Most firefighters think the SWP/ruc (Wespec') is a load of ole bollocks

[butchersapron]

You advised other posters to 'read marx' as it's 'completley different' from Stalinism, however it's also completely differrent to the Leninism or neo-Trotskyism that you personally profess - i was pointing out a few gaps in your thinking.

 

[mk12]

Oh I see...you could have saved a lot of time if you had said that. Where do you think Marx and Lenin differ then, in purely theoretical terms?

EDIT - I didn't advise other posters - I advised ernest.. because he is a stalinist.

 

[Pickman's model]

marx and lenin differed on the role of the party;
marx and lenin differed on the dictatorship of the proletariat;
marx and lenin differed on lots and lots of things.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh I see...you could have saved a lot of time if you had said that. Where do you think Marx and Lenin differ then, in purely theoretical terms?

EDIT - I didn't advise other posters - I advised ernest.. because he is a stalinist.

It matters not who you advised really, what does matter is that you have seemingly ignored the advice yourself.

And frankly, i don't really feel like having to defend Marx from the Marxists for about the millionenth time on here. If you really cannot see where Lenin and Marx differed after having read the two then...

 

[mk12]

I don't believe I have ignored my advice, because I can see that Marxism and Stalinism are totally different, as you agree with. You decided to turn this into an anti-Leninist rant...I was talking about Stalinism. But I assume that you think Stalinism and Leninism are basically the same, so there isn't much point in continuing.

 

[butchersapron]

'A rant'? - my dear boy, you've obviously never seen me rant (or anyone else) if you think this little prodding counts as 'a rant'.

 

[LLETSA]

No - I tried to make it clear that 'Stalinism' (socialism in one country etc) was different to traditional Marxism, and what Marx intended a socialist society to be like. Wouldn't you agree?

Was Leninism 'traditional Marxism'?

 

[LLETSA]

2. Stalin destroyed all remnants of workers democracy

No no - that was Lenin. With a lot of help from Trotsky.

 

[mk12]

I believe Leninism was a valid extension of Marxism. Like Bakunin extended on Proudhon? And syndicalism extended from 'traditional' anarchism...

 

[catch]

Bakunin wasn't an extension of Proudhonism though was he?

 

[butchersapron]

I believe Leninism was a valid extension of Marxism. Like Bakunin extended on Proudhon? And syndicalism extended from 'traditional' anarchism...

You're quite wrong in both those examples though matt.

 

[mk12]

I would argue that Bakunin believed in a medley of Proudhonism and communism...we are nit-picking a bit here..

 

[LLETSA]

I believe Leninism was a valid extension of Marxism. Like Bakunin extended on Proudhon? And syndicalism extended from 'traditional' anarchism...

Explain, then, the alleged (by Leninists) falsity that all the foundations for what Stalin turned the USSR into were laid by Lenin.

 

[butchersapron]

I would argue that Bakunin believed in a medley of Proudhonism and communism...we are nit-picking a bit here..

But he didn't - he was explictly a collectivist and not a communist, he also differed from Proudhon in almost every other area. This is the typical mistake that modern day trots make in their critiicisms of anarchism - they always lump Proudhon in with modern anarchism.

But, maybe it's OT. But you did provide us with the examples - maybe the fact that you were wrong highlights a flaw in the way you choose to approach or try to conceptualise things that you see as logical developements from earlier things? Maybe this has some bearing on your view of Leninism and Marxism? Just because something came chronologically after something it doesn't mean that the later one is derived from the fomer.

(The latin phrase Justin? Anyone?)

 

[mk12]

But didn't Bakunin support Proudhon's federalism and his insistence on the need for working-class direct action?

 

[cynical_bastard]

Post hoc, isn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

But didn't Bakunin support Proudhon's federalism and his insistence on the need for working-class direct action?

Of course he did - which anarchist didn't. But this wasn't derived from Proudhon but largely from his observation of working class resistance from 1848 onwards, Proudhon didn't come up with ideas either - they've been around for centuries, milennia even. They were also part of the First International and Marx... and countless others of that ilk.

 

[butchersapron]

Post hoc, isn't it?

I wanst the full thing please...

 

[cynical_bastard]

post hoc ergo propter hoc, according to google.

 

[Flavour]

who is saying that leninism is a natural and legitimate extension of marxism?

Too many -isms being bandied about on this thread.

all we need to know:
mattkidd12 - youngish trotskyist i guess, an SWP member?

 

[butchersapron]

post hoc ergo propter hoc, according to google.

That's the one. One of the few i can actually remember myself.

 

[sevenstars]

who is saying that leninism is a natural and legitimate extension of marxism?

Has anyone defined leninism here yet?

 

[butchersapron]

You going to oblige us?

 

[sevenstars]

I'd say Lenin applied his understanding of the Marxist critique of class society to inform his political action in a particular time and place in history.

'Leninism', however, seems to be the attempt to elevate Lenin to a position beyond criticism and then argue that your understanding of his politics can be applied to every subsequent time and place. Of course both Stalin and Trotsky did this.

I admire the Bolsheviks absolute insistence on working class independence, which gave their movement the decisive political clout in 1917. I think they made a lot of mistakes and compromises after that though which we should not make a virtue out of.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

who is saying that leninism is a natural and legitimate extension of marxism?

Has anyone defined leninism here yet?

At one time I would have said that leninism had the four following chracteristics:

• up holding the essential leading role of the vanguard party preceeding and during the revoltionary dictatorship of the proleteriat;
• a belief in the neccessarily uneven developement of capitalism allowing the possibility of revolutions occuring in one or a few states;
• the adoption of democratic centralism as an organisational tool and political principle of the vanguard party;
• adherence to the neccessity of proletarian internationalism if the dictatorship of the proleteriat is to be defended, extended and transformed into a communist society.

Foortunately I don't talk like that anymore.

Cheers - Louis Mac

p.s. points one and three seem to jar with Marx to a significant degree.

 

[WP member]

p.s. points one and three seem to jar with Marx to a significant degree.

I do not think so. Marx might not have elaborated the need for a revolutionary party as coherently as Lenin did but then Marx never actually led a revolutuion did he?

 

[Pickman's model]

I do not think so. Marx might not have elaborated the need for a revolutionary party as coherently as Lenin did but then Marx never actually led a revolutuion did he?

yes, and the dictatorship of the proletariat is central to marx's thought.

have you any other marxist misunderstandings?

 

[Herbert Read]

Dictatorship of the confused and misunderstood

 

[butchersapron]

I do not think so. Marx might not have elaborated the need for a revolutionary party as coherently as Lenin did but then Marx never actually led a revolutuion did he?

Oh what torturous logic.

 

[rebel warrior]

Marx did actually play a role in the 1848 revolution in Germany, and Engels served as a military advisor to one of the rebel armies - so it is factually inaccurate as well as being tendencious anyway.

Interestingly, when the revolution broke out, Marx declared he was not going to spend the time 'preaching Communism in a small sect' but play a part in the mass movement and struggles, even though it was dominated at the time by the liberals and nationalist bourgeoisie.
A lesson there for Workers Power comrades perhaps?