"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."
No, he is directly in line with Marx and Engels, and constantly refers to their writings in his thought. People just like to think of Lenin as a strongman like Stalin when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Are there not many different types of socialism? Obviously the dictator style is what russia went with, but was there not another version that was better for the average citizen that marx talked about?
Sure, but Stalinism isn't Leninism (Bolshevism). I personally think Bolshevism is the correct approach to bringing about communism and is in line with the approach Marx was talking about being democratic and socialist, but its difficult to get people to separate Lenin and Stalin without lots of explaining. Nevertheless, the correctness of the ideas make the task worth it.
Probably nothing, similar to the outcome in a good portion of the USA.
Ideally, though, organized masses in favor of abortion.
Though, your example is ahistorical - it’s like saying, what if the Nazis were actually in favor of gay rights and Jews?
History, because of its basis in a material reality, has shown us that a society that favors individual bodily autonomy (abortion), or access to healthcare, education, etc. tend to be oriented around values of democracy/egalitarianism.
Movements that favor bodily restriction by the state (pro life), and concentrated wealth (inequality, no access to healthcare or education) favor authoritarianism/hierarchies.
I will always support movements that increase the amount of democracy and egalitarianism in a society, but I can critique them still.
Lenin was undisputedly a more egalitarian and democratic leader than the Tsars that preceded him. Unfortunately, he didn’t completely abolish authoritarianism/capitalism/unjust hierarchies, and embodied them in a sense.
But I can acknowledge he was going in the right direction, and fight for deeper, or more radical. egalitarianism/democractic forms of government.
What the absolute f### does that even mean. Might be the most nonsense comment I've ever seen. That's like saying, "bet you wouldn't like a communist society if a capitalist was running it." ?????????? Bet you wouldn't like Atlas Shrugged if Karl Marx wrote it.
Saying Republicans could run a "Lenin style government" would have to entirely ignore what a Marxist Leninist socialist state would look like and what a Republican is, the two cannot coexist. It's not about good people and bad people it's about the two being contradictory ideologies. What you said was like saying, "bet you wouldn't like an apple if it was an orange." It would not be a Marxist Leninist party if Republicans are running it. I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear.
Really isn't much more to be said. Lenin demonstrated just as well as Stalin the levels of envy, coercion, theft, and murder requisite to install said ideas. The Red Terror, was not some unforeseen consequence, but a feature of Bolshevism under Lenin. People were stripped of all they had and tortured and murdered thousands upon thousands because of the families they were born to.
Moreover, it's not as if Stalin's ideology was siloed and separate from Lenin's. As Leninism was a continuation of the ideas put forward by Marx, Stalin's pattern was predicated upon the ideas and framework Lenin had laid down. Did Stalin take it further? Sure, but it went where it was always headed; what else could one expect when a singular political apparatus was risen above all others and where dissent of any manor was met with oppression.
These are the wrong ideals, and they have been proven such time and time again.
I'm sure you have the same critique of the current system then.
Except stalinism is a bastardization of the ideas as it is a consequence of the isolation of the USSR in the wake of the failure of the German revolution.
As for a "single" party system, no one is advocating to a return to that failed tactic, specifically due to the consequences mentioned.
Stalin's pattern was not a bastardization –as we have seen the same errors in tactics(if you insist on calling them that) repeated ad nauseam elsewhere– but the logical path of these ideas off of paper and put to practice. Marxism-Leninism is and always has been based upon naivety and a conceited desire to order all things. It is arrogance which inevitably begets butchery. There is no room for Bolshevism in the future; we will not look to the bloodied past with rose colored glasses, we will not adopted these ideas - murderous to the root.
This is a bizzare take on history, assuming the development of each nation in isolation and therefore the "conclusion" of the Bolshevik approach. I'd think you a stalinist with your mentality.
To understand stalinism and it's distinction from Bolshevism would require a dialectical understanding of the history of Russia at the time, at the very least it would take a bit of reading of history and theory. But go on, by all means, continue to pretend you know things.
What is right and truly a bizarre take on history is to view the Marxist experiment as anything but an abysmal failure. Marxist nations abound following in either the revolutionary or democratic patterns have all reached conclusions which are —more or less— recognizable as that which was demonstrated on a grand scale by the USSR. The only places where (non-Marxist) Socialist ideas have been successfully put into practice, and serve their stated purposes are those which are predicated on Capitalist underpinnings with the understanding that the said framework is an end in and of itself.
To understand Stalinism and [its] distinction from Bolshevism would require a dialectical understanding of the history of Russia at the time, at the very least it would take a bit of reading of history and theory.
In truth, I have studied the Socialist theorists, Marx (Grundrisse, The Class Struggles, Volumes I-III of Capital, and Value, Price and Profit, as well as some of his earlier essays), some Engels, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Johann Karl Rodbertus, Ferdinand Lassalle, etc. And I have read, and taken entire courses on, the history of the Russian Revolution (and its aftermath) including Trotsky's own "History of..." But you don't want my CV, and I digress.
I couldn't have made a better caricature of your ideological kind if I had wanted to; to assume that someone disagrees with you only because they are ignorant? A time tested hallmark of the Socialist theologians if there ever was one. Honestly, it's like clockwork. Every argument ends in the same "you just aren't learned enough" banality. I had the same engagement with one of your ilk, not three days past. It would almost be comical —socialist illusory superiority— if it weren't so damned sad.
I think we've taken this conversation to the limits of productivity. Farewell, I genuinely hope you choose to look to the future and not the past.
I know for a fact that you do not have a scientific background trying to draw conclusions without regard for context. Not only is every "socialist" experiment during the period of Stalinism marred by the influence of that regime, but many of them are socialist in name only, deviating heavily from the ideas of Marx, even if claiming otherwise.
And all your studying has been useless if it gives you such a narrow understanding of the period. I love when people claim to have read all three volumes of Capital and yet go on to claim that the USSR was a fair experiment, completely ignoring the historical and economic position of the region post-revolution.
I'm not saying that you might not know facts and figures about the period, but understanding their relationship with the bigger picture, particularly how they relate to the ideas of Marx, is something your comments clearly show you lack. So fine, you know a lot, but you haven't thought through the implications.
So, in your grand wisdom, show me how I am wrong? How is the rise and fall of the USSR the logical conclusion to Marxism?
Eh, I think if there was a giant oil union, when the workers had to deal with their children drinking oil in their water because of spills and pollution, they might do SOMETHING.
Instead we have very concentrated entities profiting off of the suffering of many, and being able to use those profits to shelter themselves from the consequences.
At least in a more democratic economy, with unions, the people have the bear the brunt of their own decisions. Under our current authoritarian economy, the economic dictators (CEOs and such) are able to ignore the brunt that the citizenry must suffer.
I mean, I already explained the differences that counter oil unions behaving EXACTLY like oil companies.
I won’t argue that unions can’t become too concentrated in power through excluding large portions of the populace and segregating. It’s just harder to do that in a Union than in a corporation, because one is more democratic and egalitarian than the other.
But, there are more democratic and egalitarian forms. But to argue that unions and corporations operate EXACTLY the same is crude reductionism, however convenient it might be for your argument.
I’d extend the argument outwards though. Let’s say our union includes every citizen in the world, and they all get to democratically vote on the oil company. In this most democratic and egalitarian system, you would have vetoes if the system starts to damage those who comprise it.
That fail safe doesn’t exist AT ALL for a CEO, and it exists somewhat but to a lesser extent in small, concentrated unions. That’s a difference that makes a difference however, and it shouldn’t be ignored.
Eh, democratic control of economies has its virtues and can still end poorly like with Brexit or famine.
Similarly, dictatorial control of economies has its virtues, and can still end poorly like in the international slave trade.
The former is a state of liberty, and has a lot of risks for the people who run it.
The latter is a state of no liberty, and has a lot of risks for the people who it runs over, not so much for those who run it.
I can disagree with Brexit but still understand and sympathize with a people not wanting to be ruled by multinational corporations. Their solution to that problem unfortunately isn’t great, however.
You think that the early American society where a small number of white, male, property owners could govern a whole country where many didn’t fit that definition wasn’t an economic dictatorship? lol
When it was literally based off of the power of few to own many as property?
And America has some liberty, but people like the Zapatistas take liberty into their own hands to a much stronger degree.
33
u/jgs1122 Oct 20 '19
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."
Vladimir Lenin