Non-Leninist Marxism

[Coggy]

Lenin was wrong. The Trotskyite ideology of "Permanent Revolution Worldwide" is also wrong. Communism is wrong fullstop.

What was Lenin wrong about?

You clearly haven't a notion what Trotsky meant by "the permanent revolution" like another idiot on this site you throw it about yet don't know what it means.

Communism as most intelligent people who have actually studied history are acutely aware existed anywhere - point out ONE example just ONE in Trotsky's writings from 1917 - 1940 (there are volumes!!!) where he claimed that communism existed in the SU - point out ONE example in Lenin's writings up untill 1924 where he said the same - lets remember these were the two principle leaders of the revolution.

The Soviet Union was rule by a bureaucratic dictatorship - there was no workers democracy - a pre requisitie of Socialism.

Read Revolution Betrayed by Trotsky - you might actually learn something.

Of course once again you conveniently overlook the fact that all the bases of "Stalinism" were in place under Lenin and Trotsky. And the fact that Marxist led revolutions in every other country have folllowed the exact same development. You really would think that the penny might have dropped by this stage. Anyone advocating that Nazism be given another chance because Hitler had "distorted" its true meaning is rightly treated as a dangerous lunatic. Contemporary Marxist Leninists deserve exactly the same contempt. Enough people have died to prove the horror of the Marxist dystopia.

Under lenin and Trotsky the soviet union was just out of a world war (a war that left most of Europe in ruins) and straight into another war against 23 different armies , coupled with the rebellions going up and down the country of course its not going to be a socialist paradise . Use your common sense of reality .

[popper]

And the fact that Marxist led revolutions in every other country have folllowed the exact same development.

Another one of your 'wishful thinking' views of history popper. In fact the vast majority of the 'Marxist' led revolutions did not follow the same development as Russia in 1917.

Which Marxist revolutions did not end in a one party state, mass terror, suppression of democracy, economic disater?

Seriously, if I am overlooking one I would like to be told.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Which Marxist revolutions did not end in a one party state, mass terror, suppression of democracy, economic disater?

Seriously, if I am overlooking one I would like to be told.

Outside of the Russian Revolution - give me an example of a Marxist revolution that did?

Oh and by the way - despite all the other issues - Russia under Stalin was far from an economic disaster (indeed it had rates of economic growth that far outstripped the 'West').

[Starkadder]

To get back to the subject:
Anton Pannekoek advocated the "workers' council", where the groups of
workers would run institutions such as factories and farms. The "workers' council"
would take over the institution and run it as group, instead of taking orders
from a boss. Pannekoek believed a society of workers' councils, not Lenin's vanguard
Communist Party, would give
the working class control over the means of production, distribution and
exchange, thus leading to a socialist society.

[cactus flower]

To get back to the subject:
Anton Pannekoek advocated the "workers' council", where the groups of
workers would run institutions such as factories and farms. The "workers' council"
would take over the institution and run it as group, instead of taking orders
from a boss. Pannekoek believed a society of workers' councils, not Lenin's vanguard
Communist Party, would give
the working class control over the means of production, distribution and
exchange, thus leading to a socialist society.

Under conditions when the Soviet Union was under military attack a centralised leadership was a necessity for survival. Survival of the Soviet Union and its nationalised resources was a huge gain and influence internationally and lead to improved living standard for working classes across Europe, as governments and the US through the Marshall Plan feared losing control of their working classes.

You seem oblivious of the role of Stalin and the difference between Staliinism and Leninsim. You and other posters ascribe outcomes into the 1930s and 40s to Lenin - why, when he died in 1924.

[Halibut]

There are still professorships around the world where people are paid to conduct marxist analysis. Proof again that humanity is a broad & catholic church. Or just plain bonkers.

[Pax]

What is wrong with the "neoliberal model"? It removes power from democratic
governments and places it in the hands of multi-nationals. I don't remember voting
for Tony O'Reilly or Denis O'Brien: do you? Yet look at the power they have.

Communism also removes power from democratic governments and places it in the hands of people who have no incentive to do anything except hold on to that power. At least multi-nationals create jobs and wealth an while comparing a CEO's salary and that of the average worker may produce objectively ludicrous results, its better than them both being poor.

In relation to your point above about "if stalin had not forced trotsky into exile, communism might have worked". Thats the problem. Communism/authoritarianism is a mechanism for strong personalities to take power and hold onto it. To say that if stalin had not come along, communism would have worked, therefore we should give it another go is madness. If it wasn't stalin, it would have been someone else who had the
personality and the ambition to grab the power that was waiting to be taken advantage of.

You are assuming that humans act in the best interests of society, when in fact there people in power in various countries who would be tyrants if they had the opportunity, the current U.S administration, especially Cheney, being one example. The communist system was initiated by very well intentioned people like yourself, but either they became corrupt or corrupt people seized power from them. And the working class are oppreesed anyway.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
-Winston Churchill

I don't know what would have happened if Trotsky, or
Bukharin-or even, for the sake of argument, Luxemburg
-had led the Soviet Union
instead of Stalin. Perhaps the Soviet model might have
worked, or moved into a Khrushchev-style rule, or
collapsed. But I find it hard to believe any of the other
potential Soviet leaders could be as psychopathic as
Stalin.

Maybe we need to look at this issue in the sense of
which institutions hold the various forms of power
in a society-C.Wright Mills did this, as did Bertrand
Russell in his book "Power:A New Social Analysis".
For instance, the government, corporations, and
the army hold a lot of the political and economic power
in the West.

Trotsky's analysis was of course correct in that Stalinism was not socialism. But one solution to the human nature issue that binx raised, is to create economic institutions which promote solidarity over time but which don't rely on people being intrinsically good to do so. The best post-capitalist economy (or economy of the revolution) I've seen in this regard is Parecon*. It's socialism as it was meant to be.

*
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

"A great many activists and concerned people ask, quite rightly, what alternative form of social organization can be imagined that might overcome the grave flaws -- often real crimes -- of contemporary society in more far-reaching ways than short-term reform. Parecon is the most serious effort I know to provide a very detailed possible answer to some of these questions, crucial ones, based on serious thought and careful analysis."

--Noam Chomsky

[Catalpa]

This is a bit like debating whether Nazism might have been better had Ernst Rohm or Julius Streicher been in power instead of Hitler.

It would have been because it would have collapsed very fast - Hitler was streets ahead of his opponents - more wily and far more ruthless - these nutjobs would have been overthrown in no time by the Centre Right.

[Halibut]

This is still a topic???

[cactus flower]

This is a bit like debating whether Nazism might have been better had Ernst Rohm or Julius Streicher been in power instead of Hitler.

It would have been because it would have collapsed very fast - Hitler was streets ahead of his opponents - more wily and far more ruthless - these nutjobs would have been overthrown in no time by the Centre Right.

I seem to remember asking you before if you are fascist Catalpa. Is this your reply?