Discussion:
The Fall of Bolshevism (Leninism)
(too old to reply)
balmer_dave
2007-01-20 13:31:59 UTC
Permalink
"Thus, quite recently, the "All Russian Extraordinary Commission for
Opposing the Counter-Revolution" made the following proclamation:-"

{A series of revolts, which have broken out recently, proves that
the laurels acquired by Krassnoff, as well as the Socialist
revolutionaries of the Left Wing and the Mensheviks of the Left
Wing, have not caused them to cease their activity. It is their
exclusive aim to undermine our army (Briansk, Samara, and Smolensk),
to destroy our industry (Petrograd and Tula), as well as our means
of transport and food supply through railway strikes.

The `All Russian Extraordinary Commission' declares herewith that it
will make no difference whatever between the White Guards among
Krassnoff's troops and the White Guards belonging to the party of
the Mensheviks and of the social revolutionaries of the Left Wing.

The chastising hand of the Extraordinary Commission will work with
equal severity in the one case as well as in the other. The Left
Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks who have been arrested
by us will be held as hostages, and their fate will depend entirely
upon the attitude of both parties.}

– President of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, F.
Jershinski, taken from the Izvestia of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, Number 59, March 1st, 1919.

"Hence, because in the army there are signs of dissolution visible,
and because discontent is growing among the industrial workers and
the railway employees, the leading elements of the non-Bolshevik
Socialists are to be arrested, so that they may be summarily shot at
the sign of any further proletarian opposition.

The quelling of a discontented proletariat – that is the sublime
object with which it is attempted to sanctify the fatuous means of
wholesale executions in Russia. It cannot possibly turn economic
failure into a success.

It can only lead to the possibility that the FALL OF BOLSHEVISM will
not be accepted by the masses of Russia in the same way as the fall
of the Second Paris Commune was received by the whole of the
Socialist proletariat at that time; but rather as the fall of
Robespierre of the 9th Thermidor 1794 was received by the whole of
France, namely, AS SALVATION FROM SOME HEAVY LOAD, and by no means
as a defeat felt with intense pain and sorrow."

From;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1919/terrcomm/ch08b.htm#s5






Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
keithgpowell
2007-01-20 14:02:56 UTC
Permalink
What is your point about this submission?

I point out that the objective of this group is

"Description
Humanity is finally outgrowing capitalism, and it's time for a major
upgrade. The future is one of post-scarcity common ownership, free
access and democratic control, and it's on the horizon now. Join
this Forum to find out about the World Socialist Movement and the
biggest change in society since the discovery of electricity."

How does your submission fit this?

Keith G. Powell
Post by balmer_dave
"Thus, quite recently, the "All Russian Extraordinary Commission for
Opposing the Counter-Revolution" made the following proclamation:-"
{A series of revolts, which have broken out recently, proves that
the laurels acquired by Krassnoff, as well as the Socialist
revolutionaries of the Left Wing and the Mensheviks of the Left
Wing, have not caused them to cease their activity. It is their
exclusive aim to undermine our army (Briansk, Samara, and
Smolensk),
Post by balmer_dave
to destroy our industry (Petrograd and Tula), as well as our means
of transport and food supply through railway strikes.
The `All Russian Extraordinary Commission' declares herewith that it
will make no difference whatever between the White Guards among
Krassnoff's troops and the White Guards belonging to the party of
the Mensheviks and of the social revolutionaries of the Left Wing.
The chastising hand of the Extraordinary Commission will work with
equal severity in the one case as well as in the other. The Left
Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks who have been
arrested
Post by balmer_dave
by us will be held as hostages, and their fate will depend
entirely
Post by balmer_dave
upon the attitude of both parties.}
– President of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, F.
Jershinski, taken from the Izvestia of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, Number 59, March 1st, 1919.
"Hence, because in the army there are signs of dissolution
visible,
Post by balmer_dave
and because discontent is growing among the industrial workers and
the railway employees, the leading elements of the non-Bolshevik
Socialists are to be arrested, so that they may be summarily shot at
the sign of any further proletarian opposition.
The quelling of a discontented proletariat – that is the sublime
object with which it is attempted to sanctify the fatuous means of
wholesale executions in Russia. It cannot possibly turn economic
failure into a success.
It can only lead to the possibility that the FALL OF BOLSHEVISM will
not be accepted by the masses of Russia in the same way as the
fall
Post by balmer_dave
of the Second Paris Commune was received by the whole of the
Socialist proletariat at that time; but rather as the fall of
Robespierre of the 9th Thermidor 1794 was received by the whole of
France, namely, AS SALVATION FROM SOME HEAVY LOAD, and by no means
as a defeat felt with intense pain and sorrow."
From;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1919/terrcomm/ch08b.htm#s5
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-20 17:02:56 UTC
Permalink
trying to bait leninists on to the forum.

What is the point of yours?
Post by keithgpowell
What is your point about this submission?
I point out that the objective of this group is
"Description
Humanity is finally outgrowing capitalism, and it's time for a
major
Post by keithgpowell
upgrade. The future is one of post-scarcity common ownership, free
access and democratic control, and it's on the horizon now. Join
this Forum to find out about the World Socialist Movement and the
biggest change in society since the discovery of electricity."
How does your submission fit this?
Keith G. Powell
Post by balmer_dave
"Thus, quite recently, the "All Russian Extraordinary Commission
for
Post by balmer_dave
Opposing the Counter-Revolution" made the following
proclamation:-"
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
{A series of revolts, which have broken out recently, proves
that
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
the laurels acquired by Krassnoff, as well as the Socialist
revolutionaries of the Left Wing and the Mensheviks of the Left
Wing, have not caused them to cease their activity. It is their
exclusive aim to undermine our army (Briansk, Samara, and
Smolensk),
Post by balmer_dave
to destroy our industry (Petrograd and Tula), as well as our
means
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
of transport and food supply through railway strikes.
The `All Russian Extraordinary Commission' declares herewith
that
Post by keithgpowell
it
Post by balmer_dave
will make no difference whatever between the White Guards among
Krassnoff's troops and the White Guards belonging to the party of
the Mensheviks and of the social revolutionaries of the Left
Wing.
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
The chastising hand of the Extraordinary Commission will work with
equal severity in the one case as well as in the other. The Left
Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks who have been
arrested
Post by balmer_dave
by us will be held as hostages, and their fate will depend
entirely
Post by balmer_dave
upon the attitude of both parties.}
– President of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, F.
Jershinski, taken from the Izvestia of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, Number 59, March 1st, 1919.
"Hence, because in the army there are signs of dissolution
visible,
Post by balmer_dave
and because discontent is growing among the industrial workers and
the railway employees, the leading elements of the non-Bolshevik
Socialists are to be arrested, so that they may be summarily
shot
Post by keithgpowell
at
Post by balmer_dave
the sign of any further proletarian opposition.
The quelling of a discontented proletariat – that is the sublime
object with which it is attempted to sanctify the fatuous means of
wholesale executions in Russia. It cannot possibly turn economic
failure into a success.
It can only lead to the possibility that the FALL OF BOLSHEVISM
will
Post by balmer_dave
not be accepted by the masses of Russia in the same way as the
fall
Post by balmer_dave
of the Second Paris Commune was received by the whole of the
Socialist proletariat at that time; but rather as the fall of
Robespierre of the 9th Thermidor 1794 was received by the whole of
France, namely, AS SALVATION FROM SOME HEAVY LOAD, and by no
means
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
as a defeat felt with intense pain and sorrow."
From;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1919/terrcomm/ch08b.htm#s5
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-20 17:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Leninism is still a danger trend for the working class movement
Post by balmer_dave
trying to bait leninists on to the forum.
What is the point of yours?
Post by keithgpowell
What is your point about this submission?
I point out that the objective of this group is
"Description
Humanity is finally outgrowing capitalism, and it's time for a
major
Post by keithgpowell
upgrade. The future is one of post-scarcity common ownership, free
access and democratic control, and it's on the horizon now. Join
this Forum to find out about the World Socialist Movement and the
biggest change in society since the discovery of electricity."
How does your submission fit this?
Keith G. Powell
Post by balmer_dave
"Thus, quite recently, the "All Russian Extraordinary Commission
for
Post by balmer_dave
Opposing the Counter-Revolution" made the following
proclamation:-"
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
{A series of revolts, which have broken out recently, proves
that
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
the laurels acquired by Krassnoff, as well as the Socialist
revolutionaries of the Left Wing and the Mensheviks of the Left
Wing, have not caused them to cease their activity. It is their
exclusive aim to undermine our army (Briansk, Samara, and
Smolensk),
Post by balmer_dave
to destroy our industry (Petrograd and Tula), as well as our
means
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
of transport and food supply through railway strikes.
The `All Russian Extraordinary Commission' declares herewith
that
Post by keithgpowell
it
Post by balmer_dave
will make no difference whatever between the White Guards among
Krassnoff's troops and the White Guards belonging to the party
of
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
the Mensheviks and of the social revolutionaries of the Left
Wing.
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
The chastising hand of the Extraordinary Commission will work
with
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
equal severity in the one case as well as in the other. The Left
Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks who have been
arrested
Post by balmer_dave
by us will be held as hostages, and their fate will depend
entirely
Post by balmer_dave
upon the attitude of both parties.}
– President of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, F.
Jershinski, taken from the Izvestia of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, Number 59, March 1st, 1919.
"Hence, because in the army there are signs of dissolution
visible,
Post by balmer_dave
and because discontent is growing among the industrial workers
and
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
the railway employees, the leading elements of the non-Bolshevik
Socialists are to be arrested, so that they may be summarily
shot
Post by keithgpowell
at
Post by balmer_dave
the sign of any further proletarian opposition.
The quelling of a discontented proletariat – that is the sublime
object with which it is attempted to sanctify the fatuous means
of
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
wholesale executions in Russia. It cannot possibly turn economic
failure into a success.
It can only lead to the possibility that the FALL OF BOLSHEVISM
will
Post by balmer_dave
not be accepted by the masses of Russia in the same way as the
fall
Post by balmer_dave
of the Second Paris Commune was received by the whole of the
Socialist proletariat at that time; but rather as the fall of
Robespierre of the 9th Thermidor 1794 was received by the whole
of
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
France, namely, AS SALVATION FROM SOME HEAVY LOAD, and by no
means
Post by keithgpowell
Post by balmer_dave
as a defeat felt with intense pain and sorrow."
From;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1919/terrcomm/ch08b.htm#s5
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
matt
2007-01-21 07:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Keith,
I found this and previous posts by Dave on this subject very helpfull to
use in other discources.
I have copied them complete and used to this end.There is still
unfortunately, as Marcos indicated, a lot of Leninist spinning going on.
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
wsm_mod
2007-01-21 11:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt
Keith,
I found this and previous posts by Dave on this subject very
helpfull > to use in other discources.

So have I, Matt. But for the uninitiated it must be rather baffling,
since the reason for the post is not made clear (other than the
subject line). Quotes should be put in context and their relevance to
this Forum made explicit.

--
Lew




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
matt
2007-01-22 09:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by wsm_mod
Post by matt
Keith,
I found this and previous posts by Dave on this subject very
helpfull > to use in other discources.
So have I, Matt. But for the uninitiated it must be rather baffling,
since the reason for the post is not made clear (other than the
subject line). Quotes should be put in context and their relevance to
this Forum made explicit.
Lew
Hi Lew,
Thanks for your response.I take the point.I didn't agree about Daves
comment of "Riling the Left".
I think this is "flaming".I have a high regard for many on the Left .I
have no doubt as to their sincerity,and have found myself working with
them in unions and in community work just as fellow workers in
struggle,while remaing "hostile" to their political Parties and
prescriptions for change.I hope Dave takes your advice about context and
so on and doesn't feel discouraged though from continuing to post. He is
still finding his feet and is new to the internet.I know I made and
continue to make bloomers,such as responding too quickly.
Cheers,
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-22 22:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Discouraged? Absolutely.

But perhaps more seriously, disillusioned.

However there is no shame or embarrassment, for me anyway, in my
being censored and gagged for `flaming' dead Russian, anti working
class war criminals. Like Trotsky and Lenin, it has happened before.

I would never have expected members of the WSM to so readily leap to
their defence.

To bait is to entice and tempt.

To bait and tempt Leninists to defend the reprehensible record of
their idols.

To include in your post "Riling the Left" in quotation marks
implying I used this term is deceit.

And you talk of the sincerity of the left?

And as to Dave `still finding his feet and is new to the internet'.

I admire your courage in daring to patronise me.

And;

`I hope Dave takes your advice about context'

Hope in vain, moderate me off if you will.
Post by matt
Post by wsm_mod
Post by matt
Keith,
I found this and previous posts by Dave on this subject very
helpfull > to use in other discources.
So have I, Matt. But for the uninitiated it must be rather
baffling,
Post by matt
Post by wsm_mod
since the reason for the post is not made clear (other than the
subject line). Quotes should be put in context and their
relevance to
Post by matt
Post by wsm_mod
this Forum made explicit.
Lew
Hi Lew,
Thanks for your response.I take the point.I didn't agree about
Daves
Post by matt
comment of "Riling the Left".
I think this is "flaming".I have a high regard for many on the
Left .I
Post by matt
have no doubt as to their sincerity,and have found myself working with
them in unions and in community work just as fellow workers in
struggle,while remaing "hostile" to their political Parties and
prescriptions for change.I hope Dave takes your advice about
context and
Post by matt
so on and doesn't feel discouraged though from continuing to post. He is
still finding his feet and is new to the internet.I know I made and
continue to make bloomers,such as responding too quickly.
Cheers,
YFS
Matt
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-22 23:15:01 UTC
Permalink
There is an artilce in the WSM website called:" Laying the Foundation", that
explains very clearly that the first murderer of Russian workers were Lenin
and Trostky and they created the road in order for Stalin to take control of
the State and to continue the repression of the working class in Soviet
Russia, even Trotsky did not have any heart in order to kill many Anarchists
when he was in command of the Red Army and the first and the only person
that put a bullet on Lenin was an Anarchist woman.

There is also another article on the WSM website that also explains that the
difference between Trotsky and Stalin was just a matter of how to manage
the state and a struggle for leadership. I have seen many people in the
left killing each other just for ideological differences, I have seen
Stalinist and Maoist beating up another groups of leftists because they had
ideological differences, and placing the name of members of a central
committee in front of the door of the residence of a member in order to let
the police know of their where about, and many of them got killed, I have
seen many leftist becoming renegades and penetrating central committee in
order to denounce the names of their members to the CIA and the local
political police.
Post by balmer_dave
Discouraged? Absolutely.
But perhaps more seriously, disillusioned.
However there is no shame or embarrassment, for me anyway, in my
being censored and gagged for `flaming' dead Russian, anti working
class war criminals. Like Trotsky and Lenin, it has happened before.
I would never have expected members of the WSM to so readily leap to
their defence.
To bait is to entice and tempt.
To bait and tempt Leninists to defend the reprehensible record of
their idols.
To include in your post "Riling the Left" in quotation marks
implying I used this term is deceit.
And you talk of the sincerity of the left?
And as to Dave `still finding his feet and is new to the internet'.
I admire your courage in daring to patronise me.
And;
`I hope Dave takes your advice about context'
Hope in vain, moderate me off if you will.
Post by matt
Post by wsm_mod
Post by matt
Keith,
I found this and previous posts by Dave on this subject very
helpfull > to use in other discources.
So have I, Matt. But for the uninitiated it must be rather
baffling,
Post by matt
Post by wsm_mod
since the reason for the post is not made clear (other than the
subject line). Quotes should be put in context and their
relevance to
Post by matt
Post by wsm_mod
this Forum made explicit.
Lew
Hi Lew,
Thanks for your response.I take the point.I didn't agree about
Daves
Post by matt
comment of "Riling the Left".
I think this is "flaming".I have a high regard for many on the
Left .I
Post by matt
have no doubt as to their sincerity,and have found myself working
with
Post by matt
them in unions and in community work just as fellow workers in
struggle,while remaing "hostile" to their political Parties and
prescriptions for change.I hope Dave takes your advice about
context and
Post by matt
so on and doesn't feel discouraged though from continuing to post.
He is
Post by matt
still finding his feet and is new to the internet.I know I made
and
Post by matt
continue to make bloomers,such as responding too quickly.
Cheers,
YFS
Matt
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
weematttherat
2007-01-24 01:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Dave,
This is a most unfortunate turn of events.I meant no slur, or
patronising, or anything of the sort.I was genuinely responding
initially to what I thought was you being jumped upon.I found your
posts usefull and I said so. I had used them,it saved me a lot of work
searching for details.Just as the info Adam posted I am finding
currently usefull.an argument I was in elsewhere.

Lew's post however gave me food for thought,and I reflected upon what
Robert wrote again,from this perspective. about the purpose of the
Forum and so on.

We do and have debated on here but a lot of members on it from the
left read and consider and go elsewhere with our arguments .

" However there is no shame or embarrassment, for me anyway, in my
being censored and gagged for `flaming' dead Russian, anti working
class war criminals. Like Trotsky and Lenin, it has happened before."

I dont have problem with this Why should I ?


You are not being censored or gagged as far as I can see.You were
being asked specifically by Lew,that, the reason for the post is made
clear (other than the subject line). Quotes should be put in context
and their relevance to this Forum made explicit.

Robert reminded you of the purpose of the Forum and asked specifically
the purpose of your post.

<To include in your post "Riling the Left" in quotation marks
<implying I used this term is deceit.


I do apologise for this.It was unintended I wrote from memory I didn't
intend and I would never mean to deceive.Unthinkable for me personally.

"trying to bait leninists on to the forum."

That is what you wrote.I still don't neccessarily agree that this is
educative intent.
Dead Lenin Trotsky etc or live active defenders of I am OK with.

< I would never have expected members of the WSM to so readily leap to
their defence.

I didn't.I do leap to the defence of members of the forum who are on
it to read posts put up for educative purposes, so baiting gives me
problems ,as I meant to indicate.I have done it myself and try not to
do so on here any more.I said a bit more than that about working in
unions and elsewhere with them.I have had them stand shoulder to
shoulder with me when employers have tried to run us over with trucks.
I have been as hostike as hell after these events about politics but
that is another matter.

As I said I was writing from memory as I scrubbed all the text from my
email.It wasnt meant to twist what you said.
<And as to Dave `still finding his feet and is new to the internet'.
<I admire your courage in daring to patronise me.

I was thinking more of my own deficit in this ,you probably will be
better than me in this regard.I still seeem to unintendedly make a
c**** of it.
I don't moderate or do anything on this forum.That's Lew's job.I don't
carry any weight on here so anything I say is just an individual opinion.
But you havent been moderated anyway.one person asked you a question
and the moderator backed him up.I think you ,notwithstanding my error
in putting in riling up by accident as opposed to what you actually
said baiting are behaving like a paranoid martyred fuckwit.
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
weematttherat
2007-01-24 01:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Oh incidently, I don't usually put up Blog links but this is another
interesting piece about Lenin someone sent me.

http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-make-socialists-lenins-view.html

http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/
YFS
Matt





Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-24 19:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Dear Matt

Thank you for the apology, it was really gracious of you.

I was not all that upset, and I am not complaining but just
explaining, but the whole storm in a teacup touched a full spectrum
of overly raw nerves for me.

I think this forum has been blighted in the past by members making
personnel attacks on each other and Roberts post felt to me like a
personnel criticism and I suppose I reacted to it in that way. Which
is how these things can start I suppose.

My personnel opinion for what it matters is that I think we should
allow the Forum to flow and the only subject that should not be
discussed is what should or should not be discussed. Some of the
best debates on this forum have been started from inauspicious
beginnings.

I don't recollect ever criticising anyone for the content or subject
matter of their posts. Except perhaps for Miguel who was a non
member, and spaming us with reformist cut and pastes. I did attempt
to engage him before he ran away.

When I posted my long quote, which I don't think was off subject or
unconnected to what I had written recently, things were quiet with
only two or three posts over the previous two days I think. I have
never complained about other people writing one sentence followed by
a long quote. Kieth has done it a few times himself.

It might be unacceptable perhaps if things were busy and a lively
debate was going on and somebody did it off current subject. But I
would never complain about it I hope.


There are only a handful of WSM members who seem to be prepared to
string a few sentences together on this forum, and you are one of
them. There are others who could do it but don't for some reason.
For those that do, like myself I think, the rest could be indulgent
and allow us to drop windy quotes onto the forum when we feel like
it as I think we earn that privilege.


As to the trots. It so happens that my best friend of many years
standing is ex SWP and still takes the Socialist Worker or whatever
they call it. I do draw a line between Trotsy, Lenin and their not
so intellectual leaders. I really think Leninism is actually
beginning to die and I have the ambition to be part of killing it
off. We have always been a predominantly working class party and the
Leninist have drawn their inspiration from intellectuals in the
social science departments of universities and full time party hacks
drawn from the frustrated petty bourgeoisie.

Quite content to make transitions themselves when the opportunities
present themselves like James Burnham and David Aronovitch. He was
an ex neighbour of mine and lived in the floor above me in John Nash
Crescent in Hulme when he was at Manchester University. So my Trot
friend told me who moved into his flat when he left.

I don't like these people politics much. I think recently Chris
Harhnam was advocating that the Iraqi's' should be killing American
soldiers. I have met his son a couple of times, he lived in a flat
beneath another friend, who was a SWP party hack, in Victoria Park
in Manchester.

I had a merry old argument with my current best friend on this one.
I am no hypocrite, I hope, and know that sometimes I share the same
feelings about blowing up Americans. But I don't have total control
over my emotions otherwise they wouldn't be emotions. However,
unless very drunk, I would never articulate and intellectually
justify such emotional reactions to the world, as the SWP does.

In order to cure myself of such emotions, I know a tour around
Military Hospital to see fellow members of my duped working class
with their legs blown off and their distraught relatives would
probably do me a power of `good'. Probably exorcising my
subconscious desire to be a `suicide bomber' for good.

The SWP who are burrowing into the anti war movement as usual are
poisoning all that is good about it, uniting the working class.
Helping my opponents in the WSM who say that we should distance
ourselves from it.

What is tragic about the `sincere left' is that their own actions
are counterproductive on their own terms. Whatever we think about
them, when you get grassroots working class organisations like the
anti poll tax union to take an example or the anti globalisation
type thing, the trots appear and destroy it. They attempt to take
them over, often in fighting amongst themselves, disillusioning the
working class of at least the potential of collective democratic
action.


I am not defending or advocating that we should support such narrow
futile demands before I am get jumped on for that.

We have been excluded from such things because we call ourselves a
socialist party and they suspect us of being Trots trying to take it
over with our superior organisational skills.

I can't help sympathising with their fear, tragic as far as we are
concerned.


Yours for socialism and friendship

Dave
Post by weematttherat
Dave,
This is a most unfortunate turn of events.I meant no slur, or
patronising, or anything of the sort.I was genuinely responding
initially to what I thought was you being jumped upon.I found your
posts usefull and I said so. I had used them,it saved me a lot of work
searching for details.Just as the info Adam posted I am finding
currently usefull.an argument I was in elsewhere.
Lew's post however gave me food for thought,and I reflected upon what
Robert wrote again,from this perspective. about the purpose of the
Forum and so on.
We do and have debated on here but a lot of members on it from the
left read and consider and go elsewhere with our arguments .
" However there is no shame or embarrassment, for me anyway, in my
being censored and gagged for `flaming' dead Russian, anti working
class war criminals. Like Trotsky and Lenin, it has happened
before."
Post by weematttherat
I dont have problem with this Why should I ?
You are not being censored or gagged as far as I can see.You were
being asked specifically by Lew,that, the reason for the post is
made
Post by weematttherat
clear (other than the subject line). Quotes should be put in
context
Post by weematttherat
and their relevance to this Forum made explicit.
Robert reminded you of the purpose of the Forum and asked
specifically
Post by weematttherat
the purpose of your post.
<To include in your post "Riling the Left" in quotation marks
<implying I used this term is deceit.
I do apologise for this.It was unintended I wrote from memory I didn't
intend and I would never mean to deceive.Unthinkable for me
personally.
Post by weematttherat
"trying to bait leninists on to the forum."
That is what you wrote.I still don't neccessarily agree that this is
educative intent.
Dead Lenin Trotsky etc or live active defenders of I am OK with.
< I would never have expected members of the WSM to so readily
leap to
Post by weematttherat
their defence.
I didn't.I do leap to the defence of members of the forum who are on
it to read posts put up for educative purposes, so baiting gives me
problems ,as I meant to indicate.I have done it myself and try not to
do so on here any more.I said a bit more than that about working in
unions and elsewhere with them.I have had them stand shoulder to
shoulder with me when employers have tried to run us over with
trucks.
Post by weematttherat
I have been as hostike as hell after these events about politics but
that is another matter.
As I said I was writing from memory as I scrubbed all the text
from my
Post by weematttherat
email.It wasnt meant to twist what you said.
<And as to Dave `still finding his feet and is new to the
internet'.
Post by weematttherat
<I admire your courage in daring to patronise me.
I was thinking more of my own deficit in this ,you probably will be
better than me in this regard.I still seeem to unintendedly make a
c**** of it.
I don't moderate or do anything on this forum.That's Lew's job.I don't
carry any weight on here so anything I say is just an individual opinion.
But you havent been moderated anyway.one person asked you a
question
Post by weematttherat
and the moderator backed him up.I think you ,notwithstanding my error
in putting in riling up by accident as opposed to what you actually
said baiting are behaving like a paranoid martyred fuckwit.
YFS
Matt
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
matt
2007-01-25 12:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Dave
Thanks.No problem Dave.I thought similarly about the fact that there was
not all that much on here at the time you posted and as I said, I find
most of your posts interesting and informative.
<Yours for socialism and friendship
Yes indeed comrade.
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
rewcbr13
2007-01-25 18:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi Dave and Matt,
I've been trying to catch up with this thread, but am puzzled by the
references to 'Robert's posts' - I can't see any post from a 'Robert'
in this thread. Am I missing something, folks?

Er, a Robert (in Carlisle city)
Post by balmer_dave
Dear Matt
...
this forum has been blighted in the past by members making personnel
attacks on each other and Roberts post felt to me like a personnel
criticism ...>


(From Matt - "... Lew's post however gave me food for thought,and I
reflected upon what Robert wrote again ...")




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
matt
2007-01-28 14:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by rewcbr13
Hi Dave and Matt,
I've been trying to catch up with this thread, but am puzzled by the
references to 'Robert's posts' - I can't see any post from a 'Robert'
in this thread. Am I missing something, folks?
Er, a Robert (in Carlisle city)
Dear mystified one.It is as you suspected another Matt ballsup.It was a
post by Keith to which I referred.Never mind, they should be ,taking me
to the vet & putting me down anytime soon.
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
matt
2007-01-23 11:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Sorry Dave,
This is a most unfortunate turn of events.I meant no slur, or
patronising, or anything of the sort.I was genuinely responding
initially to what I thought was you being jumped upon.I found your posts
usefull and I said so. I had used them,it saved me a lot of work
searching for details.Just as the info Adam posted I am finding
currently usefull.an argument I was in elsewhere.

Lew's post however gave me food for thought,and I reflected upon what
Robert wrote again,from this perspective. about the purpose of the Forum
and so on.

We do and have debated on here but a lot of members on it from the left
read and consider and go elsewhere with our arguments .

" However there is no shame or embarrassment, for me anyway, in my being
censored and gagged for `flaming' dead Russian, anti working class war
criminals. Like Trotsky and Lenin, it has happened before."

I dont have problem with this Why should I ?


You are not being censored or gagged as far as I can see.You were being
asked specifically by Lew,that, the reason for the post is made clear
(other than the subject line). Quotes should be put in context and their
relevance to this Forum made explicit.

Robert reminded you of the purpose of the Forum and asked specifically
the purpose of your post.

<To include in your post "Riling the Left" in quotation marks
<implying I used this term is deceit.


I do apologise for this.It was unintended I wrote from memory I didn't
intend and I would never mean to deceive.Unthinkable for me personally.

"trying to bait leninists on to the forum."

That is what you wrote.I still don't neccessarily agree that this is
educative intent.
Dead Lenin Trotsky etc or live active defenders of I am OK with.

< I would never have expected members of the WSM to so readily leap to
their defence.

I don't.I do leap to the defence of members of the forum who are on it
to read posts put up for educative purposes, so baiting gives me
problems ,as I meant to indicate.I have done it myself and try not to do
so on here any more.

As I said I was writing from memory as I scrubbed all the text form my
email.It wasnt meant to twist what you said.
<And as to Dave `still finding his feet and is new to the internet'.
<I admire your courage in daring to patronise me.

I was thinking more of my own deficit in this ,you probably will be
better than me in this regard.I still seeem to unintendedly make a c****
of it.
I don't moderate or do anything on this forum.That's Lew's job.I don't
carry any weight on here so anything I say is just an individual opinion.
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Adam Buick
2007-01-23 08:50:34 UTC
Permalink
I know that strictly speaking this is not allowed (or is it, Lew?), but
here's a contribution on this subject from another discussion forum I'm on
(but which non-members can't access). It's from someone in Sweden and hits
the nail right on the head.
Adam


Lenin and Trotksy, two productionist supporters of statecapitalism by
a party which ruled through an army of bureaucrats. The federation,
said Trotsky, did not face too much bureaucracy, but a bureaucracy
not effective(!) enough.

The working class poplulation was not trusted to be in charge of the
factories and the political power. And - more important - the working
class was too political weak to set aside what began in the struggle
against tsarism to be conditioned by new elites and thereby in the
end also by a new upper class. The bolsheviks in 1905 St.Petersburg
claimed that the soviets should be dissolved and submit to the party.
They soon abandoned this confrontation with the masses and
implemented a smarter and far more manipulative strategy with 'all
power to the soviets', but under control by the party.

It is time to put leninism and trotskyism were they belong: in the
museum of statecapitalism, dominated
by 'Leaders', 'Chairmen', 'Commandantes', 'Presidentes' or whaterver
title of the 'leading' cult figures.

Lenin and Trotsky opened the gate for a corporativist state
apparatus, submitting the factory committees to the bureaucratic
unions and dismantling the elections in the soviets. All this
happened before the outbreak of the civil war in the spring of 1918.
The bolshevik party solved the problems by implementing control and
rule by a state bureaucracy.

Lenin never came forward with a proposal that the working class
shuold be in charge. All his ideas was just a new committee
of 'workers and peasants' integrated into the apparatus, new control
institutions from above etc. In the debate against the party's 'left'
opposition, an opposition which nevertheless accepted the party
must 'lead', Lenin shouted that direct workers power
was 'syndicalism', 'reactionary', 'petty bourgois', and 'too
radical'(!). As a defender of a Party led society he could not
produce any different. To his death he focused on the capacity of the
elite to lead and guide the masses and not to open for a socialist
democracy with direct rule and elections on the working places.

That is why we dismiss Lenin and Trotksy as non-socialists and
instead understand their elitism as an historical expression of
a 'left'-wing a statecapitalist force simply because their solutions
presupposed that the working class did not have collective political
control and power of the factories.

Trotskyists want to portray their struggle as a defence of 'all power
to the soviets/councils'. But Trotsky defended militarization of the
working class. He was known to be the most fierceful supporter of
this grotesque alienation, revealing that a political mobilization by
and for the working class themselves was not an option. Meanwhile was
the rest of the party elite in the background, nodding to
their 'hero' when cheka troops was sent out to discipline and crush
workers struggle. When the party was threatened by workers resistance
and the poor population on the countryside did not obey to enforced
rules was Trotsky reprimanded and the regime took a tactical
step 'backward' by giving support to old capitalists, but not the
working class which already was partly atomized and divided in the
struggle to survive in the civil war which started in the spring of
1918.

Later when Trotsky faced Josef Stalin, he had of course no support at
all from the working class. Why should he? Trotsky just as Lenin
didn't get out to the working class at all. They kept the 'struggle'
inside the party apparatus, the opposite of what is a revolutionary
struggle. They did so because it was a logic way to act according to
a theory that a Party-elite must be in charge and lead and learn the
working class population to crawl, to stand up, to walk and talk and
in the end wait for a future when the party elite come with a big
gift suppose to be 'communism' a class-less world. The victory of
communism, a class-less world, according to the bolshevik leninist-
trotskyist position depends on the party elite and not the political
consciousness of the international working class.

This is not only about politcal 'lines'. The old bolsheviks came from
the upper classes and was became a poltical force in the struggle
against tsarism, never understood their double position of fulfilling
a bourgois revolution and going further leaving the bourgois stage
of 'leadership'. When the party and state elite had consolidated its
power at the end of the civil war they found themselves as owners of
the factories, the land and the economic assets. They had become a
bureaucratic statecapitalist class with collective ownership to the
economy. The slogan 'all power to the soviets' was first a fetish and
when taken seriously had become a hostile slogan and dangerous for
the ruling party. The next step for the party apparatus was therefore
to destroy its last connections with soviet power from 1917. It
handled this task to Josef Stalin as Trotsky lacked support and power
inside the apparatus.

A state which breaks the back of free workers and popular
organizations with the help of a bureaucratic 'state middle class
elite', is doing the same as fascism. Another word is counter-
revolution with a point of no return in March 1921 with the attack
against the Kronstadt soviet. It must be said that the attack of the
Kronstadt soviet was sectarian due to the military strength of the
ruling bolshevik party. Anarchists have not understood this and it is
no surprise they today come forward with 'direct action' to fight the
capitalist police forces in the streets while the masses are watching
from the sideline. Kronstadt was drown in blood. After the slaughter
and was Lenin, Trotsky and the party elite celebrating the 50 year
anniversary of the Paris commune from 1871 which represented a
revolutionary workers and popular democracy.

In this context some revolutionaries dismiss a
revolutionary 'democracy'. For them is democracy something that
belongs to capitalism. They make a mistake! A transmission period
moving from a capitalist mode of production to an international class-
less world will not 'order' away political, social and ideological
differences. Democracy means the society still is divided and
therefore in need of political institutions to handle the different
agreements paving the way to an international political structure and
the same for an international division of production etc. Bourgois
rights will fade away when capitalism is crushed, but it will not do
so if reality is put into a fog of 'unity' which is still not there.

The working class don't get support by proclaiming itself as the new
ruler. The class get support united on its terrain to be the leading
political and social force world-wide of the whole working class
population and even non-capitalist classes and groups in the society.
The aim is that even the working class will fade away and make all
with the same power and opportunities.

* * *

The hard core leninist-trotskyist elite will never learn. They come
basicly from the upper classes, are born into a bourgois culture
despising the culture of the working class masses. Not openly! But by
pitying and holding the working class population must be 'helped'
from above by an elite, a self-declared elite as a precondition for
liberation delivered by a 'red' santa claus into a distant future.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-23 18:30:00 UTC
Permalink
I rest my case. This is a proper description of Leninism, Trotskyism, and
Stalinism.
Post by Adam Buick
I know that strictly speaking this is not allowed (or is it, Lew?), but
here's a contribution on this subject from another discussion forum I'm on
(but which non-members can't access). It's from someone in Sweden and hits
the nail right on the head.
Adam
Lenin and Trotksy, two productionist supporters of statecapitalism by
a party which ruled through an army of bureaucrats. The federation,
said Trotsky, did not face too much bureaucracy, but a bureaucracy
not effective(!) enough.
The working class poplulation was not trusted to be in charge of the
factories and the political power. And - more important - the working
class was too political weak to set aside what began in the struggle
against tsarism to be conditioned by new elites and thereby in the
end also by a new upper class. The bolsheviks in 1905 St.Petersburg
claimed that the soviets should be dissolved and submit to the party.
They soon abandoned this confrontation with the masses and
implemented a smarter and far more manipulative strategy with 'all
power to the soviets', but under control by the party.
It is time to put leninism and trotskyism were they belong: in the
museum of statecapitalism, dominated
by 'Leaders', 'Chairmen', 'Commandantes', 'Presidentes' or whaterver
title of the 'leading' cult figures.
Lenin and Trotsky opened the gate for a corporativist state
apparatus, submitting the factory committees to the bureaucratic
unions and dismantling the elections in the soviets. All this
happened before the outbreak of the civil war in the spring of 1918.
The bolshevik party solved the problems by implementing control and
rule by a state bureaucracy.
Lenin never came forward with a proposal that the working class
shuold be in charge. All his ideas was just a new committee
of 'workers and peasants' integrated into the apparatus, new control
institutions from above etc. In the debate against the party's 'left'
opposition, an opposition which nevertheless accepted the party
must 'lead', Lenin shouted that direct workers power
was 'syndicalism', 'reactionary', 'petty bourgois', and 'too
radical'(!). As a defender of a Party led society he could not
produce any different. To his death he focused on the capacity of the
elite to lead and guide the masses and not to open for a socialist
democracy with direct rule and elections on the working places.
That is why we dismiss Lenin and Trotksy as non-socialists and
instead understand their elitism as an historical expression of
a 'left'-wing a statecapitalist force simply because their solutions
presupposed that the working class did not have collective political
control and power of the factories.
Trotskyists want to portray their struggle as a defence of 'all power
to the soviets/councils'. But Trotsky defended militarization of the
working class. He was known to be the most fierceful supporter of
this grotesque alienation, revealing that a political mobilization by
and for the working class themselves was not an option. Meanwhile was
the rest of the party elite in the background, nodding to
their 'hero' when cheka troops was sent out to discipline and crush
workers struggle. When the party was threatened by workers resistance
and the poor population on the countryside did not obey to enforced
rules was Trotsky reprimanded and the regime took a tactical
step 'backward' by giving support to old capitalists, but not the
working class which already was partly atomized and divided in the
struggle to survive in the civil war which started in the spring of
1918.
Later when Trotsky faced Josef Stalin, he had of course no support at
all from the working class. Why should he? Trotsky just as Lenin
didn't get out to the working class at all. They kept the 'struggle'
inside the party apparatus, the opposite of what is a revolutionary
struggle. They did so because it was a logic way to act according to
a theory that a Party-elite must be in charge and lead and learn the
working class population to crawl, to stand up, to walk and talk and
in the end wait for a future when the party elite come with a big
gift suppose to be 'communism' a class-less world. The victory of
communism, a class-less world, according to the bolshevik leninist-
trotskyist position depends on the party elite and not the political
consciousness of the international working class.
This is not only about politcal 'lines'. The old bolsheviks came from
the upper classes and was became a poltical force in the struggle
against tsarism, never understood their double position of fulfilling
a bourgois revolution and going further leaving the bourgois stage
of 'leadership'. When the party and state elite had consolidated its
power at the end of the civil war they found themselves as owners of
the factories, the land and the economic assets. They had become a
bureaucratic statecapitalist class with collective ownership to the
economy. The slogan 'all power to the soviets' was first a fetish and
when taken seriously had become a hostile slogan and dangerous for
the ruling party. The next step for the party apparatus was therefore
to destroy its last connections with soviet power from 1917. It
handled this task to Josef Stalin as Trotsky lacked support and power
inside the apparatus.
A state which breaks the back of free workers and popular
organizations with the help of a bureaucratic 'state middle class
elite', is doing the same as fascism. Another word is counter-
revolution with a point of no return in March 1921 with the attack
against the Kronstadt soviet. It must be said that the attack of the
Kronstadt soviet was sectarian due to the military strength of the
ruling bolshevik party. Anarchists have not understood this and it is
no surprise they today come forward with 'direct action' to fight the
capitalist police forces in the streets while the masses are watching
from the sideline. Kronstadt was drown in blood. After the slaughter
and was Lenin, Trotsky and the party elite celebrating the 50 year
anniversary of the Paris commune from 1871 which represented a
revolutionary workers and popular democracy.
In this context some revolutionaries dismiss a
revolutionary 'democracy'. For them is democracy something that
belongs to capitalism. They make a mistake! A transmission period
moving from a capitalist mode of production to an international class-
less world will not 'order' away political, social and ideological
differences. Democracy means the society still is divided and
therefore in need of political institutions to handle the different
agreements paving the way to an international political structure and
the same for an international division of production etc. Bourgois
rights will fade away when capitalism is crushed, but it will not do
so if reality is put into a fog of 'unity' which is still not there.
The working class don't get support by proclaiming itself as the new
ruler. The class get support united on its terrain to be the leading
political and social force world-wide of the whole working class
population and even non-capitalist classes and groups in the society.
The aim is that even the working class will fade away and make all
with the same power and opportunities.
* * *
The hard core leninist-trotskyist elite will never learn. They come
basicly from the upper classes, are born into a bourgois culture
despising the culture of the working class masses. Not openly! But by
pitying and holding the working class population must be 'helped'
from above by an elite, a self-declared elite as a precondition for
liberation delivered by a 'red' santa claus into a distant future.
__________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
petergbryant
2007-01-25 14:24:32 UTC
Permalink
In Adam's post on this subject he reproduced a comment from someone
in Sweden which, he said ,"hits the nail right on the head".
Although I found much to agree with in the Swede's comments, I think
there are some serious flaws. So for me Adam, the nail didn't go
in. There is a lot to say on this subject (and I must thank Dave
Balmer for having introduced it on this thread some time ago) but I
shall keep my comments down to a few items which I think are
important.

The Swede says: "(Lenin and Trotsky's) elitism (is) an historical
expression of a left-wing statecapitalist force simply because their
solutions presupposed that the working class did not have collective
political control and power of the factories".
Although I find this statement somewhat unclear, it suggests to me
that Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to
build state capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October
revolution. It is an economistic interpretation, inasmuch as it
puts the source of Bolshevik elitism in a "state capitalist force".
I want to take issue with this. Lenin and Trotsky had no idea at
all about what sort of economy they would build after the
establishment of a Bolshevik government (Sovnarkom). It's true that
Lenin had always been a fan of German state capitalism under Wilhelm
II, but it wasn't something he had in mind when he led the coup in
October. State capitalism became the form of economy because there
was no other form that was realizable in the post revolutionary
circumstances of 1917. The capitalism that developed in Russia pre
1917 could only be state capitalism since there was no bourgeois
class or middle class that could act independently in its own class
interest, unlike the rest of Western Europe. But how would this
interpretation (of elitism entailed in state capitalism) explain
the fact that Lenin's "elitism" (vanguardism) was a feature of
Bolshevism from its very beginning as a faction within Russian
Social Democracy in 1903? Elitism/vanguardism was common to
virtually all Russian revolutionaries from the 1860s on. It wasn't
something necessitated by the inevitability of state capitalism post
1917. Cherneshevsky, the most important influence on Lenin after
Marx (and one who was held in high regard by Marx himself)
enunciated all the major tenets of what became orthodox Bolshevik
practice as early as 1863: People like Tkachev et al continued the
tradition. They all believed that left to themselves, the people
would never make a revolution. It could only be made by a dedicated
elite of intellectual and moral leaders of the people, involving the
use of violence, the end justifying the means, etc. (Marx and Engels
expressed some sympathy with this view as their correspondence with
Vera Zasulich and others after 1877 would indicate - see earlier
posts on this thread from Dave Balmer who rightly pointed to the
Blanquist/Jacobin aspect of Engels' position in particular).
Whatever is thought of the moral aspects of this vanguardist
position, it had the virtue of realism.

The Swede presents a picture of the Bolsheviks as an elite imposing
their will upon the working class of Russia. He says that "the hard
core Leninist-Trotskyist elite (came) basically from the upper
classes, born into a bourgeois culture despising the culture of the
working class masses".
I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the relationship.
Most of the first generation of Bolshevik leaders came from the
educated middle class, but what was sociologically significant was
that they were members of that unique social group known as the
intelligentsia. The intelligentsia was a social category based not
on class but on consciousness (which is why they don't fit into
Marxist class analysis). They devoted their lives fanatically to
ideas. They were a revolutionary priesthood with a blind faith in
abstract doctrine. It wasn't working class culture which they
despised, it was liberal bourgeois culture. Lenin and Trotsky were
outstanding examples; without them there would have been no October
revolution and the Bolshevik faction of Russian Social Democracy
would be a short footnote in the history of the European left.

The Swede says that Lenin and Trotsky "didn't get out to the working
class at all". How then would he explain the massive increase in
support for the Bolsheviks in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets after
July 1917, if not through the regular political propaganda work of
Lenin and Trotsky et al? All through 1917, the major industrial
centres of Russia saw steady growth in Bolshevik support from the
workers. By the time of the coup in October, it is likely that a
majority of the working class in the major cities of Russia
supported the Bolsheviks, plus a significant percentage of the
soldiers (most of whom regarded themselves as "proletarians"). By
1924, the so-called Lenin Levy recruited hundreds of thousands of
workers into the Party as members. By 1927, members of working
class background made up the majority of total membership. Lenin's
party had come a long way from the small band of professional
revolutionaries it was in 1903, and in one sense there is truth in
the statement that he had established a dictatorship of the
proletariat (or of part of it at least, and over the rest of it).

Peter (in Oz)
Post by Adam Buick
I know that strictly speaking this is not allowed (or is it,
Lew?), but
Post by Adam Buick
here's a contribution on this subject from another discussion
forum I'm on
Post by Adam Buick
(but which non-members can't access). It's from someone in Sweden and hits
the nail right on the head.
Adam
Lenin and Trotksy, two productionist supporters of statecapitalism by
a party which ruled through an army of bureaucrats. The federation,
said Trotsky, did not face too much bureaucracy, but a bureaucracy
not effective(!) enough.
The working class poplulation was not trusted to be in charge of the
factories and the political power. And - more important - the
working
Post by Adam Buick
class was too political weak to set aside what began in the
struggle
Post by Adam Buick
against tsarism to be conditioned by new elites and thereby in the
end also by a new upper class. The bolsheviks in 1905 St.Petersburg
claimed that the soviets should be dissolved and submit to the
party.
Post by Adam Buick
They soon abandoned this confrontation with the masses and
implemented a smarter and far more manipulative strategy with 'all
power to the soviets', but under control by the party.
It is time to put leninism and trotskyism were they belong: in the
museum of statecapitalism, dominated
by 'Leaders', 'Chairmen', 'Commandantes', 'Presidentes' or
whaterver
Post by Adam Buick
title of the 'leading' cult figures.
Lenin and Trotsky opened the gate for a corporativist state
apparatus, submitting the factory committees to the bureaucratic
unions and dismantling the elections in the soviets. All this
happened before the outbreak of the civil war in the spring of
1918.
Post by Adam Buick
The bolshevik party solved the problems by implementing control and
rule by a state bureaucracy.
Lenin never came forward with a proposal that the working class
shuold be in charge. All his ideas was just a new committee
of 'workers and peasants' integrated into the apparatus, new
control
Post by Adam Buick
institutions from above etc. In the debate against the
party's 'left'
Post by Adam Buick
opposition, an opposition which nevertheless accepted the party
must 'lead', Lenin shouted that direct workers power
was 'syndicalism', 'reactionary', 'petty bourgois', and 'too
radical'(!). As a defender of a Party led society he could not
produce any different. To his death he focused on the capacity of the
elite to lead and guide the masses and not to open for a socialist
democracy with direct rule and elections on the working places.
That is why we dismiss Lenin and Trotksy as non-socialists and
instead understand their elitism as an historical expression of
a 'left'-wing a statecapitalist force simply because their
solutions
Post by Adam Buick
presupposed that the working class did not have collective
political
Post by Adam Buick
control and power of the factories.
Trotskyists want to portray their struggle as a defence of 'all power
to the soviets/councils'. But Trotsky defended militarization of the
working class. He was known to be the most fierceful supporter of
this grotesque alienation, revealing that a political mobilization by
and for the working class themselves was not an option. Meanwhile was
the rest of the party elite in the background, nodding to
their 'hero' when cheka troops was sent out to discipline and crush
workers struggle. When the party was threatened by workers
resistance
Post by Adam Buick
and the poor population on the countryside did not obey to enforced
rules was Trotsky reprimanded and the regime took a tactical
step 'backward' by giving support to old capitalists, but not the
working class which already was partly atomized and divided in the
struggle to survive in the civil war which started in the spring of
1918.
Later when Trotsky faced Josef Stalin, he had of course no support at
all from the working class. Why should he? Trotsky just as Lenin
didn't get out to the working class at all. They kept
the 'struggle'
Post by Adam Buick
inside the party apparatus, the opposite of what is a revolutionary
struggle. They did so because it was a logic way to act according to
a theory that a Party-elite must be in charge and lead and learn the
working class population to crawl, to stand up, to walk and talk and
in the end wait for a future when the party elite come with a big
gift suppose to be 'communism' a class-less world. The victory of
communism, a class-less world, according to the bolshevik leninist-
trotskyist position depends on the party elite and not the
political
Post by Adam Buick
consciousness of the international working class.
This is not only about politcal 'lines'. The old bolsheviks came from
the upper classes and was became a poltical force in the struggle
against tsarism, never understood their double position of
fulfilling
Post by Adam Buick
a bourgois revolution and going further leaving the bourgois stage
of 'leadership'. When the party and state elite had consolidated its
power at the end of the civil war they found themselves as owners of
the factories, the land and the economic assets. They had become a
bureaucratic statecapitalist class with collective ownership to the
economy. The slogan 'all power to the soviets' was first a fetish and
when taken seriously had become a hostile slogan and dangerous for
the ruling party. The next step for the party apparatus was
therefore
Post by Adam Buick
to destroy its last connections with soviet power from 1917. It
handled this task to Josef Stalin as Trotsky lacked support and power
inside the apparatus.
A state which breaks the back of free workers and popular
organizations with the help of a bureaucratic 'state middle class
elite', is doing the same as fascism. Another word is counter-
revolution with a point of no return in March 1921 with the attack
against the Kronstadt soviet. It must be said that the attack of the
Kronstadt soviet was sectarian due to the military strength of the
ruling bolshevik party. Anarchists have not understood this and it is
no surprise they today come forward with 'direct action' to fight the
capitalist police forces in the streets while the masses are
watching
Post by Adam Buick
from the sideline. Kronstadt was drown in blood. After the
slaughter
Post by Adam Buick
and was Lenin, Trotsky and the party elite celebrating the 50 year
anniversary of the Paris commune from 1871 which represented a
revolutionary workers and popular democracy.
In this context some revolutionaries dismiss a
revolutionary 'democracy'. For them is democracy something that
belongs to capitalism. They make a mistake! A transmission period
moving from a capitalist mode of production to an international class-
less world will not 'order' away political, social and ideological
differences. Democracy means the society still is divided and
therefore in need of political institutions to handle the different
agreements paving the way to an international political structure and
the same for an international division of production etc. Bourgois
rights will fade away when capitalism is crushed, but it will not do
so if reality is put into a fog of 'unity' which is still not
there.
Post by Adam Buick
The working class don't get support by proclaiming itself as the new
ruler. The class get support united on its terrain to be the
leading
Post by Adam Buick
political and social force world-wide of the whole working class
population and even non-capitalist classes and groups in the
society.
Post by Adam Buick
The aim is that even the working class will fade away and make all
with the same power and opportunities.
* * *
The hard core leninist-trotskyist elite will never learn. They come
basicly from the upper classes, are born into a bourgois culture
despising the culture of the working class masses. Not openly! But by
pitying and holding the working class population must be 'helped'
from above by an elite, a self-declared elite as a precondition for
liberation delivered by a 'red' santa claus into a distant future.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-25 20:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter


I think we have to be careful when analysing Karl's and Freds take
on this kind of thing and take into consideration how it changed
over time. Although I don't feel bound by what they said on anything.

I believe that their position was that in order to have socialism
you had to have capitalism first and that in order to get capitalism
you had to overthrow Feudalism wherever it existed. Therefore they
tended to support bourgeois revolutions not so much because they
wanted capitalism but because they saw it as a necessary historical
stage towards socialism. Capitalism would build up the means of
production and the working class that would create the potential
material conditions for socialism.

They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.

Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable socialism.
With all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.

That is how I read the letter to Vera. Fred just foresaw the ugly
and unpleasant forthcoming `Russian bourgeois revolution' and the
inevitable 1793 that would follow, murderous oppression, as
a `whatever will be, will be'. or `Que sera, sera.' Is it seeing
French is in fashion.

As a bit of a moralist, I don't like this cold-blooded rational
analysis even if it is correct. I think the writings of Karl and
Fred bristled with covert moral indignation. They were just in
denial about it.

Despite the general accuracy of Fred's prediction I don't think he
saw state capitalism as opposed to ordinary capitalism coming. I
think you make a really good point about the possible absence of
capitalists on the ground in Russia contributing to the slight
variation of previous norms on how it developed.

I am not an expert on this but as I understand it pre 1917 Russian
capitalism was atypical. First of all a lot of capitalist
enterprises in Russia at the time although few in number were quite
advanced. They had I believe many large
Factories for the standards of the times that were the result of
foreign investment by absentee capitalists, predominantly French I
seem to remember. Thus the ratio of capitalist to workers or even
the population as a whole was comparatively low.


In contrast, in the English Revolution there were proportionately
more `capitalist', particularly small farmers with a capitalist
outlook at least, farming for profit. These people were not wimps
like our present day capitalists, they were advanced, active,
intelligent with practical organisational skills and were prepared
to get stuck in and fight dirty themselves for their own material
interests. Hence they eventually won the day against the degenerate
fops of the feudal aristocratic class.

I presume a similar situation prevailed in France in 1789.

As to the Bolsheviks, as Fred predicted, the `historic
personalities' involved could wish what they liked and boast as much
as they liked, in the end it would be an amoral historical
materialism that would dictate events. Capitalism following on from
Feudalism.

As to the support that the Bolsheviks had or might have had I think
we need to be careful as the support that they may have had was
based on false promises.

Also;

In a letter from the Russian ` Social Democratic Labour Party and of
the Jewish Socialist Party' concerning the arrest and imprisonment
of a large number of worker's delegates in 1919, and they appear to
have been just that. Actually industrial workers it says;

`the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat has definitely turned
into the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, which attracted all
sorts of adventurers and suspicious characters and is supported only
by the naked force of hired bayonets.'

Trotsky the war criminal apart from taking hostages advocated
machine gunning his own red army if they retreated and refused to
fight. So we could speculate just how much support the Bolsheviks
actually had.

I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is apparently
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.

I think it will be one of these two;

Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January

Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February

It could be boring and a red herring.


As an addendum I read Hugo's Les Miserables several years ago and if
I remember correctly one of the heroes, presumably reflecting Hugo's
own opinion, idolised Bonaparte and lamented his defeat at the
battle of Waterloo.
Post by petergbryant
In Adam's post on this subject he reproduced a comment from
someone
Post by petergbryant
in Sweden which, he said ,"hits the nail right on the head".
Although I found much to agree with in the Swede's comments, I
think
Post by petergbryant
there are some serious flaws. So for me Adam, the nail didn't go
in. There is a lot to say on this subject (and I must thank Dave
Balmer for having introduced it on this thread some time ago) but I
shall keep my comments down to a few items which I think are
important.
The Swede says: "(Lenin and Trotsky's) elitism (is) an historical
expression of a left-wing statecapitalist force simply because
their
Post by petergbryant
solutions presupposed that the working class did not have
collective
Post by petergbryant
political control and power of the factories".
Although I find this statement somewhat unclear, it suggests to me
that Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to
build state capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October
revolution. It is an economistic interpretation, inasmuch as it
puts the source of Bolshevik elitism in a "state capitalist
force".
Post by petergbryant
I want to take issue with this. Lenin and Trotsky had no idea at
all about what sort of economy they would build after the
establishment of a Bolshevik government (Sovnarkom). It's true that
Lenin had always been a fan of German state capitalism under
Wilhelm
Post by petergbryant
II, but it wasn't something he had in mind when he led the coup in
October. State capitalism became the form of economy because
there
Post by petergbryant
was no other form that was realizable in the post revolutionary
circumstances of 1917. The capitalism that developed in Russia pre
1917 could only be state capitalism since there was no bourgeois
class or middle class that could act independently in its own
class
Post by petergbryant
interest, unlike the rest of Western Europe. But how would this
interpretation (of elitism entailed in state capitalism) explain
the fact that Lenin's "elitism" (vanguardism) was a feature of
Bolshevism from its very beginning as a faction within Russian
Social Democracy in 1903? Elitism/vanguardism was common to
virtually all Russian revolutionaries from the 1860s on. It
wasn't
Post by petergbryant
something necessitated by the inevitability of state capitalism post
1917. Cherneshevsky, the most important influence on Lenin after
Marx (and one who was held in high regard by Marx himself)
enunciated all the major tenets of what became orthodox Bolshevik
practice as early as 1863: People like Tkachev et al continued the
tradition. They all believed that left to themselves, the people
would never make a revolution. It could only be made by a
dedicated
Post by petergbryant
elite of intellectual and moral leaders of the people, involving the
use of violence, the end justifying the means, etc. (Marx and
Engels
Post by petergbryant
expressed some sympathy with this view as their correspondence
with
Post by petergbryant
Vera Zasulich and others after 1877 would indicate - see earlier
posts on this thread from Dave Balmer who rightly pointed to the
Blanquist/Jacobin aspect of Engels' position in particular).
Whatever is thought of the moral aspects of this vanguardist
position, it had the virtue of realism.
The Swede presents a picture of the Bolsheviks as an elite
imposing
Post by petergbryant
their will upon the working class of Russia. He says that "the hard
core Leninist-Trotskyist elite (came) basically from the upper
classes, born into a bourgeois culture despising the culture of the
working class masses".
I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the relationship.
Most of the first generation of Bolshevik leaders came from the
educated middle class, but what was sociologically significant was
that they were members of that unique social group known as the
intelligentsia. The intelligentsia was a social category based not
on class but on consciousness (which is why they don't fit into
Marxist class analysis). They devoted their lives fanatically to
ideas. They were a revolutionary priesthood with a blind faith in
abstract doctrine. It wasn't working class culture which they
despised, it was liberal bourgeois culture. Lenin and Trotsky
were
Post by petergbryant
outstanding examples; without them there would have been no
October
Post by petergbryant
revolution and the Bolshevik faction of Russian Social Democracy
would be a short footnote in the history of the European left.
The Swede says that Lenin and Trotsky "didn't get out to the
working
Post by petergbryant
class at all". How then would he explain the massive increase in
support for the Bolsheviks in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets
after
Post by petergbryant
July 1917, if not through the regular political propaganda work of
Lenin and Trotsky et al? All through 1917, the major industrial
centres of Russia saw steady growth in Bolshevik support from the
workers. By the time of the coup in October, it is likely that a
majority of the working class in the major cities of Russia
supported the Bolsheviks, plus a significant percentage of the
soldiers (most of whom regarded themselves as "proletarians"). By
1924, the so-called Lenin Levy recruited hundreds of thousands of
workers into the Party as members. By 1927, members of working
class background made up the majority of total membership.
Lenin's
Post by petergbryant
party had come a long way from the small band of professional
revolutionaries it was in 1903, and in one sense there is truth in
the statement that he had established a dictatorship of the
proletariat (or of part of it at least, and over the rest of
it).
Post by petergbryant
Peter (in Oz)
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-26 01:23:00 UTC
Permalink
News and Letters and Raya Dunayeskaya have made a different analysis about
the letter sent to Vera, they have considered that Marx believed that
socialism could have been established in an economical backward society and
there was not need for a capitalist development, and people did not have to
go thru the suffering of capitalism, in the same manner they have analysed
Marx's ethnological notebook, but indicating that the workers of the
economical backward society needed the support of the workers of the
developed nations, which was the same hopes of Lenin, that never took place
in Europe

I did make two public presentations based on the same line of thought, and
later on, I did a more profound investigation and I was able to see that I
was mistaken, that their ideas was that they will provide support to any
bourgeois revolution in order to eliminate feudalism wherever it existed,
in some way their support to bourgeois revolution is a totally exaggeration
on their part, because they were also supporting bloody wars, and that
approach has been used by the Leninist in order to provide support to any
conspirative theory.

Lenin tried to prove on his book "The Development of capitalism in Russia",
that capitalism existed in Russia, but reading the statistic that he
submitted on his book, we can see that it was no the prevailing mode of
production, that agriculture and feudalism was the real prevailing mode of
production, and it was one of the reason why Lenin was forced to declare
that state capitalism was necessary in Russia. because he knew that it was
impossible to build socialism in an economical backward society.

The propaganda machinery created by the Bolshevik provided them the
opportunity to spread thru the world the conception that the soviet
revolution was a proletarian and a socialist revolution, even more, Marxism
did not spread to others parts of the world, what in reality was spred were
the Blanquist ideas of Lenin and Jose Stalin, in the same manner that the
Chinese were able to spred the ideas of Mao Tse Tung thru all the third
world countries based on false conceptions.

I
Post by balmer_dave
Dear Peter
I think we have to be careful when analysing Karl's and Freds take
on this kind of thing and take into consideration how it changed
over time. Although I don't feel bound by what they said on anything.
I believe that their position was that in order to have socialism
you had to have capitalism first and that in order to get capitalism
you had to overthrow Feudalism wherever it existed. Therefore they
tended to support bourgeois revolutions not so much because they
wanted capitalism but because they saw it as a necessary historical
stage towards socialism. Capitalism would build up the means of
production and the working class that would create the potential
material conditions for socialism.
They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.
Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable socialism.
With all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.
That is how I read the letter to Vera. Fred just foresaw the ugly
and unpleasant forthcoming `Russian bourgeois revolution' and the
inevitable 1793 that would follow, murderous oppression, as
a `whatever will be, will be'. or `Que sera, sera.' Is it seeing
French is in fashion.
As a bit of a moralist, I don't like this cold-blooded rational
analysis even if it is correct. I think the writings of Karl and
Fred bristled with covert moral indignation. They were just in
denial about it.
Despite the general accuracy of Fred's prediction I don't think he
saw state capitalism as opposed to ordinary capitalism coming. I
think you make a really good point about the possible absence of
capitalists on the ground in Russia contributing to the slight
variation of previous norms on how it developed.
I am not an expert on this but as I understand it pre 1917 Russian
capitalism was atypical. First of all a lot of capitalist
enterprises in Russia at the time although few in number were quite
advanced. They had I believe many large
Factories for the standards of the times that were the result of
foreign investment by absentee capitalists, predominantly French I
seem to remember. Thus the ratio of capitalist to workers or even
the population as a whole was comparatively low.
In contrast, in the English Revolution there were proportionately
more `capitalist', particularly small farmers with a capitalist
outlook at least, farming for profit. These people were not wimps
like our present day capitalists, they were advanced, active,
intelligent with practical organisational skills and were prepared
to get stuck in and fight dirty themselves for their own material
interests. Hence they eventually won the day against the degenerate
fops of the feudal aristocratic class.
I presume a similar situation prevailed in France in 1789.
As to the Bolsheviks, as Fred predicted, the `historic
personalities' involved could wish what they liked and boast as much
as they liked, in the end it would be an amoral historical
materialism that would dictate events. Capitalism following on from
Feudalism.
As to the support that the Bolsheviks had or might have had I think
we need to be careful as the support that they may have had was
based on false promises.
Also;
In a letter from the Russian ` Social Democratic Labour Party and of
the Jewish Socialist Party' concerning the arrest and imprisonment
of a large number of worker's delegates in 1919, and they appear to
have been just that. Actually industrial workers it says;
`the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat has definitely turned
into the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, which attracted all
sorts of adventurers and suspicious characters and is supported only
by the naked force of hired bayonets.'
Trotsky the war criminal apart from taking hostages advocated
machine gunning his own red army if they retreated and refused to
fight. So we could speculate just how much support the Bolsheviks
actually had.
I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is apparently
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.
I think it will be one of these two;
Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January
Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February
It could be boring and a red herring.
As an addendum I read Hugo's Les Miserables several years ago and if
I remember correctly one of the heroes, presumably reflecting Hugo's
own opinion, idolised Bonaparte and lamented his defeat at the
battle of Waterloo.
Post by petergbryant
In Adam's post on this subject he reproduced a comment from
someone
Post by petergbryant
in Sweden which, he said ,"hits the nail right on the head".
Although I found much to agree with in the Swede's comments, I
think
Post by petergbryant
there are some serious flaws. So for me Adam, the nail didn't go
in. There is a lot to say on this subject (and I must thank Dave
Balmer for having introduced it on this thread some time ago) but
I
Post by petergbryant
shall keep my comments down to a few items which I think are
important.
The Swede says: "(Lenin and Trotsky's) elitism (is) an historical
expression of a left-wing statecapitalist force simply because
their
Post by petergbryant
solutions presupposed that the working class did not have
collective
Post by petergbryant
political control and power of the factories".
Although I find this statement somewhat unclear, it suggests to me
that Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision
to
Post by petergbryant
build state capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October
revolution. It is an economistic interpretation, inasmuch as it
puts the source of Bolshevik elitism in a "state capitalist
force".
Post by petergbryant
I want to take issue with this. Lenin and Trotsky had no idea at
all about what sort of economy they would build after the
establishment of a Bolshevik government (Sovnarkom). It's true
that
Post by petergbryant
Lenin had always been a fan of German state capitalism under
Wilhelm
Post by petergbryant
II, but it wasn't something he had in mind when he led the coup in
October. State capitalism became the form of economy because
there
Post by petergbryant
was no other form that was realizable in the post revolutionary
circumstances of 1917. The capitalism that developed in Russia
pre
Post by petergbryant
1917 could only be state capitalism since there was no bourgeois
class or middle class that could act independently in its own
class
Post by petergbryant
interest, unlike the rest of Western Europe. But how would this
interpretation (of elitism entailed in state capitalism) explain
the fact that Lenin's "elitism" (vanguardism) was a feature of
Bolshevism from its very beginning as a faction within Russian
Social Democracy in 1903? Elitism/vanguardism was common to
virtually all Russian revolutionaries from the 1860s on. It
wasn't
Post by petergbryant
something necessitated by the inevitability of state capitalism
post
Post by petergbryant
1917. Cherneshevsky, the most important influence on Lenin after
Marx (and one who was held in high regard by Marx himself)
enunciated all the major tenets of what became orthodox Bolshevik
practice as early as 1863: People like Tkachev et al continued
the
Post by petergbryant
tradition. They all believed that left to themselves, the people
would never make a revolution. It could only be made by a
dedicated
Post by petergbryant
elite of intellectual and moral leaders of the people, involving
the
Post by petergbryant
use of violence, the end justifying the means, etc. (Marx and
Engels
Post by petergbryant
expressed some sympathy with this view as their correspondence
with
Post by petergbryant
Vera Zasulich and others after 1877 would indicate - see earlier
posts on this thread from Dave Balmer who rightly pointed to the
Blanquist/Jacobin aspect of Engels' position in particular).
Whatever is thought of the moral aspects of this vanguardist
position, it had the virtue of realism.
The Swede presents a picture of the Bolsheviks as an elite
imposing
Post by petergbryant
their will upon the working class of Russia. He says that "the
hard
Post by petergbryant
core Leninist-Trotskyist elite (came) basically from the upper
classes, born into a bourgeois culture despising the culture of
the
Post by petergbryant
working class masses".
I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the relationship.
Most of the first generation of Bolshevik leaders came from the
educated middle class, but what was sociologically significant was
that they were members of that unique social group known as the
intelligentsia. The intelligentsia was a social category based
not
Post by petergbryant
on class but on consciousness (which is why they don't fit into
Marxist class analysis). They devoted their lives fanatically to
ideas. They were a revolutionary priesthood with a blind faith in
abstract doctrine. It wasn't working class culture which they
despised, it was liberal bourgeois culture. Lenin and Trotsky
were
Post by petergbryant
outstanding examples; without them there would have been no
October
Post by petergbryant
revolution and the Bolshevik faction of Russian Social Democracy
would be a short footnote in the history of the European left.
The Swede says that Lenin and Trotsky "didn't get out to the
working
Post by petergbryant
class at all". How then would he explain the massive increase in
support for the Bolsheviks in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets
after
Post by petergbryant
July 1917, if not through the regular political propaganda work of
Lenin and Trotsky et al? All through 1917, the major industrial
centres of Russia saw steady growth in Bolshevik support from the
workers. By the time of the coup in October, it is likely that a
majority of the working class in the major cities of Russia
supported the Bolsheviks, plus a significant percentage of the
soldiers (most of whom regarded themselves as "proletarians"). By
1924, the so-called Lenin Levy recruited hundreds of thousands of
workers into the Party as members. By 1927, members of working
class background made up the majority of total membership.
Lenin's
Post by petergbryant
party had come a long way from the small band of professional
revolutionaries it was in 1903, and in one sense there is truth in
the statement that he had established a dictatorship of the
proletariat (or of part of it at least, and over the rest of
it).
Post by petergbryant
Peter (in Oz)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-26 19:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Marcos

I actually think that over the period of say 1850 to 1890, for
Engels anyway as the later spokesperson for the pair, there was a
change of position on this. And just to prove to the Leninists and
Trots that we do not selectively quote to suit our ends, there is a
terrible piece for us by Karl in 1850 at;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-
league/1850-ad1.htm


Including, groan, `Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent
Revolution.'

I think this piece is interesting because the situation being
addressed, in 1850 Germany, was similar in a way to the position the
Bolsheviks were in.

Capitalism and a numerically weak proletariat emerging within a
ocean of feudalism.


Of the various propositions put forward was the idea that the
workers should ally themselves with the 'capitalists' to over throw
feudalism expecting to be stabbed in the back by them later as the
capitalist would attempt to regain control with their militias or
whatever.

And it goes on that that workers should prepare for this by
forming `clubs' and attempt to ally themselves with the peasants or
the rural proletariat, allowing them keep the land blah, blah etc.
Thus;

`They must demand that the confiscated feudal property remain state
property and be used for workers' colonies, cultivated collectively
by the rural proletariat with all the advantages of large-scale
farming and where the principle of common property will immediately
achieve a sound basis in the midst of the shaky system of bourgeois
property relations. Just as the democrats ally themselves with the
peasants, the workers must ally themselves with the rural
proletariat.'

And;

`They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of
the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular
functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise
themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of
as many productive forces as possible - means of transport,
factories, railways, etc. - in the hands of the state.

They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical
extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a
revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct
attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie
propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must
demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by
the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries.

If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must
demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a
moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax
whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the
democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers
must demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the workers will
thus have to be adjusted according to the measures and concessions
of the democrats.'


The whole thing is bonkers of course and is just a litany of things
that workers in an impossible historic position could do to resist
the encroachments of capitalism. You can't help asking what is the
point, whatever it is at least they don't claim it to be socialism
or communism.

I think later, as their overheated heads cooled down, they realised
that capitalism had to be allowed to run its historic course and
socialism could only be contemplated when the time and material
conditions were right.

I think that young Karl's position here is just an overheated and
exaggerated example of our and I think Martov's position that when
faced with capitalism and the impossibility of socialism, because
the time is not right, all the workers can do is make the best of
it.
Post by Marcos Colome
News and Letters and Raya Dunayeskaya have made a different
analysis about
Post by Marcos Colome
the letter sent to Vera, they have considered that Marx believed that
socialism could have been established in an economical backward society and
there was not need for a capitalist development, and people did not have to
go thru the suffering of capitalism, in the same manner they have analysed
Marx's ethnological notebook, but indicating that the workers of the
economical backward society needed the support of the workers of the
developed nations, which was the same hopes of Lenin, that never took place
in Europe
I did make two public presentations based on the same line of
thought, and
Post by Marcos Colome
later on, I did a more profound investigation and I was able to see that I
was mistaken, that their ideas was that they will provide support to any
bourgeois revolution in order to eliminate feudalism wherever it existed,
in some way their support to bourgeois revolution is a totally
exaggeration
Post by Marcos Colome
on their part, because they were also supporting bloody wars, and that
approach has been used by the Leninist in order to provide support to any
conspirative theory.
Lenin tried to prove on his book "The Development of capitalism in Russia",
that capitalism existed in Russia, but reading the statistic that he
submitted on his book, we can see that it was no the prevailing mode of
production, that agriculture and feudalism was the real prevailing mode of
production, and it was one of the reason why Lenin was forced to declare
that state capitalism was necessary in Russia. because he knew
that it was
Post by Marcos Colome
impossible to build socialism in an economical backward society.
The propaganda machinery created by the Bolshevik provided them the
opportunity to spread thru the world the conception that the soviet
revolution was a proletarian and a socialist revolution, even
more, Marxism
Post by Marcos Colome
did not spread to others parts of the world, what in reality was spred were
the Blanquist ideas of Lenin and Jose Stalin, in the same manner that the
Chinese were able to spred the ideas of Mao Tse Tung thru all the third
world countries based on false conceptions.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-27 04:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Comrade Dave:

In some way it is like the position taken by Marx on the 1844 Economical
Manuscripts where he unify idealism with Materialism, and then Lenin divided
the world in two camps, and he ( Marx ) called the transfer of private
property into the hands of state as vulgar communism, but some Marxist have
considered this writing as the ideas of a young socialist, but others
Marxist considered it as the writing of a matured person, and others Marxist
have taken the position of Marx at the Communist League on the Permanent
revolution or revolution in permanence as the conclusion of his final
concept about world revolution, a well, some Marxists have considered the
Ethnological Notebooks of Marx as the manuscripts of a new book that he was
going to write about the Asiatic mode of production, ( or the third world )
other Marxist considered it as rough notes of several books that he was
studying in that period of time.. I went thru the process of analysing all
those ideas and I accepted them for a while and then I rejected
them myself, as well as there were ideological differences between Engels
and Marx, that there was not such unity of thoughts, some Marxist have
considered that the Origin of the Family was the legacy of Engels, but not
the legacy of Marx, and that Engels had a heterosexual position in regard to
the sexual relationship of the human beings. There are too many ambivalence
opinions about Marx and Engels works in philosophy, economic and history
Post by balmer_dave
Dear Marcos
I actually think that over the period of say 1850 to 1890, for
Engels anyway as the later spokesperson for the pair, there was a
change of position on this. And just to prove to the Leninists and
Trots that we do not selectively quote to suit our ends, there is a
terrible piece for us by Karl in 1850 at;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-
league/1850-ad1.htm
Including, groan, `Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent
Revolution.'
I think this piece is interesting because the situation being
addressed, in 1850 Germany, was similar in a way to the position the
Bolsheviks were in.
Capitalism and a numerically weak proletariat emerging within a
ocean of feudalism.
Of the various propositions put forward was the idea that the
workers should ally themselves with the 'capitalists' to over throw
feudalism expecting to be stabbed in the back by them later as the
capitalist would attempt to regain control with their militias or
whatever.
And it goes on that that workers should prepare for this by
forming `clubs' and attempt to ally themselves with the peasants or
the rural proletariat, allowing them keep the land blah, blah etc.
Thus;
`They must demand that the confiscated feudal property remain state
property and be used for workers' colonies, cultivated collectively
by the rural proletariat with all the advantages of large-scale
farming and where the principle of common property will immediately
achieve a sound basis in the midst of the shaky system of bourgeois
property relations. Just as the democrats ally themselves with the
peasants, the workers must ally themselves with the rural
proletariat.'
And;
`They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of
the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular
functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise
themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of
as many productive forces as possible - means of transport,
factories, railways, etc. - in the hands of the state.
They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical
extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a
revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct
attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie
propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must
demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by
the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries.
If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must
demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a
moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax
whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the
democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers
must demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the workers will
thus have to be adjusted according to the measures and concessions
of the democrats.'
The whole thing is bonkers of course and is just a litany of things
that workers in an impossible historic position could do to resist
the encroachments of capitalism. You can't help asking what is the
point, whatever it is at least they don't claim it to be socialism
or communism.
I think later, as their overheated heads cooled down, they realised
that capitalism had to be allowed to run its historic course and
socialism could only be contemplated when the time and material
conditions were right.
I think that young Karl's position here is just an overheated and
exaggerated example of our and I think Martov's position that when
faced with capitalism and the impossibility of socialism, because
the time is not right, all the workers can do is make the best of
it.
Post by Marcos Colome
News and Letters and Raya Dunayeskaya have made a different
analysis about
Post by Marcos Colome
the letter sent to Vera, they have considered that Marx believed
that
Post by Marcos Colome
socialism could have been established in an economical backward
society and
Post by Marcos Colome
there was not need for a capitalist development, and people did
not have to
Post by Marcos Colome
go thru the suffering of capitalism, in the same manner they have
analysed
Post by Marcos Colome
Marx's ethnological notebook, but indicating that the workers of
the
Post by Marcos Colome
economical backward society needed the support of the workers of
the
Post by Marcos Colome
developed nations, which was the same hopes of Lenin, that never
took place
Post by Marcos Colome
in Europe
I did make two public presentations based on the same line of
thought, and
Post by Marcos Colome
later on, I did a more profound investigation and I was able to
see that I
Post by Marcos Colome
was mistaken, that their ideas was that they will provide support
to any
Post by Marcos Colome
bourgeois revolution in order to eliminate feudalism wherever it
existed,
Post by Marcos Colome
in some way their support to bourgeois revolution is a totally
exaggeration
Post by Marcos Colome
on their part, because they were also supporting bloody wars, and
that
Post by Marcos Colome
approach has been used by the Leninist in order to provide support
to any
Post by Marcos Colome
conspirative theory.
Lenin tried to prove on his book "The Development of capitalism in
Russia",
Post by Marcos Colome
that capitalism existed in Russia, but reading the statistic that
he
Post by Marcos Colome
submitted on his book, we can see that it was no the prevailing
mode of
Post by Marcos Colome
production, that agriculture and feudalism was the real prevailing
mode of
Post by Marcos Colome
production, and it was one of the reason why Lenin was forced to
declare
Post by Marcos Colome
that state capitalism was necessary in Russia. because he knew
that it was
Post by Marcos Colome
impossible to build socialism in an economical backward society.
The propaganda machinery created by the Bolshevik provided them the
opportunity to spread thru the world the conception that the soviet
revolution was a proletarian and a socialist revolution, even
more, Marxism
Post by Marcos Colome
did not spread to others parts of the world, what in reality was
spred were
Post by Marcos Colome
the Blanquist ideas of Lenin and Jose Stalin, in the same manner
that the
Post by Marcos Colome
Chinese were able to spred the ideas of Mao Tse Tung thru all the
third
Post by Marcos Colome
world countries based on false conceptions.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-25 19:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter

I think we have to be careful when analysing Karl's and Freds take
on this kind of thing and take into consideration how it changed
over time. Although I don't feel bound by what they said on anything.

I believe that their position was that in order to have socialism
you had to have capitalism first and that in order to get capitalism
you had to overthrow Feudalism wherever it existed. Therefore they
tended to support bourgeois revolutions not so much because they
wanted capitalism but because they saw it as a necessary historical
stage towards socialism. Capitalism would build up the means of
production and the working class that would create the potential
material conditions for socialism.

They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.

Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable socialism.
With all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.

That is how I read the letter to Vera. Fred just foresaw the ugly
and unpleasant forthcoming `Russian bourgeois revolution' and the
inevitable 1793 that would follow, murderous oppression, as
a `whatever will be, will be'. or `Que sera, sera.' Is it, seeing
French is in fashion.

As a bit of a moralist, I don't like this cold-blooded rational
analysis even if it is correct. I think the writings of Karl and
Fred bristled with covert moral indignation. They were just in
denial about it.

Despite the general accuracy of Fred's prediction I don't think he
saw state capitalism as opposed to ordinary capitalism coming. I
think you make a really good point about the possible absence of
capitalists on the ground in Russia contributing to the slight
variation of previous norms on how it developed.

I am not an expert on this but as I understand it pre 1917 Russian
capitalism was atypical. First of all a lot of capitalist
enterprises in Russia at the time although few in number were quite
advanced. They had I believe many large
Factories for the standards of the times that were the result of
foreign investment by absentee capitalists, predominantly French I
seem to remember. Thus the ratio of capitalist to workers or even
the population as a whole was comparatively low.


In contrast, in the English Revolution there were proportionately
more `capitalist', particularly small farmers with a capitalist
outlook at least, farming for profit. These people were not wimps
like our present day capitalists, they were advanced, active,
intelligent with practical organisational skills and were prepared
to get stuck in and fight dirty themselves for their own material
interests. Hence they eventually won the day against the degenerate
fops of the feudal aristocratic class.

I presume a similar situation prevailed in France in 1789.

As to the Bolsheviks, as Fred predicted, the `historic
personalities' involved could wish what they liked and boast as much
as they liked, in the end it would be an amoral historical
materialism that would dictate events. Capitalism following on from
Feudalism.

As to the support that the Bolsheviks had or might have had I think
we need to be careful as support that they may have had was based on
false promises.

In a letter from the Russian ` Social Democratic Labour Party and of
the Jewish Socialist Party' concerning the arrest and imprisonment
of a large number of worker's delegates in 1919, and they appear to
have been just that. Actually industrial workers it says;

`the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat has definitely turned
into the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, which attracted all
sorts of adventurers and suspicious characters and is supported only
by the naked force of hired bayonets.'

Trotsky the war criminal apart from taking hostages advocated
machine gunning his own red army if they retreated and refused to
fight. So we could speculate just how much support the Bolsheviks
actually had.

I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is apparently
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.

I think it will be one of these two;

Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January

Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February

It could be boring and a red herring.


As an addendum I read Hugo's Les Miserables several years ago and if
I remember correctly one of the heroes, presumably reflecting Hugo's
own opinion, idolised Bonaparte and lamented his defeat at the
battle of Waterloo.
Post by petergbryant
In Adam's post on this subject he reproduced a comment from
someone
Post by petergbryant
in Sweden which, he said ,"hits the nail right on the head".
Although I found much to agree with in the Swede's comments, I
think
Post by petergbryant
there are some serious flaws. So for me Adam, the nail didn't go
in. There is a lot to say on this subject (and I must thank Dave
Balmer for having introduced it on this thread some time ago) but I
shall keep my comments down to a few items which I think are
important.
The Swede says: "(Lenin and Trotsky's) elitism (is) an historical
expression of a left-wing statecapitalist force simply because
their
Post by petergbryant
solutions presupposed that the working class did not have
collective
Post by petergbryant
political control and power of the factories".
Although I find this statement somewhat unclear, it suggests to me
that Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to
build state capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October
revolution. It is an economistic interpretation, inasmuch as it
puts the source of Bolshevik elitism in a "state capitalist
force".
Post by petergbryant
I want to take issue with this. Lenin and Trotsky had no idea at
all about what sort of economy they would build after the
establishment of a Bolshevik government (Sovnarkom). It's true that
Lenin had always been a fan of German state capitalism under
Wilhelm
Post by petergbryant
II, but it wasn't something he had in mind when he led the coup in
October. State capitalism became the form of economy because
there
Post by petergbryant
was no other form that was realizable in the post revolutionary
circumstances of 1917. The capitalism that developed in Russia pre
1917 could only be state capitalism since there was no bourgeois
class or middle class that could act independently in its own
class
Post by petergbryant
interest, unlike the rest of Western Europe. But how would this
interpretation (of elitism entailed in state capitalism) explain
the fact that Lenin's "elitism" (vanguardism) was a feature of
Bolshevism from its very beginning as a faction within Russian
Social Democracy in 1903? Elitism/vanguardism was common to
virtually all Russian revolutionaries from the 1860s on. It
wasn't
Post by petergbryant
something necessitated by the inevitability of state capitalism post
1917. Cherneshevsky, the most important influence on Lenin after
Marx (and one who was held in high regard by Marx himself)
enunciated all the major tenets of what became orthodox Bolshevik
practice as early as 1863: People like Tkachev et al continued the
tradition. They all believed that left to themselves, the people
would never make a revolution. It could only be made by a
dedicated
Post by petergbryant
elite of intellectual and moral leaders of the people, involving the
use of violence, the end justifying the means, etc. (Marx and
Engels
Post by petergbryant
expressed some sympathy with this view as their correspondence
with
Post by petergbryant
Vera Zasulich and others after 1877 would indicate - see earlier
posts on this thread from Dave Balmer who rightly pointed to the
Blanquist/Jacobin aspect of Engels' position in particular).
Whatever is thought of the moral aspects of this vanguardist
position, it had the virtue of realism.
The Swede presents a picture of the Bolsheviks as an elite
imposing
Post by petergbryant
their will upon the working class of Russia. He says that "the hard
core Leninist-Trotskyist elite (came) basically from the upper
classes, born into a bourgeois culture despising the culture of the
working class masses".
I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the relationship.
Most of the first generation of Bolshevik leaders came from the
educated middle class, but what was sociologically significant was
that they were members of that unique social group known as the
intelligentsia. The intelligentsia was a social category based not
on class but on consciousness (which is why they don't fit into
Marxist class analysis). They devoted their lives fanatically to
ideas. They were a revolutionary priesthood with a blind faith in
abstract doctrine. It wasn't working class culture which they
despised, it was liberal bourgeois culture. Lenin and Trotsky
were
Post by petergbryant
outstanding examples; without them there would have been no
October
Post by petergbryant
revolution and the Bolshevik faction of Russian Social Democracy
would be a short footnote in the history of the European left.
The Swede says that Lenin and Trotsky "didn't get out to the
working
Post by petergbryant
class at all". How then would he explain the massive increase in
support for the Bolsheviks in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets
after
Post by petergbryant
July 1917, if not through the regular political propaganda work of
Lenin and Trotsky et al? All through 1917, the major industrial
centres of Russia saw steady growth in Bolshevik support from the
workers. By the time of the coup in October, it is likely that a
majority of the working class in the major cities of Russia
supported the Bolsheviks, plus a significant percentage of the
soldiers (most of whom regarded themselves as "proletarians"). By
1924, the so-called Lenin Levy recruited hundreds of thousands of
workers into the Party as members. By 1927, members of working
class background made up the majority of total membership.
Lenin's
Post by petergbryant
party had come a long way from the small band of professional
revolutionaries it was in 1903, and in one sense there is truth in
the statement that he had established a dictatorship of the
proletariat (or of part of it at least, and over the rest of
it).
Post by petergbryant
Peter (in Oz)
future.
Post by petergbryant
Post by Adam Buick
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-02-13 21:26:54 UTC
Permalink
-Hi to all Engelist geeks and students of Lenin's Russian Revolution
and Peter of OZ.

Sincere apologies to all others for breaking into the current
debates on more interesting subjects.

I said in a previous post that;

{I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is apparently
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.

I think it will be one of these two;

Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January

Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February

It could be boring and a red herring.}


This was initiated by a speech I found that Lenin had made in
response to something Plekanov had written, which had included a
quote from a letter from Engels to Filippo Turati.


Maxilimilien Lenin appeared to be somewhat rattled by this, so I was
keen to find out more about it. This letter to Filippo Turati now
seems to have appeared at;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm

Maybe it was there before and I was to dim-witted to find it.
However it is fairly interesting. It appears to relate to the
impending bourgeois revolution, in Italy this time, and the
attitude `socialists' should take to it.
Thus;



"The Socialist Party of Italy is obviously too young and,
considering the whole economic position, too weak, to be able to
hope for an immediate victory of Socialism. In this country the
rural population far outweighs the urban; in the towns industry is
only slightly developed and hence the real typical proletariat is
small in number."

And just to make clear exactly what kind of `revolution' he is
talking about here.



"in the case of a revolution the bourgeois republic will triumph."

So Fred raises the question.


"What should and must be the attitude of the Socialist Party in face
of this situation?"

I had said before I saw this letter that I thought that their
position was;

{They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.

Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable socialism.
With all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.}



This is what Fred said in his letter to Filippo Turati, re the
bourgeois revolution and overthrow of feudalism, using the
word `advance' I think instead of my word `progress'.


"Their place"

That of socialists

"is by the side of those who are fighting for the immediate
achievement of an advance which is at the same time in the interests
of the working class. They accept all these political or social
progressive steps, but only as instalments. Hence they regard every
revolutionary or progressive movement as a step further in the
attainment of their own end; and it is their special task to drive
other revolutionary parties ever further, and, in case one of them
should be victorious, to guard the interests of the proletariat.
These tactics, which never lose sight of the last great final aim,
preserve us Socialists from the disappointments to which the other
less clear-sighted parties, be they republicans or sentimental
socialists, who confuse what is only a mere stage with the final aim
of the advance, must inevitably succumb."

So here we have our delphic oracle Fred peering into his crystal
ball predicting things that have yet to come to pass.

The `mere stage' is in this case being the movement from feudalism
to (state) capitalism. Where `Sentimental socialists', not a phrase
I would use to describe Trots, who are `less clear sighted' and are
confused will `inevitably succumb' to the`disappointments', of
a `degenerate workers state' perhaps, by thinking that the
revolution can be anything other than a . bourgeois one and
an `instalment' in history.

The positive element would be;


"This would extend liberty and our field of action still further, at
any rate for the moment. And Marx has said that the bourgeois
republic is the only political form in which the struggle between
proletariat and bourgeoisie can be resolved. "


Thanks to the Bolsheviks we didn't even get that. Although this
position of Karl's, according to Fred, is similar to that taken to
the `evil Mensheviks' like Martov, from what I can remember. As it
turned out it became a struggle between proletariat and a
disappointing `degenerate workers state'. And to continue about `
What Is Not To Be Done';



"Undoubtedly it is no business of ours directly to prepare a
movement ourselves which is not strictly a movement of the class we
represent. If the Republicans and Radicals and Bolsheviks believe
the hour has come let them give free play to their desire to attack.
As for ourselves we have been far too often disappointed by the
large promises of these gentlemen to allow ourselves to be misused
yet another time. Neither their proclamations nor their conspiracies
will mislead us."

Live in hope!


"But if it comes to this, we must be conscious of the fact, and
openly proclaim it, that we are only taking part as an "independent
Party," which is allied for the moment with Radicals and Republicans
but is inwardly essentially different from them: that we indulge in
absolutely no illusions as to the result of the struggle in case of
victory; that this result not only cannot satisfy us but will only
be a newly attained stage to us, a new basis of operations for
further conquests; that from the very moment of victory our paths
will separate; that from that same day onwards we shall form a new
opposition to the new government, not a reactionary but a
progressive opposition, an opposition of the most extreme Left,
which will press on to new conquests beyond the ground already won."

The dreaded left communists.


And as to the difficult problem of a minority of socialist
participating in a capitalist parliament that I think I discussed
with Joel Rosenblum on this forum.


"After the common victory"


Parliamentary bourgeois democracy.

" We might perhaps be offered some seats in the new Government--but
always in a minority. Here lies the greatest danger. After the
February Revolution in 1848 the French socialistic Democrats (the
Reforme people, Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, Flocon, etc.) were
incautious enough to accept such positions. As a minority in the
Government they involuntarily bore the responsibility for all the
infamy and treachery which the majority, composed of pure
Republicans, committed against the working class, while at the same
time their participation in the government completely paralysed the
revolutionary action of the working class they were supposed to
represent.


Here I am only expressing my personal opinion, which you asked me
for, and I am doing this only with a certain amount of caution. As
for the general tactics here communicated, I have convinced myself
of their correctness throughout the whole of my life. They have
never let me down. But with regard to their application in Italy
under present conditions, the decision must be made on the spot and
by those who are in the midst of the movement."

A tough one, play it by ear, but whatever you do don't follow the
Leninist route.
Post by balmer_dave
Dear Peter
I think we have to be careful when analysing Karl's and Freds take
on this kind of thing and take into consideration how it changed
over time. Although I don't feel bound by what they said on
anything.
Post by balmer_dave
I believe that their position was that in order to have socialism
you had to have capitalism first and that in order to get
capitalism
Post by balmer_dave
you had to overthrow Feudalism wherever it existed. Therefore they
tended to support bourgeois revolutions not so much because they
wanted capitalism but because they saw it as a necessary
historical
Post by balmer_dave
stage towards socialism. Capitalism would build up the means of
production and the working class that would create the potential
material conditions for socialism.
They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.
Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable
socialism.
Post by balmer_dave
With all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.
That is how I read the letter to Vera. Fred just foresaw the ugly
and unpleasant forthcoming `Russian bourgeois revolution' and the
inevitable 1793 that would follow, murderous oppression, as
a `whatever will be, will be'. or `Que sera, sera.' Is it, seeing
French is in fashion.
As a bit of a moralist, I don't like this cold-blooded rational
analysis even if it is correct. I think the writings of Karl and
Fred bristled with covert moral indignation. They were just in
denial about it.
Despite the general accuracy of Fred's prediction I don't think he
saw state capitalism as opposed to ordinary capitalism coming. I
think you make a really good point about the possible absence of
capitalists on the ground in Russia contributing to the slight
variation of previous norms on how it developed.
I am not an expert on this but as I understand it pre 1917 Russian
capitalism was atypical. First of all a lot of capitalist
enterprises in Russia at the time although few in number were
quite
Post by balmer_dave
advanced. They had I believe many large
Factories for the standards of the times that were the result of
foreign investment by absentee capitalists, predominantly French I
seem to remember. Thus the ratio of capitalist to workers or even
the population as a whole was comparatively low.
In contrast, in the English Revolution there were proportionately
more `capitalist', particularly small farmers with a capitalist
outlook at least, farming for profit. These people were not wimps
like our present day capitalists, they were advanced, active,
intelligent with practical organisational skills and were prepared
to get stuck in and fight dirty themselves for their own material
interests. Hence they eventually won the day against the
degenerate
Post by balmer_dave
fops of the feudal aristocratic class.
I presume a similar situation prevailed in France in 1789.
As to the Bolsheviks, as Fred predicted, the `historic
personalities' involved could wish what they liked and boast as much
as they liked, in the end it would be an amoral historical
materialism that would dictate events. Capitalism following on
from
Post by balmer_dave
Feudalism.
As to the support that the Bolsheviks had or might have had I
think
Post by balmer_dave
we need to be careful as support that they may have had was based on
false promises.
In a letter from the Russian ` Social Democratic Labour Party and of
the Jewish Socialist Party' concerning the arrest and imprisonment
of a large number of worker's delegates in 1919, and they appear to
have been just that. Actually industrial workers it says;
`the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat has definitely
turned
Post by balmer_dave
into the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, which attracted all
sorts of adventurers and suspicious characters and is supported only
by the naked force of hired bayonets.'
Trotsky the war criminal apart from taking hostages advocated
machine gunning his own red army if they retreated and refused to
fight. So we could speculate just how much support the Bolsheviks
actually had.
I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in
1893
Post by balmer_dave
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is
apparently
Post by balmer_dave
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.
I think it will be one of these two;
Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January
Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February
It could be boring and a red herring.
_______________________________________________________________
Post by balmer_dave
Post by Adam Buick
Post by Adam Buick
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
weematttherat
2007-02-15 13:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by balmer_dave
-Hi to all Engelist geeks and students of Lenin's Russian Revolution
and Peter of OZ.
Sincere apologies to all others for breaking into the current
debates on more interesting subjects.
I said in a previous post that;
{I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is apparently
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.
I think it will be one of these two;
Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January
Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February
It could be boring and a red herring.}
This was initiated by a speech I found that Lenin had made in
response to something Plekanov had written, which had included a
quote from a letter from Engels to Filippo Turati.
Maxilimilien Lenin appeared to be somewhat rattled by this, so I was
keen to find out more about it. This letter to Filippo Turati now
seems to have appeared at;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm
Maybe it was there before and I was too dim-witted to find it.
Hi Dave ,
I had a look at the time to try and find the letter. This was up and I
had thought of sending you a link but guessed you would have seen it.

The MIA is still in the process of migrating to their new server,even
their email is down at the moment.I would suggest you write to them
later when it is all up.

Even if you can get the Italian version I am sure we can get a
translation with the help of comrades.:-)

Lukacs is not bad on the post Lenin period.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/democracy/ch05.htm

I appreciate though your point,and Lukacs doesnt make this,the very
fact that everything depended on Lenin and a few other leaders itself
suggests that the Soviet system was doomed from the start.Keep digging
away.
all the best,
YFS
Matt




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-02-15 19:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Matt

Thanks for that.

I think the MIA are doing an excellent job. I suspect that most of
them are Leninist and it has restored my faith in humanity and
intellectual integrity a bit that they are prepared to put stuff
like this onto their site.

I would have expected them as Leninists to select out such material.
In fact I falsely suspected them or the Trotsky Internet Archive of
devious behaviour when it came to Totsky's pamphlet/book `Our
Political Tasks' and believed that they had decided to omit a
missing last chapter allegedly called `Dictatorship Over The
Proletariat'.

I obtained the said book published by New Park Publications, ISBN 0
86151 009 7 with considerable difficulty only to find that it had
been accurately and fully transcribed. With no missing chapter.

So full apologies to MIA and the Trotsky Internet Archive for having
bad thoughts and falsely accusing them in my head.


There is another mystery here I think. Either E. H. Carr has made an
unbelievable mistake or the original trot translator of this book
themself decided to leave out the last chapter.

This was first published in 1904 as Nashi Politcheskiya Zadachi,
Russian I presume, in Geneva. I think we have a member who can rub
along a bit in Russian. Having investigated this a bit I understand
that it was also translated into German in 1970 ish by somebody
called Munser or something like that.

I have a trot friend in particular, who can do 50 words a minute
whilst watching `Miami Crime Scene Investigates' who seems quite
keen to help MIA in transcribing MECW but is having difficulty
contacting them.

If it is the `Marxist Communist' government of China trying to trash
MIA in a book burning exercise it reminds me of the `Christians'
trying to burn the first English translation of the bible and who
tried to burn the translator himself.

Some people might think I am being horrible and vindictive to Trots.
Actually I have been surrounded with them all my life, as friends. I
have only properly saved some ones life once in my life, by placing
my own life at real risk and in peril or fear, which is what counts
I think. It so happened to be an ex SWP hack who constantly referred
to me as a member of the `small party of good boys'.

At the time I took a liberal attitude to the `hostility clause' and
decided against the idea that the world would be better with one
Trot, and possibly two less.

My own socialist dog, literally, who got who stuck with them, sort
of, just got a free ride in a helicopter.

The ungrateful bitch died a few years later in a cycle accident when
on holiday in Italy. I still miss her.
Post by weematttherat
Post by balmer_dave
-Hi to all Engelist geeks and students of Lenin's Russian
Revolution
Post by weematttherat
Post by balmer_dave
and Peter of OZ.
Sincere apologies to all others for breaking into the current
debates on more interesting subjects.
I said in a previous post that;
{I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is
apparently
Post by weematttherat
Post by balmer_dave
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.
I think it will be one of these two;
Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January
Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February
It could be boring and a red herring.}
This was initiated by a speech I found that Lenin had made in
response to something Plekanov had written, which had included a
quote from a letter from Engels to Filippo Turati.
Maxilimilien Lenin appeared to be somewhat rattled by this, so I was
keen to find out more about it. This letter to Filippo Turati now
seems to have appeared at;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm
Post by weematttherat
Post by balmer_dave
Maybe it was there before and I was too dim-witted to find it.
Hi Dave ,
I had a look at the time to try and find the letter. This was up and I
had thought of sending you a link but guessed you would have seen it.
The MIA is still in the process of migrating to their new
server,even
Post by weematttherat
their email is down at the moment.I would suggest you write to them
later when it is all up.
Even if you can get the Italian version I am sure we can get a
translation with the help of comrades.:-)
Lukacs is not bad on the post Lenin period.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/democracy/ch05.htm
I appreciate though your point,and Lukacs doesnt make this,the very
fact that everything depended on Lenin and a few other leaders
itself
Post by weematttherat
suggests that the Soviet system was doomed from the start.Keep
digging
Post by weematttherat
away.
all the best,
YFS
Matt
Adam Buick
2007-01-26 08:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Peter,
There have always been two views of the Bolshevik revolution and regime in
the SPGB/WSM. One is that Lenin, etc were gernuine socialists who were
inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the conditions
weren't there for this and that their method (minority dictatorship) was
wrong. The other is that they were eltists from the start who were always
going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they labelled
themselves socialists; in order words, rather than the view you summarise as
"Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to build state
capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution" it was the
other way round: the decision to build state capitalism was an inevitable
product of the Bolsheviks' elitism.
In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that was bound to
fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism that succeded?
The mysterious Swede takes the second view, as does Rudolf Sprenger in
"Bolshevism" and Anton Pannekoek in "Lenin As Philosopher". Personally, I'm
inclined to this view myself in that, as you point out, the whole Russian
anti-Tsarist revolutionary tradition, not just the Bolsheviks, was elitist,
and in a direct line of succession from the Jacobin elitism of the French
bourgeois revolutionaries. I think there is also a strong case for saying
that, in view of the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie in the classic
sense, the (bourgeois) task of clearing away the obstacle that Tsarism was
to the further development of capitalism in Russia fell to another social
group, the intelligentsia (which is a Russian word to describe one of the
"estates" within the Tsarist social order). But because, as you say, most of
the revolutionary intelligentsia despised bourgeois culture their
anti-Tsarism revolution, when it came, took on a "socialist" garb.
Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did understand Marx and
socialism and might possibly even be described as a socialist (with wrong
ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't say the same thing about
Trotsky. I've not come across anything he wrote that shows he understood
what socialism was (even before 1917 he never distinguished between
socialism and state capitalism; unlike Lenin he never described Russia as
state capitalism, and in exile employed all sorts of convoluted arguments to
avoid saying this). While there are quite a few of Lenin's pre-1917 writings
that could be recommended as putting the socialist/Marxist case (eg his
early work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" (I didn't think it was
that bad, Marcos!) and his entry on "Karl Marx" written for an encyclopaedia
see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm),
this cannot be said of Trotsky. Trotsky's writings, eg his History of the
Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed are only interesting as the
views of someone prominently involved in the Bolshevik experiment.
Adam

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
robbo203
2007-01-26 16:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Hi all

Talking of Bolshevism (Leninism) there is an interesting report of a
debate (held in 1950) which I came across on the web. Amongst other
things, it provides some useful information on the extent of inequality
in the erstwhile state capitalist Soviet Union

http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1950/03/russia.htm

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
alb1342
2007-01-28 11:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Interesting, but the only problem is that Schachtman was, at least at
that time, a Leninist too! I believe he might even have once called
himself a Bolshevik-Leninist as the Trots used to.
Adam
Post by robbo203
Hi all
Talking of Bolshevism (Leninism) there is an interesting report of a
debate (held in 1950) which I came across on the web. Amongst other
things, it provides some useful information on the extent of
inequality
Post by robbo203
in the erstwhile state capitalist Soviet Union
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1950/03/russia.htm
Robin
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-26 18:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Adam says;

"In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that was
bound to fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism
that succeeded?"

There is in fact a third alternative that could make everyone happy
by entering into the wonderful world of dialectics. It could be a
combination of the two, a kind of Hegelian negation of a negation.

I think we can thank the Hegelian spirit that quantum mechanics and
the discovery of the wave/particle duality of electrons was
discovered after Karl and Fred died, otherwise we would never have
heard the end of it, they would have been like quantum mechanical
pigs in dialectical clover.


There is some fairly interesting stuff on state capitalism towards
the end of;



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm
Post by Adam Buick
Peter,
There have always been two views of the Bolshevik revolution and regime in
the SPGB/WSM. One is that Lenin, etc were gernuine socialists who were
inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the
conditions
Post by Adam Buick
weren't there for this and that their method (minority
dictatorship) was
Post by Adam Buick
wrong. The other is that they were eltists from the start who were always
going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they
labelled
Post by Adam Buick
themselves socialists; in order words, rather than the view you summarise as
"Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to build state
capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution" it was the
other way round: the decision to build state capitalism was an
inevitable
Post by Adam Buick
product of the Bolsheviks' elitism.
In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that was bound to
fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism that
succeded?
Post by Adam Buick
The mysterious Swede takes the second view, as does Rudolf
Sprenger in
Post by Adam Buick
"Bolshevism" and Anton Pannekoek in "Lenin As Philosopher".
Personally, I'm
Post by Adam Buick
inclined to this view myself in that, as you point out, the whole Russian
anti-Tsarist revolutionary tradition, not just the Bolsheviks, was elitist,
and in a direct line of succession from the Jacobin elitism of the French
bourgeois revolutionaries. I think there is also a strong case for saying
that, in view of the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie in the classic
sense, the (bourgeois) task of clearing away the obstacle that
Tsarism was
Post by Adam Buick
to the further development of capitalism in Russia fell to another social
group, the intelligentsia (which is a Russian word to describe one of the
"estates" within the Tsarist social order). But because, as you say, most of
the revolutionary intelligentsia despised bourgeois culture their
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-26 20:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Comrade Buick:

What you have said about Trotsky is totally correct, despite that he was a
great writer, he never showed that he had understood the real meaning of
socialism, and he did not show that he understood Marxism, and his struggle
for leadership dominated all his life. and any actions transferring private
property into the hands of the state he considered it as socialism, but he
never called it state capitalism as Lenin did. I did not say that Lenin
Development of capitalism in Russia was a bad work, what I said was, that
it proved that capitalism was not the prevailing mode of production in
Russia. I think elitism is one of the biggest problem of Leninism, not only
of the Bolshevik, but it is also a problem of the followers of Leninism. Now
days, the ideas of Leon Trotsky are being used by the Venezuelan government
and many followers of Trotsky are part of the Venezuelan government, even
the president announced publically that his government is composed of
Trotskyist
Post by Adam Buick
Peter,
There have always been two views of the Bolshevik revolution and regime in
the SPGB/WSM. One is that Lenin, etc were gernuine socialists who were
inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the conditions
weren't there for this and that their method (minority dictatorship) was
wrong. The other is that they were eltists from the start who were always
going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they labelled
themselves socialists; in order words, rather than the view you summarise as
"Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to build state
capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution" it was the
other way round: the decision to build state capitalism was an inevitable
product of the Bolsheviks' elitism.
In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that was bound to
fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism that succeded?
The mysterious Swede takes the second view, as does Rudolf Sprenger in
"Bolshevism" and Anton Pannekoek in "Lenin As Philosopher". Personally, I'm
inclined to this view myself in that, as you point out, the whole Russian
anti-Tsarist revolutionary tradition, not just the Bolsheviks, was elitist,
and in a direct line of succession from the Jacobin elitism of the French
bourgeois revolutionaries. I think there is also a strong case for saying
that, in view of the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie in the classic
sense, the (bourgeois) task of clearing away the obstacle that Tsarism was
to the further development of capitalism in Russia fell to another social
group, the intelligentsia (which is a Russian word to describe one of the
"estates" within the Tsarist social order). But because, as you say, most of
the revolutionary intelligentsia despised bourgeois culture their
anti-Tsarism revolution, when it came, took on a "socialist" garb.
Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did understand Marx and
socialism and might possibly even be described as a socialist (with wrong
ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't say the same thing about
Trotsky. I've not come across anything he wrote that shows he understood
what socialism was (even before 1917 he never distinguished between
socialism and state capitalism; unlike Lenin he never described Russia as
state capitalism, and in exile employed all sorts of convoluted arguments to
avoid saying this). While there are quite a few of Lenin's pre-1917 writings
that could be recommended as putting the socialist/Marxist case (eg his
early work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" (I didn't think it was
that bad, Marcos!) and his entry on "Karl Marx" written for an
encyclopaedia
see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm ),
this cannot be said of Trotsky. Trotsky's writings, eg his History of the
Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed are only interesting as the
views of someone prominently involved in the Bolshevik experiment.
Adam
__________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
petergbryant
2007-01-30 15:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Adam

Your post didn't arrive in my e-mail box for some reason and I only
found it included in later posts by Dave and Marcos. I have now
also read your more recent post re Lenin on state capitalism as
presented in his works written after the July days in 1917, eg. "the
Impending Catastrophe and how to Avert it". This work (and others
written at the same time, including "State and Revolution") all
share a common belief that modern large scale capitalist economies
were already "socialized economies" in which only slight
modifications would have to be made to turn them into socialist
economies. It's a view Lenin picked up I think from Rudolf
Hilferding (who was a trenchant critic of the state-capitalist
thesis). You are right to point to the enthusiasm Lenin shows
towards state capitalism, but I think it should be emphasized that
he always regarded state capitalism as a transitional form, a step
towards socialism. In "The Impending Catastrophe etc." Lenin says
that "…state monopoly capitalism is the complete material
preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the
ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there
are no intermediate rungs". The other point worth making is that in
1917 Lenin (and all the Bolsheviks) were of the strong conviction
that revolutions would soon break out in the major capitalist
countries of Europe as a direct consequence of the War. This is
what he says in State and Revolution: "(The Russian) revolution can
be understood in its totality only as a link in the chain of
Socialist proletarian revolutions called forth by the imperialist
war". "An international proletarian revolution is clearly rising".
Trotsky in particular thought that a socialist revolution in Russia
would be impossible unless it was supported by socialist revolutions
in the advanced capitalist countries - a view central to his
doctrine of `permanent revolution". This was orthodox Marxism,
although the belief it was based upon - that the working classes of
Western capitalism had achieved revolutionary consciousness - was
false.
You ask the question: "was Bolshevism an attempt to to establish
socialism that was bound to fail, or was it an attempt to to
establish state capitalism that succeeded?" You indicate a
preference for the latter view. Having in mind that Lenin saw state
capitalism as a transitional stage to socialism and also that the
imminence of socialist revolution elsewhere would accelerate
Russia's revolution towards full socialism, then I think the answer
to your question is that both views are right; hence, "Bolshevism
was an attempt to establish socialism that was bound to fail because
(under the conditions it faced in Russia after 1917) it couldn't get
beyond state capitalism". However, having said all this, I think
that to understand the nature and evolution of Leninism/Bolshevism
in Russia, economic questions like whether or not Lenin was intent
on building state capitalism are of less significance than questions
concerning the politics and ideology of Bolshevism. It was this
consideration that originally led me to take up the issue with the
anonymous Swede who suggested that Bolshevik elitism (vanguardism)
was a direct result of establishing a state capitalist economy,
whereas I see it as a direct consequence of Leninist politics and
ideology, with its roots in 19th century Russian revolutionary
romanticism.
You and Marcos and Dave particularly certainly give Trotsky a bit
of a pasting! Dave calls him a "degenerate warmonger". This is
hard to believe given that Trotsky was the one who personally signed
the Treaty of Brest Litovsk which pulled the Russian army out of the
War! Trotsky may not have contributed anything original to Marxist
theory but then neither did Lenin in my view. Who did actually?
But Trotsky wrote what is still in my opinion the greatest single
work of history in the Marxist vein - "The History of the Russian
Revolution." I am not saying that I agree with his interpretation
of events. But compared say with Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-
Criticism" I know which work I would plug for!

Peter (in Oz)
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
Peter,
There have always been two views of the Bolshevik revolution and regime in
the SPGB/WSM. One is that Lenin, etc were gernuine socialists who were
inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the
conditions
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
weren't there for this and that their method (minority
dictatorship) was
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
wrong. The other is that they were eltists from the start who were always
going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they
labelled
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
themselves socialists; in order words, rather than the view you
summarise
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
as
"Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to
build
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
state
capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution"
it was
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
the
other way round: the decision to build state capitalism was an inevitable
product of the Bolsheviks' elitism.
In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that
was bound
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
to
fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism that
succeded?
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
The mysterious Swede takes the second view, as does Rudolf
Sprenger in
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
"Bolshevism" and Anton Pannekoek in "Lenin As Philosopher".
Personally,
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
I'm
inclined to this view myself in that, as you point out, the
whole Russian
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
anti-Tsarist revolutionary tradition, not just the Bolsheviks,
was
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
elitist,
and in a direct line of succession from the Jacobin elitism of the French
bourgeois revolutionaries. I think there is also a strong case for saying
that, in view of the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie in the classic
sense, the (bourgeois) task of clearing away the obstacle that Tsarism was
to the further development of capitalism in Russia fell to
another social
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
group, the intelligentsia (which is a Russian word to describe one of the
"estates" within the Tsarist social order). But because, as you
say, most
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
of
the revolutionary intelligentsia despised bourgeois culture their
anti-Tsarism revolution, when it came, took on a "socialist"
garb.
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did
understand Marx
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
and
socialism and might possibly even be described as a socialist (with wrong
ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't say the same thing about
Trotsky. I've not come across anything he wrote that shows he understood
what socialism was (even before 1917 he never distinguished
between
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
socialism and state capitalism; unlike Lenin he never described Russia as
state capitalism, and in exile employed all sorts of convoluted
arguments
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
to
avoid saying this). While there are quite a few of Lenin's pre-
1917
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
writings
that could be recommended as putting the socialist/Marxist case (eg his
early work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" (I didn't
think it
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
was
that bad, Marcos!) and his entry on "Karl Marx" written for an
encyclopaedia
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm ),
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
this cannot be said of Trotsky. Trotsky's writings, eg his
History of the
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed are only
interesting as the
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
views of someone prominently involved in the Bolshevik
experiment.
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
Adam
__________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-01-30 19:05:26 UTC
Permalink
As to Peter of Oz statement that;

Dave particularly certainly gives Trotsky a bit of a pasting! Dave
calls him a "degenerate warmonger".

It looks like I am being misquoted, yet again, as an advanced search
under Balmer_dave and message body `degenerate warmonger' revealed;


`There are no messages matching your query. You may want to:
- Check your spelling.
- Try more general words.
- Try different words that mean the same thing.
- Broaden your search by using fewer words.
- Try a different time period.'

It looks like I have never used the term at all about anyone, ever,
on this Forum, which is a bit surprising.
But it is not a miss quote that I will lose any sleep about so I
will forgive you, brother Peter.

I think I called Trotsky a `degenerate war criminal', a charge I am
happy to take every opportunity to repeat.

The reason I repeat this kind of thing is that I know for a fact
that many of the foot soldiers of the Trot parties know absolutely
nothing of the Russian revolution. For many what they do know is not
much more than the chickens in animal farm;

`Bolsheviks good, Mensheviks bad' and such like.

But as trained unthinking shepherded sheep they don't need to know
much more than to trust their leaders.

The Trots are making much of Bush et al being war criminals at the
moment. There is a perfectly readable book about the activities of
their idols, written by one of their own, E. H. Carr.

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could read it, if
they bothered, and not to come to the same conclusion about the ex-
Menshevik, Mr Trotsky, and his Maximilien Lenin.

We can imagine the `Hue and Cry' the trots would make if the
Busheviks openly advocated the taking and murdering of hostages as
the means that was justified by the end, of a democratic Iraq.


It would appear, at least on the surface, that our Bushevik Neocons
are slightly more squeamish on such issues than our present day
Bolsheviks.
Post by petergbryant
Adam
Your post didn't arrive in my e-mail box for some reason and I
only
Post by petergbryant
found it included in later posts by Dave and Marcos. I have now
also read your more recent post re Lenin on state capitalism as
presented in his works written after the July days in 1917,
eg. "the
Post by petergbryant
Impending Catastrophe and how to Avert it". This work (and others
written at the same time, including "State and Revolution") all
share a common belief that modern large scale capitalist economies
were already "socialized economies" in which only slight
modifications would have to be made to turn them into socialist
economies. It's a view Lenin picked up I think from Rudolf
Hilferding (who was a trenchant critic of the state-capitalist
thesis). You are right to point to the enthusiasm Lenin shows
towards state capitalism, but I think it should be emphasized that
he always regarded state capitalism as a transitional form, a step
towards socialism. In "The Impending Catastrophe etc." Lenin
says
Post by petergbryant
that "…state monopoly capitalism is the complete material
preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the
ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism
there
Post by petergbryant
are no intermediate rungs". The other point worth making is that in
1917 Lenin (and all the Bolsheviks) were of the strong conviction
that revolutions would soon break out in the major capitalist
countries of Europe as a direct consequence of the War. This is
what he says in State and Revolution: "(The Russian) revolution can
be understood in its totality only as a link in the chain of
Socialist proletarian revolutions called forth by the imperialist
war". "An international proletarian revolution is clearly
rising".
Post by petergbryant
Trotsky in particular thought that a socialist revolution in
Russia
Post by petergbryant
would be impossible unless it was supported by socialist
revolutions
Post by petergbryant
in the advanced capitalist countries - a view central to his
doctrine of `permanent revolution". This was orthodox Marxism,
although the belief it was based upon - that the working classes of
Western capitalism had achieved revolutionary consciousness - was
false.
You ask the question: "was Bolshevism an attempt to to establish
socialism that was bound to fail, or was it an attempt to to
establish state capitalism that succeeded?" You indicate a
preference for the latter view. Having in mind that Lenin saw
state
Post by petergbryant
capitalism as a transitional stage to socialism and also that the
imminence of socialist revolution elsewhere would accelerate
Russia's revolution towards full socialism, then I think the
answer
Post by petergbryant
to your question is that both views are right; hence, "Bolshevism
was an attempt to establish socialism that was bound to fail
because
Post by petergbryant
(under the conditions it faced in Russia after 1917) it couldn't get
beyond state capitalism". However, having said all this, I think
that to understand the nature and evolution of Leninism/Bolshevism
in Russia, economic questions like whether or not Lenin was intent
on building state capitalism are of less significance than
questions
Post by petergbryant
concerning the politics and ideology of Bolshevism. It was this
consideration that originally led me to take up the issue with the
anonymous Swede who suggested that Bolshevik elitism (vanguardism)
was a direct result of establishing a state capitalist economy,
whereas I see it as a direct consequence of Leninist politics and
ideology, with its roots in 19th century Russian revolutionary
romanticism.
You and Marcos and Dave particularly certainly give Trotsky a bit
of a pasting! Dave calls him a "degenerate warmonger". This is
hard to believe given that Trotsky was the one who personally
signed
Post by petergbryant
the Treaty of Brest Litovsk which pulled the Russian army out of the
War! Trotsky may not have contributed anything original to
Marxist
Post by petergbryant
theory but then neither did Lenin in my view. Who did actually?
But Trotsky wrote what is still in my opinion the greatest single
work of history in the Marxist vein - "The History of the Russian
Revolution." I am not saying that I agree with his
interpretation
Post by petergbryant
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
__________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Marcos Colome
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
balmer_dave
2007-05-13 21:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Adam

You said that;

'Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did understand
Marx and socialism and might possibly even be described as a
socialist (with wrong ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't
say the same thing aboutTrotsky. I've not come across anything he
wrote that shows he understood what socialism was (even before 1917
he never distinguished between socialism and state capitalism'

After a bit of a long search I think I have found something;

"The material premise of communism should be so high a development
of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased
to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of
life's goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as
it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house –
any control except that of education, habit and social opinion.
Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider
such a really modest perspective "utopian."

Capitalism prepared the conditions and forces for a social
revolution: technique, science and the proletariat. The communist
structure cannot, however, immediately replace the bourgeois
society. The material and cultural inheritance from the past is
wholly inadequate for that.

In its first steps the workers' state cannot yet permit everyone to
work "according to his abilities" – that is, as much as he can and
wishes to – nor can it reward everyone "according to his needs",
regardless of the work he does. In order to increase the productive
forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage
payment – that is, to the distribution of life's goods in proportion
to the quantity and quality of individual labor."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm
Post by Adam Buick
Peter,
There have always been two views of the Bolshevik revolution and regime in
the SPGB/WSM. One is that Lenin, etc were gernuine socialists who were
inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the
conditions
Post by Adam Buick
weren't there for this and that their method (minority
dictatorship) was
Post by Adam Buick
wrong. The other is that they were eltists from the start who were always
going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they
labelled
Post by Adam Buick
themselves socialists; in order words, rather than the view you summarise as
"Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to build state
capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution" it was the
other way round: the decision to build state capitalism was an
inevitable
Post by Adam Buick
product of the Bolsheviks' elitism.
In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that was bound to
fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism that
succeded?
Post by Adam Buick
The mysterious Swede takes the second view, as does Rudolf
Sprenger in
Post by Adam Buick
"Bolshevism" and Anton Pannekoek in "Lenin As Philosopher".
Personally, I'm
Post by Adam Buick
inclined to this view myself in that, as you point out, the whole Russian
anti-Tsarist revolutionary tradition, not just the Bolsheviks, was elitist,
and in a direct line of succession from the Jacobin elitism of the French
bourgeois revolutionaries. I think there is also a strong case for saying
that, in view of the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie in the classic
sense, the (bourgeois) task of clearing away the obstacle that
Tsarism was
Post by Adam Buick
to the further development of capitalism in Russia fell to another social
group, the intelligentsia (which is a Russian word to describe one of the
"estates" within the Tsarist social order). But because, as you say, most of
the revolutionary intelligentsia despised bourgeois culture their
anti-Tsarism revolution, when it came, took on a "socialist" garb.
Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did
understand Marx and
Post by Adam Buick
socialism and might possibly even be described as a socialist
(with wrong
Post by Adam Buick
ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't say the same thing about
Trotsky. I've not come across anything he wrote that shows he
understood
Post by Adam Buick
what socialism was (even before 1917 he never distinguished
between
Post by Adam Buick
socialism and state capitalism; unlike Lenin he never described Russia as
state capitalism, and in exile employed all sorts of convoluted arguments to
avoid saying this). While there are quite a few of Lenin's pre-
1917 writings
Post by Adam Buick
that could be recommended as putting the socialist/Marxist case (eg his
early work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" (I didn't
think it was
Post by Adam Buick
that bad, Marcos!) and his entry on "Karl Marx" written for an
encyclopaedia
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm),
Post by Adam Buick
this cannot be said of Trotsky. Trotsky's writings, eg his History of the
Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed are only
interesting as the
Post by Adam Buick
views of someone prominently involved in the Bolshevik experiment.
Adam
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Marcos Colome
2007-05-13 21:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Anarchism and socialism written by Joseph Stalin shows that he understood
the real concept of socialism, but he became an apologist of State
Capitalism, they knew that it was impossible to establish a socialist
society in a backward country such as Russia, but of all the Bolshevick the
one with less knowledge of socialist and Marxist principles of Leon Trostky,
he was a good writer, but he never understood the real meaning of socialism
Post by balmer_dave
Dear Adam
You said that;
'Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did understand
Marx and socialism and might possibly even be described as a
socialist (with wrong ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't
say the same thing aboutTrotsky. I've not come across anything he
wrote that shows he understood what socialism was (even before 1917
he never distinguished between socialism and state capitalism'
After a bit of a long search I think I have found something;
"The material premise of communism should be so high a development
of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased
to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of
life's goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as
it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house –
any control except that of education, habit and social opinion.
Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider
such a really modest perspective "utopian."
Capitalism prepared the conditions and forces for a social
revolution: technique, science and the proletariat. The communist
structure cannot, however, immediately replace the bourgeois
society. The material and cultural inheritance from the past is
wholly inadequate for that.
In its first steps the workers' state cannot yet permit everyone to
work "according to his abilities" – that is, as much as he can and
wishes to – nor can it reward everyone "according to his needs",
regardless of the work he does. In order to increase the productive
forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage
payment – that is, to the distribution of life's goods in proportion
to the quantity and quality of individual labor."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm
Post by Adam Buick
Peter,
There have always been two views of the Bolshevik revolution and
regime in
Post by Adam Buick
the SPGB/WSM. One is that Lenin, etc were gernuine socialists who
were
Post by Adam Buick
inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the
conditions
Post by Adam Buick
weren't there for this and that their method (minority
dictatorship) was
Post by Adam Buick
wrong. The other is that they were eltists from the start who were
always
Post by Adam Buick
going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they
labelled
Post by Adam Buick
themselves socialists; in order words, rather than the view you
summarise as
Post by Adam Buick
"Bolshevik elitism was an inevitable product of the decision to
build state
Post by Adam Buick
capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution"
it was the
Post by Adam Buick
other way round: the decision to build state capitalism was an
inevitable
Post by Adam Buick
product of the Bolsheviks' elitism.
In short, was Bolshevism an attempt to establish socialism that
was bound to
Post by Adam Buick
fail or was it an attempt to establish state-capitalism that
succeded?
Post by Adam Buick
The mysterious Swede takes the second view, as does Rudolf
Sprenger in
Post by Adam Buick
"Bolshevism" and Anton Pannekoek in "Lenin As Philosopher".
Personally, I'm
Post by Adam Buick
inclined to this view myself in that, as you point out, the whole
Russian
Post by Adam Buick
anti-Tsarist revolutionary tradition, not just the Bolsheviks, was
elitist,
Post by Adam Buick
and in a direct line of succession from the Jacobin elitism of the
French
Post by Adam Buick
bourgeois revolutionaries. I think there is also a strong case
for saying
Post by Adam Buick
that, in view of the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie in the
classic
Post by Adam Buick
sense, the (bourgeois) task of clearing away the obstacle that
Tsarism was
Post by Adam Buick
to the further development of capitalism in Russia fell to another
social
Post by Adam Buick
group, the intelligentsia (which is a Russian word to describe one
of the
Post by Adam Buick
"estates" within the Tsarist social order). But because, as you
say, most of
Post by Adam Buick
the revolutionary intelligentsia despised bourgeois culture their
anti-Tsarism revolution, when it came, took on a "socialist" garb.
Having said this, I'm prepared to concede that Lenin did
understand Marx and
Post by Adam Buick
socialism and might possibly even be described as a socialist
(with wrong
Post by Adam Buick
ideas as to how to get there). But I wouldn't say the same thing
about
Post by Adam Buick
Trotsky. I've not come across anything he wrote that shows he
understood
Post by Adam Buick
what socialism was (even before 1917 he never distinguished
between
Post by Adam Buick
socialism and state capitalism; unlike Lenin he never described
Russia as
Post by Adam Buick
state capitalism, and in exile employed all sorts of convoluted
arguments to
Post by Adam Buick
avoid saying this). While there are quite a few of Lenin's pre-
1917 writings
Post by Adam Buick
that could be recommended as putting the socialist/Marxist case
(eg his
Post by Adam Buick
early work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" (I didn't
think it was
Post by Adam Buick
that bad, Marcos!) and his entry on "Karl Marx" written for an
encyclopaedia
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm),
Post by Adam Buick
this cannot be said of Trotsky. Trotsky's writings, eg his History
of the
Post by Adam Buick
Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed are only
interesting as the
Post by Adam Buick
views of someone prominently involved in the Bolshevik experiment.
Adam
__________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buick
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Adam Buick
2007-01-29 21:54:51 UTC
Permalink
If I may be permitted to do a Dave, here's some quotes from Lenin confirming
that he was perfectly well aware that the Bolsheviks could only establish
state capitalism in Russia after their seizure of power in November 1917.
This is what he said in September 1917 BEFORE the overthrow of the Kerenky
government in "The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat":
"given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism
inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards
socialism!"
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist
monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly
which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that
extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. "
"state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism,
the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which
and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360

After the coming to power of the Bolshevik government he continued to
advocate state capitalism, as in his "Report On The Immediate Tasks Of The
Soviet Government" to the (Session of the All-Russia C.E.C. on 29 April
1918:

"Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the evil,
the enemy, which we are invited to combat. When I read these references to
such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has
happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them
forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step
forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in
Russia, that would be a victory."
"What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at
the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that
the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in
Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect
even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state
capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not
out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book
learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation."
"Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking
establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and
labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no
socialism. (Applause.) "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

The following month he returned to the same theme in a further attack on the
Left Communists “Left-Wing” Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality”:

"If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made
by the ‘Left Communists’ will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter.
According to them, under the ‘Bolshevik deviation to the right’ the Soviet
Republic is threatened with ‘evolution towards state capitalism‘. They have
really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these ‘Left Communists’
repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . . It
has not occurred to them that 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 and a sure guarantee that within a
year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become
invincible in our country."
"State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than
we are paying at present (I took a numerical example deliberately to bring
this out more sharply), because it is worth while paying for ‘tuition‘,
because it is useful for the workers, because victory over disorder,
economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing; because the
continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most
serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome it),
whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism
not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the
working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy
of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production
on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may
use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism
will be assured."
"To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete
example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is
Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist
engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois
imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist,
Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different
social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a
proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions
necessary for socialism."
"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in 'coming forth', our task
is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in
copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the
copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter
hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not
hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Adam

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving – check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-29 23:16:29 UTC
Permalink
He repeated said the same ideas thru different of his works, he knew that
state capitalism was the only viable road for Russia, and the consistent
saying that the workers of the developed country must provided support to
the Soviet state was only a way to cover their nationalist point of view,
but he spoke about a Russian grown socialism first, and the anti-imperialism
tactic was another indication that state capitalist was their main goal,

That is reason why I do not believe that Jose Stalin was the creator of the
idea of socialism in one country, it was Lenin and Trotsky that laid all the
foundations for the Russian national state capitalism, that is one of the
biggest problem of the Leninist that have rejected Stalinism, that they do
not want to recognize that the foundation of Stalinism is Leninism itself.

I have just received a message from the International Communist Current of
Brazil and Venezuela and they are trying to explain to me the opposite view,
that Stalinism is only a degeneration of the Soviet socialism, which is
similar to the position of Enver Hoxha and Mao
Tse Tung, which blamed the situation on Nikita Kruschev, the whole left
needs an exorcism of Leninism, if the root of Leninism are not understood it
is very difficult to understand the real meaning of socialism
Post by Adam Buick
If I may be permitted to do a Dave, here's some quotes from Lenin confirming
that he was perfectly well aware that the Bolsheviks could only establish
state capitalism in Russia after their seizure of power in November 1917.
This is what he said in September 1917 BEFORE the overthrow of the Kerenky
"given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism
inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards
socialism!"
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist
monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly
which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that
extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. "
"state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism,
the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which
and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360
After the coming to power of the Bolshevik government he continued to
advocate state capitalism, as in his "Report On The Immediate Tasks Of The
Soviet Government" to the (Session of the All-Russia C.E.C. on 29 April
"Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the evil,
the enemy, which we are invited to combat. When I read these references to
such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has
happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them
forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step
forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in
Russia, that would be a victory."
"What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at
the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that
the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in
Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect
even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state
capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not
out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book
learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation."
"Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking
establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and
labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no
socialism. (Applause.) "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm
The following month he returned to the same theme in a further attack on the
"If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made
by the 'Left Communists' will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter.
According to them, under the 'Bolshevik deviation to the right' the Soviet
Republic is threatened with 'evolution towards state capitalism'. They
have
really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these 'Left
Communists'
repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . . It
has not occurred to them that 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 and a sure guarantee that within a
year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become
invincible in our country."
"State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than
we are paying at present (I took a numerical example deliberately to bring
this out more sharply), because it is worth while paying for 'tuition',
because it is useful for the workers, because victory over disorder,
economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing; because the
continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most
serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome it),
whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism
not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the
working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy
of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production
on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may
use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism
will be assured."
"To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete
example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is
Germany. Here we have "the last word" in modern large-scale capitalist
engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois
imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist,
Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different
social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a
proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions
necessary for socialism."
"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in 'coming forth', our task
is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in
copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the
copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter
hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not
hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm
Adam
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving – check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
alan johnstone
2007-01-30 00:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Just to demonstrate that Stalin himself fully understood socialism , i
refer you to my early post on my blog , marcos and others

http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-am-stalinist.html

Alan Johnstone , Edinburgh Br



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcos Colome" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: The Fall of Bolshevism (Leninism)


He repeated said the same ideas thru different of his works, he knew that
state capitalism was the only viable road for Russia, and the consistent
saying that the workers of the developed country must provided support to
the Soviet state was only a way to cover their nationalist point of view,
but he spoke about a Russian grown socialism first, and the anti-imperialism
tactic was another indication that state capitalist was their main goal,

That is reason why I do not believe that Jose Stalin was the creator of the
idea of socialism in one country, it was Lenin and Trotsky that laid all the
foundations for the Russian national state capitalism, that is one of the
biggest problem of the Leninist that have rejected Stalinism, that they do
not want to recognize that the foundation of Stalinism is Leninism itself.

I have just received a message from the International Communist Current of
Brazil and Venezuela and they are trying to explain to me the opposite view,
that Stalinism is only a degeneration of the Soviet socialism, which is
similar to the position of Enver Hoxha and Mao
Tse Tung, which blamed the situation on Nikita Kruschev, the whole left
needs an exorcism of Leninism, if the root of Leninism are not understood it
is very difficult to understand the real meaning of socialism
Post by Adam Buick
If I may be permitted to do a Dave, here's some quotes from Lenin confirming
that he was perfectly well aware that the Bolsheviks could only establish
state capitalism in Russia after their seizure of power in November 1917.
This is what he said in September 1917 BEFORE the overthrow of the Kerenky
"given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism
inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards
socialism!"
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist
monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly
which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that
extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. "
"state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism,
the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which
and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360
After the coming to power of the Bolshevik government he continued to
advocate state capitalism, as in his "Report On The Immediate Tasks Of The
Soviet Government" to the (Session of the All-Russia C.E.C. on 29 April
"Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the evil,
the enemy, which we are invited to combat. When I read these references to
such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has
happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them
forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step
forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in
Russia, that would be a victory."
"What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at
the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that
the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in
Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect
even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state
capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not
out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book
learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation."
"Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking
establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and
labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no
socialism. (Applause.) "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm
The following month he returned to the same theme in a further attack on the
"If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made
by the 'Left Communists' will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter.
According to them, under the 'Bolshevik deviation to the right' the Soviet
Republic is threatened with 'evolution towards state capitalism'. They
have
really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these 'Left
Communists'
repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . . It
has not occurred to them that 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 and a sure guarantee that within a
year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become
invincible in our country."
"State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than
we are paying at present (I took a numerical example deliberately to bring
this out more sharply), because it is worth while paying for 'tuition',
because it is useful for the workers, because victory over disorder,
economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing; because the
continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most
serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome it),
whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism
not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the
working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy
of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production
on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may
use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism
will be assured."
"To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete
example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is
Germany. Here we have "the last word" in modern large-scale capitalist
engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois
imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist,
Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different
social type, of a different class content-a Soviet state, that is, a
proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions
necessary for socialism."
"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in 'coming forth', our task
is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in
copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the
copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter
hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not
hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm
Adam
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 28/01/2007
13:12






Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marcos Colome
2007-01-30 04:28:19 UTC
Permalink
* I iknow i have read most of the Stalin works , I have a rare collection of
stalin that were printed in England in 13 volumes, they are hard to get at
the present time, but he never practiced what he said, and he had a wrong
conception about philosophy, his work on philosophy is so distorted as Mao
Tse Tung*
Just to demonstrate that Stalin himself fully understood socialism , i
refer you to my early post on my blog , marcos and others
http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-am-stalinist.html
Alan Johnstone , Edinburgh Br
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: The Fall of Bolshevism (Leninism)
He repeated said the same ideas thru different of his works, he knew that
state capitalism was the only viable road for Russia, and the consistent
saying that the workers of the developed country must provided support to
the Soviet state was only a way to cover their nationalist point of view,
but he spoke about a Russian grown socialism first, and the
anti-imperialism
tactic was another indication that state capitalist was their main goal,
That is reason why I do not believe that Jose Stalin was the creator of the
idea of socialism in one country, it was Lenin and Trotsky that laid all the
foundations for the Russian national state capitalism, that is one of the
biggest problem of the Leninist that have rejected Stalinism, that they do
not want to recognize that the foundation of Stalinism is Leninism itself.
I have just received a message from the International Communist Current of
Brazil and Venezuela and they are trying to explain to me the opposite view,
that Stalinism is only a degeneration of the Soviet socialism, which is
similar to the position of Enver Hoxha and Mao
Tse Tung, which blamed the situation on Nikita Kruschev, the whole left
needs an exorcism of Leninism, if the root of Leninism are not understood it
is very difficult to understand the real meaning of socialism
Post by Adam Buick
If I may be permitted to do a Dave, here's some quotes from Lenin confirming
that he was perfectly well aware that the Bolsheviks could only
establish
Post by Adam Buick
state capitalism in Russia after their seizure of power in November
1917.
Post by Adam Buick
This is what he said in September 1917 BEFORE the overthrow of the
Kerenky
Post by Adam Buick
"given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly
capitalism
Post by Adam Buick
inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step,
towards
Post by Adam Buick
socialism!"
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist
monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly
which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that
extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. "
"state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism,
the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between
which
Post by Adam Buick
and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360
Post by Adam Buick
After the coming to power of the Bolshevik government he continued to
advocate state capitalism, as in his "Report On The Immediate Tasks Of
The
Post by Adam Buick
Soviet Government" to the (Session of the All-Russia C.E.C. on 29 April
"Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the
evil,
Post by Adam Buick
the enemy, which we are invited to combat. When I read these references
to
Post by Adam Buick
such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has
happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them
forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step
forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism
in
Post by Adam Buick
Russia, that would be a victory."
"What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state
capitalism
Post by Adam Buick
at
the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control
that
Post by Adam Buick
the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism
in
Post by Adam Buick
Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect
even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state
capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is
not
Post by Adam Buick
out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book
learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our
salvation."
Post by Adam Buick
"Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking
establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and
labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no
socialism. (Applause.) "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm
The following month he returned to the same theme in a further attack on the
"If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery
made
Post by Adam Buick
by the 'Left Communists' will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter.
According to them, under the 'Bolshevik deviation to the right' the
Soviet
Post by Adam Buick
Republic is threatened with 'evolution towards state capitalism'. They
have
really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these 'Left
Communists'
repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .
It
Post by Adam Buick
has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward
as
Post by Adam Buick
compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in
approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in
our
Post by Adam Buick
Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within
a
Post by Adam Buick
year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become
invincible in our country."
"State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than
we are paying at present (I took a numerical example deliberately to
bring
Post by Adam Buick
this out more sharply), because it is worth while paying for 'tuition',
because it is useful for the workers, because victory over disorder,
economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing; because the
continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most
serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome
it),
Post by Adam Buick
whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state
capitalism
Post by Adam Buick
not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the
working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy
of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale
production
Post by Adam Buick
on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I
may
Post by Adam Buick
use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism
will be assured."
"To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete
example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is
Germany. Here we have "the last word" in modern large-scale capitalist
engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois
imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist,
Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a
different
Post by Adam Buick
social type, of a different class content-a Soviet state, that is, a
proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions
necessary for socialism."
"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in 'coming forth', our
task
Post by Adam Buick
is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in
copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten
the
Post by Adam Buick
copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter
hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not
hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm
Adam
__________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 28/01/2007
13:12
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...