example concerning Lenin lack of stopping the rise of Stalin You wrote
>>> Stalin built his bureaucracy when Lenin was incapacitated and bed ridden from wounds sustained from an earlier assassination attempt, of
which he subsequently died. Otherwise Stalin would not have had his
position of authority would he?
Obviously Stalin in fact gained his position of power while Lenin was
NOT incapacitated... You of course must revise history to justify
Lenin's actions... Without that revisionism, your hero worship of
Lenin must be revised to include Lenin's very mortal and very human
clay feet... The assassination attempt on Lenin was a leading cause
of Lenin supporting the period of Red Terror in late 1918 and 1919
(which was supported by Stalin).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin
1) What disabled Lenin was his stoke in May 1922, not the
assassination attempt in Jan 1918... By your theory, Lenin was
incapacitated from 1918, which history clearly records Lenin was NOT
incapacitated until May 1922...
2) Stalin had become Secretary General of the Party in April of 1922,
one month before Lenin's stoke... By your logic Lenin would have
stopped Stalin in April of 1922, which he did not. It was only after
Lenin saw he was unable to contain Stalin, in part due to his 1st
stoke that Lenin became publicly concerned
>>> After his first stroke, Lenin dictated to his wife several papers regarding the government. Most famous of these is Lenin's Testament, which was partially inspired by the 1922 Georgian Affair and among other things criticized top-ranking communists, including Joseph Stalin, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky. Of Stalin, who had been the Communist Party’s general secretary since April 1922, Lenin said that he had “unlimited authority concentrated in his hands”. He suggested that “comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post” because his rudeness would become “intolerable in a Secretary-General”.
On Aug 10, 4:06 am, Frank
> Your ignorance is breathtaking, but to be expected from the right-wing
> that knows little of political reality and bases its policies on lies
> and distortions.
>
> Stalin built his bureaucracy when Lenin was incapacitated and bed
> ridden from wounds sustained from an earlier assassination attempt, of
> which he subsequently died. Otherwise Stalin would not have had his
> position of authority would he? Lenin's last testament (suppressed
> until the 1950's) clearly advocated the removal of the untrustworthy
> Stalin in favour Trotsky who later lead the Left opposition against
> the bureaucracy of Stalinism and his counterrevolutionary policy of
> Socialism in one state.
>
> In all the quotes you have mindlessly posted you fail to realize that
> the struggle of Lenin was a principled struggle against anti-Marxist
> revisionism that would lead the revolutionary proletariat back into
> the grip of the capitalist oppressors-precisely what Stalin's policy
> of Socialism in one country did.
>
> It is you that have a problem with left and right. Your understanding
> of what left and right represent within the socialist movement is non-
> existent. As for the bestiality of fascism, it is clearly the further
> rightward trajectory of the bestiality of conservatism, how can it be
> otherwise? Conservatism places economic priorities before morals,
> freedom and the right to life, it is clearly the precursor to
> fascism.
>
> Leon Trotsky:
>
> Further: “The United States of Europe represents first of all a form –
> the only conceivable form – of the dictatorship of the proletariat in
> all Europe.” [4]
> But even in this formulation of the question Lenin saw at that time a
> certain danger. In the absence of any experience of a proletarian
> dictatorship in a single country and of theoretical clarity on this
> question even in the Left wing of the social democracy of that period,
> the slogan of the United States of Europe might have given rise to the
> idea that the proletarian revolution must begin simultaneously, at
> least on the whole European continent. It was against this very danger
> that Lenin issued a warning, but on this point there was not a shade
> of difference between Lenin and myself. I wrote at the time: “Not a
> single country must ‘wait’ for the other countries in its struggle. It
> will be useful and necessary to repeat this elementary idea so that
> temporizing international inaction may not be substituted for parallel
> international action. Without waiting for the others, we must begin
> and continue the struggle on national grounds with the full conviction
> that our initiative will provide an impulse to the struggle in other
> countries.” [5]
> Then follow those words of mine which Stalin presented at the Seventh
> Plenum of the ECCI as the most vicious expression of “Trotskyism,”
> i.e., as “lack of faith” in the inner forces of the revolution and the
> hope for aid from without. “And if this [the development of the
> revolution in other countries – L.T.] were not to occur, it would be
> hopeless to think (this is borne out both by historical experience and
> by theoretical considerations) that a revolutionary Russia, for
> instance, could hold out in face of conservative Europe, or that a
> socialist Germany could remain isolated in a capitalist world.” [6]
> On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded
> the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum
> as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position
> “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause
> for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.
> On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace: “This
> is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a
> revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7]
> A week later he said: “World imperialism cannot live side by side with
> a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8]
> A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said: “Our backwardness has
> thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out
> until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers
> of other countries.” (Our emphasis) [9]
> But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-
> Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated: “We do not
> live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of
> the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any
> length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must
> triumph.” [10]
> A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates: “Capitalism, if
> taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military
> but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must
> proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11]
> On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of
> concessions, said: “We have now passed from the arena of war to the
> arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As
> long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live
> peacefully – the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An
> obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the
> death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the
> war.” [12]
> But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled
> Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in
> the inner force” of the October Revolution?
> At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in
> the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia: “An
> equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and
> unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its
> existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for
> any great length of time.”
> Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the
> sessions of the Congress: ‘It was clear to us that without aid from
> the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian
> revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as
> after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either
> immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in
> the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would
> perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve
> the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we
> know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the
> international revolution.” [13]
> How infinitely removed are these words, so superb in their simplicity
> and permeated with the spirit of internationalism, from the present
> smug fabrications of the epigones!
> Leon Trotsky
> The Third International After Lenin
>
> Stalinism and “State Socialism”
> The anarchists, for their part, try to see in Stalinism the organic
> product, not only of Bolshevism and Marxism but of “state socialism”
> in general. They are willing to replace Bakunin’s patriarchal
> “federation of free communes” by the modern federation of free
> Soviets. But, as formerly, they are against centralized state power.
> Indeed, one branch of “state” Marxism, social democracy, after coming
> to power became an open agent of capitalism. The other gave birth to a
> new privileged caste. It is obvious that the source of evil lies in
> the state. From a wide historical viewpoint, there is a grain of truth
> in this reasoning. The state as an apparatus of coercion is an
> undoubted source of political and moral infection. This also applies,
> as experience has shown, to the workers’ state. Consequently it can be
> said that Stalinism is a product of a condition of society in which
> society was still unable to tear itself out of the strait-jacket of
> the state. But this position, contributing nothing to the elevation of
> Bolshevism and Marxism, characterizes only the general level of
> mankind, and above all – the relation of forces between the
> proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Having agreed with the anarchists
> that the state, even the workers’ state, is the offspring of class
> barbarism and that real human history will begin with the abolition of
> the state, we have still before us in full force the question: what
> ways and methods will lead, ultimately, to the abolition of the state?
> Recent experience bears witness that they are anyway not the methods
> of anarchism or Stalinism
> Leon Trotsky
> Stalinism and Bolshevism
> (August 1937)
>
> On Aug 10, 12:16 am, jgg1000a
> > "left" Bolsheviks but he was part and partial in the mainstream of the
> > Bolsheviks from 1907, who were the radical Left in Russian politics in
> > the 1910's.... Stalin rose to power by building a bureaucratic
> > functionaries to support him during the civil war BEFORE AND after
> > Lenin's death. That is to say Stalin started his rise to power while
> > Lenin was alive. Your dishonesty arises by seeking to define "Left"
> > and "Right" as it was defined by extreme LW opposition to the Leftist
> > position of Stalin...
>
> > Stalin and Hitler were the flip sides of totalitarianism -- state
> > control of all aspects society... The Left refuses to equate
> > Fascism's repressive tactics to the very same tactics practiced by
> > the "LW" Staliinsm brand of Communism...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik
>
> > >>> History of the split
>
> > In the Second Congress of the RSDLP, held in Brussels and London
> > during August 1903, Lenin advocated limiting party membership to a
> > small core of professional revolutionaries, leaving sympathizers
> > outside the party, and instituting a system of centralized control
> > known as the democratic centralist model. Julius Martov, until then a
> > close friend and colleague of Lenin, agreed with him that the core of
> > the party should consist of professional revolutionaries, but argued
> > that party membership should be open to sympathizers, revolutionary
> > workers and other fellow travellers. The two had disagreed on the
> > issue as early as March-May 1903, but it wasn't until the Congress
> > that their differences became irreconcilable and split the party.[6]
> > Although at first the disagreement appeared to be minor and inspired
> > by personal conflicts, e.g. Lenin's insistence on dropping less active
> > editorial board members from Iskra or Martov's support for the
> > Organizing Committee of the Congress which Lenin opposed, the
> > differences quickly grew and the split became irreparable.
>
> > [edit] Origins of the name
>
> > The two factions were originally known as "hard" (Lenin's supporters)
> > and "soft" (Martov's supporters). Soon, however, the terminology
> > changed to "Bolsheviks" and "Mensheviks", from the Russian
> > "bolshinstvo" (majority) and "menshinstvo" (minority), based on the
> > fact that Lenin's supporters narrowly defeated Martov's supporters on
> > the question of party membership. Neither Lenin nor Martov had a firm
> > majority throughout the Congress as delegates left or switched sides.
> > At the end, the Congress was evenly split between the two factions.
>
> > From 1907 on, English language articles sometimes used the term
> > "Maximalist" for "Bolshevik" and "Minimalist" for "Menshevik", which
> > proved confusing since there was also a "Maximalist" faction within
> > the Russian Socialist-Revolutionary Party in 1904–1906 (which after
> > 1906 formed a separate Union of Socialists-Revolutionaries
> > Maximalists) and then again after 1917.[7]
>
> > [edit] Beginning of the 1905 Revolution (1903–1905)
>
> > The two factions were in a state of flux in 1903–1904 with many
> > members changing sides. The founder of Russian Marxism, Georgy
> > Plekhanov, who was at first allied with Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
> > parted ways with them by 1904. Leon Trotsky at first supported the
> > Mensheviks, but left them in September 1904 over their insistence on
> > an alliance with Russian liberals and their opposition to a
> > reconciliation with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. He remained a self-
> > described "non-factional social democrat" to until August 1917 when he
> > joined Lenin and the Bolsheviks as their positions converged and he
> > came to believe that Lenin was right on the issue of the party.
>
> > The lines between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks hardened in April
> > 1905 when the Bolsheviks held a Bolsheviks-only meeting in London,
> > which they call the Third Party Congress. The Mensheviks organized a
> > rival conference and the split was thus formalized.
>
> > The Bolsheviks played a relatively minor role in the 1905 revolution,
> > and were a minority in the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies
> > led by Trotsky. The less significant Moscow Soviet, however, was
> > dominated by the Bolsheviks. These soviets became the model for the
> > Soviets that were formed in 1917.
>
> > [edit] ("The minority") (1906–1907)
>
> > As the Russian Revolution of 1905 progressed, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks
> > and smaller non-Russian social democratic parties operating within the
> > Russian Empire attempted to reunify at the Fourth (Unification)
> > Congress of the RSDLP held at Folkets hus, Norra Bantorget in
> > Stockholm, April 1906. With the Mensheviks ("The minority") striking
> > an alliance with the Jewish Bund, the Bolsheviks found themselves in a
> > minority. However, all factions retained their respective factional
> > structure and the Bolsheviks formed the Bolshevik Center, the de-facto
> > governing body of the Bolshevik faction within the RSDLP. At the next,
> > Fifth Congress held in London in May 1907, the Bolsheviks were in the
> > majority, but the two factions continued functioning mostly
> > independently of each other.
>
> > [edit] Split between Lenin and Bogdanov (1908–1909)
>
> > With the defeat of the revolution in mid-1907 and the adoption of a
> > new, highly restrictive election law, the Bolsheviks began debating
> > whether to boycott the new parliament known as the Third Duma. Lenin
> > and his supporters Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev argued for
> > participating in the Duma while Lenin's deputy philosopher Alexander
> > Bogdanov, Anatoly Lunacharsky, Mikhail Pokrovsky and others argued
> > that the social democratic faction in the Duma should be recalled. The
> > latter became known as recallists ("otzovists" in Russian). A smaller
> > group within the Bolshevik faction demanded that the RSDLP central
> > committee should give its sometimes unruly Duma faction an ultimatum,
> > demanding complete subordination to all party decisions. This group
> > became known as "ultimatists" and was generally allied with the
> > recallists.
>
> > With a majority of Bolshevik leaders either supporting Bogdanov or
> > undecided by mid-1908 when the differences became irreconcilable,
> > Lenin concentrated on undermining Bogdanov's reputation as a
> > philosopher. In 1909 he published a scathing book of criticism
> > entitled Materialism and Empiriocriticism (1909),[8] assaulting
> > Bogdanov's position and accusing him of philosophical idealism.[9] In
> > June 1909, Bogdanov was defeated at a Bolshevik mini-conference in
> > Paris organized by the editorial board of the Bolshevik magazine
> > Proletary and expelled from the Bolshevik faction.[10]
>
> > [edit] Final attempt at party unity (1910)
>
> > With both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks weakened by splits within their
> > ranks and by Tsarist repression, they were tempted to try to re-unite
> > the party. In January 1910, Leninists, recallists and various
> > Menshevik factions held a meeting of the party's Central Committee in
> > Paris. Kamenev and Zinoviev were dubious about the idea, but were
> > willing to give it a try under pressure from "conciliator" Bolsheviks
> > like Victor Nogin. Lenin was adamantly opposed to any re-unification,
> > but was outvoted within the Bolshevik leadership. The meeting reached
> > a tentative agreement and one of its provisions made Trotsky's Vienna-
> > based Pravda a party-financed 'central organ'. Kamenev, Trotsky's
> > brother-in-law, was added to the editorial board from the Bolsheviks,
> > but the unification attempts failed in August 1910 when Kamenev
> > resigned from the board amid mutual recriminations.
>
> > [edit] Forming a separate party (1912)
>
> > The factions permanently broke off relations in January 1912 after the
> > Bolsheviks organized a Bolsheviks-only Prague Party Conference and
> > formally expelled Mensheviks and recallists from the party. As a
> > result, they ceased to be a faction in the RSDLP and instead declared
> > themselves an independent party, which they called RSDLP (Bolshevik).
>
> > Although the Bolshevik leadership decided to form a separate party,
> > convincing pro-Bolshevik workers within Russia to follow suit proved
> > difficult. When the first meeting of the Fourth Duma was convened in
> > late 1912, only one out of six Bolshevik deputies, Matvei Muranov,
> > (another one, Roman Malinovsky, was later exposed as a secret police
> > agent) voted to break away from the Menshevik faction within the Duma
> > on 15 December 1912.[11] The Bolshevik leadership eventually prevailed
> > and the Bolsheviks formed their own Duma faction in September 1913.
>
> > On Aug 9, 12:58 am, Frank
>
> > > What a load of ahistorical claptrap. Stalin stood on the right of the
> > > Bolshevik party. He rose to power by building a bureaucratic army of
> > > ex government functionaries to support him during the civil war after
> > > Lenin's death. He expelled the left opposition, that's right the LEFT
> > > OPPOSITION who opposed him in 1924 and had the remainder of the
> > > Bolsheviks that were sympathetic to the left opposition wiped out in
> > > the Red Terror of 1936/1937. One million in total. So much for the
> > > lefts in Russia, they were slaughter. Do a google search on the left
> > > opposition and see how ridiculous your claim is.
>
> > > As for Hitler, do you even understand how fascism emerges? Its not a
> > > random occurrence or the product of the idea of an individual.Fascism
> > > emerges at the point were the capitalist state in economic crisis
> > > makes demands of the workers that they can no longer tolerate and
> > > where where democracy can no longer function. The fascist leader,
> > > acting on behalf of finance capital shuts down or eliminates
> > > parliamentary opposition, smashes all workers organizations and
> > > implements police state rule. This is what Hitler did. The brown
> > > shirts were drawn from the down trodden uneducated, bigoted and
> > > backward elements of society used as a battering ram against workers
> > > and the attacks on the Jews.
>
> > > As for Obama as representing the left, this is the most absurd claim
> > > of all. He is a pro capital, pro US imperialist bourgeois
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment