Do leninists believe in....

[victim77]

A dictatorship? I like the idea of a country for the workers and I think a democracy (not a capitalist one) could work with a few adjustments but from what they tell me in history Lenin was a dictator (which is probably bias) and was almost as bad as Stalin. I know very little about the true USSR so can some one please inform me about Leninism.

[victim77]

I think I read some where that leninists believe in direct democracy (aka pure democracy) which is alot like syndicalism.

[renegadoe]

Leninists believe that revolution requires a vanguard party, consisting of the self-proclaimed "most advanced" sections of the working class, who must organize the revolution for (though they claim "with") the working class. Theoretically, Lenin observed that the Russian proletariat in 1916 was too small and "backward" for a revolution, but that the bourgeoisie of Russia were too weak to resist imperialist pressure. Thus, historically, the Leninist paradigm of revolution has shown to serve excellently as preforming the early functions of a bourgeois revolution (i.e. industrializing the means of production) for a predominantly feudal country dominated by exterior imperialist pressure, in less time and with no capitalists "per se". But, as Marx predicted, a dominantly-feudal country which attempts to move towards socialism, no matter the resolute will of the socialist leaders, will invariably end up with capitalism. And they all did.

When studying Leninist parties and politics, however, there are no signs that Leninists believe in direct democracy or syndicalism. In fact, Leninists historically attack institutions of direct democracy (e.g. soviets and councils) as well as syndicalist unions. After all, that's what's in the material interests of a nascent bourgeoisie.

Historically, however, all attempts to organize a vanguard in "developed" capitalist states have been futile - the material conditions we're working in make justification for a vanguard party obsolete. And, as Marx said, proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries must be the work of the workers themselves.

[Dros]

A dictatorship? I like the idea of a country for the workers and I think a democracy (not a capitalist one) could work with a few adjustments but from what they tell me in history Lenin was a dictator (which is probably bias) and was almost as bad as Stalin. I know very little about the true USSR so can some one please inform me about Leninism.

Leninists do believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it is important to understand what the Marxist understanding of the term "dictatorship" is. To Marxists, any state is dominated by the interests of the ruling class and is thus a dictatorship of that class. So, most every country today is run by a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Dictatorship is thus not opposed to democracy. Leninists believe in constructing a state which is labelled the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasentry (or just the dictatorship of the proletariat referred to here after as the DoP). The DoP is a democratic dictatorship. That is, the state is run by worker's democracy and by a vanguard party while at the same time constituting a state invested in the interests of and dominated by the proletariat as a class. That means that the government is, in the fullest sense, the dictatorship of one class of people over another.

This does not mean that Leninists support a tyranny and Lenin was most definitely not a tyrant.

[victim77]

I see....Well I'll stick with my syndicalism then.

[Redmau5]

In fact, Leninists historically attack institutions of direct democracy (e.g. soviets and councils)

There was me thinking that one of the Bolsheviks' most popular slogans was 'All power to the Soviets'.

[bezdomni]

I see....Well I'll stick with my syndicalism then.

Political ideologies are not cigarette brands. You don't choose them because one looks better than another, you have to actually use your brain.

What do you find distasteful about Lenin's analysis?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There was me thinking that one of the Bolsheviks' most popular slogans was 'All power to the Soviets'.

What people who criticise Lenin don't get is that Lenin said that the conditions determine the strategy. They just see Lenin as a dogmatist and accept the Stalinism that occurred afterwards.

This is ironic because the "anti Leninist" will always say exactly the same thing, no matter what the conditions are. Whereas Lenin was pragmatic, his opponents are opportunistic and dogmatic.

But they dont seriously investigate him, they simply either accept the liberal history that Lenin led to stalin, or the ultra lefts interpretation that an organised party is in a conspiracy against the workers.

Both the conspiracy theorists and the liberal interpretors can jack off can lie and lie and lie, but Leninism will continue to exist in Trotskyism.

[abbielives!]

There was me thinking that one of the Bolsheviks' most popular slogans was 'All power to the Soviets'.


That's all it was to the Bolsheviks, a slogan.
An accurate Leninist slogan would read 'All power to the State'.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

That's all it was to the Bolsheviks, a slogan.
An accurate Leninist slogan would read 'All power to the State'.

So was it all a conspiracy theory? Lenin never wanted the workers to be in power, he wanted all the power for himself eh?

[abbielives!]

What people who criticise Lenin don't get is that Lenin said that the conditions determine the strategy.

which is bullshit as evidenced by the mahknovists.

[abbielives!]

So was it all a conspiracy theory? Lenin never wanted the workers to be in power, he wanted all the power for himself eh?


you dont put the workers in power by removing all the desion making power from their hands.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

you dont put the workers in power by removing all the desion making power from their hands.

Right okay. Even if that is true (it isn't) why did Lenin and the bolsheviks do that. What motive do you present???

[victim77]

Political ideologies are not cigarette brands. You don't choose them because one looks better than another, you have to actually use your brain.

What do you find distasteful about Lenin's analysis?
Well I believe in power to the workers and I was just trying to see if leninism achieved that better than syndicalism.

[INDK]

A dictatorship? I like the idea of a country for the workers and I think a democracy (not a capitalist one) could work with a few adjustments but from what they tell me in history Lenin was a dictator (which is probably bias) and was almost as bad as Stalin. I know very little about the true USSR so can some one please inform me about Leninism.

Besides Nothing Human is Alien's excellent and simple explanation, he forgot to make clear that after the goals of the Leninist State are complete the Leninists have written they aim to abolish the State.


Well I believe in power to the workers and I was just trying to see if leninism achieved that better than syndicalism.

Syndicalists, as far as I know, believe in a far more direct approach to autogestion.

[victim77]

Besides Nothing Human is Alien's excellent and simple explanation, he forgot to make clear that after the goals of the Leninist State are complete the Leninists have written they aim to abolish the State.



Syndicalists, as far as I know, believe in a far more direct approach to autogestion.
Thanks! but Syndicalism seems to express the way I think better.

[Dros]

Well I believe in power to the workers and I was just trying to see if leninism achieved that better than syndicalism.

It most certainly does. I don't think I sufficiently emphasized the meaning of the word "dictatorship" in my first post.

When Leninists say they want a dictatorship, they don't mean they want a dictator. They mean that, in the broadest sense, the PROLETARIAT (that is the workers) should have total control over the socialist state, that is, power to the workers.

Syndicalism's focus on reactionary labor unions have proven ineffective and is not the way to actually effect a sweeping transformation of society.

[victim77]

It most certainly does. I don't think I sufficiently emphasized the meaning of the word "dictatorship" in my first post.

When Leninists say they want a dictatorship, they don't mean they want a dictator. They mean that, in the broadest sense, the PROLETARIAT (that is the workers) should have total control over the socialist state, that is, power to the workers.

Syndicalism's focus on reactionary labor unions have proven ineffective and is not the way to actually effect a sweeping transformation of society.
Not to start a debate but from what I have read the goal of syndicalism is a slow steady transformation which seems like the only way in our counterrevolutionary society.

[cb9's_unity]

Ok I'm not my Leninist but i think I can provide a pretty non-bias explanation.

Leninism is more or less simply marxism with some additions. Each recognizes that society goes through stages of development and transition. Marx seemed to only believe that socialism could be brought about in an advanced industrialized capitalist society through revolution by the working class. Lenin believed that poorer countries with significantly smaller working classes could band together with the peasantry in order to create socialism. Lenin also builds upon Marx's idea of the revolutionary communist party. Lenin's vanguard is a small extremely organized group of advanced revolutionaries that work with the working class to protect and advance the revolution. Their are other differences but those seem to be the most significant.

After the working class is fully triumphant and a classless society is reached Leninism and Marxism become identical in their hope to smash the traditional state with the implementation of communism.

drosera does a pretty good job of describing where the confusion over the word 'dictatorship' comes from.

[abbielives!]

Right okay. Even if that is true (it isn't) why did Lenin and the bolsheviks do that. What motive do you present???


their motive is unimportant, the fact is that they did it. the reason it occurred however is because they were following a flawed theory, the state is not only an instrument of class suppression it is also an instrument of class creation (class: decision making power)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well actually their motive is very important.

But, i understand you cannot answer that question because you will end up in the realm of conspiracy theories which conventional historians accept, and you are attempting to convey a materialist position.

What class did the state create though? and how did they come to power?

[abbielives!]

Well actually their motive is very important.

But, i understand you cannot answer that question because you will end up in the realm of conspiracy theories which conventional historians accept, and you are attempting to convey a materialist position.

What class did the state create though? and how did they come to power?

the state is a class of it's own, it puts some people in command of others, thus it is a class.

[Comrade Rage]

the state is a class of it's own, it puts some people in command of others, thus it is a class.
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/failcat.jpg

[( R )evolution]

their motive is unimportant, the fact is that they did it. the reason it occurred however is because they were following a flawed theory, the state is not only an instrument of class suppression it is also an instrument of class creation (class: decision making power)

Okkk so your trying to say motives are unimportant? Wow.

A flawed theory? Are you kidding me. May I ask what political philosophy you adhere to?

[( R )evolution]

the state is a class of it's own, it puts some people in command of others, thus it is a class.


Wow thats shocking. May I ask your opinion of a dictatorship of the proletariat then? I am sorry to say but your logic is flawed.

[Dros]

the state is a class of it's own, it puts some people in command of others, thus it is a class.

Do you have any idea what the word "class" means?

[abbielives!]

Do you have any idea what the word "class" means?


I just defined it. How do you not understand?

[Q]

I just defined it. How do you not understand?
Please do your homework (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class) before you go questioning things.

[Q]

I see....Well I'll stick with my syndicalism then.
A curiosity question: in what way does "syndicalist democracy" differ from soviet democracy?



Thanks! but Syndicalism seems to express the way I think better.
Could you elaborate why you're against the concept of a revolutionary party that seeks to elevate the working class' conciousness as a class? Bring them political clarity? Give organisational support in the day to day struggle?


Not to start a debate but from what I have read the goal of syndicalism is a slow steady transformation which seems like the only way in our counterrevolutionary society.
This almost sounds like reformism. Could you elaborate here aswell?


Lenin believed that poorer countries with significantly smaller working classes could band together with the peasantry in order to create socialism.
Not correct. Lenin fully realised the need for spreading the revolution internationally. Russia was way too backward to even start building on its socialist tasks. The need for spreading the revolution was instrumental.


Lenin's vanguard is a small extremely organized group of advanced revolutionaries that work with the working class to protect and advance the revolution.
This is a very big confusion people on the left often make. The revolutionary party consists of the vanguard but does not equal to it. The vanguard is the more militant, active and hardened layer of the working class, the revolutionary party is the political organ that tries to organise the working class, via the vanguard. Read more about it here (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard).

[abbielives!]

Please do your homework (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class) before you go questioning things.


that's exactly what I mean Marx was WRONG.

[Coggeh]

When studying Leninist parties and politics, however, there are no signs that Leninists believe in direct democracy or syndicalism. In fact, Leninists historically attack institutions of direct democracy (e.g. soviets and councils) as well as syndicalist unions. After all, that's what's in the material interests of a nascent bourgeoisie.

Yes us leninists want to destroy the capitalist class and and seek power for ourselves so we can further enslave the working class, muhahaha:drool:

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

that's exactly what I mean Marx was WRONG.

so you mean marxists not leninists, at least be honest.

[Dros]

I just defined it. How do you not understand?

clearly you don't

[Q]

that's exactly what I mean Marx was WRONG.
You just completely changed my mind there with your well put arguments that just wiped away the whole core of Marxism.

[abbielives!]

You just completely changed my mind there with your well put arguments that just wiped away the whole core of Marxism.

glad I could help

[abbielives!]

so you mean marxists not leninists, at least be honest.

leninists are marxists

[Gold Against The Soul]

the state is a class of it's own, it puts some people in command of others

Who are 'it?'

[Q]

glad I could help
I'm glad my sarcasm was not misunderstood.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

leninists are marxists

but there exists autonomists and authodox Marxists, Luxemburgists etc all of whom aside from luxemburgists dislike the methods of the bolsheviks.

unless you didnt understand the question of the thread, marxists exist outside of leninism.