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.

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.

Firstly I think your idea of what the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is, is wrong!! Sorry but it is.
DOTP= Proletariat rule over the 'old' ruling class, essentially making the entire proletariat the 'ruling class'.

This is a common mistake people make. Many say, as you have, that it is the Vanguards rule over the Proletariat, NOT TRUE.
I think Trotsky and Lenin probably both distorted Marx's teaching to suit themselves in someway but the Manifesto was and still is only a guideline, hell if Marx really did claim he was no Marxist himself then this is pure proof of that fact. Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of his works, both were Dialecticians and this is obvious when you read there many writings and both were firm users and believers in Historical materialism two of the main tools Marx himself developed.
To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

Firstly I think your idea of what the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is, is wrong!! Sorry but it is.
DOTP= Proletariat rule over the 'old' ruling class, essentially making the entire proletariat the 'ruling class'.

This is a common mistake people make. Many say, as you have, that it is the Vanguards rule over the Proletariat, NOT TRUE.
I think Trotsky and Lenin probably both distorted Marx's teaching to suit themselves in someway but the Manifesto was and still is only a guideline, hell if Marx really did claim he was no Marxist himself then this is pure proof of that fact. Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of his works, both were Dialecticians and this is obvious when you read there many writings and both were firm users and believers in Historical materialism two of the main tools Marx himself developed.
To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

Firstly I think your idea of what the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is, is wrong!! Sorry but it is.
DOTP= Proletariat rule over the 'old' ruling class, essentially making the entire proletariat the 'ruling class'.

This is a common mistake people make. Many say, as you have, that it is the Vanguards rule over the Proletariat, NOT TRUE.
I think Trotsky and Lenin probably both distorted Marx's teaching to suit themselves in someway but the Manifesto was and still is only a guideline, hell if Marx really did claim he was no Marxist himself then this is pure proof of that fact. Ultimately though I believe Lenin and Trotsky made the best interpretation of his works, both were Dialecticians and this is obvious when you read there many writings and both were firm users and believers in Historical materialism two of the main tools Marx himself developed.
To say Marxism vs Leninism is stupid as one was derived and based on the other, there is no competiton here it is Dialectics in motion.

Note: YouKnowTheyMurderedX and The Anarchist Tension -- please try to stay on track, if you want an Anarchist vs. Everything Else thread, you're more than welcome to make one.

I'm not saying that there is to be no representation, or that every member of the proletariat is to somehow organize like the US Senate to make rules/laws on certain things. What I am denying is that the centralized nature of the vanguard party, particularly in Russia was one in which the committee was the primary democratic body. These are the people who argued and decided on things, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone outside these committees was ever given a chance to influence the final decisions made by Lenin or Stalin.

How I see the organization of the proletariat as a ruling class is one in which ever proletariat has fair say, either popular democracy or something based on Instant Runoff Voting. From here it is the proletariats direct votes which would influence law. This isn't to say there is no executive branch who is to ensure that everything runs smoothly in the country/world/whatever is making the move... it is simply to say that the vanguard party, and for that matter dictatorship is not focused in the hands of a single man or even a single party. It would be no doubt that one party would probably be given the majority of these positions, not all parties represent the proletariats true desires, but that doesn't mean that the proletariat is excluded from things such as: replacing those people with new people if they're not doing things right (through democratic means that is) or being allowed to vote on the same things the party does which determines the future of the proletariat and the nation as a whole.

It's not specifically Marxism vs. Leninism as if they conflict it is simply to represent their difference -- which is what makes them what they are as separate ideological methods.

Note: YouKnowTheyMurderedX and The Anarchist Tension -- please try to stay on track, if you want an Anarchist vs. Everything Else thread, you're more than welcome to make one.

I'm not saying that there is to be no representation, or that every member of the proletariat is to somehow organize like the US Senate to make rules/laws on certain things. What I am denying is that the centralized nature of the vanguard party, particularly in Russia was one in which the committee was the primary democratic body. These are the people who argued and decided on things, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone outside these committees was ever given a chance to influence the final decisions made by Lenin or Stalin.

How I see the organization of the proletariat as a ruling class is one in which ever proletariat has fair say, either popular democracy or something based on Instant Runoff Voting. From here it is the proletariats direct votes which would influence law. This isn't to say there is no executive branch who is to ensure that everything runs smoothly in the country/world/whatever is making the move... it is simply to say that the vanguard party, and for that matter dictatorship is not focused in the hands of a single man or even a single party. It would be no doubt that one party would probably be given the majority of these positions, not all parties represent the proletariats true desires, but that doesn't mean that the proletariat is excluded from things such as: replacing those people with new people if they're not doing things right (through democratic means that is) or being allowed to vote on the same things the party does which determines the future of the proletariat and the nation as a whole.

It's not specifically Marxism vs. Leninism as if they conflict it is simply to represent their difference -- which is what makes them what they are as separate ideological methods.

Note: YouKnowTheyMurderedX and The Anarchist Tension -- please try to stay on track, if you want an Anarchist vs. Everything Else thread, you're more than welcome to make one.

I'm not saying that there is to be no representation, or that every member of the proletariat is to somehow organize like the US Senate to make rules/laws on certain things. What I am denying is that the centralized nature of the vanguard party, particularly in Russia was one in which the committee was the primary democratic body. These are the people who argued and decided on things, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone outside these committees was ever given a chance to influence the final decisions made by Lenin or Stalin.

How I see the organization of the proletariat as a ruling class is one in which ever proletariat has fair say, either popular democracy or something based on Instant Runoff Voting. From here it is the proletariats direct votes which would influence law. This isn't to say there is no executive branch who is to ensure that everything runs smoothly in the country/world/whatever is making the move... it is simply to say that the vanguard party, and for that matter dictatorship is not focused in the hands of a single man or even a single party. It would be no doubt that one party would probably be given the majority of these positions, not all parties represent the proletariats true desires, but that doesn't mean that the proletariat is excluded from things such as: replacing those people with new people if they're not doing things right (through democratic means that is) or being allowed to vote on the same things the party does which determines the future of the proletariat and the nation as a whole.

It's not specifically Marxism vs. Leninism as if they conflict it is simply to represent their difference -- which is what makes them what they are as separate ideological methods.

Not only that, but you can't be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion.

It's true "because we say so".

That's speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.

And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

Both Stalin and Trotsky supported these measures.

Waving the dialectical "magic wand" will not support your hypothesis.

Attempting a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry is, by Marx's standards, complete folly.

When Lenin, supported by Trotsky, introduced the "New Economic Policy" and went whoring after foreign investments, he admitted, in effect, that Marx was right and further, that all of Lenin's own yap about "socialism" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was completely meaningless.

It did fool a lot of people though...and for quite a long period of time.

Now, there's no excuse for being fooled.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

Not only that, but you can't be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion.

It's true "because we say so".

That's speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.

And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

Both Stalin and Trotsky supported these measures.

Waving the dialectical "magic wand" will not support your hypothesis.

Attempting a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry is, by Marx's standards, complete folly.

When Lenin, supported by Trotsky, introduced the "New Economic Policy" and went whoring after foreign investments, he admitted, in effect, that Marx was right and further, that all of Lenin's own yap about "socialism" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was completely meaningless.

It did fool a lot of people though...and for quite a long period of time.

Now, there's no excuse for being fooled.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

Not only that, but you can't be a Christian unless you accept the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Whenever Leninists run into the obvious contradictions between Marx and Lenin, they fall back on mere assertion.

It's true "because we say so".

That's speculative at best. And entirely irrelevant now since both are dead.

And at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) he "tightened" them right back up again...even though the civil war had been won.

Both Stalin and Trotsky supported these measures.

Waving the dialectical "magic wand" will not support your hypothesis.

Attempting a proletarian revolution in a country dominated by the peasantry is, by Marx's standards, complete folly.

When Lenin, supported by Trotsky, introduced the "New Economic Policy" and went whoring after foreign investments, he admitted, in effect, that Marx was right and further, that all of Lenin's own yap about "socialism" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was completely meaningless.

It did fool a lot of people though...and for quite a long period of time.

Now, there's no excuse for being fooled.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

With that logic, I suppose that everyone prior to the age of Lenin who declared themselves Marxists were obviously liars. I suppose Marx wasn't part of the 'revolutionary communist praxis' either, considering that he obviously wasn't a Leninist.

With that logic, I suppose that everyone prior to the age of Lenin who declared themselves Marxists were obviously liars. I suppose Marx wasn't part of the 'revolutionary communist praxis' either, considering that he obviously wasn't a Leninist.

With that logic, I suppose that everyone prior to the age of Lenin who declared themselves Marxists were obviously liars. I suppose Marx wasn't part of the 'revolutionary communist praxis' either, considering that he obviously wasn't a Leninist.

I'm not going to get into this Anarchism Vs. Leninism thing, but I just wanted to comment on the Bakunin quote.

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote. Bakunin did not argue that the infamies of history occured because the 'masses are stupid'; Bakunin clearly states that such infamies are due to the principle of command - The 'stupidity of the masses', however according to Bakunin, is simply helping keep it up. I think this is one of those instances that would best be further explained with an example:

The Salem Witch trials resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn't have gone on for long.

I'm not going to get into this Anarchism Vs. Leninism thing, but I just wanted to comment on the Bakunin quote.

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote. Bakunin did not argue that the infamies of history occured because the 'masses are stupid'; Bakunin clearly states that such infamies are due to the principle of command - The 'stupidity of the masses', however according to Bakunin, is simply helping keep it up. I think this is one of those instances that would best be further explained with an example:

The Salem Witch trials resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn't have gone on for long.

I'm not going to get into this Anarchism Vs. Leninism thing, but I just wanted to comment on the Bakunin quote.

I believe that you have misunderstood the quote. Bakunin did not argue that the infamies of history occured because the 'masses are stupid'; Bakunin clearly states that such infamies are due to the principle of command - The 'stupidity of the masses', however according to Bakunin, is simply helping keep it up. I think this is one of those instances that would best be further explained with an example:

The Salem Witch trials resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Now, the fault lies in the supersticious patriarchs who ruled over the town, however, the ignorance of the townspeople, and their choice to do absolutely nothing about the matter, helped sustain the problem for a prolonged period of time.

This is not to say that it is all the stupid townspeoples fault. It is however, to say that were the stupid townspeople not so uneducated, submissive, and supersticious - this probably wouldn't have gone on for long.

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there's no getting away from it.

Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren't "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it's pointless.

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there's no getting away from it.

Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren't "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it's pointless.

That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there's no getting away from it.

Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren't "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.

The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it's pointless.