The permanent revolution, anti - Leninist??

[bolshevik1917]

Im interested to hear everyones views on Trotsky's theory that there needed to be a revolution in the west for the Russian revolution to be succesfull. Stalin of course disagreed and talked about building socialism in the USSR without much thought for anywhere else.

I am also interested in what people think Lenin's views were on this, and who he would have sided with - Trotsky or Stalin?

[Ian]

I do not believe the theory of permanent revolution is anti-leninist, it is quite leninist because it encourages revolution ASAP, just like the Bolshevik's did.

I'm sure Stalin had his reasons for believing in socialism in one country, but the fact is that the longer a revolution stays isolated the more likely it is to fail. This is a reason Cuba will eventually fail. Just look at revolutions throughout history, the French revolution remained isolated and after a few decades there was a monarch again!

[bolshevik1917]

You might be surprised to know Ian, that the stalinists consider Trotsky's theory to be extremely anti-marxist and against everything Lenin beleived in.

Following a debate I had with Revolution_Hero his best peice of 'evidence' was a quote from Lenin which states..

“Unevenness of the economical and political development is the absolute law of capitalism. Therefore, the victory of socialism originally in few or even in one, separately taken, capitalistic country is possible. The victorious proletariat of this country would expropriate capitalists and organize socialistic production and would stand against the rest of the capitalistic world, attracting the oppressed classes of other countries, raising the revolt against capitalists, setting out, in the case of necessity, even with the military power against the class of the exploiters and their states.” (LCW, vol.26, p. 354).

We can see here however, that Lenin speaks about 'capitalistic' countries, and not semi-feudal peasantic countries like Russia was.

The stalinists try to make out Lenin was a nationalist like Stalin, but that is rubbish.

I challenge any of them to argue otherwise!

[nz revolution]

I suppose you could say: Does the USSR still exist? If socialism in one country was so successful then why is there no nation in the West (Europe) that is socialist.

France is one fucked up place. Arent they in like the 8th republic so far? Cant make up their mind. Cant blame them for one of them though due to the Nazis

[RGacky3]

A perminant revolution is anti leninist, Lenin was not really interested in a world wide revolution. A world wide revolution is impossible and if it did happen, most likely people would rebel abainst communism, because there is nothing to compare your self to, many (democratic) socialist nations remain socialist because the people can look at their lives and their nations and compare them to cappitalist naitons around them that are failing, so they support socialism. one example of this is vietnam.

[RGacky3]

A perminant revolution is anti leninist, Lenin was not really interested in a world wide revolution. A world wide revolution is impossible and if it did happen, most likely people would rebel abainst communism, because there is nothing to compare your self to, many (democratic) socialist nations remain socialist because the people can look at their lives and their nations and compare them to cappitalist naitons around them that are failing, so they support socialism. one example of this is vietnam.

[bolshevik1917]

I am amazed at such arrogance and stupidity!!

"Lenin was not really interested in a world wide revolution."

Without the worldwide revolution THERE COULD BE NO SOCIALISM!

In order for the Russian revolution to succeed there needed to be a revolution in the west, Lenin and Trotsky knew this.

Lenin stated that the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia will:

"last but not least carry the revolutionary conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will not yet by any means transform our bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution; the democratic revolution will not immediately overstep the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships, nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future development of Russia and for the whole world will be immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the world proletariat so much, nothing will shorten the path leading to its complete victory to such an extent, as this decisive victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia." (ibid, page 57)

Is this the signs of a nationalist, who is 'not really interested in a world wide revolution' comrade Gacky?

The fact is the revolution could become socialist only when the european revolution began, Lenin again summed this up:

"after the final victory of the "democratic dictatorship" the liberal bourgeoisie and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry organise counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat organise revolution.
In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is no longer hopeless. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe.
The European workers will then show us 'how to do it', and then together with them we shall bring about the socialist revolution." (Works, vol. 10, page 92)

We can see here from a mere two quotes of Lenin's that he was in complete agreement with Trotsky on the importaince of the worldwide revolution, and dispite stalinist slandering the truth will always show in the end.

[RGacky3]

Lenin supported a worldwide revolution but it wasn't really a top priority, unlike trosqui whos top prioritiy was a world wide revolution. Lenin was more interested in first establishing socialism in Russia.

[Ian]

Gacky, why do you think Lenin's first actions included pleas to nations across the globe to revolt?

[Santa Clara]

Ok, I'm going to quote my history text book because I don't have the energy to put it into my own words. This is from David Christian: "Trotsky and Lenin came up with a very different solution. They argued that a working class government might emerge even in backward Russia. However, it could suvive only if its creation triggered revolutions in the more developed capitalist countries of Europe. As early as 1905, Lenin wrote: 'a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry...will enable us to rouse Europe; after throwing off the yoke of the bourgeoisie, the socialist proletariat of Europe will in its turn help us to accomplish the socialist revolution'. The conclusion was clear. The duty of a Marxist party was not to support the bourgeioisie. It was to overthrow the bourgeoisie, even in backward Russia. Revolutions would take place, not in distinct stages, but as part of a continuous process, linking local bourgeois revolutions with a world-wide socialist revolution. To describe this process, Trotsky picked up on a phrast Marx had used as early as 1850: 'Permanent Revolution'. "
So it was not anti-Leninist. If this doesn't convince you, tell me, and I'll give you some more quotes, but they would be too much to put in only one post.

[bolshevik1917]

Gacky, Lenin understood that socialism could not be established in the USSR untill a western revolution took place.

Why would he say "The European workers will then show us 'how to do it', and then together with them we shall bring about the socialist revolution." When they had 'done it' themselves already?

What is there then for the European workers to 'show them' ?

If you had read my quotes properly you would understand, if you are not convinced I will produce more quite easily.

Excelent peice from Santa Clara, sums things up in one paragraph, the Stalinists of course will use the old 'western propoganda' rubbish, ignoring any evidence we can produce.

[peaccenicked]

RH. Your apology for Stalinism is a pitiful ugliness you sholud be ashamed of. It is quite simple you are not an honest person. Your version of history not only stinks of one-sidedness but is a blatant whitewash of the great betrayal of socialism, stalin represents.

I suggest you actually study history. Starting here might give you a clue on a subject you know nothing except how to cover up the truth.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/

[bolshevik1917]

Oh dear, the 'revolution hero' has returned with another barrow load of distorted stalinist rantings for us to feast on. Peaccenicked has said it all, you are dishonest and uneducated. I second the suggestion that you start reading up on history (thats real history, not the stories that were made up in the kremlin)

But allow me to give you some pointers, I wont bother telling you 'my version' of events like you have done to me, you see I was not there. Instead lets use quotes from the people involved in this debate at the time.

Firstly though, the stalinist asks me "Do you try to say that the great October revolution was not successful? Do you dare to say that it didn’t lead to the creation of the FIRST SOCIALISTIC STATE IN THE WORLD?!"

Well Lenin never once said there was 'socialism in Russia' and after his death there was certainly no traces of socialism in Russia. The USSR was a deformed workers state after Lenin's death, without democracy there can be no socialism.

Since you are not a fan of reading proper history books (with things called 'facts' in them) I will offer you this extract from 'Lenin and Trotsky' by Ted Grant and Alan Woods.

"In one of his last articles, Better Fewer But Better, Lenin wrote:
"Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must first think very carefully how to combat its defects, bearing in mind that these defects are rooted in the past, which, although it has been overthrown, has not yet been overcome, not yet reached the stage of a culture that has receded into the past." (Works, vol. 33, page 487)
The October revolution had overthrown the old order, ruthlessly suppressed and purged the Tsarist state; but in conditions of chronic economic and cultural backwardness, the elements of the old order were everywhere creeping back into positions of privilege and power in the measure that the revolutionary wave ebbed back with the defeats of the international revolution. Engels explained that in every society where art, science and government are the exclusive of a privileged minority, then that minority will always use and abuse its positions in its own interests. And this state of affairs is inevitable, so long as the vast majority of the people are forced to toil for long hours in industry and agriculture for the bare necessities of life.
After the revolution, with the ruined condition of industry, the working day was not reduced, but lengthened. Workers toiled ten, twelve hours and more a day on subsistence rations; many worked weekends without pay voluntarily. But, as Trotsky explained, the masses can only sacrifice their "today" for their "tomorrow" up to a very definite limit. Inevitably, the strain of war, of revolution, of four years of bloody Civil War, of a famine in which five million perished, all served to undermine the working class in terms of both numbers and morale.
The NEP stabilised the economy, but created new dangers by encouraging the growth of small capitalism, especially in the countryside where the rich "kulaks" gained ground at the expense of the poor peasants. Industry revived, but, being tied to the demand of the peasantry, especially the rich peasants, the revival was confined almost entirely to light industry (consumer goods). Heavy industry, the key to socialist construction, stagnated. By 1922 there were two million unemployed m the towns. At the Ninth Congress of Soviets in December, 1921, Lenin remarked:
"Excuse me, but what do you describe as the proletariat? That class of labourers which is employed by large-scale industry. But where is this large-scale industry? What sort of proletariat is this? Where is your industry? Why is it idle?" (Works, vol. 33, page 174)
In a speech at the Eleventh Party Congress in March, 1922, Lenin pointed out that the class nature of many who worked in the factories at this time was non-proletarian; that many were dodgers from military service, peasants and de-classed elements:
"During the war people who were by no means proletarians went into the factories; they went into the factories to dodge war. And are the social and economic conditions in our country today such as to induce real proletarians to go into the factories? No. It would be true according to Marx; but Marx did not write about Russia; he wrote about capitalism as a whole, beginning with the fifteenth century. It held true over a period of six hundred years, but it is not true for present-day Russia. Very often those who go into the factories are not proletarians; they are casual elements of every description." (Works, vol. 33, page 299)
The disintegration of the working class, the loss of many of the most advanced elements in the Civil War, the influx of backward elements from the countryside, and the demoralisation and exhaustion of the masses was one side of the picture. On the other side, the forces of reaction, those petty bourgeois and bourgeois elements who had been temporarily demoralised and driven underground by the success of the revolution in Russia and internationally, everywhere began to recover their nerve, thrust themselves to the fore, taking advantage of the situation to insinuate themselves into every nook and cranny of the ruling bodies of industry, of the state and even of the Party."

And look again what Lenin is saying here..

"We have created a Soviet type of state, and by that we have ushered in a new era in world history" the era of the political rule of the proletariat, which is to supersede the era of bourgeois rule. Nobody can deprive us of this, either, although the Soviet type of state will have the finishing touches put to it only with the aid of the practical experience of the working class of several countries.
But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (Works, vol. 33, page 206)

You chose to ignore the Lenin quotes I posted earlier, why not give us your 'expert opinion' on them?

"last but not least carry the revolutionary conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will not yet by any means transform our bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution; the democratic revolution will not immediately overstep the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships, nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future development of Russia and for the whole world will be immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the world proletariat so much, nothing will shorten the path leading to its complete victory to such an extent, as this decisive victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia." (ibid, page 57)

And

"after the final victory of the "democratic dictatorship" the liberal bourgeoisie and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry organise counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat organise revolution.
In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is no longer hopeless. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe.
The European workers will then show us 'how to do it', and then together with them we shall bring about the socialist revolution." (Works, vol. 10, page 92)

Then there was a quote from your very own Joe Stalin who sounds very 'trotskyist' when he states..

"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient—the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.
"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution." (Foundations of Leninism, 1924)

Then there is the economics of stalinist Russia, was Russia socialist?

American socialist Max Shachtman gives us the facts.

"If we were to accept every single one of the exaggerated figures on industrialization in Russia, how would that prove that there was socialism in Russia? At the end of the 19th century, Russia in six years more than doubled her production of cast iron and steel, almost doubled her production of coal, naphtha. Lenin wrote at that time "The progress in the mining industry is more rapid in Russia than in Western Europe and even in North America.... In the last few years the production of cast metal has tripled." And so on and so forth. Russian industrial output under the Czar doubled between the Russo-Japanese War and the beginning of the World War. The Czar built the Trans-Siberian, for example, the longest railway in the world. But that didn't show that Russia was a "socialist community" -- it was what it was, Czarist autocracy.

Between 1932 and 1937, according to the official Stalinist statistics, the total value of the Russian heavy-industry products increased 238 per cent. That's impressive. But in the very same period, 1932-1937, heavy-industry production in Japan, a country far less endowed with population and natural resources, increased by 176 per cent. That, too, is impressive. But nobody thought of saying that this proved the existence of socialism, or, to be statistically exact, three-fourths socialism in Japan.


The Communist Manifesto over a hundred years ago went out of its way to pay tribute to the bourgeoisie which, as it said, "has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals, "but Marx and Engels didn't, therefore, call capitalist society a socialist community.


Labor productivity, in industry and agriculture, to this hour was much lower in Russia than it was in the United States, the outstanding capitalist country in the world, which, from the socialist standpoint, i.e., this capitalism of ours, is exceedingly backward. According, to Planned Economy for December, 1940, the Russian miner, in spite of the vicious speed-up system of Stakhanovism, produced less than half the tonnage of the American (370 tons as against 844). What's more, while production in an American mine was three times as large as in a comparable Russian mine, the latter uses eleven times as many technicians, twice as many miners, three times as many office workers, and twelve times as large a supervisory staff. Twelve times as large a supervisory staff! wherever you went, the dead hand of bureaucratism was all too apparent in Stalinist Russia!


According to another journal, Problems of Economy for January, 1941, agricultural labor in America exceeded the productivity of the Russian kolkhoznik: 6.7 times in the production of wheat, 7.7 times in oats, 8.1 times in sugar beets, 3.1 times in milk and 20.1 times in wool. Now, the function of technique is what? It's to economize human labor, and nothing else. Socialism must guarantee society a higher economy of time than is guaranteed by capitalism, but by capitalism at its best! Otherwise socialism represents no advance. What kind of socialism is it where the productivity of labor is so inferior to that which prevails in an advanced capitalist state?



I want to emphasize first of all that I'll not refer to Russia during or since the devastation of the country by the war. I will refer to 1939 and the years before it. It makes no difference really. As early as 1935 the Stalinists officially announced that socialism had already been established in Russia, and irrevocably at that!
At the end of the Second Five Year Plan, in 1937, the output of steel was four times as great as in 1913, the last pre-World War I year in Russia -- dairy products lower than 1913; petroleum products three times higher than 1913 -- tea was available only to one-third the extent of 1913. There was a big airplane industry non-existent in Czarist Russia, absolutely. But in 1912, Russia had 1,166,000 department stores, wholesale units and retail shops, which the consumer depends upon, while on October 1, 1937, according to Planned Economy of 1938, issue No. 2, with a population far greater, no less than 160,000,000, there were only 228,000 distribution stores and 98,000 warehouses. The plan for rolled steel was completed almost 100 per cent; they now have a big chemical industry; but the plan for the production of soap was not even 40 per cent completed.

Tea, we're talking about, not television sets! Soap! The production of machines was twenty times as high as in 1918, at the end of the Second Five-Year Plan. But wages were lower than in pre-war Russia!

Was Russia under Stalin socialist? What happened to wages, what happened to real wages -- under Stalinist rule? In other words, what was the real standard of living for the masses under Stalinism, not in terms of television sets, not in terms of radios, refrigerators, and cars. No, we're talking about ordinary standard of living. Did real wages keep pace with the growth of industrialization, which was great, with the growth of production, which had been great, with the growth of the national income, which had been great?

By Stalin's official figures or any official figures? No, they had declined! The real facts are hard to find in the official Stalinist press, which did everything to conceal and twist them out of shape. The Stalinist press for years had not published one single line officially about prices of commodities. Although hard to find though it wasn’t impossible.

According to Pravda, May 14, 1988, the average wage of workers in 1938 was 259 rubles a month. Bear that figure in mind. That's Pravda. What could the Russian worker buy with this wage? What could he do with it? Inadvertently Pravda itself told us. On April 8, 1938, it reports that food for a patient in a Moscow hospital costed 7 rubles a day, that is, 210 rubles a month. On May 17th of the same year, it says "The fee for a child in a Pioneer camp should not be more than the cost of maintenance, 250 to 350 rubles a month." Now everybody knows that hospitals and children's camps did not provide the richest variety of food, the best food. Not at all. Everybody knows that hospitals purchased in large quantities; they purchase collectively, they prepare collectively. Things were cheaper. If a hospital patient required for food 210 rubles a month, if a kid in a Pioneer camp required from 250 to 350 rubles a month for food, what could the Russian worker buy with an average wage of 259 rubles a month? That's not after the Hitler invasion; that's in 1938, after socialism had irrevocably been established in Russia.

What about inequality? At that time there was no country in the world, bar none, were inequality was as great, as deep, as extensive as it was in Stalinist Russia. In the United States, the spread between the poorest-paid and the best-paid worker was three to one, four to one, and, in extreme cases, five to one

In Russia, according to a very objective and fair economist and statistician, Dr. Abram Bergson, in his book on The Structure of Russian Wages, in October 1934 "the earnings of the highest paid Soviet worker were more than 28.3 times the earnings of the lowest paid worker at that time." And it became much worse! In 1947, average annual wage: 7100 rubles. The Stalinist press reported all the time earnings of some workers between 10 and 15 thousand rubles a month, that is, 120 to 180 thousand a year, when the average is 7100. Typical report is in Trud, the labor paper, so-called, for January 1, 1949, which reported that three Donbas miners averaged 60 to 75 thousand rubles for the three years 1946-1948. Now if with the lowest paid the average was 7100, is it an exaggeration to assume that the lowest paid do not go over 3000?

That makes a ratio of what between the lowest paid and the highest paid? anywhere from 50 or 60 to 1! Find me a working class anywhere in the world that shows that disparity. Now if that's how it is among workers, imagine the gap between workers and the ruling class, the factory directors, the managers, the army and navy officers, the brass, the millionaire kolkhozhiks, as they called them in the Stalinist press, the bureaucrats of all varieties, Stripes, ranks, sizes and weights!"

And finally, 'revolution hero' tells us 'Stalin was not a nationalist, he was from Georgia'

I had to laugh, after all was the biggest German nationalist in history Adolf Hitler 'from Germany' ?

And what was Lenin's opinion on Stalins nationalism?

"In a text dictated on December 24-5 1922, Lenin branded Stalin "a real and true national-socialist", and a vulgar "Great-Russian bully". (See Buranov, Lenin's Will, p. 46.) He wrote: "I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinski, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the 'crime' of those 'nationalist-socialists', distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified overdo this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Ordzhonikidze's 'manhandling'." (LCW, The Question of Nationalities or 'autonomization', 13 December 1922, vol. 36, p. 606.)

I think I have given you enough to think about for now, should you need anything else do not hesitate to ask.

[bolshevik1917]

Again you come up with nothing new, and force me to endure trawling through a big post with no substance, so let us get on with it.

“this led to the death of the exploitation of one man by the other, therefore class antagonism of the capitalistic society was destroyed with the destruction of the capitalistic state;”

Did you read Max Shachtman’s facts about Stalinist Russia? He clearly outlines the gulf between the beurocratic rulers of the country and the workers. And no he wasn’t defending capitalism against socialism.

1. He presented these facts in a public debate with a Stalinist.
2. His aim was not to glorify capitalism, but to show the USSR had not achieved socialism, and had infact achieved it’s opposite.

And again we get this ‘everyone against Stalin’ propoganda. Pravada in 1988 was very much Stalinist, Stalinism had not yet collapsed in 88!

Moving back to the theory of the permanent revolution you said that

“You confused yourself…..So, Trotsky’s “theory of the permanent revolution” doesn’t work for the capitalistic states, hence this “theory” is outdated, as it works only for the feudal or semi-feudal societies.”

Have you read the permanent revolution? Im quite confused by this quote, I can’t see what you are getting at or what you are asking.

And look at this blunder

“Secondly, Russia wasn’t “semi- feudal peasantic country”. It had organized and conscious proletariat.”

The proletariat, despite being the only revolutionary class was still very small in Russia, look again at what Lenin is saying here.

"During the war people who were by no means proletarians went into the factories; they went into the factories to dodge war. And are the social and economic conditions in our country today such as to induce real proletarians to go into the factories? No. It would be true according to Marx; but Marx did not write about Russia; he wrote about capitalism as a whole, beginning with the fifteenth century. It held true over a period of six hundred years, but it is not true for present-day Russia. Very often those who go into the factories are not proletarians; they are casual elements of every description." (Works, vol. 33, page 299)

Here is your ‘organized and conscious proletariat’ the fact was Lenin often said the Russian proletariat were NOT CONSCIOUS ENOUGH!

“Bolshevik 1917” if you are true Marxist and true Bolshevik , then you should know better than anybody else that proletariat is the only class, which can lead the socialistic revolution;”

RH, you are speaking ‘pure trotskyism’ here and are preaching to the converted!

“It was clear that socialism can’t be built straight on after the victorious revolution. That is why Lenin developed the theory of the transitional stage between capitalism and socialism, which was called NEP (New Economic Policy) in practice. This stage had been passed and Soviet Union stepped into the first stage of communism at the beginning of 1930s.”

Have you read ‘the State and Revolution’ by any chance?? There is no mention of NEP in there. NEP was essential because there was not a revolution in the west at that period, it only shows how essential the western revolution was to Russia’s future.

Had Stalin been a Marxist he then had the chance to put his weight behind the German revolution, workers power in such a country would have sparked revolutions around Europe – and ensured a socialist future for the USSR and the world. Stalin, being an imperialist, chose to curb the workers – making way for the rise of Hitler.

You say one of Lenin’s quotes “was written in 1905 also. Lenin kept in mind the social- economical situation of Europe of that period.”

And what about Germany, RH, what about the economic situation of Europe in THAT period??

“Ten years later Lenin came to the genius conclusion about the possibility of the victory of socialism originally in few or EVEN ONE SEPARATELY TAKEN COUNTRY. You ignore this and use old quotes. That is the strategy of slanderers.”

I did not ignore the quote, I can see from it Lenin was talking about developed capitalist countries like the UK. Look at the quotes I gave from Lenin on ‘NEP spiraling out of control’. Was this a sign that Lenin had confidence in the Russian state to ‘for the victory of socialism in one taken country’?

Of course not! You make Lenin look like a buffoon by suggesting this.

“This quote doesn’t belong to Stalin. I have proved this in the thread you originally posted it in. (Marx and Lenin Vs. Trotsky in “Theory”).
Also, I noticed that some quotes of Lenin you mentioned don’t conform to the original text, terrible translations by the subjective translators awfully transform the true meaning.
You use falsified quotes, man. Of course, you don’t do it for purpose; that were translators who messed everything up.”

As I have explained, ‘foundation’s of Leninism’ was written in 1924 containing quotes like the one I had given.

However, as this was now incompatible with Stalin’s anti-Marxist beliefs Stalin had the work re-written in 1926, NOT AS AN ‘UPDATED’ EDITION BUT AS THE ‘ORIGINAL’

This was pure falsification, I have offered to send you a photocopy to prove this. You cannot also lay blame with the translators as Trotsky himself used photocopies of the original Russian 1924 version as evidence against Stalin in many of his works.

According to you I also “ignored Marxist-Leninist explanation of the World Revolution and the necessity of socialistic victory originally in one country.”

Ok then, provide me with some quotes from both Marx and Lenin on this topic and we can debate further.

As for

“My point was that if Stalin had been nationalist, then he would not have respected all other nations, which formed USSR, except his own (Georgian). I put it very clear, but you just didn’t want to comprehend.”

And

“I am very skeptical about the truth of this part. If this text really exists, then I would be able to find it in LCW. Provide me with the name of the work or article, which contains such unbelievable information, please.”

See my new thread Lenin’s struggle against Stalin for your answers.

[RedComrade]

To hell with lenin, lenin was a viscious oportunist who didn't give a flying fuck about the proletariat. Why do you think he put a stop to trade union, cultural outlets such as proletariat culture etc, and banned workers from speaking their views on how to build socialism. The russian revolution was by petite burgeois for petite burgeois. Che noted this on one of his visits to russia while staying in a party members house he said something to the affect of this is how the proletariat live in russia and then laughed because they were dining on expensive antique china. The u.s.s.r nurtured a culture of authoritarian centralism that was in reality more hostile to its own workers than the capitalist countries in europe. The u.s.s.r was socialist in name only and did little more for socialism than to pay lip service to it. Every time i hear leninists spout their shit about dictatorship i want to puke, dictatorship is always wrong it is unnacpetable and little better than monarchy. When people claim communism failed i shudder because it was leninism that failed not communism. All of the so called communist countries have been built around the authoritarian model of leninist centralism, no dictators will ever build socialism in my opininon only workers choosing their leaders and choosing their fate.

[bolshevik1917]

Although entitled to your views this thread was for the discussion of the permsnent revolution. If you wanted to critiscise Lenin then you should have started another thread as you will split the debate in two.

If you look into the history of Russia under Lenin you will see that when the Bolsheviks took power the only party immediatley banned was the Fascsist party.

Also, in order to increase production (as Russia was not a modern capitalist country it was not producing a big/if any surpluss in food or materials) the working day was longer instead of shorter. Trotsky explained "the workers must sacrifice their today for their tomorow".

Menshevik and Social Democrat counter revolutionaries used things like the shortage of food, the long hours etc to provoke strikes around the country. Lenin's plight was not with the unions but the danger of counter revolution. It was an extremely difficult situation for him.
You should also note that unlike Stalinist Russia these people were not beaten and tortured and murdered.

Leninists are Marxist WE DO NOT SUPPORT DICTATORSHIP

I dont really care about Che, I dont know much about him. I doubt he was in the USSR in Lenin's time though but anyway thats irrelivant.