To Marxists: Do you think Leninism/vanguardism was a necessary addition?

[LOLseph Stalin]

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory? Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies. 1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen. 2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely. 3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place. However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand. Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution.

So comrades, thoughts?

[#FF0000]

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory? Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

1) What do you mean by "Leninism"
2) No because revolutions aren't based on singular ideology or "theory"

1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen.

He wasn't really in the business of making predictions.

2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely.

I don't think that increased pain necessarily means increased chance of revolt. Workers in America are worse off than workers anywhere in Western Europe, yet which working class is more complacent?

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place. However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand. Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution.

That person is, first of all, totally ignorant of history, and secondly, taking an extremely mechanistic view of things. Class was a hella strange beast in Russia, seeing as a huge bulk of the "peasantry" would often into the cities for half the year to work temporarily as industrial workers. The trouble with the peasants was definitely something that gave the Bolsheviks trouble but I don't think it would've been even that much of a problem if it wasn't for the Civil War dragging Russia back into the 19th century.

So yeah he's wrong and if anyone comes at you with this ultra-strict adherence to "stages" bullshit then they are wrong and dumb. Russia was a capitalist society.

[Brutus]

The idea was thought up by Marx and Engels in the manifesto.
This thread will help you: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-van....html?t=176886

[Lowtech]

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory? Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

proper observation of capitalism is all that's required for revolution. authoritarian ideology simply uses the guise of "leading" the working class to freedom as means to supremacy.

... With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

if all is needed is to "lead" people, there is no need to make them aware of economic inequality in the first place. walk in with guns and make them do what you want. its a parallel to religion and it's false ideology that people are inherently bad making it religion's job to mold us into desirable people. it is just a fetish for control, not unlike that expressed in capitalism.

Also, an Orthodox Marxist I was arguing with said that Russia should have had a capitalist revolution before having a communist one in order to have the proper Marxist conditions in place. However, I don't think there would have been a revolution had a capitalist revolution occurred beforehand. Again, the new capitalist class would prevent it from happening; at the time of the October Revolution Russia had no such class on a large scale to prevent such a revolution.

So comrades, thoughts?

transition from capitalism to communism is seen as an eventuality, not a requirement of communism. that's if we survive our volatile adolescence as a civilization.

[LOLseph Stalin]

if all is needed is to "lead" people, there is no need to make them aware of economic inequality in the first place. walk in with guns and make them do what you want. its a parallel to religion and it's false ideology that people are inherently bad making it religion's job to mold us into desirable people. it is just a fetish for control, not unlike that expressed in capitalism.

Except you can't just have a party come in and take control by force at any time. They would be crushed without adequete support from the people. The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it. They spread this message to others in order to gain support for a revolution so it can be successful. The average person isn't just going to decide one day on their own that the system is unjust and must be destroyed. If they did then we would likely already have had worldwide revolutions.

As for when a revolution is actually successful, power is meant to be decentralized and given to the workers. There was a fair amount of power in the hands of worker's representatives during Lenin's regime, but not so much later. Ideally I'm for direct democracy in the workplace, but when so many outside forces are threatening the revolution that's a lot more difficult.

transition from capitalism to communism is seen as an eventuality, not a requirement of communism. that's if we survive our volatile adolescence as a civilization.

And such transition can't happen overnight, especially not when there's still outside capitalist and imperialist forces seeking to destroy you.

[Lowtech]

Except you can't just have a party come in and take control by force at any time. They would be crushed without adequete support from the people. The vanguard is just a group of intellectuals and others who are already aware of economic inequality and how to fix it.

please clarify, does their usefulness in this sense validate a position as a higher class? i see this as just another class based system.

They spread this message to others in order to gain support for a revolution so it can be successful. The average person isn't just going to decide one day on their own that the system is unjust and must be destroyed. If they did then we would likely already have had worldwide revolutions.

no, the majority of humans know capitalism is unjust, they see it's negative impact in their lives everyday. however law is written to enforce capitalists' notion of ownership. we don't need to sway opinion as if there is a consensus in support of capitalism. no one chooses capitalism unless you have vast amounts of assets and you chose to buy several vacation homes. if you're the working class and assimilated into a capitalist system, you're not choosing capitalism, you're choosing not to starve.

As for when a revolution is actually successful, power is meant to be decentralized and given to the workers. There was a fair amount of power in the hands of worker's representatives during Lenin's regime, but not so much later. Ideally I'm for direct democracy in the workplace, but when so many outside forces are threatening the revolution that's a lot more difficult.

this decentralizing of power can be accomplished from day one. in fact the way a revolution is carried out can ensure that no one group seizes power. combining concepts of anarchy with distributed-self-governing-protocol (inspired by how distributed computing works) could accomplish this.

And such transition can't happen overnight, especially not when there's still outside capitalist and imperialist forces seeking to destroy you.

you're combining the need for organized revolt with an ideological want for a dictatorship.

if you are biased toward a dictatorship and totalitarian systems, say so, don't earmark it into other principles.

[tuwix]

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

I think Leninism was actually detrimental to Marxist theory. This “vanguard” party was a greater destroyer of any dream to achieve any DoTP in countries where has been introduces a system based on Leninism with Stalinist deviations. But there is no doubt that Lenin is an author of the concept. And the “vanguard” party was a main source of bureaucracy that killed the system.

In terms of strict theory, it was detrimental too. The Marxism is showed most likely in the form of Marxism-Leninism. And the faults of Lenin are shifted on Marx and thusly Marx is made to be guilty of Lenin despite he has nothing to do with him.

[Old Bolshie]

This is aimed specifically at Marxists for obvious reasons.

Anyway, do you think Leninism was a necessary addition to Marxist theory?

Absolutely. Without Lenin's vanguard contribution you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution.

Would it be possible to have a revolution based on Marxist theory alone?

So far history has proven that you can't. All the revolutions which occurred without the vanguard failed.

I don't think it would be possible to have revolution based on Marx alone, particularly not in feudal and other non-industrialized societies. 1) Marx predicted revolution in industrialized countries. That is yet to happen. 2) The capitalist class has tactics of keeping the workers satisfied just enough to keep them from rebelling completely. 3) With point two in mind, there needs to be a party of class conscious workers to lead everybody else in the same direction.

The point is that the vanguard conception was never applied by the western communist parties because it was thought as a tactic only to be applied to the backward autocratic Tzarist Russia. Those parties have chosen the mass type aimed to win elections and govern through the bourgeois democracy machine pretty much like SPD. If Lenin had adopted this path for the Bolsheviks, firstly they would have remained united to the Mensheviks and secondly you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution. Lenin built a party for taking the power through revolutionary means and not electoral ones.

The question here is if the vanguard concept shouldn't be adopted in the west as well.

[Lowtech]

Absolutely. Without Lenin's vanguard contribution you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution.

ridiculousness. there is a difference between organized military revolt and an authoritarian class. capitalism has already taken the task of authoritarian rule to a high art. the masses are mostly pacified to it's economic subjugation, indoctrinated into it's ideology and assimilated into the crippling psychology of consumerism and the alienating nature of capitalist skill sets (jobs). nothing has yet to match it's ability to dominate the human civilization. authoritarianism is capitalism and capitalism is authoritarianism. if you feel that a vanguard "class" is necessary for the liberation of the working people, perhaps you should consider taking a business study course.

So far history has proven that you can't. All the revolutions which occurred without the vanguard failed.

what good is a revolution if it simply changes the face of the oppressors? an effective revolution must have classless, stateless society established from day one.

The point is that the vanguard conception was never applied by the western communist parties because it was thought as a tactic only to be applied to the backward autocratic Tzarist Russia. Those parties have chosen the mass type aimed to win elections and govern through the bourgeois democracy machine pretty much like SPD. If Lenin had adopted this path for the Bolsheviks, firstly they would have remained united to the Mensheviks and secondly you wouldn't have witness the October Revolution.

if lenin were marxist, he wouldn't have mirrored the capitalist attitude that the working people are unable to organize themselves productively without a "great man" like himself to dictate their actions. exactly the attitude of every CEO of every business on our planet.

Lenin built a party for taking the power through revolutionary means and not electoral ones.

this is true, however the power was for himself, not the people.

The question here is if the vanguard concept shouldn't be adopted in the west as well.

it is already here. welcome to capitalism.

this leads us to the fact capitalism has invented the menial job

the menial job is a skill set that increases in profitability as positions increase in volume. however, the logistical need to mange people who are made to work 'shit jobs' that by nature are extremely undesirable skill sets, especially due to insufficient wages, leads to the establishment of a vast network of "middle management" which is capitalism's "vanguard class."

once capitalism is abolished and skill sets are redesigned, these supporting skill sets of "middle management" will vanish. upper management of the corporate elite will vanish as well. all skill sets will exist only as needed. everything else will be based on one's interests and tenure.

[LOLseph Stalin]

no, the majority of humans know capitalism is unjust, they see it's negative impact in their lives everyday. however law is written to enforce capitalists' notion of ownership. we don't need to sway opinion as if there is a consensus in support of capitalism. no one chooses capitalism unless you have vast amounts of assets and you chose to buy several vacation homes. if you're the working class and assimilated into a capitalist system, you're not choosing capitalism, you're choosing not to starve.

This isn't necessarily true. There's actually plenty of working class people who are pro-capitalism. Why? They see it as a chance to succeed and get wealthy while they see communism as a system where everybody is poor. However, that's more so something to blame on propaganda rather than certain tendencies of communism; the capitalists want us to believe their system is working.

this decentralizing of power can be accomplished from day one. in fact the way a revolution is carried out can ensure that no one group seizes power. combining concepts of anarchy with distributed-self-governing-protocol (inspired by how distributed computing works) could accomplish this. you're combining the need for organized revolt with an ideological want for a dictatorship.

Nobody "wants" a dictatorship. However, isn't society now essentially a dictatorship? The bourgeoisie do essentially have power over everybody and everything. The only way to stop this would be through force, which is essentially dictatorial itself.

if you are biased toward a dictatorship and totalitarian systems, say so, don't earmark it into other principles.

See my response up above.

[Baseball]

Guard.

mirrored the capitalist attitude that the working people are unable to organize themselves productively without a "great man" like himself to dictate their actions.

The "attitude" is more accurately described as being skeptical that the workers can organize themselves productivelly socialistically.

There is a reason why the only succeful revolutions have required the use of a v anguard. There is also a reason why those successful revolutions were failures.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Guard.

The "attitude" is more accurately described as being skeptical that the workers can organize themselves productivelly socialistically.

There is a reason why the only succeful revolutions have required the use of a v anguard. There is also a reason why those successful revolutions were failures.

The only reason they failed is because socialism is not sustainable within one country. It needs to be worldwide, pretty much every revolutionary knew this. Even capitalism needs to be worldwide since it continously needs new resources, hence imperialism.

[Baseball]

once capitalism is abolished and skill sets are redesigned, these supporting skill sets of "middle management" will vanish. upper management of the corporate elite will vanish as well. all skill sets will exist only as needed. everything else will be based on one's interests and tenure.

See- here is a reason to be skeptical of the workers ability to productive functioning within a a socialist. Isn't the purpose of work to provide needed goods and services to other people? Shouldn't work be structured to do so in the best eay possible? I would think the answer to be "yes' to both. Yet here you are suggesting that how work is carried will be decided by thosr workets, based upon their own intetests, as oppossed to the interests of those who want that product. h

[tuwix]

And don't you see that one who produces and one who want which means buy it is the same person which means a worker? If so, why someone else is to decide what to produce?

[Baseball]

And don't you see that one who produces and one who want which means buy it is the same person which means a worker? If so, why someone else is to decide what to produce?

How many autos do the autoworkers consume? How much beer do the brewers consume? Statistically, its probably 0%. So what sense does it make to organize production in order to satisfy the needs of the auto workers or brewers? Production should be organised to satisfy the needs of people who want cars and want to drink beer.

[Old Bolshie]

ridiculousness. there is a difference between organized military revolt and an authoritarian class. capitalism has already taken the task of authoritarian rule to a high art. the masses are mostly pacified to it's economic subjugation, indoctrinated into it's ideology and assimilated into the crippling psychology of consumerism and the alienating nature of capitalist skill sets (jobs). nothing has yet to match it's ability to dominate the human civilization. authoritarianism is capitalism and capitalism is authoritarianism. if you feel that a vanguard "class" is necessary for the liberation of the working people, perhaps you should consider taking a business study course.

Ridiculousness was your idiotic interpretation of my post. I was pointing the different course that Lenin has taken from 1903 onwards distancing from the other leftist political parties like the SR's and the Mensheviks and the reason why he was successful in the task of overthrowing the bourgeois ruling.

As far as authoritarianism is concerned, Karl Marx himself pointed the lack of it in the Paris Commune as one of the reasons for its fall. Lenin recognized that the iron discipline within the Bolshevik party was one of the cornerstones of the Bolshevik success in the chapter "An essential condition of the Bolsheviks success" of his book "Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder". The working class can be and should be authoritarian in its task to overthrow the bourgeoisie rule. Otherwise the revolution will be smashed like it happen in the Paris Commune.

what good is a revolution if it simply changes the face of the oppressors? an effective revolution must have classless, stateless society established from day one.

Well, that's the point of a proletarian revolution. The oppressor is no longer the bourgeoisie but the proletariat. That's what the October Revolution was all about. You need oppression to overcome the bourgeoisie.

if lenin were marxist, he wouldn't have mirrored the capitalist attitude that the working people are unable to organize themselves productively without a "great man" like himself to dictate their actions. exactly the attitude of every CEO of every business on our planet.

First of all, Lenin always rejected the "great man" conception. He always submitted his positions to the party's CC including in critical times like when the initiation of the revolution was debated. Lenin was forced to persuade the majority of the CC members who were skeptical about the revolution to initiate the October Revolution after a long and heated debate among the CC members. This example destroys any theory of "great man" around Lenin.

this is true, however the power was for himself, not the people.

While Lenin's position was far from being autocratic as he needed to submit all his decisions to the Central Committee approval and the Bolshevik party was still democratic by Lenin's death, it would have been impossible for Lenin to gather the support from all Russia as the proletarian class was still a minority one in 1917's Russia.

it is already here. welcome to capitalism.

this leads us to the fact capitalism has invented the menial job

the menial job is a skill set that increases in profitability as positions increase in volume. however, the logistical need to mange people who are made to work 'shit jobs' that by nature are extremely undesirable skill sets, especially due to insufficient wages, leads to the establishment of a vast network of "middle management" which is capitalism's "vanguard class."

once capitalism is abolished and skill sets are redesigned, these supporting skill sets of "middle management" will vanish. upper management of the corporate elite will vanish as well. all skill sets will exist only as needed. everything else will be based on one's interests and tenure.

Messing all up again. I was talking about the dichotomy between vanguard/mass party and you came talking about a completely different issue.

[tuwix]

How many autos do the autoworkers consume? How much beer do the brewers consume? Statistically, its probably 0%. So what sense does it make to organize production in order to satisfy the needs of the auto workers or brewers? Production should be organised to satisfy the needs of people who want cars and want to drink beer.

And you state that cars and beer aren't bought by workers? And that the workers aren't buyers? But if they are, then I ask again: hy someone else is to decide what to produce?

[Lowtech]

Nobody "wants" a dictatorship. However, isn't society now essentially a dictatorship? The bourgeoisie do essentially have power over everybody and everything. The only way to stop this would be through force, which is essentially dictatorial itself.

force has never been a successful tool in structuring society. force is what you resort to when two parties will not agree but one has decided to dominate. its barbarism, not coexistence. the natural response from the other party is to fight back in defense. it is darwinistic. we cannot "evolve" into a better society in this manner. with this attitude, the unscrupulous among us will always have access to resources, power and exercise it for their own agenda. the only solution is appealing to higher faculties of reasoning, altruism and establishing a cultural respect for interdependence. we should teach mutual respect, not mutual respect for the barrel of a gun.

The "attitude" is more accurately described as being skeptical that the workers can organize themselves productively socialistically.

as a capitalist, you aren't skeptical, you are being elitist and seeing other people as inferior to you, self-validating your exploitation of them. capitalism is economically invalid and this is mathematically observable.

See- here is a reason to be skeptical of the workers ability to productive functioning within a a socialist. Isn't the purpose of work to provide needed goods and services to other people?

i'm not responsible for your inaccurate understanding of capitalism. to reiterate, i said that skill sets will exist as needed. under communism, skill sets will have to be more productive than it's capitalist counterparts as a consequence because in communism, economic value has precedence, not profit. since people would not be subjected to artificial scarcity, the same level of productivity we see now will be accomplished with less work hours. under capitalism there is a huge artificial deficit in economic value the working class experiences because economic value is concentrated in the 1%. an economy free of artificial scarcity will not have this burden.

And don't you see that one who produces and one who want which means buy it is the same person which means a worker? If so, why someone else is to decide what to produce?

currently, corporate structures, entrepreneurs decide what is to be produced, the belief capitalism isn't planned is a myth. it is very much planned; for the good of the rich.

How many autos do the autoworkers consume? How much beer do the brewers consume? Statistically, its probably 0%. So what sense does it make to organize production in order to satisfy the needs of the auto workers or brewers? Production should be organised to satisfy the needs of people who want cars and want to drink beer.

subjective wants do not validate economic subjugation (few rich dominating the working majority) nor does it validate the allocating of resources on massive scales based on the whim of a plutocratic ruling class. on massive scales, need follows a very uniform and predictible pattern. essentially, we know what people need to survive and live happy productive lives and this does not include paying atonement to a plutocratic class for the fault of being alive. the "subjective wants" can be satisfied by 3D printers and rediscovering the lost art of crafts. the convenience of being a consumerist sloth does not validate a system creating poverty and giving exchange value to crime.

As far as authoritarianism is concerned, Karl Marx himself pointed the lack of it in the Paris Commune as one of the reasons for its fall ... Otherwise the revolution will be smashed like it happen in the Paris Commune.

people have lived in very communistic societies for the better part of our 26 million year existence as a species. the historical information you provided is nothing more than reverse rationale for authoritarian ideology.

Well, that's the point of a proletarian revolution. The oppressor is no longer the bourgeoisie but the proletariat.

the proletariat and a vanguard class are not the same thing. people do not need oppressors, we need no handlers, dominance has had it's day as an evolutionary factor. we are no longer just a species of animal, we are a civilization.

Messing all up again. I was talking about the dichotomy between vanguard/mass party and you came talking about a completely different issue.

political economy underpins everything in our world today. if economic principle isn't important to you, you're debating on the wrong forum.

[LOLseph Stalin]

force has never been a successful tool in structuring society. force is what you resort to when two parties will not agree but one has decided to dominate. its barbarism, not coexistence. the natural response from the other party is to fight back in defense. it is darwinistic. we cannot "evolve" into a better society in this manner. with this attitude, the unscrupulous among us will always have access to resources, power and exercise it for their own agenda. the only solution is appealing to higher faculties of reasoning, altruism and establishing a cultural respect for interdependence. we should teach mutual respect, not mutual respect for the barrel of a gun.

Nothing in society will ever be 100% agreed upon so by even making any decisions you'll be viewed as dictatorial by somebody somewhere. Even just setting up a socialist society is viewed as tyrannical and dictatorial by the bourgeoisie. Everybody has their own agenda and the point here is to have the people in power who'll benefit the largest amount of society.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Absolutely not.