Revolution betrayed

[BIG BROTHER]

Except Russia was invaded by over 17 countries from 1918-1922, plus Nazi Germany, the most powerful nation on Earth.

Fail.

And look at your bullshit Idealist analysis, the material conditions had everything to do with the nature of the regimes. There was no totalitarianism, you fool.

The common denominator is not Leninism, it is not Authoritarianism, and for Stalinists, it is NOT revisionism.

It was trying to contain the revolution. You think the party were assholes for no reason? You think it's easy to contain a revolution in one country?

The German revolution failed in 1919 and the revolution did not spread to the west. That is why the USSR fucked up.

and I'd add

It was the fact the lack of a Revolutionary Vanguard Party, prepared to lead the revolution; or in other words, the lack of Leninism, is what led to the defeat of the revolutions in Germany and other contries and the degeneration of the Soviet Ution.

[Tim Finnegan]

It was the fact the lack of a Revolutionary Vanguard Party, prepared to lead the revolution; or in other words, the lack of Leninism, is what led to the defeat of the revolutions in Germany and other contries and the degeneration of the Soviet Ution.

But within and without Russia, the political vanguard was always extra-party, or at least comprised of a non-ruling party-faction, emerging organically from the process of class struggle and revolution rather than having been constructed previously by militant intellectuals; how, then, do you reconcile this with the attribution of sole revolutionary potential to a centralised party?

[BIG BROTHER]

But within and without Russia, the political vanguard was always extra-party, or at least comprised of a non-ruling party-faction, emerging organically from the process of class struggle and revolution rather than having been constructed previously by militant intellectuals; how, then, do you reconcile this with the attribution of sole revolutionary potential to a centralised party?

First of all, all parties by definition centralized...any party is a centralized group of people who share some common goal. Of course there are variations of how centralized it is..but by definition there is some degree of centralization...

It is a mistake to take an Anti-intelectual stance as far as revolutioanry parties goe. The Bolsheviks came and evolved out of the class struggle, yes there is and will always be intelectuals as someone has to do the hardcore thinking, and workers usually don't have the time to do it. It is the duty then of the revolutionaries from more priviledged backgrounds to do a lot of thinkin.

[Tim Finnegan]

First of all, all parties by definition centralized...any party is a centralized group of people who share some common goal. Of course there are variations of how centralized it is..but by definition there is some degree of centralization...

Well, I was specifically referring to the "democratic centralism" of the Leninist
model, but I see your point.

It is a mistake to take an Anti-intelectual stance as far as revolutioanry parties goe. The Bolsheviks came and evolved out of the class struggle, yes there is and will always be intelectuals as someone has to do the hardcore thinking, and workers usually don't have the time to do it. It is the duty then of the revolutionaries from more priviledged backgrounds to do a lot of thinkin.

Well, firstly, I'm not sure exactly how you inferred an "anti-intellectual" stance from my post. My reference to "militant intellectuals" was not intended as an attack upon that stratum, but simply a suggestion that it cannot be relied upon to produce an organisation of the working class-for-itself, because they do not represent the whole class, and, indeed, are not entirely of that class. I think that militant intellectuals who have a very important role in class struggle, but that role is supplementary to the actual waging of class struggle, rather than one of leadership.
Secondly, I don't think that you've actually answered my question, here. Even if we accept your comments on the necessity of some corps or theorists, that doesn't actually imply that this corps should occupy leadership positions, nor does it explain why historically this corps has failed to represent the vanguard that you suppose it to.
(And, thirdly, I'll wave vaguely at the concept of the "organic intellectual", i.e. the worker-intellectual born of class struggle, which leads me to raise a few eyebrows as your description of a non-worker intellectual stratum as uniquely capable of meaningful theoretical work. But that's another discussion...)

[BIG BROTHER]

Well, I was specifically referring to the "democratic centralism" of the Leninist
model, but I see your point.

Well, firstly, I'm not sure exactly how you inferred an "anti-intellectual" stance from my post. My reference to "militant intellectuals" was not intended as an attack upon that stratum, but simply a suggestion that it cannot be relied upon to produce an organisation of the working class-for-itself, because they do not represent the whole class, and, indeed, are not entirely of that class. I think that militant intellectuals who have a very important role in class struggle, but that role is supplementary to the actual waging of class struggle, rather than one of leadership.
Secondly, I don't think that you've actually answered my question, here. Even if we accept your comments on the necessity of some corps or theorists, that doesn't actually imply that this corps should occupy leadership positions, nor does it explain why historically this corps has failed to represent the vanguard that you suppose it to.
(And, thirdly, I'll wave vaguely at the concept of the "organic intellectual", i.e. the worker-intellectual born of class struggle, which leads me to raise a few eyebrows as your description of a non-worker intellectual stratum as uniquely capable of meaningful theoretical work. But that's another discussion...)

Ok I'm more clear about what you were asking.

My critism then is that you counter pose the Leninist definition of a vanguard party to that of a party that arises organically from the class struggle. Lenin never said that only intellectuals could or should take leadership, and no I did not mean to say that workers can't be intellectuals, in fact I think a lot of workers are way smarter than many college people, but it does make a difference in terms of being able to pursue theoretical questions, weather a big part of your day involves back braking labor.

They are one and the same, Leninism in terms of the vanguard party only argues mainly that this sort of party is necessary to have a successful revolution and democratic centralism as a tactic to be able to function properly and in a disciplined way towards the common goal.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ok I'm more clear about what you were asking.

My critism then is that you counter pose the Leninist definition of a vanguard party to that of a party that arises organically from the class struggle. Lenin never said that only intellectuals could or should take leadership, and no I did not mean to say that workers can't be intellectuals, in fact I think a lot of workers are way smarter than many college people, but it does make a difference in terms of being able to pursue theoretical questions, weather a big part of your day involves back braking labor.

They are one and the same, Leninism in terms of the vanguard party only argues mainly that this sort of party is necessary to have a successful revolution and democratic centralism as a tactic to be able to function properly and in a disciplined way towards the common goal.

Then I'll return to the historic fact that, in the revolutionary period of 1917-1921, it was consistently the case that the most radical vanguard was found not in party "centres", but outside of them, either extra-party entirely, or with dissident factions within those parties; at Kronstadt, at Helsinki, in the German councils, even among the more spontaneous wildcat actions in Western Europe, and so on. If the Leninist party demonstrated itself as unable to keep up with the vanguard of the working class at its sharpest point, then on what basis does it claim to embody what vanguard? You cannot be what you are lagging behind.

[BIG BROTHER]

Then I'll return to the historic fact that, in the revolutionary period of 1917-1921, it was consistently the case that the most radical vanguard was found not in party "centres", but outside of them, either extra-party entirely, or with dissident factions within those parties; at Kronstadt, at Helsinki, in the German councils, even among the more spontaneous wildcat actions in Western Europe, and so on. If the Leninist party demonstrated itself as unable to keep up with the vanguard of the working class at its sharpest point, then on what basis does it claim to embody what vanguard? You cannot be what you are lagging behind.

I fail to see how Kronstadt were the most radical vanguard....

on germany, there was never a vangaurd party, although Roxa luxemburg and company tried to organize into one, when they did so it was too late and the german workers were basically slaughtered.

[Tim Finnegan]

I fail to see how Kronstadt were the most radical vanguard....

The Kronstadt program called for comprehensive Soviet democracy, the dissolution of all party privileges, and the institution of workers self-management. That's far more radical than the bureaucratic party-state which the Bolsheviks had set themselves to constructing and defending, however purely provisional you may argue it to be.

on germany, there was never a vangaurd party, although Roxa luxemburg and company tried to organize into one, when they did so it was too late and the german workers were basically slaughtered.

"Vanguard" and "vanguard" party are distinct concepts. To argue that the former can only manifest itself as the latter is to argue, in effect, that the Paris Commune insurrection did not occur.

I would also question the claim that Luxemburg's KPD was intended to represent a "vanguard party" of the Leninist model, given her critique of Leninist centralism and her growing movement towards a proto-council communist position. The party did not turn itself toward Leninism until after the collapse of the German Revolution and the ousting of the council communists.

[BIG BROTHER]

The Kronstadt program called for comprehensive Soviet democracy, the dissolution of all party privileges, and the institution of workers self-management. That's far more radical than the bureaucratic party-state which the Bolsheviks had set themselves to constructing and defending, however purely provisional you may argue it to be.

"Vanguard" and "vanguard" party are distinct concepts. To argue that the former can only manifest itself as the latter is to argue, in effect, that the Paris Commune insurrection did not occur.

I would also question the claim that Luxemburg's KPD was intended to represent a "vanguard party" of the Leninist model, given her critique of Leninist centralism and her growing movement towards a proto-council communist position. The party did not turn itself toward Leninism until after the collapse of the German Revolution and the ousting of the council communists.

They were for the overthrow of Soviet power in which the proletariat was manifested and during a time when they were fighting the white army. Behind all the rethoric the whites suported Kronstadt, precisely because of its counter-revolutionary actions. Which is why the people of the town had already done much of their job fighting against the rebellion, before the red army moved in to finish them off.

The Paris commune if I remind you also didn't last too long, the escesne of the vanguard party is not so much into democratic centralism, although that is a tactic and way of being organized that i support. The main thing is to centralize all the revolutionaries under a single party with a program capable of overthrowing capitalism which is what Rosa attempted to do.

[Tim Finnegan]

They were for the overthrow of Soviet power in which the proletariat was manifested and during a time when they were fighting the white army. Behind all the rethoric the whites suported Kronstadt, precisely because of its counter-revolutionary actions. Which is why the people of the town had already done much of their job fighting against the rebellion, before the red army moved in to finish them off.

They were their for the overthrow of soviet power, even though the uprising was organised by a soviet more radical in form than any under the Bolshevik thumb.

They were against the proletariat, even though they were all proletarians.

They were counter-revolutionaries, even though they were the same sailors, soldiers and civilians who had constituted the vanguard of vanguards only four years early.

They had the support of the Whites, because raising a grin when political division appears among your enemy is quite the same thing as being in cahoots with one faction.

It was counter-revolutionary, even though they upheld the revolution and demanded the furthering of its principals against the concentration of undemocratic power into the Bolshevik party-state.

The people of the town actively opposed them, even though they participated in the decision to stage the uprising, as they- being primarily comprised of workers in the fort and docks- had supported the soldiers and sailors since the first uprisings four years previously.

The Red Army enthusiastically bounded over the ice to finish them off, even as their commissars were forcing them forward at gunpoint, sometimes provoking mutiny in the process.

Of course, this is a debate which has been conducted since the event itself, so there's absolutely no need to hash this out any further. I just felt that I needed to iron out your arguments, for the sake of all those who were unable to read between the lines.

The Paris commune if I remind you also didn't last too long

It hardly failed because it lacked a vanguard party, though, did it?

the escesne of the vanguard party is not so much into democratic centralism, although that is a tactic and way of being organized that i support. The main thing is to centralize all the revolutionaries under a single party with a program capable of overthrowing capitalism which is what Rosa attempted to do.

There's a discussion to be had about exactly what constitutes a "vanguard", the role of the party, and so on and so forth, but this isn't it. My criticism was of your casual conflation of the Luxemburgist KPD with the Leninist party as generally understood, which you haven't really done very much to defend. So people can really make their own minds up about that.