Which bits specifically marked where Lenin diverged from Marx?
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn’t diverge from Marx?
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn’t very Democratic. He put a lot of people in concentration camps. Seems like a very fascist thing to do. Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian. Why would you stand this guy?
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn’t diverge from Marx?
Accepting his works as additions to Marxism, and expansions on them, does not mean he “diverted” from Marx. Again, his analysis of Imperialism, for example, was massive for Marxism, and was a continuation of Marx’s original writings.
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn’t very Democratic.
One of Lenin’s contributions to Revolutionary Theory is the practice of Democratic Centralism, along with Soviet Democracy. Lenin expanded Democratic rights for the Proletariat.
He put a lot of people in concentration camps.
Bourgeoisie, fascist collaboraters like the White Army, and people attempting to overthrow the new government were jailed, along with regular criminals. Anarchist Catalonia even had forced labor camps, revolution is messy. Calling prisons “concentration camps” is sensationalism.
Seems like a very fascist thing to do.
Marx, Engels, and the actually existing Anarchist societies would be considered fascist by your criteria.
Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian.
Maybe to non-Marxists, but in the field of Marxism he advanced knowledge of Capitalism along international lines via Imperialism, advanced revolutionary theory, and applied theory to practice, creating the first Socialist State. You may wish to read Engels’ On Authority, Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and Engels were also called authoritarian in their time, and defended themselves against such claims.
Why would you stand this guy?
I haven’t met him in person, doubt you have either. If you mean “stan,” then no, I don’t “stan” Lenin, he’s a dead guy from 100 years ago. Marxists must continue to adopt what has worked and shed what has not worked, matching Theory to Practice. Much of the USSR did work, like free healthcare and education, and they were fairly efficient with central planning despite calculating by hand, before computers. They also faced problems internal and external, and those should also be learned from. They were not, by any definition, fascist.
Ok, I feel like my position is moving a bit. Do you have any information on the how Democratic this all is? It seems like Lenin was head of state, and couldn’t be removed. Would Lenin have supported being voted out? I am not opposed to authority, but it needs to be tethered to the peoples will.
I understand that some action needed to be taken to force the bourgeoisie out of power. But it isn’t clear to me that that power was returned to the people.
Great! Assuming you’re being genuine, my goal is not to convince you to become a hard-line Marxist-Leninist or anything, my goal is to get you to rescind your statement that Marxism-Leninism is fascist. You can disagree with Lenin if you want, or think he could have done things far better with different methods, but calling him and Marxist-Leninists fascist is wrong.
Wikipedia has an article on Soviet Democracy, the democratic model followed by the USSR. If you want to hear Lenin describe everything, in his own words, The State and Revolution goes over Lenin’s contributions to Revolutionary Theory.
It seems like Lenin was head of state, and couldn’t be removed. Would Lenin have supported being voted out?
Theoretically yes, though this never happened. Lenin was extremely popular until his death. The closest was the Bolsheviks losing to the SRs in the 1917 Constituent Assembly, but replacing the Liberal Capitalist Constituent Assembly with only the Soviet system. Previous to that election, both Soviets and the Liberal Provisional Government held dual-power, overturning it fully transitioned to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
I am not opposed to authority, but it needs to be tethered to the peoples will.
Hence the need for Democratic Centralism, diversity in thought, unity in action. Later on, Mao added the concept of the Mass Line to draw a direct line from the top to the bottom, but this was well after the USSR had come into existence, this was Mao tweaking the Soviet system.
I understand that some action needed to be taken to force the bourgeoisie out of power. But it isn’t clear to me that that power was returned to the people.
You can read what I have linked. If you want a book that tries to analyze the USSR, for both positives and negatives while working through Red-Scare Propaganda, Blackshirts and Reds goes over quite a lot of the overall system of the USSR.
Nope, I’m being completely genuine. I suspect the people I’ve talk to about the subject before did either a poor job explaining it or were too far in love with Lenin have a realistic perspective with on things. Guy was a human like the rest of us, not a saint.
I will need some time to process all this information. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about this subject.
Glad to hear it, this conversation was worth it in the end then.
I suspect the people I’ve talk to about the subject before did either a poor job explaining it or were too far in love with Lenin have a realistic perspective with on things. Guy was a human like the rest of us, not a saint.
Bit of A, bit of B.
Overall, you absolutely did have an absolute resistance towards even considering that Lenin may not have been a fascist, that’s difficult to engage with, and I imagine it would be hard to convince you in any other context as well.
As for the love Lenin himself gets, it’s important to recognize 2 major factors.
Lenin is incredibly popular among Marxists for being the first major figure to fully study Marxism, apply it to the conditions of the world he lived in, expand on Marxism, put Theory to Practice, take down the Brutal Tsarist Regime, and create the first true Socialist State. This is on top of having an unapologetic and fiery writing style. He is very easy to like, as a Marxist. As an example, see the opening to The State and Revolution:
What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!
Secondly, liking Lenin does not mean Marxists deny missteps, errors, or believe him to be a “Great Man.” Marxists explicitly reject Great Man Theory, which posits that history is guided by unique individuals and their ideas, rather than the material conditions of society. If Lenin had never been born, someone else would have eventually come to similar conclusions, and revolution would have likely happend without him. Lenin was not a saint, he was just the person who filled up a historical role that someone else could have just as easily filled.
I will need some time to process all this information. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about this subject.
No worries, there’s a lot to dig through, and it deserves to be thoroughly looked at. I do think reading Marx and Engels first, at least Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific from Marx and Engels before jumping into Lenin’s works can better allow you to personally judge if Lenin was a departure from Marx, or an expander upon Marx.
For Lenin himself, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and The State and Revolution are his essential works, and what really matters when it comes to Marxism itself. If you go through Marx and Engels, then compare Lenin’s works to theirs, you can come to your own conclusions, free from outside bias.
P.S. I am not a Zionist or Homophobic.
I hoped you weren’t. I do still believe the bit on Lenin and Marx was homophobic, even if unintentionally. The root of the “humor” in those jokes is just naked homophobia.
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn’t diverge from Marx?
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn’t very Democratic. He put a lot of people in concentration camps. Seems like a very fascist thing to do. Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian. Why would you stand this guy?
Accepting his works as additions to Marxism, and expansions on them, does not mean he “diverted” from Marx. Again, his analysis of Imperialism, for example, was massive for Marxism, and was a continuation of Marx’s original writings.
One of Lenin’s contributions to Revolutionary Theory is the practice of Democratic Centralism, along with Soviet Democracy. Lenin expanded Democratic rights for the Proletariat.
Bourgeoisie, fascist collaboraters like the White Army, and people attempting to overthrow the new government were jailed, along with regular criminals. Anarchist Catalonia even had forced labor camps, revolution is messy. Calling prisons “concentration camps” is sensationalism.
Marx, Engels, and the actually existing Anarchist societies would be considered fascist by your criteria.
Maybe to non-Marxists, but in the field of Marxism he advanced knowledge of Capitalism along international lines via Imperialism, advanced revolutionary theory, and applied theory to practice, creating the first Socialist State. You may wish to read Engels’ On Authority, Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and Engels were also called authoritarian in their time, and defended themselves against such claims.
I haven’t met him in person, doubt you have either. If you mean “stan,” then no, I don’t “stan” Lenin, he’s a dead guy from 100 years ago. Marxists must continue to adopt what has worked and shed what has not worked, matching Theory to Practice. Much of the USSR did work, like free healthcare and education, and they were fairly efficient with central planning despite calculating by hand, before computers. They also faced problems internal and external, and those should also be learned from. They were not, by any definition, fascist.
Ok, I feel like my position is moving a bit. Do you have any information on the how Democratic this all is? It seems like Lenin was head of state, and couldn’t be removed. Would Lenin have supported being voted out? I am not opposed to authority, but it needs to be tethered to the peoples will.
I understand that some action needed to be taken to force the bourgeoisie out of power. But it isn’t clear to me that that power was returned to the people.
Great! Assuming you’re being genuine, my goal is not to convince you to become a hard-line Marxist-Leninist or anything, my goal is to get you to rescind your statement that Marxism-Leninism is fascist. You can disagree with Lenin if you want, or think he could have done things far better with different methods, but calling him and Marxist-Leninists fascist is wrong.
Wikipedia has an article on Soviet Democracy, the democratic model followed by the USSR. If you want to hear Lenin describe everything, in his own words, The State and Revolution goes over Lenin’s contributions to Revolutionary Theory.
Theoretically yes, though this never happened. Lenin was extremely popular until his death. The closest was the Bolsheviks losing to the SRs in the 1917 Constituent Assembly, but replacing the Liberal Capitalist Constituent Assembly with only the Soviet system. Previous to that election, both Soviets and the Liberal Provisional Government held dual-power, overturning it fully transitioned to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Hence the need for Democratic Centralism, diversity in thought, unity in action. Later on, Mao added the concept of the Mass Line to draw a direct line from the top to the bottom, but this was well after the USSR had come into existence, this was Mao tweaking the Soviet system.
You can read what I have linked. If you want a book that tries to analyze the USSR, for both positives and negatives while working through Red-Scare Propaganda, Blackshirts and Reds goes over quite a lot of the overall system of the USSR.
Nope, I’m being completely genuine. I suspect the people I’ve talk to about the subject before did either a poor job explaining it or were too far in love with Lenin have a realistic perspective with on things. Guy was a human like the rest of us, not a saint.
I will need some time to process all this information. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about this subject.
P.S. I am not a Zionist or Homophobic.
Glad to hear it, this conversation was worth it in the end then.
Bit of A, bit of B.
Overall, you absolutely did have an absolute resistance towards even considering that Lenin may not have been a fascist, that’s difficult to engage with, and I imagine it would be hard to convince you in any other context as well.
As for the love Lenin himself gets, it’s important to recognize 2 major factors.
Lenin is incredibly popular among Marxists for being the first major figure to fully study Marxism, apply it to the conditions of the world he lived in, expand on Marxism, put Theory to Practice, take down the Brutal Tsarist Regime, and create the first true Socialist State. This is on top of having an unapologetic and fiery writing style. He is very easy to like, as a Marxist. As an example, see the opening to The State and Revolution:
Secondly, liking Lenin does not mean Marxists deny missteps, errors, or believe him to be a “Great Man.” Marxists explicitly reject Great Man Theory, which posits that history is guided by unique individuals and their ideas, rather than the material conditions of society. If Lenin had never been born, someone else would have eventually come to similar conclusions, and revolution would have likely happend without him. Lenin was not a saint, he was just the person who filled up a historical role that someone else could have just as easily filled.
No worries, there’s a lot to dig through, and it deserves to be thoroughly looked at. I do think reading Marx and Engels first, at least Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific from Marx and Engels before jumping into Lenin’s works can better allow you to personally judge if Lenin was a departure from Marx, or an expander upon Marx.
For Lenin himself, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and The State and Revolution are his essential works, and what really matters when it comes to Marxism itself. If you go through Marx and Engels, then compare Lenin’s works to theirs, you can come to your own conclusions, free from outside bias.
I hoped you weren’t. I do still believe the bit on Lenin and Marx was homophobic, even if unintentionally. The root of the “humor” in those jokes is just naked homophobia.