I FUCKING LOVE LENIN!!!

But I have.
I agree.

I agree. Leftists who call Lenin a "red fascist" or some other bullshit are not my comrades.

I don't consider dictatorship as the only way to accomplish things m8, sorry.

I feel the same way op, sometimes I get a bit pumped reading Lenin

That's what all Marxists ever do. They are the most disgusting double-faced scum ever.

What a surprise!

Except it did accomplish things, whereas your methods have failed.

Every state under crisis has resorted to measures that might be decried as "authoritarian", but they worked. Where are the tears over Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and essentially declaring martial law in Maryland during the American Civil War? I think most people recognize that he was doing what it took to win, why the tears when the Bolsheviks did the same? Would you have preferred a repeat of the Paris Commune? Ideal and virtuous death and defeat?

The Bolsheviks only accomplished things if you view them from a Bourgeois framework, according to the logic of the State. From a revolutionary socialist point of view, they have won a political battle but in the progress completely abandoned, in fact suppressed the social revolution. I'd rather it failed but retained its revolutionary spirit than "succeed" and then recuperate all other potentially revolutionary movements with its half-measures that always fall back into counter-revolution, like every Bolshevik inspired regime did.

How is there a contradiction between proletariat diactatorship and one party state?

(cont.)

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-statism-and-anarchy

Drastic measures during wartime don't exactly condemn the whole revolution. And, the deformed bureaucratic dictatorship that formed out of the hardship of the Russian Civil War still accomplished great things for the Soviet people, far better than a reinstated Tzarist regime or right-wing military junta would have, not to mention that it has inspired a century of radicalism. What exactly has virtuous defeat accomplished?

Imagine being this idealist.

I've talked to Marxists enough to know that them calling you an idealist is admission of defeat.

Have you ever considered that you actually are idealist.

All you retards do is masturbate to how cool the Bolsheviks were and defend them based on solely bourgeois notions and then call those who point this out idealists. No actual leftist cares about your bourgeois ideals of "practicality," "effective" and "inspiring" when it never amounted to anything revolutionary.

I did but I concluded that am not. (And neither was Bakunin.) Some butthurt "Marxist" calling me idealist without backing it up won't convince me otherwise, that's for sure.

Idealist as fuck, my dude.

Nobody claimed that. Protip: you can abolish capitalism and the state at the same time. In fact, getting rid of one but not the other is the real metaphysical black magic.

Lmao, today I learned states can't exist without Capitalism or magic. Do you realize what a ridiculous claim that is? Am I missing something?

How every anarchist "revolution" ends

How every Bolshevik "revolution" ends

This is what actually happened.

I'm glad you admit that your "real socialism" will never get anywhere because it will never be able to defend itself.

Not according to anarchists

I'm still waiting for an anarchist to explain to me how someone could "give" or "take" power™ from someone else. Doesn't that invalidate the whole notion of this someone else having power™ in the first place?

They would have prefered that all the communists were killed and let hundreds of millions of people suffer under tsarist autocracy again, in order preserve the purity of the idea of true socialism. Nothing new here. (inb4 "but le stalin was just like the tsar lmao".)

Relevant quote by Parenti.
>But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this "pure socialism" view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

>The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

...

I accept Marx's premise that we need a socialist transition state to get from capitalism to anarchist communism, but Leninists consistently downplay the danger of the vanguard party turning into a new aristocracy.

...

What is "anarchist communism"?

The ultimate goal of the revolution according to Marx, a classless society without a state, made possible by a socialist transition state.

Just quote and link to were Lenin actually says all that shit. Especially the bit were he supposedly sounds like RD Wolff talking about worker co-ops.

so, communism = anarchist communism, according to Marx?

Yes, Marx said that to get the anarchists support him. It didn't work though and most other Marxists dropped it.

All communists ultimately want an anarchist communist society, but Marxists think that should be achieved with a socialist transition state, while anarcho-communists believe it should be achieved all at once.

Not him but here's the pdf

LULZ

so anarchists don't believe in stages of development?

???

Anarchists think that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just a trick to install a new aristocracy.

Sorry, meant to respond to .

That is communism. No need to put "anarchist" in front of it.

No. There is no "transition state" according to Marx. There is a state alright, the dictatorship of the proletariat, but this is during the revolution itself. As for socialism, it is no "transition" between capitalism and communism: it is a stage of communism.

This would seem to be a major disagreement between Lenin and Marx, then? How long exactly did Marx imagine the "revolution" lasting?

He was. He thought Russia couldn't skip capitalism but realized that the national bourgeoisie was incompetent:
No wonder he was such a fan of Taylorism, despite his early criticism of it, his whole idea was to become the bourgeoisie and do it scientifically and efficiently to reach the next stage as quickly as possible. Some kind of positive accelerationism.

No, why?

I don't recall a text in which he answered that. Probably years, since it's what it will obviously take.

All of this in the waiting of a successful revolution in the West. This is the most important part.

I feel as if we're arguing semantics. Sure, Marx might have called the period of time with the socialist transition state, "part of the revolution". So what?

They don't think it's a trick, they know that despite the best intentions, that's how it will end up.

So it's not socialist. Socialism is the end goal.

I see what you mean now.

It's not a question of "pure socialism." The Russian revolution failed because it never reached its goal: communism. It's that simple.

Is there some science behind this claim?

Yes, Bakunin wrote about it a lot and so did the other anarchists. I never heard any criticism against it either, it's usually just dismissed because its conclusions are deemed impractical but its arguments are never actually addressed.

A good start is here:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-statism-and-anarchy

Comrade, please, distill the argument into a single post, if you would.

Distill Marxism into a single post you lazy fuck.

How complex an argument can this possibly be, comrade. Come, if you understand it yourself, you should be able to describe it here for us.

Read a few paragraphs; felt sorry for Bakunin.

Wait, so does this mean that Marx himself would agree that what existed in the USSR wasn't real socialism?

probably

But would Lenin also agree?

People still don't get this is making fun of Marxists

Lenin is probably the only person I truly admire, read his biography and works he truly wanted the best for Humanity

The real difference between Marx and Bakunin doesn't seem to be materialism vs. idealism, but rather just a difference in revolutionary strategy.

READ LENIN 2017

Yeah, because do you know what's even more revolutionary? Achieve Real Socialism for 2 weeks so you can get killed after that by counter-revolutionaries.

He was betting all his chips on an European revolution. When that fell through, he had to improvise. Them's the breaks.

Of course.

This is fascinating. Do you know a a quote where Lenin makes this clear? I feel that such a quote would be very useful when people try to criticize communism by criticizing the USSR.

I had two, in French, but I've lost the reference and haven't been able to find it again for a while.

Post them anyway.

i wonder

Bakunin was a materialist.

delet this

If you think about it, communists are always the best and most efficient managers of capitalism.

...

Vanguardism may not even be at fault here. Lenn got dealt a really bad hand with the lack of European revolutions, the complete mess the country was in even before the revolution, and more importantly, how Mensheviks and SRs were complete and utter shitters.

Shut the fuck up anti-communist. You're not fooling anyone. Respectability is purely a bourgeois sentiment.

It would if I could find them again. :/