I'm not going to make any other prior statements than that this is first and foremost a debate between Vladimir_ and myself. There is no obligation of anyone to read this, but if you think you'll find it interesting it is here. What I would like to see, just for the sake of assuming I'm right, is some sort of formal answers to this. I'm not going to put words in Vlads mouth, in fact I think he says quite clearly what he believes in the debate, but I am going to say that I believe there are fundamental differences between Marxism and Leninism.

Here is the chat log (I hope my server can take it)

Leninism Vs. Marxism

I'm not going to make any other prior statements than that this is first and foremost a debate between Vladimir_ and myself. There is no obligation of anyone to read this, but if you think you'll find it interesting it is here. What I would like to see, just for the sake of assuming I'm right, is some sort of formal answers to this. I'm not going to put words in Vlads mouth, in fact I think he says quite clearly what he believes in the debate, but I am going to say that I believe there are fundamental differences between Marxism and Leninism.

Here is the chat log (I hope my server can take it)

Leninism Vs. Marxism

I'm not going to make any other prior statements than that this is first and foremost a debate between Vladimir_ and myself. There is no obligation of anyone to read this, but if you think you'll find it interesting it is here. What I would like to see, just for the sake of assuming I'm right, is some sort of formal answers to this. I'm not going to put words in Vlads mouth, in fact I think he says quite clearly what he believes in the debate, but I am going to say that I believe there are fundamental differences between Marxism and Leninism.

Here is the chat log (I hope my server can take it)

Leninism Vs. Marxism

I'd like to get into the debate, I just can't be bothered to read the link. Can you not break it down?

I'd like to get into the debate, I just can't be bothered to read the link. Can you not break it down?

I'd like to get into the debate, I just can't be bothered to read the link. Can you not break it down?

I don't want to put words in Vlad's mouth, but I can certainly cut and copy some of what I would consider the more interesting parts that we disagree on. Furthermore, it's realistically only like a 10 minute read.

<Gent> I don't think Lenin thought Marx argued for a dictatorship by the party
<Vladimir_> yes but all ploretariats maybe dont want communism!
<Gent> I think Lenin knew damn well that Marx wanted a dictatorship of the entire proletariat
<Vladimir_> no why the hell did he establish one????????
<Gent> Because he wasn't living in a theoretical world

<Vladimir_> We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.
<Gent> what year was it written?
<Vladimir_> 1917
<Gent> when did the revolution happen?
<Vladimir_> 1918
<Vladimir_> and?
<Gent> errr...
<Gent> Was the revolution not in October of 1917?
<Vladimir_> hey gent the STATE AND REVOLUTION has been changed many times by lenin it was released in 1922 or something
<Gent> Vladimir, it was written within months of the revolution on either side... He had no idea of the practical necessities of the revolution before he wrote it

<Vladimir_> why is there no leninism
<Vladimir_> ?
<Gent> there is
<Vladimir_> no there isnt because leninism uses marxism as its base
<Vladimir_> thus so called leninism has no base without marxism
<Gent> that is semantics
<Gent> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop...e/leninism.html -- read that, it will tell you the difference between Marxism and Leninism
<Gent> If you want to consider Marxism-Leninism and Leninism the same, that's fine, but you cannot consider Marxism and Leninism alone to be the same

<Vladimir_> gent that is my point after every qoute lenin says marx is right and this is why he explains marx!!!!!
<Gent> He explains Marx in such a way that he changes what Marx is saying, that is the problem... he puts what Marx says and then tells you what ot make of it. Why read what he says, why not read Marx for yourself and see?
<Vladimir_> gent do you not believe what lenin says?
<Gent> I'm not saying Lenin is some evil guy trying to destroy the work of Marx... I'm just willing to admit, unlike you, that he disagreed on certain things, differed on others, but in the end he had to, because he was in a different situation than Marx described, and eve had he been in the same situation as what Marx described, he was still trying to make it work practially, not theoretically
<Vladimir_> yes but gent the qoutes that im sending you from lenin are according to you not the words of marx right?
<Gent> Vladimir, I do not believe all his critiques on Marx, no. Certainlly he understands some of it very well, but other parts he does not. What I believe is that Lenin used Marx in order to present a basis for what he was doing in Russia. Lenin realized that what Marx described couldn't necessarily apply to Russia and thus he made his own beliefs on top of that in order so that he could have a practical application of Marxism, which in it
<Gent> self would be what he came up with, aka: Leninism
<Gent> Every quote you sent me so far was not Marx' words, they were Lenin's

<Gent> Vladimir, so they both assumed a vanguard party would lead?
<Vladimir_> yes
<Vladimir_> All his life Marx fought against this petty-bourgeois socialism, now revived in Russia by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. He developed his theory of the class struggle consistently, down to the theory of political power, of the state.
<Gent> And they both believed that socialism could be acheived in a place where capitalism hadn't already had it's time?
<Vladimir_> marx agaoinst menshevieks
<Gent> Marx didn't write that
<Vladimir_> lenin made that up?
<Gent> I don't care how much you respect, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else who did their thing, but how can you stand by putting words in their mouths?
<Gent> words in Marx's mouth rather
<Vladimir_> lenin said that not me!
<Gent> Vladimir, Marx argued that the petty bourgeoisie would join the bourgeoisie
<Vladimir_> tell that to lenin !!!!!!!!
<Gent> Vladimir, I know...I meant how can you stand by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao putting words in Marx's mouth?


Those are some of the jucier bits I guess which really explain where I think we differ. In short I say Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution). Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat. I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society. Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

A lot of the crap in there is just me repeating stuff trying to make it sink in. Hope these sections help, and I hope I didn't take anything out of context, I tried to do fairly big chunks were certain specific points were made.

I don't want to put words in Vlad's mouth, but I can certainly cut and copy some of what I would consider the more interesting parts that we disagree on. Furthermore, it's realistically only like a 10 minute read.

<Gent> I don't think Lenin thought Marx argued for a dictatorship by the party
<Vladimir_> yes but all ploretariats maybe dont want communism!
<Gent> I think Lenin knew damn well that Marx wanted a dictatorship of the entire proletariat
<Vladimir_> no why the hell did he establish one????????
<Gent> Because he wasn't living in a theoretical world

<Vladimir_> We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.
<Gent> what year was it written?
<Vladimir_> 1917
<Gent> when did the revolution happen?
<Vladimir_> 1918
<Vladimir_> and?
<Gent> errr...
<Gent> Was the revolution not in October of 1917?
<Vladimir_> hey gent the STATE AND REVOLUTION has been changed many times by lenin it was released in 1922 or something
<Gent> Vladimir, it was written within months of the revolution on either side... He had no idea of the practical necessities of the revolution before he wrote it

<Vladimir_> why is there no leninism
<Vladimir_> ?
<Gent> there is
<Vladimir_> no there isnt because leninism uses marxism as its base
<Vladimir_> thus so called leninism has no base without marxism
<Gent> that is semantics
<Gent> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop...e/leninism.html -- read that, it will tell you the difference between Marxism and Leninism
<Gent> If you want to consider Marxism-Leninism and Leninism the same, that's fine, but you cannot consider Marxism and Leninism alone to be the same

<Vladimir_> gent that is my point after every qoute lenin says marx is right and this is why he explains marx!!!!!
<Gent> He explains Marx in such a way that he changes what Marx is saying, that is the problem... he puts what Marx says and then tells you what ot make of it. Why read what he says, why not read Marx for yourself and see?
<Vladimir_> gent do you not believe what lenin says?
<Gent> I'm not saying Lenin is some evil guy trying to destroy the work of Marx... I'm just willing to admit, unlike you, that he disagreed on certain things, differed on others, but in the end he had to, because he was in a different situation than Marx described, and eve had he been in the same situation as what Marx described, he was still trying to make it work practially, not theoretically
<Vladimir_> yes but gent the qoutes that im sending you from lenin are according to you not the words of marx right?
<Gent> Vladimir, I do not believe all his critiques on Marx, no. Certainlly he understands some of it very well, but other parts he does not. What I believe is that Lenin used Marx in order to present a basis for what he was doing in Russia. Lenin realized that what Marx described couldn't necessarily apply to Russia and thus he made his own beliefs on top of that in order so that he could have a practical application of Marxism, which in it
<Gent> self would be what he came up with, aka: Leninism
<Gent> Every quote you sent me so far was not Marx' words, they were Lenin's

<Gent> Vladimir, so they both assumed a vanguard party would lead?
<Vladimir_> yes
<Vladimir_> All his life Marx fought against this petty-bourgeois socialism, now revived in Russia by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. He developed his theory of the class struggle consistently, down to the theory of political power, of the state.
<Gent> And they both believed that socialism could be acheived in a place where capitalism hadn't already had it's time?
<Vladimir_> marx agaoinst menshevieks
<Gent> Marx didn't write that
<Vladimir_> lenin made that up?
<Gent> I don't care how much you respect, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else who did their thing, but how can you stand by putting words in their mouths?
<Gent> words in Marx's mouth rather
<Vladimir_> lenin said that not me!
<Gent> Vladimir, Marx argued that the petty bourgeoisie would join the bourgeoisie
<Vladimir_> tell that to lenin !!!!!!!!
<Gent> Vladimir, I know...I meant how can you stand by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao putting words in Marx's mouth?


Those are some of the jucier bits I guess which really explain where I think we differ. In short I say Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution). Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat. I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society. Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

A lot of the crap in there is just me repeating stuff trying to make it sink in. Hope these sections help, and I hope I didn't take anything out of context, I tried to do fairly big chunks were certain specific points were made.

I don't want to put words in Vlad's mouth, but I can certainly cut and copy some of what I would consider the more interesting parts that we disagree on. Furthermore, it's realistically only like a 10 minute read.

<Gent> I don't think Lenin thought Marx argued for a dictatorship by the party
<Vladimir_> yes but all ploretariats maybe dont want communism!
<Gent> I think Lenin knew damn well that Marx wanted a dictatorship of the entire proletariat
<Vladimir_> no why the hell did he establish one????????
<Gent> Because he wasn't living in a theoretical world

<Vladimir_> We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.
<Gent> what year was it written?
<Vladimir_> 1917
<Gent> when did the revolution happen?
<Vladimir_> 1918
<Vladimir_> and?
<Gent> errr...
<Gent> Was the revolution not in October of 1917?
<Vladimir_> hey gent the STATE AND REVOLUTION has been changed many times by lenin it was released in 1922 or something
<Gent> Vladimir, it was written within months of the revolution on either side... He had no idea of the practical necessities of the revolution before he wrote it

<Vladimir_> why is there no leninism
<Vladimir_> ?
<Gent> there is
<Vladimir_> no there isnt because leninism uses marxism as its base
<Vladimir_> thus so called leninism has no base without marxism
<Gent> that is semantics
<Gent> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop...e/leninism.html -- read that, it will tell you the difference between Marxism and Leninism
<Gent> If you want to consider Marxism-Leninism and Leninism the same, that's fine, but you cannot consider Marxism and Leninism alone to be the same

<Vladimir_> gent that is my point after every qoute lenin says marx is right and this is why he explains marx!!!!!
<Gent> He explains Marx in such a way that he changes what Marx is saying, that is the problem... he puts what Marx says and then tells you what ot make of it. Why read what he says, why not read Marx for yourself and see?
<Vladimir_> gent do you not believe what lenin says?
<Gent> I'm not saying Lenin is some evil guy trying to destroy the work of Marx... I'm just willing to admit, unlike you, that he disagreed on certain things, differed on others, but in the end he had to, because he was in a different situation than Marx described, and eve had he been in the same situation as what Marx described, he was still trying to make it work practially, not theoretically
<Vladimir_> yes but gent the qoutes that im sending you from lenin are according to you not the words of marx right?
<Gent> Vladimir, I do not believe all his critiques on Marx, no. Certainlly he understands some of it very well, but other parts he does not. What I believe is that Lenin used Marx in order to present a basis for what he was doing in Russia. Lenin realized that what Marx described couldn't necessarily apply to Russia and thus he made his own beliefs on top of that in order so that he could have a practical application of Marxism, which in it
<Gent> self would be what he came up with, aka: Leninism
<Gent> Every quote you sent me so far was not Marx' words, they were Lenin's

<Gent> Vladimir, so they both assumed a vanguard party would lead?
<Vladimir_> yes
<Vladimir_> All his life Marx fought against this petty-bourgeois socialism, now revived in Russia by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. He developed his theory of the class struggle consistently, down to the theory of political power, of the state.
<Gent> And they both believed that socialism could be acheived in a place where capitalism hadn't already had it's time?
<Vladimir_> marx agaoinst menshevieks
<Gent> Marx didn't write that
<Vladimir_> lenin made that up?
<Gent> I don't care how much you respect, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else who did their thing, but how can you stand by putting words in their mouths?
<Gent> words in Marx's mouth rather
<Vladimir_> lenin said that not me!
<Gent> Vladimir, Marx argued that the petty bourgeoisie would join the bourgeoisie
<Vladimir_> tell that to lenin !!!!!!!!
<Gent> Vladimir, I know...I meant how can you stand by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao putting words in Marx's mouth?


Those are some of the jucier bits I guess which really explain where I think we differ. In short I say Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the entire proletariat, NOT a vanguard party (even if a vanguard party were to lead the revolution). Vlad argues that both Marx and Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of the vanguard party which represents the proletariat. I say Marx adheres strictly to the idea that communism, at least by his theories, can only be established from revolution in a capitalist society. Vlad says Marx, like Lenin, obviously believed that communism did not have to be born out of revolution against capitalism.

A lot of the crap in there is just me repeating stuff trying to make it sink in. Hope these sections help, and I hope I didn't take anything out of context, I tried to do fairly big chunks were certain specific points were made.

I know this thread will probably evolve into an interminable squabble but I'll simply state a matter of sincere opinion on my behalf. You can't be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

I know this thread will probably evolve into an interminable squabble but I'll simply state a matter of sincere opinion on my behalf. You can't be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

I know this thread will probably evolve into an interminable squabble but I'll simply state a matter of sincere opinion on my behalf. You can't be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Leninism is the pinnacle of revolutionary Communist praxis

Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

If Marx had meant for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the entire proletariat, the praticaly application by Leninism, that being the leadership of a strong centralised political party, will invariable corrupt the theory, because it will have no other choice but to exact its control totally in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown througout the 20th century.

Marxism applied using the Leninist paradigm has always failed. There is no evdience to suppose it won't happen again.

I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he's dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."

I agree. Marx wrote about class antagonisms being the force behind change in societies. He talked about the working class being the last revolutionary class of history who would fight their exploitation and create communism. Communism being the final stage of historical development...From capitalism.

Maybe, but it's never worked. In Russia Lenin had the opportunity to create a revolution, without a mass of working class people, so he did it. Russian peasents were largly illiterate and extremly superstitious and had no part of revolutionary activities, ie unions or connection with Urban unrest.

Lenin and Mao's interpretation of Marxism may have been necessary for their countries for their times, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it works in general, or that their interpretations are actually what Marx was talking about.

You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.

Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

If Marx had meant for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the entire proletariat, the praticaly application by Leninism, that being the leadership of a strong centralised political party, will invariable corrupt the theory, because it will have no other choice but to exact its control totally in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown througout the 20th century.

Marxism applied using the Leninist paradigm has always failed. There is no evdience to suppose it won't happen again.

I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he's dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."

I agree. Marx wrote about class antagonisms being the force behind change in societies. He talked about the working class being the last revolutionary class of history who would fight their exploitation and create communism. Communism being the final stage of historical development...From capitalism.

Maybe, but it's never worked. In Russia Lenin had the opportunity to create a revolution, without a mass of working class people, so he did it. Russian peasents were largly illiterate and extremly superstitious and had no part of revolutionary activities, ie unions or connection with Urban unrest.

Lenin and Mao's interpretation of Marxism may have been necessary for their countries for their times, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it works in general, or that their interpretations are actually what Marx was talking about.

You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.

Because of the structure of Marxist political parties [centralised hierarchy] it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to become anything other than a dictatorship of the party. When Lenin applied the theory what happened was inevitable.

If Marx had meant for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the entire proletariat, the praticaly application by Leninism, that being the leadership of a strong centralised political party, will invariable corrupt the theory, because it will have no other choice but to exact its control totally in a revolutionary situation. As has been shown througout the 20th century.

Marxism applied using the Leninist paradigm has always failed. There is no evdience to suppose it won't happen again.

I think that it is difficult to verify anything Marx said or wrote about because he's dead. People interpret him however they want. Marx said himself "if there is one thing I know, it is that I am no Marxist."

I agree. Marx wrote about class antagonisms being the force behind change in societies. He talked about the working class being the last revolutionary class of history who would fight their exploitation and create communism. Communism being the final stage of historical development...From capitalism.

Maybe, but it's never worked. In Russia Lenin had the opportunity to create a revolution, without a mass of working class people, so he did it. Russian peasents were largly illiterate and extremly superstitious and had no part of revolutionary activities, ie unions or connection with Urban unrest.

Lenin and Mao's interpretation of Marxism may have been necessary for their countries for their times, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it works in general, or that their interpretations are actually what Marx was talking about.

You cannot jump from one stage of history directly to another. Russia was going through a feudel stage of history and it was stupid and naive to think that it was possible to jump from that stage directly to communism.

I think that's very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

It does not mean that it could or should be applied now.

I think that's very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

It does not mean that it could or should be applied now.

I think that's very stupid to think. Leninism interpreted Marxism for the practical necessities of the time. Even you have said that.

It does not mean that it could or should be applied now.

I would agree with your statemetn about what Leninism is, but I disagree that you can't be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Russia was not in a position to fit what Marx described theoretically as I said in the argument it was a feudalist demi-capitalism where your proletariat is not the majority. Even many of the quotes that Vladimir brings up when talking about primitive democracy explain that it doesn't work because it is a democracy that keeps in power the minority, and the majority (the proletariat) has no real influence. The case in Russia is that your peasants are a majority by a long shot, and I don't ever recall Marx relating peasants and the proletariat on the same level. If anything the peasants want to see the provisional government overthrow the czar and introduce "free market" -- aka: the peasants want to see capitalism, because that is their chance to be paid, to buy their own things, and to do what they think would ge them rich.

Taking Russia from this dodgy form of fedual-capitalism into the USSR as early revolutionary socialism is denying the idea that you need a capitalist revolution to begin with. This is something I find completely against Marxist theories because Marx held the historical value of such transitions with great importance. Owing the revolutions of the bourgeoisie as those which make it possible for the proletariat to become a majority and owing to their rule that the proletariat would revolt. Instead the USSR is put in a position where there is an overwhelming number of peasants and supporters of the old provisional government who are still pushing for their bourgeoisie revolution. So you see two solutions to this over the two major leaders, the first, Lenin, comes up with the new economic policy, and the second, Stalin, comes up with the great purge. Granted these may have "worked," but it is something Marx would have never even thought an issue because of the already overwhelming majority which should have been the proletariat and the complete minority of bourgoiesie. Then you have the issue of industrialization, which had to be done, where under a capitalist society capitalism itself takes care of industrialization so it is a non-issue to any transitional government to communism.

As I argue in the debate, Marx makes it a point to show that petty-bourgeoisie and peasants are likely to join the struggle in an overthrow of capitalism. Not the case in going from feudalism.... why would they? Now they've missed any opportunity they had to actually make money.

I don't take much issue at all with Lenin, in fact I think some of the things he did were brilliant and made socialism the truest of possibilities for the USSR, but I don't pretend that his practice is in any way a direct copy of the theories of Marx, it can't be based on the fact that Russia wasn't capitalism to begin with.

This is not to say that in the future there will not be a revolution which more closely resembles the theories of Marx (i.e. One that actually moves from capitalism to socialism to communism and adheres almost directly to his theory). Thus I don't think Leninism is the pinnacle, it is simply the closist we've come so far.

I would agree with your statemetn about what Leninism is, but I disagree that you can't be a Marxist without being a Leninist. Russia was not in a position to fit what Marx described theoretically as I said in the argument it was a feudalist demi-capitalism where your proletariat is not the majority. Even many of the quotes that Vladimir brings up when talking about primitive democracy explain that it doesn't work because it is a democracy that keeps in power the minority, and the majority (the proletariat) has no real influence. The case in Russia is that your peasants are a majority by a long shot, and I don't ever recall Marx relating peasants and the proletariat on the same level. If anything the peasants want to see the provisional government overthrow the czar and introduce "free market" -- aka: the peasants want to see capitalism, because that is their chance to be paid, to buy their own things, and to do what they think would ge them rich.

Taking Russia from this dodgy form of fedual-capitalism into the USSR as early revolutionary socialism is denying the idea that you need a capitalist revolution to begin with. This is something I find completely against Marxist theories because Marx held the historical value of such transitions with great importance. Owing the revolutions of the bourgeoisie as those which make it possible for the proletariat to become a majority and owing to their rule that the proletariat would revolt. Instead the USSR is put in a position where there is an overwhelming number of peasants and supporters of the old provisional government who are still pushing for their bourgeoisie revolution. So you see two solutions to this over the two major leaders, the first, Lenin, comes up with the new economic policy, and the second, Stalin, comes up with the great purge. Granted these may have "worked," but it is something Marx would have never even thought an issue because of the already overwhelming majority which should have been the proletariat and the complete minority of bourgoiesie. Then you have the issue of industrialization, which had to be done, where under a capitalist society capitalism itself takes care of industrialization so it is a non-issue to any transitional government to communism.

As I argue in the debate, Marx makes it a point to show that petty-bourgeoisie and peasants are likely to join the struggle in an overthrow of capitalism. Not the case in going from feudalism.... why would they? Now they've missed any opportunity they had to actually make money.

I don't take much issue at all with Lenin, in fact I think some of the things he did were brilliant and made socialism the truest of possibilities for the USSR, but I don't pretend that his practice is in any way a direct copy of the theories of Marx, it can't be based on the fact that Russia wasn't capitalism to begin with.

This is not to say that in the future there will not be a revolution which more closely resembles the theories of Marx (i.e. One that actually moves from capitalism to socialism to communism and adheres almost directly to his theory). Thus I don't think Leninism is the pinnacle, it is simply the closist we've come so far.