to anti-leninists

[reddevil]

i really don't understand you guys. you claim that the russian revolution did not serve the proletarian interest when the bolsheviks made sure workers were heavily involved in the decision making process through popular comiteess. i'm all for workers having a say in the economy but i do not consider them qualified to run it by themselves. left-communism it was once said, is an infantile disorder.
socialists need to get our own house in order. to read lies about comrade lenin in the capitalist bourgeouisse press is to be expected, but for them to be circualated within our own ranks? it misleads good comrades and damages our cause. it cannot be accepted. they are doing massive damage.

[revolution inaction]

i really don't understand you guys. you claim that the russian revolution did not serve the proletarian interest when the bolsheviks made sure workers were heavily involved in the decision making process through popular comiteess.

the russian revolution is not the same as the bolsheviks, also the bolsheviks repeatedly shut down the organisations that the workers had formed or took other measures to render them ineffective.



i'm all for workers having a say in the economy but i do not consider them qualified to run it by themselves. left-communism it was once said, is an infantile disorder.

I can't think of anyone better than the workers to run the economy, if you don't want the workers to run every thing you are not a revolutionary



socialists need to get our own house in order. to read lies about comrade lenin in the capitalist bourgeouisse press is to be expected, but for them to be circualated within our own ranks? it misleads good comrades and damages our cause. it cannot be accepted. they are doing massive damage.
Revolutionaries don't tell lies about lenin, that's what leninist do. If you cant tell the difference between what anarchist say about lenin and what the bourgeoisie says the you haven't been listening.

Have you read the Bolsheviks and workers control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)?

[#FF0000]

i really don't understand you guys. you claim that the russian revolution did not serve the proletarian interest when the bolsheviks made sure workers were heavily involved in the decision making process through popular comiteess..

Er, I remember the Soviet State doing its damndest to shut down worker-run soviets. That's what eventually lead to the uprising at Kronstadt.


i'm all for workers having a say in the economy but i do not consider them qualified to run it by themselves.

Who is then? The bosses/bureaucrats? How would you reconcile the difference in relation to the means of production between the workers and the bosses, if the bosses run production and the workers only make suggestions that may or not be implemented.

Shit, I could make suggestions at my job now that may or not be accepted right now, under capitalism!


socialists need to get our own house in order. to read lies about comrade lenin in the capitalist bourgeouisse press is to be expected, but for them to be circualated within our own ranks? it misleads good comrades and damages our cause. it cannot be accepted. they are doing massive damage.

I don't know what lies you're talking about, but people being critical of Lenin doesn't do anything. It's a good thing, like all criticism is. I suggest you look at your views a bit more critically and honestly challenge them, 24/7, so you can at least understand the perspective of others.

Circulate lies about Comrade Lenin for massive damage!

[Tower of Bebel]

This thread will lead nowhere but the same old story. The Bolshevik party did replace the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship of the party. Instead of denying or condemning this historical event we should learn from it. One or a few paragraphs wont suffice.

[Black Dagger]

i really don't understand you guys.

It's pretty simple, we want workers control; not to replace one boss with another, i.e:


i'm all for workers having a say in the economy but i do not consider them qualified to run it by themselves.

[Sendo]

will they ever be "qualified" in your opinion? If not, you aren't on the revolutionary left. But this is irrelevant; it's worked in Catalonia, in Argentina (see: Sin Patron), in indigenous communities in Mexico (like with coffee production), and most recently in Nepal. Even a petty-bourgeois Proudhonist would disagree with you. Only the most elitist capitalists (read:fascists and Friedmanites) would think that workers are unqualified to manage themselves.

[DiaMat86]

You comrades need an ice cold glass of...

[bcbm]

socialists need to get our own house in order. to read lies about comrade lenin in the capitalist bourgeouisse press is to be expected, but for them to be circualated within our own ranks? it misleads good comrades and damages our cause. it cannot be accepted. they are doing massive damage.

Yeah, insulting an asshole like Lenin will certainly turn off the mass of workers to the cause of worker self-management. Oh wait, most workers don't give a flying fuck about Lenin (for good reason).

[Hyacinth]

again the same shit with the same arguments by the anarchists .

I can't take this any more!
It isn't only anarchists that disagree with Leninism, many communists do as well. I direct anyone who is interested as to what is wrong with Leninism to read RedStar2000's papers (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/), it sums it up nicely. We really don't need to go into this long drawn-out debate again.

[OI OI OI]

I know all arguments are the same old shit.

But it doesnt need to be unique to be true.

I can make a unique discovery and say that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't make it true.

Having said that I agree with the LEninist position

[bcbm]

I know all arguments are the same old shit.

But it doesnt need to be unique to be true.

I can make a unique discovery and say that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't make it true.

Oh, anti-leninist arguments are doing massive damage to the movement then? Bullshit.

[Hyacinth]

I know all arguments are the same old shit.

But it doesnt need to be unique to be true.

I can make a unique discovery and say that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't make it true.

Having said that I agree with the LEninist position
You're welcomed to show us all that the arguments are shit, I, for one, don't wish to be in error. If you can demonstrate that I'm wrong I'd be more than happy to change my mind. So, the stage is yours: if you'd like to actually address the arguments please do. As the capitalists might say: "put your money where your mouth is".

[OI OI OI]

I ve read R2K's papers and they are full of errors.

Unfortunately Leninism ahs been butchered by Stalinists, anarchists and capitalists .

It is really hard to find the original Bolshevik ideas in this world.
I think only the CWI and the IMT are upholding them to an extent.

And to these ideas I ve never seen a critique worthy of my time.

I will try to make a good response tomorrow as now I am going to sleep and the last days I ve been pretty much writing stupidities in here so I feel I should make a positive contribution after all:)

Enough with trolling back to business

[bcbm]

And to these ideas I ve never seen a critique worthy of my time.

Convenient. :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

*shrugs* the bolshevik party was not monolithic entity, and even people like Lenin or Trotsky weren't one hundred percent correct or wrong or remained unchanged throughout the years. What bothersme of the anarchist analysis is that it seems they try to put all the fault to the centralized aspect of the party, as if a few men (the ones in the party) were responsable for state-capitalism. That analysis reeks of great mean complex and it doesnt seems materialist to me. The anarchists were also part of counterrevolutions- and it wasnt because the idea of anarchism, but because of certain material conditions. Just because the mayority of the CNT voted to be part of the goverment, all in the name of anti-fascism, means all of anarchism is discredited. I think some aspects of anarchism are wrong, like the unhealthy fixation with democracy, but in other aspects they are correct.

[Bilan]

you claim that the russian revolution did not serve the proletarian interest when the bolsheviks made sure workers were heavily involved in the decision making process through popular comiteess.

That is just simply not true. Popular committees are no substitute for true proletarian democracy, in any way shape or form. How can you ultimately say, that one man management of industry was making sure the working class was heavily involved in the decision making process? How can you say that the implementation of the power of the party to remove democraticaly elected delegates, and substitute ones from above, was involving them in the decision making process? That is as democratic as capitalism. It is utter shit.



i'm all for workers having a say in the economy but i do not consider them qualified to run it by themselves.

Then you're not a communist.



left-communism it was once said, is an infantile disorder.

Have you even read that text? It is completely trash. And no, Left communism isn't.



socialists need to get our own house in order. to read lies about comrade lenin in the capitalist bourgeouisse press is to be expected, but for them to be circualated within our own ranks? it misleads good comrades and damages our cause. it cannot be accepted. they are doing massive damage.

What lies are they exactly? That he support one man management of industry? He did. That he supported the dictatorship of the party over the proletariat, as a substitution of the dictatorship of the proletariat (although, he claims to have believed that was)? He did. That he supported the implementation of state capitalism? He did. That he supported, and reinstated the authoritarian, boss-worker relationship within production, a fundamental to class society, and completely anti-socialist? He did.

What lies exactly are we spreading? There are no lies from our side. Lenins politics are well documented, and the betrayal of the Bolsheviks to the working class is also well documented. It is not bourgeois propaganda. That is just nonsense; it is a non-argument; it is simply a refusal to truly critically evaluate the actions of the Bolsheviks, and instead favouring ass kissing great-men History nonsense.

Read this. (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)
Lenin and Trotsky are quoted extensively. If you wont listen to reason, let them disprove the myths you hold about them themselves.

[Bilan]

*shrugs* the bolshevik party was not monolithic entity, and even people like Lenin or Trotsky weren't one hundred percent correct or wrong or remained unchanged throughout the years.

It wasn't monolothic, but it was strict and internally hierarchical and authoritarian. The old towing the party line or get out comes to mind.



What bothersme of the anarchist analysis is that it seems they try to put all the fault to the centralized aspect of the party, as if a few men (the ones in the party) were responsable for state-capitalism.

They were not the only ones responsible, they heavily influenced its direction however. This is not 'great men', this is just a realistic analysis of the situation in Russia at the time; the influence that the Bolsheviks and especially Lenin held in the latter part of 1917 and onward. You can't just ignore that for the sake of it. Further, the incredible force that the Bolshevik party had its disposal - the pigs and the Red Army. The manifestation of State-Capitalism in Russia was heavily influenced by them, and their program, and their actions.


The anarchists were also part of counterrevolutions- and it wasnt because the idea of anarchism, but because of certain material conditions.

What?



Just because the mayority of the CNT voted to be part of the goverment, all in the name of anti-fascism, means all of anarchism is discredited. I think some aspects of anarchism are wrong, like the unhealthy fixation with democracy, but in other aspects they are correct.

I don't really see what that has to do with anything.

[Devrim]

It wasn't monolothic, but it was strict and internally hierarchical and authoritarian. The old towing the party line or get out comes to mind.

It wasn't that monolithic until it became completely integrated into the state. Before then Lenin was often in a minority even.


They were not the only ones responsible, they heavily influenced its direction however. This is not 'great men', this is just a realistic analysis of the situation in Russia at the time; the influence that the Bolsheviks and especially Lenin held in the latter part of 1917 and onward. You can't just ignore that for the sake of it. Further, the incredible force that the Bolshevik party had its disposal - the pigs and the Red Army. The manifestation of State-Capitalism in Russia was heavily influenced by them, and their program, and their actions.

What destroyed the Russian revolution was its isolation, and the failure of the world revolution.


I don't really see what that has to do with anything.

It has to do with the fact that for anarchists the betrayals of Spain are mistakes while the mistakes of the Bolsheviks are betrayals.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

It isn't only anarchists that disagree with Leninism, many communists do as well. I direct anyone who is interested as to what is wrong with Leninism to read RedStar2000's papers (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/), it sums it up nicely. We really don't need to go into this long drawn-out debate again.

You do realize that most, if not all, of RS2K's "disciples" ended up becoming reformists or are not active in any political organizations or movements, right?

[Hyacinth]

You do realize that most, if not all, of RS2K's "disciples" ended up becoming reformists or are not active in any political organizations or movements, right?
And? This is relevant to the criticisms of Leninism how?

Also, I point to RS2k's site merely for convenience, since I do think he makes a number of goods points, which isn't to say that I take what he says as gospel truth. There are *many* leftists, even anarchists excluded, who do not accept the Leninist paradigm. I don't think you can lay the same charge, of reformism or inactivity, against say Rosa Luxemburg.

[turquino]

The calls for 'factories to the workers' and worker's self-government are unmarxist. The Communist Manifesto called for all instruments of production to be centralized in the hands of the state. In Anti-Duhring Engels said the proletariat should transform the means of production into state property after it seizes state power. Lenin harshly criticized calls for individual factories to be self-managed, going so far as calling it a complete renunciation of socialism.

Socialism means workers ownership of the means of production, but not workers ownership over individual enterprises.

[Bilan]

It wasn't that monolithic until it became completely integrated into the state. Before then Lenin was often in a minority even.

He was, indeed.




What destroyed the Russian revolution was its isolation, and the failure of the world revolution.

That's patently untrue. It was definitely one of the major causes of the destruction of the revolution, but you can't shake responsiblity to those who structually perpetuated its demise into state capitalism.




It has to do with the fact that for anarchists the betrayals of Spain are mistakes while the mistakes of the Bolsheviks are betrayals.

Devrim

I beg to differ. The betrayals of Spain by people like Garcia Oliver are blatant betrayals.

[black magick hustla]

Actually, the whole CNT voted for integration to the state. The question of participating in government was decided democratically. So indeed, it was a "betrayal" of the mayority of the CNT.

[Bilan]

True, and I think we both know, and agree, that the certain conditions, and positions that the CNT had been pushed into - both through concessions toward "socialist parties", and others, and the nature of the struggle [e.g. the support of the fascists from the German and Italian fascists, the lack of arms, etc] - and the reformist pushes - from people like Garcia Oliver - within the CNT toward joining the government had influenced that happening.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The calls for 'factories to the workers' and worker's self-government are unmarxist. The Communist Manifesto called for all instruments of production to be centralized in the hands of the state. In Anti-Duhring Engels said the proletariat should transform the means of production into state property after it seizes state power. Lenin harshly criticized calls for individual factories to be self-managed, going so far as calling it a complete renunciation of socialism.

Socialism means workers ownership of the means of production, but not workers ownership over individual enterprises.

The calls for the former are un-Marxist ONLY IF they are made as maximum demands, NOT if they are made as minimum demands (thereby teaching workers about managing the economy as a whole through the very small example of business management).

[Devrim]

What destroyed the Russian revolution was its isolation, and the failure of the world revolution. That's patently untrue. It was definitely one of the major causes of the destruction of the revolution, but you can't shake responsiblity to those who structually perpetuated its demise into state capitalism.

If what I say is 'patently untrue', are you then suggesting that socialism could have been built in Russia despite the failure of the world revolution?

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

The calls for 'factories to the workers' and worker's self-government are unmarxist.

Whilst the latter is certainly not a socialist demand, the former is.


In Anti-Duhring Engels said the proletariat should transform the means of production into state property after it seizes state power.Sorry but that's untrue.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution

This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control, except that of society as a whole.- Engels, Anti-Duhring, Part III: Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm)

Socialism means workers ownership of the means of production, but not workers ownership over individual enterprises.

If this is the case, how can you defend nationalisation of the means of production as socialism? Are you trying to claim that state property is workers' property?

[Bilan]

If what I say is 'patently untrue', are you then suggesting that socialism could have been built in Russia despite the failure of the world revolution?

Devrim

Of course not, which is why I stated it was was one of the major contributing factors, but was not the only major contributing factor.
The approach that it is soley because of the international situation negates the actual structures which were being constructed before the failure of the World Revolution. Such structures as the intense centralization of power into the party, directly opposed to that of the working class collectively; the one man management of industry; the undermining of democracy, infavour of appointment from above.

But as I said previously, and have said before, and agree with you on, the international situation was a definite contributing factor to its demise; but it was not the only one.

[turquino]

"Sorry but that's untrue."

I don't know why you chose to quote that passage. I never said that simple state ownership was the solution, if anything the opposite is true.

Rather, i was referring to this specifically: "The proletariat seizes state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with.”

"If this is the case, how can you defend nationalisation of the means of production as socialism? Are you trying to claim that state property is workers' property?"

It's not simply 'nationalisation'. It's the total expropriation of the capitalists and the transferal of all their property to the socialist state. The property of the proletariat-lead state is the worker's property. So-called 'worker's management' of individual enterprises might be something an anarchist calls for, but not a Marxist. We've seen the results of such things in Yugoslavia, and the result was capitalism.

[Bilan]

It's not simply 'nationalisation'. It's the total expropriation of the capitalists and the transferal of all their property to the socialist state. The property of the proletariat-lead state is the worker's property. So-called 'worker's management' of individual enterprises might be something an anarchist calls for, but not a Marxist. We've seen the results of such things in Yugoslavia, and the result was capitalism.

Anarchists call for the workers self managment of industry, and the reorganization of industry under socialist principles. Not workers management of individual enterprises.I think the fundamental point here is that you're clearly against workers self-management, and socialism, infavour of bureaucratic nonsense.

[Hyacinth]

It's not simply 'nationalisation'. It's the total expropriation of the capitalists and the transferal of all their property to the socialist state. The property of the proletariat-lead state is the worker's property. So-called 'worker's management' of individual enterprises might be something an anarchist calls for, but not a Marxist. We've seen the results of such things in Yugoslavia, and the result was capitalism.
The question is what you construe as a proletariat-lead state? Those of us who aren't Leninists would reject that the Soviet Union, and other such experiments, were worker's states. The Soviet Union, from day one, was state-capitalist. Even the Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists don't accept the Soviet Union as a worker's state, they just pick different times as to when it supposedly deviated from such.

What non-Leninists reject is that the dictatorshio of one party (even the Communist Party) is the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, if the party were to encompass the vast majority of the proletariat, the two DOTPs would be identical, wouldn't they? ;)

[Charles Xavier]

Leninism has been the only ideology followed when the workers managed to secure and maintain state power.

[Hyacinth]

Leninism has been the only ideology followed when the workers managed to secure and maintain state power.
And where and when would this be? You can usually demarcate what kind of Leninist someone is depending on when they say the working class in the USSR was betrayed and by who it was betrayed. The Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. all have their favorite villain.

[Hyacinth]

An addendum to what I've said.

I think there are interesting and relevant theoretical and practical debates to be had on the left broadly, and within Marxism specifically, over the merits of both what Marx and Engels had to say, as well as all of those in the Marxist tradition that follows, and even within the Leninist tradition. When I say that I'm not a Leninist that isn't to say that I don't think that Lenin, or that tradition that calls itself Leninist, has contributed nothing; on the contrary, I think there are positive lessons to draw from the experiences of the Bolshevik Revolution, but also many more negative lessons, learning what *not* to do.

As well, what the USSR was or became isn't the fault of the Leninist ideology, the ideology was merely a reflection of the material conditions. Lenin and the rest simply did the best job they could under impossible conditions; one couldn't build socialism in Russia at that time (where socialism isn't equated simply with state-capitalism).

So, while I disagree with some comrades who are in the Leninist tradition I think there is still cooperation that can occur, and productive discussion that can take place.

Now, that having been said, a line does need to be drawn: there's a difference between someone who considers themselves a Leninist, in whatever sense, who recognizes that the Soviet Union was not a worker's state (we can go on to debate what it was, but that's a separate issue), *and* someone who maintains that the Soviet Union, in spite of all evidence, was a worker's state. The latter position is difficult to take seriously.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As well, what the USSR was or became isn't the fault of the Leninist ideology, the ideology was merely a reflection of the material conditions. Lenin and the rest simply did the best job they could under impossible conditions; one couldn't build socialism in Russia at that time (where socialism isn't equated simply with state-capitalism).

Actually, comrade, I'm not sure that at this point (the civil war) there was any coherent "Leninist" ideology, except to build state capitalism while hoping to trigger a more proletarian state-capitalist revolution in Europe (because even Luxemburg subscribed to the Second International's conception of "socialism").