Results 1 to 20 of 144
Stalin & Lenin
Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories, despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?
Also, what major differences do Marx, stalin, and Lenin have in their theories?
(Sorry if I sound ignorant or arrogant, not trying to)
I think that, first of all, you should separate the theory from the man. Smart person once told me, you can think about Stalin whatever you want, but he was right about many things.
Second, you should be careful to not believe everything you were told in school or by the media about this or that socialist country. Of course crimes were committed, and mistakes were made, but the "Stalin killed 200 million people and was worse than Hitler" types are just nonsense.
Maybe someone with a little more knowledge of history can explain about democracy in the Soviet Union better than I can, sorry for that.
About Lenin, in what way did Lenin disregard class consciousness? Can you explain that?
And the differences, as I see it, Lenin just interpreted Marx, further developed his theory, and adapted it to the situation of his time. For example, Imperialism. Marx wrote about the tendency of capitalism to create monopolies. Lenin, at the beginning of the 20th century, realized that Marx had been right, the monopolies had become reality and had replaced free competition. Stalin didn't do much theoretical work of his own, he mainly just followed Marx and Lenin, and what he did was, again, an interpretation, further development, and an adaptation to his time and situation.
So, I don't think it quite works to speak of the "differences" between the three.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." - Karl Marx
"It is more pleasant and useful to go through the "experience of revolution" than to write about it." - V.I. Lenin
Formerly Random_Girl
.
Last edited by High School Marxist; 27th June 2012 at 11:35.
I don't. I have criticized Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Totsky are all authoritarian fucktards and all where enemies of socilaism. To admire them is to admire bloodly crimminals.
Lenin ordered hanings and political repression. Lenin and Totsky both caused the famine in Ukriane in 1921 in order to kill off cossack opposition . Totsky wouldn't have been much differant from Stalin if he had taken power after Lenin died he just would have been lighter version of Stalinism.
Revolutionary Terror is not criminal. Terror is justice without mercy. Destroying counter-revolution is just.
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
Just or not it is, by definition, "criminal" tho. As in, it is a "crime, ie against the law.
Semantics I know. Just sayin...
carry on
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
I agree that you should separate the theory from the man-to a point. When the man is a mass murdering dictator, well you can't just dismiss that.
From what I understand, Lenin disregarded class consciousness because in order for class consciousness to be achieved, you must have a capitalist system in place. At the time of the revolution Russia was a feudalistic nation, meaning class consciousness wasn't possible. Also Lenin's idea of 'single state socialism' was proven to be flawed when the USSR collapsed.
So why do people still adhere to his, Stalin's, and Mao's ideologies despite the fact that when applied in real life they are proven to be failures?
Have you read Stalin? And was he a "mass murdering dictator"?
But there was capitalism in Russia. Of course a very underdeveloped version of it, but nevertheless enough of it to spark a Proletarian revolution. You can't deny 1917 happened.
How was "socialism in one country" proven wrong by the collapse of the USSR? Yes, in the end, the USSR wasn't strong enough to stand against Imperialism, but does that mean the theory is flawed? I think the achievements of the USSR proved that socialism in one country can indeed work.
Because many people don't think they have been proven failures. Not to sound arrogant, but maybe you should do some further reading on especially Lenin's theories, before you dismiss them so easily.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." - Karl Marx
"It is more pleasant and useful to go through the "experience of revolution" than to write about it." - V.I. Lenin
Formerly Random_Girl
I realize I have TONS of reading to do, I've hardly just begun to dig into this Marxism stuff.
Stalin ordered the killings of millions of people, thus he is in essence a mass murderer. You can't deny that the purges happened.
Lenin/Mao/Stalin all created totalitarian regimes that were anything but communist, for the means of production rested in the hands of the state and not the working class. It would be a stretch to call the USSR socialist. Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if he knew how Stalin would twist his writings in order to from a police state.
Hyperbole is great...admiring Stalin and Lenin is "admiring criminals"...oh good god. The amount of straw-men I'm reading is fantastic.
Do go on...
Stalin wasn't a mass murdering dictator
I thought I explained to you that Lenin cared a great deal about class consciousness. Simply reading anything Lenin wrote about the time during or before the revolution should make that clear. The amount of correspondence he had which discussed increasing class consciousness among the workers, the lectures he gave in many different nations, the articles he wrote, and the papers he edited all point to the fact that Lenin gave a great deal of his time to raising class consciousness.
If anything the ideas of Lenin and Mao (Stalin was not much of a theory maker) have been proven the most successful in creating actually existing revolution and socialism.
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
Neither Mao nor Stalin had any hand in "creating socialism", because there was never socialism in China or Russia.
They were so successful that the USSR collapsed and China is a capitalist super power today!
Great success if you ask me!
I can understand Lenin and Stalin, but how was Mao succesful in creating socialism?
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
The collapse of the USSR had absolutely nothing to do with Stalin though.
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
The collapse of the USSR had everything to do with Stalin. It was the final collapse of the system that Stalin had created. Trotsky, decades earlier, had predicted that the Soviet Union will either have a worker's revolution and restore socialism, that is the working class democratically controlling the means of production, or there would eventually be a capitalist restoration. Trotsky was absolutely right, although his prediction occurred several decades later than he had predicted.
To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget
Arundhati Roy
Lenina Rosenweg is a glorious beacon of light
In China´s case I guess it is
edit: This thread is so full of Great- men explanations.
"Give me a place to stand, and I will sit on your face."
- Trotsky in the opening speech to the third congress of the Fourth International.
Lenin strongly advocated increasing class consciousness. Anyway there was a complicated symbiosis between the thinking of Lenin and Trotsky.This is difficult to summarize here but, in a nutshell, Lenin originally did not think Russia was ready for socialism.Russia in the early 1900s had a sort of hybrid capitalist/feudalist system. The country was developing rapidly but was dependent on foreign capital-especially from France, and the major Russian business interests were very closely tied to the feudal landowners. There would be limits to Russia's development. A worker's revolution could only go so far in an under developed country. Trotsky pointed out that the Russian capitalist class-the bourgeois, were not strong enough to carry out the historical tasks of the bourgeois.Lenin and Trotsky both came to agree that the working was the only class capable of moving Russia forward at that time.
Of course a successful socialist revolution in Russia presupposed a worker's revolution in Germany and the West. You cannot build socialism in a poor country. By 1923 it was obvious that the German Revolution was over and the SU would be isolated. This explains much of what went on during the Stalin period.
I would agree that, to be blunt, Stalin and Mao were mas murderers.The situation in China was complicated. After the 1949 revolution there were many important gains. Many socialists who are anti-Mao feel the 1949 revolution in China was the second most important event in history, after the REussian Revolution.The Stalinist model which Mao followed had sharp limits, because it did not rely on the democratic control of the economy. The ruling group in China under Deng as forced to restore or create capitalism. I think Trotsky would have understood this process very well.
To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget
Arundhati Roy
Lenina Rosenweg is a glorious beacon of light
It didn't have "everything" to do with Stalin. Certainly, Stalin played a large role in it, but the material conditions -- the failure of the German revolution is a big part of that -- were all much bigger factors leading to Stalinist Russia.
What had the failure of the German revolution to do with an event that occured about 70 years later?
@Lenina the collapse was long after Stalin died and it was the results of the ones after Stalin who condemned Stalin and his policies.
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
