The root is Leninism and Bolshevism
- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/01/pers-o01.html. Trying to blame the origin of Chinese State Capitalism on Stalin instead of going deeper to the origin of Leninism and Bolshevism. Stalin was an old Bolshevik like Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin, he was not an amateur, even more, Trotsky himself motivated the rise of Stalin to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as it was indicated by a Trotskyist known as Isaac Deutscher, who is one of the best biographer of Leon Trotsky, and it is much better than his own auto-biography known as My Life. The pamphlet of articles compiled by the SPGB on the Russian revolution describes much better the real events than the two volumes of Leon Trotsky on the Russian revolution, whoever departs from the experience of the Russian revolution will always end with wrong conclusions
The so called Chinese socialist revolution was an anti-agrarian revolution like the Cuban revolution and the Russian coup which establish the development of state capitalism, socialism-communism must be a post capitalist social production. Curiously Lenin said that state capitalism was established as a step toward socialism for the benefit of the majority of the workers, capitalism has always benefited a minority group of human beings it has never benefited the great majority of the workers . The high technical, economical and military development of China is not due to socialism but to the high development of capitalist rules and capitalist logic, it is the same society critiqued by Karl Marx on Das Capital. Lenin works itself is the best tool to proves that it is the opposite of Marx’s body of ideas when they are properly compared.
Marquito wrote: “...going deeper to the origin of Leninism and Bolshevism“.
The deepest political and philosophical root is ‘materialism’, which insists that there is a ‘something’ that humans did not socially produce.
Since this is a political lie, and ‘materialists’ claim to know this ‘something’, to the exclusion of the majority of humans, and so the ‘materialists’, as Marx argued, have to divide society into two parts, the smaller part being in control of the larger part.
‘Materialism’ is the root of Lenin’s organisational theory, his correspondence theory of truth (a theory of truth which denies human production), and his notion of a ‘special party consciousness’.
L Bird, I am referring to what is being said in this article, nothing else. You spend most of the time hiding in your ideological cave and only comes out when something is related to materialism, or Federich Engels, or you want to bring your old arguments in order to distort or deviate the real topic , by the meantime, the whole world is falling apart and you do not say anything about it.
Marquito wrote: “You spend most of the time hiding in your ideological cave…”
At least I’m completely open about my ‘ideological cave’, Marquito, and its origins and consequences.
You, however, like all ‘materialists’, seem not to be able to explain nor even understand your own ‘ideological cave’.
The origins of my ideology are ‘democracy’ and Marx’s ‘social productionism’. So, I can argue for a politics which starts from human production of their world by democratic means, a world we have the power to change. Self-emancipation of the working class and change.
The origins of your ideology are ‘bourgeois elite science’ and Engels’ 18th century ‘materialism’. This is a politics which necessarily involves a supposedly ‘pre-existing reality’ and ‘elite knowledge’. Thus, any social emancipation is brought from outside of workers themselves, by a ‘knowing minority’, who claim that only they, the elite, have the power to change this ‘unchanging matter’.
Marquito wrote: “…you want to bring your old arguments in order to distort or deviate the real topic , by the meantime, the whole world is falling apart and you do not say anything about it.”
I’d suggest the ‘real topic’ is the politics of our attempt to build ‘socialism’, and why those arguing for ‘materialism’ have always failed, and always will fail, to convince the working class. Given that, any solution to our ‘world falling apart’ won’t be a ‘democratic socialist’ solution, but an elite one, which will clearly benefit the interests, aims and purposes of that elite.
If I had to have a guess, I’d name this supposed solution as ‘Green Science’. But it’s nothing to do with Democratic Communism, Marx, or the proletariat. And it’ll be compatible with some form of elite control of social production, whether called ‘capitalism’ or not.
I am not going to take this thread out of its original purpose and course like it has been done with others topics in this forum, therefore, I am not going to answer anything.
The main purpose is to indicate and show that Maoism and Leninism and not socialist trends and the Chinese revolution was an anti-agrarian revolution or a bourgeois revolution.
Materialism or Engels is another topic which we have extensively covered already, and there are hundreds of articles in the SPGB website covering the same idea. I rest my case
Marquito wrote: “The main purpose is to indicate and show that Maoism and Leninism and not socialist trends and the Chinese revolution was an anti-agrarian revolution or a bourgeois revolution.”
On this point, I entirely agree with you, Marquito.
Marquito wrote: “Materialism or Engels is another topic…”
On this point, however, I fundamentally disagree with you.
Maoism and Leninism both flowed from Engels’ misinterpretation of Marx’s political and philosophical views. That’s why Mao and Lenin usually quoted Engels (and not Marx), and insisted that there was a single ‘unified-being’ called ‘Marx-Engels’, to justify their omission of Marx’s political (democracy) and philosophical (social productionism) views.
Of course, Mao and Lenin built upon an existing framework of ‘Marx-Engels’, which had already been produced by Plekhanov and Kautsky – and, of course, Engels himself.
Engels was the originator of the myth of the unified being of ‘Marx-Engels’. And according to Engels, there was no need to read the difficult ‘Capital‘ whilst the easy ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific‘ would do a similar job. Hard to credit that, isn’t it?
Our real problem, Marquito, is that the SPGB was founded on the basis of Engels’ myth, and you seem unable to discuss this – and indeed, resent me for pointing it out.
In fact, given the SPGB’s commitment to Engels’ materialism, I’d go so far as to predict that if the SPGB ever found itself in a similar position of power as did Mao and Lenin, the political outcome would be very similar.
I know that that is not what you seek (nor do the other SPGB posters), but whilst you all refuse to examine the problem, it’ll remain hidden, but potent.
As moderator
“The root is Leninism and Bolshevism”
This is the topic. Please stick to it. You have the luxury of other threads to indulge your criticisms.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “As moderator
“The root is Leninism and Bolshevism”
This is the topic. Please stick to it. ”
Is this an order, that political disagreement with an untrue ideological assertion is not to be challenged within the SPGB?
As far as I’m concerned, I am ‘sticking to the topic’.
I’ve pointed out that the ‘root’ of Maoism is not ‘Lenin and Bolshevism’ (they are only a supporting ‘branch’), but Engels’ ‘materialism’.
Surely the whole point of a socialist politics site is to invite political discussion, in the hope that workers will take part, and teach the party about politics?
Or have youse really now gone ‘Full Leninist’… or should I say (what’s identical) ‘Full Materialist’?
Where the Party Specialists ‘know better’ than the workers that they claim to represent?
LBird All Matt was suggesting was bring the matter up under another topic heading.. Perhaps make a new thread if you cant find an old one that suits
robbo203 wrote: “LBird All Matt was suggesting was bring the matter up under another topic heading.. Perhaps make a new thread if you cant find an old one that suits”
Thanks for your advice, robbo, but all I am suggesting is that it would be pointless to make a new thread with the title and topic of “The root is Leninism and Bolshevism” and actively critique that title and topic, when one already exists!
It’s a bit like in education, robbo, where you get taught to ‘criticise the essay title’ – I’m sure you remember that, from your education!
It’d be a bit strange, because I know that you’re interested in the process of education within our new democratic socialist society, for you to argue that “One won’t be able to criticise essay titles within socialism, and one will passively obey the teacher!”
I’m sure that you’ll support my democratic method, robbo, because ‘passive obedience’ as a teaching method is conservative, went out of fashion after the war! 😛
12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.