A Question to Leninists and the Like - ...about the faults o

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In Leninist theory, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the plan is to create an authoritarian, centralized, oligarchal, nationalistic government that will represent the working class and will suppress the bourgeoisie. Now the question, and you probably hear this a lot: won't this quickly create a corruptly operated state capitalistic system where the power is in the hands of the oligarchal government instead of being in the hands of the bourgeoisie as it was previously in capitalism? Will this successfuly free the working class and remove the oppression of a ruling class? It would seem unlikely, wouldn't it? The goal is to place the power in the hands of the proletariat and this does not seem to do the job.

Now, before you shout angrily at me, please know that i am merely trying to understand your theories, not insult them.

[MJM]

Leninists and the like...
What type of crap is this?
Some subspecies of marxists beneath your feet eh.
Although some of the traits you have mentioned came to be in the USSR under Stalin I wouldn't say there was a "plan" concerning the developements of this.

Nationalistic? Lenin said the revolution would fail if it wasn't followed internationally. Guess what, he was right!

Authoritarian? the dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist ideology not a Leninist one. From what I understand Lenin wanted to create a two party system up until some Left Social Revolutionaries started causing shit that would lead to the continuation of WW1.

[elijahcraig]

Leninism is basically the extension of Marxism in the age of imperialism.

Your analysis should have been of Stalinism, not Leninism.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 7:49 am on July 15, 2003
Leninism is basically the extension of Marxism in the age of imperialism.


But leninism contradicts marxism. I'm sure you are aware of that?

[Just Joe]

the plan is to create an authoritarian, centralized, oligarchal, nationalistic government

That isn't the plan, but its what happens. No-one in there right mind apart from extreme right wingers would want an authoritarian, nationalist government. Leninists don't mean to be authoritarians, they just can't help it. Stalinists make no bones about there authoritarianism, but Leninists are just so blinded by the dogma that the end justifies any means. The fact that the end has never even been close to being reached in a Leninist state is lost on them aswell.

The Dictatorship of the Prolateriat broken down basically means democracy. A dictatorship of the majority is basically what democracy is all about. Right now, the people have no real say because the world is ran by money; such is Capitalism. A dictatorship of the prolateriat is nothing more than a democratic government not some sort of one party dictatorship.

Its only human nature that, when you do something, you want to take credit for it. Socialist revolutions are no different. Why the hell should the Bolshevik leadership share there new found political power with the masses? after all, it was they who had given up there lives to lead the revolution, it was surely they who knew best, right? if the people couldn't revolt, what chance had they of leading the world to socialism? you see what I'm getting at, Leninists?

[elijahcraig]

How does Leninism contradict Marxism?

[mentalbunny]

Can we hear from the "stalinists"? I'm afraid I don't know very much about this, but like Just Joe said, no lefty would aim for that kind of government.

[redstar2000]

Authoritarian? the dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist ideology not a Leninist one.

It was Marx who coined that unfortunate phrase, to be sure. What did he mean by it?

As it happened, both he and Engels lived to see the Paris Commune and hailed it as the world's first "dictatorship of the proletariat", even though it not only lacked a "vanguard party" but there were only a handful of Marxists present at all.

Following the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, Lenin and his followers decided that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant the dictatorship of the vanguard party over the proletariat.

That is a Leninist innovation and has nothing in common with Marxism; in fact, it flatly contradicts one of the most famous statements of Marx: "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."

Leninists and the like...What type of crap is this? Some subspecies of marxists beneath your feet eh.

It will probably feel like that to die-hard Leninists in the rest of this century. No disrespect intended, of course, but it's been too long since the trash has been taken out and disposed of.

Leninism is basically the extension of Marxism in the age of imperialism.

Another meaningless phrase, thrown up whenever it can be clearly shown that Lenin contradicted Marx. Frankly, I think the whole hypothesis that there is a "highest" "stage" of capitalism called "imperialism" is probably wrong. It strikes me that imperialism and resultant inter-imperialist wars has been a feature of capitalism since the days of the Italian merchant republics. The scale of such conflicts has increased and decreased...mostly increased, as capitalism itself has grown and spread around the globe.

But has modern capitalism itself changed in such a way as to warrant a "special name"? Does it behave in any way significantly different than it always has?

I think the idea of a "highest stage of capitalism" is another one for the trash bag. If the United States is any example, the "last" stage of capitalism will be one of fascist repression and growing misery for the working class...something already found explicitly or implicitly in Marx.

How does Leninism contradict Marxism?

Many ways. Perhaps the most significant is that fact that Marx put material reality first in all his analyses; Lenin acted "as if" willpower could do anything...such as make proletarian revolutions in overwhelmingly pre-capitalist countries, like Russia.

Lenin was wrong.

:cool:

[elijahcraig]

What would you have suggested to Lenin? That he let the people suffer under the Tsar?

The proletariat wanted to overthrow the Tsar, Lenin didn't force them to.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I just wanted a brief description of leninism in response to my opening statement.

[redstar2000]

What would you have suggested to Lenin? That he let the people suffer under the Tsar?

The proletariat wanted to overthrow the Tsar, Lenin didn't force them to.

We have no way of knowing "what we would have done" had we lived through past events...which is probably a good thing. What we can do is learn from past events. We don't have to and shouldn't repeat Lenin's errors simply because "he was Lenin".

Lenin did what he thought was the right thing to do at the time. What is deplorable is that there are still people who "want to do it again" even though they know or ought to know that it won't work. That is, a centralized, disciplined vanguard party will not result in a communist revolution.

You cannot inspire rebellion by cultivating obedience.

:cool:

[RedComrade]

By the time the October Revolution the Tsar had already been overthrown and replaced with a socialist provisional government. Lenin had absolutely nothing at all to do with the overthrow of the tsar which happened in the February Revolution led by Kerensky and the Mensheviks + Socialist Revolutionaries. The myth that the October Revolution overthrew the tsar has to be one of the biggest historical errors on the part of the average leftist.