Lenin's alleged crimes

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Dec 15 2005 16:53

Hi

louis_b is my new fav. poster.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 15 2005 16:56
louis_b wrote:
We certainly do not support the crushing...I have to go now

Why are you sometimes plural and sometimes singular?

redtwister
Offline
Joined: 21-03-05
Dec 15 2005 20:52
louis_b wrote:
Redtwisters personal insulting of alibadani:

Should have no place in a forum dedicated to discussion and clarification. There is nothing wrong with vigorous discussion but when it decends into personal insults this can only work against discussion. This is not a question of style or personality, but of the principle of discussion.

It was for this reason that libcom banned flaming from this forum and others. Surely the above insults count as flaming? Talk of cockroachs has more to do with gangsters and Stalinists than a forum discussing how to liberate humanity from the nighmare of capitalism.

The ICC wants to express its solidarity for alibadani faced with such an attack.

Personal insult indeed. You parade 'parasite' around as a meaningful category, but it is in fact nothing but your sectarian filth and narrowness. In the face of being called a parasite, i responded by referring to Ali B as a cock-roach, which is to say a dick-insect or penis-parasite, if you will.

And to talk of Kronstadt as 'a tragic mistake' is not merely the abscence of an analysis, it is cowardice, the cowardly refusal to take a clear stand. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

I, btw, am not the one who assaults people. That is reserved for the ICC who act in practice as gangsters and thugs.

I do however agree that this counts as flaming, or rather counter-flaming as your cock-roach started it, slinking around as if he were not ICC. You people are shameless, disingenuous and indecent.

In the meantime, the real point was about Lenin and the Bolsheviks and democracy (at least what I responded to.)

chris

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 16 2005 05:57

Redtwister why were you absent from the 1939 and all that and the Nazi obsession with the Jews discussions?

You're a smart person, and you surely had an opinion about anti-fascism and the patriotic resistance during WW2. I was quite impressed for example with your critique of the labor theory of value and your ideas about democracy and its fetishisation. So where were you?

Could it be that on those issues you would be in agreement with the ICC? Some of those groups you like so much, who, according to you, are the real inheritors of the traditions of the communist left, agree with the ICC on those issues as well. If you had added your POV to the discussion you would have been on the same side as the ICC.

I'm just guessing, based on your posts. I could be wrong, maybe you do indeed agree with the anti-fascism stuff. But if you do, I doubt you would have passed on the opportunity to jump in on the ICC bash-fest. You were absent from the discussions because opposing the ICC is far more important to you than defended your positions.

About me pretending not to be a member of the ICC? Who the fuck is that corny yo? I'm sympathetic to the groups of the communist left, so according to your logic I must be a member of, or close to, the ICC. Using the same logic you use, I must quote one of Lurch's responses to you from the Another stupid question discussion:

Quote:
But please, while you’re about it, have the honesty to declare your own interests: you say you’re not a member of IP, or rather, the group which publishes this journal, the “lefty” group (to use your ‘site-friendly’ terminology) known (or formerly known?) as the External Fraction of the ICC.

Perhaps you’re not: It’s just that you choose to quote 1600 words of their article. Or that you reject the theory of decadence while referring to the EFICC's (and others') notion of "subsumption”.

Or, most importantly, your determination to oppose anything that anyone vaguely sympathetic to the ICC might say, no matter into what nonsense this stance may lead you. All this, plus your determination to pour bile on the ICC (not to mention the past of the proletarian milieu) all suggest to me that you are rather closely tied to the EFICC. It also confirms, to me, the veracity of the ICC’s view that such groups exist, first and foremost, merely as ‘anti-ICC’ voices, the most sterile raison d’etre of all.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 16 2005 12:30

To judge from some of the responses to louis_b, and the veritable torrent of abuse that accompanied our (sorry) very measured protest about being banned from using a collective tag, what enrages and frightens an anarchist more than anything is the thought of having their sacrosanct individuality ‘crushed’ by being part of an organisation that tries to develop a collective thought and which defends a unified point of view. This is why, for example, someone like redtwister, with all his knowledge of Marx, his interest in communisation, and his critique of democratic fetishism, is able to rub along so happily with people who openly defend democratic anti-fascism or who love to develop elaborate plans for peoples’ banks. The common denominator is the autonomous ego of bourgeois civil society, the root of both anarchism and democratism. The shared hostility to the ICC is really hostility towards any real attempt to construct a militant political organisation.

Enough of the slurs against alibadani, although he has shown himself quite capable of standing up for himself. This comrade has been in touch with the ICC for a relatively short time. He is not a member and he writes under his own responsibility. We (sorry) are in strong agreement with the majority of what he has written on these threads, but we (sorry) have also made it clear where disagreements exist, for example over his interpretation of the events in Iraq in 1991.

The fact that he is not a member of the ICC makes the attacks on him all the more odious. It seems that if someone simply agrees with the ICC, this is, for some people, sufficient justification for trying to demoralise them with a constant stream of abuse. Behind this there lies a real monolithism of thought, ready to forget all differences and bay with the pack against the expression of an unpopular minority position. Democratism, including its libertarian form, is no barrier against the totalitarian attitude.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Dec 16 2005 13:17

Hi

Quote:
autonomous ego of bourgeois civil society

That sounds good actually, where do I get one?

Love

LR

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 16 2005 19:34

Thanks Alf.

Quote:
Red Twister didn't give the slightest shit about the ICC until they started posting here.

Are you sure Jack? According to redtwister's profile he joined libcom on August 12, 2005. wld_rvn joined more that a year before that on April 22, 2004. The first post on the 1939 and all that thread was done on July 24, 2005. The last post was on October, 10 2005. No posts by redtwister.

It's possible there was another red twister before april 2004, or that this Chris went by another username, I don' know. But he more than gives a shit about the ICC. He's hostile to the ICC. Anyway, his giving a shit is strangely selective. On certain threads he voraciously attacks the left communists over and over agian. On other threads, one of which had over 200 posts and went on for almost 3 months, not a single post by redtwister, because he agrees with the ICC's views on those threads. If that's not fucked up, I don't know what is.

Here's redtwister's favorite group:

http://users.skynet.be/ippi/

This is the External Fraction of the ICC, that claims to defend the original platform of the ICC. Jack, your buddy Chris, is more ICC than the ICC.

Anyway I 'm waiting to get chewed up by Chris. He's been having a good time on the Lenin's alleged beard thread. Funny stuff, for real. Especially the parody of my spur-of-the-moment engine analogy. That was hilarious. I'm impressed. If only the politics were half as good as the humor.

Nick Durie
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Dec 17 2005 01:48

Who are the IBRP?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 17 2005 09:21

The other left communist international: the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, of which the Communist Workers Organisation is the British section. The CWO are less bonkers than the ICC but if anything have slightly worse politics.

louis_b
Offline
Joined: 15-12-05
Dec 17 2005 10:01

In response to the first couple of post I made nastyned asked what was the meaning of the quotes. In my last post I was not able to really reply to this question.

There were two central thrusts to what was trying to be said;

1. that kronstadt demonstrated the fundamental principle of rejction of violence within the class. Does nastyned agree with this?

2. and this is related to his question about whether the ICC sees Kronstadt as a crime. Behind nastyned's question is perhaps the idea of lenin=stalin. The ICC and the communist left reject this equation. The main question about kronstadt is what lessons it can teach us about the future. This is the main point that Bilan was trying to make. It is also the fundation of their whole analysis of the degeneration of the revolution.

Kronstadt.

Quote:
It is not the task of revolutionaries today to make abstract moral judgements on the past workers' movement, but to see themselves as a product of that movement - a product, to be sure, capable of making a ruthless critique of all the errors of the movement, but a product nonetheless. Otherwise the criticisms of the past by revolutionaries today can have no grounding in the real struggles of the working class. Only by seeing the protagonists who faced each other at Kronstadt as tragic actors in our own history can communists today claim the right to denounce the action of the Bolsheviks and declare our solidarity with the rebel's defence of class positions. Only by understanding the Kronstadt events as part of the historical movement of the class can we hope to appropriate the lessons of this experience and apply them to the present and future practice of the proletariat. Only thus can we hope to ensure that there will be no more Kronstadts [/quote) http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR003_kron.htm

In this thread and the one on communisation, the communist left has been mention several times, but so far no one has mentioned the contribution of the communist left in Russia: above all the Worker Group. Is this contribution know about.

Lazlo: a very funny parody of my first post, may be I should see it as an honour to have a thread about my first post! Lazy rider, to be your fav poster after one intervention!

[/url]

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 17 2005 16:35

As Malatesta wrote:

Quote:
Anarchists are opposed to violence; everybody knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations…

But on a person note I must add that there's nothing I like better than seeing two blokes beat the crap out of each other.

I wouldn't equate Leninism and Stalinism but I would say they're both horrifically reactionary ideologies. And you can't deny that Lenin did lead to Stalin: it's a historical fact. But as far as I'm concerned the problem starts back with Marx anyway so differences between various Bolshevik factions are less important than the flaws of Marxism itself.

As to Kronstadt it's interesting to see the ICC twist and turn like a twisty turny thing on this issue. You've managed to dig out a quote appearing to show you support the rebels, yet you still see yourselves as Bolsheviks and in fact think Trotsky, the butcher of Kronstadt, never betrayed the working class. I don't see how you can support both sides on this. Is it dialectical?

And yes, I have heard of Misasnikov's Workers Group. I've even heard them described as the best of the bolsheviks, though I think Miasnikov had been expelled from the party by then so I guess that makes them an external faction! eek I see you don't mention the Workers Opposition being the first to volunteer to fight against hte Kronstadt rebels though.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 17 2005 17:37

In a way Kronstadt was s dispute WITHIN the working class. If anything it showed us how tragic it is when violence is used to settle such disputes. Nothing positive can come of it.

Nick Durie
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Dec 17 2005 19:00
Quote:
The other left communist international: the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party, of which the Communist Workers Organisation is the British section. The CWO are less bonkers than the ICC but if anything have slightly worse politics.

Presumably they'll be about as massive an international as the ICC then? Fucking bunch of useless bastards. Gods it makes anarchists (as shit as I think they are almost everywhere) look fucking cool by comparison. The working class movement has fallen so far.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 18 2005 14:18

Sure, I am a product of the political movement that comes from struggles such as the Russian Revolution, just as I'm a product of the movements that come from the French Revolution. The trick is to know whose side you're on.

Quote:
SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS' COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WILL NOT BE HAPPY UNTIL THE LAST BUREAU- CRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE OF THE KRONSTADT SAILORS AND OF THE MAKHNOVSCHINA AGAINST TROTSKY AND LENIN STOP LONG LIVE THE 1956 COUNCILIST INSURRECTION OF BUDAPEST STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP
Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 18 2005 14:22

Here's another point about the need to take sides in history

Quote:
"I am seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the 'obsolete' hand-loom weaver, the 'Utopian' artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, from the enormous condescension of posterity. Their crafts and traditions may have been dying. Their hostility to the new industrialism may have been backward-looking. Their communitarian ideals may have been fantasies. Their insurrectionary conspiracies may have been foolhardy. But they lived through these times of acute social disturbance, and we did not. Their aspirations were valid in terms of their own experience; and, if they were casualties of history, they remain, condemned in their own lives, as casualties".
Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 19 2005 09:35

nastyned I don't quite understand how we can be 'more bonkers' than the IBRP, and yet have better politics?

On the lessons of Kronstadt of course, if you start from the most classical anarchist standpoint, there's nothing to learn from it. Bakunin was right that 'authoritarian marxism' would end in a statist tyranny, and the Bolsheviks were bound by this original sin to end up crushing the workers.

It's a bit different if you start from the framework that the Bolsheviks, and the left communists who came from their ranks, were an expression of the proletariat. Then there's work to be done on understanding how the party which had regrouped the most radical workers in 1917 had degenerated to the point where it found itself repressing a genuine workers' revolt.

This was a genuine tragedy for the proletariat not only the Workers Opposition, but some of the most outspoken members of the Democratic Centralist group also volunteered to lead the assault on Kronstadt. The KAPD in Germany, which initially had the view that a party dictatorship was justified in backward Russia, was also caught in two minds and rejected the claim that it supported the rebels. Miasnikov seems to have understood that this was a disaster for the revolution, but did not draw the conclusion that the Bolshevik party was completely lost to the proletariat, because his Workers Group, formed in 1923, had the perspective of fighting against the degeneration of the party - as an 'external fraction' if you like, a real one this time.

We've just published an entire book on the Russian communist left and we think it's a contribution to understanding these questions. Perhaps it would be worth reading it and discussing it with us.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 20 2005 11:43
Alf wrote:
nastyned: I don't quite understand how we can be 'more bonkers' than the IBRP, and yet have better politics?

Easy really, you lot come across as a bunch of loons but on the issue of Kronstadt you at least try to be on both sides of the fence. The CWO come across as sane but seem a bit more Leninist and are i believe more firmly in the "shoot them down like partridges" camp.

Alf wrote:

Bakunin was right that 'authoritarian marxism' would end in a statist tyranny, and the Bolsheviks were bound by this original sin to end up crushing the workers.

8) smile Well said: Bakunin was right.

Authoritarianism is one of the 'original sins' of Marxism (you another ex-catholic?).

Alf wrote:

It's a bit different if you start from the framework that the Bolsheviks, and the left communists who came from their ranks, were an expression of the proletariat.

That was your first mistake.

Alf wrote:

an 'external fraction' if you like, a real one this time.

This is amusing though isn't it? The ICC see as the best group of the russian revolution an external faction. Are you sure they weren't really a parasitic element?

Alf wrote:

We've just published an entire book on the Russian communist left and we think it's a contribution to understanding these questions. Perhaps it would be worth reading it and discussing it with us.

I'll probably read it at some point, I've read your books on the Dutch/German and Italian Communist left.

I'm little concerned though that you acually want to discuss things with me. Perhaps if I called you bonkers a bit more or I said something favourable about Internationalist Perspective you could just dismiss me as a parasite?

spartafc
Offline
Joined: 26-04-05
Dec 20 2005 20:13

Why talk of crime with regards to Trotsky and Lenin? Because Goldman tried them both and found them guilty!

That said - they (Trotsky/Lenin) didn't permit the Socialist Revolutionary grouping a free press. That the working class should be deprived of such a duplicitous grouping is surely criminal.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 21 2005 03:25

spartafc, you're gonna get it man.

Quote:
I'm little concerned though that you acually want to discuss things with me. Perhaps if I called you bonkers a bit more or I said something favourable about Internationalist Perspective you could just dismiss me as a parasite?

I'm pretty sure the ICC hasn't called any poster here a parasite. I don't even think it is a category that applies to some random individual. I and Lurch both used the term in reference to redtwister. And the talk about IP is simply refuting his claim that anyone who is vaguely sympathetic to the ICC is some ICC member pretending not to be one, and is to be attacked. So using redtwister's logic, Lurch said he was EFICC. Considering he avoids any thread on which he agrees with the ICC, so as not to be associated with them, better to heap on lies (thugs, gangsters) on other threads. I'm guessing even his buddies were turned off by that.

Plus it's one thing to think people come across as nuts; you know with all the declarations of solidarity and the complaints about flaming etc. Especially since the ICC never responds to the insults with insults of their own. How crazy is that? It's another thing to be hostile to them for no apparant reason. If the ICC were just some loony littlte group, then hostility towards them is a waste of mental effort.

Is it the views defended by the ICC that are loony? It is pretty average left commnunist stuff, like the stuff in the libcom library.. You have read their stuff. You are not a marxist I presume, so we can debate like adults. Agreed?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 21 2005 09:58

No, no, it's the way the ICC come across that looks bonkers. You know, like the sparts.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 22 2005 01:12
Alf wrote:
nastyned: I don't quite understand how we can be 'more bonkers' than the IBRP, and yet have better politics? ...

It's a bit different if you start from the framework that the Bolsheviks, and the left communists who came from their ranks, were an expression of the proletariat.

1 their politics are worse, better in this case is subjective so I wouldn't be too happy about it.

If you start from the frame work...

If you start from the framework that I am God then you will be smote.

You still there? seems like starting froma flawed premise doesn't mean shit. well we're both equally wrong grin

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jan 24 2006 16:30
WeTheYouth wrote:
the 1918 uprising by SR's and anarchists.

Lenin is often criticised for being Blanquist by some, claiming that the October revolution was a coup by a small minority. In fact, the Bolsheviks didn't assume power until they had a majority in the two urban centres, and had support of over half the army.

Whereas...the 1918 uprising by SRs and anarchists had very little support. Who are the blanquists really? wink

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jan 24 2006 16:32

didnt' know you posted here matt eek

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jan 24 2006 16:32

First time for well over a year!

EDIT: first time since 10 Jan, 2005 actually. smile

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 24 2006 16:40

take a look at http://libcom.org/news/ mate.

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jan 24 2006 16:43

Looks very swish.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 24 2006 16:52
mattkidd12 wrote:
Looks very swish.

You're not gonna go the way of whathisface, solidarnosc and join WP are you?

Ah no actually I've seen some of your arguments on there, funny stuff. Brings back a few memories...

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jan 24 2006 17:02

Memories of what...

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 24 2006 17:06
mattkidd12 wrote:
Memories of what...

er, memories of the same arguments, with the same people. Dante mostly. Not that funny tbh. That was probably the wrong word... Actually no Tommy Ascaso was very funny.

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
Jan 24 2006 17:06

Oh, you used to post on the revo boards? What was your name on there?