Ruadhan's pollitical stance

Sups yall.


I'm a marxist/leninist. with that being said you should be able to tell where i stand.

so glad your here comrade!

lol, so, wait, do marxist-leninists not differ on how revolutions are created and carried out or what?

solpacvoicis wrote:

lol, so, wait, do marxist-leninists not differ on how revolutions are created and carried out or what?

I'm sorry? i dont understand your question. A leninist must be a marxist because Lenin merely added onto what marx said. And of course we differ on how revolutions should be carried out and on post revolutionary world would be carried out as well.

Marxist-Leninist? What do you believe, then?

ruadhan wrote:

I'm sorry? i dont understand your question. A leninist must be a marxist because Lenin merely added onto what marx said. And of course we differ on how revolutions should be carried out and on post revolutionary world would be carried out as well.

ruadhan wrote:

I'm a marxist/leninist. with that being said you should be able to tell where i stand.

that presupposes that everyone knows where marxist/leninists stand, and, seeing as you just said there is a difference between how you think revolutions should be carried out and how the post revolutionary world would be carried out, why not clarify where the "mainstream" of marxist-leninist thought stands and where you stand...? O.o;;

you really aren't giving me (or anyone who isn't a marxist-leninist or studied intensely on the subject) much to go on....

I mean, c'mon, you gotta give something other than that you're a Marxist-Leninist. There's a wide spectrum of Communists that favor Marx and Lenin, and some of them are fiercely opposed. So expound or your thread sucks

ok i believe in vanguard led revolution made up of half professional revolutionaries and half proletariat.

I believe in proletarian led revolution not peasant led revolution like maoist believe.

I believe after the revolution everyone should be armed and the vanguard should stay in place [thus making is a workers state] to quell any counter revolution. Once this is through the vanguard will dissolve with the withering away of the state. and if they dont everyone will be armed so the proletariat can take back over from the traitors.

i believe the state should be smashed and we should never try and use the ready made state machine.

I believe in direct/true democracy for a time but i think this should wither away as well.

I believe in a transitional period between capitalism and communism.

I believe that reformers are betrayers to their class brothers. For if we try to make the capitalist system seem better then we are taking away their need for change. Sure raising minimum wage is nice but all it is doing is pulling a veil over the eyes of the workers.

ruadhan wrote:

ok i believe in vanguard led revolution made up of half professional revolutionaries and half proletariat.

Define 'professional revolutionaries'.

Quote :

I believe after the revolution everyone should be armed and the vanguard should stay in place [thus making is a workers state] to quell any counter revolution. Once this is through the vanguard will dissolve with the withering away of the state. and if they dont everyone will be armed so the proletariat can take back over from the traitors.

Why is a vanguard party staying in power necessary to quell counter-revolution? Also, the whole 'oppressing only the oppressors' thing didn't really work out too well. Seriously, why is it necessary for a vanguard party to stay in power after revolution?
Also, a "workers' state", using Marx's definition of state, is simply where proletarian class interests rule rather than bourgeois interests. As it is, working class interests are different from bourgeois interests. A "workers' state" would be workers' self-rule, not rule by a party, in which proletarian class interests dominate bourgeois class interests, whereas a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' is where capitalist class interests dominate over working class interests. Once the revolution was international, there would be no bourgeoisie, and no classes, so there will no longer be a "workers' state", because there will no longer be any class other than the working class, which will thus not be a class any longer.

tl;dr:
Bakunin: "So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists..."
Marx: "Where?"

Quote :

i believe the state should be smashed and we should never try and use the ready made state machine.

What definition for 'state' are you using here?

Quote :

I believe in direct/true democracy for a time but i think this should wither away as well.

You're a lot like Lenin here.
Anyways, wither away to be replaced by... What?

Quote :

I believe in a transitional period between capitalism and communism.

Details?

"The Leninist programme of 1917 included these points: the discontinuance of the police and standing army, abolition of the professional bureaucracy, elections for all public positions and offices, revocability of all officials, equality of bureaucratic wages with workers' wages, the maximum of democracy, peaceful competition among the parties within the soviets, abolition of the death penalty."
Not a single one of them was achieved, and the bolshies made sure of that. Well, some of the bolshie promises were kept in place for a few months, then gotten rid of, such as elected officials in the army and such, because the opposition was making gains. Note that this is before the Civil War took place. "In a way, The State and Revolution even laid the foundations and sketched out the essential features of an alternative to Bolshevik power, and only the pro-Leninist tradition has used it, almost to quieten its conscience, because Lenin, once in power, ignored its conclusions. The Bolsheviks, far from causing the state to wither away, found endless reasons for justifying its enforcement." In fact, the people that brought up 'State and Revolution' after the revolution were the Left Communist party, arguing for workers' self management, after which Lenin asked them to reread it.

professional revolutionary is someone who spends their life studying and spreading awareness/organizing revolutions. for example Lenin was a professional revolutionary.


It needs to stay in power because there is going to be counter revolutions. It will protect the people/help set up food distribution/ give the workers the means of production and protect that. And i was using the definition Lenin gives in state and revolution where he says the fact that there is an armed body protecting the workers is what makes the state.

I mean the abolishment of police and the national army which would be the ready made machinery as well as the system of government.


why should the oppressive democracy need to be replaced?



Its true that these things did not happen but there are so many factors that made this so. soon after the revolution russia was invaded by 12 or 14(cant remember) imperialist nations, soon after the revolution lenin became extreamly sic leaving him unable to hold stuff together being that stalin was already spinning his webs and trotsky had hoped lenin would get better so he never mounted a counter attack without lenin. Stalin betrayed the revolution and took control.

sorry if the grammer is off i just got home from a long day of work and im pretty tired.

It was invaded, but even by the invasion, all of those promises had either been forgotten about completely, or gotten rid of eventually (before the Civil War). For example, with democracy being replaced by people appointed from the top was ended quite a while before the Civil War began. Also, of course, putting down the Kronstadt rebellion by force was totally unnecessary.
Anyways, why do we need a Party in charge as opposed to workers' self-management?
Also, " why should the oppressive democracy be replaced"?

In the long run the revolution was betrayed. With increasing pressures and Lenin's illness he could not hold the party together simply put. This can be attributed to russia not being a fully developed capitalist system like Marx said is needed. And I think that the kronstadt rebellion did need to be put down by force but it led to a slaughter which i condone.

As for you saying what should the democracy be replaced with i said when it goes away why should it be replaced? I think when it comes to the point that the true democracy withers away the communes will be largely self sufficient.

ruadhan wrote:

As for you saying what should the democracy be replaced with i said when it goes away why should it be replaced? I think when it comes to the point that the true democracy withers away the communes will be largely self sufficient.

Once democracy withers away, what other system are we supposed to use? Why does it matter if the communes are self-sufficient?

Quote :

With increasing pressures and Lenin's illness he could not hold the party together simply put.

So the revolution relied on one guy. This isn't a problem with fate, it's a problem with the revolution.

Quote :

And I think that the kronstadt rebellion did need to be put down by force but it led to a slaughter which i condone.

The Makhnovists too? Also, why?

Quote :

This can be attributed to russia not being a fully developed capitalist system like Marx said is needed.

This is also no excuse for the bureacracy (that came into place during Lenin's rule). The Makhnovists, and other anarchists, for example, could have lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat (but never call it that). The Bolsheviks? Lenin had supported Party dictatorship for a while, and it's a useless idea. The appeal to 'objective factors' implies that the Bolshies had no effect on conditions, they did.