NationStates Jolt Archive

The title says it all. The train of thought is something like this:

"I know, let's form an elitist party, call our selves 'socialists', and take absolute power in the name of the people. Then, sometime later when we feel like the 'revolution' has progressed far enough, we'll think about giving up totalitarian power."

Seems kind of absurd to me. Unfortunately, Leninism and its bastard child of bureaucratic collectivism are what people define as being "socialism" or "communism." The big winners of this philosophy were Stalin and his ilk, and authoritarian right wing politicians in the First World. Big losers are the people of Russia, the people of the First World nations, and anyone caught in between.

Your thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

I have no patience for communism, and dislike socialism, but...

you tell us how awful these things are, yet have a socialist link in your signature?

I have no patience for communism, and dislike socialism, but...

you tell us how awful these things are, yet have a socialist link in your signature?

Lenin was and still is the greatest enemy to socialists everywhere.

Your thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.OK. You didn't get it at ALL.

OK. You didn't get it at ALL.

What's wrong with being curteous?

"I know, let's form an elitist party, call our selves 'socialists', and take absolute power in the name of the people. Then, sometime later when we feel like the 'revolution' has progressed far enough, we'll think about giving up totalitarian power."



The people wanted an escape from capitalism at first so it was originaly in the name of the people. I don't think they had it planned that they would do what they did they just became corrupt. If you want to insult socialism then insult it for what it is on it's own merits not by what one jackass did to it. (Sorry to the grammar nazis, I know I fail at spelling and grammar you really don't need to point it out)

Ok, guess what people. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were NOT communists nor socialists. So stop using them as an example of communists or socialists, and don't take Soviet Russia as the perfect example, as it is NOT.

Ok, guess what people. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were NOT communists nor socialists. So stop using them as an example of communists or socialists, and don't take Soviet Russia as the perfect example, as it is NOT.

Leftists hate it when you point at leftists who happened to be evil and complain about the results of their being leftists. To BE a leftist is not to BE evil, but to do leftist ACTIONS is always to DO evil, eventually.

Show me a REAL "communist" or "socialist" then?



(( My opinion: Communism and Socialism are simply ludicrous and impossible variants of "I don't like capitalism"-ism, which is perfectly in keeping with the leftist function of complaining but never quite being able to get real about how to actually DO anything positively.

By "leftist function of complaining" I mean that the left's actual FUNCTION (their reason for existence) is to complain about "annoying things", which is a VERY noble function. The problem comes when the "leftist" actually tries to control anything (which is inherently the function of the rightist), which they are simply not equipped to do, ie they are not equipped to DO anything well because they can never get real enough about what they're trying to accomplish to do it well. IE they "live in leftist fantasy land". ))

The people wanted an escape from capitalism at first so it was originaly in the name of the people. I don't think they had it planned that they would do what they did they just became corrupt.

It's always the worst things in the world that end up being the creation of the best intentions.

The Mafia was originally started as a way of defending Italian peasants from their jerk-off government.

Vietnam was about helping save innocent people from a growing Communist movement in Asia, which Chinese actions had shown to be ruthless and violent.

People voted for Hitler because they felt his policies would lift Germany out of a serious economical crisis that had people starving to death in the streets.

The Great Depression was mostly caused by Government actions and Capitalistic ideals designed to encourage an age of prosperity for all citizerns.

clearly someone should of clicked when the government was named Leninism

Lenin was and still is the greatest enemy to socialists everywhere.

He haunts you from beyond the grave? Eh, plausible. I once had a math teacher who believed that the Russian government kept Stalin's brain on ice, waiting to resurrect him when world domination was at hand. On the other hand, she was quite good at math.

He haunts you from beyond the grave? Eh, plausible.

Yes, he does. His policies and his legacy have provided an excuse for rightists to attack genuine socialism as murderous and genocidal.

You have to understand the difficult position Vladimir Lenin found himself in. Of course, many of his descisions were wrong, but I still call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I am a member of the UDCP. I forsake authoritarian communism and violent revolution where democratic means exist. But I believe it is unfair to blame Lenin as much as you suggest. He was faced with the job of dismantling one of the worst monarchies in Europe, creating the first socialist nation the world had ever seen. He destroyed all opposition, even leftist opposition (this was a case of bad judgement), because he rightly feared that bourgeois elements would trickle into the government once again. He rose to the position of leader and used czarist terror tactics to quell rebellion, which, I believe, was preferable to imperialist nations taking the country or letting the Czar take power. The rise of Stalin is due only to Lenin's weakness near the end of his life. If he had been in good health and retained his power, I believe he would have chosen Trotsky for the job. Lenin was a complex character, and I still have respect for him, regardless of his numerous mistakes. For me, he represents the failed idealism of the early 20th century. He had many good ideas, he just never followed up and enacted them.

The title says it all. The train of thought is something like this:

"I know, let's form an elitist party, call our selves 'socialists', and take absolute power in the name of the people. Then, sometime later when we feel like the 'revolution' has progressed far enough, we'll think about giving up totalitarian power."

Seems kind of absurd to me. Unfortunately, Leninism and its bastard child of bureaucratic collectivism are what people define as being "socialism" or "communism." The big winners of this philosophy were Stalin and his ilk, and authoritarian right wing politicians in the First World. Big losers are the people of Russia, the people of the First World nations, and anyone caught in between.

Your thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

You're simplificating too much (typical of the Trockijsts). Even if hoi polloi cannot tell the differences between lenininsm, collectivization, socialism and communism, you would be well advised to do your own research (maybe even wikipedia would suffice), at least before starting a thread like this.

Oh and btw I would suggest you to stay clear out of Mexico. ;)

You're simplificating too much (typical of the Trockijsts). Even if hoi polloi cannot tell the differences between lenininsm, collectivization, socialism and communism, you would be well advised to do your own research (maybe even wikipedia would suffice), at least before starting a thread like this.

Oh and btw I would suggest you to stay clear out of Mexico. ;)

First of all, just because my handle is "Trotskylvania" doesn't mean i'm a Trotskyist. I already know what the differences are, I don't need educating. I was just merely making a thread to express how much I really don't care for V.I. Lenin's namesake political philosophy. If you'd read my sig, you would know that I am a libertarian socialist.

The people wanted an escape from capitalism at first so it was originaly in the name of the people. I don't think they had it planned that they would do what they did they just became corrupt. If you want to insult socialism then insult it for what it is on it's own merits not by what one jackass did to it. (Sorry to the grammar nazis, I know I fail at spelling and grammar you really don't need to point it out)

I'm not insulting socialism. Like I said before, if you had read my sig, you would know that I am a sociailist. I'm attacking the train of thought that Leninism functions by. Because of Lenin's methods, and the ultimate proof of the failings of Bolshevism under he and his sucessor Stalin, the old social order was given a perfect example to point for propaganda purposes. Whenever there is talk of socialism, it inevitably links back to Cold War fear mongering over the Soviet Union, which is held by the corporate media to be the archetype of socialism.

Ok, guess what people. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were NOT communists nor socialists. So stop using them as an example of communists or socialists, and don't take Soviet Russia as the perfect example, as it is NOT.

Then what is? I have argued with socialists many times, and the end of their aurguments always seems to amount to: "Well it just hasnt been tried yet." What is this? Russia wasnt it, China wasnt it...Everytime communism is tried, people are exterminated, cultures are shattered, and party members become some of the richest people in the world. You cant declare a clean slate everytime communism is tried and then crashes and burns. Maybe thats just how communism works? Funny how the critisisms Marx scoffed at were almost a perfect representation of what happened in Russia.

Then what is? I have argued with socialists many times, and the end of their aurguments always seems to amount to: "Well it just hasnt been tried yet." What is this? Russia wasnt it, China wasnt it...Everytime communism is tried, people are exterminated, cultures are shattered, and party members become some of the richest people in the world.

You mean every time Stalinists take power, those are the results. So what?

You cant declare a clean slate everytime communism is tried and then crashes and burns. Maybe thats just how communism works?

Except they didn't try communism, so it's not a legitimate test.

Funny how the critisisms Marx scoffed at were almost a perfect representation of what happened in Russia.

Which criticisms?

Lenin was and still is the greatest enemy to socialists everywhere.

Only because he gives socialism a bad name. Years earlier, leftists of all stripes were singing his praises. It was only after his crimes became too obvious to ignore that they started putting some distance between themselves and him.

Then what is? I have argued with socialists many times, and the end of their aurguments always seems to amount to: "Well it just hasnt been tried yet." What is this? Russia wasnt it, China wasnt it...Everytime communism is tried, people are exterminated, cultures are shattered, and party members become some of the richest people in the world. You cant declare a clean slate everytime communism is tried and then crashes and burns. Maybe thats just how communism works? Funny how the critisisms Marx scoffed at were almost a perfect representation of what happened in Russia.

Taking power in the name of the people is not socialism. It's merely substituting one ruling class for another. Socialists seek to end class divisions. We all agree Stalinism sucks, but that is only one result of attempts to establish socialist societies, which as I already argued, points to the failings of a specific ideology: Leninism.

Secondly, there already has been much work done on what a socialist society would look like. If you want to know, check out the Anarchist FAQ or Zmag: they've dedicated years of work towards such an end. Check out for yourself, and decide what you think of it based on its own merits. Don't keep pointing back to the failings of Leninism. That's already been established.

Finally, Marx himself criticized people who held ideological beliefs very similar to V.I. Lenin. He actively attacked those who followed authoritarian strains of leftism. Marxism's own considerable fault's aside, many Marxists also critized Lenin's means to establish socialism.

Only because he gives socialism a bad name. Years earlier, leftists of all stripes were singing his praises.

Like Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman?

It was only after his crimes became too obvious to ignore that they started putting some distance between themselves and him.

They made an error from ignorance. That is not a problem with their ideology, merely with their judgment.

Only because he gives socialism a bad name. Years earlier, leftists of all stripes were singing his praises. It was only after his crimes became too obvious to ignore that they started putting some distance between themselves and him.

Your assuming that the leftists of today and the leftists of the turn of 19th centurty are the same people. They're not, everyone who was a leftist back then is dead. It's a whole new generation of people. We're not distancing ourselves from his crimes "after [they] became to obvious to ignore," we are trying to remove the blight that he and his ilk but on left-wing politics. As Soheran said, many leftists did not support Lenin or his methods in the Russian Revolution.

Like Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman?

They were a very tiny minority.

They made an error from ignorance. That is not a problem with their ideology, merely with their judgment.

Ignorance is no excuse. And in many cases, the evidence of atrocities was widely available. They chose to ignore it. Just as many neo-Nazis today deny the Holocaust.

Ignorance is no excuse. And in many cases, the evidence of atrocities was widely available. They chose to ignore it. Just as many neo-Nazis today deny the Holocaust.

They ignored it because the evidence fit too well to what existing power structures wanted people to believe. Out of optimism, they wanted Lenin to succeed and felt that the attacks brought against him by the State and teh reigning social order were falsified in order to prevent a Red movement from spreading.

BTW, you don't see Left-wingers denying Stalin's or Lenin's crimes today. It's not a propare analogy.

I know plenty of leftists who still admire Lenin.

I know plenty of leftists who still admire Lenin.

Then they are idiots. None of the leftists I know (and I know quite a few of them) admire Lenin.

They were a very tiny minority.

Did the parties of the Second International line up to support Lenin?

Ignorance is no excuse. And in many cases, the evidence of atrocities was widely available. They chose to ignore it. Just as many neo-Nazis today deny the Holocaust.

Yes, and Neo-Nazis today should not be accused of supporting Holocaust-like actions.

The difference, of course, is that Neo-Nazis support racism and bigotry, which are wrong regardless of their manifestation.

Did the parties of the Second International line up to support Lenin?

Never heard of them.

Yes, and Neo-Nazis today should not be accused of supporting Holocaust-like actions.

I never said they should.

The difference, of course, is that Neo-Nazis support racism and bigotry, which are wrong regardless of their manifestation.

Agreed.

Never heard of them.

The European Socialist parties, as opposed to the Communist parties that backed Lenin.

I never said they should.

So you would agree, then, that the failure of many leftists to reject Lenin back in the early years was a failure of judgment, not of ideology?

Never heard of them.

The parties of the Second International represented the bulk of international socialist politics. Nearly every socialist party was a member, and most of those parties expelled members who were supporters of Lenin.

Thanks.

most of those parties expelled members who were supporters of Lenin.

Though they did so more out of opportunistic cowardice and reformism than any dislike of his authoritarian politics; after all, they too held on to elitist and statist outlooks. That is inherent in reformist socialist politics in statist-capitalist democracies.

Though they did so more out of opportunistic cowardice and reformism than any dislike of his authoritarian politics; after all, they too held on to elitist and statist outlooks. That is inherent in reformist socialist politics in statist-capitalist democracies.

True. But it defeats the argument that most leftists supported Lenin. And those leftists that did reject reformism were probably divided equally between support and criticism of Lenin.