NGNM85 said:
Not according to the leading Marxists; Pannekoek, Korsch, Luxemburg, even Trotsky, before he changed his position. There's this myth that it was all about the circumstances, that there was no other way, etc. This is just nonsense. Lenin was against workers' democracy from the very beginning. He revereses himself for State & Revolution, but that's just pandering, then, he goes right back to his default position.
I really love most of your posts but this is just trash. Lenin never held a single, unwavering position about party structure. Further, regarding proletarian dictatorship, he always upheld workers' democracy
in general. And you're right, the situation in Russia, according to Lenin and every other major Bolshevik, required the party to step in and intervene as the situation was dire. You could argue that that wasn't the case, but I don't think you have a leg on which to stand when you claim that this was all some elaborate ruse by Lenin. That's an absolutely silly, conspiracist position disproven by many debates he had that we still have access to. Why don't you just accuse him of being a German agent now?
Look to the trade union debate, for example, when he fought against Trotsky's position on the militarization of labour; or his changing position on party structure whereby he upheld the idea at one point that the Bolsheviks should be a mass party and that anyone that considered themselves Bolshevik would be a member; or when he argued for power to the Soviets, etc...
Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the purity of his Marxism is irrelevent, as I am not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.
Well that explains your delusions.
ElijahGalt said:
Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.
NEP was a temporary policy...
megaprogman said:
If we were going to go with Marx's view, then it would happen naturally and Lenin/Stalin forcing the matter was the wrong thing to do.
First off, Marx was very obviously a revolutionary, not an evolutionary, socialist:
Marx said:
— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
Principles of Communism
Second, the Russian people made the revolution happen, not Lenin, not Stalin. Not even the RSDLP or any other political party. Which is another issue that the conservatives (and yourself, apparently) fundamentally miss.
German Guy said:
I believe Stalinist or Maoist brands of "socialism" deserve the same condemnation as Nazism. Leninists probably too.
What are the "Stalinist/Maoist" brands? What makes them different from the "Brezhnevite," "Khrushchevite," "Titoite," "Hoxhaite," "Il Sungite," and all other "brands" of "socialism"?