History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedTrotsky's Influence On The October Revolution

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
st darwin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote st darwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Trotsky's Influence On The October Revolution
    Posted: 20-Dec-2007 at 11:37
Just a quick question on the Bolshevik takeover of power in 1917 if that's ok?
 
Our History teacher was debating the influence of Trotsky on the revolution and arguing he was more prominent a figure than Lenin who of course assumed power.
 
Trotsky was a brilliant orator and organiser and marshalled and managed the red army efficiently and is suggested as the brains behind the movement. Is his part being overplayed? Or was he indeed the mastermind behind the October Bolshevik revolution?
 
Your thoughts and opinions are gratefully received Approve
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2007 at 11:49
He was one of the top leaders in Bolshevick revolution indeed. Wiki has absolutely brilliant article about him:
 
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Dec-2007 at 02:20
Originally posted by st darwin st darwin wrote:

Just a quick question on the Bolshevik takeover of power in 1917 if that's ok?
 
Our History teacher was debating the influence of Trotsky on the revolution and arguing he was more prominent a figure than Lenin who of course assumed power.
 
Trotsky was a brilliant orator and organiser and marshalled and managed the red army efficiently and is suggested as the brains behind the movement. Is his part being overplayed? Or was he indeed the mastermind behind the October Bolshevik revolution?
 
Your thoughts and opinions are gratefully received Approve
 
I would say he is number 2 after Lenin in the October revolution. Lenin was the brain and Trotsky was the heart.
 
He was definetely brilliant, but Lenin was more "massive."
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Dec-2007 at 20:35
no surprise, given the loads of money he received from the german government... 
Back to Top
Cjones View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 28-Dec-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cjones Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2007 at 00:40
Indeed, Trotsky should be placed right behind Lenin in terms of the most influential during the Revolution.  He was the leader of the Red Army, a fact that concerned Stalin.  Unfortunately, after the revolution he was gone so much he wasn't nearly as influential in Russia itself when Lenin died (he wasn't even at his funeral) and when Stalin began to vie for power in 1923.  Trotsky was never the public figure that Lenin and Stalin were, however, which ultimately led to his exile/murder.

BTW- My avatar = win


Edited by Cjones - 28-Dec-2007 at 00:41
Back to Top
st darwin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote st darwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 09:47
Trotsky was not at Lenin's funeral but was that not because of Stalin, who tricked him as part of his bid to take power and his devising of the "Cult of the Leader"?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 10:18
It's highly speculative, but you could liken Trotsky to Danton.
 
Both were inflammatory speakers who could sway the people with oratory, but neither was as streetsmart and good at intrigue as Robespierre or Stalin.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 4496
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 17:41
The question is not whether Trotsky had any influence in the Revolution of 1917, but rather if the Bolsheviks as a whole had any influence on Russian people when the Tsar was overthrown.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
bakjewel View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bakjewel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 02:10
I think Trotsky should be considered equal to Lenin, if not more important
 
He persuaded Lenin to wait until October to carry out the revolution, whereas the revolution may have failed if it took place sooner
 
Although Lenin was the leading figure of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky was the one who acted to make the revolution come to pass by setting up the Military Revolutionary Commitee and planning the details of the take-over.
Back to Top
bakjewel View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bakjewel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 02:18
Originally posted by Spartakus Spartakus wrote:

The question is not whether Trotsky had any influence in the Revolution of 1917, but rather if the Bolsheviks as a whole had any influence on Russian people when the Tsar was overthrown.
 
Yes, Bolsheviks' role in the February Revolution is relatively small, but surely they were controlling the events in October
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 04:12

The Bolsheviks did not create the revolution. They attempted to seize control of it in February, and failed. They attempted again in the October revolution, and seized partial control. Even at this point they did not control events, although they were an influential group in the revolution by this time. But the revolution continued, in the form of the Left Wing Uprisings, consisting of Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Lenin dissolved the Constituent Assembly and introduced the Red Terror to stop the revolution. It's only after this, after the revolution is crushed and popular uprisings at Kronstadt etc are put down, that we can say the Bolsheviks are truly in control.

In some senses, the Bolshevik seizure of power was merely a coup by reactionary forces (with imperialist ambitions, to boot).



Edited by edgewaters - 26-Feb-2009 at 04:16
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 13:51
Quote The Bolsheviks did not create the revolution. They attempted to seize control of it in February, and failed. They attempted again in the October revolution, and seized partial control. Even at this point they did not control events, although they were an influential group in the revolution by this time. But the revolution continued, in the form of the Left Wing Uprisings, consisting of Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Lenin dissolved the Constituent Assembly and introduced the Red Terror to stop the revolution. It's only after this, after the revolution is crushed and popular uprisings at Kronstadt etc are put down, that we can say the Bolsheviks are truly in control.

In some senses, the Bolshevik seizure of power was merely a coup by reactionary forces (with imperialist ambitions, to boot).

Edgewaters doing his social-fascist tricks as usual. The Bolsheviks were the primary revolutionary force in November and they had the greatest support from the Russian people, not just because they promised peace. They have taken the power easily in November. And were attacked by the counter-revolutionaries. 

Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 16:22

They did enjoy the support of the majority of workers and peasants during the October Revolution, but, as soon as they assumed power and their true intentions were revealed, that support was withdrawn. They lost the support of the worker collectives who, just three days after the Bolsheviks had assumed power, threatened a national general strike unless the other socialist parties were represented in elections and Lenin and Trotsky dismissed from the government. The Bolsheviks capitulated on the first point, and negotiated their way out of the second. In the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks took only 22% of the popular vote; the Left Socialist Revolutionary party took 58%. The Bolsheviks had lost popular support. Lenin thereupon dissolved the Constituent Assembly, as he was unable to tolerate the will of the populace where it differed from his own. The Left SR responded by declaring the Third Russian Revolution; in repsonse to which, Lenin called for "systematic" and "organized" "mass terror".

The White Army was not alone in opposing the Bolsheviks by armed force. The Kronstadt sailors - the original revolutionaries who had stormed the Winter Palace in November - also resisted Bolshevik rule, along with the Mensheviks, anarchists, and revolutionary socialists (the Left SR) of the Third Russian Revolution. Lenin's Terror was only partially aimed at White forces - it was equally aimed at ending the revolution. The leftist revolution didn't stop when the Bolsheviks took control of the state. In fact, it intensified and expanded to all parts of the Soviet Union, and continued on in Petrograd -  the very focal point, the ground zero of the original revolution. It had the same characteristics as the uprisings did since 1905, and it was still directed at the same target, the state (which now happened to be controlled by the Bolsheviks).

Besides unleashing the Terror on the popular Left SR, Lenin also attacked the Petrograd Soviet for its list of demands, which included such orthodox Marxist fundamentals as the abolition of wage labour, worker's power (rather than vanguardist Party rule) in industrial collectives, freedom of speech and press for the proletariat and peasantry, and so on. Orthodox Marxism (or "Kautskyism" as Lenin termed it) was entirely ill-suited to the vanguardist, pseudocommunist imperialist ambitions of Leninism. And so, the very revolutionary soldiers who had taken part in storming the Winter Palace were defeated in battle, then imprisoned, and then shot, drowned, frozen, or hacked to death by order of Lenin.

As far as your "social fascist" comment, I don't think anyone pays any attention when those words come out of your mouth anymore. You have overabused and cheapened the terms to the point they no longer have any meaning, when you speak them. It is just frustrated spittle and froth. Leninist pseudocommunism was hated from the very moment it assumed power, and ultimately smashed by the people who suffered under it. It will never rise again. Deal with it.



Edited by edgewaters - 26-Feb-2009 at 17:41
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 12:33

Bolsheviks had the support of the proletariat in the elections. This means they dominated important industrial centres such as Petrograd and Moscow. They used their strength to take the power and they used the power to gain the support of the non-proletariat workers, i.e. the the peasants, successfully. Peasants supported the LSR party, but when the Bolsheviks have taken the power, they switched to support the Bolsheviks, who delivered their promises to the peasants. Otherwise October Revolution could not have survived, let alone won the Civil War. 

Quote Lenin thereupon dissolved the Constituent Assembly, as he was unable to tolerate the will of the populace where it differed from his own.

Typical fascist lie, I am sure your right-wing kamaraden here will agree with you, but the truth remains clear. Lenin was part of a mass movement. He was not a dictator. Even if he wanted to be one, he lacked the power and control of the party that Stalin had. Bolsheviks dissolved the assembly because they did not believe in Bourgois democracy. You may agree or you may disagree, but Lenin thought only the proletariat could move the revolution forward, by taking control of the state apparatus and using it to gain the support of the peasants, who favoured the LSR. And you know what, history proved him right. 

Quote The Left SR responded by declaring the Third Russian Revolution; in repsonse to which, Lenin called for "systematic" and "organized" "mass terror".

There is no such thing as 'Third Russian Revolution'. There is a counter-revolution attempt by the Whites and their allies. It was defeated by the Red Army with popular support. As for terror, it was practiced by all sides in the Civil War, which was started by YOUR side (i.e. counter-revolutionaries, rabid anti-communists such as you).

Quote Lenin's Terror was only partially aimed at White forces - it was equally aimed at ending the revolution. The leftist revolution didn't stop when the Bolsheviks took control of the state.

I don't particularly ilke what happened in Kronstadt, and I would very much sympathise with an anarchist or a revolutionary communist who would bring up Kronstadt. I am not even a Leninist. The reason people think I am one here is because I constantly have to defend the revolution here from pocket Mccarthys like you. So, when a social-fascist like you brings this subject up, it is for one purpose only: anti-communism. 

You may not be a Leninist, but all true anarchists, socialists, communists that I know (and I know many) ultimately know that Soviet Union was an achievement for the workers, at least compared to the capitalist Empires you promote. As such, no true leftist would engage in neo-con style anti-communism here in AE. 

You, of course are a social-fascist, and that's what you do.   

Quote Besides unleashing the Terror on the popular Left SR, Lenin also attacked the Petrograd Soviet for its list of demands, which included such orthodox Marxist fundamentals as the abolition of wage labour, worker's power (rather than vanguardist Party rule) in industrial collectives, freedom of speech and press for the proletariat and peasantry, and so on.

Marx is not a prophet whose words are holy. That's another fascist lie, which you are engaging. In other threads you fascists and liberals argue 'Quran says this so Muslims should do that' here you argue 'Marx said that so Communists should do that'... What matters is practice, not theory. Lenin was a revolutionary, not a frothing anti-communist latte-liberal like you. He knew what to do to make the Revolution survive your (i.e Whites') attack and did it. 

Quote Orthodox Marxism (or "Kautskyism" as Lenin termed it) was entirely ill-suited to the vanguardist, pseudocommunist imperialist ambitions of Leninism.

Kautskyism supported World War I. Social Democrats' support of their own Empire in the War was what caused the split between them and the Communists internationalists in the first place. Given that, you as a kautskyite social fascist, are in no position to call Lenin an imperialist. Lenin ended the imperialist war, humiliated the imperialists by publishing their secret plans, protected other peoples from Great Russian imperialism. Even the most rabidly anti-Communist countries of East Europe of today, where people like you are dime a dozen, were created thanks to Lenin. It is a disgrace to humanity that a great defender of British Empire like you to call Lenin imperialist. 

Quote As far as your "social fascist" comment, I don't think anyone pays any attention when those words come out of your mouth anymore. You have overabused and cheapened the terms to the point they no longer have any meaning, when you speak them. It is just frustrated spittle and froth.

To the contrary, a lot of people listen to what I write. Also, you are either lying or plain dumb, because I call only one person 'social-fascist' in AE and that is you. Hardly overused terms.

Quote Leninist pseudocommunism was hated from the very moment it assumed power, and ultimately smashed by the people who suffered under it. It will never rise again. Deal with it.

Here you show once more your true face. End of history, eh? Keep on w**king Fukuyama Jr... 

Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 16:15
Dead 
There is no doubt to me and most of the Russian people that Lenin and his gang were one of the most bloody butchers in the Russian history who brought the country and its people to the edge, that destroyed more Russians than any Tsar every before and that their gang survived only due to the terror and massive executions that they imposed on the suffering nation.
 
So, please don't repeat that sweet Soviet propaganda about how good and humble the grandfather Lenin was.
 
His miserable Bolshevik gang had 0.01% popularity among the Russian proletariat until they seized power only by tricks, lies and treason.
 
Moreover, such kind of party in a country that 80% consisted of peasants  hardly was able to represent the "real" opinion of the Russian people.
 
Most of the Russians especially peasants didn't want to do have anything to do with the Bolsheviks' experiment but they were brutally forced to submit to the authocratic dictatorship by Trotsky's terror.
 
What the common Russian had to say about the "October Revolution" was expressed in the uprisings like Tambov rebellion.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 18:25
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:

Bolsheviks had the support of the proletariat in the elections.


No ... that's why they took only 22% of the popular vote while the Left SR took 58%. That's why a general strike was called demanding Lenin's resignation, one which the Bolsheviks took seriously - it had broad support among the proletariat, who credibly threatened to halt the trains.

Quote Lenin was part of a mass movement. He was not a dictator.

There is, therefore, absolutely no contradiction in principle between Soviet (that is socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial powers by individuals. - Lenin


Yes, he was part of a mass movement that was unaware of his true intentions, until he took power and his actual nature and aims were revealed. The workers believed that he would implement Marxism and direct worker control and abolish wage labour, instead he outlawed all labour which was not wage labour, dissolved the worker-controlled Factory Committees, which were exploding in number, about which he cheefully admits "On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory] committees leaders sought to bring their model [of workers' self-management of the economy] into being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial and control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them."

Contrast this with Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program: "Since Lassalle's death, there has asserted itself in our party the scientific understanding that wages are not what they appear to be -- namely, the value, or price, of labor—but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labor power. Thereby, the whole bourgeois conception of wages hitherto, as well as all the criticism hitherto directed against this conception, was thrown overboard once and for all. It was made clear that the wage worker has permission to work for his own subsistence—that is, to live, only insofar as he works for a certain time gratis ... the system of wage labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe in proportion as the social productive forces of labor develop ... It is as if, among slaves who have at last got behind the secret of slavery and broken out in rebellion, a slave still in thrall to obsolete notions were to inscribe on the program of the rebellion: Slavery must be abolished because the feeding of slaves in the system of slavery cannot exceed a certain low maximum! ... Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being" ... a toiling people which, through these demands that it puts to the state, expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!"

Or Marx's views on "the exercise of dictatorial powers by individuals" and vanguard parties: "The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class themselves. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes." I think that would probably include lawyers born as aristocrats who lived the bourgeoius lifestyle and demanded dictatorial powers.

Lenin unabashedly implemented state capitalism, wage slavery, and even big banks. On one occasion, he notes: "Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism ... "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits" 

Which is all fine and well, but after admitting that state/monopoly capitalism is a form of slavery, he advocates it: "state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success. I can imagine with what noble indignation a Left Communist will recoil from these words, and what devastating criticism he will make to the workers against the Bolshevik deviation to the right ... [but]the big banks are the state apparatus which we need to bring about socialism"

Socialism, of course, is just a word - what Lenin means is that he wants state capitalism, including central banking schemes, imposed in true Blanquist fashion so as to exploit the workers, unveil mass terror, attack the revolutionaries, skim surplus value from wages, exercise personal dictatorial powers, and so on, which he somehow twists into being called "socialism" (kind of like the Nazis did, but Lenin was a first rate lawyer, not a Viennese artist-hobo, and far more sophisticated at such semantical perversions). And just like a good little fascist, he derided the left as "childish" (remind you of anyone today?) for opposing his personal dictatorship and his dismembering of the revolution and its institutions like the factory committees. The above quote comes from Lenin's smarmy polemic, "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". 

Lenin not only justified personal dictatorship, mass terror, outlawed worker control of the factories, embraced state capitalism and big banks, but even urged exploitation of workers at gunpoint. "Not a single rogue (including those who shirk work) to be allowed to be at liberty, but kept in prison, or serve a sentence of compulsory labour of the hardest kind…In one place ... half a dozen workers who shirk their work (in the manner of the rowdies, the manner in which many compositors in Petrograd, particularly in the Party print shops shirk their work) will be put in prison. In another they will be put to cleaning latrines. In a third place they will be provided with yellow tickets after they have served their time…In a fourth place one in every ten idlers will be shot on the spot." Even capitalists didn't shoot workers for not working fast enough. Note the particular attention paid to the workers who slaved away in Lenin's print shops ...

As Jack Fitzgerald noted at the time, the Bolshevik seizure of power was "but another example of the capitalists using the discontent and numbers of the working class in Russia to sweep away the Feudal rules and restrictions so strongly symbolized in the Czar and the Council of Nobles, and to establish a system of government in line with modern capitalist needs and notions."


You have a nice pic of Lenin as your avatar, but you do know that was just a costume, right? He only wore it for a little while in Finland as a disguise to prevent being recognized, as soon as he was back in Russia he started dressing like an aristocratic lawyer again. He was, after all, a lawyer and politician, born an aristocrat - and it's not a coincidence that he looked like one, that was what he was. As a lawyer, he was of course a master at semantical perversions of the intent of statements, which is what he did to Marx's theories. Here he is as a kid:

And here he is as a banker. Whoops! ... I mean Bolshevik.

Quote Bolsheviks dissolved the assembly because they did not believe in Bourgois democracy.


They believed in elections as long as they won. They first tried to gerrymander the elections so that they'd wrest the vote from the Left SR, but they still didn't have enough to do so ... so they dissolved the assembly. Denouncing the CA elections as "bourgeouis" was an afterthought - they had no problem with it before they lost to the Socialist Revolutionaries. In fact, before this occurred, Lenin attacked numerous groups (eg Spartacists) for not participating in 'parliamentarianism', with his usual smarm, as part of the "childish" left:

[quotes Spartacist author:] "All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected"

This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. "Reversion" to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it!
"


Quote You may agree or you may disagree, but Lenin thought only the proletariat could move the revolution forward, by taking control of the state apparatus and using it to gain the support of the peasants, who favoured the LSR. And you know what, history proved him right.


History proved that Leninism was an absurd parody of Marxism, resulting in a farcical, imperialist dictatorship.


Quote There is no such thing as 'Third Russian Revolution'.


Yes, there is. It was declared by the Left SR and joined by Left Communists, socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, the Makhnovists, and even, eventually, the Kronstadt communists who had originally brought the Bolsheviks to power before they realized what they stood for. It lasted until 1921 or thereabouts, with the slaughter of the Petrograd communists. It is separate from the war against White forces. 

Or, perhaps, one could say that there was no Third Russian Revolution, and say that there was simply a single revolution which began in Petrograd in December 1904 with striking workers, and ended in Petrograd in March 1921 when Lenin's thugs slaughtered the Kronstadt communists.


Quote I don't particularly ilke what happened in Kronstadt


It was crucial to the Bolshevik triumph and fully in accord with Leninist theory. It was the face of Leninism in action ... and was a prelude to the entire history of the Soviet Union. Bolsheviks are always "sorry" about Kronstadt, the kind of sorry that a wife-beater is, meaning they'd do it again but they want to escape blame. Stalin was not some aberration that perverted Leninism, he simply continued and expanded Leninst doctrine. Lenin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks, perverted communism to take power. Communism was never supposed to be about glorious leaders  or imposing wage labour on people, let alone slaughtering workers and outlawing direct worker control of the point of production.

Kronstadt was the last gasp of the Russian revolution ... snuffed out by Lenin & co. They had a party to celebrate the Paris Commune the following day, while the Kronstadt communists were being dismembered with axes in Bolshevik prisons - just to give you an idea of Bolshevik sincerity.


Quote and I would very much sympathise with an anarchist or a revolutionary communist who would bring up Kronstadt. I am not even a Leninist. The reason people think I am one here is because I constantly have to defend the revolution here from pocket Mccarthys like you. So, when a social-fascist like you brings this subject up, it is for one purpose only: anti-communism.


The truth or falsehood of a statement doesn't depend on who spoke it. Unless you're Bey, lol. LOL

Quote You may not be a Leninist, but all true anarchists, socialists, communists that I know (and I know many) ultimately know that Soviet Union was an achievement for the workers


Only kids who like to wave black flags without knowing their history. There are even many communists who vehemently disagree that Lenin was anything other than a reactionary brute. What about Kautsky? 

Or these guys?

http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

http://libcom.org/library/lenins-terror-bolshevik-party-maximov

The whole of Left Communism is, in fact, defined by its vehement opposition to Right (wing) Communism (aka Bolshevism):

http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm

I could point you to literally mountains of anarchist literature that criticizes Lenin and names him a dictator, so your statement is plainly false. This statement reveals to me that you don't really have a clue. You just wave a little red flag around and go with the most superficial understanding of Marxism and the communist and anarchist movements, probably gleaned from Soviet state publications written by bureaucrats in some propaganda office, seeking to use Marx's name to justify their dictatorship.

Although, in a sense, you might be correct: there are probably many Marxists who would say that despite being a brutal dictatorship, the Soviet empire overthrew feudalism and, when it fell, paved the way for the emergence of industrial capitalism in Russia. According to the theory of dialectic materialism, overthrowing feudalism and establishing industrial capitalism would be a step on the road to the socialist society.


Quote You, of course are a social-fascist, and that's what you do.


*Yawn* 

You're obviously not familiar with the historical context of the term "social fascist" nor what usage of it implies about your politics. Or maybe I'm wrong, and you embrace what is implied. 

The term "social fascist" was invented by the Stalinists. It was dreamed up at the Sixth Cominterm as a slur against both socialists and communists, who wanted a united front against the rise of reactionary fascism. One of its uses was to denounce Party members who spoke out against the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: these were named "social fascists", expelled from the Party, and usually disappeared into one of Lavrenty Beria's torture/death facilities. Stalinists would not concede to cooperate in any undertaking which they were not given total control of and would not agree to common fronts against fascism - groups like the CNT-FAI in Spain were frequent targets of the accusation.

In fact, you too are a social fascist if you are not a Stalinist. No group that wasn't Stalinist escaped the term. Not even communist groups - communist organizations across Europe, in Britain, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy etc were all, at one point or another in the 1930s, branded as social fascists by the Stalinists. 

As George Orwell put it, "anyone who advocated a united front of Socialists and Communists was denounced as a traitor, Trotskyist, mad dog, hyena and all the other items in the Stalinist vocabulary." Hmmm ... sounds vaguely familiar .... I'm looking at you, Bey ...

The term went out of use in 1941, when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. 

I don't even want to speculate where you picked up this term or why you are using it, but the implications are certainly most unpleasant ... I can only sincerely hope that you are truly ignorant of what your usage of the term suggests, and that you just picked it up somewhere and thought it sounded neat or something. But perhaps, the implications are correct and you identify with the worst facets of Stalinism. There are alot of people today attracted to the glamour of Nazism, perhaps you have simply found an alternative form of the same phenomena. I hope not. 

If you intend to continue using the term, should I think of you as a sophomoric pseudocommunist or a Stalinist troglodyte?


Quote Marx is not a prophet whose words are holy.


That is true. But the foundation of Marxism is the labour theory of value and communism was meant to abolish wage labour and introduce equal labour-value in place of wages and monetary prices, ie instead of dollars one would make purchases with hours as established by certificates. That's the whole point and foundation of Marxist communism, its what distinguishes Marx from the Owenites and other forms of revolutionary socialism.

Why call yourself something you're not? Marx had alot of credit with the workers and the  Bolsheviks needed that legitimacy to establish their dictatorship, so they usurped the name, just as the Czar wanted to portray himself as some sort of Caesar.


Quote Kautskyism supported World War I.


Don't make stuff up.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1914/09/war.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=WTPba7pYH68C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=kautsky+great+war&source=bl&ots=AYSWemum0K&sig=cRkeoGcNlp5V4BMpk0Zx0eX18po&hl=en&ei=-N6pSaejA8TMnQe4h9nrDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Read, and learn. Obviously you know nothing at all about the history of the left apart from some vague notions about Lenin the glorious leader etc. Kautsky was a pacficist who opposed the war at every turn, his entire life. He may have been a little impractical, something of an idealist when it came to his pacifism, and one might say that his understanding of war's role in capitalism was incorrect, but he never supported the war! In fact, he split from the SPD solely because of the party leadership's position on the war, and joined the USPD (which opposed the war). If you don't know something, just say so. Don't make stuff up.


Quote kautskyite social fascist


LOL

I am not a Kautskyist just because I mention his name and know what he stood for.

Quote Lenin ended the imperialist war


Against the Germans, and began a new one against Ukraine, because they were easier to pick on. The Mahknovists had no Ludendorff, just militias. 

Anyway ... how could it be an imperialist war without the Czar? If the state really was a people's state, then any defence of the territories that got ceded in Brest-Litovsk against the Germans and Austrians would be a defence of the revolution, same as the war against the Whites. 


Quote
Quote Leninist pseudocommunism was hated from the very moment it assumed power, and ultimately smashed by the people who suffered under it. It will never rise again. Deal with it.


Here you show once more your true face. End of history, eh? Keep on w**king Fukuyama Jr... 

 


You are amusing. How the hell is the end of Leninism the end of history - or even the end of Marxism? So many fallacies all tied up in knots I don't even know where to begin. The left, perhaps even Marxism, may yet survive the damage Lenin did, if it can manage to dissolve the false notion that Leninism was Marxist or anything other than a state capitalist dictatorship. Given that Lenin, in his own words, lays bare his plan to impose state capitalism and dictatorship - even of "subjecting the will of thousands to the will of one" - by mass terror, it is surprising that it has proven so difficult for some to tear that dead little barnacle of a horror-parasite off, and acknowledge Lenin for what he was - a fascist dictator and the ultimate traitor of a popular revolution, who in the end ordered that the lives of the revolutionaries in Kronstadt, who had brought him to power, be snuffed out.

Your messiah was a Blanquist fraud - Bolshevism is just that, Blanquism. It's that simple. There's nothing wrong with the ideals of communism particularly, but Leninism - and all of its progeny, Stalinism, Maoism, etc - is a fraudulent fascist ideology masquerading as Marxism. It's no coincidence that all the revolutions Leninism inspired ended the same way, in personal dictatorships built on brutal repression. Imo, this is not Marxism and does not discredit Marxism. I have no particular argument with sincere Marxism, anarchism etc, other than two basic points: I do not believe political parties or political programs, or any sort of politics, can achieve anything meaningful, and I dismiss dialectic materialism as a teleology. Nor am I an evolutionary type. My avatar (Sab Cat) ought to give you a clue as to my politics (or lack thereof!). If the reference is too obscure outside North America, I'd be glad to enlighten you (in a different thread).

If I was a fascist, I would not say Lenin was a pseudocommunist. I would say that Lenin was the real deal, and terror and dictatorship and state capitalism were what communism is really supposed to be about. No fascist - nor even most "latte-sipping liberals" - would admit Lenin was a pseudocommunist. Their criticisms of communist thought depend on equating it with Leninism. Their criticisms would, for the most part, collapse without Lenin. There are only tiny handful of those types who can make solid arguments against Marx without pointing at Lenin or some variant of Leninism (Maoism, Stalinism, etc).

You can't just dismiss all criticism of Lenin as "fascist" "capitalist" "imperialist" or all the other sophomoric "-ist" ad hominems you use as crutches to hop about on, like a drunken epileptic on stilts. If you choose to defend Lenin, you have taken a side and you have arrayed yourself in opposition to other traditions even within the communist movement. For instance, to defend Lenin, you oppose the person who said this:

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward, written by Lenin, an outstanding member of the Iskra group, is a methodical exposition of the ideas of the ultra-centralist tendency in the Russian movement. The viewpoint presented with incomparable vigor and logic in this book, is that of pitiless centralism. Laid down as principles are: 1. The necessity of selecting, and constituting as a separate corps, all the active revolutionists, as distinguished from the unorganized, though revolutionary, mass surrounding this elite . . . for Lenin, the difference between the Social Democracy and Blanquism is reduced to the observation that in place of a handful of conspirators we have a class-conscious proletariat. He forgets that this difference implies a complete revision of our ideas on organization and, therefore, an entirely different conception of centralism and the relations existing between the party and the struggle itself. Blanquism did not count on the direct action of the working class. It, therefore, did not need to organize the people for the revolution. The people were expected to play their part only at the moment of revolution. Preparation for the revolution concerned only the little group of revolutionists armed for the coup. Indeed, to assure the success of the revolutionary conspiracy, it was considered wiser to keep the mass at some distance from the conspirators."

Any idea who said that? Rosa Luxembourg. So what is Rosa in your sophomoric version of communism? Fascist? Imperialist? Nazi? Capitalist? Bourgeouis? Or just a dumb woman?

Before I start naming off the rest, would you like to let me know exactly how much of the left you will sacrifice to your Bolshevik god?



Edited by edgewaters - 01-Mar-2009 at 08:28
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2009 at 16:14
Edgewaters,

this is by far the longest and most professional anti-communist attack I have read in AE. I see you surpass even the neo-nazis, fascists, religious fanatics, east european nationalists, american imperialists, and various liberals in your anti-communist zeal. I nominate you for the AE McCarthy award for promoting the anti-communist cause.

I also see that you don't know anything about the situation of Russia at the time, and base your attack on fake or out-of-context quotes from books. As I have written before, this is quite the same thing Wilders does, take quotes from some text and ignore the reality on the ground. 

Quote No ... that's why they took only 22% of the popular vote while the Left SR took 58%. That's why a general strike was called demanding Lenin's resignation, one which the Bolsheviks took seriously - it had broad support among the proletariat, who credibly threatened to halt the trains.
No you are wrong. You don't know the difference between the Left SR and the SR, and misled me as well, before I went home and checked a few books.

SR had support from the peasants who were 80% of the population, so it is not a surprise that they got the majority vote. In contrast almost all Bolshevik vote came from the capital and large industrial cities. Of course there was some support among the proletariat for the Mensheviks and SR, but Bolsheviks were the leading party by far. Especially in the capitals, where it mattered.

Quote  Yes, he was part of a mass movement that was unaware of his true intentions, until he took power and his actual nature and aims were revealed.
If you read one book, just one book about the Russian revolution, from any author you like, even Robert "in her majesty's secret" Service, for instance, you will see that Lenin's policies and proposals were discussed and in many cases rejected by his party until his death. Given this situation, if you write that he was a dictator, you either don't know what a dictator is, or you have no idea of the events, or you know perfectly well that he was the leader of a party, but are lying for propaganda purposes. I think the last is true.

Quote The workers believed that he would implement Marxism and direct worker control and abolish wage labour, instead he outlawed all labour which was not wage labour, dissolved the worker-controlled Factory Committees, which were exploding in number
You are now arguing against yourself. SR and Mensheviks co-operated with the Bourgeois parties. Before you claimed that the workers voted for them. Now you claim that workers wanted to abolish capitalism altogether. In fact you are wrong. Workers in Soviets were Bolsheviks, and nobody expected anyone to abolish wage labour just like that. In fact the Bolsheviks were most radical in those aspects. 

Quote Lenin unabashedly implemented state capitalism, wage slavery, and even big banks.
Again you show that you don't know what Lenin writes about. Lenin used 'state capitalism' to mean a specific economic model where the 'commanding heights' of the economy (such as banks and important industries) were state owned, but private ownership of middle and smaller sized businesses was allowed. A mixed economic system. He thought private ownership would be reduced in time. 'Monopoly capitalism' is something else, which you use interchangibly with 'state capitalism'. That's your invention and not what Lenin means. 

Yes, he did not promote instant abolishment of 'wage slavery', but nobody who was in a position to do something about the situation in Russia did that either. But you ignore the context (Imperial Russia was hell for workers, paradise for capital, world war, civil war, etc) and write as if he promoted 'wage slavery', or large private banks... Why? To forward fascist propaganda.

Quote Socialism, of course, is just a word - what Lenin means is that he wants state capitalism, including central banking schemes, imposed in true Blanquist fashion so as to exploit the workers, unveil mass terror, attack the revolutionaries, skim surplus value from wages, exercise personal dictatorial powers, and so on, which he somehow twists into being called "socialism" (kind of like the Nazis did, but Lenin was a first rate lawyer, not a Viennese artist-hobo, and far more sophisticated at such semantical perversions).
Let's say you are right for a moment, and Lenin was 'Blanquist'. Since you love to quote Marx to attack communism, maybe you know what Marx thinks about Blanqui. I want to give you a quote from Marx on Blanqui, which explains your position: "the proletariat groups itself more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie itself has invented the name Blanqui.

As for calling Lenin 'fascist', that's something even the worst sectarian Left Communist or pseudo-anarchist would not do. You are, luckily, no such thing, but merely a social-fascist.  

Quote They believed in elections as long as they won. They first tried to gerrymander the elections so that they'd wrest the vote from the Left SR, but they still didn't have enough to do so ... so they dissolved the assembly. Denouncing the CA elections as "bourgeouis" was an afterthought - they had no problem with it before they lost to the Socialist Revolutionaries.
Left SR and SR are not the same thing! Left SR are a break away group from the SR party. The votes in the election were won by the SR, not the LSR. 

What was the difference between the SR and the LSR? SR and Mensheviks have co-operated with the bourgois parties before the election. SR became committed to counter-revolution. Kerensky was from the SR! Kerensky's government was in favour of the continuation of the war, beyond the defence of motherland. They also failed to address the peasant's demands on land reform. They also refused to organise the elections, Lenin did it in the end, not the SR. In any case Soviets became the relevant political bodies, not the CA. And after the CA was dispersed, the SR cooperated with all kinds Whites and fought for counter-revolution.

Left SR refers to ex-SR members who broke away from that party and sided with the Bolsheviks. Your lies about Lenin, e.g. he did not want to share power, was a dictator etc, are exposed also by the LSR, because they were part of Sovnarkom, the new government, together with the Bolsheviks. The government after October revolution was not a single party one. Lenin did not want to share power with the Mensheviks and SR, but he was willing to share power with real revolutionaries. 

LSR later split with the government after the Brest-Litovsk (because they did not like the fact that Lenin let go of half the population of the Empire, and you call him imperialist) agreement. LSR members in Cheka assassinated German Ambassador and organised anti-Bolshevik strikes. 

Quote Yes, there is. It was declared by the Left SR and joined by Left Communists, socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, the Makhnovists, and even, eventually, the Kronstadt communists who had originally brought the Bolsheviks to power before they realized what they stood for. It lasted until 1921 or thereabouts, with the slaughter of the Petrograd communists. It is separate from the war against White forces.
What you claim is bollocks. You wrote that the 'LSR party declared third revolution after the dispersing of the CA'. In fact, LSR was in government together with the Bolsheviks (and also the Left Communist faction). 

The SR's struggle in the Civil War was an integral part of the White war effort. Before he declared himself 'Supreme Leader', Kolchak was rolling back the revolution in the name of the SR 'government' in Volga. It is absurd to claim otherwise.

So, your lies are exposed. LSR was with the Bolsheviks at the dispersal of the government, and the SR were counter-revolutionary. There is no such thing as 'third revolution'.

Quote Stalin was not some aberration that perverted Leninism, he simply continued and expanded Leninst doctrine.
One can argue that Stalin accomplished what he did by exploiting the flaws in the Leninist system. I would agree to that. However, that's not what you are doing. What you are doing is arguing that Lenin was a dictator (a lie), ignoring the context (what other parties were doing, world war and the civil war), and engaging in teleology (that 'Leninism' always leads to 'Stalinism'). Why would you who argue against teleology in other threads stick to it here? Because it suits your propaganda.

Quote Communism was never supposed to be about glorious leaders  or imposing wage labour on people, let alone slaughtering workers and outlawing direct worker control of the point of production.
There was no leader cult while Lenin was alive. Lenin never erected his own statues or mentioned 'Leninism'. Lenin and the Bolsheviks are direct descendants of an old revolutionary tradition, that of the Jacobins. They were similarly successful in defending their revolution, and they are similarly hated by the right-wing like you. 'Glorious leaders', i.e. leader cult was a creation of Stalin, who was an abberation, there is no example of that in socialist tradition before him.  

Quote They had a party to celebrate the Paris Commune the following day, while the Kronstadt communists were being dismembered with axes in Bolshevik prisons - just to give you an idea of Bolshevik sincerity.
Oh a tear-jerking appeal to emotion. How fascist of you. Since you are not a communist what importance is internal communist conflict to you, anyway? If Bolsheviks had lost the civil war, not only the Kronstadt sailors, but half of the Russian proletariat would have been slaughtered by your White heroes, just like the poor Paris communards before them.

Quote The truth or falsehood of a statement doesn't depend on who spoke it. Unless you're Bey, lol. LOL
To the contrary, truth or falsehood of a synthetic statement is dependent on the context. And almost everything we write on history are synthetic statements, and therefore their truth is dependent on context. 

Also, if you could read what I have written revolutionary forums, you could find out that I sided with Anarchists or others against Leninists. Let alone Stalin. In fact I argued against Marxists, against Soviet Union, more than many fascists here did. However, I would never write propaganda against Lenin in a forum like this, like you do. And I believe most Anarchists and other communists would not either. They would never call Lenin a fascist. At worst I have seen some anarchists call Stalin red fascist. But Lenin a fascist, never! Only the sick mind of a liberal would come up with that kind of moronic crap. 

Quote The whole of Left Communism is, in fact, defined by its vehement opposition to Right (wing) Communism (aka Bolshevism):

http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm

I am familiar with Left Communists. Most radical leftists (including anarchists), however, believe that they are at best irrelevant to the struggle and at worst detrimental. Your actions have convinced me that they are indeed a tool of the ruling classes.

Quote I could point you to literally mountains of anarchist literature that criticizes Lenin and names him a dictator, so your statement is plainly false.

Bolshevik rule was class dictatorship, and Lenin never denied that, to the contrary. However Lenin himself was not a dictator, he simply did not have the power and control over his own party or the capital, let alone the rest of the country, even if he wanted to be one. Everyone who has read Russian history concedes that point, anarchist or otherwise.

Quote You're obviously not familiar with the historical context of the term "social fascist" nor what usage of it implies about your politics. Or maybe I'm wrong, and you embrace what is implied.

Let me explain. Either you are a leftist pedant completely insulated from the struggle in the real world, lost in your world of books, failing to recognise the harm you are doing, or you are not a leftist at all, but study leftist literature in order to attack us better. 

Whatever the reason, you are wolf in sheep's skin. You pretend to be a leftist, but exceed fascists in anti-left rhetoric. That's why I call you a social-fascist.   

Quote As George Orwell put it, "anyone who advocated a united front of Socialists and Communists was denounced as a traitor, Trotskyist, mad dog, hyena and all the other items in the Stalinist vocabulary." Hmmm ... sounds vaguely familiar .... I'm looking at you, Bey ...

Don't ever mention Orwell to me. You thought POUM was 'Soviet backed' until I taught you better.

Quote I don't even want to speculate where you picked up this term or why you are using it, but the implications are certainly most unpleasant ...
 

Sometimes in real life people make their own interpretations of terms, regardless of what is written in books. I think social fascist is a suitable term for an abomination like you. Like Lenin used to say (paraphrasing Goethe, I belive) 'Theory is gray but life is green'. Thinkk about it.

Quote Why call yourself something you're not? Marx had alot of credit with the workers and the Bolsheviks needed that legitimacy to establish their dictatorship, so they usurped the name, just as the Czar wanted to portray himself as some sort of Caesar.

Wow, great. Now that you proved beyond doubt that Bolsheviks were right wing, all you need to do is to invent a time machine and tell the White leaders not to worry because the Bolsheviks are right wing like them and they will stop fighting!

Quote Read, and learn. Obviously you know nothing at all about the history of the left apart from some vague notions about Lenin the glorious leader etc. Kautsky was a pacficist who opposed the war at every turn, his entire life. He may have been a little impractical, something of an idealist when it came to his pacifism, and one might say that his understanding of war's role in capitalism was incorrect, but he never supported the war! In fact, he split from the SPD solely because of the party leadership's position on the war, and joined the USPD (which opposed the war). If you don't know something, just say so. Don't make stuff up.

Did I write 'Kautsky supported the war'? I wrote 'Kautskyism', which is what Lenin called the SR ideology as you yourself wrote above. And SR supported the war while the Bolsheviks called for peace. Even the LSR rebelled because of Brest Litovsk.

Quote I am not a Kautskyist just because I mention his name and know what he stood for.

Did I write 'Kautskyist'? I wrote 'Kautskyite'. Don't worry, I know you are not a Communist, you just study the literature to attack us better.

Quote Against the Germans, and began a new one against Ukraine, because they were easier to pick on. The Mahknovists had no Ludendorff, just militias.

Lenin ended the imperialist war. Germans came and installed old order in Ukraine and elsewhere, which was regained later. I am sure you are sorry because Uraine did not remain in imperialist hands. Among the parties in Russia, Bolsheviks had the most advanced programme in granting the non-Russian peoples their rights. Do you have any idea what plans the SR had for Ukraine?

Quote Anyway ... how could it be an imperialist war without the Czar? If the state really was a people's state, then any defence of the territories that got ceded in Brest-Litovsk against the Germans and Austrians would be a defence of the revolution, same as the war against the Whites.

Let me tell you how it could be an imperialist war without the Tsar. If your imbecile foreign minister sends a telegraph to the Western imperialist governments saying that 'we agree to uphold the agreements made by the Tsar concerning post war partition of central states' (i.e. confirm that the war is not merely defensive, but fought for land), that is an imperialist war without the Tsar. That is exactly what the Interim Government did and it was found out (the FM was an imbecile because- the telegraph workers were radicals) after the Tsar abdicated. The Bourgois parties were fighting an imperialist war, and people knew it, that's why they flocked under Bolshevik banner.

Quote Your messiah was a Blanquist fraud - Bolshevism is just that, Blanquism. It's that simple.

Only simple thing here is your brain. 

Quote There's nothing wrong with the ideals of communism particularly, but Leninism - and all of its progeny, Stalinism, Maoism, etc - is a fraudulent fascist ideology masquerading as Marxism. It's no coincidence that all the revolutions Leninism inspired ended the same way, in personal dictatorships built on brutal repression.

More teleology, eh? You are the only fascist who masquerades as leftist around here.

Quote Imo, this is not Marxism and does not discredit Marxism. I have no particular argument with sincere Marxism, anarchism etc, other than two basic points: I do not believe political parties or political programs, or any sort of politics, can achieve anything meaningful, and I dismiss dialectic materialism as a teleology. Nor am I an evolutionary type. My avatar (Sab Cat) ought to give you a clue as to my politics (or lack thereof!). If the reference is too obscure outside North America, I'd be glad to enlighten you (in a different thread).

You reject teleology, oh please. Only when it suits your propaganda. And yes, you have politics. You are actively fighting against anti-imperialist left. You are a social-fascist. If you were sincere you would have clarified your ideological stand in the beginning, but you refuse to do it. Why? Because you are a two-faced liar.

Quote If I was a fascist, I would not say Lenin was a pseudocommunist. I would say that Lenin was the real deal, and terror and dictatorship and state capitalism were what communism is really supposed to be about.

Lenin was a communist. Everyone knows it. Only you call him 'pseudocommunist'. Given that you were lecturing people about 'real scotsman' fallacy in other threads, I will not assume that you don't recognise what you are doing. You are attacking 100 years of Socialist tradition, on the same side with nationalists, neo-nazis, fascists, racists, imperialists, neo-liberals, neo-cons etc etc all anti-communist extremists. The only difference between them and you is that you claim that you know better, because you read some communist texts... I say you don't know anything about struggle or history or anything else for that matter.  

Quote You can't just dismiss all criticism of Lenin as "fascist" "capitalist" "imperialist" or all the other sophomoric "-ist" ad hominems you use as crutches to hop about on, like a drunken epileptic on stilts.

I don't dismiss critisism of Lenin as 'fascist' or whatever. I critisise Lenin myself. What I dismiss as 'social-fascist' is you. And your idiotic 'Lenin was fascist, I know real Marxism' propaganda.  

Quote Any idea who said that? Rosa Luxembourg. So what is Rosa in your sophomoric version of communism? Fascist? Imperialist? Nazi? Capitalist? Bourgeouis? Or just a dumb woman?

Don't you mention RL, you fascist. Quote your own heroes like Churchill next time. be sincere for once. 



Edited by Beylerbeyi - 02-Mar-2009 at 17:17
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2009 at 19:11
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:

Edgewaters,

this is by far the longest and most professional anti-communist attack I have read in AE. I see you surpass even the neo-nazis, fascists, religious fanatics, east european nationalists, american imperialists, and various liberals in your anti-communist zeal.
Correction: Anti-Bolshevik.
Of course my criticism surpasses that of neo-nazis, fascists, imperialists, etc. Their critique of communism is hampered by the fact they have to avoid so many topics - they can't exactly support the Kronstadt uprising or the Mahknovists etc, they can't support direct worker control against state control, and their treatment of Lenin's terror must be cautious and delicate as they are liable to the same charges. 
All the best criticism of Bolshevism is internal to the left.
Quote In contrast almost all Bolshevik vote came from the capital and large industrial cities. Of course there was some support among the proletariat for the Mensheviks and SR, but Bolsheviks were the leading party by far. Especially in the capitals, where it mattered.
This is a fabrication. Proletariat opposition is indicated by the fact that Petrograd called a general strike against the Bolsheviks only 3 days after Lenin assumed dictatorship. The threat was taken seriously as it was widely supported, and threatened to bring the trains to a halt. In the years that followed they rose up, en masse, against the Bolshevik state and were defeated. Their last gasp was at Kronstadt, which put an end to the Third Russian Revolution and the numerous uprisings that had occurred since 1905. 

Quote Given this situation, if you write that he was a dictator, you either don't know what a dictator is, or you have no idea of the events
He did not deny being a personal dictator - he said so himself. 
Quote Workers in Soviets were Bolsheviks, and nobody expected anyone to abolish wage labour just like that.
Of course they did - it was already a done deal in the Factory Committees, which Lenin outlawed.
Lenin and the Bolshevik party had that single purpose, to gain and keep absolute power; all other things were means to that end, or were forced on them by the pursuit of it. This is true of collectivism and nationalisation. I shall quote a great deal from Mr. M. H. Dobb, M.A., because of his long service to the Communist Party, his position as lecturer in economics at Cambridge University and the respect given him by the CP. Dobb wrote two books which will help us -Russian Economic Development Since the Revolution, in the early twenties, and, in 1948. Soviet Economic Development Since 1917. The latter, a most interesting book, is published by Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd . . .
. . . In the take-over of industry the Soviets played little part, most of the action being taken by the factory workers on the spot, sometimes backed by delegate meetings of factory Workers of the district.

It is well to recall what was a soviet. In the revolution of 1905 and again in 1917, the workers and peasants; quickly formed makeshift councils. In the towns they, were formed first of all by delegates from factories and other places of work, later were added delegates from the professions and even from groups of shopkeepers. Political parties then were allowed to affiliate. These councils were called Soviets. But by the last-mentioned type of affiliation the way was open to any unscrupulous politician to invent groups and gain more votes, also political theory tended to hog the discussion. But in the case of the factory mass meeting and committee this hardly arose, so that the workshop became the centre of revolutionary action and construction in the towns . . . 
DOBB quotes an oft-repeated story by Lenin (taken from M. Farbman, After Lenin): " When workers' delegations came to me with complaints against the factory owners," Lenin once said, " I always said to them: ' You want your factory nationalised. Well and good. We have the decree ready and can sign it in a moment. But tell me, can you take the organisation into your own hands? Do you know how and what you produce ? And do you know the relations between your product and the Russian and international market.? ' And inevitably it transpired that they knew nothing."

There is no scrap of evidence to support Lenin's fable, but there is abundant evidence, including that of Dobb, to the contrary: " Many factory committees went beyond the legal powers awarded to them in the Decree on Workers' Control, and eventually took the administration of factories into their own hands. This was a continuation of the spontaneous movement of direct action on the part of peasants and factory workers, which had gathered momentum under the Provisional Government." (ibid, p.88). "In the spring of 1918 a syndicalist tendency had become widespread among factory committees; the notion that factories should be run directly by the workers in them, and for the benefit of those workers." (ibid, p.89).

" Against this illegal nationalisation on the initiative of factory committees and local Soviets" the Bolshevik Government took action (p.90), but the movement went on as though the workers of Russia had never heard Lenin's fable, the " know nothing " workers seemed very confident.


Quote Lenin used 'state capitalism' to mean a specific economic model where the 'commanding heights' of the economy (such as banks and important industries) were state owned, but private ownership of middle and smaller sized businesses was allowed.
Way to go, Captain Obvious!
Quote Yes, he did not promote instant abolishment of 'wage slavery', but nobody who was in a position to do something about the situation in Russia did that either.
Incorrect. The workers were in a position to do just that, and they did. Until Lenin stopped them.
Quote But you ignore the context (Imperial Russia was hell for workers, paradise for capital, world war, civil war, etc) and write as if he promoted 'wage slavery'
You ignore the context. I know about the war etc. But the context here is that direct worker control and rule of the proletariat - not the party - was coming into de facto existance, until Lenin used his executive power and the force of the state to snuff it out.
He didn't just promote wage slavery, he mandated it at gunpoint.

Quote Let's say you are right for a moment, and Lenin was 'Blanquist'. Since you love to quote Marx to attack communism, maybe you know what Marx thinks about Blanqui. I want to give you a quote from Marx on Blanqui, which explains your position: "the proletariat groups itself more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie itself has invented the name Blanqui."
Out of context. Marx is just saying that communists are labelled as Blanquists, an idea he categorically rejects in Refugee Literature:
Since Blanqui regards every revolution as a coup de main by a small revolutionary minority, it automatically follows that victory must inevitably be by succeeded by the establishment of a dictatorship - not, it should be well noted, of the entire revolutionary class, of the proletariat, but of the small number of those who accomplished the coup and who themselves are, at first, organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.
This is in fact the origin of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" - it was meant to distinguish Marx's idea about the rule of an entire class from Blanquist ideals of a vanguard elite (such as the Bolsheviks).

Quote Left SR refers to ex-SR members who broke away from that party and sided with the Bolsheviks. Your lies about Lenin, e.g. he did not want to share power, was a dictator etc, are exposed also by the LSR, because they were part of Sovnarkom, the new government, together with the Bolsheviks.
Very temporarily. The Left SR split from the SR for just 5 months, and were out of the Sovnarkom by March.
Quote Lenin did not want to share power with the Mensheviks and SR, but he was willing to share power with real revolutionaries.
Bull.

Quote What you claim is bollocks. You wrote that the 'LSR party declared third revolution after the dispersing of the CA'. In fact, LSR was in government together with the Bolsheviks (and also the Left Communist faction).
For a few months!

Quote What you are doing is arguing that Lenin was a dictator (a lie), ignoring the context (what other parties were doing, world war and the civil war), and engaging in teleology (that 'Leninism' always leads to 'Stalinism'). Why would you who argue against teleology in other threads stick to it here?
 A teleology is a goal-driven system. That's all. I argue against evolution, history, etc as being teleological processes because they are not the product of some plan or goal but an interplay of different elements. All human-created systems are teleological, because they have a purpose or goal. Feudalism is teleological, a self-determination movement is teleological, imperialism is teleological, and of course, Bolshevism is teleological. We may differ on what the goal is, but it would be stupid of you to argue that Bolshevism has no goal.

Quote There was no leader cult while Lenin was alive. Lenin never erected his own statues or mentioned 'Leninism'.
Don't be absurd. Just because he didn't erect statues or use the term "Leninism" means there is no leader cult? What a joke.
Quote Lenin and the Bolsheviks are direct descendants of an old revolutionary tradition, that of the Jacobins.
Oh yes. The Jacobins. Bourgeouis revolutionaries who overthrew the feudal estates by duping the workers into fighting for them, and then dispensed with them through a policy of terror. Following which a little dictator emerged and tried to conquer Europe. Yes ... they are very similar.
Quote 'Glorious leaders', i.e. leader cult was a creation of Stalin, who was an abberation, there is no example of that in socialist tradition before him.
Stalin was a good Leninist. 

Quote Since you are not a communist what importance is internal communist conflict to you, anyway?
You have no idea what I am! You could ask, but apparently you have made up your own mind and have utter faith in your telepathic powers.

Quote And I believe most Anarchists and other communists would not either. They would never call Lenin a fascist.
You are just displaying how unfamiliar you are with the literature. Google "Red Fascism", a popular term in anarchist thought to describe Bolshevism and particularly Lenin. An example:
Quote Bolshevik rule was class dictatorship, and Lenin never denied that, to the contrary.
Yes, he did. I have provided direct quotations of Lenin admitting that his rule was personal dictatorship, "the will of thousands subordinated to the will of one". Lenin argues frequently against class rule because he does not understand the concept. He only understands Blanquist rule. At best, he comes off as a Blanquist like Bakunin with his "Invisible Dictatorship" and at worst he comes off as ... Red Fascist.

Quote Let me explain. Either you are a leftist pedant completely insulated from the struggle in the real world, lost in your world of books

Says the guy defending Bolshevism! LOL

Quote Don't ever mention Orwell to me ... Don't you mention RL

“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” - Orwell

Orwell, Rosa Luxembourg, Orwell, Rosa Luxembourg, Orwell, Rosa Luxembourg!!!

Tongue

I'll mention what I please.

In fact, just for kicks, I'll throw up some of Orwell's most damning criticism of Bolshevism and Leninist/Stalinist state terror right now:

"The truth is that to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we,' the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them,' the Lower Orders."

"The worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

"I have no particular love for the idealized 'worker' as he appears in the bourgeois Communist's mind. When I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

Quote Sometimes in real life people make their own interpretations of terms, regardless of what is written in books.

So your understanding is sophomoric, you picked it up in some pamphlet somewhere and made up your own definition without comprehending the context. OK. That is a little reassuring.

However, to be useful, words must be used according to the accepted definition of the terms. If you make up your own definitions then your are defeating (or perhaps subverting) the purpose of language, which is to enable understanding.

"Social fascist" is a term that was used in the 30s by Stalinists to abuse leftists who called for a united front against fascism. From now on, I'll proudly wear the label. Better a social fascist - that is, a socialist who supports a united front against fascism - than a Red Fascist, that is, a Bolshevik Blanquist.

Quote Wow, great. Now that you proved beyond doubt that Bolsheviks were right wing, all you need to do is to invent a time machine and tell the White leaders not to worry because the Bolsheviks are right wing like them and they will stop fighting!

Your flaw here is your strange conception of the world as black and white. You see everything in terms of two "sides", and strive to rationalize/justify anything and everything  you perceive to be aligned with the "side" you favour, whatever its characteristics. I am familiar with that mode - I confess, it was something I practiced myself when I was younger. Now I believe that everything must be critically examined without reference to "side".

Are you going to support stuff like this, too, just because it happens to wave a red flag about:

http://songun-blog.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html

http://juchegirl.blogspot.com/

I mean, they're on your "side", so you have to, right? There they are, waving the red flag. That must automatically mean they are good and you must defend them from criticism (if it comes from capitalists etc)!

I see things differently. I don't care who the criticism comes from. They are not on my "side" and I will agree with any criticism that makes sense. If they are bad for working people then they are not on my "side". It's that easy.

Right wing forces can (and often do) clash with one another. One thing that I will give the Bolsheviks credit for, is that they were not true reactionaries. They didn't want to re-establish the aristocracy or feudal relations, they did move the country forward to state capitalism (and eventually, the state became full capitalist). They were bringing things out of feudalism and towards capitalism. If you read between the lines, Lenin often hinted at exactly that, and perhaps he realized that worker control was yet centuries away from being attainable, so he sought simply to move beyond feudalism and prevent reactionary forces from regaining control - not unlike the Jacobins. Far better the Bolshevik victory than a White victory.

But I cannot subscribe to the notion that Bolshevism is appropriate or a step forward for advanced capitalist nations. It is crude, brutal, and primitive by comparison. It would be a step backward for working people. Capitalism is better than feudalism or dictatorships in transition from feudalism. Moving forward is the idea, not backward.

Quote Even the LSR rebelled because of Brest Litovsk.

Of course, Lenin signed away millions of workers and peasants to imperialist rule under the Germans. 

Quote Did I write 'Kautskyist'? I wrote 'Kautskyite'.

Yeah, you're not playing with semantics at all. Wacko

Quote I am sure you are sorry because Uraine did not remain in imperialist hands.

Nestor Makhno, imperialist ... well that's a new one.

Quote The Bourgois parties were fighting an imperialist war, and people knew it, that's why they flocked under Bolshevik banner.

This I do not dispute. The Bolsheviks gained alot of support prior to the October Revolution because they opposed a continuation of offensive war, but they lost most of that support when they signed Brest-Litovsk. The people didn't want to attack but they were willing to defend.

Quote Only simple thing here is your brain.

Is that all you've got?

Quote You are actively fighting against anti-imperialist left. You are a social-fascist.

You're actively fighting for imperialist Bolshevism. You are a Red Fascist.

We could go on like that all day, but what's the point?

Quote You are attacking 100 years of Socialist tradition, on the same side with nationalists, neo-nazis, fascists, racists, imperialists, neo-liberals, neo-cons etc etc all anti-communist extremists.

All of these groups name Lenin a true communist and eagerly agree that everything he did, including the terror, was based on Marxist ideology. Why? Because it's difficult to discredit Marx and a cheap way of doing it is by association, by pointing at the Bolsheviks. I can understand why they do it - but why do you?

I am not engaging in a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I would be if I claimed that no communist ever did the things Lenin did. I do not. Because they identified themselves as such, pseudocommunism can only be named as a form of communism, however lacking in sincerity it might be.

Quote Quote your own heroes like Churchill next time. be sincere for once. 

Ok, I will just change my views on Churchill to suit you. Now he will be my hero so your black-and-white worldview can make sense! 

I will never again mention his anti-semitism or his Hitler-love. I will keep my mouth shut about Hugh Pollard in Spain, and I promise to refrain from referring to Churchill's supporters as a "cult".

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=10061&KW=churchill&PID=191050#191050

http://www.historum.com/showpost.php?p=32699&postcount=20



Edited by edgewaters - 02-Mar-2009 at 20:17
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.