Myths about Leninism Debunked

That changes nothing regarding the fact that by that point the Dual Power had been demolished

That wasn't part of the plan. In most of his writing the vanguard would be just another political party after the revolution and the soviets would have all political power.

Yes because the split in the SR unfairly lost the Bolsheviks the election.

I don't think you can separate Lenin's conception of the vanguard party from it's take over of the bureaucracy and state, an apparatus that is essentially anathema to the dual power. The bolshevik party wining in the constituent assembly would not have changed this.

The vanguard party according to Lenin's actual writing is just a normal political party made up of the most class conscious workers. Its not supposed to take over the state its supposed to lead the revolution to smash the bourgeois state and transfer power to the soviet councils which will voluntarily centralize.

How this translated into reality was not to destroy the bureaucracy and hand all power to the soviets but to establish a new bureaucracy run by the vanguard which predisposed the dual power, under the guise of using the bureaucracy to empower the soviets

Yeah so lets not do that part.

Sure, just recognize that the political party could not take part in parliamentary politics or other state apparatuses

Are the soviets considered state apparatus?

Nah. Soviets are institutions in opposition to the state's institutions

Verily gives one cause to philosophize.

There seems to be a huge difference between the theory of Leninism and what Lenin actually did in regards to the Vanguard. Can someone elaborate on why it happened that way?

spade gabidalism :DDD

I suppose it won't if you simply dismiss Lenin's rationale for this decision and then make the exact same post again. I mean, what more do you want at this point? We've already discussed why he did this during wartime and what his plans for peacetime were. Apparently, you do not agree with his reasoning. That's fine; you certainly don't have to agree with Lenin or pretend that he did no wrong. But now what? Should we just keep posting the article on labor organization by Lenin the other user mentioned and explain the concept of a war economy every time you post this? I just do not understand what purpose you believe is served by constantly reposting this very misleading static text which must always provoke the same responses in order to provide the proper context. Judging by the file name you imagine yourself to have some kind of major triggering insight or whatever, but it's essentially:
This is really just going nowhere at all.

Wtf is he talking about Papa Wolff

Actually, that text seems to be saying that cooperatives would merely be a reconstitution of the utopian socialist vision.

You're replying to the $$$Bookmeme$$$ shitposter who's here to promote his harmful petty-bourgeois utopianism.

He's arguing that the end of private property in the USSR has made a previously utopian route to socialism into an actually achievable one. Which is really disputable, but yea.

The war economy isn't justification for a dictatorship. Rojava has a war economy without resorting to a dictatorship. The idea that dictatorship is necessary for production is a mere myth. Furthermore, the idea that we should sacrifice the revolution under the guise of winning the war makes it all the more absurd.

As the pic in demonstrates, Lenin didn't see a difference between the soviets power and his power. Lenin had delusions of grandeur to say the least.

Only if you equate ideas you don't like as spam. To call Communalism harmful when the only current example of a revolution going on at the movement is based on communalism is ridiculous, and you don't add anything substantive by labeling it as "petite-bourgeois".

The rational was the consequences of the failure of the Paris Commune. The stakes were so high that the reactionaries had to be held at bay by any means.

Any means necessary essentially translated to destroying the revolution in this case. I'll reiterate, it's an absurd notion that we should sacrifice the revolution to win the war

Nope, if they did then the collapse of 1990 couldn't have happened. The actions of the Bolsheviks put the revolution on a path of slow decay rather then a sudden counter-revolution and the USSR turning into the first fascist state.

The revolution was long dead by the time of the collapse of the state-capitalist nation. It died when the power of the soviets died, not before or after that.

Nope, it was a rotting husk in 1990 but still existed. This is why the it collapsed the way it did with the anger towards the bureaucracy but not the ideals of the state and why Yeltsin had to use tanks to put the final nail in the coffin of the Russian Revolution. It was also why the west was so hostile to the soviet bloc.

Yeah, as a state-capitalist nation.
State-capitalism with red flags and rhetoric is still state-capitalism no matter how you split it. To call such a state of affairs revolutionary is to do socialism a disservice

It was state capitalism all the way back to the revolution with the idea being either a)the revolution would spread or b)the material conditions could be built up within the bloc for communism.