Lenin - Icon to all Communists

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

I consider myself a libertarian communist and respect Vladimir Lenin for his contributions to Russian history and his position in his attempt to create a socialist state in Russia (sorry if that sentence seems awkward).
Now I have read about communism being divided into two parts - authoritarian and libertarian - so is it somehow contradictory to see Lenin or any other revolutionary theorist in a good light while simultaneously expressing libertarian/anarcho-communistic ideals?
For example, all communists respect Marx, but not all communists look highly to Lenin - some even despise the man. I don't find it healthy that he spent every waking hour working on the revolution, but that's my opinion.

[RedStarOverChina]

I definitely respect him...But not to the point of accepting him as an "icon" of expression.

Many of his ideas are very much reactionary today--But I can't blame him for being born in the 1800s. In any case, if his ideas do not represent that of my own, why should I accept him as an "icon"?

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Well my main question was, is it okay to see the man as a great revolutionary even though of my libertarian communist views? I don't see him as my icon, I guess I should have worded that better.

[RedStarOverChina]

Not that this should apply to you, but for me Lenin was a great revolutionary who made fatal, fundamental mistakes.

And I also consider myself somewhat of a libertarian communist. I think people need to acknowledge other revolutionaries properly while emphasizing their mistakes. It's OK to see him as a great revolutionary so long as you are able to identify his mistakes.

Perceiving them favorably/unfavorably is OK, so long as it doesn't impair your judgment.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:11 am
Not that this should apply to you, but for me Lenin was a great revolutionary who made fatal, fundamental mistakes.

And I also consider myself somewhat of a libertarian communist. I think people need to acknowledge other revolutionaries properly while emphasizing their mistakes. It's OK to see him as a great revolutionary so long as you are able to identify his mistakes.

Perceiving them favorably/unfavorably is OK, so long as it doesn't impair your judgment.
Yeah, I totally agree, Lenin was only human, as are the rest of us (note: "only human" being a figure of speech). Of course he made mistakes, and at the time the odds were against him, as they would have been anywhere, under any country with the same social and economic conditions. That's why it's called a revolution, it's never easy.
But here's a question: how does one become a libertarian Stalinist? :huh:

[Everyday Anarchy]

I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 04:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
Jesus fucking Christ. Can you spell "straw man?"

Are you here to make a point, or to further divide the left by sowing the seeds of sectarianism and fear-mongering metaphysics? And he said he was a libertarian communist, not an anarchist.

Comrade_Zac, simply because you see someone as an inspirational leader and figure does not mean you have to agree with everything they ever did. There was a lot of violence, but it was a revolution. No one ever said it was an ideal situation. The opposition to centralized authority is subjective. The POINT IS, it is not hypocritical to find inspiration even when looking into the cold eyes of Stalin himself, for you can learn from their legacies.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:18 am
Now I have read about communism being divided into two parts - authoritarian and libertarian - so is it somehow contradictory to see Lenin or any other revolutionary theorist in a good light while simultaneously expressing libertarian/anarcho-communistic ideals?

Yes it is contradictory. He despised the Libertarian-Communists, banned their publications, banned their groups, banned workers councils, executed and imprisoned them, crushed their experiments, set up a panel of capitalist advisors, and supported the invasion of Ukraine*, massacring thousands of libertarian communists and destroying workers power.

*Ukraine had been liberated by the Libertarian communists during the revolution, and had a free sysetm of democratic soviets under the protection of the Anarchist Army lead by Nestor Makhno.

Essentially. Lenin and Makhno were at war, one being the leader of the Bolshevism the other, the leader of the Libertarian communists. Who's side would you pick?

Who's side would you pick during the kronstadt rebellion when workers rose up to try and reclaim power from the bolsheviks?

What about the "black guards"? organised by libertarian communists, who set out to defend free workers soviets from the Cheka, who sought to enforce bolshevik will on the workers?

Lenin was an enemy of the Libertarian communists, and workers power.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:02 am
Many of his ideas are very much reactionary today
Like what?

[RedStarOverChina]

He clarified and said Lenin shouldn't be treated as an "icon".

We all know he did shitty things, and we know they are wrong。 But some of us decide that he was still a great revolutionary.

Also, Makhno wasn't a "libertarian communist" and I doubt he ever considered himself as such. He was a peasant leader who couldn't manage to gather support from the Ukrainian workers.


Who's side would you pick during the kronstadt rebellion when workers rose up to try and reclaim power from the bolsheviks?
The rebels, of course. They were more revolutionary.
Like we both said, if you were paying attention, we don't lend Lenin absolute support, but merely see him in an overall positive light.

I for one, am thankful for his Bolshevik Revolution. If it weren't for him, I'd be reading the Four Classics of Confucianism right now.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 30, 2007 08:52 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 30, 2007 08:52 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 02:02 am
Many of his ideas are very much reactionary today
Like what? [/b]
Vanguardism in general. And his ideas of human sexuality.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 02:02 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 02:02 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 30, 2007 08:52 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 02:02 am
Many of his ideas are very much reactionary today
Like what?
Vanguardism in general. And his ideas of human sexuality. [/b]
Oh right, I didn't think you were one of those anarcho types. I'm not interested in going into that discussion, but that's a matter of opinion, not actual fact. Same goes for your opinion on Kronstadt by the way.

His views on sexuality were personal, he never tried to enforce them in actual legislation, so using that as an example of him being reactionary politically is a bit stupid.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:00 pm
Also, Makhno wasn't a "libertarian communist" and I doubt he ever considered himself as such. He was a peasant leader

Makhno did consider himself a libertarian communist. He wrote various documents including "The organisational platform of the libertarian communists" in which he argued for a stronger Libertarian Communist organisation, based on the failure of the libertarian communists during the Russian revolution. he shared many of his Libertarian communist ideas, with the libertarian communist, Durruti.

Many of his writings abotu Libertarian communism are hosted here (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/index.htm) including his debate with lenin, on Libertarian communism

He is generally considered one of the greatest examples of a Libertarian communist millitary organisers, by thousands of libertarian communists globally. His contributions to Libertarian communist theory continue to prevoke debate, and have chanegd the course of libertarian communist history, and organising forever.

His mass libertarian communist army, managed to fight off the Austro-hungarians in WW1 and maintain (and win) a war against the whites (and later the bolsheviks) for four years. With thousands of soldiers, cavaly, artillery, a mass-read newspaper, cultural and information departments etc. To say he has little support from the workers is absurd, especially when you consider the bolsheviks failed to sell their paper in many parts of ukraine sue to a lack of sales. One bolshevik commader said that the Makhnovists were so popular and well organised the bolsheviks should recognsie them as the legitimate authority in Ukraine and supply them immediately (Trotsky promptly fired him and replaced him with an Ex tsarist)

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 30, 2007 09:07 am
His views on sexuality were personal, he never tried to enforce them in actual legislation, so using that as an example of him being reactionary politically is a bit stupid.
You might want to read into Lenin a bit before saying stuff like that again.

Lenin was opposed to Alexandra Kollontai's libertarian, feminist view of human sexuality and used it to launch a character assassination campaign against her in an attempt to portray her as a moral degenerate.

That is political, and that is reactionary.

[Devrim]

Posting things in bold doesn't make them true.

Makhno was a libertarian communist though.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 02:15 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 02:15 pm)
Led [email protected] 30, 2007 09:07 am
His views on sexuality were personal, he never tried to enforce them in actual legislation, so using that as an example of him being reactionary politically is a bit stupid.
You might want to read into Lenin a bit before saying stuff like that again.

Lenin was opposed to Alexandra Kollontai's libertarian, feminist view of human sexuality and used it to launch a character assassination campaign against her in an attempt to portray her as a moral degenerate.

That is political, and that is reactionary. [/b]
Giving advice to people to read more on issues that you yourself are ignorant of is not smart in a discussion, so I suggest you stop doing it.

Now, if you can point me to any actual legislation reflecting Lenin's personal views on sexuality, I'll be satisfied.

Too bad that you can't do that, because the Soviet Union actually lifted all constraints on sexuality, and it is known as the first modern society which incorporated freedom of choice in personal affairs, including sexuality.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:17 am
Posting things in bold doesn't make them true.

Makhno was a libertarian communist though.

Devrim
LMAO!! :D

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by William Everard+November 30, 2007 09:12 am--> (William Everard @ November 30, 2007 09:12 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 02:00 pm
Also, Makhno wasn't a "libertarian communist" and I doubt he ever considered himself as such. He was a peasant leader
Makhno did consider himself a libertarian communist. He wrote various documents including "The organisational platform of the libertarian communists" in which he argued for a stronger Libertarian Communist organisation, based on the failure of the libertarian communists during the Russian revolution. he shared many of his Libertarian communist ideas, with the libertarian communist, Durruti.

Many of his writings abotu Libertarian communism are hosted here (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/index.htm) including his debate with lenin, on Libertarian communism

He is generally considered one of the greatest examples of a Libertarian communist millitary organisers, by thousands of libertarian communists globally. His contributions to Libertarian communist theory continue to prevoke debate, and have chanegd the course of libertarian communist history, and organising forever.

His mass libertarian communist army, managed to fight off the Austro-hungarians in WW1 and maintain (and win) a war against the whites (and later the bolsheviks) for four years. With thousands of soldiers, cavaly, artillery, a mass-read newspaper, cultural and information departments etc. To say he has little support from the workers is absurd, especially when you consider the bolsheviks failed to sell their paper in many parts of ukraine sue to a lack of sales. One bolshevik commader said that the Makhnovists were so popular and well organised the bolsheviks should recognsie them as the legitimate authority in Ukraine and supply them immediately (Trotsky promptly fired him and replaced him with an Ex tsarist)
Fine. So he considered himself a libertarian communist. But considering himself as such doesn't make him so. He was still peasant leader, and peasantry, as some of us know, has little to do with communism.
So I'm fine with the "libertarian part", but I don't really know where the "communist" part comes from.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:25 pm
Fine. So he considered himself a libertarian communist. But considering himself as such doesn't make him so. He was still peasant leader, and peasantry, as some of us know, has little to do with communism.
He was a peasent in his early life, he also worked in industry.


So I'm fine with the "libertarian part", but I don't really know where the "communist" part comes from.

Well, the Makhnovists had a lot of workers as well as peasents, they set up factory comittees and had urban areas in their control... Makhno firmly believed in workers taking over the means of production and fought toward such ends. He also made great contributions to Communist theory, in the same way Marx did and yet wasn't a worker himself.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 30, 2007 09:19 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 30, 2007 09:19 am) Giving advice to people to read more on issues that you yourself are ignorant of is not smart in a discussion, so I suggest you stop doing it.

Now, if you can point me to any actual legislation reflecting Lenin's personal views on sexuality, I'll be satisfied.

Too bad that you can't do that, because the Soviet Union actually lifted all constraints on sexuality, and it is known as the first modern society which incorporated freedom of choice in personal affairs, including sexuality. [/b]
You are just blathering to yourself, aren't you? Where did I say he legislated anything? Most reactionaries live through their lives without legislating anything, just so you know. Lenin didn't have to legislate anything to denounce Kollontai or free love.

And he did do both:

Lenin
Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 30, 2007 02:19 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 30, 2007 02:19 pm) Now, if you can point me to any actual legislation reflecting Lenin's personal views on sexuality, I'll be satisfied.

Too bad that you can't do that, because the Soviet Union actually lifted all constraints on sexuality, and it is known as the first modern society which incorporated freedom of choice in personal affairs, including sexuality. [/b]
I am pretty sure that there was no legislation that reflected Lenin views on sexual matters.

Although these views should not effect a balanced view of Lenin, he did have extremely reactionary opinions about sex, and sexuality.

The famous quote replying to those who likened sex to drinking a glass of water sums it up:


Lenin
'Thirst must be satisfied - but will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?'

Devrim

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 30, 2007 09:30 am
Well, the Makhnovists had a lot of workers as well as peasents, they sut up factory comittees and had urban areas in their control...
But not Kiev--the industrial center of Ukraine.

[Fiskpure]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 04:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
Shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists? I don't see how you could give the power to the people especially under the conditions Russia was dealing with at this time, you would have had revolutions of different ideologies and different people around the nation.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 02:35 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 02:35 pm)
Led [email protected] 30, 2007 09:19 am
Giving advice to people to read more on issues that you yourself are ignorant of is not smart in a discussion, so I suggest you stop doing it.

Now, if you can point me to any actual legislation reflecting Lenin's personal views on sexuality, I'll be satisfied.

Too bad that you can't do that, because the Soviet Union actually lifted all constraints on sexuality, and it is known as the first modern society which incorporated freedom of choice in personal affairs, including sexuality.
Where did I say he legislated anything? Most reactionaries live through their lives without legislating anything, just so you know. Lenin didn't have to legislate anything to denounce Kollontai or free love.
[/b]
When they don't let their personal opinions on sexuality interfere with their political views (and in the case of Lenin his actual political work), it does not matter. The difference between "most reactionary people" and Lenin/Marx etc. was that they didn't argue for their personal views to be legislated into actual law, i.e., to have it enforced on other people.

So in other words; your argument was stupid and that was why I responded to it the way I did.

If you don't want me to reply to you in that manner then present an argument that makes logical sense.

[RedStarOverChina]

When they don't let their personal opinions on sexuality interfere with their political views (and in the case of Lenin his actual political work), it does not matter.

They did. Like I wrote, Lenin mounted a political attack against Kollontai (and the Workers Opposition) for her views on sexuality--Which made infinitely more sense than Lenin's reactionary views.

If you don't understand the political implications of that, then it's not my fault---I have made an argument against Lenin's reactionary views and you are too blinded by your "faith" in the "great leader" to see it.

This is EXACTLY what I was warning against at the beginning of the thread.


The difference between "most reactionary people" and Lenin/Marx etc. was that they didn't argue for their personal views to be legislated into actual law, i.e., to have it enforced on other people.

No.

Bill O'reilly never legislated anything, therefore by Led Zeppelin's standards he is obviously "not reactionary".

that's not going to convince anyone.

Lenin's views on sexuality and "leadership" are out-and-out reactionary and had tremendous impact on the Soviet society.


Also, instead of editing your post every 5 seconds, why dont you post all of them so I don't have to write for 10 minute and then find out you have just changed your argument?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:43 pm

When they don't let their personal opinions on sexuality interfere with their political views (and in the case of Lenin his actual political work), it does not matter.

They did. Like I wrote, Lenin mounted a political attack against Kollontai (and the Workers Opposition) for her views on sexuality--Which made infinitely more sense than Lenin's reactionary views.
Yes, because personally he disagreed with her views. That doesn't mean that he wanted to enforce his personal views on anyone else, now does it? The fact that he never worked to have any legislation made on it, even though he was in the perfect position to do so, means that he considered it a personal issue.


Bill O'reilly never legislated anything, therefore by Led Zeppelin's standards he is obviously "not reactionary".


He argues for legislation to be made for his reactionary positions, in fact that is the crux of his "solution to the problem".

Lenin had personal opinions on the issue of sexuality, without having any "universal political solution" to it, because he probably knew that the state has no right to interfere in the personal lives of people.

And that is partly why the Soviet Union was the first modern state that had complete freedom in such personal affairs.


Lenin's views on sexuality and "leadership" are out-and-out reactionary and had tremendous impact on the Soviet society.

Lenin's view on leadership is what made it possible for the Bolsheviks to gain and keep state-power.

Your anarcho fantasies do not interest me, and as I said; I am not interested in discussing this issue with you, because I have done it so many times before in the past, and all it does is just bring up "all the old crap", as Marx said.


Also, instead of editing your post every 5 seconds, why dont you post all of them so I don't have to write for 10 minute and then find out you have just changed your argument?

I had to edit my post to prevent a flame-war, because you are so petty and childish that you just can't get over the fact that someone replied to you as harshly as you replied to them.

Maybe it's time to grow up and get over yourself.

[RedStarOverChina]

Yes, because personally he disagreed with her views. That doesn't mean that he wanted to enforce his personal views on anyone else, now does it? The fact that he never worked to have any legislation made on it, even though he was in the perfect position to do so, means that he considered it a personal issue.
So technically you can be a racist misogynist fuckwitt and still claim not to be reactionary so long as you don't legislate them in the parliament?

What kind of crackhead logic is this?


Lenin's view on leadership is what made it possible for the Bolsheviks to gain and keep state-power.

Just because that got them in power doesn't mean it ain't reactionary, especially by today's standard.

Hitler's views on"leadership" also got the Nazis in power. Is that how you are going to justify Hitler's views?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:56 pm

Yes, because personally he disagreed with her views. That doesn't mean that he wanted to enforce his personal views on anyone else, now does it? The fact that he never worked to have any legislation made on it, even though he was in the perfect position to do so, means that he considered it a personal issue.
So technically you can be a racist misogynist fuckwitt and still claim not to be reactionary so long as you don't legislate them in the parliament?
No, but the fact of the matter is that Lenin was a communist revolutionary, not a racist, misogynist or sexist. If a communist held the personal view on sexual relations that Lenin did today, would you oppose his politics? Would you call him out on his views on sexuality?

What business is it of yours that he or she prefers sexual relations that are different than yours?

Also, he may have opposed "free love", the fact of the matter is that he himself had an affair: link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_200103/ai_n8929985), so he wasn't really that "big" on that personal view of his either.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that his views on sexual relations did not and actually could not affect his politics in any way. He believed in people choosing their own personal view in personal matters, and making sure the state would not interfere in such issues.

If he were a racist, or an outright sexist, it would be a completely different matter. Anyone who has the capacity to think and doesn't have an ego to save in a discussion, knows this.

By the way, I seriously doubt Lenin was completely honest on this issue, given the fact that he had an affair himself.

[Led Zeppelin]

Here is a good book on the affair: Lenin's Mistress: The Life of Inessa Armand (http://www.amazon.com/Lenins-Mistress-Life-Inessa-Armand/dp/037550589X)

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 30, 2007 12:04 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 30, 2007 12:04 pm) No, but the fact of the matter is that Lenin was a communist revolutionary, not a racist, misogynist or sexist. If a communist held the personal view on sexual relations that Lenin did today, would you oppose his politics? Would you call him out on his views on sexuality?
[/b]
Failure to read things properly can result in such embarrassments.


Originally posted by RSOC+--> (RSOC)Not that this should apply to you, but for me Lenin was a great revolutionary who made fatal, fundamental mistakes.[/b]

Originally posted by RSOC
It's OK to see him as a great revolutionary so long as you are able to identify his mistakes.
Perceiving them favorably/unfavorably is OK, so long as it doesn't impair your judgment.

[email protected]
We all know he did shitty things, and we know they are wrong。 But some of us decide that he was still a great revolutionary.

RSOC
Like we both said, if you were paying attention, we don't lend Lenin absolute support, but merely see him in an overall positive light.




Anyway, the fact of the matter is that his views on sexual relations did not and actually could not affect his politics in any way.
Oh please! Devout Leninists have been quoting him in they denunciation of "sexual immorality"/"Bourgeoisie decadency" for almost 100 years and counting!

As a result the Soviet Union remained a sexually conservative country to the end.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 05:16 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 05:16 pm) Failure to read things properly can result in such embarrassments.

As a result the Soviet Union remained a sexually conservative country to the end. [/b]
No, you contradicting yourself results in such embarrassments.

Put those quotes besides these ones:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Lenin's views on sexuality and "leadership" are out-and-out reactionary and had tremendous impact on the Soviet society.


you
Devout Leninists have been quoting him in they denunciation of "sexual immorality"/"Bourgeoisie decadency" for almost 100 years and counting!

As a result the Soviet Union remained a sexually conservative country to the end.

I could quote some more but I believe I have proved my point. So you are arguing that Lenin's views on sexuality were reactionary and had political consequences, but at the same time you are arguing that he was a communist and a great revolutionary.

Either you have a distorted view of a communist/great revolutionary, or you just are unaware of the fact that you just contradicted yourself.

I think it's the latter, but could be the former also, given the strange unpredictable nature of your views.

Either way I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any further by continuing that line of argument.



Oh please! Devout Leninists have been quoting him in they denunciation of "sexual immorality"/"Bourgeoisie decadency" for almost 100 years and counting!

As a result the Soviet Union remained a sexually conservative country to the end.

Stalinists are not Leninists/Marxists.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 30, 2007 12:27 pm
I could quote some more but I believe I have proved my point. So you are arguing that Lenin's views on sexuality were reactionary and had political consequences, but at the same time you are arguing that he was a communist and a great revolutionary.

Either you have a distorted view of a communist/great revolutionary, or you just are unaware of the fact that you just contradicted yourself.

I think it's the latter, but could be the former also, given the strange unpredictable nature of your views.

Either way I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any further by continuing that line of argument.

Sometimes I wish I could return to a simpler time when I perceived thing as black and white as you do.

Then again, maybe not.


So here I go again.

Lenin had done great things worthy of a communist revolutionary...but he also fucked up big time and as serious communists, people need to realize where he went wrong. He probably believed in almost everything he did with a passion, but that doesn't discard the fact that many of his ideas and works are reactionary, especially by today's standard.

Lenin's faithfuls such as you cannot tolerate the idea that your "great leader" actually got stuff wrong--And that simple won't do for those of us who would want to learn.

Is that so hard to follow?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 05:39 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 05:39 pm)
Led [email protected] 30, 2007 12:27 pm
I could quote some more but I believe I have proved my point. So you are arguing that Lenin's views on sexuality were reactionary and had political consequences, but at the same time you are arguing that he was a communist and a great revolutionary.

Either you have a distorted view of a communist/great revolutionary, or you just are unaware of the fact that you just contradicted yourself.

I think it's the latter, but could be the former also, given the strange unpredictable nature of your views.

Either way I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any further by continuing that line of argument.


Lenin had done great things worthy of a communist revolutionary...but he also fucked up big time and as serious communists, people need to realize where he went wrong. He probably believed in almost everything he did with a passion, but that doesn't discard the fact that many of his ideas and works are reactionary, especially by today's standard. [/b]
So wait, I asked you for an example of his reactionary views, you provided his views on sexuality, I refuted it by putting forth the argument that his personal views on the issue of sexuality never affected his politics in any way, and that even he himself wasn't really honest when he was putting them forth given the fact that he had an affair, and this is what you come up with?

Alright, fine, you believe that he was wrong politically on political issues such as the vanguard, Krondstadt etc., then say that you politically disagreed with him, don't bring forth claims about him having reactionary views concerning a subject when it doesn't have anything to do with his politics.

The question of the original poster was political in nature, about his politics, not about his personal views on sexuality, which he was lying about anyway.


Lenin's faithfuls such as you cannot tolerate the idea that your "great leader" actually got stuff wrong--And that simple won't do for those of us who would want to learn.

I actually believe Lenin was wrong on many occasions, no matter how much you want to make me out to be some kindof religious dogmatic follower of him.

For example I believe he was wrong to trade the Gilaki and Mazandari Soviets for peace with the British. I believe he was wrong to support giving Stalin the position of General-Secretary, and then later not make sure that he was removed (even though he did try to have it done). I believe he was wrong not to have seen the danger of the bureaucracy earlier, and having fought against it more fiercly as he did later on in his life, when some would say that it was too late to reverse.

And there are many more.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 30, 2007 12:49 pm
So wait, I asked you for an example of his reactionary views, you provided his views on sexuality, I refuted it by putting forth the argument that his personal views on the issue of sexuality never affected his politics in any way, and that even he himself wasn't really honest when he was putting them forth given the fact that he had an affair, and this is what you come up with?




I actually believe Lenin was wrong on many occasions, no matter how much you want to make me out to be some kindof religious dogmatic follower of him.

For example I believe he was wrong to trade the Gilaki and Mazandari Soviets for peace with the British. I believe he was wrong to support giving Stalin the position of General-Secretary, and then later not make sure that he was removed (even though he did try to have it done). I believe he was wrong not to have seen the danger of the bureaucracy earlier, and having fought against it more fiercly as he did later on in his life, when some would say that it was too late to reverse.

And there are many more.
Who the hell cares whether or not he had a mistress? It's his theory about "party discipline" and the "sexual morality" which comes with the package that I care about. And they effected his politics--He used it in his political discourse and his followers did as well.

No use denying that, we have all his writing online.

They were no longer "personal" the moment he used it to attack Kollontai.


Alright, fine, you believe that he was wrong politically on political issues such as the vanguard, Krondstadt etc., then say that you politically disagreed with him, don't bring forth claims about him having reactionary views concerning a subject when it doesn't have anything to do with his politics.
Jesus Christ.

What the hell did you think I was talking about all this time? I disagree with his reactionary politics! I wouldn't give a damn if he had a million mistresses in his private life but his "moral values" were setup to "guide" the Bolsheviks in their political pursuit! That's what morality and party discipline is all about!


I believe he was wrong not to have seen the danger of the bureaucracy earlier,
If he did, he would have to scrap Vanguardism, now, wouldn't he? The problem isn't with his inability to foresee the future. The problem is with the Vanguard theory, which places emphasis on the "vanguard" (which turns into the bureaucracy so naturally) and not on the working class emancipation.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 05:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
You also fail to mention that its was an anarchist who attempted to assassinate Lenin. Typical anarchists, they don't get popular support and turn too shooting their more successful rivals.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+November 30, 2007 01:26 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ November 30, 2007 01:26 pm)
Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 05:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
You also fail to mention that its was an anarchist who attempted to assassinate Lenin. Typical anarchists, they don't get popular support and turn too shooting their more successful rivals. [/b]
I thought she was an social democrat.

Moreover, modern historians aren't even sure who actually attempted to kill Lenin.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+November 30, 2007 06:26 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ November 30, 2007 06:26 pm)
Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 05:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
You also fail to mention that its was an anarchist who attempted to assassinate Lenin. Typical anarchists, they don't get popular support and turn too shooting their more successful rivals. [/b]

Wiki
, an assassination attempt was made against Lenin’s car in Petrograd by unknown gunmen. Lenin and Fritz Platten were in the back of the car together, after having given a public speech. When the shooting started, "Platten grabbed Lenin by the head and pushed him down. ... Platten’s hand was covered in blood, having been grazed by a bullet as he was shielding Lenin."[21]

On August 30, 1918, Fanya Kaplan, a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, approached Lenin after he had spoken at a meeting and was on the way to his car. He had his foot on the running board. She called out to Lenin, who turned to answer. She immediately fired three shots hitting Lenin twice: one bullet, relatively harmless, lodged in the arm; the second round, more seriously entering at the juncture of Lenin's jaw and neck, the third shot striking a woman who was talking with Lenin when the shooting began.[22] Lenin fell to the ground, unconscious. He was taken to his apartment in the Kremlin, refusing to venture to a hospital since he believed that other assassins would be waiting there. Doctors were summoned but decided that it was too dangerous to remove the bullets. While Lenin began his slow recovery Pravda ridiculed Kaplan as a latter-day Charlotte Corday; assuring its readers that immediately after the shooting: "Lenin, shot through twice, with pierced lungs, spilling blood, refuses help and goes on his own. The next morning, still threatened with death, he reads papers, listens, learns, and observes to see that the engine of the locomotive that carries us towards global revolution has not stopped working..."[23] Although Lenin had no "pierced lungs", the potentially fatal neck-jaw wound had allowed blood to enter one of his lungs, which is still a very serious condition

One unknown, one SR. No anarchist.

Devrim

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by Lenin II+November 30, 2007 01:37 am--> (Lenin II @ November 30, 2007 01:37 am)
Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 04:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
Jesus fucking Christ. Can you spell "straw man?"

Are you here to make a point, or to further divide the left by sowing the seeds of sectarianism and fear-mongering metaphysics? And he said he was a libertarian communist, not an anarchist. [/b]
Read his posts.
Now I have read about communism being divided into two parts - authoritarian and libertarian - so is it somehow contradictory to see Lenin or any other revolutionary theorist in a good light while simultaneously expressing libertarian/anarcho-communistic ideals?Also, what in my post was "meta-physical?"

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 06:24 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 06:24 pm)
Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 30, 2007 12:49 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 30, 2007 12:49 pm) So wait, I asked you for an example of his reactionary views, you provided his views on sexuality, I refuted it by putting forth the argument that his personal views on the issue of sexuality never affected his politics in any way, and that even he himself wasn't really honest when he was putting them forth given the fact that he had an affair, and this is what you come up with?




I actually believe Lenin was wrong on many occasions, no matter how much you want to make me out to be some kindof religious dogmatic follower of him.

For example I believe he was wrong to trade the Gilaki and Mazandari Soviets for peace with the British. I believe he was wrong to support giving Stalin the position of General-Secretary, and then later not make sure that he was removed (even though he did try to have it done). I believe he was wrong not to have seen the danger of the bureaucracy earlier, and having fought against it more fiercly as he did later on in his life, when some would say that it was too late to reverse.

And there are many more. [/b]
It's his theory about "party discipline" and the "sexual morality" which comes with the package that I care about. And they effected his politics--He used it in his political discourse and his followers did as well.

No use denying that, we have all his writing online.

They were no longer "personal" the moment he used it to attack Kollontai. [/b]
Oh right, I didn't know a person couldn't defend his own personal views on sexual morality against another.

So then, I suppose if a person opposes your views on women you would consider them to be politically wrong as well? I for example consider your personal view on women to be wrong and incorrect, however I don't believe it has any negative effect on your politics (they are wrong for other reasons), it's not even possible for them to have a negative effect on your politics, even if you decide to defend them by getting into a discussion with another person about it.

This the view I'm talking about for members who don't know:


Originally posted by RSOC
Unfortunately, it is true that passiveness prevails in many women even in our time. Women are still being taught at a young age that passiveness and servility are "virtues".

That, and the fact that women are more social than men in general and tend to enjoy physician, social interactions more.

I tried to get my girlfriend to play Warcraft with me for 4 months and she STILL didn't like it at all---image my shock.

This one is also quite wrong in my opinion:


[email protected]
To me, the word "girl" gives a sense of youthful vitality and I have always been under the impression that girls like to be known as, you know, NOT OLD.

So then I suppose if you start defending those views, you should be branded a reactionary politically for having those views? If it applies to Lenin, it must apply to you as well.

As for the "party discipline" comment; read my posts fully before replying to them:


me
Alright, fine, you believe that he was wrong politically on political issues such as the vanguard, Krondstadt etc., then say that you politically disagreed with him, don't bring forth claims about him having reactionary views concerning a subject when it doesn't have anything to do with his politics.

In other words; I don't care what you believe about his political views being wrong. If that makes him a reactionary in your opinion (which is pretty strange for a person saying that he's a "great communist and revolutionary") then fine, contradict yourself or have a distorted view of the terms "great communist and revolutionary", I don't care.


What the hell did you think I was talking about all this time? I disagree with his reactionary politics! I wouldn't give a damn if he had a million mistresses in his private life but his "moral values" were setup to "guide" the Bolsheviks in their political pursuit! That's what morality and party discipline is all about!


No it's not, if you keep it personal and don't wish to enforce your personal views on sexual relations to other people, it's actually quite normal. I keep repeating this and you keep coming back with the "same old crap".

As I said; Lenin wrote about his views on morality against Kollontai's because he disagreed with them. Did he anywhere argue for his personal views to be taken over by anyone else? Did he anywhere state that his personal views on the subject were the best and that if people didn't have the same, they were reactionary?

No he did not, and even if he did, he would be a dishonest asshole, because he himself had an affair.

That is the point that you keep missing. I suggest you stop swinging because I doubt you'll ever hit it.

One example is this; I have views on sexuality and morality that someone like you might consider reactionary. I and my girlfriend believe that a monogamous relationship is the best one for us to have, and we are quite happy that we are both each others "first" sexually.

If you find that personal view of ours reactionary or backward, then you can go right ahead and fuck yourself, because we don't care. We believe this and we are quite happy in doing so. Do we wish to enforce our personal views on the subject to other people? Of course not. Would we defend our personal views if they are ever under attack by anyone in a discussion? Of course we will.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Led Zepplin+--> (Led Zepplin)Oh right, I didn't know a person couldn't defend his own personal views on sexual morality against another.
...
No it's not, if you keep it personal and don't wish to enforce your personal views on sexual relations to other people, it's actually quite normal.
[/b]
Still you refuse to face the fact that Lenin's reactionary ideas WERE forced onto others.

All this time I've been trying to keep this as easy to follow as possible...here's my one last attempt.

Can you read this?

Lenin
Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay.
What does that mean to you?

Ok, I know I might be going too fast so let me explain in simple English:
free love is decadent and bourgeois, and you are a decadent bourgeoisie if you practice free love.

How many people will profess their belief in free love now that the great leader has declared it a Bourgeoisie decadency? And that's not forcing his views on others?


I will now refrain from writing more than you can digest.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Everyday Anarchy+November 30, 2007 11:12 pm--> (Everyday Anarchy @ November 30, 2007 11:12 pm)
Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 30, 2007 01:37 am

Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 04:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
Jesus fucking Christ. Can you spell "straw man?"

Are you here to make a point, or to further divide the left by sowing the seeds of sectarianism and fear-mongering metaphysics? And he said he was a libertarian communist, not an anarchist.
Read his posts.
Now I have read about communism being divided into two parts - authoritarian and libertarian - so is it somehow contradictory to see Lenin or any other revolutionary theorist in a good light while simultaneously expressing libertarian/anarcho-communistic ideals?Also, what in my post was "meta-physical?" [/b]
The definition of what we call “metaphysics” is any doctrine or rule which is based chiefly on speculation and not reality or science. Your post uses a straw man argument, which is metaphysical since it has no grounding in reality.

Your argument was that his idealization of Lenin was contradictory because:


If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the Marxist-Leninist position. By setting up this easily refutable position and falsely attributing it to Leninists, you have set up a straw man with imaginary actions and beliefs that are then criticized. You have set up an argument which strays into metaphysics.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+December 01, 2007 05:31 am--> (RedStarOverChina @ December 01, 2007 05:31 am)
Led Zepplin
Oh right, I didn't know a person couldn't defend his own personal views on sexual morality against another.
...
No it's not, if you keep it personal and don't wish to enforce your personal views on sexual relations to other people, it's actually quite normal.

Still you refuse to face the fact that Lenin's reactionary ideas WERE forced onto others. [/b]
Not really. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. That's the basic of logic; learn it.


What does that mean to you?

Nothing. It means objectively that Lenin was a hypocrite when it came to that subject because he himself had an affair. It means also that he pretended to have views on the subject that he did not have in reality, probably to appease the thoughts of the majority of the people at the time.


How many people will profess their belief in free love now that the great leader has declared it a Bourgeoisie decadency?

Apparently a lot of people including himself because there was no legislation against it and there was no dominant view regarding the issue.


And that's not forcing his views on others?

If you can understand logic and don't have an ego to save in a discussion, no, it's not.

If however your ego is so big and you are so childish that you just can't accept the fact that Lenin was bullshitting people when he was making such statements, and that even that bullshitting wasn't worth anything because no one really cared about his opinions on the subject (it's not like people looked to Lenin for advice on their sexual lives, they were smarter than you), then that'll probably be regarded as him forcing his views onto others, with complete disregard of the facts.

Gotta save that huge ego after all.

Oh and by the way, I noticed that you ignored your views on those personal issues I brought up. Not surprised to be honest. At least I don't have the same childish nature as you to call you a reactionary based on those. And also, your attempts at being witty are quite pathetic, so I suggest you stop trying.

Now lay down the shovel, and stop digging.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I've read all the posts in this topic and have decided to make a few remarks.


Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 30, 2007 11:31 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 30, 2007 11:31 pm)Still you refuse to face the fact that Lenin's reactionary ideas WERE forced onto others.

All this time I've been trying to keep this as easy to follow as possible...here's my one last attempt.

Can you read this?

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay.[/b]
What does that mean to you?[/b]
Just as it does not matter to me how any revolutionary views sexuality on a personal level, it really doesn't matter what views Lenin had in that regard. I wouldn't take issue with that- just as I wouldn't take issue with any other communist revolutionary's personal views on it.

I also don't think his opinion on this matter which he held publicly was necessarily the way he carried out his personal affairs, just as I wouldn't expect out of most revolutionaries. It wouldn't really matter to me how a communist revolutionary carries out their life in regard to sexuality.

It's personal, it's not being enforced on others- so why does it matter what Lenin did in his own privacy? Furthermore, why would it matter what any revolutionary did in their own privacy? Sexuality is a personal matter, which is why I don't take issue with revolutionaries for it- just as Lenin didn't make a political issue out of it.


[email protected]
Ok, I know I might be going too fast so let me explain in simple English:
free love is decadent and bourgeois, and you are a decadent bourgeoisie if you practice free love.
Regardless of the views he displayed publicly on the matter of sexuality, I think it is fair to say- just as I would doubt most revolutionaries are completely open about their personal/sexual lives- I would consider it to be the same with Lenin. I also wouldn't be so quick to insist his political position was "reactionary" because of his personal views on sexuality, as he didn't make it a political issue- simply a personal one. Regardless of the views he displayed publicly- just as other people can carry out their sexual lives in their own privacy- that, too, applies to revolutionaries- such as Lenin. He didn't try to enforce this political view on others- enforcing them to carry out their sexual lives in that matter, so why does it necessarily matter if he did so himself or not? Why concern yourself with this matter; rather, why does it matter at all?


RedStarOverChina
How many people will profess their belief in free love now that the great leader has declared it a Bourgeoisie decadency? And that's not forcing his views on others?

I will now refrain from writing more than you can digest.
Lenin took a personal view on this issue, and this "view" wasn't expressed in regard to legislation.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 30, 2007 01:10 pm
Who's side would you pick during the kronstadt rebellion when workers rose up to try and reclaim power from the bolsheviks?

They mostly called for a peasant oriented market economy. I would've sympathised with some of their demands, however this was not as simple as you are putting it.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Lenin II+November 30, 2007 07:37 am--> (Lenin II @ November 30, 2007 07:37 am)
Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 04:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
Jesus fucking Christ. Can you spell "straw man?"

Are you here to make a point, or to further divide the left by sowing the seeds of sectarianism and fear-mongering metaphysics? And he said he was a libertarian communist, not an anarchist.

Comrade_Zac, simply because you see someone as an inspirational leader and figure does not mean you have to agree with everything they ever did. There was a lot of violence, but it was a revolution. No one ever said it was an ideal situation. The opposition to centralized authority is subjective. The POINT IS, it is not hypocritical to find inspiration even when looking into the cold eyes of Stalin himself, for you can learn from their legacies. [/b]

I agree with Lenin. How can some people be so dogmatic, perfectionist, puritan like the people from the Amish Paradise, and obssesively neurotic about Lenin's Revolution?

Lenin was the complete negation of authoritarianism. Russia under Lenin wasn't a state-less communist system. Because if you are smart, you would realize that it takes many years for a country to shift from a Monarchy Tzarist system to a state-less communist system.

Russia under Lenin was a state-socialist system, not a state-less democracy. Why people blame Lenin for not installing a communist state-less system, it's impossible to do that even in today's world.

However Lenin was a sort of Hugo Chavez, a real revolutionary, and above all MORALIST and HONEST, compared to a lot of leftists out there that when they reach power get corrupted and use leftist politics for personal wealth


marxist_god

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+December 02, 2007 04:21 am--> (PRC-UTE @ December 02, 2007 04:21 am)
Originally posted by William Everard+November 30, 2007 01:10 pm--> (William Everard @ November 30, 2007 01:10 pm) Who's side would you pick during the kronstadt rebellion when workers rose up to try and reclaim power from the bolsheviks?
[/b]
They mostly called for a peasant oriented market economy. I would've sympathised with some of their demands, however this was not as simple as you are putting it. [/b]
Actually this is completely false. If you look at the parts of the Krondstadt programme, which concerned the peasantry:

Krondsdat [email protected]
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.
...
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

And then compare it to what the party was planning at the time, the NEP


Wiki
The NEP allowed peasants to lease and hire labor,

It is actually the party who were more for 'a peasant oriented market economy'.

Devrim

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+November 30, 2007 06:26 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ November 30, 2007 06:26 pm)
Everyday [email protected] 30, 2007 05:33 am
I don't see at all how you can be of an anarchist standpoint and also see Vladimir Lenin as an icon. If the Leninists had their way again, you would be against the wall standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the capitalists. And that isn't going to change whether or not "social and economic conditions" are bad.
You also fail to mention that its was an anarchist who attempted to assassinate Lenin. Typical anarchists, they don't get popular support and turn too shooting their more successful rivals. [/b]

Hello, indeed, anarchism ideology itself is anti-scientific, because it wants to change a country from capitalism to communism in 1 day. How utopian, naive and childish !!

Rome wasn't built in 1 day, there has to be a transitional-stage between capitalism and communism. And between that transitional time there could be a lot of changes, like from capitalism, to welfare-social capitalism, to participative-democracy, to state-socialism, etc.

marxist_god

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:46 am
Hello, indeed, anarchism ideology itself is anti-scientific, because it wants to change a country from capitalism to communism in 1 day. How utopian, naive and childish !!

Rome wasn't built in 1 day, there has to be a transitional-stage between capitalism and communism. And between that transitional time there could be a lot of changes, like from capitalism, to welfare-social capitalism, to participative-democracy, to state-socialism, etc.

marxist_god
Anarchists like to make the claim that central planning is "repressive" and that there is no need for the vanguard, or for DotP for that matter- this idea that if they abolish the state they can immediately form a community and all the conditions causing the necessity for the state to exist will be eliminated. They fail to realize that the state is an instrument of the ruling class, not the cause of the conditions. Class distinctions won't just disappear with the state- they will still exist- which is the reason for a transitional stage to communist society- DotP.

Whether or not it is "repressive" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a "community" can't form at that stage. Communism can't be attained without the abolition of class distinctions. Class distinction can only be eliminated and "done away with" if there is a means of destroying them. For this to happen, DotP is necessary to crush bourgeois rule and transfer the means of production, private property, etc into the ownership of the proletarian state- reversing the conditions of capitalist society.

The state isn't simply the problem, and if the bourgeois state is overthrown and no state is to replace it- the bourgeoisie isn't just going to sit on their asses and watch. Civil war can't be avoided either, as class distinctions haven't been eliminated. So there is need for DotP. There is also need for the vanguard, as without centralized power there will ultimately be the same problem- only within the state apparatus- as class distinctions will still exist and oppositional movement will form not just outside of the state but within it. If a state is to be strong enough to crush oppositional force it must not have weaknesses- which counterrevolutionaries can use as means of gaining force against the proletarian state. There needs to be a structure existent strong enough to resist this force and eliminate it without the threat opposition from within itself.

[Diagoras of Melos]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 03, 2007 06:02 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 03, 2007 06:02 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 10:46 am
Hello, indeed, anarchism ideology itself is anti-scientific, because it wants to change a country from capitalism to communism in 1 day. How utopian, naive and childish !!

Rome wasn't built in 1 day, there has to be a transitional-stage between capitalism and communism. And between that transitional time there could be a lot of changes, like from capitalism, to welfare-social capitalism, to participative-democracy, to state-socialism, etc.

marxist_god
Anarchists like to make the claim that central planning is "repressive" and that there is no need for the vanguard, or for DotP for that matter- this idea that if they abolish the state they can immediately form a community and all the conditions causing the necessity for the state to exist will be eliminated. They fail to realize that the state is an instrument of the ruling class, not the cause of the conditions. Class distinctions won't just disappear with the state- they will still exist- which is the reason for a transitional stage to communist society- DotP.

Whether or not it is "repressive" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a "community" can't form at that stage. Communism can't be attained without the abolition of class distinctions. Class distinction can only be eliminated and "done away with" if there is a means of destroying them. For this to happen, DotP is necessary to crush bourgeois rule and transfer the means of production, private property, etc into the ownership of the proletarian state- reversing the conditions of capitalist society.

The state isn't simply the problem, and if the bourgeois state is overthrown and no state is to replace it- the bourgeoisie isn't just going to sit on their asses and watch. Civil war can't be avoided either, as class distinctions haven't been eliminated. So there is need for DotP. There is also need for the vanguard, as without centralized power there will ultimately be the same problem- only within the state apparatus- as class distinctions will still exist and oppositional movement will form not just outside of the state but within it. If a state is to be strong enough to crush oppositional force it must not have weaknesses- which counterrevolutionaries can use as means of gaining force against the proletarian state. There needs to be a structure existent strong enough to resist this force and eliminate it without the threat opposition from within itself. [/b]
I'm so glad that we have a Leninist or two readily available to explain to everyone what anarchism is :rolleyes: .

Proposing that anarchists simply believe that the 'morning after the revolution' everything will be peachy keen, the bourgeoisie and their statist elements will shrug their shoulders and find a nice plot of land by Walden pond, and the world will become one continuous John Lennon song is a gross straw-man misrepresentation. It is not a matter of anarchists "failing to realize" that the state is an instrument of class rule. We agree. What we also see is that the state is a progenitor of class rule by its nature, leading to the formation of another elite class above the people. You fail to realize that the state creates class distinctions by its very nature. Is it more 'childish', 'utopian', or 'naive' to believe that people are capable of working towards a free and socialist society without an institutionalized elite with its own interests, or to continue to believe in the virtue of the vanguard party seizing state power, even after the last century of bloodbaths in the name of the proletariat?

You can raise a popular army, wage guerrilla struggle, and all those lovely aspects of class defense without a state 'directing' the revolution through an authoritarian vanguard party. We can pull out our endless partisan lists of classical ideological icons of revolution (Russia vs. Spain, etc.), but given our fundamentally different assumptions and conclusions concerning the role of the state in maintaining social elites and class domination, we won't get anywhere. Just please don't recycle the same straw men arguments that we are then forced to address, seemingly endlessly.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:46 am
Hello, indeed, anarchism ideology itself is anti-scientific, because it wants to change a country from capitalism to communism in 1 day. How utopian, naive and childish !!
Naive and childish is your claim that anarchism is anti-scientific, in addition to that every bland of anarchism doesn't want a "transition stage" from capitalism to communism.

Anarchists do not want a centralized authority or a centralized state but rather advocate local populations to actively take part and have a say in what would be the purest form of direct democracy.

Rome wasn't built in 1 day, there has to be a transitional-stage between capitalism and communism. And between that transitional time there could be a lot of changes, like from capitalism, to welfare-social capitalism, to participative-democracy, to state-socialism, etc.

marxist_god
We're not trying to build a "Rome". We're trying to bring it down.

The reasons for what you call a "transitional time" is precisely why there shouldn't be a centralized state in the first place. Different areas are at different stages of productive development, and need the workers of those underdeveloped areas to come together and voice what they need in relation to global communist development. To suggest otherwise would be authoritative and coercive.

Edit: On the original topic of the thread, I admire the work of Lenin and his role in the Russian Revolution as well. He had his faults, but who wouldn't ever while leading one of the few successful worker's revolutions?