New Noj rants on Lenin's Government. Key takeaways are as follows Lenin abandoned his ideals from State and Revolution, that being a state that eliminates the alienation caused by the difference between worker and politician that is prevalent in bourgeoisie democracy, due to the civil war. But kept the elimination of the distinction of different branches of government and that the idea that all political conflict arises from different class interests. The state was separated into two halves the Soviet Government and the Party with a matching set of hierarchy. With the goal of the party to guide the government, but as time went on the distinction between the too blurred. With the Politburo becoming the head of state due to its quick ability to create and pass laws as compared the slow bureaucratic soviet government. The party at all times dominated the government and prevented from any real change in policy from it. Finn ally the party was highly undemocratic as getting into the party required to be approved by other party members and any deviation in ideas could resulting in expulsion.New Noj rants on Lenin's Government. Key takeaways are as follows Lenin abandoned his ideals from State and Revolution, that being a state that eliminates the alienation caused by the difference between worker and politician that is prevalent in bourgeoisie democracy, due to the civil war. But kept the elimination of the distinction of different branches of government and that the idea that all political conflict arises from different class interests. The state was separated into two halves the Soviet Government and the Party with a matching set of hierarchy. With the goal of the party to guide the government, but as time went on the distinction between the too blurred. With the Politburo becoming the head of state due to its quick ability to create and pass laws as compared the slow bureaucratic soviet government. The party at all times dominated the government and prevented from any real change in policy from it. Finn ally the party was highly undemocratic as getting into the party required to be approved by other party members and any deviation in ideas could resulting in expulsion.
I watched that video and that guy has a huge bibliography with a lot of sources and a way more rigorous approach than most 'tubers but a lot people probably won't like him because of his conclusions. He even learned Russian and goes through soviet archives by hand.
you wrote the same thing twice. did you copy paste your opening text from chatGPT?
>>2558370no I wrote it in open office and accidentally pasted it twice
>>2558375>no I wrote it in open office and accidentally pasted it twiceah, gotcha. i think an interesting part of your video that the opening text doesn't mention is the role played by Lenin's assassination attempt and strokes, since his participation in sovnarkom and little sovnarkom were crucial, as well as the growing power of the secretariat after his death.
>>2558366sucks that hes a trotskyite.
>>2558383I've watched all his videos and I don't get the impression that he's even a communist, let alone a Trotskyist. He seems to have a mostly specialist academic interest in early soviet history. Are you getting this impression from his discord or something I maybe haven't seen?
also expansion of beauracracy was always a concerned and topic of discussion. a lot the party theorists gave materialist explanations on why russia had needed so many beauraacrats
>>2558390oh. i thought he would be a communist based on the amount of extensive research he's done. i remember him making subtle shades at stalin and thought it was just his bias letting through with his tone of objectivity.
>>2558403the video proves there is something towards the ideas of the "Stalin school of falsifaction" not that trotsky was right about everything or good in any way. He made that clear in the video
>>2558390He's not a communist he's just autistic.
>>2558411yeah i rewatched that one and he says that towards the end, but you gotta admit that's one clickbaity thumbnail
>>2565789……..unexpected lol
I was already wondering what leftypol thought of him. Hopefully you aren‘t getting your panties in a bunch just because not all that he says is favorable to the USSR and Lenin.
>>2565795A lot of Tankies got really upset when he first posted here. Calling him a trotskyist, anti communist, CIA, Oct. Not really providing any substantial critique. Now they are just ignoring him in hopes any post about him goes away.
>>2558411highly doubt there is such a thing, but i don't doubt stalin, like trotsky, and any political force to ever exist falsified shit for their own benefits.
>>2566660Its questionable how much stalin falsified, but we do that it happened.
>>2566671sure, but the whole school of falsification is just a justification to do sweep bans against anything Stalin.
now, misinformation is part of politics, trotsky, too falsified and made up an testament that he said at prior time was false, if it makes you more powerful even if its a lie or a falsification its what you do.
>>2566689Can I ask you what trotsky falsified?
>>2558358I think one thing the video misses is the fact that the "Soviet Government" as it existed wasn't ever supposed to be a permanent state of affairs. It was essentially a slap-dashed thing put together after after the sudden success of the October Revolution. But after the German Revolution failed the bolsheviks were left holding the bill so to speak. So I can only really shrug at alot of his criticisms because he seems to be under the assumption that Lenin's project was a permanent Soviet state apparatus rather than a temporary structure meant to carry Russia over the socialist finish line. Once the world revolution was closed off permanently the Bolsheviks whole world view at that point was in crisis and alot of changes had to be made at a point in time where Lenin's health was declining massively, so saying that Lenin was too egotistical or such to give up power I think is wrong. Its more that he only realized that the entire system had to be changed only after it was too late, really Lenin approving of the formation of the USSR in 1922 at all was a compromise from him. Initally at the 10th congress Lenin told Trotsky to oppose the integration of Georgia because Lenin didn't want the return of Russian chauvinism but he relented after since he was literally dying. It then became almost impossible for him to actually implement changes when running against party opposition practically because he didn't really have the energy to do anything other than sit in his dacha. Lenin really only had alot of managable political power during the civil war, and once it ended he was far to sick to refound the entire government as was needed and no one other than him had enough political legitimacy to operate such a task without Lenin dying first and creating a power vacuum. So in the end Stalin was able to consolidate power primarily because the position of general-secretary was an afterthought in a temporary jury rigged system that wasn't even supposed to last as long as it did. There are definitely criticisms to be had for a lack of long-term thinking but I think the video judges Lenin with the benefit of hindsight far too much.
>>2566703already told in the text as an example, he adamantly denied that such document existed but when it became useful claimed was real when the only text pointed is one where Lenin is pissed off at everyone and specially stalin for talking shit to his wife.
also an testament is meaningless, after all who chooses the Gensec where the party and the soviets and not lenin, it was just a power play, useful for trotsky but a falsehood.
>>2566725Not that anon but Stalin was a retarded Georgian mafioso who killed all the actual communists in the USSR. Once that happened any reforms became impossible because every communist was dead and replaced with braindead cocksuckers who only knew how to grovel. Quit defending the retard who left the communists in Greece & Korea out to dry because he was a coward who gave up every inch possible in the cold war. Collectivization was retarded and his policy of social fascism caused the Nazi's to rise to power in germany aswell. Truly he was the architect of the USSR's demise and its a wonder why anyone defends that brainlet. Trotsky was dumb aswell before you call me a Trot find some other boogeyman.
>>2566732>Not that anon but Stalin was a retarded Georgian mafioso who killed all the actual communists in the USSR.(bunch of spergposting that is worth no time)completely idiotic positions based on fallacies, distortions and no actual facts, an waste of time.
thanks for contribution to the discussion about how people will use lies and falsifications to strenghten their positions with no material factology behind with an actual example, seek a book and not a cold war indoctrination manual thanks.
Finbol refuted already
Lenin knew it was fucked when the revolution in Germany didn't succeed. Sad that communism had to limp and die slowly, and now be associated with capitalist industrialization of agrarian states. Liberals in the 18th century already knew that it's better to lose hard than to win mildly. Self-describing absolutist reaction to liberal revolution kept the movement going decades after.
anyone who is not a marxist can't be expected to make any meaningful analysis of USSR's policies
>>2610740Why not? That's like saying
>anyone who is not a fascist can't be expected to make any meaningful analysis of Nazi Germany policies >>2610741in a sense that is correct, if you don't believe in primordian aryan spirit possession, it's hard to really understand wtf hitler was doing by the end of the war
>>2610720Yeah that's bullshit. Losing hard meant that capitalism would prevent another revolution. In the case of liberals, they also won slowly. For liberals it was a numbers game since capitalists generated more entropy than aristocrats so they were betting on the winning horse. If anything the future of communism is with china, india and russia as they will generate more entropy than the west.
>>2610745>chinaYes.
>india and russiaNeither of these is communist.
>>2610747Contradictions of global capitalism will force it. Putin was a pinochet supporter in 1993, now the war is forcing gosplan on him. More pressure on oligarchs and a lot of war vets might trigger a revolution where they will tell putin to leave like yeltsin and a more radical figure would be placed in power. Plus russia gives china cheap energy.
>>2566719> saying that Lenin was too egotistical or such to give up power I think is wrong.he doesn't say that in this video or any other as far as I can tell
>>2610698I don't see any response to the video in OP on finnish bolshevik's channel. Does "finbol" perhaps refer to someone else?
>>2610749>gommunism is when planningthe proletarians have gone insane
>>2566732Lmfao good bait anon
>>2610745Multipolaroids are now on ENTROPY?!?!?
>>2558358Good thing Lenin never claimed to have achieved socialism or communism and was aware the revolution failed with its failure to become international.
>>2610787More like
>shit I could get away with as the great leader™️ >>2610790>there are no realities or social pressures of power>Stalin was just a bad actor, not pure enoughNot just a river in Egypt.
>>2610787It's nutty how people who are supposedly historical materialists keep falling for the meme of the benevolent ruler. People are motivated by material self-interest first and foremost, with ideology largely being a byproduct of that. I've seen with my own two eyes multiple cases of people with deeply held beliefs rewriting their DNA as soon as they came upon or lost power. Why is this such a hard thing for people to understand?
>>2610791There is the reality that the revolution lost and Stalin was left to cope with it, dragging its dead body through the mud literally (Lenin's corpse) and figuratively to maintain the status quo.
>>2610798Ego. Or rather, over-inflated sense of self-esteem, i.e. narcissism.
It's the most likely determinant if one adheres to materialism (reality precedes consciousness) or idealism (consciousness precedes reality).
It begins in the most subtle of ways, even from the first question - "Prove to me that thing exists." Nothing has to be proven to you, asshole. The correct question is "How do I know thing exists?"
It only gets worse from there - "Well
I would be immune to material realities! Everybody else is just worse than me!" The pickme communist.
I hope anyone glazing this imbecile kills himself, all he is is nothing but a anti-communist left opportunist and a stalin hater clone, he does a disservice towards development of marxist theory by engaging into historical revision of marxism-leninism
>>2610810I thought you were referring to Stalin until I reached his part
>>2610810What did he say that was wrong?
>>2610810noj rants isn't a left opportunist, nobody even knows what his politics is. as far as I can tell he's just an academic. a sovietologist. for him to be a left opportunist he would need to have some kind of obvious left politics in the first place.
>>2558358>Lenin abandoned his ideals from State and Revolutionyeah i dont think thats really true if you actually read state and rev
>>2558416reminds me of academic agent
>>2610741because the fascists and liberals are just capitalists, and capitalist economic and political theory does not have the tools to analyze socialist economies and states
on the other hand, marxist theory does have the tools to analyze capitalism, well it did until about the 70s when capitalism mutated once again and USSR didn't have good theorists to catch up any more
>>2611039WIIIIIIDE SCREENSHOT IS WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE
>>2611046>openly admitting to stepping back from his idealsit doesn't really sounds like it, or maybe you misunderstood his goals
>>2611053His ideals in state and revolution
>>2610978not the anon. instead of saying "lol no" and spamming 3 pics nobody is going to read, say what you intend to be understood by the deployment of each quote.
>>2611137For example in state in revolution Lenin calls for state officials to have the same salary's as workers but as the conditions of the revolution developed he needed to attract bourgeoisie experts with high salaries.
>>2611232Here is where calls for government officials wages to be set to that of a workmans
>>2611046And in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government he admits to attract bourgeoisie experts through high wages
>>2610802>A failed revolution which sent the first man to space. I guess the revolution truly failed comrades. Stalin should have committed sudoku then and there.
>>2610940Then which theorists can explain modern neoliberal capitalism to me?Whom should I read?
>>2611251>>2611046>>2611039>>2611021>>2610978What do you mean Lenin is not a retard idealist and actually updates his position according to the material conditions of his time? Is this supposed to make him look bad? Ultras are fucking retarded.
>>2611318But updating anything goes against the Invariant Dharma of the ICP, anon!
>>2611318>Lenin admits what he is doing is a necessity to delay the inevitability that it is a failure and destined to go up in flames<MLs a century later take the actions iof Lenin as gospelSo this is a win for MLs?
>>2611261>gommunism when good thingGlory to Butgerstan for making humanity walk the moon and live in tall glsss buildings
>nazi germany bad?
<but they lifted millions from poverty they were AES!
<Roosevelt was more Marxist than Marx
Why are MLoids like this?
>>2611341
The net effect of Nazism was not 'millions lifted out of poverty' you retard. (some germans lifted out of povert) - (many more non-germans further empoverished) = (net empoverishment of the whole).
Retard.
>>2611261And where is Mir now ? Where are the soviet cosmonauts now ? Where is the Soviet union now ?
Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed WW1 would be the crisis that break capitalism,it was a very well reasoned view but they were wrong, the German revolution failed, the Irish revolution was hijacked, the soliders's strikes in France didn't lead to a revolution. The Americans were very far from having a revolution. The only place the Revolution won was in Russia. While I have no love for him, I believe that anyone else would have done the same as Stalin, realistically world revolution was impossible, to survive, the Soviet Union needed to industrialise, and so it did, but this started a processus that would lead to Soviet Reentry in the capitalist world. To survive the soviet had to abandon Lenin's model.
Capitalism survived and thrived, the second world war only strenghtened it, even decolonisation didn't break the shackes of capitalism, nowadays litterally the entire world is capitalist regardless of what certain states might claim. The Soviet Revolution failed, regardless of it's achievements, Russia is proudly capitalist, the world revolution didn't happen.
However, despite capitalism triumph's, it is not immortal, climate change will probably be what will kill it communism will be achieved afterwards.
>>2611347>climate change will kill capitalismSpoken like a true demoraliser
>>2611347Ehh it still achieved more and lasted longer than any other current, it led to the communist victory in the chinese revolution and the PRC, which has made great advancements in the struggle as well and is still around. The next one will go even further, last even longer or will be permanent
Maybe
>>2611347>I believe that anyone else would have done the same as Stalin>To survive the soviet had to abandon Lenin's model.it didn't really do that until khrushchev
>>2611232>For example in state in revolution Lenin calls for state officials to have the same salary's as workers but as the conditions of the revolution developed he needed to attract bourgeoisie experts with high salaries.but 'state officials to have the same salary' is not an ideal and communism is 'not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself, but the real movement to abolish the present state of things'.
marx also says communism is 'from each to each… according to..' but in the same text he says that 'in the first phase such defects are inevitable' and that work we be rewarded according to labor
neither is a stepping back from ideals, and both are paving the material foundation to enable the capacity to fulfill those 'ideals'. productive forces are the material premise for the existence of communism, so policies that increase the productive forces are the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, by creating the economic base to support it
as marx says 'right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby'
>>2611039thats just demcent. pirate democracies also demand you obey the elected captain during battles at sea
>>2611323>delay the inevitability it wasn't inevitable, if it was then China Cuba Korea and Vietnam would also have collapsed, but they have not
>the actions iof Lenin as gospelnot the particular actions, as they are determined by the specific material conditions one finds themselves in, but the overall broad analysis is correct
>>2611343>they lifted millions from poverty they were AES!no one says this. you have to consider the class character of the state. its true that bourgeois revolutions are progressive compared to feudal or colonial relations but that is always only temporary as the limits of bourgeois rule eventually run into the trpf and cannibalize itself due to the profit motive. germany was imperialist not fuedal or colonial or even underdeveloped so a new type of bourgeois rule is not progressive, and fascism is especially regressive. in all cases its better faster and more efficient to have communist planning but in underdeveloped conditions temporary alliance with bourgeois developmentalists can be progressive. however its necessary to organize and strengthen the working class during this period because interests will inevitably diverge as capitalism develops
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1952/internationalism_nationalism/ch05.htm Unique IPs: 32