly.

What the fuck are you smoking ? :blink:
From March- October the power is held not by working class but by the provisional government under Kerensky supported by Kadets,Mensheviks and Right SRs. :wacko:

The working class seized power from them in October through the Soviets and by shuttiong down Constitutional Assembly.

Taboo Tongue

27th July 2007, 07:19

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)you could get some Idea from reading Lenin I have quoted[/b]Nice quote, it gives a better idea as to what Lenin say it turn out to be... However my point stands; the name is still misleading, and incorrect, possibly even more so. With that quote in mind "Union of the Worker and Peasant State's Republics" sounds better than "Union of Soviet [Worker's Council] Socialist [Post-Capitalist] Republics". Even longer name but a better name for it (Union of the Worker and Peasant's State Republics).

g.ram
What the fuck are you smoking ? :blink: At least according to these Wikipedia articles there was a period of "dual authority."

Russian Provisional Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Provisional_Government)
[this page does need more sources for verification]
Petrograd Soviet - Diarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet#Diarchy)
[this page does needs sources]

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 10:02

Originally posted by TT+--> (TT)Nice quote, it gives a better idea as to what Lenin say it turn out to be... However my point stands; the name is still misleading, and incorrect, possibly even more so. With that quote in mind "Union of the Worker and Peasant State's Republics" sounds better than "Union of Soviet [Worker's Council] Socialist [Post-Capitalist] Republics". Even longer name but a better name for it (Union of the Worker and Peasant's State Republics).[/b]

Dude relax. What is in the name ? Really I don't care what they named the post Revolution Russia but they clearly had some objective in their mind. They did not sit their asses out and go on discuss about what name should the Socialist republics have.

TT
At least according to these Wikipedia articles there was a period of "dual authority."

Yes but that Dual authority did not end the Russian participation in WW1. It did not give Land to the toiling peasants. It did not give bread to starving workers.

All these things are realised only after the October revolution.

Taboo Tongue

27th July 2007, 20:00

Originally posted by g.ram+July 27, 2007 03:02 am--> (g.ram @ July 27, 2007 03:02 am)What is in the name ? ... Socialist republics ...[/b]
Apparently the idea they were "Socialist Republics", when they weren't able to reach beyond capitalism (and understandably so). :engles:
But fine, I won't mention the incorrect naming and misconceptions it brings.

Originally posted by [email protected]
It did not give Land to the toiling peasants. It did not give bread to starving workers.
Those things are great, two thumbs up... But they aren't unheard of under capitalism. The Redistribution of land in Mexico to peasants that tended it after their capitalist revolution, and soup kitchens in England during the great depression. These are just two of the top of my head. Those things are great but they don't make it socialist, just capitalism with a :) .

To get back to the current question:
ecoanarchist
I just want to know how Leninims or Bolshevism failed to keep it together, and what allowed it to turn into state capitalism. It wasn't able to create it for many different reasons (many) listed in the previous pages. IMHO, it simply wasn't time. Even if it was in fact a workers revolution, and not a Bolshevik coup, they would still have to go through Capitalism and capitalism turned out to be a much longer development process then what socialist thought in their time. So... time

Vargha Poralli

29th July 2007, 09:08

Originally posted by TT
Those things are great, two thumbs up... But they aren't unheard of under capitalism.

But those things happened in Ruusia are very much different from the Land Distribution of the capitalists.

Those things are great but they don't make it socialist, just capitalism with a :) .

Did I ever tell it makes them socialist ?

But definitely that does not make them capitalist(state or center).

It wasn't able to create it for many different reasons (many) listed in the previous pages.

That does not mean they were simply capitalists.

IMHO, it simply wasn't time.

According to Mensheviks and other revisionists. But it was an excellent time ofr an world wide revolution and they did happen in Germany and Hungary. It is in the failure of these revolutions the demise of Russian Revolution was seeded.

Even if it was in fact a workers revolution, and not a Bolshevik coup,

Only the capitalists historians who don't understand/delibarately ignore the underlying conditions and consequences call it a coup.

they would still have to go through Capitalism and capitalism turned out to be a much longer development process then what socialist thought in their time. So... time

They did. The NEP was temporary retreat to capitalism. Lenin called it "One Step backwards to make two step forward". And through Comintern they did their best to world wide proletarian revolutions in both Western and Colonial countries. And a revolutionary wave did happen in western countires during 30's but this time sabotaged by the activities of Cominterm itself which became a foreign policy tool for Stalinist Bureaucracy. I would suggest you read 3rd International after Lenin by Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm) for a detailed critic of Comintern's policies in various states.

Taboo Tongue

30th July 2007, 05:49

Originally posted by Taboo+--> (Taboo)Those things are great but they don't make it socialist, just capitalism with a :) .
Originally posted by G.Ram+--> (G.Ram)Did I ever tell it makes them socialist ?[/b][/b]No though you did say they were "Socialist Republics." And I don't to see how they were socialist.

Originally posted by g.ram
But definitely that does not make them capitalist(state or center).True, these things are not inherently capitalistic (or socialistic).

It wasn't able to create it for many different reasons (many) listed in the previous pages.
Originally posted by g.ram
That does not mean they were simply capitalists. Then exactly what was the Soviet Union in your opinion?
And Ecoanarchist wants to know 'how did Leninism fail to keep it together, and what allowed it to turn into state capitalism.'

Even if it was in fact a workers revolution, and not a Bolshevik coup,
Originally posted by g.ram
Only the capitalists historians who don't understand/delibarately ignore the underlying conditions and consequences call it a coup.
A breif summary from what I understand of the conditions:
The DEVELOPED parts just came out of feudalism

There was a right wing Provisional Government and

a Proletarian power in control (in Petrograd and Moscow)

Russia was still suffering and fighting in The First Great War (WWI)

People were hungry

Open-Capitalism was just birthed (with all it's ills like hunger)

It was cold

But my question is: Was it Bolsheviks running through the city making arrests in the name of the soviets; or was it the soviets doing it themselves? In my opinion that's one of the biggest differences between the Paris Commune and the Petrograd Soviet versus the October Revolution\Coup.

Originally posted by Taboo
they would still have to go through Capitalism and capitalism turned out to be a much longer development process then what socialist thought in their time. So... time
[email protected]
They did. The NEP was temporary retreat to capitalism. Lenin called it "One Step backwards to make two step forward". And through Comintern they did their best to world wide proletarian revolutions ...
Did they ever acheive socialism after the NEP? They did do good in creating Leninist coups (which had much more favorable governments than what would have been throughout). Helping Spain was good.

g.ram
I would suggest you read 3rd International after Lenin by Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm) for a detailed critic of Comintern's policies in various states. Sounds good, I will when it comes up (and after I'm done with my current books).

Labor Shall Rule

30th July 2007, 06:23

The Soviets had control over these functions, but the Bolsheviks had control of the Soviets.

As for Ecoanarchists' concerns, I summed it up in these quotes.

So, uhm, did you even read that entire post? As Trotsky said, "the present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism not simply a bloody line but a whole river of blood. The annihilation of all the older generation of Bolsheviks, an important part of the middle generation which participated in the civil war, and that part of the youth that took up most seriously the Bolshevik traditions, shows not only a political but a thoroughly physical incompatibility between Bolshevism and Stalinism. How can this not be seen?" If Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not even institute these wartime measures, the bureaucracy would of eventually instituted them themselves. Perhaps the Bolsheviks shouldn't of placed in these measures of building up and mobilizing their military, utilizing their secret police, reconstructing their economic superstructure by laying the groundworks for heavy industry through their command economy, and handing out several concessions to the peasantry and small proprietors, but then again, what would of the concequences been if they did not do such things? If the revolutionary army is not a unified, centralized force when surrounded on all sides by hostile enemies (with far greater resources), then there may as well be no revolution to begin with. What is the point of fighting, when you will inevitably be defeated? The reaction of Stalinism was first and foremost a product of historical and material circumstances, and not the categorical rejection of revolutionary democracy.

Lenin and Trotsky reacted to material conditions; industry had declined by 15-30% with their economic superstructure completely wrecked from a world war and now a civil war, famine was stalking every street corner in the cities, a foreign blockade had isolated the entire country, and now armies were surrounding them from all sides. In the final analysis, the rule of the working class is only assured when it is materially possible for the working class to dissolve itself as a class, therefore, we do not stick to moralistic garbage on our principles, but first and foremost, on the reality of the situation in which we are trying to put our principles into practice. The economic problems (to which all political problems are tied) were at that time insurmountable. No ruling party could have done much better or worse. There were no fast and easy solutions. Only a vapid idealist would consider the economic and political problems facing Russia at the time as entirely seperate. It is only by doing so that one can demand with full force on the one hand an immediate solution to all economic problems and then cringe when those solutions take political forms that don't align with the ideals of democracy

Bolshevism is the revolutionary opposite of Stalinism.

Vargha Poralli

30th July 2007, 18:35

Originally posted by Taboo Tongue+July 30, 2007 10:19 am--> (Taboo Tongue @ July 30, 2007 10:19 am)
Originally posted by Taboo+--> (Taboo)Those things are great but they don't make it socialist, just capitalism with a :) .
Originally posted by G.Ram
Did I ever tell it makes them socialist ?[/b]No though you did say they were "Socialist Republics." And I don't to see how they were socialist.

Originally posted by g.ram
But definitely that does not make them capitalist(state or center).True, these things are not inherently capitalistic (or socialistic).
[/b]

A Coup d'etat - The sudden overthrow of a government, differing from a revolution by being carried out by a small group of people who replace only the leading figures.

Wikitionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

October Revolution is not a Coup.

I find it amusing that you consider USSR named itself Socialist is an criminal offense as it does not strictly mean Socialism but you don't care much about calling October revolution a Coup- word by its strictest meaning cannot be Applied to the October Revolution.

Originally posted by Taboo

It wasn't able to create it for many different reasons (many) listed in the previous pages.
Originally posted by g.ram
That does not mean they were simply capitalists. Then exactly what was the Soviet Union in your opinion?
And Ecoanarchist wants to know 'how did Leninism fail to keep it together, and what allowed it to turn into state capitalism.'

On USSR being named Socialist - definitely it did not have Socialism in the strictest sense but it did have the Conditions necessary for Socialist Transformation - A long process which cannot be archived without a revolutionary change in

(a) An Industrialised country.

(b) An defeat of both Capitalism and Imperialism in the Colonised Asian and African countries.

The Bolsheviks did their best to utilise both options - A revolutionary wave did spread in the Advanced capitalist countries especially Germany but it failed. The question why it failed is purely subjective and totally a different question.

And it happened again in 1930s during the Great Depression - but unfortunately by this time the Russian Revolution itself degenerated to the core and failed to aid the workers movement in other countries against Fascist upsurge.

Originally posted by Taboo

Even if it was in fact a workers revolution, and not a Bolshevik coup,
Originally posted by g.ram
Only the capitalists historians who don't understand/delibarately ignore the underlying conditions and consequences call it a coup.
A breif summary from what I understand of the conditions:

The DEVELOPED parts just came out of feudalism

There was a right wing Provisional Government and

a Proletarian power in control (in Petrograd and Moscow)

Russia was still suffering and fighting in The First Great War (WWI)

People were hungry

Open-Capitalism was just birthed (with all it's ills like hunger)

It was cold

But my question is: Was it Bolsheviks running through the city making arrests in the name of the soviets; or was it the soviets doing it themselves? In my opinion that's one of the biggest differences between the Paris Commune and the Petrograd Soviet versus the October Revolution\Coup.

Well RedDali answered your question I think.

To add Soviets Russia was immediately put in to a biggest strain - the Russian civil war which totally screwed the Industry and Infrastructure - which had already beginning to crumble because of the devastations brought about by WW1.

Originally posted by Taboo

Originally posted by Taboo
they would still have to go through Capitalism and capitalism turned out to be a much longer development process then what socialist thought in their time. So... time
Originally posted by gram
They did. The NEP was temporary retreat to capitalism. Lenin called it "One Step backwards to make two step forward". And through Comintern they did their best to world wide proletarian revolutions ...
Did they ever acheive socialism after the NEP?

Well no - reasons given before in this post.

Originally posted by Taboo
They did do good in creating Leninist coups (which had much more favorable governments than what would have been throughout).

Atlast we have arrived exactly what I had been waiting for. No other "Leninist Coup" happened after 1917 - a tragedy really.

Originally posted by Taboo

Helping Spain was good.

Well they did. What other options did they had ? But the help did had a price.

[email protected]

g.ram
I would suggest you read 3rd International after Lenin by Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm) for a detailed critic of Comintern's policies in various states. Sounds good, I will when it comes up (and after I'm done with my current books).

I hope you get there as soon as possible :).