That’s not how that [communization] shit works…

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 11 2017 12:11

Yeah, that's my thought too, which is why I am confused by what is happening here. How come Artesian and his Leninism has such a strong presence here?

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 11 2017 12:55

Although, it is pleasing to see that the Chris (SWP) Harman book has been taken down, despite Khawaga's and S. Artesian's visceral liberal defence of its presence on Libcom.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 13:11
Quote:
Yeah, that's my thought too, which is why I am confused by what is happening here. How come Artesian and his Leninism has such a strong presence here

?

Maybe it's because others have a better, slightly better, or largely better understanding of what it is that defines so-called "Leninism" throughout its history. Your lack of understanding makes Luxemburg a "Leninist." After all, she wrote that Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks had rescued the honor of international socialism.

Or maybe it's because you produce such gems, such penetrating insights into the nature of the Russian Revolution like this:

Quote:
Was the "proletarian revolution of October 1917" (Mhou) the spectacular and gritty street fighting event that the Bolsheviks portrayed it as? Or was it a really skillful undercover placement of Bolsheviks in all the crucial institutions by that clever strategist, Trotsky?

"The clever strategist, Trotsky"??? Really. There's no trope in that, for sure; there's no secret convergence with the textbook Stalinist evaluation of Trotsky in that is there?

You forgot to include "rootless, cosmopolitan" in your "portrayal," but there's always next time.

And after that next time, there will be another next time, when you can skip the coding and give full voice to the anti-semitism of Bakunin and write, "the clever, rootless, cosmopolitan, Jewish strategist, Trotsky."

That should get you a whole shit-load of votes, as that seems to be your most pressing concern-- kind of like it is for Donald Trump.

Just sayin' ... actually sayin' that your ignorance is only trumped by your dishonesty.

Same-same goes for El Psy who can't distinguish, and doesn't care to distinguish between forced collectivization and the requisitioning of grain supplies during periods of near starvation.

You [the both of you] are hardly bringing any honor, to use Rosa's assessment of the Bolsheviks, to the cause of international anarchism.

If honesty, integrity, were dynamite, between the two of you there wouldn't be enough to blow a nose.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 13:14
Tom Henry wrote:
Although, it is pleasing to see that the Chris (SWP) Harman book has been taken down, despite Khawaga's and S. Artesian's visceral liberal defence of its presence on Libcom.

That's so anarchist of you. Aren't you glad that the works of Michael Schmidt, race-war advocate, fascist, and his mealy-mouthed apologist, van der Welt, are still available to help with the enlightenment of those misled by secret Leninists?

You are one hell of a self-righteous git.

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Jul 11 2017 13:57

I'm a pretty big fan of Lenin. Probably the closest thing to a leninist in this thread though I hate the term. I think the bolsheviks strategy of modified social democracy was correct; I think the broad social democratic strategy was correct save for some capitulations to the trade union bureaucracies. The contemporary left would benefit greatly from revisiting those traditions imho.

But this name blaming, 'swear to me' anti-lenin witch Hunt sounding guilt by association stuff is weird and pointless.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 15:05

Missive from a secret Leninist, deep-cover Bolshevik, authoritarian, totalitarian, Marxist:

Quote:
The fate of the revolution in Russia depended fully upon international events. That the Bolsheviks have based their policy entirely upon the world proletarian revolution is the clearest proof of their political far-sightedness and firmness of principle and of the bold scope of their policies. In it is visible the mighty advance which capitalist development has made in the last decade. The revolution of 1905-07 roused only a faint echo in Europe. Therefore, it had to remain a mere opening chapter. Continuation and conclusion were tied up with the further development of Europe.

Clearly, not uncritical apologetics but penetrating and thoughtful criticism is alone capable of bringing out treasures of experiences and teachings. Dealing as we are with the very first experiment in proletarian dictatorship in world history (and one taking place at that under the hardest conceivable conditions, in the midst of the world-wide conflagration and chaos of the imperialist mass slaughter, caught in the coils of the most reactionary military power in Europe, and accompanied by the most complete failure on the part of the international working class), it would be a crazy idea to think that every last thing done or left undone in an experiment with the dictatorship of the proletariat under such abnormal conditions represented the very pinnacle of perfection. On the contrary, elementary conceptions of socialist politics and an insight into their historically necessary prerequisites force us to understand that under such fatal conditions even the most gigantic idealism and the most storm-tested revolutionary energy are incapable of realizing democracy and socialism but only distorted attempts at either.

To make this stand out clearly in all its fundamental aspects and consequences is the elementary duty of the socialists of all countries; for only on the background of this bitter knowledge can we measure the enormous magnitude of the responsibility of the international proletariat itself for the fate of the Russian Revolution. Furthermore, it is only on this basis that the decisive importance of the resolute international action of the proletariat can become effective, without which action as its necessary support, even the greatest energy and the greatest sacrifices of the proletariat in a single country must inevitably become tangled in a maze of contradiction and blunders.

There is no doubt either that the wise heads at the helm of the Russian Revolution, that Lenin and Trotsky on their thorny path beset by traps of all kinds, have taken many a decisive step only with the greatest inner hesitation and with the most violent inner opposition. And surely nothing can be farther from their thoughts than to believe that all the things they have done or left undone under the conditions of bitter compulsion and necessity in the midst of the roaring whirlpool of events, should be regarded by the International as a shining example of socialist polity toward which only uncritical admiration and zealous imitation are in order.

See the clever devious approach taken by this Marxist-Leninist-pre-Stalinist (of Jewish origin, just sayin')? Shifting responsibility from the crafty, clever, duplicitous Bolsheviki to the "international proletariat" by pretending that the Bolsheviki have taken steps only with great hesitation and inner opposition; and pretending to not indulge in uncritical admiration and zealous imitation?

You can't trust 'em. You know that. There not like "us" or in this case, you.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jul 11 2017 15:23
Quote:
This is indeed what you wrote before. What it means in plain English is that it is theory before material circumstance. This is the opposite of what Marx and any materialist would argue. This is why I referred to Christianity, as a theory. Either you are writing what you don't mean, or you don't know what you mean. Perhaps you need to slow down a bit in reading things and writing them?

This is precisely what I mean. I tell you straight up what I mean, and instead of saying that you misinterpreted or asking for clarification, you apparently know what I really mean. But it seems like you made up your mind about this quite some time ago. And if I really said that theory is prior to material practice, then you should be able to dredge up something I wrote given that you seemed to have scoured up crap that Artesian wrote on another website.

No wonder I was getting frustrated in this discussion since you're incapable of arguing in good faith.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 15:33
Quote:
have scoured up crap that Artesian wrote on another website.

1. can you specify exactly what "crap" you have in mind. I mean either there's so much crap I've written, or I don't think I've written any "crap" anywhere (which does not mean I haven't made mistakes, errors, etc)-- but what crap was scoured up?

2. If I recall correctly, the thing I've written from another website "scoured up" has been my quoting Lenin that "revolution is a festival of the oppressed." Everything else from that other website "scoured up" was written by a comrade-- and btw I'm more than happy to defend that comrade and my association with him, despite our disagreements-- kind of, but not identical to, I'd be happy to defend you and what you've written from the crap that TH writes.

More than willing also, to pursue such crap in a separate thread.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jul 11 2017 15:39

Oh, I tend to use stuff, shit, crap, things as synonyms. When my SO asks what I am doing, I'll just respond "I'm writing shit on the internet" (and some of it is genuine shit or crap, but it's mostly just different stuff).

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 15:42

OK, thanks, "Crap" will do.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 11 2017 18:18
Tom Henry wrote:
Yeah, that's my thought too, which is why I am confused by what is happening here. How come Artesian and his Leninism has such a strong presence here?

I don't know how they describe themselves politically, but I'd seriously question why they're here if their views are so drastically different from Libcom's own introductions: http://libcom.org/library/state-introduction.

Quote:
The Bolsheviks

In Russia in 1917, when workers and peasants rose up and took over the factories and the land, the Bolsheviks argued for the setting up of a "revolutionary" workers' state. However, this state could not shake off its primary functions: as a violent defence of an elite, and attempting to develop and expand the economy to maintain itself.

The so-called "workers' state" turned against the working class: one-man management of factories was reinstated, strikes were outlawed and work became enforced at gunpoint. The state even liquidated those in its own quarters who disagreed with its new turn. Not long after the revolution, many of the original Bolsheviks had been executed by the government institutions they helped set up.

I mean there were some "Bolshevik anarchists" in revolutionary Russia, and some "anarchists" holding political positions within the Bolshevik government. After the February Revolution some anarchists supported him, both desiring the overthrow of the provisional government, and optimistic with slogans like "all power to the soviets." Once in power it all went downhill -- statization of the economy, branding anyone who disagrees with the Bolshevik regime counterrevolutionary, shutting down newspapers and imprisoning dissident voices. It's easy to see why disillusionment (for those under any illusions) among anarchists and others from within Russia and abroad soon followed. It's funny how some people today try to distinguish between Lenin and Stalin because the same things were happening under both of them. Russia and the tactics the Bolsheviks used only confirmed that the State cannot be the way toward workers' emancipation or communism.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 17:58
Quote:
It's funny how some people today try to distinguish between Lenin and Stalin because the same things were happening under both of them. Russia and the tactics the Bolsheviks used only confirmed that the State cannot be the way toward workers' emancipation or communism.

Nothing personal in this zugzwang, but what I find funny is how the same people who argue that it makes sense, makes a difference, whether Trump or Sanders or even Clinton is in power in a capitalist state, thinks there can be no material distinction between Lenin and the revolution 1917-1924; and Stalin and the dismantling of the revolution 1927-1953.

http://libcom.org/forums/general/voting-labour-22052017?page=3

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Jul 11 2017 18:26

How are lenin and stalin the same? That seems a baseless and ill-informed claim, comrade.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 11 2017 19:26
S. Artesian wrote:
Quote:
It's funny how some people today try to distinguish between Lenin and Stalin because the same things were happening under both of them. Russia and the tactics the Bolsheviks used only confirmed that the State cannot be the way toward workers' emancipation or communism.

Nothing personal in this zugzwang, but what I find funny is how the same people who argue that it makes sense, makes a difference, whether Trump or Sanders or even Clinton is in power in a capitalist state, thinks there can be no material distinction between Lenin and the revolution 1917-1924; and Stalin and the dismantling of the revolution 1927-1953.

http://libcom.org/forums/general/voting-labour-22052017?page=3

The Sanders-Trump thing is irrelevant as my politics are still developing and I don't have fixed views about stuff like that. As I said in a previous thread I'll readily admit I could be wrong about Chomsky and LEV (which I probably am -- Chomsky ironically would probably be on your side with keeping that Harman book up). Did the Bolsheviks not slaughter a bunch of proletarians during the events of Kronstadt, or do any of the other authoritarian things I've been pointing out? Lenin and Stalin were both awful and I don't really care for State socialism/capitalism.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 19:26
Quote:
The Sanders-Trump thing is irrelevant as my politics are still developing and I don't have fixed views about stuff like that. As I said in a previous thread I'll readily admit I could be wrong about Chomsky and LEV (which I probably am -- Chomsky ironically would probably be on your side with keeping that Harman book up). Did the Bolsheviks not slaughter a bunch of proletarians during the events of Kronstadt, or do any of the other authoritarian things I've been pointing out? Lenin and Stalin were both awful and I don't really care for State socialism.

So it's irrelevant because your politics are still developing and you don't have fixed views "about stuff like that." That's an honest admission. I would just urge you, if your politics are still developing and you haven't fixed your views yet, to read carefully into the struggles in the former Soviet Union, particularly since the formation of the fSU too was not quite fixed either at that point.

I don't know what LEV is; I don't know why the reference to the other thread. And I don't know that I actually have a side in keeping the Harman book up. My "side" was that taking it down based solely on the late author's previous association with an organization that has acted reprehensibly is... hypocrisy when work by a living race-war advocate is available on the site.

But consistency is a virtue to the small-minded, I think... maybe, more or less, yes and no.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 11 2017 20:35
S. Artesian wrote:
Quote:
The Sanders-Trump thing is irrelevant as my politics are still developing and I don't have fixed views about stuff like that. As I said in a previous thread I'll readily admit I could be wrong about Chomsky and LEV (which I probably am -- Chomsky ironically would probably be on your side with keeping that Harman book up). Did the Bolsheviks not slaughter a bunch of proletarians during the events of Kronstadt, or do any of the other authoritarian things I've been pointing out? Lenin and Stalin were both awful and I don't really care for State socialism.

So it's irrelevant because your politics are still developing and you don't have fixed views "about stuff like that." That's an honest admission. I would just urge you, if your politics are still developing and you haven't fixed your views yet, to read carefully into the struggles in the former Soviet Union, particularly since the formation of the fSU too was not quite fixed either at that point.

I don't know what LEV is; I don't know why the reference to the other thread. And I don't know that I actually have a side in keeping the Harman book up. My "side" was that taking it down based solely on the late author's previous association with an organization that has acted reprehensibly is... hypocrisy when work by a living race-war advocate is available on the site.

But consistency is a virtue to the small-minded, I think... maybe, more or less, yes and no.

Lesser evil voting

I would imagine the guy who stood by the holocaust denier (see Faurisson affair) and probably, though he hasn't said, believes in the "free speech" of people like Milo would support keeping a Trotskyist's book up, even though he or you may not agree with its contents. I haven't read it myself, but from what I saw of other people's reviews it seems like both the contents and author were grounds for it to be removed, especially on a site promoting libertarian communism.

I'm ambivalent toward Chomsky (about the LEV thing and his, assumed, support of giving provocateurs like Milo a platform -- as well as other things) but I don't think you would want to remove all Chomsky-related works here, 'cause he has been influential on the left and among anarchists through his writings and speeches, and he has over the decades got people thinking more critically about political questions, not to mention his non-political contributions. It would also entail binning a lot of stuff ... like Rocker's Syndicalism which he wrote an intro for, etc.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 11 2017 21:46
Pennoid wrote:
How are lenin and stalin the same? That seems a baseless and ill-informed claim, comrade.

I substantiated it in two of my posts already, feel free to read and address them. You needn't search any further than Libcom to find further substantiation of such a claim (such a claim might even appear in one of Libcom's "ill-informed" intros as well) :

http://libcom.org/history/how-lenin-led-stalin-workers-solidarity-moveme...

Quote:
Another key area is the position of the working class in the Stalinist society. No Trotskyist would disagree that under Stalin workers had no say in the running of their workplaces and suffered atrocious conditions under threat of the state's iron fist. Yet again these conditions came in under Lenin and not Stalin. ...

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 11 2017 21:05

Zugwang,

'Discussions' with leftists (perhaps a better, less provoking word than Leninists) such as S. Artesian and Pennoid over the sacred aspects of their tradition, and Khawaga, who seems to support S. Artesian, and gets confused, will only end badly.

Look up Entryism on the Internet.

The likely outcome of this thread, (see the American Civil War thread) is that after Artesain has insulted people with copious amounts of swearing and belittling, those disagreeing with him will be blocked or banned, and then the thread will be closed.

This site does seem to be dominated on key forums by Leftism.

If one reads the 'what we are about' section on the site, this should not be the case.

But there you have it.

Don't say anything that will antagonise the leftists too much here, otherwise they will descend on your throat like rabid dogs.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 11 2017 22:38

Yes, indeed look at the US Civil War thread, where those who thought the US Civil War was not worth fighting, where some actually argued that slaves in the 19th century were better off than workers in advanced countries in the 21st century, were at full voice; full dishonest voice.

Mr. MacBryde was indeed banned afterwards, in part, I think for saying:

Quote:
Artesian, I anticipated your question and came up with this feeble reply. In terms of exposure to natural light, the average slave was better off than the average prole. If I may make one criticism of your last post. Why the use of past tense in this sentence:

I strongly recommend that all those who prefer anarchism to Marxism; think that historical materialism is simply a recipe for state capitalism, really examine how Soapy, LetterJournal, and RC and MacBryde acquitted themselves in that discussion.

Particularly -- if your views aren't yet fixed.

I'd ask TH whether he thinks that the US Civil War was the slaughter of 500,000 proletarians on both sides, but that's a question of concrete history, and we know how incapable he is of dealing with anything concrete.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 12 2017 00:47
Quote:
I strongly recommend that all those who prefer anarchism to Marxism; think that historical materialism is simply a recipe for state capitalism, really examine how Soapy, LetterJournal, and RC and MacBryde acquitted themselves in that discussion.

Particularly -- if your views aren't yet fixed.

I don't prefer anarchism to Marxism; there's plenty to be taken away from the works of Marx (perhaps an understatement), and I don't think Marx would have liked his name or ideas being linked with authoritarian regimes as they are. In light of such regimes, though, I think I would have sided with the anarchist faction in the 1st International when such issues as the state and proletarian dictatorship were debated.

As for American wage slavery being no improvement from full-blown slavery, that's obviously just complete drivel (and I'm sadly not read up on these subjects), first because I'm sure slaves were treated worse than workers who have labor laws and such today and are, to some extent, able to choose which persons they rent themselves to, compared to the slave's complete inability, and second because it ignores the racism that was inherent in slavery that took a century to overcome -- ceasing slavery was clearly a step in that direction -- and yet racism most certainly still pervades America today.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 12 2017 01:10

Artesian,

A better question, since the one you ask is serious and you did not engage seriously in the Civil War thread, is:

Why did you lie about your support and admiration for Lenin?

Pennoid appears to be open about this, why not you?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 12 2017 01:39

Never lied about it, because the issue was never if I like Lenin; if I think Lenin is a great guy; if I think Trotsky was a snappy dresser. The question was if I am a Leninist.

I am not a Leninist. I do not buy the "theory" of the vanguard party. I do not buy Lenin's theory of imperialism.

I am no more, and no less a Leninist than Rosa Luxemburg was in her evaluation of the Russian Revolution.

Which doesn't stop me from disagreeing with certain aspects of her analysis of capitalism and her analysis of the Russian Revolution.

I think the April Theses are a correct evaluation of the situation in Russia, following as they do, Trotsky's explication of permanent revolution.

The concrete questions that you cannot answer, I can and will.

I support the overthrow of the bourgeois Provisional Government as executed by the Military Revolutionary Committee established by the Petrograd Soviet. Do you?

I support the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. Do you?

I support the formation and deployment of a Red Army against the counterrevolution. Do you?

Like and dislike have exactly zero to do with this. I don't oppose Stalinism because I don't "like" or "admire" Stalin. I oppose it based on what it means for class struggle.

There are even people whom I did know and admire, and do know and admire that I disagree with and do not support-- the late Stokely Carmichael and John Lewis being two.

Clearly, for you, with your panic over anything approaching the messiness of real class struggle, "like" and "admiration" are critical categories-- but like most of what you write and advocate, those are nonsense categories.

So answer the concrete questions on the Russian Revolution-- or the US Civil War, since you brought it up: A "tragic conflict" brought about be capitalism causing the death of 500,000 or 600,000 "proletarians" on both sides? Or a conflict requiring the abolition of slavery, and producing a valiant, if constrained, attempt to establish racial equality in the former slaveholding states, and worthy of the support of the IMWA?

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 12 2017 02:09
Quote:
I support the formation and deployment of a Red Army against the counterrevolution. Do you?

Against Makhno and the Kronstadters?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 12 2017 02:09

No. I specified counterrevolution; in previous posts I've specified "Whites"

And now it's well past time for TH to answer the questions, on both the Russian Revolution and the US Civil War.

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Jul 12 2017 18:18

1. Taking the Chris Harman book down is asinine and stupid. We may as well not host the works of Marx or Lenin. If the purpose of the library is to host texts which pertain to libertarian communism, then removing those which overlap considerably with that tradition (Trotskyism boasts many converts to so-called libertarian communism, e.g. Bookchin and Guerin). What's more, there was no monetization, and so no material support for someone who may be deemed an undesirable. Finally, the personal reprehensibility of the individual shouldn't measure in the evaluation of their historical arguments unless they as authors force it to be so (by so mixing their argument with their own politics). Even then, reading the material is the best way to DETERMINE that it is worthless or the extent to which it ought to be modified or rejected, not blind dismissal. Really, good luck getting a handle on any serious question pertaining to reality without having to peruse the very real contributions to various fields of people with bad politics. You'd think partisans in the struggle (very real struggle indeed) to rehabilitate the raving misogynist anti-semite proudhon for revolutionary politics would get this point.

2. It's a very typical, shallow, and liberal argument to reduce the complex and increasingly alienated and bureaucratic role of the Bolshevik party to the personal politics of Lenin. But it is necessary to connect Lenin with Stalin, which forms a process whereby one can disown completely 'statist' revolution (whatever precisely that means). Suddenly, in Russia, anarchists become quite concerned with the sanctity of bourgeois politics; with the dispersal of the constituent assembly, with the repression of anti-soviet terrorists, etc. etc. Kronstadt was a grave error and mistake, but it fits in with patterns of type in a sequence of increasing militarization of the Party and state throughout the civil war. The question becomes; if Lenin and Stalin were of a type, why did forced collectivization have to wait until Stalin? Why did internal purges wait until stalin? Why did Stakhonovism wait until Stalin? Why did Stalin feel the need to purge all the old bolsheviks?

To view these matters in terms of *personalities* and personal politics is to do them a terrific historical disservice. That isn't to say that ideology was a non-issue. Surely we can make the arguments (as, for example S. Artesian has) that aspects of the Bolshevik conception of the social and economic conditions contributed to their failures. But much like point one above, that requires an engagement with the thought of the figures involved and the relevant historiagraphy, not a narrowing of the vision toward the 'accepted texts' whether trotskyist, leninist, or anarchist, etc.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 12 2017 20:47

I haven't read the Harman book and was not that invested in whether it stayed or went; going off of what other reviewers said of it, it seems like there was some justification. It could be that maybe a disclaimer (that "we do not fully agree with this" -- which by the way shouldn't be needed on any of the works of Produhon because that should already be evident if you're an anarchist communist and know anything about the development of anarchist thought) would have been the better course of action, however.

Pennoid wrote:
You'd think partisans in the struggle (very real struggle indeed) to rehabilitate the raving misogynist anti-semite proudhon for revolutionary politics would get this point.

Why are you so fixated with Proudhon? He's a marginal figure within the anarchist movement today and hardly admired by anyone; communism is the main anarchist current nowadays, not mutualism. Is it because his reprehensible sexist, racist remarks in his personal writings (which we've already established on numerous other threads he was hardly alone in having) somehow lends credibility to "how bad and flawed" anarchism is? Proudhon is not representative of all of anarchism, if that is what you are getting at. I don't think it's necessary to repeat how Proudhon influenced all major anarchist thinkers to follow (and Marx to an extent -- as they themselves will attest) and built upon "his" ideas of socialized production (extending socialization to the products of labor in communism e.g.) -- you can just pick up any text on anarchist history and see that.

Quote:
2. It's a very typical, shallow, and liberal argument to reduce the complex and increasingly alienated and bureaucratic role of the Bolshevik party to the personal politics of Lenin.

I thought I was a comrade, but apparently I'm a liberal now. It's not a question whether Stalin was worse, depending on how you measure such things -- but as the article points out, those same kinds of repressive activities (which Lenin obviously does share responsibility in, as does Trotsky, e.g. signing the order to assault Kronstadt and so on) were being carried out even before Stalin took the helm. Lenin along with the Bolsheviks and their tactics laid the groundwork for Stalin to come to power, which should indicate that different tactics besides Marxism-Leninism are needed. I still don't see how you reconcile a centralized state (which is what your aspire to? correct me if I'm wrong) with anything to do with working-class control.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 12 2017 20:42

I've not been able to keep up my recent pace here as work has got in the way, but this is great fun.

Since we have entered an alternate universe and there is no escape from the Grand Inquisitor, I will indeed answer Artesian's questions from the chair I am tied to (please don't use the tickle stick! I'll talk! I'll talk!), which are contained in the very recent posts above.

But first, since I/we should know what the categories are that Artesian is applying or referring to, I would like to ask Artesian a couple or so questions first (if that's OK, Artesian?) and since you have asked so nicely. Put down the tickle stick for a moment.

1) What are the April Theses and how do they relate (in theory and reality) to the suppression of workers' control during the period 1917-1921?

2) What is the theory of Permanent Revolution? Who came up with it, when and and why, and who uses it in the modern day, and why?

3) What do you mean by 'combined and uneven development'. Where is this theory from and what is useful about it?

3) At what point - I mean exactly how long after the Red Army was created - did the Red Army switch (?) from just fighting the 'Whites' to fighting other 'revolutionaries' too (eg the Makhnovists and the Kronstadters). And why was the Red Army used in this way?

4) do you support the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty between the Bolsheviks and the Imperial German Army? If not, why not? If so, why so?

Supplementary questions referring to the American Civil War:

Do you support the Allied war (WW2) against Germany (the Nazis)? The war against Japan in the same period?

Are you a pacifist, if not, what? Would you be a conscientious objector in WW2 or in the American Civil War? Or would you sign up to one side in either/both of these wars and encourage others to do the same?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 12 2017 22:01

Final comment to poser Tom Henry. If you don't know what the April Theses, Permanent Revolution, Uneven and Combined development, just say so. If you do, stop taking the piss.

Once you answer the questions I have posed to poser you, I'll consider answering further questions.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 12 2017 22:29

Ooh! Handbags at dawn!

I am honestly unfamiliar with these texts and theories. I could go away and acquaint myself with them, but it is probably easier and quicker if you explain them here, and the connecting questions (the really important part).

Also, I suspect that others are also unfamiliar and would benefit from a sharing of your expertise in the histories of these theories and their relation to actual events and political and social history.

As you have set this new agenda (an Inquisition forsooth!) for this thread, it is beholden to you to begin properly.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 12 2017 22:33

See previous comment.