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.

It may be impossible but that doesn't mean it's not what Marx meant. I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I'm not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist. In distinguishing them as such, communists as a party, and the proletariat of the working class. If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn't have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)." Instead he makes very clear his definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka: the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Whether it's practical or not is the reason I think Marxism and Leninism differs in the first place.

I've long maintained that Marx doesn't make half assed assertions. So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them. And as I responded to the othe quotation of you, I don't see him ever define the proletariat as anything but the entire working class, and had I thought he meant party, I think he damn well would have said so. Lastly, I think the reason Marx said that is because he recognized that his arguments were not necessarily a practical application but were instead based on historical proofs and what can only be seen as scientific method.

Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia's. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx's position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

It may be impossible but that doesn't mean it's not what Marx meant. I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I'm not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist. In distinguishing them as such, communists as a party, and the proletariat of the working class. If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn't have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)." Instead he makes very clear his definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka: the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Whether it's practical or not is the reason I think Marxism and Leninism differs in the first place.

I've long maintained that Marx doesn't make half assed assertions. So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them. And as I responded to the othe quotation of you, I don't see him ever define the proletariat as anything but the entire working class, and had I thought he meant party, I think he damn well would have said so. Lastly, I think the reason Marx said that is because he recognized that his arguments were not necessarily a practical application but were instead based on historical proofs and what can only be seen as scientific method.

Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia's. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx's position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

It may be impossible but that doesn't mean it's not what Marx meant. I very openly admit and understand that Leninism is a practical application of Marxist theories, which is precisely why I think it becomes a leadership by the vanguard, but I'm not willing to say that Marx himself saw this as necessary and in fact thought otherwise that the dictatorship of the proletariat was just that, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I argued in there, Marx distinguishes the communists as a party within the proletariat and within the first few paragraphs of the second chapter of the Manifesto he openly states that other parties do exist. In distinguishing them as such, communists as a party, and the proletariat of the working class. If he truly thought it would be lead by a vanguard party I see no reason why he wouldn't have said "dictatorship of the communists" or even "dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the communist party organized to represent the proletariat and oppress the bourgeoisie)." Instead he makes very clear his definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka: the state and it is: the proletariat organized as a ruling class. Whether it's practical or not is the reason I think Marxism and Leninism differs in the first place.

I've long maintained that Marx doesn't make half assed assertions. So I can only be forced to define things as he defines them. And as I responded to the othe quotation of you, I don't see him ever define the proletariat as anything but the entire working class, and had I thought he meant party, I think he damn well would have said so. Lastly, I think the reason Marx said that is because he recognized that his arguments were not necessarily a practical application but were instead based on historical proofs and what can only be seen as scientific method.

Thus I think Marx is simply saying that per practical application some adaptation would be necessarily. ESPECIALLY in a situation like Russia's. However, this does not change the fact that Marxism is Marxism. It is not Marx's position to say what is Marxist other than to say what he wants to say and that will be considered Marxist, it is of course just a word that represents his theories. As Leninism is a word to represent his theories, and so on and so on.

Yes, even Lenin said that. When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for in your circles (i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline) Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were neccessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it. That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time.

Lenin never said Russia could "jump a stage" on it's own. What he and Trotsky argued was that Russia, although backward, was still an imperialist nation. Therefore, social revolution was neccessary and possible in this country but that socialism was entirely dependant on this provoking revolutions in the Western, adavanced capitalisms. It is also a fact that in Russia at the time, the choice was not between "liberal democracy" or "socialism". It was a choice between Soviet Rule and a military dictatorship. Those who attack the October Revolution argue for on the side of Kornilov.

Yes, even Lenin said that. When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for in your circles (i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline) Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were neccessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it. That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time.

Lenin never said Russia could "jump a stage" on it's own. What he and Trotsky argued was that Russia, although backward, was still an imperialist nation. Therefore, social revolution was neccessary and possible in this country but that socialism was entirely dependant on this provoking revolutions in the Western, adavanced capitalisms. It is also a fact that in Russia at the time, the choice was not between "liberal democracy" or "socialism". It was a choice between Soviet Rule and a military dictatorship. Those who attack the October Revolution argue for on the side of Kornilov.

Yes, even Lenin said that. When Lenin wrote most of the things he gets criticised for in your circles (i.e professional revolutionaries, tight discipline) Russia was under a strict, repressive regime, so some things were neccessary. Lenin relaxed these rules when the objective circumstances called for it. That is also what we need, not totally concrete "rules", but an approach that takes in both theory and circumstances. Predictably, the anarchist dogma rejects this, favouring dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time.

Lenin never said Russia could "jump a stage" on it's own. What he and Trotsky argued was that Russia, although backward, was still an imperialist nation. Therefore, social revolution was neccessary and possible in this country but that socialism was entirely dependant on this provoking revolutions in the Western, adavanced capitalisms. It is also a fact that in Russia at the time, the choice was not between "liberal democracy" or "socialism". It was a choice between Soviet Rule and a military dictatorship. Those who attack the October Revolution argue for on the side of Kornilov.

I'm not disputing that.

My point is, I don't think that this is very important. What Marx may or may not have said is of little relevance to the actuality of events. If you attempt to achieve communism through a political party, you will inevitably end up with what we have seen througout the 20th Century.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only involve the entire proletariat if a political party, idealised in a centralised hierarchy, does not exist. And you cannot deny that this is what Marx called for, and organised.

And?

I agree.

Practically impossible! How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.

But those definitions are open to interpretation, you cannot deny that.

I never argued otherwise.

I'm not disputing that.

My point is, I don't think that this is very important. What Marx may or may not have said is of little relevance to the actuality of events. If you attempt to achieve communism through a political party, you will inevitably end up with what we have seen througout the 20th Century.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only involve the entire proletariat if a political party, idealised in a centralised hierarchy, does not exist. And you cannot deny that this is what Marx called for, and organised.

And?

I agree.

Practically impossible! How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.

But those definitions are open to interpretation, you cannot deny that.

I never argued otherwise.

I'm not disputing that.

My point is, I don't think that this is very important. What Marx may or may not have said is of little relevance to the actuality of events. If you attempt to achieve communism through a political party, you will inevitably end up with what we have seen througout the 20th Century.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" can only involve the entire proletariat if a political party, idealised in a centralised hierarchy, does not exist. And you cannot deny that this is what Marx called for, and organised.

And?

I agree.

Practically impossible! How can you have the entire proletariat organised as the ruling class within a state? It is only realised in the theory.

But those definitions are open to interpretation, you cannot deny that.

I never argued otherwise.

These are baseless lies. Why do you continue making these unfounded accusations while still maintaining you understand what anarchism is? You clearly do not. I'm sick and tired of reading your bullshit about anarchism. You either don't know what you're talking about or your a liar!

Just stop it!

These are baseless lies. Why do you continue making these unfounded accusations while still maintaining you understand what anarchism is? You clearly do not. I'm sick and tired of reading your bullshit about anarchism. You either don't know what you're talking about or your a liar!

Just stop it!

These are baseless lies. Why do you continue making these unfounded accusations while still maintaining you understand what anarchism is? You clearly do not. I'm sick and tired of reading your bullshit about anarchism. You either don't know what you're talking about or your a liar!

Just stop it!

Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc. If you can't stand an opposing position then don't read my posts. Here, I'll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):

Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc. If you can't stand an opposing position then don't read my posts. Here, I'll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):

Oh, get real. Everytime you open your mouth we have to suffer lies about Lenin, Marx etc. If you can't stand an opposing position then don't read my posts. Here, I'll offer one of my (least) favourite quotes from your Man Bakunin. Enjoy (I picked this myself from MIA):

I understand what Marxism and Leninism is. I never pretend they are anything other than what they are. You on the other hand have absolutly no conception of what anarchism is or has been, other than the lies you here from your party leadership. It isn't me who needs to "get real."

It isn't the opposing position that I can't stand. It's your ignorance and lies which make no sense. If you want to attack anarchism, fine. But at least know what it is your attacking.

and then what...?

I understand what Marxism and Leninism is. I never pretend they are anything other than what they are. You on the other hand have absolutly no conception of what anarchism is or has been, other than the lies you here from your party leadership. It isn't me who needs to "get real."

It isn't the opposing position that I can't stand. It's your ignorance and lies which make no sense. If you want to attack anarchism, fine. But at least know what it is your attacking.

and then what...?

I understand what Marxism and Leninism is. I never pretend they are anything other than what they are. You on the other hand have absolutly no conception of what anarchism is or has been, other than the lies you here from your party leadership. It isn't me who needs to "get real."

It isn't the opposing position that I can't stand. It's your ignorance and lies which make no sense. If you want to attack anarchism, fine. But at least know what it is your attacking.

and then what...?

Why don't you enlighten then? I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( ) to be knocked down.

And then nothing. I'll offer the quote and it is up to people to decide if they agree with Bakunin that the "infamies" of history occured because the mass of people are stupid.