THE LENIN WAX MUSEUM

[redstar2000]

It is becoming rarer for people at Che-Lives to confront Leninism "face-to-face", so to speak. Many of the Leninists who used to post here have "moved upwards" (as they claim) to the International Socialist Front Forums. Even the ones that remain exhibit a marked timidity...they post in threads where their Leninism is not in question or, if they do attempt to defend their politics, they do so only briefly and then return to the ISF forums and complain bitterly about the poor reception for their views here.

As a public service, therefore, I have taken it upon myself to reproduce some of the more "sparkling" examples of the sort of cadaverous politics that goes on over there. Keep in mind that this thread is not about personalities...it's about the attempt to make the dead rise and talk again, as if it were still 1920 or 1930 or 1940.

Think of it as costume drama, the re-enactment of a once glorious but ultimately catastrophic era in working class history.

The Shape of Post-Capitalist Society

You do not need to instill fear to ensure homogeneity. Homogeneity arises through people having equal socialisation and material conditions. It is not an exact science; I am not talking about every individual wanting to have breakfast at the same time, but that everyone will work for the good of the whole of society, will adhere to social and moral guidelines and conventions, and have a feeling of duty and patriotic pride towards their society. -- Posted July 3, 2003, Death Match forum, "Marxism-Leninism" thread, page 1.

I have drastically changed my political opinion this year. I guess I'm at the point of my life where I start changing politically (I seem to be getting more and more authoritarian all the time, not that that's a bad thing). -- Posted July 6, 2003, etc.

Leninism has not been practised in a developed country, I do not know how to work it precisely either. But his ideas protect working class power and therefore to a large extent are essential. As I said I don't think there will be any chance of revolution without massive social change or some kind of coup, although that is hard to imagine that simply a coup would work. -- Posted July 6, 2003, etc.

A citizen with a bourgeois mind will never understand the beauty of communism. If they canot be re-educated then they simply will never understand. Unfortunately they must be executed. It is for the good of humanity. If this line is not taken, then all of our work will be in vain. You also must remember that this stage is only temporary. Once the bourgeois mentality is finally eliminated, there will be no need for executions. It may be primative, but it is correct and necessary. -- Posted July 10, 2003, etc.

I believe the Chairman and I see eye to eye on this one. What you must now understand is that no one expects everyone to be able to execute a subversionist. You obviously cannot and that is not a bad trait at all. As a matter of fact it is a very admirable, however you must be silent about it. Not agreeing with executions is hardly a counter-revolutionary ideal as long as you understand they are necessary and are willing to support the party by being quiet. -- Posted July 10, 2003, etc.

Compulsory Military Service

Any member of a particular nation should be willing to defend their country if under attack. -- Posted April 28, 2003, Death Match forum, "Conscription and Mandatory Military Service Terms" thread, page 1.

I believe that military service has positive effects on the social education of one as Enver Hoxha pointed out and thus 1 year military service as a basis for everyone capable. -- Posted April 28, 2003, etc.

. I also believe in a mandatory military service, whether on the front or behind the lines, for all male citizens (1-2 years). -- Posted May 1, 2003, etc.

. I also believe in a mandatory military service, whether on the front or behind the lines, for all male citizens (1-2 years). -- Posted May 4, 2003, etc.

True marxism places too much responsibility into the hands of the people. --Posted June 18, 2003, etc., page 2.

Leninism = Marxism

The authoritarian government is as much a part of Marxism as communism is the end of it. -- Posted April 18, 2003 in the Politics & Economics Forum, "To all the Authoritarian Marxists" thread, page 1.

I am against the death penalty because I believe that forcing these people to work for the rest of their lives is far more productive than wasting resources killing them. -- Posted April 20, 2003, etc.

If I recall correctly; rivers in the Soviet Union were created simply by the prison working force alone. Then again, there are pleanty of people that I think deserve a bullet to the brain. -- Posted April 20, 2003, etc.

I have actually grown to respect Authoritarians. When I first visited this board I was a little more closed minded, but I've learned to comprehend and understand the other side (or the same side with different views). -- Posted May 6, 2003, etc.

They did a lot of unusual methods of re-learning. For one person they hung ping-pong balls from them and slapped their cheeks with the little red book until their cheeks bled. -- Posted May 11, 2003, etc., page 2.

We can only hope that once the PRC becomes economically stable and powerful that it will turn aside from revisionism. The PLA remains loyal. -- Posted May 15, 2003, etc.

We respect and praise only the proletarian leader and execute only the reactionaries who stand in the way of the progression of humanity. -- Posted May 20, 2003, etc.

The existence of the notion of "libertarian marxist" force true Marxists to call themselves "authoritarian" in order to distinguish themselves from such revisionists. But when "libertarian marxism" will suffer a great defeat in the ideological battle with TRUE MARXISM, the term "authoritarian" will never be in use. -- Posted May 23, 2003, etc., page 3.

...if you destructively criticize Marxism - Leninism, then be sure you will be OPPRESSED BY THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT. -- Posted May 23, 2003, etc.

Lenin developed Marx's theory by making it conform to the reality of IMPERIALISM (as you know Marx didn't live during IMPERIALISM), also Lenin developed the theory of SOCIALISTIC REVOLUTION. Proceeding from IMPERIALISTIC REALITY of his time Lenin made the conclusion that SOCIALISM can take a decisive victory in one country, and this country not necessarily needs to be DEVELOPED, but it has to be the 'weak link' in the imperialistic chain. From the said above each intelligent person can conclude that Lenin creatively developed Marxism, and that is why we should call such a developed theory MARXISM- LENINISM. -- Posted May 23, 2003, etc.

You don’t recognize Lenin’s contribution to the Marxist theory and that is why there is a possibility of you becoming revisionist. You wouldn’t intentionally revise revolutionary theory, but you would probably make some serious mistakes in the result of your disrespect which you show regarding Leninist theoretical addition to Marxism. Such disrespect is potential revisionism. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

Constructive criticism is based on Marxism – Leninism, in other words it doesn’t contradict to the communist ideology. In contrary, destructive criticism always deform or revise Marxism – Leninism under the veil of development of the revolutionary theory. As long as you criticize the party’s policy constructively your name will not be placed on the blacklist. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

... it should be pretty clear that Lenin developed Marx’s theory, and therefore Leninism = Marxism. Soviet theoreticians defined Leninism as Marxism of the period of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Thus, by denying Leninism you deny Marxism. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

Marxist.org is not created by communists. That site is the shame of Marxism; too much bullshit is over there. Obviously it doesn’t deserve to possess such an address. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

Lenin was Marxist and it is very silly to call his theory different to Marx’s one. It is also very harmful to make such distinction. Modern Marxism is Marxism – Leninism. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

... there can’t be 2 or 3 Marxist parties in one country, as there is usually 1 genuine communist party and the rest are the parties formed of traitors. -- Posted May 24, 2003, etc., page 4.

You leave the channels open for a long debate and you're allowing the sabotage of the moment and a procces that will lead to nowhere and ultimately will give the power back to the rulling class. -- Posted May 30, 2003, etc.

Giving one party such power can be bad, choose your leader carefully. -- Posted June 21, 2003, etc., page 5.

I doubt that any socialist leader would suddenly become corrupted as socialist leaders have a tendency to be intellectually evolved to a higher level than the masses. -- Posted June 21, 2003, etc.


Of course, this is very far from a complete sample, but you get the idea. I suspect Lenin himself would be a little embarrassed by this vulgarity; he was a communist, after all, if not a very good one.

The combination of ruthless (and random) brutality, the mindless repetition of formulas without understanding, the "ideal" of communism degraded to the level of an ants' nest...this is all that's left of the Leninist paradigm.

But such is often the fate of dead revolutionaries; it's not just their statues that get shit upon by pigeons.

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:52 am on July 10, 2003)

[Just Joe]

It amazes me how Leninists call themselves Marxist but then swap one key component of Marxism; materialism, for the exact opposite; dogma.

Lenins take on Marx was Materialist AT THE TIME. Almost 100 years ago! Although I personally think Lenin to be very dogmatic on what Marx said, leading me to understand why so many followers of Lenin tend to be dogmatic people.

Dragging up a failed and out of date ideology does no-one any favours really, does it?

The Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Poland, Ethiopia, Congo, the list goes on. How many more times does 'The Vanguard' have to fuck things up before Leninists realise the idea of a tiny percentage of the population ruling with the peoples best interests at heart is absolute bollocks?

[Sandanista]

No that isn't leninism, thats stalinism, remember lenin's the state and revolution???

The 1917 revolution was a workers revolution, a socialist revolution, the soviets were set up to provide for what people needed, but stalins influence crept in eventually leading him and his beaureucratic little sect to dismantle everything that had been done.

Leninists (ahem) dont take a dogmatic, deterministic point of view as they see that its the state that needs to be smashed, that it wont crumble on its own, the working class must rise up in revolution, not small groups of them fightin an individualist elitist coup, but the workers mass movement. only then can socialism be acheived, this we can see is a materialist point of view, due to the fact that if we use the paris commune as an example, the communards didnt smash the french state, this also highlights the failings of the anarchro syndicalist system, they mearly tried to set up an autonomous region within the french state.

Another example is in the 1920s in northern italy, the italian state wasnt smashed, therefore leavin the soviets doomed to failure.

It is true to say that in russia the state wasnt completely dismantled, but in trotskys the permanent revolution, he argued that russia wasnt developed enough to hold soviets so russia, like the rest of the developing world had to go through a stage where there was mass industrialisation, then the soviets will be complete. had trotsky assumed power we would maybe be lookin at a different world.

the fact of the matter is, people look at what stalin did and not what the russian workers could have acheived.

[truthaddict11]

most at ISF dont consider themselves stalinists but marxist-leninists
and there views reflect that

[canikickit]

Thanks for a good laugh, Redstar. What's even funnier, is that I've seen some of the people you, no doubt, quoted call others "dogmatic".

These two are particularily amusing:


... it should be pretty clear that Lenin developed Marx’s theory, and therefore Leninism = Marxism. Soviet theoreticians defined Leninism as Marxism of the period of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Thus, by denying Leninism you deny Marxism.


Lenin was Marxist and it is very silly to call his theory different to Marx’s one. It is also very harmful to make such distinction. Modern Marxism is Marxism – Leninism.

[redstar2000]

No, that isn't leninism, that's stalinism...

Not according to them. In fact, I ran across more than one ISF post that said explicitly that "there's no such thing as Stalinism"...on the grounds that Lenin "developed" Marxist theory while Stalin only "implemented" it and made no original contributions of his own.

...remember Lenin's The State and Revolution???

I do indeed; every young Leninist is given this text to read. The outstanding fact about this book is that it was written in the summer of 1917, before the Bolshevik coup in October. Basically, Lenin copied every scrap of Marx and Engels that he could locate that discussed post-capitalist society. In this text, the proletarian "state" begins to wither away almost immediately after the revolution, real working class power is vested in the Soviets, and the "vanguard party" hardly rates a mention.

It is quite possible that Lenin was utterly sincere in this work; that is, he could very well have honestly believed that when the working class took power, the work of his dedicated vanguard of "professional revolutionaries" was essentially at an end, their task finished. For all I know, he might even have looked forward to retirement.

What young Leninists are rarely encouraged to read is the Lenin of 1918-1921...because it's "not pretty". Those who are hyper-critical of Stalin or Trotsky don't realize that Lenin, in a more limited way, advocated and implemented the same things after the revolution.

The other text that young Leninists are encouraged to read is What is to be Done?, written 17 years or so prior to the October coup. It is, if read very carefully, a far more accurate forecast of what Lenin would actually do than State and Revolution.

... if we use the paris commune as an example, the communards didnt smash the french state, this also highlights the failings of the anarchro syndicalist system, they mearly tried to set up an autonomous region within the french state.

Well, no, the communards did establish a new "state", although it was a very weak one. It can be argued (and was by Marx and Engels) that the communards should have attacked Versailles at once (where the bourgeoisie were attempting to set up their own new state). But perhaps the presence of the Imperial German Army a day's march from Paris generated an overly-defensive attitude on the part of the communards.

This is a good place to mention, by the way, a piece of information that I came across not too long ago. It seems that the working class in the Marxist sense--employees who lived by selling their labor power to an employer--were in a distinct minority in the Paris Commune; most of the people directly involved were independent craftsmen who owned their own tiny manufacturing shops. I don't have complete confirmation of this detail yet, but it would explain why the Paris Commune was not more radical than it was.

There were no "anarcho-syndicalists" in Paris in 1871, of course, though there were almost certainly people there who were "proto-syndicalists"...ancestors to 20th century anarcho-syndicalism.

...had Trotsky assumed power we would maybe be looking at a different world.

Of course, but not much different. Here is a quote from Trotsky himself (furnished to me by som)...

"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Both Lenin and Stalin were present (the 10th Party Congress, March 1921)...and both applauded.

Draw your own conclusions.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:14 pm on July 10, 2003)

[Sensitive]

LOL, redstar2000, if your posts that advocate a kind of "anarcho-Marxist" revolution actually threatened my Marxist-Leninism, then I would debate you on the topic. However, like it or not, I simply do not view you as a threat. But to say that we Leninists here at Che-Lives "are hiding" is just silly, and that is the only reason I am actually replying to this topic.

I am not hiding. And your views do not threaten mine; therefore I have no reason to debate you (or to further participate in these kinds of topics). It's the same reason that I do not debate the (real) anarchist posters here. I am quite confident that my views on winning the war with the bourgeoisie are correct.

Regarding the accusations of "sectarianism": well that is a "crime" that we are all guilty of. This forum is full of various rival anti-capitalist ideological sects (anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-Marxists, and Marxist-Leninists (Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists)). And these sects often debate each other (this topic is a perfect example of the sectarianism at Che-Lives in action).

[Cassius Clay]

Sigh, better than accusing them of not 'confronting Leninism' why don't you go over there and post your arguments against them?

First of all on Trotsky's Speech at the 10th Congress in 1921. To say 'Lenin and Stalin applauded' is a outright LIE.

'...conscious democracy, the method of proletarian democracy in the unions, is the only correct method of industrial unions'. (J.V. Stalin: Works 5; p.10)

Now for those who don't know the 10th Congress in 1921 concentrated heavily on the Trade Unions Dispute. The above is Stalin 'applauding' Trotsky's view. Yeah right.

''Trotsky's outrageous individualism, his open disdain for Bolshevik cadres, his authoritarian style of leadership and his taste for military discipline frightened many Party cadres. They thought that Trotsky could well play the rôle of a Napoléon Bonaparte, effecting a coup d'état and setting up a counter-revolutionary authoritarian régime.''

That's Lenin 'applauding' Trotsky.


Now comrade Redstar also sais that what Lenin wrote between 1918-21 is 'not pretty'. Where he gets this from I don't know. Maybe it's because Lenin pointed out what a dream world people like Redstar are living in if you think that you can get rid of beuracracy overnight and hey presto you have a sudden 'democracy'.


‘To “throw off” an ulcer of this kind is impossible. It can only be healed. Surgery in this case is an absurdity, an impossibility; only a slow cure – all the rest is charlatanry or naïveté…You are naïve, that’s just what it is, excuse my frankness’. (Ibid.)

Lenin advised Sokolov that the struggle against bureaucracy must be pursued

‘…according to the rules of war’. (Ibid.)

This was because, in Lenin’s view at the time

‘The struggle against bureaucracy in a peasant and absolutely exhausted country is a long job, and this struggle must be carried on persistently, without losing heart at the first reverse’. (V. I. Lenin: Vol. 35; p.493; May 16, 1921)

Lenin concluded

‘ “Throw off” the “chief administration”? Nonsense. What would you set up instead? You don’t know. You must not throw them off, but cleanse them, heal them, heal and cleanse them ten times and a hundred times. And not lose heart’. (Ibid.)

People like Redstar are just not in reality when it comes to this. In a country like Tsarist Russia or any country at the time or today for that matter it's impossible overnight to get rid of every element of Capitalism, of beuracracy and to install democracy the day after the revolution. Did Marx and Engels say it was?

Despite this what 'democracy' or even some vauge social progress did your precious 'Anarcho-Syndichats' or what have you install in the Ukraine during this period? What progress did the Anarchists make in the Spanish Civil War? Oh yeah they played football and ended up on the side of the Fascists. Let's talk about who has 'failed' in history. Leninism is far from perfect and no one denies mistakes were made (that's why there's no Socialist state today) and things cant be improved upon. Your criticism/s are just vague rhectoric without coming up with any alternative.

Like Lenin when he wrote State and Revolution you may say all these things about having this great demorcacy overnight free of beuracracy and the like. The reality is that if you have a revolution in the U$A today, then tommorow your going to face the exact same problems as those evil 'Leninists' did in 1917. Then we will see who is proved right. The 'Leninists' did fight against beuracracy and the lack of democracy there was in the USSR. All 'Leninists' admit and any serious person will acknowledge that Soviet Power and Socialist Democracy were just words in the 1920's.

But following Lenin and later Stalin's advise on getting rid of all this and making sure they were no longer words but actually put into practice the USSR became a society where that had eliminated many of the problerms and elements of Captialism and was democratic. I refer you to both Ludo Marten's articles 'In Defence of Stalinism' and 'Another View of Stalin' one of which ironically enough you posted and haven't bothered to refute so far.

Obviously it was far from perfect and mistakes were made, that's why there's no USSR today. We learn from those mistakes and maybe it's helpful that you comrade Redstar have decided to criticise 'Leninism'. But please do it in a constructive way based on what has happened in reality and come up with real alternatives other than pointing to experiements which acheived nothing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

This twat threatens no man. He's a hack with way too much time on his hands and no real practical experience wiht the socialist movement beyond his computer.

You are a hack RS. Give it up.

[canikickit]

I think redstar captured the religious fervor of some of those guys quite well.

Jesus was the son of God, to deny Jesus is to deny God.

[redstar2000]

But to say that we Leninists here at Che-Lives "are hiding" is just silly, and that is the only reason I am actually replying to this topic.

I didn't say you were "hiding", I said you "exhibited a marked timidity".

I am quite confident that my views on winning the war with the bourgeoisie are correct.

Goodie for you. But how is it that you no longer feel the need to argue with ideas that you think are mistaken? I admire your self-confidence and wish I could share it...but I think ideological struggle is important.

So did Lenin.

Regarding the accusations of "sectarianism"...

Looking back through the posts on this thread, I don't see an "accusation" of "sectarianism" directed against Leninism in general. From what I can tell, sectarianism is independent of other political views and can show up pretty much anywhere.

But, since you mention it, it strikes me that opportunism (the subordination and ultimately, the abandonment of communist goals in favor of alliances with the so-called "progressive" bourgeoisie) seems to have been the outstanding characteristic of Leninist parties...especially after the end of World War II. There are some exceptions, of course, but not very many.

People like Redstar are just not in reality when it comes to this. In a country like Tsarist Russia or any country at the time or today for that matter it's impossible overnight to get rid of every element of Capitalism, of bureaucracy and to install democracy the day after the revolution. Did Marx and Engels say it was? (emphasis added)

Well, more or less, yeah...that's the stuff that Lenin copied from Marx and Engels for State and Revolution.

Like Lenin when he wrote State and Revolution you may say all these things about having this great democracy overnight free of bureaucracy and the like.

If not, why bother?

Sometimes, when I'm feeling even more cynical than usual, I wonder if State and Revolution was not simply a "bait and switch" gambit on Lenin's part; promise the working class all these wonderful things and give them the dictatorship of the party over the working class. ("Bait and Switch" is a marketing technique wherein you lure the sucker--"customer"--into your store with the promise of a "great bargain", but when the sucker gets there, the "great bargain" is "termporarily out of stock" yet a high-priced substitute is available.)

The Lenin and Stalin quotes about bureaucracy and Trotsky evade the issue; either one of them could have risen to his feet at the 10th Party Congress and said, flatly, NO. They didn't.

And all the Leninists to this day still share the conviction that the dictatorship of the "vanguard party" is correct.

Wiggle and squirm all you wish--you cannot deny that and remain a Leninist (of any kind).

...and maybe it's helpful that you comrade Redstar have decided to criticise 'Leninism'. But please do it in a constructive way based on what has happened in reality and come up with real alternatives...

Unfortunately, there's no "constructive" way to criticize a really bad idea. The answer is not an "improved" astrology or a "more informed" alchemy...the crap must be removed before any real progress is possible.

The Leninist paradigm is flatly incompatible with Marxism in theory...and in practice has been a catastrophic failure with regard to the central goal: the emancipation of the working class.

My challenge to you self-described "authoritarians" is: why do you want to be boss?

And for everyone else: why should we let them be boss???

:cool:

PS: The trenchant criticism of Comrade RAF is an "inspiration" to us all.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:11 pm on July 11, 2003)

[Severian]

So is that your opinion of how Leninism's worked out in Cuba, too? And why the heck are you posting on forums named after a Leninist, anyway? Are you scared to openly draw the logical conclusions from your "theory" when it comes to those points?

Truth is, Redstar, you're just an example of a pretty widespread phenomenon in the decay of Stalinism. Stalinism never had anything to do with Leninism, ideologically it had a lot more in common with Menshevism/social democracy. For example, the idea, which you've made part of your critique of Leninism, that the bourgeoisie should take power as a result of revolutions in countries that are "not economically ready for socialism".

At a certain point, people like Gorbachev began dropping their false claim to be communist, Leninist, whatever, as it no longer served the interests of the nomenklatura. Today, the representatives of the bureaucracy in most of these countries no longer claim to be communist and are openly trying to integrate themselves as much as they can into the world capitalist system. (Without such great success in many cases, however.)

Well, good. I'm always glad to see people dropping false claims. Didn't make Gorbachev any less of a Stalinist, any less of an apparatchik, though.

And truth is, you haven't lost a bit of your Stalinist/crypto-Stalinist political approach either. You've just dropped your claim to be Leninist, which was always false anyway, even when you belonged to whatever pseudo-Leninist group it was, which you're scared to name. Well, good. I'm pleased that there's one less crypto-Stalinist staining the name of Leninism.

That doesn't mean I want to argue with your crap all the time, though. I've been posting here a relatively short time, and I'm already bored with you. So I can readily believe that other people posting here are bored with you, too.

[Kez]

RS, why do you pish to tarnish the name of leninism with stalinism?? please dont claim that the SU CP was leninist after lenins death, simply a lie and undermines your knowledge.
im sick of your confusement of the 2, since one is international and emphasises on deemocracy, the other being the opposite, please dont post bullshit

[redstar2000]

So is that your opinion of how Leninism's worked out in Cuba, too?

Cuba is interesting, isn't it?

First of all, it was a revolution not made by a Leninist party. The 26th of July Movement was led by Fidel (a lawyer) and Che (a doctor), neither of whom were members of the Communist Party of Cuba. Their platform was agrarian reform, not communism. Their followers were largely peasants, landless laborers or subsistance farmers.

Che was certainly familiar with both Marxism and Leninism and even admired Stalin (yes, that's a matter of public record). So did I when I was young...also a matter of public record if you know where to look.

It seems to me to be pretty obvious that Cuba's revolution went in a Leninist direction because of pressure from U.S. imperialism...otherwise it would have been a rather ordinary bourgeois revolution, a routine changing of the guard. Cuba's alliance with the USSR compelled the adoption of the forms of "socialism" even though there was (and is) no material reality underlying those forms.

Perhaps because the Cubans never really took those forms all that seriously, the characteristics of what Trotskyists call "Stalinism" have always been "muted" in Cuba; e.g., no bloody purges, no gulags, no demands from on high that idiocy be regarded as "revealed truth", etc.

But even Larissa, who lived in Cuba for several years, freely admits that bureaucracy is "a problem" in Cuba...as it must always be in the Leninist paradigm. If the working class does not run things, if a minority of people--however well-meaning--runs things, how is it possible that there can be any other result than a passive working class and a self-important, puffed-up elite? (An elite, by the way, that sooner or later becomes a new capitalist class.)

In my view, the "dead give-away" of the real situation there is that it is not possible to criticize the party from the left in the Cuban media.

Being a real "leftist" (unlike yourself?), I think criticism from the left is always in order.

And why the heck are you posting on forums named after a Leninist, anyway?

Because there are 5,000 people here, most of whom are not Leninists. I wish to explain to them the sound Marxist reasons why they shouldn't be and why they don't have to be.

Not to mention the possibility that there is some 14-year-old here who will turn out to be "the next Che"...only this time, not a Leninist.

That doesn't mean I want to argue with your crap all the time, though. I've been posting here a relatively short time, and I'm already bored with you. So I can readily believe that other people posting here are bored with you, too.

Perhaps you're right; perhaps I do "bore" some people. It's the risk you take when you try to tell people things "they don't want to hear".

But I think it's very revealing that instead of dealing with any of the political points that I made, you chose to indulge yourself in an obscure rant about "crypto-stalinism"--surely a religious concept if there ever was one. I take it to suggest that people can be "stalinist" even when they oppose "stalinism".

I also take it to mean that the fringes of Leninism are very much in "decay"...to come up with nutball suggestions like that.

please dont post bullshit

Never have, never will!

:cool:

[Cassius Clay]

Redstar 'no one wants to be the boss' I will challenge you to quote once where I said I was a 'Authoritarian', you will only find the opposite. Not one of those quotes belongs to me infact.

Now both Lenin and Stalin did say 'NO' to Trotsky at the tenth party congress. If those quotes aren't enough for you then I'm not sure what will be. Anyway here's some more.

'...we knew that no great difference separates the Trotsky of the Tenth Congress period from the Trotsky of today, for now, as then, he advocates shaking up the Leninist cadres'

Stalin in 1924, this was after he pointed out that in 1921 had been following a

'...old semi-bureaucratic and semi-military line'

As an alternative to Trotsky's ideas Stalin proposed.

'...explanation, mass propaganda, encouragement of initiative and independent activity among the masses of the workers, election of officials and so forth'

Lenin also blamed Trotsky for

'...an out-and-out bureaucratic approach'

Finally Stalin pointed out that a

'most vigorous and systematic struggle must be waged against the degeneration of centralism and militarised form of work into bureaucracy, tyranny, officialdom and petty-tutelage over the trade unions'.

If your going to do anything in this thread comrade redstar admit that you are wrong to say that neither Lenin or Stalin didn't oppose Trotsky's plans at the 10th Party Congress. THEY QUITE CLEARLY DID.


When you say 'Why Bother' it's clear you either have ignored what I posted or you just didn't understand. You do comrade redstar have a tendancy to take everything out of context and quote small parts here and there. It doesn't help your argument.

First of all please answer me a question. How do you comrade redstar actually propose of getting rid of all the beuracracy, elements (alot of them) of capitalism and set about building a Demorcratic Socialist society overnight when yesterday the Capitalists were still in power?

Why we bother is because over a short period of time given the circumstances and through hard work and struggle involving the masses of people it is possible to eliminate these things. That's why.


That great Leninist, Lenin himself declared.

''If we want to combat bureaucracy, we must enlist the co-operation of the rank and file … what other way is there of putting an end to bureaucracy than by enlisting the co-operation of the workers and peasants?"

No I don't see any 'wanting to be the boss here'.

Among countless quotes and speeches Stalin made against beuracracy and to encourange real democracy here is one.

"Some comrades think that people can only be checked up on from above, when the leaders check up on subordinates, on the results of their work. This is not true. Check-up from above is necessary, of course, as one of the effective measures for verifying people and checking up the fulfilment of tasks. But verification from above does not exhaust by far the whole business of verification. There is still another kind of verification, the check-up from below, in which the masses, the subordinates, verify the leaders, point out their mistakes, and show the way of correcting them. This kind of verification is one of the most effective methods of checking up on people. The rank-and-file members verify their leaders at meetings of active Party workers, at conferences and congresses, by listening to their reports, by criticising defects, and finally by electing or not electing some or other leading comrades to the leading Party organs. Precise operation of democratic centralism in the Party as demanded by our Party statutes, unconditional electiveness of Party organs, the right to put forward and to withdraw candidates, the secret ballot and freedom of criticism and self-criticism -- all these and similar measures must be carried into life, in order to facilitate the check-up on, and control over, the leaders of the Party by the rank-and-file Party members.

The non-party masses check their economic, trade union and other leaders at meetings of non-party active workers, at all kinds of mass conferences, where they hear reports of their leaders, criticise defects and indicate ways or correcting them. Finally, the people check leaders of the country during the elections to the Soviet Union organs of power, through universal, equal, direct and secret ballot.

The task is to link up the check from above with that from below." (J. V. STALIN, MASTERING BOLSHEVISM, WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS, New York City, 1937)

And ther are also countless examples of this being put into practice. First though I'm going to point out that Lenin actually shared many of the same criticisms of the Soviet State that you have, he knew and as I pointed out eariler every Leninist accepts that Soviet power in the 1920's was just a word.

‘…a workers state with bureaucratic distortions’. (See Lenin, Vol. 32; p.48)

However, after the revolution increasing numbers of workers were promoted into the administration. But, the question of who was directing who was still of concern to Lenin and this led him to remark that

‘If we take Moscow with its 4, 700 communists in responsible positions, and if we take the huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom.’ (See Lenin, Vol. 33; pp. 288-289)


Anyway now we'll see whether this 'Leninist nightmare' where the 'party is commadning the working class' and we 'just want to be bosses' was actually put into practice. Let's ask people who were actually there.


The Webs describe the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection thus: "Under the system of "workers’ and peasants’ inspection" every office was periodically visited, sometimes without notice, by a sort of jury, drawn from the common people, who insisted on having demonstrated to them the practical utility of every piece of "red tape". Stalin, who was placed at the head at the head of what became an extensive organisation extending all over the USSR, fortified these indiscriminate juries of inspection by a staff of officials trained in administrative routine, who tactfully directed the juryman’s eyes to matters needing reform and put into useful shape the jury’s criticism and suggestions." The Webbs point out that the WPI worked in conjunction with the "chistka", or cleansing, process to which all public departments were subjected occasionally. The Webbs a Mr. Calvin B. Hoover, descibing these chistkas: "When hearings are held before the cleaning commission, all the workesr of the industry are invited and expected to be present. As a matter of fact, anyone can be present, and anyone can ask questions of the person who is being ‘cleaned’. The process is not a pleasant one for the person ‘at the bar’, for every possible criticism that can be raked up is usually fired at his unlucky head. Every questionable act that he may have done, any indiscreet conversation, any part of his private life may be hauled out into the pitiless light of publicity. The janitor may accuse the director of having a bourgeois taste in neckties or of not providing proper safeguards for workmen in dangerous occupations. The ancestry of the victim is particularly examined into, and happy is he who can answer that his mother ‘came from the wooden plough’ and his father ‘came from the loom’, and thrice damned is he whose ancestry includes either kulak, bourgeois or landlord… Nevertheless, this institution gives a sense of power even to the individual workman. And it does serve to lessen any tendency on the part of the administrative personnel to be tyrannical in any special personal cases, lest the victim attain his revenge at the next chistka."

The Webbs also cite Ms Barbara Wootton, writing in 1934, on the WPI: "Undoubtedly the price of this meddlesome interference of the rank and file into affairs of which they must, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, understand nothing at all, is a considerable sacrifice of efficiency. But, even at that price, it may be argues that the safeguard which this affords against the odious vulgarities of class distinctions is well worth having. For those who are accustomed by the nature of their work to give commands, or are divorced from the crude physical realities of farm and mine and factory, what can be more salutary than some such direct personal reminder that they are no better than their fellows? The official intrusion of those who perform the smiplest, the dirtiest or the most tedious jobs into the secret places of those whose work is skilled, responsible and interesting (and paid for as such) provides a means of contact between the one group and the other that might never be established in any other way; and it makes at the same time a magnificent assertion that none shall judge the one superior to the other.''

Then there's this example provided by the western historian Thurston.

"In September 1936 the worker M. A. Panov wrote an angry letter to I. P. Rumiantsev, then first secretary of Smolensk oblast. Panov had been "without a party card" for two years and had lately been out of work, too. After complaining to the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, he had learned that his case had been referred to by Rumiantsev. Ten days had gone by, but "you are still fooling around," Panov wrote to this local chieftain; "it’s time to end this red tape and get down to work." Declaring, "You speak beautifully, but in fact it must be said that that’s hot air", the worker announced that he would give Rumiantsev three days to act or he would complain to the party Central Committee. He was sure to add that he was not an "opportunist, Trotskyite or Zinovievite, but one of our own". Panov, like many other workers, thought that he had a right to criticise a high party official, then a member of the Central Committee, and to demand attention from him. Stalin had said, "Listen to the voice of the people," and his regime favoured such positive elements in the system, for they encouraged productivity, satisfaction, and commitment to the state".

There's countless more such examples in Ludo Marten's article, but I wont quote all of them since you know they are there. Just this from his book 'Another View of Stalin' on the example of elections.


''When the German fascists occupied the Soviet Union, they discovered all the archives of the Party Committee for the Western Region of Smolensk. All the meetings, all the discussions, all the Regional Committee and Central Committee directives, everything was there. The archive contains the proceedings of the electoral meetings that followed the Central Committee meeting of February 1937. It is therefore possible to know how things actually took place, at the local level.

Arch Getty described a number of typical examples of the 1937 elections in the Western Region. For the positions of district committee, thirty-four candidates were first presented for seven positions. There was a discussion of each candidate. Should a candidate wish to withdraw, a vote was made to see if the members accepted. All votes were secret.

Finally, during the May 1937 electoral campaign, for the 54,000 Party base organizations for which we have data, 55 per cent of the directing committees were replaced. In the Leningrad region, 48 per cent of the members of the local committees were replaced.''

Gey I wasn't awre in a 'army' you could replace your officers, let alone a dreaded 'Dictatorship'.

As for Leninism 'failing'. I don't know if you call wiping out illeratcy, smashing sexism and rascism, defeating Fascism, getting rid of religious oppression, having guarrenteed healthcare, education, job and the right to a home and putting a man in space all in the space of 40 years then it 'failed'. True there is no USSR today and to a certain extent it did fail but then again sure did acheive more than your SPanish football playing Fascist colloborators didn't it.

Oh yes and say what you will about comrade redstar but he's not a 'Stalinist'. I do not though that none of you Trots have bothered to refute any of the guys arguements.

See yeah.

[redstar2000]

Cassius, all those quotes about fighting bureaucracy are meaningless without a direct repudiation of Trotsky's central assertion: the dictatorship of the party takes precedence over workers' democracy.

All the speeches in the world criticizing "bureaucracy" don't mean a thing...in fact, even capitalists dislike bureaucracy and make speeches against it all the time. It's like being against stupidity--no one is in favor.

I do not contest the achievements of the USSR, the PRC, etc. That is, the details are of no interest to me. The net result of all the efforts of Leninism has been zero. (Which is the same for us too, of course...except you guys had a much better chance to show what you could do...and didn't.)

Cassius, if you don't like the word "authoritarian", fine. I won't use it with regard to your views. But this is what the party that you belong to said...

The communist party is the monolithic party of the proletariat and not a party of a bloc of elements of different classes. It is based on democratic centralism. Every member must observe unified discipline. The individual is subordinate to the organisation, the minority is subordinate to the majority, the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the entire Party is subordinate to the Central Committee. The highest leading body of the Party is the National Party Congress, and, when it is not in session, the Central Committee elected by it.

Perhaps you can suggest another word besides "authoritarian"...but it would have to mean the same thing.

Why we bother is because over a short period of time given the circumstances and through hard work and struggle involving the masses of people it is possible to eliminate these things. That's why.

The USSR had over 70 years and the PRC over 30 years and the only thing they "eliminated" was any pretense of socialism.

Of course, I maintain, as you know, that material conditions were responsible for those failures, not "evil" Leninists. But that does not let you "off the hook" because 20th century Leninists were opposed in principle to working class democracy.

What you should be ashamed of is that you still are. You still think a special elite of "professional revolutionaries" should run the show...over and even against the will of the working class as a whole.

Trotsky may be too blunt for the tastes of most Leninists...but I think he simply told the truth; at least that's how Leninism has functioned in practice, both when they've held state power and internally, within their parties themselves.

Finally, the people check leaders of the country during the elections to the Soviet Union organs of power, through universal, equal, direct and secret ballot.

I wasn't going to bother with any of those long quotations, but this one was too funny to pass up. Yes, the USSR elections were "hotly contested" affairs...sometimes it positively took days of counting and re-counting until the results were known.

Come on, Cassius, get serious.

How do you comrade redstar actually propose of getting rid of all the bureaucracy, elements (a lot of them) of capitalism and set about building a Demorcratic Socialist society overnight when yesterday the Capitalists were still in power?

Actually, Cassius, as I've indicated elsewhere, I suspect the whole idea of a "transition stage" to communism called "socialism" may be a faulty assumption inherited from German Social Democracy in the early 20th century.

It seems much more likely to me that when communist revolutions take place in advanced capitalist countries in this century or the next, there will be a wide variety of "direct democracy" institutions created...the "state" may still exist in some kind of rudimentary form, but will not only not be allowed to gather power into its own hands, but will steadily be restricted and diminished in its functioning.

It is a common--and perhaps deliberate--over-simplification to suggest that things happen "overnight". Nevertheless, it will be understood that a powerful, centralized state--whether it is called "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or some other name--is a diversion from the path to communism and will therefore not be allowed to take place. Whatever transitional measures to be taken will be understood to be transitional...not something to be carved in stone. The imperative will be to manage the transition to communism as quickly as possible. And it will be understood that this means the full and direct participatory rule of the working class and not the rule of a so-called "revolutionary elite".

History offers few guarantees, of course. Counter-revolution is always possible, as is war with one or more imperialist countries. Measures might have to be taken that one would rather not take.

But here the content of your "class consciousness" comes into play. If you are biased towards workers' democracy, you are less likely to take measures that will doom your revolution even if you "win". If you are biased towards rule by a revolutionary elite, you will be drawn towards stifling bureaucracy like flies to shit.

I think it is better to "take the chance" of losing to the capitalist counter-revolutionaries through an "excess" of workers' democracy than it is to "win" through dictatorial measures that ultimately gut your revolution of its communist character.

For what have you gained by defeating counter-revolution if you have made yourselves into counter-revolutionaries?

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

'It is becoming rarer for people at Che-Lives to confront Leninism "face-to-face", so to speak. Many of the Leninists who used to post here have "moved upwards" (as they claim) to the International Socialist Front Forums. Even the ones that remain exhibit a marked timidity...they post in threads where their Leninism is not in question or, if they do attempt to defend their politics, they do so only briefly and then return to the ISF forums and complain bitterly about the poor reception for their views here.'

Have you ever seen me shy away from debate with anyone redstar2000. I will always happily debate with you, you know this. I have however been unable to access this site for a few weeks, otherwise I would have responded earlier.

You know a well as I that individuals such as Cassius, Nateddi, Mazdak, Thursday Night, Comrade Junichi, Comrade RAF, Soviet, El Brujo etc., etc. are all very much intelligent and pleasant individuals, so why are you suggesting they are all ignorant fools?

'They did a lot of unusual methods of re-learning. For one person they hung ping-pong balls from them and slapped their cheeks with the little red book until their cheeks bled.'

This is a quote from me, and actually you know as surely you looked at it in its original context, this was nothing more than a historical description of the GPRC; In a thread where we were criticising and appluading it.
I never said I advocated this kind of practise.

It seems you have had a great affect on one Che-Lives user. The user 'anti-everything' now uses the exact same writing style as you.

[redstar2000]

...so why are you suggesting they are all ignorant fools?

CM, I said right from the beginning that this thread was not about personalities. And I don't believe I have ever used the phrase "ignorant fools" in any post I have ever made on any board.

I never said I advocated this kind of practise.

Granted, you did not say that; however, if you look at that particular thread, I think you'll note that none of the esteemed individuals that you listed, including yourself, took the trouble to criticize such idiotic brutality.

I have no doubt that such techniques of pain and humiliation will suffice to produce the appearance of political conformity...if that's what you want. I also have no doubt whatsoever that whenever a regime engages in such behavior, it dare not stop...because once it appears to falter, everyone who has received such treatment or anything like it will go over to the counter-revolution at once. And I, for one, don't blame them a bit!

If someone has tortured you or threatened to do so, who gives a goddam shit what they call themselves, what color flags they fly, or what they think their "historical role" is?

Torturers should be summarily shot! Those who express the desire to torture "on the grounds that it's justifiable in the interests of the revolution" should likewise be summarily shot!

How's that for "stalinism"?

:cool:

[Vinny Rafarino]

I would like to point out that is is absolutely absured for this hack here to critises any person's views when he himself hold some highly unorthodox views of communism shaped by many years of being a hack in the giuse of a socialist.

I believe one should never trust a man who thinks bonobos are chimps.

It is also not a good idea to patronise individuals that are smarter than you

You do make for quite a laugh Redstar. Reading the absolute babble on your website was the highlight of my day.

Once again, you are simply a [b]hack

[canikickit]

Why don't you reference somethings redstar has said RAF, rather than calling him names?


I would like to point out that is is absolutely absured for this hack here to critises any person's views when he himself hold some highly unorthodox views of communism shaped by many years of being a hack in the giuse of a socialist

That is rather absurd - because he has strange views (according to you) he should not criticise views he thinks are wrong? I'd have to disagree with you there.

I don't know what you mean by a hack, isn't a hack a journalist?

ooh! Unorthodox?! Like what, dismissing the son of God?

I believe you should never care whether someone makes a purely academic mistake on some question of nature. I also strongly suggest you look up "bonobo" in a dictionary. I'll even provide you with a link:

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Type in "bonobo".

Aren't semanitcs fun?! :cheesy:
No!

I also think you should read the quotes Redstar provided in his first post. There's a lot of pure idiocity going on on that site.

"You don’t recognize Lenin’s contribution to the Marxist theory and that is why there is a possibility of you becoming revisionist. You wouldn’t intentionally revise revolutionary theory, but you would probably make some serious mistakes in the result of your disrespect which you show regarding Leninist theoretical addition to Marxism. Such disrespect is potential revisionism. "

Shit like this is just fucking funny. It sounds like the script for a bad 50s film. Religious nonsense.

[Valkyrie]

RS and CAni - I don't even know why you deal with such sheep spouting such hypocritcal cliched rhetoric which they can't even CONFORM to themselves. Hahahha! Does he even have permission to speak here? Who gave him permission? Where are such documents? Is he even allowed to hold an opinion? He's way out of Party-line and breeching on treason acting and speaking here alone. Does the politburo know? What is his rank and file anyway? He must have someone in direct authority over him that he has given his liberties to that we can speak to instead. Someone in the know. Why must we speak with some low level lackey?

HEIL! Comrade RAF, Bring us your glorious leader and heel! Fucking people make me VOMIT!

[redstar2000]

It is also not a good idea to patronise individuals that are smarter than you.

Quite right. And if I ever do, I hope someone will correct me.

Until that happens, however...

:cool: