Disgusting, revolting Lenin Apologists

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by magdalene *
Whew. Apology accepted, Olentzero. I spend a lot of time in this forum, and I like to think I can take it as well as I dish it out.

Thank you. You may be able to take it as well as you can dish it out, but that doesn’t everything that can be dished out at you should be.

And so onward…

F.Y.I. I spent a year in Czech Republic, and 4 years travelling extensively to Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, and Poland for my job, trying to undo some of the economic and environmental damage done by communism itself and also in the wake of its abrupt collapse.

OK - here’s a posit for you - Eastern Europe was not socialist because its governmental systems were not instituted by revolution but brought in from outside by Russian bayonets and tanks.

Professor Kaminski, a Polish dissident who escaped and came to the U.S., was my advisor and taught me for a year-long History of Eastern Europe course. I also spent some time with Professor Stites studying Russian art and politics culminating in a study of similarities between Nazi & Socialist portraiture and sculpture.

Both instances of a party forcing its politics on a now-passive class and trying to create its own culture. Hardly surprising they’d be similar.

Incidentally, Norman Rockwell would have made a great socialist realist painter in the U.S.S.R.

Yeah, throw a couple portraits of Lenin into some of the pictures and you’d never be able to tell the difference. Screw up your eyes, you’ll think you’re in Russia!

You may not support the society I described, but your Lenin was one of its chief architects whether you choose to believe or not.

OK, two things. Earlier I remarked on a ‘now-passive’ class regarding similarities to Nazism and Stalinism. Both were founded on the destruction of a revolutionary working class - Nazism took an active part in that destruction, Stalinism merely came out of the vacuum created by the Russian Civil War. Bolshevism actively looked for the support of a revolutionary working class and its main goal through the war years was to safeguard that revolutionary working class and therefore the revolution.
Lenin is no more responsible for the rise of Stalinism that a man who built a wonderful example of Victorian architecture at the turn of the century is responsible for it becoming a crack house a hundred years later.

At the risk of putting Alphagene off his dinner, I’ll ask you the same questions that I ask the guy who hands out socialist newspapers near my subway stop: In the U.S. you get to be a “revolutionary”, holding anti-government meetings, passing out anti-government propaganda, protesting, and trying to convert followers. If your revolution should succeed, would I be able to do the same thing? Agitate for an end to the system of government, recruit followers, publish my own propaganda? Think about what Lenin’s answer to this would be and whether it’s the same as your own.

Early on, immediately after the revolution, I cannot imagine that there would not be some restriction of the old capitalist press, especially those who backed up their words by actions. The reasoning behind it is exactly the same as the reasoning behind another feature of the early Russian Revolution, as Trotsky wrote in 1938:

Public trials are possible only in conditions of a stable regime. Civil war is a condition of the extreme instability of society and the state.

A major social revolution is possible only when there is such instability in the first place, and the instability won’t go away the day the revolution is achieved.

Secret trials, beyond a doubt, greatly increase the possibility of mistakes. This merely signifies, and we concede it readily, that the circumstances of civil war are hardly favorable for the exercise of impartial justice.

Similarly, freedom of the press for those who advocate the overthrow of the revolution while the success of the revolution itself is still in question is impermissible. The level of instability is too much to throw such caution to the wind.

Now, where did I put that flame-retardant suit?..

**

Now if I can only find those pictures ( I swear I have at least one somewhere with a background shot of you in New South cafeteria)… **

Hell, I was gonna beat you to the punch but the page where it’s located seems to be broken…

[Scylla]

Olio me boy:

I thought it made pretty good sense the way I said it the first time. However, I’ll try again.

You wish us to view Lenins actions within the context of the class struggle/revolution going on at the time.

Somehow you think this mitigates, excuses, or civilizes them. Or else you seem to think that those actions don’t really apply and counted against him because of the circumstances.

This is false.

To measure the strength of a thing we stress it to see how much it takes to break.

Lenin’s idealism gave way to expedience very easily.

The ethics that a person or a society holds are often very different when everything is going than they are in a crisis. It is the latter which defines a person or a society, not the former.

So, if we take Lenin’s actions in context, it speaks very poorly for him and the Socialist society based upon him and his actions.

This, I conclude is the main problem with Socialism. It’s ethics are fine, however there is no immutable ground upon which those ethics are founded and upheld.

[erislover]

Olen:
OK - here’s a posit for you - Eastern Europe was not socialist because its governmental systems were not instituted by revolution but brought in from outside by Russian bayonets and tanks.

Er, huh?

Guns and bayonets and possibly tanks are used to overthrow a government and successfully accomplish a revolution. If those weapons come from outside the country the whole thing is null and void? That is the craziest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.

Though I don’t agree that the ends justify the means, I certainly cannot see why the means would ever invalidate the ends if we agree with the ends. No?

[Sam_Stone]

Aw, you’re just not thinking like a good revolutionary Marxist, eris. Part of the fun of the whole thing is getting to kill people. Take that away, and what’s the point, really?

Workers in capitalist countries today have it far, far better than Marx could ever have dreamed. We have achieved a level of worker satisfaction that Communism couldn’t even dream of. But we didn’t go through a bloody internal revolution and a period during which a dictator whipped and shot us into submission, so it doesn’t count.

This conversation has been entirely too civil considering that we’re in the pit with someone who defends mass murder.

Olentzero is either an idiot who can’t see past 80 year-old propaganda and find the truth, or he’s an amoral asshole who deserves nothing more than our utter contempt for him and anyone who thinks like him.

[Sam_Stone]

Of course, now I had better hope that he never becomes the leader of the revolution, because I’m sure I’m on the agitator ‘hit-list’. If Olentzero actually means what he says, then if he managed to lead the revolution I should expect that myself and my wife and daughter would each receive a bullet to the back of the head, all in the name of the glorious worker’s paradise. After all, the first step in any revolution is to purge the country of undesirables.

That’s what his hero Lenin would have done.

[waterj2]

Yes, an excellent question that gets to the heaart of the matter. Would I, judging from the views expressed in my posts here, have been in any danger had I expressed those views under Lenin? How hard would I have to have tried to get myself sent off to count trees to actually succeed?

Answer honestly, based on what Lenin actually did when he was in charge, not based on what your interpretation of Leninism is.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**Aw, you’re just not thinking like a good revolutionary Marxist, eris. Part of the fun of the whole thing is getting to kill people. Take that away, and what’s the point, really?

[whiny voice]
But IIIIIIIIII wanted to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie!!
[/whiny voice]
hahaha, classic.

waterj, being generally meekish in public I think Lenin would have completely ignored me, right up until I got arrested for something petty like quitely speaking my mind, then off with my head!

[Guinastasia]

No, Lenin didn’t go for beheadings-that was Ivan Grosny (ten points if you know who I’m talking about).

His way was more about firing squads, or mine shafts with grenades thrown in.

[waterj2]

Ivan the Terrible?

[Guinastasia]

DING DING DING!!!

(Actually, would you believe, grozny actually means ‘dread’, although its literal translation is Thunderous)

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *

At the risk of putting Alphagene off his dinner, I’ll ask you the same questions that I ask the guy who hands out socialist newspapers near my subway stop: In the U.S. you get to be a “revolutionary”, holding anti-government meetings, passing out anti-government propaganda, protesting, and trying to convert followers. If your revolution should succeed, would I be able to do the same thing? Agitate for an end to the system of government, recruit followers, publish my own propaganda? Think about what Lenin’s answer to this would be and whether it’s the same as your own.

Early on, immediately after the revolution, I cannot imagine that there would not be some restriction of the old capitalist press, especially those who backed up their words by actions. The reasoning behind it is exactly the same as the reasoning behind another feature of the early Russian Revolution, as Trotsky wrote in 1938:

Public trials are possible only in conditions of a stable regime. Civil war is a condition of the extreme instability of society and the state.

A major social revolution is possible only when there is such instability in the first place, and the instability won’t go away the day the revolution is achieved.

Secret trials, beyond a doubt, greatly increase the possibility of mistakes. This merely signifies, and we concede it readily, that the circumstances of civil war are hardly favorable for the exercise of impartial justice.

Similarly, freedom of the press for those who advocate the overthrow of the revolution while the success of the revolution itself is still in question is impermissible. The level of instability is too much to throw such caution to the wind.

Now, where did I put that flame-retardant suit?..

So, basically, it’s okay to allow freedom of the press and a political opposition when there’s no chance that the political opposition can achieve its goals, but if there’s any chance they could achieve political power, you have to shoot them.

So, if the U.S. government were to have Olentzero shot after a secret trial, that would be wrong, because there’s no chance of socialists taking power in the U.S. at this point. But it was okay for the Chilean military to overthrow and kill Allende after he was elected president there, since at that point there was a real chance that the socialists would be able to achieve their goals. And, if socialists ever seemed to be actually on the verge of taking power in the U.S., then at that point it would be okay to have Olentzero shot after a secret trial.
The habit of having one’s political opponents thrown in jail or summarily shot is a difficult one to break. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any government which has come to power using such methods which has then reformed and allowed basic political freedoms (short of being forcibly overthrown by some later revolution, that is). Lenin may not have been Stalin, but once Lenin established the habit of dealing with opponents by having them shot, however “necessary” it may have been, it should not have come to a surprise to anyone that his successors would continue the practice. After all, Stalin still faced the hostile capitalists, no? And Stalin faced the fascists, and the Nazis themselves. You have to look at the context of Stalin’s actions, Comrade Olentzero.

[Olentzero]

I’m up at my sister-in-law’s and have been visiting with the family for the past two days.

I don’t have the time I want today to respond to everything posted in here (or in my GD thread) but I wanted to pop in just to say I’m still here and I’m still interested in presenting my point of view in these threads. I’ll have the time to come back to all this on Sunday evening; see you then.