My problem with Leninism

[Bastable]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, replacing one master with another isn't going to make the world a better place.

[Dros]

Wow! Just wow. In that single sentence, you've managed to totally annihilate all of Leninist theory. I deeply appreciate your balanced and thorough evaluation of history and your sophisticated critique of Leninist theory.

I also enjoy the fact that you can't even spell Leninism.

[Dr Mindbender]

was lenin really a master? I don't know.

I think the state of the USSR and it's government at that time was a product of the world surrounding it, not a product of the ideaology that it pursued.

[Q]

Silly topics are silly.

This is chit-chat worthy, and that's not a compliment.

[Wake Up]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, replacing one master with another isn't going to make the world a better place.

It is if we replace Hitler with Ghandi.

[Raúl Duke]

It is if we replace Hitler with Ghandi.

How naive...

Gandhi isn't all that nice either I heard. Supposedly he supported the caste system. If he was leader of India, not much probably would have changed.

Interestingly, there's a discussion about it here. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/gandhi-and-myth-p1171558/index.html#post1171558)

Although if Hitler was wiped out of the picture (assassinated, never rose to power, got a career in art instead, etc)...things might have been better.

[manic expression]

This has to be one of the weakest arguments to open a thread on revleft. Please go read Marx (you know, since it's kind of MARXISM-Leninism) and come back when you're able to grasp the most fundamental of its ideas. Seriously, go read the Communist Manifesto today, it's not that long, and you certainly need it.

[Forward Union]

How naive...

Gandhi isn't all that nice either I heard. Supposedly he supported the caste system. If he was leader of India, not much probably would have changed.

Interestingly, there's a discussion about it here. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/gandhi-and-myth-p1171558/index.html#post1171558)

Although if Hitler was wiped out of the picture (assassinated, never rose to power, got a career in art instead, etc)...things might have been better.

The reason he never got the nobel prize was because he advocated race war.

yes you read right, he wanted the Indians to massacre and chase the Blacks out of india and even advised the British government to go harder on it's african colonies.

[Tower of Bebel]

The OP would even dare to argue that what happened after the death of Caesar was also leninism.


Silly topics are silly.

This is chit-chat worthy, and that's not a compliment.
No, because you really can contribute to chit chat.

[Dros]

MARXISM-Leninism

You realize Marxism-Leninism is another word for "Stalinism" right?

You being a Trotskyist, and all, I just thought you should know that Trotsky was not and never claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist.

He called himself a Bolshevik Leninist.

[Led Zeppelin]

You realize Marxism-Leninism is another word for "Stalinism" right?

You being a Trotskyist, and all, I just thought you should know that Trotsky was not and never claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist.

He called himself a Bolshevik Leninist.

This is not true:

Trotsky referring to communist parties as Marxist-Leninist in 1924:


And so here there must appear on the scene in some countries and broadly and boldly develop in others, the Marxist-Leninist parties of the East: Japanese communists, Chinese communists, Turkish, Indian and so on.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/04/perspectives.htm)

Trotsky referring to himself and other Left-Oppositionists as Marxist-Leninist as late as 1927:


It is not enough for one to “be concerned about the defense of the USSR”; one must also be concerned about the Marxist line of the policies; one must know the basic forces of the world struggle, understand class relations and the mechanics of parties; and one must be a Marxist-Leninist and not a philistine
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/09/arc.htm)

He used the terms Marxist-Leninist, Left-Oppositionist and Bolshevik Leninist, having to finally settle on the latter two due to the hijacking of the term Marxist-Leninist by the Stalinists.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Wow I love how people like Drosera and Q-Collective like to just rub in peoples faces how they are wrong and not explain how this is the LEARNING section in case you didn't realize

[Wake Up]

How naive...

Gandhi isn't all that nice either I heard. Supposedly he supported the caste system. If he was leader of India, not much probably would have changed.

Interestingly, there's a discussion about it here. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/gandhi-and-myth-p1171558/index.html#post1171558)

Although if Hitler was wiped out of the picture (assassinated, never rose to power, got a career in art instead, etc)...things might have been better.

Did I suggest for one moment that Ghandi was a communist? Did I suggest that Ghandi was the perfect leader for all of us to follow.
No I don't think I did, how typical of touchy members on this forum to jump to conclusions each time.

No one can dispute that life under a Ghandi government would be better for the proletariat than life under a Hitler government. Therefore disputing the rather blase opening statement.

I would have thought that was fucking obvious.

[Kami]

Wow! Just wow. In that single sentence, you've managed to totally annihilate all of Leninist theory. I deeply appreciate your balanced and thorough evaluation of history and your sophisticated critique of Leninist theory.

I also enjoy the fact that you can't even spell Leninism.
I didn't see you jumping on the "my problem with anarchism" thread this one parodies.

[Q]

Wow I love how people like Drosera and Q-Collective like to just rub in peoples faces how they are wrong and not explain how this is the LEARNING section in case you didn't realize
Well, the "my problems with x" topics seem to become a hype to simply give on anything people don't like, as opposed to actually wanting to learn something.

That is chit-chat worthy.

[manic expression]

You realize Marxism-Leninism is another word for "Stalinism" right?

That is completely wrong. Stalinists like to make believe Marxism-Leninism only applies to their camp, but anyone who is slightly objective knows this is fully false and ridiculous.

In reality, Stalin succeeded in killing most Marxist-Leninists in Russia. See how many members of the 1935 Party Congress were alive by 1940. Stalin and his bureaucratic allies may have styled themselves Marxist-Leninists, but their suppression of Lenin's Testament shows that this label only goes so far.

Do I have a problem with so-called anti-revisionists? Not in general. However, I don't appreciate it when many of them try to deny other Leninists validity in any argument. You yourself criticize Stalin for destroying democracy within the party, but you need to realize that this is part of that exact mentality.


You being a Trotskyist, and all, I just thought you should know that Trotsky was not and never claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist.

Wrong, see above.


He called himself a Bolshevik Leninist.

Among other things, including Marxist-Leninist.

[Prairie Fire]

Bastable, your real problem with Leninism is that you have no grasp of it AT ALL. All you have is the usual "meet the new boss" bourgeois cliches.

I can recommend some reading, on the slim chance you'd like to research the position and gain a better understanding. PM me.



It is if we replace Hitler with Ghandi.


Why? Because Ghandi only killed one million people? :D

And this is the point where the thread inevitably degrades into attacks on Stalin. I have no idea how or why, but after all these years, one of the universal prinicples of revleft is all threads either turn into "Why Stalin was an asshole" or "Annurky vs Vangaurdizm".

I have to believe I'm not the only one who's sick of this by now.


In reality, Stalin succeeded in killing most Marxist-Leninists in Russia.See how many members of the 1935 Party Congress were alive by 1940.

Hmmm.... I wonder what happened between 1935 and 1940 (or 1939 and 1940, to be more specific.); possibly a world event of some sort :rolleyes:.

Also, what made these people "Marxist Leninists"? Zinoviev was an ML? Kamenev?


but their suppression of Lenin's Testament shows that this label only goes so far.


Ah yes, Lenin's last testament, his "will" where he leaves the USSR to Trotsky (His "rightful Heir") :lol:.

Piss off, Trot-cultist.


However, I don't appreciate it when many of them try to deny other Leninists validity in any argument.

We deny your validity based on your own words, on your own theoretical line, on your own actions.

You deny our validity based on hear-say, popular misconceptions, propaganda and spite because your cult figure "got cheated" out of his "rightful place" as General Secretary of the CPSU.


Among other things, including Marxist-Leninist.

Many call themselves Marxist-Leninists;very few of these are in terms of theory and practice.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I was laughing so hard at this thread and wondering why even the Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Marxist-Leninist, and Hoxhaist care to bother.:lol:

[Malakangga]

i don't have any idea

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was laughing so hard at this thread and wondering why even the Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Marxist-Leninist, and Hoxhaist care to bother.:lol:

The original post is little more than an tired, ill-informed attack on even the aforementioned caricatures which claim to be "Leninist" (Trotskyism, "Marxism-Leninism," Maoism, etc.). :glare:

Heck, as I have argued before, there is no real "Leninism," per se. There are the aforementioned caricatures on one side, and on the other - the so-called "Leninism" of Lenin - is merely revolutionary Marxism.

[Random Precision]

You deny our validity based on hear-say, popular misconceptions, propaganda and spite because your cult figure "got cheated" out of his "rightful place" as General Secretary of the CPSU.

No, it couldn't be at all that most of us have read up on the history of the revolution in Russia and find ourselves in agreement with what Trotsky had to say about it, hm?

Seriously, Raven. You're better than this.

[Prairie Fire]

Um, I was commenting on why Trotskyists deny the validity of our ideological position, not why they became Trots, catbert.

[manic expression]

Hmmm.... I wonder what happened between 1935 and 1940 (or 1939 and 1940, to be more specific.); possibly a world event of some sort :rolleyes:.

The Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. The "world event" you're referring to must be the purges, or else you were completely mistaken.


Also, what made these people "Marxist Leninists"? Zinoviev was an ML? Kamenev?

Being Bolsheviks, contemporaries of Lenin and communists. They disagreed on policy, sure, but should they have been executed? Only if you hate democratic discussion.


Ah yes, Lenin's last testament, his "will" where he leaves the USSR to Trotsky (His "rightful Heir") :lol:.

No, that's not what he wrote; he criticized many Bolsheviks, Trotsky included, but his criticism of Stalin was so strong that he said he wanted Stalin removed from his position of power. Your insistence on belittling and ignoring Lenin's ideas shows, once again, how far the label of "Marxist-Leninist" goes.


Piss off, Trot-cultist.

Vintage Stalinist argument.


We deny your validity based on your own words, on your own theoretical line, on your own actions.

Make specific charges, don't hide behind the vague nature of your words. We're all waiting.


You deny our validity based on hear-say, popular misconceptions, propaganda and spite because your cult figure "got cheated" out of his "rightful place" as General Secretary of the CPSU.

If you'd been paying attention, I argue with so-called anti-revisionists on the merit of their points and nothing less. I do not dismiss Stalinist arguments just because they are Stalinist, and I agree with Stalinists on many issues. You, on the other hand, depend on slander to cover your otherwise-empty rhetoric.

And Trotsky didn't really want the position of General Secretary. Read up on history.


Many call themselves Marxist-Leninists;very few of these are in terms of theory and practice.

Killing most Marxist-Leninists in Russia, taking power from the working classes, destroying democratic centralism, suppressing the words of Lenin and more are the actions of Stalin. Actions speak louder than labels and Stalin-style slander.

[Random Precision]

Um, I was commenting on why Trotskyists deny the validity of our ideological position, not why they became Trots, catbert.

"Why we became Trots" has direct bearing on why we reject your ideological position.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

The reason he never got the nobel prize was because he advocated race war.

yes you read right, he wanted the Indians to massacre and chase the Blacks out of india and even advised the British government to go harder on it's african colonies.Could I get a source on that?

Not that I disbelieve you, but it would come in handy when some pacifist liberals I know next start ranting about how evil and irresponsible revolutionary politics are, and how ghandi showed us the better way...

[Comrade Rage]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, replacing one master with another isn't going to make the world a better place.Wow...watch me melt.


but their suppression of Lenin's Testament shows that this label only goes so far.Puh - lease stop citing 'Lenin's Testament'. It doesn't get more interesting each time you bring it up.


I agree with Stalinists on many issues.Which ones exactly?

[Bastable]

This has to be one of the weakest arguments to open a thread on revleft. Please go read Marx (you know, since it's kind of MARXISM-Leninism) and come back when you're able to grasp the most fundamental of its ideas. Seriously, go read the Communist Manifesto today, it's not that long, and you certainly need it.

Actually I have read the manifesto and yes I can grasp basic concepts, because if you didn't notice, I said Leninism, not Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism.

And yes Marxism is a paradigm separate from Leninism, which you would know if you have read the Communist Manifesto and had grasped its basic concepts :)

Bastable

[Lost In Translation]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, replacing one master with another isn't going to make the world a better place.

Was that a question, a weak statement, or an invite to be flamed?

[manic expression]

Puh - lease stop citing 'Lenin's Testament'. It doesn't get more interesting each time you bring it up.

I don't aim to entertain you. I aim to bring up actual actions of Stalin and how the correlate to the development of the Soviet Union and the communist movement.


Which ones exactly?

I've actually been in agreement with some Hoxhaists here, mostly when it comes to arguing with ultra-lefts and anarchists. I agree with drosera when it comes to basic Marxism, etc. I've marched with the RCP before. I could go on.

Bastable


Actually I have read the manifesto and yes I can grasp basic concepts, because if you didn't notice, I said Leninism, not Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism.

Leninism IS Marxism-Leninism. And read the Manifesto again, and more closely.


And yes Marxism is a paradigm separate from Leninism, which you would know if you have read the Communist Manifesto and had grasped its basic concepts

All Marxists advocate replacing the capitalist state with a socialist state, surely Karl Marx did. That is precisely your "problem with Leninism", and that means you don't understand the ideas of Marx or Marxism or Marxism-Leninism.

[Bastable]

It wasn't the idea of replacing the capitalist state with a socialist alternative that I had a problem with, it was the organizational structure with the "vanguard party". Marx stated that the communists are the ones who "push forward" the working class, which requires being in and amongst the working class. Unlike the Leninist principle of leading the working class. this is how "Marxism" can differ from "Leninism" (or "Marxism-Leninism" if you prefer).