Stalinists, Anarchists and anti-Leninism

We have dropped the ball a little bit. At least, I have. Sometimes it's easy to forget that newcomers aren't necessarily familiar with the Bolshevist-Leninist counterargument to the anarchist "argument" of "LENIN WAS A DICTATOR!!!!11oneone". Honestly, I think a lot of us just let that stuff go now because we're tired of having the same debate again and again ad nauseum, but the next time I see something like it come up I will intervene, for the sake of introducing the new members to a more honest explanation of our ideas.

So I noticed a few problems with this forum.
One of the most worrying is the prevalence of anti-"Leninism", by many of the members. Bolshevism is equated with Stalinism, authoritarianism etc. by many. These unfounded claims, that people just spur out are being left unchallenged a lot of times, by the Bolsheviks of this forum (by this I mean the members of this group, or at least many of them). So anarchism has really caught on, I am guessing by newer people into revolutionary politics. It seems to be really trendy to be anarchist here and a sort of "crime" if you are not.

I don't think anarchism is as much of a problem as some of the Stalinism and neo-Stalinism that's displayed on here. They are the ones who attack Marxism and falsify history the most, ironically. One of such people is Intelligitimate or whatever his name is. He keeps making these idiotic posts which attempt to prove two things; That Trotsky was a Nazi spy and eternal reactionary, and that Stalin was an awesome revolutionary dude.

Can you recall a post by an anarchist saying that Trotsky was a Nazi spy and that Stalin was a revolutionary hero? So we have to think; who are the ones who create this perception about Bolshevism being the same as Stalinism, the anarchists or the Stalinists?

I would say both, but on this forum, it's mostly been the latter.

Also the Stalinists. I started a thread on the history forum about the Stalin-Hitler pact. Even though this pact was what Trotskyists used as an argument for recruiting from the communist parties in the West, here on revleft it seems like it cannot be used. It is indicative that about 10-20 Stalinists jumped in, writing long, really looong texts, which is impossible due to mostly time limits to refute one by one, by a single person.

Instead of arguing about how the SWP supports Hamas, how the IMT supports McKinney and how the CWI supports Nader, shouldn't we try to educate members on this forum in an organized fashion about the ideas of genuine Marxism? This is an open invitation for everyone in this group, to get something started.

I think that would be a good thing to do. I know some Stalinists and neo-Stalinists do that on here. However, to me personally, it's not really worth the time and effort. I've been on this forum for years now and I've had all the discussions imaginable regarding Stalinism. I have trashed out the subject in the minutest details over and over again, and what has the result been? Well, not much.

This isn't due to a personal failure to communicate the ideas of Trotskyism or Marxism as well as I should have. I haven't been the only person who's been doing this.

I can tell you one thing, I did learn a lot from all those debates (well, you learn from every debate if you engage in them seriously). So yeah, I think that members should definitely get involved with that if they want to learn more and enhance their debating skills (though I gotta add that there's a big difference between debating skills in written form and debating skills in spoken form).

Good on you for starting the discussion. The responders are way effed up. I thought I'd read it for some enlightenment -- there were some rational reasons on the Soviet side for the Stalin-Hitler pact -- but the bludgeoning is crazed. I'm not sure that their nonsense is even worth debating.

I'd take some issue with anti-Leninist/Bolshevik anarchism, but I'd avoid having to defend the whole historical record. Given that the Bolsheviks aims were very similar to many anarchists aims, I'd ask what they would do in the same in the situations.

We can defend the 1917 revolution, which would not have happened without Lenin or Trotsky, and its aspirations without having to argue that exactly the same thing should or would occur anywhere else. The Bolsheviks had 1905, the Paris Commune, and the French Revolution to base themselves on, and they all knew they had been broken.

Good on you for starting the discussion. The responders are way effed up. I thought I'd read it for some enlightenment -- there were some rational reasons on the Soviet side for the Stalin-Hitler pact -- but the bludgeoning is crazed. I'm not sure that their nonsense is even worth debating.

Well, if you want to enhance your debating skills and believe it's worth it, you should take it up. I mean, most of the people doing it from their side are probably either bored, personally hurt by what is said from the other side, or both.

I think it's the last for most of 'em.

But yeah, I mean, I don't really care if some irrelevant person writes on this forum that Trotsky was a Nazi spy who made his living off the bourgeois press while Stalin was a real proletarian Secretary-General of the USSR riding around in his top-notch automobiles and residing in his fancy dacha's whenever he needed a break from the hard work of killing off the old Bolshevik guard.

The reason I don't care is because I know that people like this are around not just on the internet, but also in the real world; and they're virtually always ignored or shut up if they ever start apologizing for Stalin there, which is probably why they need an outlet for it on the internet.

Even they themselves can't deny that defending Stalin evoked a lot more negativity and hostility than defending Trotsky. Now of course they try to explain it away by saying that Trotsky wrote anti-Socialist propaganda so he's loved more by capitalists....well, actually, he remained a Marxist throughout his life and opposed both capitalism as well as Stalinism. The explanation for the negative responses is pretty simple; Stalin was a dictatorial, murdering, bordering on genocidal, piece of shit.

I'd take some issue with anti-Leninist/Bolshevik anarchism, but I'd avoid having to defend the whole historical record. Given that the Bolsheviks aims were very similar to many anarchists aims, I'd ask what they would do in the same in the situations.

We can defend the 1917 revolution, which would not have happened without Lenin or Trotsky, and its aspirations without having to argue that exactly the same thing should or would occur anywhere else. The Bolsheviks had 1905, the Paris Commune, and the French Revolution to base themselves on, and they all knew they had been broken.

Hmm, I'm not sure about whether the Russian revolution was dependent on Lenin or Trotsky living. You should check out this work On the Role of the Individual in History, there are some interesting things to consider.

EDIT: I just noticed that the above link went to some expressionistic painting instead of the book. I've fixed it now.

I think there are two problems: the general level of marxist knowledge (and historical materialism) and the debating skills we use.

First, when an anarchist equates every Leninists with authoritarianism and counterrevolution too many people start mud-slinging themselves by saying that this or that anarchist revolt was counterrevolutionary and authoritarian. In the context of a debate both the pot and the tea cettle are not exactly our best friends. Naming and shaming does not prove anything. I think people like Comrade Om (or LZ, or Q) are exactly what we need. He uses facts, not name calling. Sometimes he's wrong, but that's part of being human.

Second, regarding knowledge of marxism and the Russian revolution: some justify the acts of Trotsky not by explaining how necessary they were for the survival of the revolution (or what was left of it), or what went wrong, but by using absurd claims like calling the Bolshevik regime a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat. This however mirrors Stalinism.

Of course not everyone fits into both categories, but sometimes I come across these things. Not that I'm perfect either (I don't want to join a debate on the question of "state capitalism" vs. "socialism" or "degenerated workers' state" f.e. - it's too difficult).

The reason I don't care is because I know that people like this are around not just on the internet, but also in the real world; and they're virtually always ignored or shut up if they ever start apologizing for Stalin there, which is probably why they need an outlet for it on the internet

Yeah the folks would just be ignored. As the African American philosopher Jay Z puts it, "Don't argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who".

Hmm, I'm not sure about whether the Russian revolution was dependent on Lenin or Trotsky living. You should check out this work On the Role of the Individual in History, there are some interesting things to consider.

Given the circumstances, I would be willing to argue that Lenin and Trotsky played extremely crucial roles in 1917 and in the years shortly after, and that without them it would have been defeated militarily.

I think there are two problems: the general level of marxist knowledge (and historical materialism) and the debating skills we use.

There was a smallish book that the British SWP put out years ago that was called something like Speaking for Socialism. It dealt with 40 or 50 social issues and gave short backgrounders and some language/logic for making a socialist argument on the issue.

First, when an anarchist equates every Leninists with authoritarianism and counterrevolution too many people start mud-slinging themselves by saying that this or that anarchist revolt was counterrevolutionary and authoritarian. In the context of a debate both the pot and the tea cettle are not exactly our best friends. Naming and shaming does not prove anything.

Yep.

Second, regarding knowledge of marxism and the Russian revolution: some justify the acts of Trotsky not by explaining how necessary they were for the survival of the revolution (or what was left of it), or what went wrong, but by using absurd claims like calling the Bolshevik regime a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat. This however mirrors Stalinism.

Yep.

(I don't want to join a debate on the question of "state capitalism" vs. "socialism" or "degenerated workers' state" f.e. - it's too difficult).

There is interesting historical/sociological work to be done on the issues of the USSR and its left wing critics, but can be a major waste of time.