chomsky on the soviet union- a video [Archive]

manic expression

8th December 2008, 05:27

Chomsky, like most academic "leftists", has a remarkable ability to disguise liberal garbage as quasi-liberal garbage; that, essentially, is all he's doing here. He spares no effort to obscure and ignore the reality of the Russian Revolution, and it seems like willful denial of facts is his only recourse. That, and his fondness for being a patronizing hack.

On Lenin representing a "right-wing deviation", that's just laughable. The Second International, not the bomb-throwers Chomsky likes to idolize, was the accepted mainstream of socialism at the time; Lenin, in opposing World War I, made himself on the very left of that movement. Further, the people Chomsky attempts to paint as the "true" socialists were marginalized and irrelevant for the most part. It's not a coincidence he keeps coming back to how "spontaneous" revolutions should be, it's because the ideologues he fetishizes had absolutely no clout (just as today). I'll give him Luxemburg, but Luxemburg's rejection of Bolshevism was one of the big reasons why she ended up in a canal (along with the German Revolution).

Next, vanguardism is not "opportunism" of the "radical intelligentsia", and Chomsky attempt to equate Bolshevism with anti-socialism is as malicious as it is stupid. The Bolsheviks, made up of working-class agitators, constantly carried out organization within the proletariat. A vanguard of something, by definition, is not separate from the main body; the most politically advanced workers must organize into a cohesive party if a revolution is to be made. Lenin was right on this issue and his detractors have ever tried to neglect the basic mathematics of class struggle (which is why they are uniformly ineffective).

As has been mentioned, Lenin's positions were quite consistent. He admitted he was wrong on "trade union consciousness" because of the 1905 Revolution, but that was far from opportunistic. Chomsky is obviously making things up.

Lastly, on the revolution itself, calling it a coup is inexplicable. The Soviets themselves endorsed the action, and Lenin was subsequently elected to his office by (...) the Soviets. This empowerment of the Soviets, accomplished by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, allowed the working class to abolish private property and capitalism and Russia's involvement in imperialist war. So, either Chomsky doesn't know what a revolution entails or he doesn't want one altogether; the bottom line is that he is a liberal in liberal's clothing.

Thankfully for the socialist movement, Chomsky stays within the safe confines of his college campuses and leaves everything else to actual revolutionaries.

Tower of Bebel

8th December 2008, 14:10

Why is state and revolution anarchist? I wouldn't know. The whole manifesto provides the necessary arguments for revolutionaries to break with the existing (capitalist) state. What the working class needs is the proletarian state, which will eventually "wither away" (in the words of Engels: to "die out"). And his insistence on (proletarian,) full democracy is not anarchist either (nor is the slogan "all power to the soviets"); it is the most concrete translation of Marx' 'dictatorship of the proletariat' because "[proletarian class] dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished" (Rosa luxemburg).

Revy

8th December 2008, 15:42

"I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way"
^actual quote from Noam Chomsky.;)

Is Chomsky a revolutionary leader? Absolutely not. He's an academic who primarily writes and sometimes gives talks, but never gives a rousing speech. There may be those who look to him as such, but they've clearly looked at the wrong man.

You can't expect an anarchist to love Lenin, though. The criticisms of Lenin exist across the entire anarchist movement. It's not simply a Chomsky deal. But I do agree that his liberal tendencies put a bad mark on his credibility.

Charles Xavier

8th December 2008, 15:51

Lenin got state power just for fun?

Chomsky is so cynical of Lenin he believes Lenin just got power to impose his will on other people to develop a system of government just for fun not out of concern for the people with he as its leader.

The vanguard party is not a party of intellectuals but a party of doers, dependable disciplined people who would work on the revolution.

This idea that working people are dumb ass morons who can't think for themselves never is false. The Industrial Proletariat, Peasants and Soldiers aren't morons like Chomsky would like to say but people with brains as well.

And then he fails to mention that millions apon millions were to rise up in arms, not just Intellectuals, which the Bolsheviks had very few.

Funny how he glosses over the fact that these other "mainstream Marxists" in Russia sided with the cadets to crush the soviets in september and October.

The army is subordinate itself to a single leader?

He claims Lenin declared that the Soviet Union was a false revolution himself. This is a lie.

And then Chomsky doesn't answer her original question, offering no alternative.

And Chomsky's knowledge on economics in general are laughable.

He points and says he does something bad but offers no alternative.

Bakunist

8th December 2008, 17:04

As far as what Kijuna said; Lenin believed the revolution to be the 'placeholder'. I doubt Russia needed a German revolution to get their blood flowing. Chomsky basically says Lenin betrayed the Soviets and the rest of the Russian people. PRC-UTE - I believe his attitudes and opinions are intentional, which makes sense from the anarchist perspective, though the lady was correct in the beginning; Chomsky holds some pretty mainstream views.

Now, here's what I got out of the clip:
Chomsky starts by telling us of how Lenin was a part of the far-right before he came to power, (the truth of this is questionable at the least) and that other major revolutionaries were almost afraid of Leninism. Chomsky tells of how Lenin hid behind socialism and the soviets as a front, and when placed in a position of power, he abandoned socialism, and his people, feeding them the lines they wanted to hear. Chomsky boldly states that the revolution should have been called a coup de tat. He claims that Lenin and Trostky were traitors to the cause of the Russian people and true revolution. Chomsky tells us of how Lenin's dictatorship came about, how his policies in the factories dismantled worker control of production, and how he made all workers answerable to himself. He talks of how the Russian leaders awaited a true revolution which would presumably come from Germany, being in that it was the most advanced industrial-capitalist European nation at the time. (seems to me like this is based on some 'prophetic' notion, which some say Marxism is largely comprised of. My opinion is that this is bullshit, but we can all use our brains.) Next, Chomsky goes on about the way the Soviet Union and the U.S. propagandize Socialism. He claims that the Soviets(in power) tried to capitalize on the moral elements underlying socialist thought, while not believing in Socialism. The U.S. involvement seems more complex. They convinced themselves and the Soviet state, and probably quite few more people than this, that the actions of Lenin, if he were indeed shitting all over Socialism, were in fact the actions of Socialism in action. Again though, this is propaganda.

manic expression

8th December 2008, 17:19

As far as what Kijuna said; Lenin believed the revolution to be the 'placeholder'. I doubt Russia needed a German revolution to get their blood flowing.

Perhaps not, but Russia certainly needed Germany's industrial base. That was the point and Lenin was correct in this regard. That's the difference between Marxists and anarchists (and liberals): Marxists identify and respond to material conditions in order to further the interests of the working class, while anarchists complain about things they don't understand.

PRC-UTE

8th December 2008, 21:56

Because... Marx and Engels (well, I'm not entirely sure about Engels, but certainly Marx) were anarchists?
Woah.

You must be joking.

Invincible Summer

11th December 2008, 01:32

Although I'm not too fond of Lenin, no one can deny the progress that the revolution brought to Russia.

Anyways, what I never understood about Vanguardism is this: If Lenin and Trotsky really wanted worker's control through a worker's revolution, then why do they need a Vanguard Party to lead them? I understand that the proletariat must be class conscious, but I just don't see why there is the need for a leading Vanguard party when the Vanguard itself wants the workers to lead.

Seems sort of contradictory to me.

Tower of Bebel

11th December 2008, 09:33

ZeroNowhere

11th December 2008, 10:30

You must be joking.
Not really. You may explain your viewpoint, however.

Invincible Summer

11th December 2008, 23:19

In your opinion, what is a vanguard?

From what I understand, the vanguard is a group of revolutionaries who are more educated in Marxist theory than the proletariat, and dedicate their time to educating the proletariat in Marxism in order to bring them to "class consciousness," therefore creating a revolutionary working class.

Then, the vanguard is to lead/guide/assist the working class in their struggle against capitalism.

The fact that the vanguard is also known as the "Vanguard Party" strikes me as odd, as a "party" is just another ruling class, even if it is supposed to be temporary, from what I've heard.

The Douche

12th December 2008, 00:36

Not really. You may explain your viewpoint, however.

Perhaps you ought to explain yours?

StalinFanboy

12th December 2008, 00:44

Because... Marx and Engels (well, I'm not entirely sure about Engels, but certainly Marx) were anarchists?
Woah.

Wait... what?

Charles Xavier

12th December 2008, 04:32

From what I understand, the vanguard is a group of revolutionaries who are more educated in Marxist theory than the proletariat, and dedicate their time to educating the proletariat in Marxism in order to bring them to "class consciousness," therefore creating a revolutionary working class.

Then, the vanguard is to lead/guide/assist the working class in their struggle against capitalism.

The fact that the vanguard is also known as the "Vanguard Party" strikes me as odd, as a "party" is just another ruling class, even if it is supposed to be temporary, from what I've heard.

The party sole purpose is to serve the working class. And the Party is a party of doers, rather than sympathizers. People who actively work on the revolution, organizers, propagandists, dependable people, knowledgeable people, people ready to lead the working class to its emancipation.

You may express your sympathy but sympathy alone will not create change. The communist party strives to be the builders of a new society and building a new society takes people to work on it, rather than talk about it.

ZeroNowhere

12th December 2008, 07:30

Perhaps you ought to explain yours?
I'm sure that I've already done this numerous times.

Also, Blanquists (they often call themselves 'Leninists' these days) are generally counted as socialists, and are in no way anarchists. Engels describes them thusly:

"Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."

However, the 'state' is a term that I generally dislike using. See, many differentiate between Marxists and anarchists based on one wanting to preserve the 'state' after revolution, and the others wanting to get rid of it. Of course, many so-called 'Marxists' also make this fallacy, leading to all kinds of idiocy. Now, the real difference is that Marx had used the term 'state' differently to, say, Bakunin. While the Bakuninists and Blanquists like to portray Marx as a 'lover of the state', in reality the only difference was in terms of definition of the state. See, Marx saw the 'state' as meaning the enforcement of one class' interests over another. So under capitalism, the state is basically an organ of the capitalist class that upholds its rule, whether it takes the form of the current government, or privatized police forces. A "workers' state", on the other hand, just means the enforcement of proletarian interests over that of the bourgeoisie. In other words, it is what would exist for as long as the bourgeoisie exist.

While the Anarchist FAQ, among similar silly criticisms of Marx (It's generally a good resource, but not on anything to do with Marx), raises alarm over this, claiming, "OH NOES! THE CAPITALISTS WILL STILL EXIST AFTER A REVOLUTION?!?!", this is then undermined by them promoting the Spanish communes, during which the bourgeoisie did, in fact, still exist, and were funding Franco. Well, of course, the bourgeoisie of the USSR was more busy backstabbing the anarchists, but there ya go. So basically, until the revolution was successful internationally, Marx would call the places in which it has already succeeded and a form of 'mini-socialism' created (that is, a classless society that is not yet international, and thus technically not socialism). So then the Spanish communes would have had a state according to his definition, for example, as they were an enforcement of proletarian class interests over the bourgeoisie's. This does not mean that there would still have to be classes within the communes, merely that, from an internationalist perspective, there are still different classes with different interests. Marx did imply that the proletariat shouldn't be too harsh on the peasant proprietors and such, and instead win them over to the revolution.

Marx, contrary to dreams of him as an authoritarian fuckwit, claimed, "the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune." The FAQ still fights on valiantly, pointing out that Marx implies that there would still be positions of authority. Well, yes, if one would count Marx's example of "the position of manager in a workers' co-operative factory", democratically elected and subject to recall, as being a form of hierarchal, irrational authority. He specifies, "Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character." Interestingly, the fear of the word 'election' that Bakunin had, that Marx was criticizing above, seems to have passed on to many modern libertarian socialist movements.

Bakunin: "Then there will be no government and no state"
Marx: "i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense."
So basically, Marx differentiated from the 'state in the present political sense' and his definition of state, which meant basically 'class rule'.

Also, interestingly, Bakunin believed that the phrase 'scientific socialism' "indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation! " :lol:

Bakunin: "We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim -- the foundation of a people's state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state."
Marx: "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it, it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."

Bakunin: "What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?"
Marx: "It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."

Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."

Black Sheep

12th December 2008, 15:26

Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."

huh!? what?

Invincible Summer

13th December 2008, 01:17

The party sole purpose is to serve the working class. And the Party is a party of doers, rather than sympathizers. People who actively work on the revolution, organizers, propagandists, dependable people, knowledgeable people, people ready to lead the working class to its emancipation.

You may express your sympathy but sympathy alone will not create change. The communist party strives to be the builders of a new society and building a new society takes people to work on it, rather than talk about it.

What's with all this talk of "sympathizers?"

I just think it's contradictory for a Party's goal to be forming a classless, stateless society, when the Party itself becomes a class.

Charles Xavier

13th December 2008, 02:26

What's with all this talk of "sympathizers?"

I just think it's contradictory for a Party's goal to be forming a classless, stateless society, when the Party itself becomes a class.

What is the relation to the means of production is my class? What is the class composition? Because I work for a wage for this company which I don't own and I volunteer my time for my party. I must be some sort of bourgeioisie exploiter.

So there are 3 classes in capitalist society, Proletariat, Bourgeoisie and communist party member.

Invincible Summer

13th December 2008, 04:19

What is the relation to the means of production is my class? What is the class composition? Because I work for a wage for this company which I don't own and I volunteer my time for my party. I must be some sort of bourgeioisie exploiter.

So there are 3 classes in capitalist society, Proletariat, Bourgeoisie and communist party member.

I meant during/after the revolution (hence my use of the word "becomes" instead of "is"). Does the Party just dissipate?

Charles Xavier

13th December 2008, 06:06

I meant during/after the revolution (hence my use of the word "becomes" instead of "is"). Does the Party just dissipate?

The party is the organized revolutionary proletariat. Nothing more nothing less. Why you are against us working class people being organized?

United we stand divided we fall. Members of the communist party organize to defeat the counter-revolution and build a new society. Its not some conspiratorial cloak and dagger scheme. Everyone is welcome to join the communist party, there isn't exclusions because you are poor. I don't see how this is another class. People join the communist party out of love of their class not to be better than everyone else.

Invincible Summer

13th December 2008, 06:30

The party is the organized revolutionary proletariat. Nothing more nothing less. Why you are against us working class people being organized?

United we stand divided we fall. Members of the communist party organize to defeat the counter-revolution and build a new society. Its not some conspiratorial cloak and dagger scheme. Everyone is welcome to join the communist party, there isn't exclusions because you are poor. I don't see how this is another class. People join the communist party out of love of their class not to be better than everyone else.

I thought we were talking about a Vanguard party? So if the Vanguard = the Communist Party, every single revolutionary proletariat is in the vanguard? :confused: So every proletarian during the Russian revolution was a member of the Bolshevik party? Therefore, the Soviet Union consisted of millions of members of the Bolsheviks?

And I was referring to a Communist Party/Vanguard as "ruling class" as in an authoritative power (which has obvious problems). I suppose I didn't use the terminology correctly.

Charles Xavier

13th December 2008, 15:52

I thought we were talking about a Vanguard party? So if the Vanguard = the Communist Party, every single revolutionary proletariat is in the vanguard? :confused: So every proletarian during the Russian revolution was a member of the Bolshevik party? Therefore, the Soviet Union consisted of millions of members of the Bolsheviks?

And I was referring to a Communist Party/Vanguard as "ruling class" as in an authoritative power (which has obvious problems). I suppose I didn't use the terminology correctly.

No not everyone person in the soviet union was a member of the communist party. You can't force people to be communists or attend meetings and discuss politics. And yes there was millions of members of the Bolshevik party.

The Communist Party is the means for class rule, and the class its trying to put into power is the working class. Its forcing upon the monopolist, capitalists and bankers that the working class is now in control. Its thousands of people with one united voice and action against the rich and for worker's control over production. And this united voice and action is decided by its membership.

From Wikipedia( however unsourced)

In 1918 it had a membership of approximately 200,000.
By 1933, the party had approximately 3.5 million members
In 1986, the CPSU had over 19 million members or approximately 10% of the USSR's adult population.

PRC-UTE

16th December 2008, 09:18

Not really. You may explain your viewpoint, however.

Marx and Engels ruthlessly criticised the anarchists.

I think you've got it backwards, mate. Today many anarchists borrow from Marx.

Charles Xavier

17th December 2008, 18:45

Marx and Engels ruthlessly criticised the anarchists.

I think you've got it backwards, mate. Today many anarchists borrow from Marx.

Further they fought to expel the Bukharin Anarchists for their conspiracy to take over the first Internationale.

Unregistered

15th April 2009, 00:19

Lastly, on the revolution itself, calling it a coup is inexplicable. The Soviets themselves endorsed the action, and Lenin was subsequently elected to his office by (...) the Soviets. This empowerment of the Soviets, accomplished by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, allowed the working class to abolish private property and capitalism and Russia's involvement in imperialist war. So, either Chomsky doesn't know what a revolution entails or he doesn't want one altogether; the bottom line is that he is a liberal in liberal's clothing.

Thankfully for the socialist movement, Chomsky stays within the safe confines of his college campuses and leaves everything else to actual revolutionaries.

It absolutely was a coup, but not from the interim government or the czar. It was a coup taking power from the revolution itself. Decentralized worker control is the essence of Socialism. Lenin dulled the power of the soviets almost totally and installed his party (really only himself) as supreme dictator. Socialism is democracy at its root, and this is not democratic.
And as far as Lenin being elected by the soviets is concerned, he won a popular election. So did George fucking Bush. Twice, sort of. He was not, however, accountable. He ran a cult of personality and shat on Marx's grave.

manic expression

15th April 2009, 02:09

It absolutely was a coup, but not from the interim government or the czar. It was a coup taking power from the revolution itself.

That's laughable. The revolution WAS the actions of the Bolsheviks and the express support they received from the Congress of the Soviets. You talk as if there was a workers' revolution already victorious in Russia, as if Kerensky WASN'T in power, as if private property had already been abolished, as if history was as you would like it to be instead of how it is. If you want to call it a coup, fine, just support that argument instead of launching into vague platitudes.

Decentralized worker control is the essence of Socialism. Lenin dulled the power of the soviets almost totally and installed his party (really only himself) as supreme dictator. Socialism is democracy at its root, and this is not democratic.Lenin didn't dull the power of the Soviets, the Soviets approved of the Bolsheviks' actions! The Soviets then formed the central pillar of the nascent *Soviet* state. Secondly, the Bolsheviks formed a coalition government with the Left-SR's, and Lenin was democratically elected the chairman of the council of commissars by the Congress of the Soviets.

And as far as Lenin being elected by the soviets is concerned, he won a popular election. So did George fucking Bush. Twice, sort of. He was not, however, accountable. He ran a cult of personality and shat on Marx's grave.OK, you obviously didn't think this one through. You should sit down and list all the differences you can think of between the US election system in 2000-2004 and the election system of the Soviets in 1917. After that we'll move on.

And on edit, please don't post in old threads.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th April 2009, 11:15

Why are some people calling Chomsky liberal? I think you're getting confused with being a Libertarian and being a liberal.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 12:34

It seems the criticisms of Chomsky in this thread seem to boil down to:

Oh good lord, he criticised comrade Lenin! He must be a liberal, and a stupid one at that!

Er, no. He's an incredibly clever man. But I don't want to shatter and delusions that help Leninists stay up at night, so why don't you all go on buying into the old propoganda that if it calls itself socialist, it must be so!

Pogue

15th April 2009, 12:48

Brilliant video though, Chomsky always does cut to the truth of issues. Lenin destroyed socialism with the help of dear old Trotsky, as part of the right wing of the movement. October was a coup, it undermined workers deomcracy and in claiming to 'secure' socialism Lenin destroyed it.

Cumannach

15th April 2009, 12:59

Chomsky often looks a bit half hearted when he goes on one of his ant-communist rants. I think he realises what a hypocrit he is.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th April 2009, 13:15

Chomsky often looks a bit half hearted when he goes on one of his ant-communist rants. I think he realises what a hypocrit he is.

There is a difference between anti-communist, and anti-state capitalist, I think you'll find Chomsky is the latter. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Post-Something

15th April 2009, 13:19

For those in this thread who seem to think that State and Revoltion was written by Lenin without any political intent behind it, I suggest you stop looking at Lenin so purely.

What I think Chomsky is trying to say is that State and Revolution was pretty much praise for the Paris commune. It talked of things like the democratisation of the army, judiciary, the election of delegates and the abolition of high offices of the state. A radical simplification of the states functions. However, State and Revolution is a puzzling piece. Lenin didn't really mention the revolutionary party, which is insane considering how big a proponent of it he was. Why would he leave it out unless he wanted to appeal to certain groups? Was it unfinished?

The fact of the matter is that in State and Revolution Lenin talks at length about how important Democracy is. However, when the actual revolution came about, only an idiot would deny how fundamentally undemocratic the Soviet Union became after 1921. This leads us to think that contrary to what Lenin wrote, democracy was not at the forefront of the Bolsheviks agenda. It was simply an optional extra. Whether you attribute that to material conditions, party structure or the Bolsheviks themselves is up to everyone on here to decide, but you cannot deny that State and Revolution had little bearing on what actually happened.

ComradeOm

15th April 2009, 13:58

It seems the criticisms of Chomsky in this thread seem to boil down to:

Oh good lord, he criticised comrade Lenin! He must be a liberal, and a stupid one at that!Actually I just take umbrage with the fact that he doesn't know what the feck he's talking about. I'd take Chomsky's advice on a linguistics matter and little else. Certainly he's not doing himself a favour by propagating that nonsense that the October Revolution was a coup. Frankly anyone who believes that is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest

Brilliant video though, Chomsky always does cut to the truth of issues. Lenin destroyed socialism with the help of dear old Trotsky, as part of the right wing of the movement. October was a coup, it undermined workers deomcracy and in claiming to 'secure' socialism Lenin destroyed it.Oops... :glare:

Incidentally I think you'll find that throughout 1917 Lenin was consistently to the left of the Bolshevik Central Committee. And are you really suggesting that pre-October Russia was socialist?

For those in this thread who seem to think that State and Revoltion was written by Lenin without any political intent behind it, I suggest you stop looking at Lenin so purelyOf course State & Revolution was motivated by political necessity - it was squarely aimed at Russian and European Social Democrats who maintained that it was not necessary to destroy the capitalist state. Lenin's position, which saw him on the far left of mainstream Social Democracy, was precisely the opposite and had been heavily influenced by Bukharin's own work on that subject in 1915. State & Revolution is the result of this evolution of thought and final break with Kautsky. In short it was a theoretical piece squarely aimed at a certain audience. Certainly not for general dissemination

Does this mean that Lenin deliberately omitted aspects regarding to the role of the party? No. In the first place the Bolshevik organisation of 1917 was a completely different creature to that described in WITBD?. Secondly, in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution the Bolshevik party was almost entirely superseded by soviet structures. In hindsight this was probably an error, but throughout 1918 local Bolshevik activists paid far more attention to their duties within the soviets than their party responsibilities. It was only after the former began to decay, due to the near-annihilation of the proletariat during the Civil War years, that the party became the central organ of state rule and we see a 'dictatorship of the party' emerge

Now this just does not square with the image of Lenin envisioning the Bolshevik party organisation occupying a major role in post-October society and deliberately omitting this from State & Revolution. He returns to this point, in the unfortunately named, Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm) where he notes that "[the soviets] it provides an organisational form for the vanguard, i.e., for the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes...". For Lenin the party was to be superseded in its role by the soviets themselves post-revolution

Cumannach

15th April 2009, 14:37

There is a difference between anti-communist, and anti-state capitalist, I think you'll find Chomsky is the latter. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Nope, I found he was the former, and a terrible hypocrite.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 15:27

Actually I just take umbrage with the fact that he doesn't know what the feck he's talking about. I'd take Chomsky's advice on a linguistics matter and little else. Certainly he's not doing himself a favour by propagating that nonsense that the October Revolution was a coup. Frankly anyone who believes that is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest

The Bolsheviks were right wing and if anything anti-socialist. Their whole approach focused on taking power from the working class, and acting as 'socialists' in their place. Hence Lenin destroying the Soviets as Chomsky says. What Lenin said was also consistently divergent from what Lenin actually did.

Actually I just take umbrage with the fact that he doesn't know what the feck he's talking about. I'd take Chomsky's advice on a linguistics matter and little else. Certainly he's not doing himself a favour by propagating that nonsense that the October Revolution was a coup. Frankly anyone who believes that is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest

His books on politics are held in high regard by thousands of people, your just bitter that he's revealing the truth on one of the idols you worship, Lenin. Heaven forbid anyone would criticise the dear leader.

Of course it was a coup. No one elected Lenin, yet he found himself in control and went on to introduce NEP, War Communism, and soon we had no soviets left over at all. Coincidence? Of course it wasn't. Bolshevism is founded on the patronising and power mad idea that individuals can act on behalf of the people, though, so I am not suprised he messed up.

Of course State & Revolution was motivated by political necessity - it was squarely aimed at Russian and European Social Democrats who maintained that it was not necessary to destroy the capitalist state. Lenin's position, which saw him on the far left of mainstream Social Democracy, was precisely the opposite and had been heavily influenced by Bukharin's own work on that subject in 1915. State & Revolution is the result of this evolution of thought and final break with Kautsky. In short it was a theoretical piece squarely aimed at a certain audience. Certainly not for general dissemination

Does this mean that Lenin deliberately omitted aspects regarding to the role of the party? No. In the first place the Bolshevik organisation of 1917 was a completely different creature to that described in WITBD?. Secondly, in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution the Bolshevik party was almost entirely superseded by soviet structures. In hindsight this was probably an error, but throughout 1918 local Bolshevik activists paid far more attention to their duties within the soviets than their party responsibilities. It was only after the former began to decay, due to the near-annihilation of the proletariat during the Civil War years, that the party became the central organ of state rule and we see a 'dictatorship of the party' emerge

Now this just does not square with the image of Lenin envisioning the Bolshevik party organisation occupying a major role in post-October society and deliberately omitting this from State & Revolution. He returns to this point, in the unfortunately named, Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm) where he notes that "[the soviets] it provides an organisational form for the vanguard, i.e., for the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes...". For Lenin the party was to be superseded in its role by the soviets themselves post-revolution

There were some genuinely dedicated Bolsheviks who joined the party because it was well organised. Its leadership however was dictatorial and on the right wing of the socialist movement and thats why it betrayed them.

What Lenin said and what Lenin did, as I said, were very different. This is probably a reason why you shold stop quoting his word as gospel all the time. Most dictators lie. Lenin is one of them. A brutal liar who, like all people who try to rule, betrayed the working class. It doesn't matter what he wrote or what his initial intentions were, he was betrayed the class and the movement.

manic expression

15th April 2009, 15:28

Oh good lord, he criticised comrade Lenin! He must be a liberal, and a stupid one at that!

That's simply superficial and untrue. Go read what's been said about Chomsky here, think about it for a few minutes, then come back and discuss it.

Er, no. He's an incredibly clever man. But I don't want to shatter and delusions that help Leninists stay up at night, so why don't you all go on buying into the old propoganda that if it calls itself socialist, it must be so!

Well, that's obviously untrue, because we know that anarchists aren't socialists.

Brilliant video though, Chomsky always does cut to the truth of issues. Lenin destroyed socialism with the help of dear old Trotsky, as part of the right wing of the movement. October was a coup, it undermined workers deomcracy and in claiming to 'secure' socialism Lenin destroyed it.

Do you have any idea of what you're talking about? Do you even know what the April Theses were and what they meant to the socialists in Russia? Lenin was on the left of the international socialist movement by a country mile. Further, you're forgetting about the endorsement of the October Revolution and the election of Lenin by the Congress of the Soviets, just like every other two-bit anti-communist on this thread.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 15:30

Nope, I found he was the former, and a terrible hypocrite.

He's a advocate of anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism and is highly critical of capitalism. I think you need to mature politically and open your eyes a bit wider, so you don't constantly rely on 'Anyone who criticises my viewpoint is anti-communist'. DPRK - not communist. CCCP - not communist. And intelligent people like Chomsky realise this.
Sadly your position seems to be to kick and scream and shout the old propoganda slogans of the Stalin era to try and justify your futile and sad positions. You dare criticise the USSR! COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY! No, just not blind and politically deluded.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 15:32

That's simply superficial and untrue. Go read what's been said about Chomsky here, think about it for a few minutes, then come back and discuss it.

Thanks for defending Chomsky, comrade.

Well, that's obviously untrue, because we know that anarchists aren't socialists.

Oh, right, because suddenly, calling for a revolution where we abolish the class system, private property, and the state and have complete collective ownership of the means of production isn't socialist, just because a few rabid Leninists said it isn't in frustration. Nice one!

manic expression

15th April 2009, 15:39

His books on politics are held in high regard by thousands of people, your just bitter that he's revealing the truth on one of the idols you worship, Lenin. Heaven forbid anyone would criticise the dear leader.

Are you REALLY citing popularity to try to validate Chomsky's views? I guess you'd have no problem telling us how useful Rick Warren's new book is, then.

Of course it was a coup. No one elected Lenin,

Except the Congress of the Soviets. :lol:

yet he found himself in control and went on to introduce NEP, War Communism, and soon we had no soviets left over at all.

That was in the 30's, Lenin had been dead almost a decade when the Congress of the Soviets was replaced by the Supreme Soviet.

There were some genuinely dedicated Bolsheviks who joined the party because it was well organised. Its leadership however was dictatorial and on the right wing of the socialist movement and thats why it betrayed them.

Yeah, sure, the only dedicated Bolsheviks joined because they liked how organized it was. Are you even thinking about this? The whole point of being organized means that everyone in the party must agree with the party line and be ready to propagate it. That's precisely why the Bolsheviks were so successful.

And for the 10th time, your second assertion is patently wrong. Lenin was consistently on the left of the socialist movement, in 1903, in 1914 and in 1917 especially. Crack open a history book now and again and maybe you'd get that through your head.

manic expression

15th April 2009, 15:43

Thanks for defending Chomsky, comrade.

Obviously you're having trouble understanding what I meant. Go and read the criticisms of Chomsky here, think about them, comprehend, them, then talk. You've only done the last part of that process so far.

Oh, right, because suddenly, calling for a revolution where we abolish the class system, private property, and the state and have complete collective ownership of the means of production isn't socialist, just because a few rabid Leninists said it isn't in frustration. Nice one!

Wait, I thought you said we should measure a movement by its actions and not its words. In that case, the anarchist movement surely can't be judged as socialist, since all it's done is criticize and attack socialist societies.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 15:45

Are you REALLY citing popularity to try to validate Chomsky's views? I guess you'd have no problem telling us how useful Rick Warren's new book is, then.

I'm saying people clearly think he has some good things to say. He's respected among academic circles too.

Except the Congress of the Soviets. http://www.revleft.com/vb/chomsky-soviet-union-t96215/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

When?

That was in the 30's, Lenin had been dead almost a decade when the Congress of the Soviets was replaced by the Supreme Soviet.

Erm, no it wasn't.

Yeah, sure, the only dedicated Bolsheviks joined because they liked how organized it was. Are you even thinking about this? The whole point of being organized means that everyone in the party must agree with the party line and be ready to propagate it. That's precisely why the Bolsheviks were so successful.

And for the 10th time, your second assertion is patently wrong. Lenin was consistently on the left of the socialist movement, in 1903, in 1914 and in 1917 especially. Crack open a history book now and again and maybe you'd get that through your head.

Bolshevism was a right wing corruption of socialism. Bolshevism favrouted an highly organised elite calling the shots. Its hardly socialism at all, and forms the right wing of the movement.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 15:48

Obviously you're having trouble understanding what I meant. Go and read the criticisms of Chomsky here, think about them, comprehend, them, then talk. You've only done the last part of that process so far.

No, you need to learn how to write. Look at what you said again.

Wait, I thought you said we should measure a movement by its actions and not its words. In that case, the anarchist movement surely can't be judged as socialist, since all it's done is criticize and attack socialist societies.

And Lenin's actions make him someone who was a dictator who re-introduced capitalism through NEP.

Anarchists, on the other hand, have criticised state-capitalist regimes that have failed and betrayed the workers because they've become dominated by the sorts of Lenin and Trotsky.

I'd refer you to the Spanish revolution, which implemented libertarian communism and worked. If it hadn't been for fascism and Stalinism attacking it, it would have lasted too. It didn't degenrate into a dictatorial capitalist mess like the USSR did in less than a year.

I'd take my example from the society the Spanish anarchists made, and their criticisms of dictators and sell outs masqeurading as socialists and the naive types like you who buy into whatever rubbish the state propoganda machine spews out.

Psy

15th April 2009, 15:52

The Bolsheviks were right wing and if anything anti-socialist. Their whole approach focused on taking power from the working class, and acting as 'socialists' in their place. Hence Lenin destroying the Soviets as Chomsky says. What Lenin said was also consistently divergent from what Lenin actually did.

His books on politics are held in high regard by thousands of people, your just bitter that he's revealing the truth on one of the idols you worship, Lenin. Heaven forbid anyone would criticise the dear leader.

Of course it was a coup. No one elected Lenin, yet he found himself in control and went on to introduce NEP, War Communism, and soon we had no soviets left over at all. Coincidence? Of course it wasn't. Bolshevism is founded on the patronising and power mad idea that individuals can act on behalf of the people, though, so I am not suprised he messed up.

There were some genuinely dedicated Bolsheviks who joined the party because it was well organised. Its leadership however was dictatorial and on the right wing of the socialist movement and thats why it betrayed them.

What Lenin said and what Lenin did, as I said, were very different. This is probably a reason why you shold stop quoting his word as gospel all the time. Most dictators lie. Lenin is one of them. A brutal liar who, like all people who try to rule, betrayed the working class. It doesn't matter what he wrote or what his initial intentions were, he was betrayed the class and the movement.

Think about it in 1917 the proletariat was a tiny minority in Russia and the vast number of peasants would have created a petite-bourgeoisie state (as the peasants become independent farmers) rather then a workers state if you just opened the state up to public opinion. This meant it was impossible for Russia to become a workers state in 1917 or even become a anarchists nation of workers.

Once in power Lenin had to deal with a civil-war the end result was a even weaker working class.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 15:57

Think about it in 1917 the proletariat was a tiny minority in Russia and the vast number of peasants would have created a petite-bourgeoisie state (as the peasants become independent farmers) rather then a workers state if you just opened the state up to public opinion. This meant it was impossible for Russia to become a workers state in 1917 or even become a anarchists nation of workers.

Once in power Lenin had to deal with a civil-war the end result was a even weaker working class.

Ironically though it was Lenin who created a 'petit-bourgeoisie' state with NEP and his crushing of workers democracy.

manic expression

15th April 2009, 16:01

I'm saying people clearly think he has some good things to say. He's respected among academic circles too.

Yeah, as a linguist. And secondly, being respected in academia is by no means qualification as a good revolutionary. On the contrary, it's usually a good qualification for not being a revolutionary.

Erm, no it wasn't.

No, Lenin was elected to his post in the Soviet state by the Congress of the Soviets and the October Revolution was endorsed by the Congress of the Soviets as well. This began on October 25, 1917 (pre-revolutionary calendar).

Bolshevism was a right wing corruption of socialism. Bolshevism favrouted an highly organised elite calling the shots. Its hardly socialism at all, and forms the right wing of the movement.

Sorry, but you can't just label the Bolsheviks as the "right wing" of "the movement" because you feel like it. YOU might deem Bolshevism as right-wing (and we will deal with this fallacy later), but that was not Chomsky's contention at all. Chomsky stated that Lenin's contemporaries considered him to be on the right, which is completely false. Lenin proved himself to be on the left when he broke with the Social Democrats, when he issued the April Theses, when he opposed Kerensky and when he put all power to the Soviets (which he did). Who was to the left of him? Bomb-throwers? Dadaists? He was on the left of the socialist movement, that's historical fact.

As for your assertion that Bolshevism is to the right, this is similarly silly. What the Bolsheviks did was let the Soviets "call the shots", and the Soviets endorsed the October Revolution as the representatives of Russia's workers. Your points here are nothing more than wishful thinking.

Psy

15th April 2009, 16:04

Ironically though it was Lenin who created a 'petit-bourgeoisie' state with NEP and his crushing of workers democracy.
And was wrong with NEP? Are you suggesting Lenin should have continued with "war communism". You attack Lenin for crushing democracy while implementing NEP which he did to mostly appease the rural population.

manic expression

15th April 2009, 16:11

No, you need to learn how to write. Look at what you said again.

Go read what's been said about Chomsky here, think about it for a few minutes, then come back and discuss it.

And Lenin's actions make him someone who was a dictator who re-introduced capitalism through NEP.

The NEP was under the control of the working class, and was necessary after the German Revolution failed. It's fitting for an anarchist to complain about policies which respond to the reality of making revolution in the real world.

Anarchists, on the other hand, have criticised state-capitalist regimes that have failed and betrayed the workers because they've become dominated by the sorts of Lenin and Trotsky.

Can you even define "state-capitalism"? Can you tell us why the Soviet Union "betrayed the workers" beyond the fact that you don't like its leaders (who were, again, elected by the Soviets)?

I'd refer you to the Spanish revolution, which implemented libertarian communism and worked. If it hadn't been for fascism and Stalinism attacking it, it would have lasted too. It didn't degenrate into a dictatorial capitalist mess like the USSR did in less than a year.

You think that the anarchist communes in Spain "worked"? :laugh: They were neutralized at the first sign of opposition, namely the May Days, and even before then their greatest accomplishment was to undercut the cause of the Republicans. Your argument is like saying the Hindenburg "worked", and if it wasn't for the laws of physics, it would have lasted!

I'd take my example from the society the Spanish anarchists made, and their criticisms of dictators and sell outs masqeurading as socialists and the naive types like you who buy into whatever rubbish the state propoganda machine spews out.

Then you take an example of futility and failure. The Bolsheviks established working-class state power, which is socialism, whereas the anarchists reject both. That's the real difference here.

ComradeOm

15th April 2009, 16:36

The Bolsheviks were right wing and if anything anti-socialist. Their whole approach focused on taking power from the working class, and acting as 'socialists' in their place. Hence Lenin destroying the Soviets as Chomsky saysSee, this is the sort of nonsense that leaves me at a loss. How exactly am I supposed to respond to a statement that is 100% false? Its like encountering someone who adamantly holds that the moon is made of cheese... how do you respond to an assertion like that?

I could point out that the Bolshevik programme was clearly socialist in character and that throughout 1917, and indeed beyond, the party was unquestionably on the far left of the political spectrum. You think they were to the right of the Mensheviks or SRs? Come of it. Of course the reason that the Bolsheviks were to the left of nearly everyone else is that they were the one party to consistently and clearly advocate the transfer of power to the soviets and the abolition of the bourgeois government. Which was exactly why the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the party of the Russian proletariat - both before an after October 1917. This was proven time and time again by elections to the soviets, the dumas, even the Constituent Assembly

The uncomfortable truth for you is that far from being "right wing" the Bolsheviks represented, and enjoyed the support of, a revolutionary proletariat. Now I'm assuming that Chomsky isn't a complete moron, and has read one or two works on the Revolution, so his refusal to acknowledge this can only be construed as deliberate intellectual dishonesty with more than a smattering of sectarianism. Instead of trying to explain how an amazingly vibrant and democratic movement degenerated into a bureaucratic police state Chomsky simply prefers to pretend that it never happened in the first place

His books on politics are held in high regard by thousands of people, your just bitter that he's revealing the truth on one of the idols you worship, Lenin. Heaven forbid anyone would criticise the dear leaderTell me, just how many books has Chomsky written on the Russian Revolution? Is he an historian or an expert on the topic? In short, what exactly does Chomsky know about the Bolsheviks? Judging on his statements, I'd say very little

Of course it was a coup. No one elected LeninOf course Lenin was elected. The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets endorsed the transfer of power to the Soviets and the formation of Council of People's Commissars. Even his position within the Bolshevik party was an elected one.

This sort of bullshit is the very reason that I wrote this article (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html)

There were some genuinely dedicated Bolsheviks who joined the party because it was well organised. Its leadership however was dictatorial and on the right wing of the socialist movement and thats why it betrayed themYou do know that throughout 1917 Lenin was to the left of the Bolshevik CC? In this he was roughly in agreement with the party's grassroots bodies. In turn of course even Bolshevik CC members like Kamenev were left of pretty much every other socialist party. This isn't a matter of passing judgement a century later, this is actually how they lined up back in 1917. Frankly I don't see how anyone can consider the one party that did not support the bourgeois Provisional Government to be "on the right wing of the socialist movement" or how a party as democratically organised as the Bolsheviks could possess a "dictatorial" structure. The latter in particular is simply false

What Lenin said and what Lenin did, as I said, were very different. This is probably a reason why you shold stop quoting his word as gospel all the time. Most dictators lieYou'll find that I'm one of the few people on this site who consistently refuses to take historical quotes at face value*. Instead it is historical research, ie studying what actually occurred, that floats my boat. So understand this, I'm not defending Lenin because he is my idol or great hero, or whatever strawman you want to build up next, but because your criticisms are without basis. You are quite simply factually wrong, as any examination of the Bolshevik party of 1917 will reveal

Now you have contended that the Bolshevik party was "right wing", "anti-socialist", "dictatorial", responsible for "destroying socialism", and "unelected", to name just a few. Each of these is completely unfounded and you have not backed your arguments with an iota fact. Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks that try to paint me as some sort of brainwashed Lenin-worshipper. Is this the best you can do?

*Unless of course I'm charting the historical evolution of a figure's thought. Even then, as above, I compare to what actually occurred :rolleyes:

Edit: You don't know about the Congress of Soviets? Jesus, don't they teach this stuff in school any more? This is what happens when you get your history exclusively from political outlets... I doubt anarchist histories, or indeed Chomsky, like to stress the degree to which the Bolsheviks were triumphant at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. This is exactly why I recommend that people read a relevant general/introductory history before jumping into a thread and making all sorts of wild accusations. Or simply ask someone to elaborate. Otherwise you end up spouting a whole load of shit and looking stupid

Pogue

15th April 2009, 17:33

Yeah, as a linguist. And secondly, being respected in academia is by no means qualification as a good revolutionary. On the contrary, it's usually a good qualification for not being a revolutionary.

He has respect on politics too, you just don't like the fact he is criticising your ideas.

No, Lenin was elected to his post in the Soviet state by the Congress of the Soviets and the October Revolution was endorsed by the Congress of the Soviets as well. This began on October 25, 1917 (pre-revolutionary calendar).

Bolshevik dominated Soviets following Lenin seixure of power when he came to hijakc the revolution in October.

Sorry, but you can't just label the Bolsheviks as the "right wing" of "the movement" because you feel like it. YOU might deem Bolshevism as right-wing (and we will deal with this fallacy later), but that was not Chomsky's contention at all. Chomsky stated that Lenin's contemporaries considered him to be on the right, which is completely false. Lenin proved himself to be on the left when he broke with the Social Democrats, when he issued the April Theses, when he opposed Kerensky and when he put all power to the Soviets (which he did). Who was to the left of him? Bomb-throwers? Dadaists? He was on the left of the socialist movement, that's historical fact.

Anarchists, left communists, etc.

As for your assertion that Bolshevism is to the right, this is similarly silly. What the Bolsheviks did was let the Soviets "call the shots", and the Soviets endorsed the October Revolution as the representatives of Russia's workers. Your points here are nothing more than wishful thinking.

Like I said, who voted for NEP?

The NEP was under the control of the working class, and was necessary after the German Revolution failed. It's fitting for an anarchist to complain about policies which respond to the reality of making revolution in the real world.

Control of the working class. :lol: Lenin doesn't comprimise the working class.

Can you even define "state-capitalism"? Can you tell us why the Soviet Union "betrayed the workers" beyond the fact that you don't like its leaders (who were, again, elected by the Soviets)?

Means of production run by the state = state capitalism. The Soviet Union betrayed the workers by not giving them control of the means of production and society as a whole.

See, this is the sort of nonsense that leaves me at a loss. How exactly am I supposed to respond to a statement that is 100% false? Its like encountering someone who adamantly holds that the moon is made of cheese... how do you respond to an assertion like that?

I could point out that the Bolshevik programme was clearly socialist in character and that throughout 1917, and indeed beyond, the party was unquestionably on the far left of the political spectrum. You think they were to the right of the Mensheviks or SRs? Come of it. Of course the reason that the Bolsheviks were to the left of nearly everyone else is that they were the one party to consistently and clearly advocate the transfer of power to the soviets and the abolition of the bourgeois government. Which was exactly why the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the party of the Russian proletariat - both before an after October 1917. This was proven time and time again by elections to the soviets, the dumas, even the Constituent Assembly

The uncomfortable truth for you is that far from being "right wing" the Bolsheviks represented, and enjoyed the support of, a revolutionary proletariat. Now I'm assuming that Chomsky isn't a complete moron, and has read one or two works on the Revolution, so his refusal to acknowledge this can only be construed as deliberate intellectual dishonesty with more than a smattering of sectarianism. Instead of trying to explain how an amazingly vibrant and democratic movement degenerated into a bureaucratic police state Chomsky simply prefers to pretend that it never happened in the first place

Oh but its true. Their whole ideolgoy was focused around controlling the working class. Hence the degenration of the Soviet Union into a dictatorship under Lenin and then Stalin.

Tell me, just how many books has Chomsky written on the Russian Revolution? Is he an historian or an expert on the topic? In short, what exactly does Chomsky know about the Bolsheviks? Judging on his statements, I'd say very little

And you?

Of course Lenin was elected. The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets endorsed the transfer of power to the Soviets and the formation of Council of People's Commissars. Even his position within the Bolshevik party was an elected one.

This sort of bullshit is the very reason that I wrote this article (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html)

Once. And then he stayed in power without furhter elections, reversing the revolution and dstroying democracy as he went.

You do know that throughout 1917 Lenin was to the left of the Bolshevik CC? In this he was roughly in agreement with the party's grassroots bodies. In turn of course even Bolshevik CC members like Kamenev were left of pretty much every other socialist party. This isn't a matter of passing judgement a century later, this is actually how they lined up back in 1917. Frankly I don't see how anyone can consider the one party that did not support the bourgeois Provisional Government to be "on the right wing of the socialist movement" or how a party as democratically organised as the Bolsheviks could possess a "dictatorial" structure. The latter in particular is simply false

How come there were not nationwide leadership elecitons after Lenin died then? How come Lenin was not drawn to account for NEP, etc?

You'll find that I'm one of the few people on this site who consistently refuses to take historical quotes at face value*. Instead it is historical research, ie studying what actually occurred, that floats my boat. So understand this, I'm not defending Lenin because he is my idol or great hero, or whatever strawman you want to build up next, but because your criticisms are without basis. You are quite simply factually wrong, as any examination of the Bolshevik party of 1917 will reveal

Now you have contended that the Bolshevik party was "right wing", "anti-socialist", "dictatorial", responsible for "destroying socialism", and "unelected", to name just a few. Each of these is completely unfounded and you have not backed your arguments with an iota fact. Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks that try to paint me as some sort of brainwashed Lenin-worshipper. Is this the best you can do?

*Unless of course I'm charting the historical evolution of a figure's thought. Even then, as above, I compare to what actually occurred http://www.revleft.com/vb/chomsky-soviet-union-t96215/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Edit: You don't know about the Congress of Soviets? Jesus, don't they teach this stuff in school any more? This is what happens when you get your history exclusively from political outlets... I doubt anarchist histories, or indeed Chomsky, like to stress the degree to which the Bolsheviks were triumphant at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. This is exactly why I recommend that people read a relevant general/introductory history before jumping into a thread and making all sorts of wild accusations. Or simply ask someone to elaborate. Otherwise you end up spouting a whole load of shit and looking stupid

To the contrary I'd say that historical fact pointed to the anti-socialist nature of the Bolsheviks, as seen in how Lenin needed to create a secret police, didn't allow the soviets to control the country, appointed a succesor, etc.

You question my historical knowledge, yet your then stupid enough to say yourself that NEP was introduced in 1930. How embarassing.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 17:45

In fact the most telling sign of Lenin's politics was how he justified taking away the democratic running of the factories, absolutely crucial to socialism, being at its core, instead putting one atstae employed individual in charge of each sector, under the justification that state control was workers control becuase it was a workers state. This is true Leninist politics, undermining democracy in place of control by a few individuals masquerading as representatives of the people. The people need no representatives.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 17:54

You think that the anarchist communes in Spain "worked"? http://www.revleft.com/vb/chomsky-soviet-union-t96215/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif They were neutralized at the first sign of opposition, namely the May Days, and even before then their greatest accomplishment was to undercut the cause of the Republicans. Your argument is like saying the Hindenburg "worked", and if it wasn't for the laws of physics, it would have lasted!

The anarchists were the first to mobilise against the fascists. The Republican government refused to arm the workers out of fear of a workers revolution, and so it was the Republican government's failure when the fascists were not put down quicker.

The May Days showed the uhly face of Stalinism, in that true workers control was beaten down by the ruling class who feared true workers power. Productivity under the anarchist communes went up 10% and the anarchist militias went on fighting at the front.

However, the anarchist (and trotskyists) were attacked by the Stalinists, disrupting the soldiers at the front, many of whom were thrown in jail (those who were on leave) weakening the anti-fascist side in the war. The anarchists were dedicated to the anti-fascist cause, but the Stalinist 'socialists' and the state were more focused on crushing true workers power because their the ruling class and thats what they do. This is seen in how the anarchists defend themselves against the violent attacks of the counter-revolutionary government, even though the anarchists were focusing attentions on revolution and war. It was the republican government that messed things up. This is accepted as historical fact except amongst those Stalinist types who received their political and historical education straight from the Politburo.

Yes, they worked. This was seen in how widely supported they were, and how they icnreased productivity by up to 10%. If you don't believe that workers self-management can work I'd suggest your on the wrong forum, but then again I've always thought that about Leninist types who put more faith in dictators than the working class itself.

Some people were brave enough to try and create a better world and it worked. The state and the Stalinist, essentially authoritarian capitalists, opposed this. Naturally, this is what the state does. This is the true face of Stalinism - opposition to workers control and any form of democracy. If it weren't for the brutality of the Stalinists the revolution would have continued, but due to the fact that the workers militias were being systematically be attacked their arms stolen, their democracy broken and their members (such as Nin) being thrown into prisons by the Stalinists, they could not resist the strength of the well armed Stalinist regime whilst also concentrating their heroic efforts on fighting against the fascists.

manic expression

15th April 2009, 17:59

He has respect on politics too, you just don't like the fact he is criticising your ideas.

He's mostly respected in academia as a linguist. As far as how much "respect" his politics gets in academia, most of academia is decidedly not revolutionary, and so that makes plenty of sense. In true academic fashion, Chomsky's ideas are usually seen as "interesting" within those circles and little more. Lastly, I can cite hundreds of academics who are "respected" in "those circles" who are completely reactionary. Basically, your qualification means nothing here.

And aren't you the person who keeps criticizing academia whenever there's a Marxist academic?

Bolshevik dominated Soviets following Lenin seixure of power when he came to hijakc the revolution in October.

They were the largest group in the Soviets IIRC, but they didn't "dominate" it. After all, they formed a coalition government with the Left-SRs. However, the fact that the Bolsheviks DID carry VERY strong support in the Soviets (as you admit) just supports my point: the workers made the October Revolution. You blindly state that the Bolsheviks had the support of the Soviets, but you don't dare ask yourself WHY that is, because the answer undercuts your entire hypothesis. The Bolsheviks had the support of the workers because they were leading the working-class revolution. It really is that simple.

Anarchists, left communists, etc.

You can't be the left of the "socialist movement" if you're not part of it in the first place. Anarchists hadn't been part of the international since 1872 and left communists can't even figure out if their tendency existed at the time. Insignificant doesn't mean "left", no matter how much you wish it were true.

Like I said, who voted for NEP?

It was instituted by the council of commissars, which had been elected by the Congress of the Soviets.

Control of the working class. :lol: Lenin doesn't comprimise the working class.

The Congress of the Soviets, however, do. Oops.

Means of production run by the state = state capitalism. The Soviet Union betrayed the workers by not giving them control of the means of production and society as a whole.

That's a tautology. All state ownership is state capitalism because all state capitalism is state ownership. You provided not a single shred of logic here, just more clueless labels.

Let's analyze this: your argument contradicts the entire setup of capitalism. Capitalism runs off of private ownership of property and the control of the class that profits from that very structure. If private property is abolished fully, and if the capitalist class is not in power, there can be no capitalism. The Bolsheviks had never owned property, they were made up of workers and revolutionaries who had dedicated their entire lives to working-class power. What's more is that they put state power in the hands of the Soviets. The subsequent decrees of the Congress of the Soviets threw private property out the window. So what we have here is a society with no capitalist class in power and no private property.

In short, your analysis is so absurd it's self-defeating. Had you the slightest idea of what you're talking about, you wouldn't make such silly claims.

Oh but its true. Their whole ideolgoy was focused around controlling the working class. Hence the degenration of the Soviet Union into a dictatorship under Lenin and then Stalin.

Why? Because you said so? Try supporting your arguments with evidence instead of your personal suspicions.

You question my historical knowledge, yet your then stupid enough to say yourself that NEP was introduced in 1930. How embarassing.

Well, there you have it. When faced with historical facts, anti-socialists such as this resort to childish attacks and immature indirection. Not much of a surprise though.

Kassad

15th April 2009, 18:00

Chomsky has released some great work on the media apparatus and its impact on society, as well as the United States' imperialist agenda. Unfortunately, his rational nature ends right about there. I can't comprehend how someone claiming to be a revolutionary socialist, especially one who centers his work so much on imperialism, fails to actually address the effects of imperialism on the Soviet Union. As we all know, I find most anarchists to be incredibly irrational, as Marxist-Leninists realize that revolution isn't some fucking walk in the park. It's a long, tiresome process that isn't inevitable. It requires organization and incredible activism.

Chomsky acts like the Soviet Union was as technologically and economically powerful as Western powers like the United States and France. That's totally absurd. The Soviet Union was impoverished due to the Czarist interest in imperialist domination, as well as other oppressive and tyrannical measures. The Bolsheviks were like the man who was left to pick up the tab for 20 other people who came out for dinner. They had little resources to work with, no one was on their side and they had to focus on dozens of issues at once. Socialist reforms don't just come into place. The implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat will always be met with opposition from the bourgeoisie, yet a lot of anarchists like to pretend that reactionary and right-wing uprisings were workers uprisings. Regardless, after the revolution, Lenin was left to pick up the tab.

Due to the initial fear of anything communist, the United States, her allies and Germany were immediately opposed to the workers revolution, as it threatened their profit motives. Especially after Lenin's death, the Soviet Union had to manage an already impoverished nation with a lack of resources, as well as imperialist threats. Had Stalin not industrialized and organized the military of the Soviet Union, even more lives would have been lost in the total decimation of the Soviet Union and the inevitable occupation of the land by imperialist forces.

Revolutionaries know the difference between workers democracy and bourgeois democracy. Lenin was struggling for the working class and the socialist reforms he and Stalin implemented saw rapid industrial development in the Soviet Union. Anarchists hold this surrealist fantasy that the revolution will unite us all and we will all frolick hand in hand through the pastures. Sorry to pop your bubble, but history shows us that counterrevolution and reactionary forces will always threaten socialist gains.

Chomsky doesn't address what would have happened without the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin successfully stopped Hitler's imperialist drive in its tracks. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had Hitler and Stalin somehow avoided conflict and Hitler had managed to focus on the Western Front 100%. It's scary, isn't it? Without the Soviet Union's advances, Hitler would have likely dominated all of Europe. Chomsky doesn't address this and he never will. Chomsky is another surrealist anarchist who believes that the bourgeois state will disappear and be replaced at that moment by a successful, flawless workers union. It doesn't work that way.

Anyone criticizing Lenin's "capitalist" reforms needs to seriously address their intellect. Due to Russia's impoverished state, some market reforms were needed to properly industrialize the Soviet Union and the subsequent industrial development would later prove that Lenin made the right decision. The working class regulated the capitalist reforms and negative aspects did come from them, but this was momentary. The Soviet Union was able to implement socialist reforms on wide-scale while managing to suppress counterrevolution and reactionaries. This suppression is necessary to prevent capitalism from rising again, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only means of maintaining socialist gains.

I honestly do not know what to say. Noam Chomsky is very adamant about propagating bourgeois propaganda about Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union and their actions. The fall of the Soviet Union and socialism only came with revisionism. Trailing away from Marxist theory is what allowed counterrevolution to return. Regardless, the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was required to industrialize. It was a sink or swim moment. Instead of looking at the flaws in Stalin and Lenin's application of socialism, why don't we look at what led up to these flaws? The direct reasoning behind these flaws was imperialism from capitalist states that made it nearly impossible for the Soviet Union to divert its resources towards socialist reforms and instead, forced them into diverting their resources towards defense and military spending.

The common denominator is, as usual, imperialism, which Chomsky claims to be such an expert on. Regardless, he totally ignores imperialism's role in the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union and the lack of resources that Soviet Union was left with. I would expect nothing left from a surrealist, anti-communist.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 18:03

Kassad

15th April 2009, 18:06

Pogue

15th April 2009, 18:09

No one claimed it was communism. By propagating imperialist propaganda and refusing to confront the colonialist aspect of the Western powers imposed on the Soviet Union, Chomsky totally ignores any material grasp of history, cause and effect and the general observation of world affairs. This ignorance towards imperialism is not a tenent held by any revolutionary socialist.

No, he'd just see that there were internal problems leading to the fall of the USSR, which there clearly were. The USSR didn't fall as a heroic worker run society, it fell after being riddled with corruption and a lack of democracy. This suggests it degenerated internally, whilst also be attacked externally.

ComradeOm

15th April 2009, 18:14

I hope Manic doesn't mind if I answer some of the points directed to him

Bolshevik dominated Soviets following Lenin seixure of power when he came to hijakc the revolution in OctoberThe Bolsheviks dominated (through democratic vote) the soviets before October. The had been winning control of district and city/provincial soviets throughout the summer of 1917 - Petrograd itself had returned a Bolshevik executive in September. Hence the reason why the soviets endorsed the actions of the Petrograd MRC (which was similarly elected by the Soviet). At the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets (October 1917) at least 300 of the 670 delegates were Bolshevik (other counts give them an absolute majority). They were by far and away the most popular socialist party amongst Russian workers at the time. This was confirmed some months later when the Constituent Assembly elections established the Bolsheviks as by far and away the largest proletarian party in Russia

Anarchists, left communists, etc.Anarchists were never present in Russia in enough numbers to have any real effect on the Revolution. Nonetheless individual anarchists do continually crop up in the histories... most often marching alongside the Bolsheviks. Similarly which party were the Left Communists members of...? That's right, they were a faction of the RSDLP(B) :rolleyes:

Oh but its true. Their whole ideolgoy was focused around controlling the working class. Hence the degenration of the Soviet Union into a dictatorship under Lenin and then StalinThat's your defence? "Its true"? How about you actually respond to my points instead of issuing inane declarations

And you?I've done my homework. Certainly I know enough not to simply dismiss the events of 1917 as a "coup"

Once. And then he stayed in power without furhter elections, reversing the revolution and dstroying democracy as he wentWell the obvious question is just how did a revolutionary proletariat place a "right wing anti-socialist" in power?

And again, your claim is false. Lenin's position in the Bolshevik CC was voted on at every party congress (of which there were at least eight between 1917 and 1924) and his role in the Sovnarkom was dependent entirely on the CEC (Central Executive Committee) of the Soviets. He was recallable at any time. The position was an elected one and his successor Rykov was elected to the post

Oh wait, I was actually paying attention to history there. I forgot that Lenin was an evil dictator :rolleyes:

How come there were not nationwide leadership elecitons after Lenin died then? How come Lenin was not drawn to account for NEP, etc?Two reasons. The most obvious was that the country was in a state of civil war. Those things do tend to complicate the process of holding elections. More importantly however is that in 1917 the revolutionary Russian proletariat rejected the sham of parliamentary democracy. Lenin owed his authority to the soviets and the soviets were more democratic, by their nature, than any parliament or nationwide election

Although I'm surprised to see you, as an anarchist, advocating parliamentary forms of democracy. Are nationwide elections, perhaps for a post of president or prime minister, part of your vision for post-revolution society?

To the contrary I'd say that historical fact pointed to the anti-socialist nature of the Bolsheviks, as seen in how Lenin needed to create a secret police, didn't allow the soviets to control the country, appointed a succesor, etcAnother insightful piece of analysis. Of course you haven't actually addressed my point. The fact, and I stress that this is not opinion, is that in 1917 the Bolsheviks could be found on the far left of the Russian political spectrum. Frankly I don't care how you perceive the Bolsheviks or how they fit in to your crooked little outlook.Of far more importance is how they were perceived by the Russian proletariat and their contemporaries. On that score the picture is clear

Now you continue to insist that the Bolsheviks were "anti-socialist". Do you think that they simply duped the Russian workers into supporting them; into voting and fighting for them? Do you really think that the Russian proletariat, as revolutionary as any class in the West has ever been, was that stupid, that gullible? That this was all some Bolshevik conspiracy? Bullshit

You question my historical knowledge, yet your then stupid enough to say yourself that NEP was introduced in 1930. How embarassing.So now you are simply lying? do me a favour and point out where I said that the NEP was introduced in 1930. Then go back and address my points in the above post. Otherwise either read up or shut up because frankly the only person embarrassing themselves here is you

Kassad

15th April 2009, 18:14

It's totally ignorant to ignore the link between internal and external strife. You, like Chomsky, act like the Soviet Union had the resources or the capability to plunge directly into communism. You and Chomsky, again, both fall into the trap of bourgeois democracy. The same bourgeois democracy was being called for by those at Tiananmen Square, though I express solidarity with their anguish towards the revisionist and counterrevolutionary ruling class in China. You cannot just call for democracy, for democracy is often a bourgeois illusion of influence. Lenin did not have the ability to throw all power to the masses, as it would have totally undermined any chance of successfully standing up to foreign imperialism.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 18:32

robbo203

15th April 2009, 19:08

I could point out that the Bolshevik programme was clearly socialist in character and that throughout 1917, and indeed beyond, the party was unquestionably on the far left of the political spectrum. You think they were to the right of the Mensheviks or SRs? Come of it. Of course the reason that the Bolsheviks were to the left of nearly everyone else is that they were the one party to consistently and clearly advocate the transfer of power to the soviets and the abolition of the bourgeois government. Which was exactly why the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the party of the Russian proletariat - both before an after October 1917. This was proven time and time again by elections to the soviets, the dumas, even the Constituent Assembly

The Bolshevik programme was clearly capitalist in character. Marxists understand this well enough but not leninists who continue to live in their little bubble of unreality. Lenin himself said candidly that state capitalism would be a step forward. The Bolshevik coup of 1917 supposedly to protect the rights of the Congress of Soviets was not based on mass working class understanding of and support for socialism/communism. Anyone who imagines otherwise is utterly deluded. In the main it was based on support for the Bolshevik Slogan "Peace, Bread and Land". The Bolsheviks did do one good thing and that was to get the country out of the war. Understandably this gave them many kudos. John Read whose sympathetic account of the Bolshevik coup Ten Days that Shock the World for which Lenin wrote a foreword quotes Lenin in a speech he made to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917:

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative" (Read's emphasis)

Lenin was here taking up a position directly contrary to the Marxist position that the vast majority of proletariat must consciously under understand and want socialism in order to have socialism . "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority" as he said. The Russian proletariat as a whole were not socialist minded at the time of the Bolshevik coup. Not only that , the proletariat itself was still a small minority in Russia at the time so even if it had been socialist minded it could not possibly have introduced socialism/communism. Any serious marxist understands perfectly that whatever Lenin may or may not have said on the subject, socialism was simply not on the cards in Russia. Ipso facto , the Bolshevik revolution was, and could only ever have been, a capitalist revolution. This follows as clearly as night follows day but only a few cranky leninists want to believe otherwise and bury their heads in the sand.

Regarding the claim "Which was exactly why the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the party of the Russian proletariat - both before and after October 1917. This was proven time and time again by elections to the soviets, the dumas, even the Constituent Assembly" as far as this last organ was concerned elections to the Constituent Assembly, held after the Bolshevik coup and so under Bolshevik government, gave them only about 25 per cent of the votes. A clear minority.

As for the question of the Soviets here is a section of an article written in 1920 http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/1905-1985/20Kautsky-Lenin.htm on the soviets which puts the matter in perspective:

This is the situation. While the workers agree with capitalism, they will vote capitalists into Parliament. When they agree with Socialism - or "Will to Socialism" - they will send Socialists there.
And - how short is Lenin’s memory! - both he and his colleagues were voted into a "bourgeois" Parliament by the "labouring masses".
Lenin on p. 30 of his book says: "the Soviet regime is a million times more democratic than the most democratic regime in a bourgeois republic".
What is the Soviet Regime?
The word "Soviet" is used by many supporters of the Bolsheviks as though it denoted some newly discovered magical power. When one is told that it merely means "Council" the magic vanishes.
At the base of this system are the Urban and Rural Councils, directly elected by the sections qualified to vote. The delegates are elected in the proportion of one delegate to every 1,000 members in the towns (up to a maximum of 1,000 councillors), and one delegate to every 100 in the country.
Above this comes the Volost Congress. A Volost is a group of villages, and the Congress is composed of delegates from the Councils of these village groups.
Next above in the order is the District Congress composed of representatives from the Village Councils.
Still higher is the County Congress consisting of representatives from the Urban Councils and the Volost Congresses.
Overriding all these bodies is the Regional Congress made up of delegates from the Urban Councils and Congresses of the County Districts.
At the apex of the system is the All Russia Congress of Councils which is the supreme authority of the Russian Republic. This is formed of delegates from the Urban Councils and the Congresses of County Councils.
We have, then, six grades of authority in the Russian system. But note how they are elected.
The "labouring masses" vote once - namely, at the local councils, urban and village. This is their one and only vote. All the other grades are elected by the delegates of the Congress immediately below it.
This the Volost Congress is elected by the Village Group Councils; the District Congress by the general Village Councils; the County Congress by the Urban Councils and Volost Congresses; the Regional Congress by the Urban Councils and Congresses of County Districts; and the All Russia Congress by Urban Councils and Congresses of County Councils.
We see, then, that "the supreme authority of the Russian Council Republic" is removed five stages beyond the vote, reach, or control of the workers.
Another interesting point is the ratio between the urban and country representatives. Thus for the All Russia Congress of Councils the Urban Councils send one representative for every 25,000, while the County Council Congresses send one delegate for every 125,000, or to put it another way, the Urban Councils have five times the representation of the County Councils. The same ratio applies to Regional and County Congresses. These figures have a peculiar significance.
The Bolsheviks, naturally, find their chief support in the urban centres. By this basis of representation they are able to ensure the practical certainty of a majority in "the supreme authority of the Russian Republic". "And that’s how it’s done", as the stage conjurer says.
This method may be suitable to Russian conditions, but to claim for such a system that it is "a million times more democratic than the most democratic regime in a bourgeois republic" - where the workers have a direct, and overwhelming, vote for the very centre of power - is the wildest nonsense

manic expression

15th April 2009, 19:17

The anarchists were the first to mobilise against the fascists. The Republican government refused to arm the workers out of fear of a workers revolution, and so it was the Republican government's failure when the fascists were not put down quicker.

What in the world are you talking about? Franco launched an invasion from Spain's African holdings toward Madrid. The Republic certainly armed the workers because they needed to arm everyone they possibly could to fight the Army of Africa. The anarchist militias were notorious for their lack of discipline, for their suicidal tactics and for their refusal to consistently cooperate with the Republican cause.

The fascists weren't "put down quicker" because Franco's army was better equipped, better trained and based from another continent at the onset of the conflict.

The May Days showed the uhly face of Stalinism, in that true workers control was beaten down by the ruling class who feared true workers power. Productivity under the anarchist communes went up 10% and the anarchist militias went on fighting at the front.

The May Days, if anything, showed how fragile and impractical the anarchist communes were. By seizing a communications building they needed, the Republicans basically compromised decades of anarchist "organization". The futility of the communes was the fault of their organizers, not the fault of the Republicans who dealt appropriately with the nuisance. You want to convince us that the communes were effective, but your own admission of their failure betrays this as a fallacy, born once again of wishful thinking.

However, the anarchist (and trotskyists) were attacked by the Stalinists, disrupting the soldiers at the front, many of whom were thrown in jail (those who were on leave) weakening the anti-fascist side in the war. The anarchists were dedicated to the anti-fascist cause, but the Stalinist 'socialists' and the state were more focused on crushing true workers power because their the ruling class and thats what they do. This is seen in how the anarchists defend themselves against the violent attacks of the counter-revolutionary government, even though the anarchists were focusing attentions on revolution and war. It was the republican government that messed things up. This is accepted as historical fact except amongst those Stalinist types who received their political and historical education straight from the Politburo.

There were almost no Trotskyists in Spain at the time. The POUM may have been grouped in with them, but that wasn't really the case. At any rate, the Republicans got tired of the anarchists' johnny-come-lately behavior toward the Republican cause. The anarchists would fight with the Republic one day and obstruct it the next. You can't fight a war with that kind of disunity, and so the Republicans did what they needed to do.

Yes, they worked. This was seen in how widely supported they were, and how they icnreased productivity by up to 10%. If you don't believe that workers self-management can work I'd suggest your on the wrong forum, but then again I've always thought that about Leninist types who put more faith in dictators than the working class itself.

I "believe" in workers' self-management, which is exactly why I reject anarchism. The anarchist communes fell apart at the first sign of opposition and would never again be reconstructed. They are a reminder of anarchism's futility, and the fact that a revolution MEANS working-class state power and nothing less. The moralistic denial of the worker state lies at the center of the anarchists' failure in Spain.

Please cite a reputable source on the 10% growth of productivity. And even if it is true, it was most surely a short-term increase, whereas the Soviet Union became a superpower mere decades after the revolution.

Some people were brave enough to try and create a better world and it worked. The state and the Stalinist, essentially authoritarian capitalists, opposed this. Naturally, this is what the state does. This is the true face of Stalinism - opposition to workers control and any form of democracy. If it weren't for the brutality of the Stalinists the revolution would have continued, but due to the fact that the workers militias were being systematically be attacked their arms stolen, their democracy broken and their members (such as Nin) being thrown into prisons by the Stalinists, they could not resist the strength of the well armed Stalinist regime whilst also concentrating their heroic efforts on fighting against the fascists.

I doubt you're even reading what I've written. If you did read what's been written, you wouldn't harbor the nonsense you're mindlessly repeating.

Again, the communes "worked" just like the Hindenburg "worked", only as long enough as the laws of nature allowed it to. Both went down in flames because of unnecessary and absurd errors on the part of their designers. Blaming the phantom-like "Stalinists" for the communes' failure (which is what your entire argument amounts to) is a discredited excuse for inherent futility. Not only are you clueless as to what the Republic represented, but you're clueless to the anarchists' inability to create an effective fighting force.

Every state naturally serves the interests of its ruling class. That is why the Soviet Union was a progressive force, representing working-class progress, whereas the Spanish anarchists were no force at all. A few skirmishes in Barcelona destroyed the entire organization of the anarchists, which just outlines how farcical their project was altogether. Your romanticization of the anarchists is only possible because of their incompetence; you, like all romantics, bask in the innocence inherent in impotence. Your inability to understand basic facts is why you can't understand history.

Once again, we're back to square one: crack open a serious history book about the Spanish Civil War, then come and talk.

I hope Manic doesn't mind if I answer some of the points directed to him

Not at all.

Pogue

15th April 2009, 19:43

What in the world are you talking about? Franco launched an invasion from Spain's African holdings toward Madrid. The Republic certainly armed the workers because they needed to arm everyone they possibly could to fight the Army of Africa. The anarchist militias were notorious for their lack of discipline, for their suicidal tactics and for their refusal to consistently cooperate with the Republican cause.

The fascists weren't "put down quicker" because Franco's army was better equipped, better trained and based from another continent at the onset of the conflict.

The republican government believed Franco would be defeated in 48 hours by the regular rpeublican army and thus refused to arm the workers. Read Anthony Beevors work to see this.

The May Days, if anything, showed how fragile and impractical the anarchist communes were. By seizing a communications building they needed, the Republicans basically compromised decades of anarchist "organization". The futility of the communes was the fault of their organizers, not the fault of the Republicans who dealt appropriately with the nuisance. You want to convince us that the communes were effective, but your own admission of their failure betrays this as a fallacy, born once again of wishful thinking.

Clearly not. The May Days show us that the state will do its best to crush workers self control, which is what this was. If you opposed the Spanish revolution I don't see why you're on revleft, seeing as it was a revolution in action crushed by the reactionary bourgeoisie. If you see a workers revolution as a nuisance I suggest you join the Conservative Party or at least re-assess your values. Its funny you'd say anarchist politics are rubbish because the Spanish anarchists were defeated when you're supportive of the USSR which too fell. At least the anarchists were defeated while doing the right thing.

I "believe" in workers' self-management, which is exactly why I reject anarchism. The anarchist communes fell apart at the first sign of opposition and would never again be reconstructed. They are a reminder of anarchism's futility, and the fact that a revolution MEANS working-class state power and nothing less. The moralistic denial of the worker state lies at the center of the anarchists' failure in Spain.

Please cite a reputable source on the 10% growth of productivity. And even if it is true, it was most surely a short-term increase, whereas the Soviet Union became a superpower mere decades after the revolution.

The state idea has failed every single time its been implemented. I don't see how you can oppose workers self management as seen in Spain but also support workers self control.

The Soviet Union became a capitalist superpower. Just because it calls itself socialist and powerful doesn't mean its a socialist superpower. It became so powerful by sending people to forced labour camps, and its power came at the expense of millions killed by the Stalinist regime, its brutality and its inadequacy.

The first measure in the collectivization of the Barcelona street railways was to discharge the excessively paid directors and company stooges. The saving was considerable. A conductor averaged 250 to 300 pesetas a month, while the general director (manager) was paid 5,000 and his three assistants 4,441, 2,384, and 2,000 pesetas respectively. The amount saved through the abolition of these posts went to increase the wages of the lowest paid workers 40% to 60%, and intermediate and higher brackets 10% to 20%. The next step was the reduction of working time to 40 hours per week (but for the war situation, it would have been cut to 36 hours weekly).

Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragon), for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution#cite_note-1)

From wikipedia, which provides the sources.

I doubt you're even reading what I've written. If you did read what's been written, you wouldn't harbor the nonsense you're mindlessly repeating.

Again, the communes "worked" just like the Hindenburg "worked", only as long enough as the laws of nature allowed it to. Both went down in flames because of unnecessary and absurd errors on the part of their designers. Blaming the phantom-like "Stalinists" for the communes' failure (which is what your entire argument amounts to) is a discredited excuse for inherent futility. Not only are you clueless as to what the Republic represented, but you're clueless to the anarchists' inability to create an effective fighting force.

Every state naturally serves the interests of its ruling class. That is why the Soviet Union was a progressive force, representing working-class progress, whereas the Spanish anarchists were no force at all. A few skirmishes in Barcelona destroyed the entire organization of the anarchists, which just outlines how farcical their project was altogether. Your romanticization of the anarchists is only possible because of their incompetence; you, like all romantics, bask in the innocence inherent in impotence. Your inability to understand basic facts is why you can't understand history.

How come 'the imperialist aggresion from outside' will suffice for you as ajusitifcation of why the Russian Revolution ultimately degenrated and failed, but the attacks from fascists and Stalinists isn't an explanation for you as to why the Spanish revolution failed? You say its outside factors, not problems with the internal system, that led to 'socialism' in Russia failing, but then deny that the opposite is the case in Spain. Your a hypocrite and thats why you look so stupid.

The Stalinists were not phantoms. They were the people who the anarchists (and POUM) were fending off in the streets of Barcalona. If your that historically ignorant I suggest you should be the one who goes and reads. Do you think Andres Nin just disappeared?

I know what the republic represented - bourgeois democracy at this point infiltrated by Stalinists.

I've already addressed the anarchist fighting force, which was the first to mobilise and fought as heroically as anyone throughout the war, until it was crushed by the Stalinist command who wanted to smash its internal democracy and swallow it up into beurecratic mainstram authoritarian armies. To say they didn't form an effective fighting force is to ignore history as much as you do when you say 'Stalin was a good man'.

What sort of progressive force is it that leaves its worker living in squalor, that sides with the Nazis in dividing up other nations for 'each other's sphere of influence', that has one man ruling it, killing or imprisoning any true communists, that doesn't allow a single free election at any point in its history?

I'd rather be an romantic than someone as idiotic enough as to buy into the propoganda of a state run by a few despots throughout its history that was responsible for the deaths of millions and many other crimes against communism and revolution worldwide. You don't understand hsitory because fundamentally your understanding of it comes straight out of Soviet archives - you lack the originality or intelligence to interpret it from an objctive view, instead pathetically languishing in an intellectual quagmire which forces you to blindly accept anything that the leadership of a reactionary state like the USSR fed out. You are stuck in a ghetto of bitter remorse that a regime which never represented the working class eventually collapsed in on itself because it was such a state and was widely opposed by workers both within it and without. Only when you break with your pathetic fantasies and fetishes of a big strong dominant power acting on behalf of the working class will you have one single thing to offer the workers movement, until then you may as well spend your time in historical reinactent classes where you can have fun pretending the USSR was anything other than a totalitarian mess that sided with fascists and sadly duped idiots like you as it went along.

Post-Something

16th April 2009, 01:26

Of course State & Revolution was motivated by political necessity - it was squarely aimed at Russian and European Social Democrats who maintained that it was not necessary to destroy the capitalist state. Lenin's position, which saw him on the far left of mainstream Social Democracy, was precisely the opposite and had been heavily influenced by Bukharin's own work on that subject in 1915. State & Revolution is the result of this evolution of thought and final break with Kautsky. In short it was a theoretical piece squarely aimed at a certain audience. Certainly not for general dissemination

Does this mean that Lenin deliberately omitted aspects regarding to the role of the party? No. In the first place the Bolshevik organisation of 1917 was a completely different creature to that described in WITBD?. Secondly, in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution the Bolshevik party was almost entirely superseded by soviet structures. In hindsight this was probably an error, but throughout 1918 local Bolshevik activists paid far more attention to their duties within the soviets than their party responsibilities. It was only after the former began to decay, due to the near-annihilation of the proletariat during the Civil War years, that the party became the central organ of state rule and we see a 'dictatorship of the party' emerge

Now this just does not square with the image of Lenin envisioning the Bolshevik party organisation occupying a major role in post-October society and deliberately omitting this from State & Revolution. He returns to this point, in the unfortunately named, Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm) where he notes that "[the soviets] it provides an organisational form for the vanguard, i.e., for the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes...". For Lenin the party was to be superseded in its role by the soviets themselves post-revolution

Yeah, I know. I actually don't think the Soviet Union failed because of the Bolsheviks. The working class was pretty weak as a result of the civil war, and thus the soviet structure couldn't be maintained. It's a shame, but that doesn't deny some of the fundamental constitutional errors in democracy that were made. Nonetheless, I was merely trying to show that the debate on State and Revolution is not as black and white as some people may put foreward. Anyway, I don't want to interfere with the debate that has grown since I last posted, so I'll sit back and read :)

manic expression

16th April 2009, 02:54

The republican government believed Franco would be defeated in 48 hours by the regular rpeublican army and thus refused to arm the workers. Read Anthony Beevors work to see this.

No one thought that in 1936; the Nationalists were the ones who had the regular Spanish army, the Republicans had the auxiliary divisions which were ill-equipped anyway. Not only did the Republican forces draw heavily from the Spanish working class, it relied on workers from every corner of the globe, especially in the first crucial defense of Madrid.

Clearly not. The May Days show us that the state will do its best to crush workers self control, which is what this was. If you opposed the Spanish revolution I don't see why you're on revleft, seeing as it was a revolution in action crushed by the reactionary bourgeoisie. If you see a workers revolution as a nuisance I suggest you join the Conservative Party or at least re-assess your values. Its funny you'd say anarchist politics are rubbish because the Spanish anarchists were defeated when you're supportive of the USSR which too fell. At least the anarchists were defeated while doing the right thing.

You're still parroting the same nonsense I've dealt with before. The anarchist communes were not "workers' self control", they were an obstacle to the revolutionary Republic. The Republicans, just like every other clear-minded revolutionary group, knew that the anarchist communes could never form the basis for a socialist society because the anarchists rejected everything about socialism (namely, working-class state power). In light of this, the Republic seized a communications building and the anarchist project crashed into the ground. Again, you bask in the innocence inherent in impotence, which is why you romanticize the abject failure of the Spanish anarchists.

The USSR lasted 70 years and survived (and defeated) the most savage invasion in human history. The anarchist communes fell because they lost control of a single building. You, again, have no idea of what you're talking about.

The state idea has failed every single time its been implemented. I don't see how you can oppose workers self management as seen in Spain but also support workers self control.

It's "failed" for moralizing sentimentalists such as yourself. For revolutionaries, the Soviet Union did succeed, as does the revolutionary government of Cuba in this very hour.

I can support working-class self-management because I know from history that working-class state power is decisive in this regard.

The Soviet Union became a capitalist superpower. Just because it calls itself socialist and powerful doesn't mean its a socialist superpower. It became so powerful by sending people to forced labour camps, and its power came at the expense of millions killed by the Stalinist regime, its brutality and its inadequacy.

You might have a point IF you can explain WHY it was "capitalist", instead of just repeating yourself and hoping no one notices your lack of evidence.

I won't hold my breath.

From wikipedia, which provides the sources.

Please provide a link.

How come 'the imperialist aggresion from outside' will suffice for you as ajusitifcation of why the Russian Revolution ultimately degenrated and failed, but the attacks from fascists and Stalinists isn't an explanation for you as to why the Spanish revolution failed? You say its outside factors, not problems with the internal system, that led to 'socialism' in Russia failing, but then deny that the opposite is the case in Spain. Your a hypocrite and thats why you look so stupid.

That's a simplistic view of the issue. First, the failure of the German Revolution in 1920 was important because Russia had practically no real industrial base to speak of, and by 1921 the Civil War had destroyed what little industry there was. From the outset, the Bolsheviks hoped to spark an international revolution of which Russia would only be the first to see working-class state power. With the isolation of the Russian Revolution and the disintegration of the Russian working class, the Bolsheviks were faced with near-impossible circumstances. It is from this situation that we analyze the Bolsheviks' actions from 1921 on.

As for the communes, they didn't fall because of some grand "Stalinist" assault, they fell because there were a few skirmishes in Barcelona. To compare the two is absolutely laughable.

Moreover, the victories of the October Revolution (the abolition of private property, the collectivization of ownership, the liberation of women, etc.) were maintained throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. The progressive character of the Soviet Union can only be denied by true anti-socialists. Ironically enough, according to you, nothing changed from 1989 to 1993. Nothing at all; they were both capitalist, right?! :rolleyes:

The Stalinists were not phantoms. They were the people who the anarchists (and POUM) were fending off in the streets of Barcalona. If your that historically ignorant I suggest you should be the one who goes and reads. Do you think Andres Nin just disappeared?

Not all of the Republic was pro-Soviet. There were many tendencies in the ranks of the Republicans, and to call them "Stalinists" without qualification is intellectual laziness.

As for the fighting in Barcelona, the Republic had no reason to put up with the behavior of the anarchists, who could impede the Republic as much as they fought with them. You're acting as if the Republic targeted the anarchists in the middle of a bitter civil war because they were meanies.

I know what the republic represented - bourgeois democracy at this point infiltrated by Stalinists.

Nailed it! :lol:

Again, read a history book, then talk.

I've already addressed the anarchist fighting force, which was the first to mobilise and fought as heroically as anyone throughout the war, until it was crushed by the Stalinist command who wanted to smash its internal democracy and swallow it up into beurecratic mainstram authoritarian armies. To say they didn't form an effective fighting force is to ignore history as much as you do when you say 'Stalin was a good man'.

The anarchist militias were not the first to mobilize, because IIRC the Army of Spain (the auxiliary force under the Republic) was already formed and operational when Franco made his move. At any rate, the anarchists were definitely noted for their exceptional bravery and elan, but their lack of discipline led to unnecessarily high losses time and again. Sorry, but the anarchists were not an effective fighting force because effective fighting forces don't embrace suicidal tactics as a matter of course.

I never said Stalin was a good man. What other slanders will you come up with?

What sort of progressive force is it that leaves its worker living in squalor, that sides with the Nazis in dividing up other nations for 'each other's sphere of influence', that has one man ruling it, killing or imprisoning any true communists, that doesn't allow a single free election at any point in its history?

Living conditions for workers in the Soviet Union increased from 1917 to the 1950's, so it's not like they were leaving people in squalor, not by a long shot. The Soviet Union only signed a non-aggression pact with Germany because every other country had refused to even talk to them; Britain openly insulted the Soviets by sending diplomats BY BOAT after Stalin offered an anti-Hitler alliance. It was a last resort, and if you don't know that, you don't know anything about the events surrounding the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

I'd rather be an romantic than someone as idiotic enough as to buy into the propoganda of a state run by a few despots throughout its history that was responsible for the deaths of millions and many other crimes against communism and revolution worldwide. You don't understand hsitory because fundamentally your understanding of it comes straight out of Soviet archives - you lack the originality or intelligence to interpret it from an objctive view, instead pathetically languishing in an intellectual quagmire which forces you to blindly accept anything that the leadership of a reactionary state like the USSR fed out. You are stuck in a ghetto of bitter remorse that a regime which never represented the working class eventually collapsed in on itself because it was such a state and was widely opposed by workers both within it and without. Only when you break with your pathetic fantasies and fetishes of a big strong dominant power acting on behalf of the working class will you have one single thing to offer the workers movement, until then you may as well spend your time in historical reinactent classes where you can have fun pretending the USSR was anything other than a totalitarian mess that sided with fascists and sadly duped idiots like you as it went along.

So much indignation, so little reason. Must be desperation. Anyway, let me know when you touch the page of a history book.

SocialismOrBarbarism

16th April 2009, 03:30

The Bolshevik programme was clearly capitalist in character. Marxists understand this well enough but not leninists who continue to live in their little bubble of unreality. Lenin himself said candidly that state capitalism would be a step forward. The Bolshevik coup of 1917 supposedly to protect the rights of the Congress of Soviets was not based on mass working class understanding of and support for socialism/communism. Anyone who imagines otherwise is utterly deluded. In the main it was based on support for the Bolshevik Slogan "Peace, Bread and Land". The Bolsheviks did do one good thing and that was to get the country out of the war. Understandably this gave them many kudos. John Read whose sympathetic account of the Bolshevik coup Ten Days that Shock the World for which Lenin wrote a foreword quotes Lenin in a speech he made to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917:

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative" (Read's emphasis)

Lenin was here taking up a position directly contrary to the Marxist position that the vast majority of proletariat must consciously under understand and want socialism in order to have socialism . "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority" as he said. The Russian proletariat as a whole were not socialist minded at the time of the Bolshevik coup. Not only that , the proletariat itself was still a small minority in Russia at the time so even if it had been socialist minded it could not possibly have introduced socialism/communism. Any serious marxist understands perfectly that whatever Lenin may or may not have said on the subject, socialism was simply not on the cards in Russia. Ipso facto , the Bolshevik revolution was, and could only ever have been, a capitalist revolution. This follows as clearly as night follows day but only a few cranky leninists want to believe otherwise and bury their heads in the sand.

Regarding the claim "Which was exactly why the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the party of the Russian proletariat - both before and after October 1917. This was proven time and time again by elections to the soviets, the dumas, even the Constituent Assembly" as far as this last organ was concerned elections to the Constituent Assembly, held after the Bolshevik coup and so under Bolshevik government, gave them only about 25 per cent of the votes. A clear minority.

As for the question of the Soviets here is a section of an article written in 1920 http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/1905-1985/20Kautsky-Lenin.htm on the soviets which puts the matter in perspective:

This is the situation. While the workers agree with capitalism, they will vote capitalists into Parliament. When they agree with Socialism - or "Will to Socialism" - they will send Socialists there.
And - how short is Lenin’s memory! - both he and his colleagues were voted into a "bourgeois" Parliament by the "labouring masses".
Lenin on p. 30 of his book says: "the Soviet regime is a million times more democratic than the most democratic regime in a bourgeois republic".
What is the Soviet Regime?
The word "Soviet" is used by many supporters of the Bolsheviks as though it denoted some newly discovered magical power. When one is told that it merely means "Council" the magic vanishes.
At the base of this system are the Urban and Rural Councils, directly elected by the sections qualified to vote. The delegates are elected in the proportion of one delegate to every 1,000 members in the towns (up to a maximum of 1,000 councillors), and one delegate to every 100 in the country.
Above this comes the Volost Congress. A Volost is a group of villages, and the Congress is composed of delegates from the Councils of these village groups.
Next above in the order is the District Congress composed of representatives from the Village Councils.
Still higher is the County Congress consisting of representatives from the Urban Councils and the Volost Congresses.
Overriding all these bodies is the Regional Congress made up of delegates from the Urban Councils and Congresses of the County Districts.
At the apex of the system is the All Russia Congress of Councils which is the supreme authority of the Russian Republic. This is formed of delegates from the Urban Councils and the Congresses of County Councils.
We have, then, six grades of authority in the Russian system. But note how they are elected.
The "labouring masses" vote once - namely, at the local councils, urban and village. This is their one and only vote. All the other grades are elected by the delegates of the Congress immediately below it.
This the Volost Congress is elected by the Village Group Councils; the District Congress by the general Village Councils; the County Congress by the Urban Councils and Volost Congresses; the Regional Congress by the Urban Councils and Congresses of County Districts; and the All Russia Congress by Urban Councils and Congresses of County Councils.
We see, then, that "the supreme authority of the Russian Council Republic" is removed five stages beyond the vote, reach, or control of the workers.
Another interesting point is the ratio between the urban and country representatives. Thus for the All Russia Congress of Councils the Urban Councils send one representative for every 25,000, while the County Council Congresses send one delegate for every 125,000, or to put it another way, the Urban Councils have five times the representation of the County Councils. The same ratio applies to Regional and County Congresses. These figures have a peculiar significance.
The Bolsheviks, naturally, find their chief support in the urban centres. By this basis of representation they are able to ensure the practical certainty of a majority in "the supreme authority of the Russian Republic". "And that’s how it’s done", as the stage conjurer says.
This method may be suitable to Russian conditions, but to claim for such a system that it is "a million times more democratic than the most democratic regime in a bourgeois republic" - where the workers have a direct, and overwhelming, vote for the very centre of power - is the wildest nonsense

Well yes, if we ignore the right to recall. In a bourgeois republic they vote for the centre of power, but they have no control over it. The system this guy describes Russia as having places power at the local level. Whatever happened to "from the bottom up" and all that? I actually think posting this hurt your position more than anything because from a quick glance it seems to admit that what Russia has was a democratic system and just takes up issue with the fact that they're trying to build socialism in an underdeveloped country.

revolution inaction

16th April 2009, 12:08

In light of this, the Republic seized a communications building and the anarchist project crashed into the ground.

The USSR lasted 70 years and survived (and defeated) the most savage invasion in human history. The anarchist communes fell because they lost control of a single building. You, again, have no idea of what you're talking about.

provide evidence of this

It's "failed" for moralizing sentimentalists such as yourself. For revolutionaries, the Soviet Union did succeed, as does the revolutionary government of Cuba in this very hour.

you are clearly using a different definition of revolutionary to me, if you if you replaced the word revolutionary with pro-capitalist then you sentences will make sense.

I can support working-class self-management because I know from history that working-class state power is decisive in this regard.

you clearly dont if you support the ussr or cuba

You might have a point IF you can explain WHY it was "capitalist", instead of just repeating yourself and hoping no one notices your lack of evidence.

I won't hold my breath.

Wage labour was maintained and the means of production were not under the control of the workers

read this too http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben1 (it's in 4 parts)

That's a simplistic view of the issue. First, the failure of the German Revolution in 1920 was important because Russia had practically no real industrial base to speak of, and by 1921 the Civil War had destroyed what little industry there was. From the outset, the Bolsheviks hoped to spark an international revolution of which Russia would only be the first to see working-class state power. With the isolation of the Russian Revolution and the disintegration of the Russian working class, the Bolsheviks were faced with near-impossible circumstances. It is from this situation that we analyze the Bolsheviks' actions from 1921 on.

the bolsheviks started to attack workers control before the civil war started

As for the communes, they didn't fall because of some grand "Stalinist" assault, they fell because there were a few skirmishes in Barcelona. To compare the two is absolutely laughable.

provide evidence that this is what happend

Moreover, the victories of the October Revolution (the abolition of private property, the collectivization of ownership, the liberation of women, etc.) were maintained throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. The progressive character of the Soviet Union can only be denied by true anti-socialists. Ironically enough, according to you, nothing changed from 1989 to 1993. Nothing at all; they were both capitalist, right?! :rolleyes:

Private property may have been abolished in law and collectivization may have officially existed but in reality the workers did not have control over the means of production.
This is not the same as saying there is no diffrence between state capitalism and free market capitalism

As for the fighting in Barcelona, the Republic had no reason to put up with the behavior of the anarchists, who could impede the Republic as much as they fought with them. You're acting as if the Republic targeted the anarchists in the middle of a bitter civil war because they were meanies.

regardless of why the republic government suppressed the anarchist it was an anti revolutionary thing to do.

Living conditions for workers in the Soviet Union increased from 1917 to the 1950's, so it's not like they were leaving people in squalor, not by a long shot.

Living conditions in briton increased over hte same period to, was the uk socalist?

The Soviet Union only signed a non-aggression pact with Germany because every other country had refused to even talk to them; Britain openly insulted the Soviets by sending diplomats BY BOAT after Stalin offered an anti-Hitler alliance. It was a last resort, and if you don't know that, you don't know anything about the events surrounding the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

the Nazis were only people who would talk to them? Oh that makes it ok then.

Kassad

16th April 2009, 22:20

So basically you're saying its naive and unrealistic to call for democracy? That a dictatorship by self-proclaimed 'socialists' is preferable?

Do I really have to treat you like a novice socialist and sit you down to describe the differences between workers democracy and bourgeois democracy? In Cuba, legislation, laws and other issues are debated in the workplace and things are passed based on what is best for the workers. In China, during the Tiananmen Square protests, the students weren't calling for revolutionary socialism or workers democracy. They were calling for a capitalist bourgeois democracy. There's a difference.

In the Soviet Union, I don't think there were proper resources to implement a total workers democracy, especially in the face of imperialism and being faced with a total lack of resources. It's totally surreal to think that Lenin could just throw power to the masses and subsequently maintain revolutionary gains, as well as defend against foreign invaders.

manic expression

17th April 2009, 01:47

provide evidence of this

I'm not sure what you want to see evidence for. The May Days fighting revolved around a communications building; when the Republicans took it, the anarchist structures became neutralized. Just about every account of the May Days references this, whether pro or anti-anarchist.

you are clearly using a different definition of revolutionary to me, if you if you replaced the word revolutionary with pro-capitalist then you sentences will make sense.

A revolutionary is someone who is willing and able to defend revolutionary states.

you clearly dont if you support the ussr or cuba

Yes, I do, because both the USSR and Cuba utilized state power to defend revolutionary gains. That's why they withstood great pressures and maintained socialism.

Wage labour was maintained and the means of production were not under the control of the workers

Wages don't make a system capitalist. Only if the workers' labor is being used to create private profit can we apply that label. The means of production are controlled by the workers in Cuba, that's been proven multiple times here. As for the USSR, the bureaucratic mechanisms that developed served to defend the socialist system from the tremendous obstacles and enemies. That, however, doesn't change the social structure of the USSR, which was collectivized. Anarchists, being romantic sentimentalists, see these flaws and begin to scream that all has been lost; socialists, on the other hand, view these shortcomings as stemming from the conditions facing the Soviet Union, and moreover as something to improve upon in the future.

read this too http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben1 (it's in 4 parts)

OK, as soon as you read War and Peace and the Mahabharata. They're just as relevant as libcom, after all.

the bolsheviks started to attack workers control before the civil war started

More anti-historical nonsense. The Bolsheviks instituted working-class control and abolished capitalism. What they didn't do was institute working-class control over much of the country because most of the country wasn't composed of workers. It ain't that difficult to figure out.

provide evidence that this is what happend

You want me to provide evidence that there were skirmishes in Barcelona? Talk about denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days

It's wikipedia, but it's not like anyone's disputing the actual events.

Private property may have been abolished in law and collectivization may have officially existed but in reality the workers did not have control over the means of production.

But was property still collectivized? Yes, it was, and the Soviet government went through considerable pains to collectivize all property (especially in the countryside).

This is not the same as saying there is no diffrence between state capitalism and free market capitalism

There wouldn't be different if they were both capitalist. That's the whole point: the capitalist class operates a certain way and with certain institutions, without these, capitalism cannot exist.

regardless of why the republic government suppressed the anarchist it was an anti revolutionary thing to do.

Why? The Republicans knew the communes weren't a viable structure, and the May Days prove this. Futility isn't revolutionary, then as now. Why tolerate an uncooperative group when you're fighting a war?

Living conditions in briton increased over hte same period to, was the uk socalist?

Not nearly at the same rate, not nearly. Further, the ruling class of Britain was concerned primarily with profit, whereas the Soviet rulers were not (since they weren't capitalists, it makes perfect sense).

the Nazis were only people who would talk to them? Oh that makes it ok then.

Is ignoring history and geopolitics a hobby of yours? Go back and read what I wrote.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd May 2009, 05:54

Of course State & Revolution was motivated by political necessity - it was squarely aimed at Russian and European Social Democrats who maintained that it was not necessary to destroy the capitalist state. Lenin's position, which saw him on the far left of mainstream Social Democracy, was precisely the opposite and had been heavily influenced by Bukharin's own work on that subject in 1915. State & Revolution is the result of this evolution of thought and final break with Kautsky.

I would like to post this brief rebuttal:

Kautsky and Class Struggles in France (http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/pdf/2006confpapers/abstracts/Lih%20Abstract.pdf)

Lenin’s influential portrait of Kautsky in State and Revolution accuses Kautsky of ‘distorting’ the lessons Marx and Engels drew from the Paris Commune, thereby betraying his own ‘superstitious reverence’ for the state and for parliamentarism. Lenin’s case is largely build on the absence of any discussion of the Commune’s political institutions in Kautsky’s writings. In one important but entirely overlooked series of articles published in late 1904, however, Kautsky uses the Commune as the basis of a searing critique of bourgeois parliamentarism. In these articles, inspired by polemics arising out of the socialist Alexandre Millerand’s participation in a bourgeois cabinet, Kautsky insists on the stark contrast between the institutions of the Commune as described by Marx—arming of the people, close electoral control of representatives, workman’s wages for bureaucrats, decentralization, and so forth—and the French Third Republic. Only a profound restructuring of republican institutions along the lines of the Commune (Kautsky argues) can make republicanism adequate for proletarian emancipation. There are striking rhetorical differences between Lenin’s and Kautsky’s presentation—for example, Lenin’s fascination with the metaphor of ‘smashing’ is absent in Kautsky—but genuine substantive differences are harder to perceive.