Results 1 to 20 of 56
Lenin and the Bolsheviks are what they were and did what they did, nothing you or I say changes any of their beliefs, actions or motivations.
On the specific point, I was being faceitous when I said "good". It just annoys when the capitulationists try and attack Lenin for killing "anarchists", as if the title of "anarchist" should attribute someone "special treatment". Violence in the revolution is conducted against those who are objectively counter-revolutionary (fascist) no matter what "titles" they attribute to themself. Therefore, "anti-statism" in the specific cauldron of civil war Russia makes one anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and White. Therefore, worthy of elimination.
Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives.
Karl Marx
A friend and I always get into squabbles about Lenin. He says he was a lunatic and I was wondering if this is justified. My arguement is usually "It was a revolution, they were at war. What do you expect?" And we end up trailing off into something else.
Was Lenin a bad leader? Was he a "lunatic?"
Is there a good defense for Lenin? Am I missing it?
Help me comrades!!!
Thanks.
Marxist
The problem is not whether he was good or bad. To concentrate on one person misses the point. As Marxists we know that history is not about singular individuals or isolated groups. Material conditions conspire to create world events, not the other way around.
Having said that, the fact is Lenin should not have been the center. No one should have. If we as Marxists admit that personalities cannot bring about change, then our work should be focused on wide change, and not leadership positions.
That is not to say that his leadership of ideas was wrong. Though I personally disagree with much of what Lenin did, and believed in, before and during the revolution he represented the most advanced ideas amongst revolutionary Marxists involved in Russia at the time. There simply wasn't much better amongst the Marxist camp (Anarchism is an entirely different story). The Marxists found themselves growing divided, and Lenin represented a sort of middle ground between those who wanted to capitulate to the bourgeoisie at every step of the way (later on to become the Mensheviks, as well as the bureaucrats who later took over) and those eager revolutionaries who were not ready to recognize that the revolution of 1905 had failed and there was a need to regroup.
So like I said, I may disagree with him, but it isn't him in particular that was a problem. The whole of the party did not represent a very good theoretical base, and the opportunities to expand the revolution and solidify the gains by having revolutions in the west never materialized. It was those kinds of historical conditions that produced the failures, and not Lenin himself, or any one person.
Not to say that Lenin was perfect of course. His refusal to work with the Anarchists (who I believe were far ahead of most of the party), is one example.
Lenin did a good job, bearing in mind the situation, Stalin was the nut job.
In what relations do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
-Karl Marx
It is only by strengthening ourselves ideologically, inculcating in ourselves the values and ideals of the struggle and building up the ranks of the revolutionary party that we will make it.
- Ta Power
Yes Lenin was good it's just a shame he died and Stalin took over instead of Trotsky who should really have become the leader.
Stalin was insane but atleast he got a nice death. oh the joys.
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44
If you've lost your faith in love and music then the end won't be long - The Libertines
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too - John Lennon
Working men of all nations UNITE!
Lenin was great indeed.
http://www.time.com/time/time100/lea...ile/lenin.html
Actually, he considered many of the anarchists during the Civil War as the Bolshevik's closest allies. They were referred to as "Soviet Anarchists".
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror... --- Mark Twain
Good lord. Not that, please, anything but that.
Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives.
Karl Marx
im not much of a lenin historian, but i have heared that he was quite a quirky guy, but amazingly smart at the same time
like marilan mansion (did i spell that right?)
Lenin wasn't a lunatic, he was just wrong. And corrupted by power (like everyone else who holds power).
Homepage
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
didnt say he was a lunatic <_<
Anyone who wants to be the leader of a country is totally insane to start wtih as far as I'm concerned who would really want to
"Other hands will take up the weapons" Che guevara
"no women no kids" Leon
It is by my will alone that I set my mind in motion
I didn't know that, but I have read a quote from him that referred to his dismissal of the idea of allowing Anarchists to run for positions as preposterous, since they didn't have a party.
I don't know what the context was, I'm not even entirely sure of the source, so I'll take your word for it.
I still think he didn't work closely enough with them however.
I would like to have a source though on the "Soviet Anarchists" thing. Considering the Leninist betrayals.
Let no one charge that socialists have arrayed class against class in this struggle. That has been done long since in the evolution of capitalist society. One class is small and rich and the other large and poor....One consists of capitalists and the other of workers. These two classes are at war. Every day of peace is at the expense of labor. There can be no peace and good will between these two essentially antagonistic economic classes. - Debs
Soviet "anarchists" weren't anarchists, they were sellouts who converted to bolshevism. The Bolsheviks used this to their advantage, to make them seem less oppressive. "See, we don't shoot anarchists - they support us" Except those who didn't sellout were likely to be jailed or shot. See :
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/revhist17/avrich2.pdf
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/revhist17/avrich1.pdf
Homepage
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Lenin was able to concentrate the force of a rising class in Russia, the industrial proletariat, to topple the Tsar, and to establish an economic base that would eventually, albeit with deformations, advance the revolution within Russian borders. The greatness of Lenin's accomplishment is felt today in the negative: with the collapse of the USSR, the peoples of the former Soviet empire suffer terribly from economic insecurity and material scarcity. Errors surely occurred, even during Lenin's reign. The 'sagacity' of hindsight tends to be pitiless, but no basis for constructive engagement follows from undigested bourgeois pseudo-revolutionary condemnations. Critique, yes. Name-calling, no.
Good.
Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives.
Karl Marx
You know, your support of the execution of non-conforming anarchists isn't making Lenin look much better?
<span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>11:18 am, Greenwich Mean Time, December 21, 2012 AD.
"If you're talking about Xvall, I think it is some date when the world is supposed to get sucked into some blackhole or some crazy shit like that." - Fist of Blood
"Einstein was a sick pervert, E=mC2 MY ARSE! pROVE IT U RED SWINE" - Bugalu Shrimp</span>
You know, your support of the murdering, alcoholic, counter-revolutionary anarchists isn't making your arguments against Lenin look any better either.
"Condenarme, no importa. La historia me absolvera." - Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz
Australia's leading leftwing newspaper - http://www.greenleft.org.au
Uniting the left - for the Millions, not the Millionaires - http://www.socialist-alliance.org/
Revolutionary Socialist Youth Organisation - http://resistance.org.au
LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - http://www.links.org.au
If the Makhnovists helped defeat the White Army (they had an official alliance with the Bolsheviks, didn't they?), how were they counter-revolutionary?
Also, the charge of alcoholic is a bit redundant. . . in em, Russia and the Ukraine y'know.
'...the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as a canaille, needs its courage, its self-esteem, its pride, and its sense of independence more than its bread.' Marx...★
★...★
........★....★
..........★..★ Starry Plough Magazine
'From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage workers' - Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Stop Killer Coke
