Stalin's rise to power

[holly]

I'm writing an essay on Stalin's rise to power and the various interpretations of the reasons he succeeded by historians. We've been given one interpretation which is purely biographical - he got to power only because of his cunning and the weakness of his opponents.

OK, so this is a 'high school' level essay I guess (year 13 in England) so it's just ticking boxes rather than in depth analysis and I have to provide two or three other interpretations as counter-argument. My first is a structuralist point of view: Russian society was at the right place for Stalin to seize power, gradual centralization of power meant Stalin did not have to ‘play the political game’ as such - right place right time.

Being a Socialist I thought it would be interesting to take the stance that the school syllabus gives as the 'Theoretical Socialist Perspective'. But I don't think it's true. According to my history teacher, Socialist historians consider Stalin as a 'necessary stage in the development of Communism'. I definitely don't, and this is partly because I haven't seen any proof that this is true. I tried to research it (books, pamphlets, net) and the only analysis I could find from a Socialist/Commie perspective is Trotsky's, or quotes Trotsky. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have this opinion either, nothing I've read by him claims Stalin was 'necessary'.

What would be a Socialist perspective of the reason Stalin got into power? I'm wondering whether this explanation given to school students is a dumbed-down corruption of dialectics...somehow. I could kind of see it there somewhere. Stalin being the face of the counter-revolutionary force (the beaurocracy) that would appear inevitably after a successful revolution. Can someone explain Stalin's rise to power in a better way than this? Pleeease? :unsure:

Cheers, Holly :)

[bezdomni]

Stalin was elected to the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by a majority of the Central Committee (including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev) more than once.

There are lots of threads on Stalin in this forum already. Do a search and you'll have enough to read for months probably.

Also, don't judge Stalin's line before you even know what it is. I recommend checking out the following link and actually reading some of Stalin's essays and reports:

http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/OTOtc.html

[Lenin II]

Make sure you mention the most famous facts, such as him winning the Party election over Trotsky and then later on having him killed. In general his ideas don't disagree with Lenin's, he was just far more ruthless in implementing them. But it did differ in several places, such as the whole "socialism in one country" thing. But Stalin mostly rose to power due to support from state bureaucrats.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 31, 2007 12:20 pm
Make sure you mention the most famous facts, such as him winning the Party election over Trotsky and then later on having him killed. In general his ideas don't disagree with Lenin's, he was just far more ruthless in implementing them. But it did differ in several places, such as the whole "socialism in one country" thing. But Stalin mostly rose to power due to support from state bureaucrats.
Well said, Comrade.

[Marsella]

I'm writing an essay on Stalin's rise to power and the various interpretations of the reasons he succeeded by historians. We've been given one interpretation which is purely biographical - he got to power only because of his cunning and the weakness of his opponents.

The reason he gained power over his rivals (mainly Trotsky) was as Soviet Pants pointed out his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party (a member of the Politburo) which gave him quite an elite and privileged position.

The position allowed him to fill the Orgburo with allies and to keep a close tab on members of the party.


My first is a structuralist point of view: Russian society was at the right place for Stalin to seize power, gradual centralization of power meant Stalin did not have to ‘play the political game’ as such - right place right time.

Stalin played the political game just like any modern day politician does.

He used Kamanev and Zinoviev against Trotsky and then used Bukharin and Rykov against Zinoviev and Kamenev. Trotsky and Zinoviev were expelled from the party in 1927 during the 15th Party Congress and Kamenev lost his seat on the Central Committee. Stalin then turned against, guess who, Bukharin and Rykov.

The Great Purges did essentially the same thing but applied to the Red Army, the lower echelons of the party and the general population too. Factionalism in the party was banned which allowed no open dissent.

You might also mention the Leninist Cult which Stalin certainly helped initiate and his role in Lenin's funeral.

That same cult of personality exists today.



According to my history teacher, Socialist historians consider Stalin as a 'necessary stage in the development of Communism'. I definitely don't, and this is partly because I haven't seen any proof that this is true. I tried to research it (books, pamphlets, net) and the only analysis I could find from a Socialist/Commie perspective is Trotsky's, or quotes Trotsky. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have this opinion either, nothing I've read by him claims Stalin was 'necessary'.

Stalin was only as necessary as the fact that Russia needed to be industrialised. He accomplished this quite well. But at what cost? I won't go into the details here, check out the other threads on Stalin's 'crimes.'

Now if you want to put a communist spin on things you could question what really caused the rise of Stalin.

That of course is that the October Coup didn't smash the old autocratic state but filled it with members of the Bolshevik party.

Such a party was not bound to any sorts of checks and balances.

Leninists are still baffled today as how to prevent such a re-occurance of a 21st Cenutry Stalin.

They rely on mere faith that in the next revolution the characters will be true of heart and won't succumb to the delights of power and personality worship.

Yeah fucking right.

So, in brief, the success of Stalin was due to the character of the October 'Revolution.' If that 'revolution' truly had put the power in the hands of the working class we would never have had such efficient fuck-ups pop up in the first place.

Material conditions are everything.


In general his ideas don't disagree with Lenin's, he was just far more ruthless in implementing them.

Leninism = the 'gentle' despotism?

If anything, Stalin was more 'socialist' than Lenin; he halted the NEP, introduced the Five Year Plans and started collectivising the farms.

But being more 'socialist' than Lenin is hardly a cry for celebration.

Edit:


Well said, Comrade.

Stop trolling or re-read the guidelines. Merely saying 'I agree' is not sufficient a post.

Arguments are wanted, not one line agreements.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=boardrules

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The position of General Secretary was administrative rather than executive.

ALL of the Bolsheviks (which included anarchist members) were attempting to facilitate the rule of the working class off of the back of the Civil War (which Martov rather conveniently forgets to mention).

Since "Leninists" are actually able to win civil wars (rather than belatedly organize armies ,with commanders and all, like the dim-witted anarchists did in Spain) they faced the aftermath not with forming a bourgeois government (as the dim-witted Spanish anarchists did) but attempting to get some degree of normality going as the civil war had resulted in the Russian working class being demolished. Lenin actually says as much. He says the Russian working class has, as a result of the civil war, been 'de-classed'.

Before believing either the Maoists or the anarchists, who do their best to reject reality, think about the awful situation the revolution found it self in, and the awful results of Stalin aren't to surprising.

Of course, maybe increasing exploitation and millions of deaths is "actually existing socialism" or perhaps it's a fault of organization and too much hierarchy (though the anarchists in Spain didn't seem to think so, as they did things in a more hierarchical way.)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Leninists are still baffled today as how to prevent such a re-occurance of a 21st Cenutry Stalin.

They rely on mere faith that in the next revolution the characters will be true of heart and won't succumb to the delights of power and personality worship.
You clearly present your ignorance to this subject with that ^^ post.

There are measures to be taken in that regard-- ex. remove them before they can take power-- yes there were definitely certain characteristics in regards to Stalin which made him useful but not at the cost of everything which was lost as a result of his excessive eliminations of party members.


Leninism = the 'gentle' despotism?

If anything, Stalin was more 'socialist' than Lenin; he halted the NEP, introduced the Five Year Plans and started collectivising the farms.

But being more 'socialist' than Lenin is hardly a cry for celebration.[/b]
Stalin didn't need credit for the actions he took in that regard-- yes some of his ideas were not entirely bad but the way he went about implementing them by far outwayed the good in that regard. Stalin eliminated threats in excess amounts-- which were only threats to himself and the bureaucracy in power. At least Lenin acted in the interest of the working-class instead of in his own personal interests-- he acted out of necessity. By no means did Stalin lead to the accomplishment of anything comparable to when Lenin was in power.


Edit:


Well said, Comrade.

Stop trolling or re-read the guidelines. Merely saying 'I agree' is not sufficient a post.

Arguments are wanted, not one line agreements.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=boardrules
Your posts aren't always more sufficient than mine-- I could use many examples regards to this but out of decency I will restrain myself.



The position of General Secretary was administrative rather than executive.

ALL of the Bolsheviks (which included anarchist members) were attempting to facilitate the rule of the working class off of the back of the Civil War (which Martov rather conveniently forgets to mention).

Since "Leninists" are actually able to win civil wars (rather than belatedly organize armies ,with commanders and all, like the dim-witted anarchists did in Spain) they faced the aftermath not with forming a bourgeois government (as the dim-witted Spanish anarchists did) but attempting to get some degree of normality going as the civil war had resulted in the Russian working class being demolished. Lenin actually says as much. He says the Prussian working class has, as a result of the civil war, been 'de-classed'.

Before believing either the Maoists or the anarchists, who do their best to reject reality, think about the awful situation the revolution found it self in, and the awful results of Stalin aren't to surprising.

Of course, maybe increasing exploitation and millions of deaths is "actually existing socialism" or perhaps it's a fault of organization and too much hierarchy (though the anarchists in Spain didn't seem to think so, as they did things in a more hierarchical way.)
Yes, this is quite an important point to bring up.
In regards to what you mentioned above ^ the conditions existent following the civil war allowed for many difficulties to come about-- and in that regard, yes, certain measures needed to be taken-- however, though the conditions existent allowed for the bureaucracy to gain power-- the actions taken by the bureaucractic powers for the mostpart were unnecessary-- at least in regard to the excessive amount of eliminations which occured during the time Stalin was in power. I acknowledge that certain conditions allowed for this-- but there was still no need for the amount of eliminations which occured-- and I don't necessarily think that the such defines socialism as being existent but that it resulted from the conditions which formed as a result of the civil war.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:55 am
The position of General Secretary was administrative rather than executive.
I'm looking at this from an organizational/institutional perspective, since Lenin himself regarded organization as a separate question (I'm not sure if those are the exact words, so no quotation marks are used). While the statement above is correct, Martov mentioned the Orgburo. [At that time, the Secretariat was composed of the senior members of the Orgburo.] Such "administration" allowed "Comrade Card-Index" to keep tabs on who was where on assignments, and eventually develop a "neo-patrimonial" system.

Here's another organizational/institutional perspective (mostly likely from a bourgeois historian, but an atypical one):

The Origins of the Stalinist Political System (http://books.google.com/books?id=dV_Gufwx31UC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=%22maly+sovnarkom%22&source=web&ots=A4dVa8Fna4&sig=LjWFS5nQM6e5ZrjVAnBusgVNuM8#PPA56,M1)

Pay particular attention to p. 55 for that different organizational/institutional perspective: the ever-changing relationship between the party and the state. I emphasized this in an earlier thread on the post-Stalin "Partyocracy" that became permanent. Also, Note 197 on p. 357:


The concentration of [Lenin's] activities in Sovnarkom may have left him somewhat out of touch with political realities in the party. It was not until his active political life had ended that he recognized that the course of development the party was following portended grave problems for the future... He also confessed to being unaware of central aspects of the Orgburo and the Secretariat, although this was after illness had removed him from the scene for some time.

Another point: The organizational problem with Lenin's proposal for merging the Central Control Commission with Rabkrin and de-subordinating it from the Central Committee was that, ultimately, it had no administrative organizational autonomy of its own, having to rely on the CC Orgburo for personnel. That allowed Stalin to place his "client" Kuibyshev (and later fellow "client" Ordzhonikidze, when it was becoming more and more clear who was in charge) in charge of the CCC.

Under Stalin's successors, the administrative position was transferred to the "second secretary," (http://www.answers.com/topic/second-secretary) but nobody wanted the turbulence that marked Stalin's and Khrushchev's rise to power.

[Marsella]

You clearly present your ignorance to this subject with that ^^ post.

You know I've read about ten posts of yours claiming that people who reject your opinions are ignorant or 'un-Marxist.'

If they are then it usually stands to 'correct' their 'ignorance' by putting forth an argument.


There are measures to be taken in that regard-- ex. remove them before they can take power-- yes there were definitely certain characteristics in regards to Stalin which made him useful but not at the cost of everything which was lost as a result of his excessive eliminations of party members.

Wow what a fantastic idea! We will prevent the rise of a dictator by removing them if they have 'certain characteristics' (presumably not useful ones).

We will prevent counter-revolution by a character test! 'Yes comrade Stalin, just fill in this short survey so we can test if you will be a megalomaniac.'

How can the whole fate of a country depend on an individuals character?!

Now here's a crazy idea, so forgive me for this moment of insanity, but couldn't we prevent the rise of such power-hungry ****s by making sure that no party takes power i.e. a real working class revolution which puts the working class in power instead of a party?

I mean, if there is no party commanding state power then there is no possibility of a dictator emerging from that party.

But Leninists love the thought of power, so this will probably fall upon deaf ears.

But please, give me another 'method' to prevent such power-hungry dictators arising and I will be glad to hear it.

But at the end of the day you will rely on faith that it won't happen again. China, Vietnam, North Korea, Russia etc. have failed you in that regard.

Keep praying though.


By no means did Stalin lead to the accomplishment of anything comparable to when Lenin was in power.

I give credit where credit is due, and Lenin should be congratulated on setting the foundations for the bureaucracy and the state capitalist system.

And Stalin was in every meaning of the word, Lenin's faithful disciple.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:37 am
You know I've read about ten posts of yours claiming that people who reject your opinions are ignorant or 'un-Marxist.'

If they are then it usually stands to 'correct' their 'ignorance' by putting forth an argument.
My argument is quite valid-- you seem to have difficulty in understanding my argument-- or is it just ignorance??


Wow what a fantastic idea! We will prevent the rise of a dictator by removing them if they have 'certain characteristics' (presumably not useful ones).

We will prevent counter-revolution by a character test! 'Yes comrade Stalin, just fill in this short survey so we can test if you will be a megalomaniac.'

How can the whole fate of a country depend on an individuals character?!

Now here's a crazy idea, so forgive me for this moment of insanity, but couldn't we prevent the rise of such power-hungry ****s by making sure that no party takes power i.e. a real working class revolution which puts the working class in power instead of a party?

I mean, if there is no party commanding state power then there is no possibility of a dictator emerging from that party.
It was not solely because of Stalin, but the bureaucracy's gaining of power sure made an impact-- there were many conditions which led to this apart from Stalin-- I don't deny that the civil war made an impact on this.

However, the conception you have that worker's could just form a state for themselves without no organization of any type of actual "state" is absurd. It cannot happen. The conditions existent following the revolution prevent this from being of value in regards to being implemented. It is utterly impossible. How do you suggest it is ensured that there aren't bourgeois and counterrevolutionary threats within your own "worker's state" then? If "all workers have the same power" how is it to be determined? Not only can state power not be secured but the lack of organization will ultimately do more harm than there be benefit.

Without organization, it is impossible for the movement to have success. There will be counterrevolutionary movement not only from forces outside of your movement but from within it-- making it VERY difficult to combat the such forces because the organization within your state will be so weak in fighting against it and destroying all which pose a threat to its security.


But Leninists love the thought of power, so this will probably fall upon deaf ears.

But please, give me another 'method' to prevent such power-hungry dictators arising and I will be glad to hear it.

But at the end of the day you will rely on faith that it won't happen again. China, Vietnam, North Korea, Russia etc. have failed you in that regard.

Keep praying though.
Praying?? Are you making arguments towards the whole "Leninists are religious beings" thing?? You really are full of ignorance-- not only is that absolute bullshit but it shows your ignorance to what everything which I bring up aside from your opinion which is already derived from your bourgeois conception of "individuals" and "individual character".


I give credit where credit is due, and Lenin should be congratulated on setting the foundations for the bureaucracy and the state capitalist system.

And Stalin was in every meaning of the word, Lenin's faithful disciple.
Lenin did not set up "foundations" for it at all. Was there anything Lenin advocated for which wasn't in the working-class's interests?

I highly doubt that Lenin would have thought it to be necessary to eliminate in such excess-- if he was alive during the time Stalin was in power-- I doubt Lenin would have thought Stalin's actions were in any way called for-- especially when it came down to the eliminations of many comrades.

[Marsella]

It was not solely because of Stalin, but the bureaucracy's gaining of power sure made an impact-- there were many conditions which led to this apart from Stalin-- I don't deny that the civil war made an impact on this.

Have you ever questioned from where this bureaucracy arose? Because shit doesn't just fall from sky you know...

And if anything, Lenin and Co became more authoritative after the civil war and the foreign interventions, during which state power was firmly secured.


However, the conception you have that worker's could just form a state for themselves without no organization of any type of actual "state" is absurd. It cannot happen.

Let's define terms here. A state really is a means of dominance of one class. It doesn't just mean a parliamentarian body: it means the very things which defend the dominant class: the army, the police, the courts etc.

There is a ‘state’ which communists demand. But it is very different from the Leninist notion of a state – which really amounts to a dictatorship of a party.


The conditions existent following the revolution prevent this from being of value in regards to being implemented. It is utterly impossible.

Just because it is unfathomable to you that workers will lead their own lives and make their own decisions does not make it ‘utterly impossible.’

And there is no reason why the building of a communist society cannot begin day one of the revolution. The excuse that we must first go through 'socialism' is just that: an excuse.

But to address your real issue, two words: Paris Commune.

The Commune was not a "state" in the old, repressive sense of the term. The Commune was the first 'dictatorship of the proletariat', meaning it was a state run by workers and in the interests of workers. Not ran by a Party for the interests of the workers.

The Civil War in France:



Of late, the social democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: dictatorship of the proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Engels)

The Commune did not do away with representative government, that is, with the election of those empowered to make and enforce laws. However, under bourgeois democracy representative government means ‘deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in parliament.’

Under the Commune, however, all public officials were not only elected, but were subject to immediate recall by those who had chosen them. In this way:


…universal suffrage was to serve the people…as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. (Marx)


... If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent (Marx)

The other measures of the Paris Commune, Engels describes in the introduction:


On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris "Morality Police." On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped all sales of article pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic."

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers – in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual's conscience" – was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied. On the 5th, day after day, in reply to the shooting of the Commune's fighters captured by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing.

On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme, which had been cast from guns captured by Napoleon after the war of 1809, should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished night work for bakers, and also the workers' registration cards, which since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees – exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit. On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.

Thus, from March 18 onwards the class character of the Paris movement, which had previously been pushed into the background by the fight against the foreign invaders, emerged sharply and clearly. As almost without exception, workers, or recognized representatives of the workers, sat in the Commune, its decision bore a decidedly proletarian character. Either they decreed reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society. In a beleaguered city, however, it was possible at most to make a start in the realization of all these measures.

Now, Marx never criticized the character or the nature of the Paris Commune, as far as I am aware. He did, however, criticise their lack of action in regards to marching on Versailles and the Bank of France:


'The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to put an end with terror to the vaunt of the Versailles people, etc...' (An Afterthought on the Paris Commune, Marx to F.Domela-Nieuwenhuis, 1881)

Now compare this hyper-democratic, indeed a participatory democracy, to that of the Bolshevik system which has been repeated far too many times.


How do you suggest it is ensured that there aren't bourgeois and counterrevolutionary threats within your own "worker's state" then?

You scarcely understand what a worker’s revolution is do you?

It is the act whereby the majority of the working class overthrows their capitalist masters. The ‘state’ to replace such organisations would be workers councils to manage the workplaces and communes to organise the community. But such organisations will be formed according to the conditions in which they are made.

How could bourgeois members infiltrate such working class organisations when that very organisation overthrew the bourgeoisie?!


If "all workers have the same power" how is it to be determined?

Democratically?!


Not only can state power not be secured but the lack of organization will ultimately do more harm than there be benefit.

We don’t want the old state power to be secured!

We want the old state smashed and a new apparatus put in its place. And such an apparatus should be as democratic as possible. Not a parliamentarian body but a real working body. Formed by workers and in their interests.


If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the preliminary condition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent (Marx, letter of Marx's to Kugelmann)

Now the Soviets may be argued to have represented this; at least in their early days. But after the October Coup and the subsequent dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the Bolshevik party emerged as the true puppet master.

No wonder the Kronstadt sailors called for Soviets without Bolsheviks.


Without organization, it is impossible for the movement to have success. There will be counterrevolutionary movement not only from forces outside of your movement but from within it-- making it VERY difficult to combat the such forces because the organization within your state will be so weak in fighting against it and destroying all which pose a threat to its security.

Have I ever argued against a Communist Party’s main job of organisation?

I have argued against the Party taking control of the old state apparatus.


Praying?? Are you making arguments towards the whole "Leninists are religious beings" thing?? You really are full of ignorance-- not only is that absolute bullshit but it shows your ignorance to what everything which I bring up aside from your opinion which is already derived from your bourgeois conception of "individuals" and "individual character".

:lol:

I never though I'd hear the day hearing a Leninist calling me an individualist!

When you avoid being critical of Leninism and rely on faith that the next Bolshevik Party will be sincere of heart, in other words you ignore the history of numerous countries, then yes that is acting religiously.

I could point out yours and numerous other disciples fascination with the character of Lenin, claiming that he was a ‘great man.’ And yes, it is quite unusual to wear a coat that looks likes Lenin’s or wish to visit Lenin’s tomb or have pictures of that philistine.

THAT is an individualist conception.

Communists pay no respect to individuals. I am not concerned with Marx's or Lenin’s character. I judge what they have said and, more importantly, did.

When a rightist attacks my communist convictions I can argue logically and without getting personal (unless of course the character is a clown). When you attempt to argue with Leninists, on the other hand, you are either labelled a Menshevik (!) or anarchist (!), un-Marxist (!) or judged as slanderous.

It isn’t surprising that the attacks turn that way, you identify your personal worth with the ‘solidness’ of Lenin’s arguments.

Your personal worth, therefore, amounts to a puddle of warm piss.


Lenin did not set up "foundations" for it at all.

:lol:

Well, hate to break it to you but he sorta set up the rule of the Bolshevik party. If that doesn’t set up the foundations for a bueracracy then I have lost the plot entirely.


Was there anything Lenin advocated for which wasn't in the working-class's interests?

Perhaps the better question would be: was there anything that Lenin advocated for which was in the working-class’s interests?

And as if we need some sort of advocate to state the case of the working class! This isn’t Law and Order SVU.

The working class are their own advocates.

But let’s look at the dear Bolsheviks ‘War Communism’:
1. Nationalisation of all industries under the control of management (bureaucrats)
2. Striking workers could be shot
3. Complete state control of foreign trade
4. Prodrazvyorstka (compulsory acquisition of surplus produce to feed the Red Army)
5. Private enterprise was decreed illegal (as if capitalism can be outlawed by decree!)

Of course such introductions had severe consequences: Between 1918 and 1920, Petrograd lost 75% of its population, whilst Moscow lost 50%. Inflation destroyed the currency and a system of bartering replaced it. By 1921, heavy industry had fallen to output levels of 20% of those in 1913. 90% of all wages were paid in goods.

It resulted in the Tambov and Kronstadt rebellions.

Tambov rebellion:

Tambov was a huge peasant rebellion which was the result of the Red Army’s ruthless plundering of the region. The amount of grain required by Soviet authorities under Prodrazvyorstka would mean starvation. The Union of Working Peasants, a congress of Tambov rebels, abolished Soviet power and decided to create a Constituent Assembly under equal voting, and to return all land to the peasants.

In October 1920 the peasant army numbered more than 50,000 fighters, joined by numerous deserters from Red Army. The uprising was so great that nearly 100,000 soldiers were sent in, including special Cheka detachments. The Red Army under Tukhachevsky took and executed without trial, civilian hostages.

Tukhachevsky and Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko signed an order, dated June 12 1921, that stated: "The forests where the bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of poison gas. This must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the forests and kills everyone hiding there." Chemical weapons were used "from end of June 1921 until apparently the fall of 1921", by direct order from leadership of Red Army and Communist party

Total losses among the population of Tambov region in 1920-1922 resulting from the war, executions, and imprisonment in concentration camps were estimated as at least 240,000.

Seven Concentration camps were set up. At least 50,000 people were interned, mostly women, children, and elderly, some of them were sent there as hostages.

If such a thing occurred under the Tsar the Bolsheviks would have shouted foul play and written extensive polemics.

Blind hypocrisy.

The Krondstat rebellion:

Demands:

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

The Petrograd workers were under martial law and could offer little support to Kronstadt. The rebellion was crushed with some 60,000 troops. Thousands of rebels died, thousands more imprisoned and even more fled.

The day after the surrender of Kronstadt, the Bolsheviks celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Paris Commune.

How ironic is that!

And of course the New Economic Policy which essentially aimed at restoring the pre-civil war capitalist levels. Former owners were invited back to manage factories, worker's councils were likewise attacked.

By mid-1918 the Soviets, the so called heart of working class power had become little more than a ceremonial bodies that met only to ratify Bolshevik decrees. In March of 1921, the trade unions were rendered powerless by the 10th Party Congress.


I highly doubt that Lenin would have thought it to be necessary to eliminate in such excess-- if he was alive during the time Stalin was in power-- I doubt Lenin would have thought Stalin's actions were in any way called for-- especially when it came down to the eliminations of many comrades.


If anything Lenin was just as ruthless against workers and peasant rebellions.

Stalin eliminated personal enemies.

Lenin eliminated state enemies.

And I suggest you read Questions on Leninism or the Foundations of Leninism (written by Stalin) to see how close Stalin’s ideas and practices mirrored that of Lenin’s. I will quote some of my favourite parts:


. . . because, in the first place, it is the rallying centre of the finest elements in the working class, who have direct connections with the non- Party organizations of the proletariat and very frequently lead them; because, secondly, the Party, as the rallying centre of the finest members of the working class, is the best school for training leaders of the working class (!) , capable of directing every form of organization of their class; because, thirdly, the Party, as the best school for training leaders of the working class, is, by reason of its experience and prestige, the only organization capable of centralizing the leadership of the struggle of the proletariat, thus transforming each and every non-Party organization of the working class into an auxiliary body and transmission belt linking the Party with the class.


The Party is the main guiding force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Stain)


The Party is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. (Lenin.)


Without the Party as the main guiding force, it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be at all durable and firm.


Thus, in the words of Lenin, "taken as a whole, we have a formally non-Communist, flexible and relatively wide, and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked with the class and with the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the dictatorship of the class is exercised."


Of course, this must not be understood in the sense that the Party can or should take the place of the trade unions, the Soviets, and the other mass organizations. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it exercises it not directly, but with the help of the trade unions, and through the Soviets and their ramifications. Without these "transmission belts," it would be impossible for the dictatorship to be at all firm.


Not a single important decision is arrived at by the mass organizations of the proletariat without guiding directives from the Party. That is perfectly true. But does that mean that the dictatorship of the proletariat consists entirely of the guiding directives given by the Party? Does that mean that, in view of this, the guiding directives of the Party can be identified with the dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not. The dictatorship of the proletariat consists of the guiding directives of the Party plus the carrying out of these directives by the mass organizations of the proletariat, plus their fulfilment by the population. Here, as you see, we have to deal with a whole series of transitions and intermediary steps which are by no means unimportant elements of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence, between the guiding directives of the Party and their fulfilment lie the will and actions of those who are led, the will and actions of the class, its willingness (or unwillingness) to support such directives, its ability (or inability) to carry out these directives, its ability (or inability) to carry them out in strict accordance with the demands of the situation It scarcely needs proof that the Party, having taken the leadership into its hands, cannot but reckon with the will, the condition, the level of political consciousness of those who are led, cannot leave out of account the will, the condition, and level of political consciousness of its class.

Fourthly. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. "The Party is the direct governing vanguard of the proletariat; it is the leader." (Lenin) In this sense the Party takes power, the Party governs the country. But this must not be understood in the sense that the Party exercises the dictator-ship of the proletariat separately from the state power, without the state power; that the Party governs the country separately from the Soviets, not through the Soviets. This does not mean that the Party can be identified with the Soviets, with the state power. The Party is the core of this power, but it is not and cannot be identified with the state power.

"Victory over capitalism requires the correct correlation between the leading, Communist, Party, the revolutionary class -- the proletariat -- and the masses, i.e., the working people and exploited as a whole. Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it contains all the best representatives of that class, if it consists of fully class-conscious and devoted Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of stubborn revolutionary struggle, if this Party has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its classand, through it, with the whole mass of exploited, and if it has succeeded in inspiring the complete confidence of this class and this mass -- only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in the most ruthless, resolute and final struggle against all the forces of capitalism. On the other hand, only under the leadership of such a party can the proletariat develop the full might of its revolutionary onslaught and nullify the inevitable apathy and, partly, resistance of the small minority of the labour aristocracy corrupted by capitalism, and of the old trade-union and co-operative leaders, etc. -- only then will it be able to display its full strength, which, owing to the very economic structure of capitalist society, is immeasurably greater than the proportion of the population it constitutes."

Lenin:
‘When we are reproached with the dictatorship of one party, and when, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: 'Yes, the dictatorship of one party! We stand by it, and cannot depart from it; for it is that Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat.'"

Hurts to find out that Stalin was the natural response to the great leader Lenin, doesn't it?

[Lenin II]

Leninism = the 'gentle' despotism? If anything, Stalin was more 'socialist' than Lenin; he halted the NEP, introduced the Five Year Plans and started collectivising the farms. But being more 'socialist' than Lenin is hardly a cry for celebration.

There is nothing "socialist" about murdering those who don't meet their work quotas. By your logic, Pol Pot was also more "socialist" by collectivizing, torturing and imprisoning. This reminds me of the arguement put forward by the Museum of Communism website that the "Khmer Rouge earned the special distinction of being the one Communist movement in history to actually attempt the full and consistent implementation of the ideals of Karl Marx."

Such a regime is not at all the logical conclusion of the Marxist, Leninist or Maoist philosophies. This is complete bollocks. In fact, a regime exhibiting such characteristics is the beginning of the end for communism in their country. The killing fields are not a monument to the goals of our idealogy.

[Marsella]

There is nothing "socialist" about murdering those who don't meet their work quotas. By your logic, Pol Pot was also more "socialist" by collectivizing, torturing and imprisoning. This reminds me of the arguement put forward by the Museum of Communism website that the "Khmer Rouge earned the special distinction of being the one Communist movement in history to actually attempt the full and consistent implementation of the ideals of Karl Marx."

I think you have misunderstood what I argued entirely.

Needless to say I don't think there is anything 'socialist' about murdering people who fail work quotas!


Such a regime is not at all the logical conclusion of the Marxist, Leninist or Maoist philosophies. This is complete bollocks.

Mere conjecture.

The centralization of power has consistently been the result of Leninist parties which have gained power.

So yes, Stalinism is the logical conclusion of Leninism.

But Leninism has little to do with Marxism!


In fact, a regime exhibiting such characteristics is the beginning of the end for communism in their country. The killing fields are not a monument to the goals of our idealogy.

I would suggest that if a 'regime' existed, even before it had began killing, is the beginning of the end for communism in a country.

Err...I think you have mistaken me as some sort of Stalinist defender.

I am not.

To put it bluntly, I think that Stalin was a bigger **** than Lenin. But trying to circumcise the role which Lenin played in the formation of the repressive Stalinist regime is pure idealism.

I suggest you re-read what I had to write and perhaps you will see that you have misinterpreted.

[gilhyle]

The view that Stalin was a necessary evil was widespread in the 1930s, for example Lukacs

It seems to me for a school essay, the best you can do is differentiate the different levels of analysis:

1. the accidental - facts of his biography and character and those around him, the weakening of the working class and the institutionalisation of the party under the hammer blows of civil war and international blockade.

2. the process - the inevitable slowing down of the revolutionary process, the need to stabilise the unstable society etc.

3. the political - the conflict which the existence of the USSR creates on an international level between the Workng Class and the Capitalist class and the choice the emerging bureaucracy within the USSR faced as to which side they would take, or whether they would play one off against the other for their own temporary power.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Have you ever questioned from where this bureaucracy arose? Because shit doesn't just fall from sky you know...

And if anything, Lenin and Co became more authoritative after the civil war and the foreign interventions, during which state power was firmly secured.
Yes, but that was out of necessity. It is impossible to secure a worker's state without any authoritative approach-- otherwise it will surely fail since none of the threats existent will be eliminated-- 'nonviolence' doesn't eliminate forces existent for the purpose of threatening the worker's state founded.


Let's define terms here. A state really is a means of dominance of one class. It doesn't just mean a parliamentarian body: it means the very things which defend the dominant class: the army, the police, the courts etc.

There is a ‘state’ which communists demand. But it is very different from the Leninist notion of a state – which really amounts to a dictatorship of a party.
It is not simply a 'dictatorship of a party' it is a dictatorship of the proletariat-- the difference is simply just the idea of the implementation of the vanguard-- which is simply just a centralized authority existent for the purpose of destroying forces which have the potential of bringing threats into existence. Without any form of centralized authority chaos is likely to form not only outside of the movement but within it because there is no centralized authority to prevent it. It cannot be expected that threats will be eliminated effectively in such a situation, therefore it also cannot be expected that there won't be counterrevolutionary forces existent within the revolutionary movement which have the potential to threaten it. Therefore, I conclude that having a centralized authority ( a vanguard) makes it possible to eliminate such threats effectively without having them develop with significant means of threatening the worker's state.


Just because it is unfathomable to you that workers will lead their own lives and make their own decisions does not make it ‘utterly impossible.’

And there is no reason why the building of a communist society cannot begin day one of the revolution. The excuse that we must first go through 'socialism' is just that: an excuse.

But to address your real issue, two words: Paris Commune.

The Commune was not a "state" in the old, repressive sense of the term. The Commune was the first 'dictatorship of the proletariat', meaning it was a state run by workers and in the interests of workers. Not ran by a Party for the interests of the workers.
Your assumption that a "state run by workers" is more sustainable than a worker's state with a centralized authority such as a vanguard. Ultimately the same threats will have to be eliminated and how they are dealt with and destroyed will determine the failure/success of the state.



The Civil War in France:

Of late, the social democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: dictatorship of the proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Engels)

The Commune did not do away with representative government, that is, with the election of those empowered to make and enforce laws. However, under bourgeois democracy representative government means ‘deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in parliament.’

Under the Commune, however, all public officials were not only elected, but were subject to immediate recall by those who had chosen them. In this way:


…universal suffrage was to serve the people…as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. (Marx)


... If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent (Marx)
I think you are misunderstanding the process involved in attaining communist society. I am quite familiar with Marx's work-- and what Marx argues for does not in any way provide an argument for "burying Lenin" and throwing his idea in a garbage dump.


The other measures of the Paris Commune, Engels describes in the introduction:


On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris "Morality Police." On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped all sales of article pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic."

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers – in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual's conscience" – was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied. On the 5th, day after day, in reply to the shooting of the Commune's fighters captured by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing.

On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme, which had been cast from guns captured by Napoleon after the war of 1809, should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished night work for bakers, and also the workers' registration cards, which since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees – exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit. On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.

Thus, from March 18 onwards the class character of the Paris movement, which had previously been pushed into the background by the fight against the foreign invaders, emerged sharply and clearly. As almost without exception, workers, or recognized representatives of the workers, sat in the Commune, its decision bore a decidedly proletarian character. Either they decreed reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society. In a beleaguered city, however, it was possible at most to make a start in the realization of all these measures.

Now, Marx never criticized the character or the nature of the Paris Commune, as far as I am aware. He did, however, criticise their lack of action in regards to marching on Versailles and the Bank of France:


'The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to put an end with terror to the vaunt of the Versailles people, etc...' (An Afterthought on the Paris Commune, Marx to F.Domela-Nieuwenhuis, 1881)

Now compare this hyper-democratic, indeed a participatory democracy, to that of the Bolshevik system which has been repeated far too many times.
I have read Marx's work. I am aware of the arguments he makes-- however, you are still denying the conditions which can make centralized authority a necessity.


You scarcely understand what a worker’s revolution is do you?

It is the act whereby the majority of the working class overthrows their capitalist masters. The ‘state’ to replace such organisations would be workers councils to manage the workplaces and communes to organise the community. But such organisations will be formed according to the conditions in which they are made.

How could bourgeois members infiltrate such working class organisations when that very organisation overthrew the bourgeoisie?!
I understand it quite well, but I am arguing from a much different perspective than you which you fail to understand the necessity for-- because you are simply denying the need for centralized authority and opposition by all means to the such with cause revolutionary movement to fail because sometimes it just simply necessity by all means.


We don’t want the old state power to be secured!

We want the old state smashed and a new apparatus put in its place. And such an apparatus should be as democratic as possible. Not a parliamentarian body but a real working body. Formed by workers and in their interests.
Your opposition to centralized authority is distracting you from the point of my argument in the first place.




If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the preliminary condition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent (Marx, letter of Marx's to Kugelmann)

Now the Soviets may be argued to have represented this; at least in their early days. But after the October Coup and the subsequent dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the Bolshevik party emerged as the true puppet master.

No wonder the Kronstadt sailors called for Soviets without Bolsheviks.


Without organization, it is impossible for the movement to have success. There will be counterrevolutionary movement not only from forces outside of your movement but from within it-- making it VERY difficult to combat the such forces because the organization within your state will be so weak in fighting against it and destroying all which pose a threat to its security.

Have I ever argued against a Communist Party’s main job of organisation?

I have argued against the Party taking control of the old state apparatus.


Praying?? Are you making arguments towards the whole "Leninists are religious beings" thing?? You really are full of ignorance-- not only is that absolute bullshit but it shows your ignorance to what everything which I bring up aside from your opinion which is already derived from your bourgeois conception of "individuals" and "individual character".

:lol:

I never though I'd hear the day hearing a Leninist calling me an individualist!

When you avoid being critical of Leninism and rely on faith that the next Bolshevik Party will be sincere of heart, in other words you ignore the history of numerous countries, then yes that is acting religiously.

I could point out yours and numerous other disciples fascination with the character of Lenin, claiming that he was a ‘great man.’ And yes, it is quite unusual to wear a coat that looks likes Lenin’s or wish to visit Lenin’s tomb or have pictures of that philistine.

THAT is an individualist conception.

Communists pay no respect to individuals. I am not concerned with Marx's or Lenin’s character. I judge what they have said and, more importantly, did.

When a rightist attacks my communist convictions I can argue logically and without getting personal (unless of course the character is a clown). When you attempt to argue with Leninists, on the other hand, you are either labelled a Menshevik (!) or anarchist (!), un-Marxist (!) or judged as slanderous.

It isn’t surprising that the attacks turn that way, you identify your personal worth with the ‘solidness’ of Lenin’s arguments.

Your personal worth, therefore, amounts to a puddle of warm piss.


Lenin did not set up "foundations" for it at all.

:lol:

Well, hate to break it to you but he sorta set up the rule of the Bolshevik party. If that doesn’t set up the foundations for a bueracracy then I have lost the plot entirely.


Was there anything Lenin advocated for which wasn't in the working-class's interests?

Perhaps the better question would be: was there anything that Lenin advocated for which was in the working-class’s interests?

And as if we need some sort of advocate to state the case of the working class! This isn’t Law and Order SVU.

The working class are their own advocates.

But let’s look at the dear Bolsheviks ‘War Communism’:
1. Nationalisation of all industries under the control of management (bureaucrats)
2. Striking workers could be shot
3. Complete state control of foreign trade
4. Prodrazvyorstka (compulsory acquisition of surplus produce to feed the Red Army)
5. Private enterprise was decreed illegal (as if capitalism can be outlawed by decree!)

Of course such introductions had severe consequences: Between 1918 and 1920, Petrograd lost 75% of its population, whilst Moscow lost 50%. Inflation destroyed the currency and a system of bartering replaced it. By 1921, heavy industry had fallen to output levels of 20% of those in 1913. 90% of all wages were paid in goods.

It resulted in the Tambov and Kronstadt rebellions.

Tambov rebellion:

Tambov was a huge peasant rebellion which was the result of the Red Army’s ruthless plundering of the region. The amount of grain required by Soviet authorities under Prodrazvyorstka would mean starvation. The Union of Working Peasants, a congress of Tambov rebels, abolished Soviet power and decided to create a Constituent Assembly under equal voting, and to return all land to the peasants.

In October 1920 the peasant army numbered more than 50,000 fighters, joined by numerous deserters from Red Army. The uprising was so great that nearly 100,000 soldiers were sent in, including special Cheka detachments. The Red Army under Tukhachevsky took and executed without trial, civilian hostages.

Tukhachevsky and Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko signed an order, dated June 12 1921, that stated: "The forests where the bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of poison gas. This must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the forests and kills everyone hiding there." Chemical weapons were used "from end of June 1921 until apparently the fall of 1921", by direct order from leadership of Red Army and Communist party

Total losses among the population of Tambov region in 1920-1922 resulting from the war, executions, and imprisonment in concentration camps were estimated as at least 240,000.

Seven Concentration camps were set up. At least 50,000 people were interned, mostly women, children, and elderly, some of them were sent there as hostages.

If such a thing occurred under the Tsar the Bolsheviks would have shouted foul play and written extensive polemics.

Blind hypocrisy.

The Krondstat rebellion:

Demands:

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

The Petrograd workers were under martial law and could offer little support to Kronstadt. The rebellion was crushed with some 60,000 troops. Thousands of rebels died, thousands more imprisoned and even more fled.

The day after the surrender of Kronstadt, the Bolsheviks celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Paris Commune.

How ironic is that!

And of course the New Economic Policy which essentially aimed at restoring the pre-civil war capitalist levels. Former owners were invited back to manage factories, worker's councils were likewise attacked.

By mid-1918 the Soviets, the so called heart of working class power had become little more than a ceremonial bodies that met only to ratify Bolshevik decrees. In March of 1921, the trade unions were rendered powerless by the 10th Party Congress.

If anything Lenin was just as ruthless against workers and peasant rebellions.

Stalin eliminated personal enemies.

Lenin eliminated state enemies.

And I suggest you read Questions on Leninism or the Foundations of Leninism (written by Stalin) to see how close Stalin’s ideas and practices mirrored that of Lenin’s. I will quote some of my favourite parts:


. . . because, in the first place, it is the rallying centre of the finest elements in the working class, who have direct connections with the non- Party organizations of the proletariat and very frequently lead them; because, secondly, the Party, as the rallying centre of the finest members of the working class, is the best school for training leaders of the working class (!) , capable of directing every form of organization of their class; because, thirdly, the Party, as the best school for training leaders of the working class, is, by reason of its experience and prestige, the only organization capable of centralizing the leadership of the struggle of the proletariat, thus transforming each and every non-Party organization of the working class into an auxiliary body and transmission belt linking the Party with the class.


The Party is the main guiding force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Stain)


The Party is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. (Lenin.)


Without the Party as the main guiding force, it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be at all durable and firm.


Thus, in the words of Lenin, "taken as a whole, we have a formally non-Communist, flexible and relatively wide, and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked with the class and with the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the dictatorship of the class is exercised."


Of course, this must not be understood in the sense that the Party can or should take the place of the trade unions, the Soviets, and the other mass organizations. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it exercises it not directly, but with the help of the trade unions, and through the Soviets and their ramifications. Without these "transmission belts," it would be impossible for the dictatorship to be at all firm.


Not a single important decision is arrived at by the mass organizations of the proletariat without guiding directives from the Party. That is perfectly true. But does that mean that the dictatorship of the proletariat consists entirely of the guiding directives given by the Party? Does that mean that, in view of this, the guiding directives of the Party can be identified with the dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not. The dictatorship of the proletariat consists of the guiding directives of the Party plus the carrying out of these directives by the mass organizations of the proletariat, plus their fulfilment by the population. Here, as you see, we have to deal with a whole series of transitions and intermediary steps which are by no means unimportant elements of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence, between the guiding directives of the Party and their fulfilment lie the will and actions of those who are led, the will and actions of the class, its willingness (or unwillingness) to support such directives, its ability (or inability) to carry out these directives, its ability (or inability) to carry them out in strict accordance with the demands of the situation It scarcely needs proof that the Party, having taken the leadership into its hands, cannot but reckon with the will, the condition, the level of political consciousness of those who are led, cannot leave out of account the will, the condition, and level of political consciousness of its class.

Fourthly. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. "The Party is the direct governing vanguard of the proletariat; it is the leader." (Lenin) In this sense the Party takes power, the Party governs the country. But this must not be understood in the sense that the Party exercises the dictator-ship of the proletariat separately from the state power, without the state power; that the Party governs the country separately from the Soviets, not through the Soviets. This does not mean that the Party can be identified with the Soviets, with the state power. The Party is the core of this power, but it is not and cannot be identified with the state power.

"Victory over capitalism requires the correct correlation between the leading, Communist, Party, the revolutionary class -- the proletariat -- and the masses, i.e., the working people and exploited as a whole. Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it contains all the best representatives of that class, if it consists of fully class-conscious and devoted Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of stubborn revolutionary struggle, if this Party has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its classand, through it, with the whole mass of exploited, and if it has succeeded in inspiring the complete confidence of this class and this mass -- only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in the most ruthless, resolute and final struggle against all the forces of capitalism. On the other hand, only under the leadership of such a party can the proletariat develop the full might of its revolutionary onslaught and nullify the inevitable apathy and, partly, resistance of the small minority of the labour aristocracy corrupted by capitalism, and of the old trade-union and co-operative leaders, etc. -- only then will it be able to display its full strength, which, owing to the very economic structure of capitalist society, is immeasurably greater than the proportion of the population it constitutes."

Lenin:
‘When we are reproached with the dictatorship of one party, and when, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: 'Yes, the dictatorship of one party! We stand by it, and cannot depart from it; for it is that Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat.'"

Hurts to find out that Stalin was the natural response to the great leader Lenin, doesn't it?
I understand very well what Lenin advocated for-- you are simply taking his arguments out of context and trying to show that Lenin ---> (led to) Stalin-- which cannot be proven when you sit and pull apart the arguments Lenin made and put them in context which suits your argument-- you claim I have no understanding of Lenin or the Bolsheviks or Leninism but you fail to understand that Lenin wasn't acting in favor of the interests of the 'vanguard' but out of necessity-- your argument cannot be sustained when you quote Lenin out of context and argue its comparability to Stalin's-- especially when denying the conditions existent and that those conditions were and would have been existent regardless of whether or not the bolsheviks were in power and there was no centralized authority-- therefore quit quoting Lenin out of context, because the measures which were taken were acts of necessity to secure the workers state so that the threats developing would not cause that to be impossible. Stalin acted out of his and the bureaucracy's interests in accordance with attaining power-- not even in accordance to necessity-- you are denying the conditions existent and ultimately that is why your argument isn't sustainable.

Don't accuse me of not having sufficient knowledge in this subject area-- I'm sure I have read Lenin's works more than you have-- along with Marx. I also know enough of Stalin and the arguments Stalin made in comparison to Lenin's and also the conditions existent during the time-- all of which you do not even mention, you just deny their relevance without providing any logical explanation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Additional information on organizational matters:

Patrimonialism and the Stalinist system: the case of S.I. Syrtsov (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3955/is_n4_v48/ai_18606572/pg_1)


While it is recognised that the 'Stalinist machine' was a highly personalised following, previous studies of its composition and role have tended to focus either on the implications for high politics or on its institutional dimensions.

...

The earliest critique of the Stalinist 'secretarial hierarchy' was that developed by the Trotskyite Left of the Bolshevik party in the 1920s. The Left viewed the Stalin regime as a new bureaucratic ruling stratum that emerged from a degeneration of the Bolshevik party after the civil war... his bureaucratic model has strongly influenced subsequent scholarly studies, where the depersonalised approach is not only confined to the decade of the 1920s, when the Stalinist patrimonial system was constructed, but is also reflected in a number of recent studies that employ positional analysis to quantify and explain elite turnover in the Stalinist system during the 1930s.

...

My analysis focuses on one of the important patron-client dyads of the Stalin network, his relationship with Sergei Syrtsov. Whether this relationship was emblematic or exceptional is impossible to say in the absence of comparative studies of other relationships within the Stalinist network: a matter for a future research agenda.

...

Lenin personally selected Syrtsov to head the Records and Assignments Section of the Central Committee (Uchraspred) in July 1921. Uchraspred, created by the Politburo in April 1919, was charged with compiling and maintaining the card index of detailed personnel records of party officials, particularly those of the nomenklatura: the key party appointments to controlling positions throughout the new Soviet system. As the Bolshevik party underwent the organisational transformation from a revolutionary-militaristic movement to a bureaucratic administrative machine, Uchraspred was the key instrument for the institutionalisation of the nomenklatura system, transferring and shuffling officials around the country, controlling the saturation of authority positions by Bolsheviks, assembling a Bolshevik cadre of administrators in every province, and establishing a vertical chain of command through a territorially based hierarchy of party secretaries or 'bosses' (nachal'niki). Syrtsov assumed control of Uchraspred at the critical juncture where, according to Rigby, 'improvisation began to give way to system'. The right of the Central Committee to confirm secretarial appointments at most levels was established in December 1921 and was almost immediately translated into a practice of 'nomination' from the centre. The centralising tendencies of the Moscow-based apparatus were thus considerably augmented, and its power to fragment and displace provincial cliques resistant to centralisation was greatly enhanced.

...

The outlines of the centralising and bureaucratising functions of Uchraspred had been sketched before Stalin became General Secretary in April 1922. Once appointed, Stalin further defined and extended these functions so that the Secretariat became, as Daniels put it, a 'power unto itself'.(18) Stalin was acutely aware of the significance of the new powers of the party apparatus and astutely manoeuvred himself for the leadership struggle that followed Lenin's growing physical and mental incapacitation (already evident in late 1921 and early 1922).(19) Uchraspred was of crucial importance to the realisation of Stalin's leadership ambitions and the General Secretary soon developed a close working relationship with Syrtsov.

Wiki on Uchraspred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uchraspred):


The Uchraspred was the Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee in the Soviet Union. It was founded in 1920 as a department in the Bolshevik Party responsible for registering the members and assigning them to different tasks. However, the appointments to the highest party positions still came under the jurisdiction of the Orgburo. In 1922, the Uchraspred made over ten thousand assignments. In 1924, the Uchraspred was merged with the Orgburo.

That goes back to earlier comments regarding the Orgburo, but here's more:

Stalin: Why and How (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext19/Stalin.html)


"The report of the Uchraspred to the Twelfth Party Congress in April 1923 indicated that more than ten thousand assignments had been made in the preceding year. Stalin, in his organizational report to the congress, made no effort to conceal the range of Uchraspred's activities; indeed, he revealed that it was expanding its jurisdiction into the state apparatus."

Several of Merle Fainsod's pages ought to be quoted. Here, we have to limit ourselves. Orgraspred, Uchraspred's successor, "operated as another powerful lever of control over local party organisations. Lazar Kaganovich, the head of this section in 1922 and 1923, was one of Stalin's most faithful disciples". A chapter on the Secretariat explains: "The key section in the Central Committee Secretariat was the Organization-Assignments Section (Orgraspred). It was created in 1924 by a merger of the Uchraspred and the old Organisation-Instruction Section. The Orgraspred functioned as the cadre office of the Stalinist machine.... Between the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Congress, the Orgraspred handled the placement of 8761 Party workers.... at the Sixteenth congress in 1930, L. Kaganovich announced that the Orgraspred had arranged the assignments of approximately eleven thousand Party workers in the preceding two years." But the description of the monstrous party "machine", the central apparatus, takes up about twenty-five pages in Fainsod.

Professor Leonard Schapiro, in his now classic book The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (London, 1960), explains it more briefly, with a categorical conclusion: "the merger in 1924 of the Assignment Department (Uchraspred) [and the Organisation-Instruction Section] ... immediately became the key department of the Secretariat, which concentrated in its hands the entire direction of subordinate party organs and the all-important function of making appointments. Its history is the story of Stalin's success in controlling the party." This last phrase is particularly memorable, but it is necessary to illustrate it.