Results 21 to 40 of 109
I don't understand why you pop into every single thread dealing with relatively the same subject matter and instead of actually engaging with what 'Leninists' are saying (Leninism doesn't exist by the way) you just regurgitate rhetoric over and over and over. Like seriously just stop already. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I love engaging in polemics with people of opposing viewpoints (me and VMC have been having some solid discussions lately) but you don't even contribute or add anything. So honestly starting contributing something of theoretical substance or just stop spamming the board with your rhetoric.
The fact is, Lenin should be looked at as a historical figure (he's a revolutionary for liberating the russian people from tsarist oppression and implementing soviet democracy for a certain period of time) and not a theoretician for 21st century socialism/communism,since as many have said, russia's backward conditions and international problems led him to make decisions that were non-socialist. What we,as socialist in the 21st century, need to focus on is how to progress,educate and popularize our ideas among the working class the best possible way.
"You can have all my shine I'll give you the lighttt"
Apologies, as you are absolutely right. However, you'll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm for debating Leninists who are stuck at about 1860-1917, who have still not advanced beyond the period of anti-tsarist populism
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
Yet, you can't debate someone who doesn't identify as a Leninist/holds views FAR from the mainstream Leninist views on the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks, vanguard party, national liberation, and other such things.
The truth is though, Leninism has proven to be, globally and historically, the most influential and successful form of struggle against capitalism. The question shouldn't be "whether or not to bury Bolshevism", but with how much or how little orthodoxy we want to apply the historical lessons of Leninism to the future theoretical development of Marxism.
"If conquest constituted a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them." The Nationalisation of the Land Karl Marx
"To belittle the socialist ideology in anyway, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology." What Is To Be Done? V.I. Lenin
Has anyone found admirable work being published today? The most recent stuff I've read are the Situationists, Invisible Committee and Hardt/Negri.
That is nothing but a caricature of 'Leninists.' I've already outlined in this thread, how the RSDLP was based off of the organizational model of the German SPD (which was tailored for one of the most advanced capitalist countries in the world) but I don't really expect anything more from you at this point. But by all means continue with the strawmen, not engaging with opposing viewpoints and enjoy your willful ignorance. Once again I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but you quite obviously haven't engaged with any pro-party Marxist viewpoints. Personally (and I'm not claiming to be very theoretically advanced) but I've read from pro-capitalist, utopian socialists, anarchists, Marxists, etc...perspectives. Until you engage with both sides of a debate, you'll never be able to know where you truly stand.
I checked, just to make sure, and this thread is about burying Bolshevism, not about taking personal jabs at members, which is more akin to spamming than expressing anti-Leninist views could ever be.
He raises a a valid point in that what many people refer to as "Leninism" is irrelevant outside of early 20th century Russia. That was a few posts ago and he didn't get any answer except for "you've been refuted so many times" and "just stop already". This kind of needless hostility does nothing to help make productive discussion.
You'd be wise to read the thread before commenting...
Rafiq:
Myself:
So until I get an answer to this, which has continually been brought up, that the RSDLP model was not only applicable to agrarian conditions, but was in fact based of the German SPD, an advanced capitalist country, I'll continue calling out his rhetoric for what it is. I'm close to losing my patience here, but I've been trying to be better with that lately; however when you can't even read the thread and then come in all high and mighty accusing me of ignoring other peoples questions and making personal attacks, when in fact its my points that aren't being addressed (because it doesn't conveniently fit into the rhetorical anti-Leninist narrative) it kinda pisses me off.
You didn't really outline or explain how it was based off of the SPD, you just said that it was in an earlier post. Even then, the point still stands; why should an organizational model tailored for the material conditions of early 20th century Germany, then customized for tsarist Russia, have any relevance for the international labor movement in the 21st century?
Early 20th century Germany was an advanced capitalist country, while obviously the organizational model needs to be updated for current material conditions, I don't believe that I (advocating updating the organizational model which lead to the only successful dictatorship of the proletariat the world has ever seen) am the one who needs to do much explaining, as opposed to you advocating completely throwing away said organizational model.
This doesn't even get to the point that even 'coup d'etat' admitted to not offering anything useful to the discourse, just continue to spam his rhetoric. But by all means continue to attack me, who while may holding an opinion you disagree with, adds theoretical substance to threads and can engage in discussion with people of opposing viewpoints.
What, precisely, is "outdated" about Bolshevism?
The striving to build a politically cohesive party, tightly knit together on revolutionary ideas? The method of local branches tied into a strong united organization with a consistent political outlook as opposed to loosely knit federation pulling in different directions? The idea of "paper as organizer", which is linked to that united political perspective? The idea of building this organization on a professional basis?
What exactly is at issue here? I see none of these ideas which scream: "WARNING: FOR PEASANT USE ONLY!"
The Bolshevik organizational model ostensibly failed, so I really have no qualms over binning it.Early 20th century Germany was an advanced capitalist country, while obviously the organizational model needs to be updated for current material conditions, I don't believe that I (advocating updating the organizational model which lead to the only successful dictatorship of the proletariat the world has ever seen) am the one who needs to do much explaining, as opposed to you advocating completely throwing away said organizational model.
This doesn't even get to the point that even 'coup d'etat' admitted to not offering anything useful to the discourse, just continue to spam his rhetoric. But by all means continue to attack me, who while may holding an opinion you disagree with, adds theoretical substance to threads and can engage in discussion with people of opposing viewpoints.
And I don't really care what coup d'état thinks about his own posts, I just don't like how shitty you get with people sometimes. I'm not trying to attack you, I like most of your posts, you do bring substance to the debates for sure, but just please try to be more polite.
Yeah I do get shitty with people sometimes, something that I've been trying to get better with. But this is a message board and I have less patience among professed radicals then I do among the working class. Deal with the substance of what I say, rather then how I say it. I appreciate your concern over whether or not I hurt others feelings, but I am sure they are more then capable of letting me know when I do and am sure they have thicker skin then letting some random on a forum get to them. But in all honesty, if I conduct myself in a inappropriate manner I'm sure the BA will infract me (something that has yet to happen) and quite frankly my lack of patience and occasional outbursts have nothing to do with this thread.
Now you've made a blanket statement: 'the organizational model of the Bolsheviks was an abject failure' but haven't really provided any info to support this claim. Given that this thread is about burying the Bolsheviks, now would be a good time to add some substance to this thread; something it has been lacking from the anti-Bolshevik crowd.
Okay, for one: thank you! You've essentially summed up my thoughts on the matter, saving me a lot of time.1
Secondly, I am perplexed at the increasingly dismissive means of debate utilized by some people here, namely those who reject 'Leninism' as an outdated, moribund model. Even this argument doesn't bother me so much as the way it is presented. The framework is worthy of consideration; it's the content that's the problem. Coup d'etat, this is the 4th or 5th time I've seen you dismiss 'Leninism'/Bolshevism as an historically outdated model, a nostalgic throwback to a 'period of anti-tsarist populism'. In this instance, 9mm is right: you're doing nothing but spamming the threads at this point. At this particular juncture, you might consider substantiating these claims or cease making them, because you're not doing yourself any favors by repeating them w/o evidence.
Both 9mm and Rafiq have brought up excellent points that beg addressing. I think it's a mistake to view Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory and praxis through solely historical lenses; he made several important theoretical and organizational points that remain as applicable today as they were then - albeit perhaps not in their totality. The core principles that CyM outlined still stand. Instead of rejecting these outright, we ought to engage with them through thought and practical experience, promoting the creativity, flexibility, and fluidity of the 'Leninist' model as built by the Bolsheviks themselves. Just because we're in the 21st-century doesn't mean Leninism is suddenly obsolete. As Paul LeBlanc said very recently: "Leninism is unfinished."
Last edited by Le Socialiste; 5th February 2013 at 05:00.
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
It's not really about having people's feelings hurt, it's just that Internet tough guys are really annoying.
Onto the Bolsheviks, while I do agree that they, at least for a while, helped achieve a successful dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the means to an end, not an end in itself), their organizational model, obviously, did not lead to socialism. The end result was state-capitalism, and I know people will point the Russian civil war and the absence of international revolution as reasons why it descended into state-capitalism, not the organizational model, and they have a point, but if the organizational model couldn't cope with the problems it faced in its day, then it obviously wasn't fit to the task, and something different needed to be done.
The communisation camp (Endnotes, Riff-Raff, etc.), Gilles Dauve, a lot of the stuff from Internationalist Perspectives, Nihilist Communism/other stuff from the Dupont duo. I find agreement with some of the stuff coming from the PCI (an organization which was a stone's throw from the Situationists, operaists, and the tradition from which people like Camatte and Dauve came from, not to mention some of the communisation milieu; and a touchstone for the non-Bordigist left which spawned groups like IP).
Bolshevism has been sublimated (lessons learned, corpses stepped over): all the rest is reenactment.
Do you think the outcome would be different with a non-Leninist organizational model?
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
I really never try and act like an 'internet tough guy' and hope that is not how I come across. I have a short fuse and it gets worse as my mental health gets worse, but I'm like 155 lbs, am tall and lanky, and haven't been in a fight since I was in elementary school; I'm not tough and I never profess to be.
While you are correct that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a ends in itself, your analysis has one glaring flaw. Unless you're a supporter of the theory of 'socialism in one country' then the failure of the international revolution cannot be overlooked. Until the Bolsheviks were aided by a revolution in an advanced capitalist country, all they could do was hold on for dear life. The dictatorship of the proletariat, let alone socialism, cannot last in an isolated area; there is only so long (and it really isn't that long, I'm talking a couple of years max) that it can survive before counter-revolution starts to overthrow the gains of the revolution (which in the USSR, found its ideological expression in the policies of Joseph Stalin). Your analysis, while commenting on certain material conditions (civil war, etc.), doesn't acknowledge or account for the full scope of what the Bolsheviks were facing.
Isn't that the main reason why it's still being discussed; they won, nominally held power until 1991; if not for that accident of history, would it be such a central topic? It's hard to imagine any other historical event or idea tying up communists attracted to Marxism into such knots if not for that.
