in defense of lenin

[shakur420]

Yeah, I read exactly what you wrote. Sources like Luxemburg, Bertrand Russell Emma Goldman, who are speaking about their experiences in the Union, is "quote mining" but the whatever source you deem acceptable, is good "history".

We know that Lenin didn't believe in workers control, in Socialism, that's easy to find. He believed in worker submission. Well, the narrative you present, that the Bolsheviks - who you also say were the leninists - came in and faced some democratic opposition. The Bolsheviks then began to overtake this democratic resistance. I don't see how anything I've ever said is much different from that. I don't see how the above narratives disagree with that. Maybe if you could be bothered to check the material before speaking on it, you might have a better handle on what's being said. That video didn't present sources. This does, I would think you would be happy to counter real sources.

[shakur420]

Yeah, I guess Bertrand Russell is no biggie. I guess "Homage to Catalonia" is also not a good source of history because Orwell was a journalist, a commentator and writer. Never mind the dates, names, sources he drops in there. We can dismiss it as irrelevant. Because it's the guy's diploma on the wall that measures his credibility. Like Chomsky, he doesn't have any policy-sci diplomas (probably does, he's got a lot of those "honorary" degrees, but we know those are about as useless as real degrees in non-scientific fields anyways), what does he know about anything, right? Who knows if the guy can even read, maybe Russian history is too complicated for his simple mind. He should stick to linguistics, because that's where he's got intellectually-approved credentials. Never mind the government documents, the mainstream press, political figures and economists he cites. He doesn't know what's going on, ignore the human rights and internationally recognized reports and grassroots movements around the world he references. All irrelevant, he should stick to linguistics. Just like Russell. No credibility, no need to address what the guy actually said. Just call him a philosopher and that discredits him. Never mind the other references that support what he said. Irrelevant. lol

I'll humor you though. If you did bother to read the shit, you would've notice that Chomsky referred to Russell's view as commentary from the independent left, not as a historical source. lol. Still, the footnotes point to sources that give chronologies and timelines, etc.

And what about the other sources? The people I don't know? What about them? Are they irrelevant too, just because you say so? Does your account, the one you just dropped, the one you talk about that comes from this guy Rabinowitch, do these accounts differ from the ones that Chomsky sites? I'm quoting Wikipedia here but I really don't see how this is any different than the narrative above. If it's wrong, you should log in and correct it. Though it's implied with the quotations that these are actual quotes from his work. The wrong "Rabinowitch", maybe?

Quote:Rabinowitch released, The Bolsheviks in Power:The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd which attempts to explain how the Bolshevik party "was quickly transformed into one of the most highly centralized, authoritarian, political organizations in modern history", how the independence of the soviets was destroyed so quickly and the "extreme rapidity" with which the grass-roots democratic ideals that animated the revolution were subverted.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rabinowitch

(12-06-2011 02:30 AM)bailey_187 Wrote:  Luxemburg - cool, it good to see the debates surrounding the Revolution at the time. These guys are generally seen as one of the intellectual descendants of her, here's their views on the revolution http://en.internationalism.org/series/408

Tried to check the piece "The Russian Revolution (part 2): The Soviets take power", it doesn't load. Gives me this message "Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /home/gmpmprdg/public_html/en/modules/search/search.module on line 1221". I did check out "80 years since the Russian Revolution: The July Days and the vital role of the Party" though. All of the references are from Lenin or Trotsky. One is from Engels. I thought referencing Lenin was a no-no for you? lol, anyways, it just barely deals with stuff up till October 1917. Doesn't go pass that. Doesn't fail to champion the Vanguard Party though, that "The Bolsheviks' ability to lead the proletariat" was what we can all take from this historical lesson. The Party is master, unquestioned loyalty is freedom and salvation because clearly, "neither the soldiers nor the workers possessed the experience" to do shit themselves. Workers control is not a possibility. Spoken like true socialists, how could I miss it?

Anyways, I don't really understand what this is supposed to show. The libertarian, free market people, what you call "modern Capitalists", are supposed to have descended from people like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Doesn't mean that people Peter Schiff actually represent Smith, does it? I can't see any correlation after having read just the important parts in "Wealth of Nations", you know, where he talks about free exchange, division of labor, the invisible hand, protectionism and liberty, shit like that. His ideas are pretty opposed to the ideas presented by people who have canonized him, the people you claim are correct when they call our system "Capitalism". They couldn't be further from Smith's ideas, yet he's their prophet. There's quotes from Luxemburg describing that the Bolshevik goals and ideas were to kill or curb workers control. She points out that this is the opposite of Socialism. I don't know why it matters that some people who claim to be "descendent" from her ideas go around championing the importance of "The Party". Her words are pretty easy to understand.

[1871]

Out of power they were fond of secret meetings - for example in planning their Bank heists - in power they were also fond of secret meetings to fund their robberies and co-ordinate Party activities. Then they had to liquidate those who had helped them to power.

The NKVD was as bad as the clap. Same Russia different hat. Its still the same ie: how Putin gets his old KGB cronies into positions of power. The tyranny was well in place before the arrival of Stalin. What do you call that? 'A bad error of judgement'? Lol. Too fucking right.

[shakur420]

^You have anything you can point me to man? Anything online I can read, a narrative of 1917 on that doesn't automatically praise everything the Bolsheviks and Lenin did?

[Asshole]

i don't have time for this, but i'll get some articles in to address your concerns. can somebody make a list of questions about lenin i can address?

[shakur420]

Why is he considered to be a socialist when he specifically called for workers to submit completely to his party's orders?

Why is he considered a socialist when he disbanded workers control and attacked democratic elements within the revolution?

Why am I supposed to trust anyone that adopts his name as a label for themselves? If they call themselves a "marxist-leninist", we can assume that they're aware of his anti-worker, anti-democratic, anti-socialist beliefs and actions. How can I accept that people who follow his lead believe in socialism and not simply another form of party management from above, just slightly different than what we have today?

[Asshole]

fuck the marxist leninists, thats a stalin-basstardized term. from a trotskyist perspective, i'll get some answers to you in a sec

marxist.com is a great place to start as well.

[shakur420]

^lol, where you think I read all of Lenin and Marx's stuff from? It's got everything. Wicked library.

[Asshole]

marxist.com not .org? hey! thats the imt's website

1 more reason you should go.

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

I have a question about Lenin, why did he spawn such a fuckwad movement and not see Stalin for the dangerous sociopath he was. (I'm only being half sarcastic :3)

[Boboulas]

Come on laz, 21 posts but no defence of lenin!

[Asshole]

see first two posts