United States! A Nation Of Imaginary Millionaires!


Tea Party Supporter

If you where to look at America with no social experience of the country but just knowledge of the economic policies supported by the American people you would come to one conclusion only and that is that every person in the United States is a millionaire give or take 1 or 2 people, what other reason could it be for them to support such policies like the privatization of health, education, housing and so on, the non support for a truly national labor union , the lack of social welfare to help the poorest? The only reason people would support these policies if they are educated rich people looking out for their own interests! So is every American a millionaire? of course not, in fact most Americans are struggling to survive on the low incomes of working class people in the United States. So why do they,not all but most, support policies which goes against their interest? and in fact plunges them deeper into poverty by having to pay more in tax, pay for health or the education of their children in privately owed institutions which should be under the control of the government and used to serve the people with the tax money they pay.

The Tea-Party for example, although I am far from agreeing with their policies, I do have sympathy with the ordinary legitimately concerned tea partier. They do have legitimate concerns, Ok so they might not be the most politically knowledgeable bunch but their concerns are real and legitimate But here is where it turns sour, the feelings of these concerned working and middle class people has being hijacked by the corporate US libertarian sector such as families like the hugely wealthy and powerful Koch Brothers, The libertarian sector of the US corporate system supports pure laissez-faire economics, ie. th total deregulation of the markets to be run without government involvement, they want the privatization of literally everything from health care to housing to education, national security, the judicial system everything so what these wealthy US Libertarians done was when the republican grassroots who felt neglected by the system came together under the name of The Tea Party they took advantage of their growing fears in order to stop Obama policies of regulation of the economy and social ownership of the health system, And it was easy for them all they had to do was pump millions into propaganda, lies, fear mongering, and all other tactics of twisting the facts in order to seduce the middle class and working class republicans into their support for libertarian-capitalist economics.

An easy fear that they preyed on was the fear of Obama that exists in the grassroots of republican support, they pumped propaganda to the people about how Obama was anti-american and an Arab possibly even a Muslim undercover, seriously many tea partiers believed this, they would be walking around with contradictory signs saying “damn socialism, keep you hands of my medicare”. This is a major fear these people have, socialism, how could working people and middle class people be so misinformed about socialism that they thinks it’s not in their favor when in fact it’s totally in their favor? simple answer really propaganda and misinformation, if you want to discredit the great name of socialism just refer to so-called socialists like Stalin or Mao or soviet union and to apolitical people it works straight away, but to people who know any politics they will know Stalin, Lenin and the rest of the so-called communists where right-wing in everything they done, the only communist thing about them was the miss-titled name of their political party.

And this type of preying on legitimate fears of working Americans to support policy not in their favor is conducted by both the republican and democrats with help of both their buddies in the corporate privately owned media outlets in the US. The news is guilty as much as politicians for corrupting the minds of citizens they help distort the reality of Washington policy in order to try make it look attractive to the citizens who would naturally oppose it if they knew any better.

Lets look at Heath care for example, in most European countries every citizen is entitled to free public health care of the highest standard, it’s so free even if an illegal immigrant needed care off, in most European countries they would be taken care of by a doctor in any hospital. If you asked the politically more aware populations of Europe if they wanted to privatize health care they would laugh at you, and no distorting the facts or propaganda would make them think any different, to them it is simply ‘why pay more when you already pay for it with your tax’. But in the US when Obama and the democrats try introduce a similar system of public health care the ordinary people who can’t get it otherwise resist it ? why would they resist healthcare being offered for free? simple because a campaign of miss-information, propaganda and complete lies directed by the republican corporate owned politicians who would rather them citizens pay than live .

Americans need to wake up and realize all the tax they pay is meant to be spent by the government on such things like giving them free health care, free education, social welfare and so on, instead what they don’t realize is their taxes is going to building new technology infrastructure and so on that can then be giving to the private sector to make a profit on, such as government paid programmes in weapons technology that is commissioned to companies like Halliburton who then make hundreds of billions of dollars on the back of taxpayers money, the make billions while the ordinary taxpayer left to fork out even more money for their health care and education which they should have already paid for with their taxes.

The system in the US needs to change as one TV host said before “Americans need to stop denying their love of socialism”. Socialism and policies not supported by the US government is in their favor and not the corporate policies they currently are seduced into supporting.

Maybe we should have taking that 400 billion dollars used to bail out private banks and insurance companies and used it instead to help deprived neglected communities, maybe build schools and hospitals in these area and employ local workers, not only will you be helping the poor with health and education but also you will be giving them jobs and more money to make their lives better, and when they have more money they will spend more which maybe would stimulate the economy more than squandering 400 billion to unaccountable oligarchy’s

Author-Darren M

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “United States! A Nation Of Imaginary Millionaires!

  1. pat

    It goes without saying that the Republican’s in the US advance an economic and political ideology that is quite simply insane. However it also has to be said that the Obama regime and the Democratic Party as a whole are anti-working class to the core. Their plans for healthcare were nothing more than a gift to the medical insurance giants, and didn’t come close to any European equivalent (which btw are also inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of ordinary people).

    Unfortunately you too seem to have bought into the “propaganda and misinformation” that the ruling elites thrive on. In lumping Lenin, the revolutionary leader that led the working class in overthrowing capitalism and tsarism in Russia (succeeding where every other revolutionary movement before or since has failed), with Stalin who led the bureaucratic counter-revolution, demolishing most of the gains that were achieved for the working class in the revolution and developing an ideology that represented the antithesis to the revolutionary Marxism of Bolshevism.

    The capitalist class and the Stalinist dictatorships, for their own opposing interests, tried to link the horrors of the USSR to the politics and methods of Lenin – absolutely in an attempt to discredit those ideas. Why? Because they both feared the potential power that those ideas had among a working class in struggle – which they both wanted to stop.

    Genuine socialists have a duty to defend and promote the truth and draw out the real lessons. Any objective and honest study of the Russian revolution can only come to the conclusion that the democratic and revolutionary ideals of Lenin were destroyed by the Stalinist bureaucracy. Those of us who today wish to bring about a socialist future would be foolish in the extreme to dismiss the contribution of Lenin and the party he built.

    Reply
    1. Critical&Political Post author

      First of Im an anrarcho-syndicalist in no way do i support the capitalist system.
      I agree with Obama being anti-working class but my argument was not supporting Obama it was pointing out the fact that Americans dont support policies that are in their favor, and say what you might but you cannot deny the fact Obama’s healthcare plan is better for the working class than currently exists in the United States, yes it is not a revolution for the people but that was not my subject in the article therefore i did not elaborate on it, if i was writing an article on socialist ideas then i would have elaborated but that was not the subject.
      we are comrades but i take offence to such comments from you like i have bought into the propaganda, just read my other articles then and you might come to a different conclusion
      And if you wish to discuss Lenin and the Bolsheviks after the revolution i will be happy to, and the destruction of the soviet councils began under Lenin not Stalin, It is a well known fact among scholars of the left that Lenin was a right wing deviation of Marxism, Once more I am an anarchist i am to the left of you so stop trying to look like the radical. the subject was not about socialism or anything it was a view of why Americans support policy that does not favor their interests

      Reply
      1. pat

        I’m not saying you support Obama’s policies, but very often politics in the US can make it seem like there is a meaningful difference between the Republican’s and the Democrats. There isn’t at all, in many ways Obama is worse than the lunatic right-wingers.

        For example the facts about Obama’s medical reforms bill where drowned in the sound bites about “universal coverage,” “lower costs,” and “no more denied coverage due to illness or pre-existing conditions” – claims that are grossly overstated. In fact, the greatest achievement of the debate was in confusing the public and deflecting attention away from the real problem: profit-driven medical care.

        The few progressive elements of the bill, such as extending the age parents can cover students under their insurance to age 26, or extending Medicaid to more people, which will benefit some people, do not constitute a fundamental transformation of the health care system, and are countered by other regressive aspects of the bill.

        The Act not only failed to address the underlying problems, but it expanded the role of the insurance companies. For the first time, there is legislation that establishes for-profit health insurance as mandatory for the majority of the population.

        I actually don’t agree with your view that Americans support the policies that have been implemented by their right-wing governments. Outside of the Tea Party followers and some of the more backward southern states, most of the population would be far to the left of both parties on almost every issue.

        The problem is the political set-up which maintains a dictatorship of two right-wing parties. There is a growing unrest and anger brewing all across the country, which many people looking favourably towards socialism (although what socialism means is not always understood). The key problem is the absence of a fighting trade union movement and a party of labour that can offer an alternative and lead a fightback.

        This is what’s needed, and in the depths of a drawn out crisis like the one we’re in, the building of such organisations will certainly be on the cards.

        I’ll come back to some of your points on Lenin, which in my opinion are quite misguided.

  2. Critical&Political Post author

    Yes in foreign plicy he is worse and his actions since taking office prove it but when t comes to certain aspects of american internal policy he is not as bad as the right, but yes your correct there is no difference their both corporately owned parties.

    Yes Obama’s healthcare plan is not what you and me would like, ie. free healthcare and 0# privatization but in the context of american politics its is an achievement and I have no problem saying that , it helps a lot of people who prior to his plan had no chance of healthcare AT-LEAST they now have a chance of it. but yes obviously i agree more must be done but i respect the fact of where power in american politics lies

    See you and me are different you think or expect quick change from capitalism to socialism, this simply is not possible especially in the context of modern global politics, I acknowledge the fact we cannot achieve it quickly and it will take steps to get the system we want, therefore no matter how small it is i take Obamas healthcare as a small victory for the people even if it gives elements of the private sector more control over aspects of te health system because now there more people getting healthcare. You dont seem to understand the real world of American politics it is simply impossible right now to do a fundamental reformation of the healthcare system because there is too much power in the hands of corporate lobbies which control american politics and lobby for the health industries interests, plus the massive amount of misinformation broadcast to Americans means it would be almost impossible to get the majority to support such policies, thats why small steps and a long term plan is the best option, too many on the left have no patience and refuse to accept the reality of how society and politics work, the reason revolutions of the past worked because the people supported it and the oppression was obvious that is just not the case now because of techniques of social control such as manufacturing consent, pacifying your population through propaganda and fear mongering and so on.

    yes when you ask Americans simple questions like would you want free healthcare and education of course they say yes, this is the point of my argument, why would they say yes in private but no at the ballot box ? simply because of propaganda and manufacturing consent, most Americans don’t understand the healthcare bill so they rely on what their told , the population of every country is usually always privately to the left of the government. so there is no point saying you disagree with my view that Americans support policy not in their favor because it is not my view its how they vote so its fact.

    and about growing resentment by Americans, I make this point also that the growing resentment has either being hijacked by the free market right wingers like Ron Paul and the koch brothers or has being smeared to the point on not being seeing as credible as in the way Occupy has being treated, I can assure you socialism as we want s far of in America, but the public protesting will force the government into passing some social policies, i agree America needs a labor movement, but unfortunately the corporate system that currently exists makes a labor movement in the European sense near impossible instead what you have is companies with their own unions which is useless to working interests,

    And my points on Lenin are not misguided its a well known fact he was a right wing deviation of Marxism and a complete statist socialist , and it is a well known fact that the soviet councls set up across russia prior and after the revolution where quickly destroyed by Lenin in order to consolidate power to a central government this is a fact and not my opinion but the opinion of most left-wing scholars, I support the likes of Bakunin, Luxembourg. Kropotkin and the other anti-Leninist anarchists, people much more politically important to the liberation of the working classes than Lenin or the rest of the Bolsheviks I think tour views on Lenin is the misguided views, You seem to think he was this left wing true Marxist who liberated the Russian peasantry, correct in some aspects but mostly myths of the past, Marx most definitely wouldn’t have considered Lenin a follower of his ideas

    Reply
    1. pat

      As far as I can tell from what you’ve said, you’re actually quite conservative in your views – we clearly differ on this question. I don’t expect a quick change from capitalism to socialism at all, however in my opinion it would be wrong to rule out the idea of a revolution in the US in the next ten to fifteen years. That’s not based on the idea that all of a sudden people just agree with the idea of socialism. As a Marxist, I base my politics on a scientific, materialist view of society and the world. Which is why I find it strange that you would rule out fundamental change and limit yourself to just expecting small reforms – especiially in this “context of global politics”, as you say.

      What is that context? Well it just happens to be deepest economic crisis that the capitalist system has experienced since the great depression of the 1930s. The most dramatic change from boom to bust that most people alive today have ever experienced – in such conditions revolutions are made. This crisis will mean rising mass unemployment, increasing poverty, environmental destruction and attacks on democratic rights. Millions will go hungry in the US while a tiny elite stash trillions of dollars in cash, the gap between the rich and poor is wider now than ever before – do you seriously think that people will just accept this without massive social upheavals?

      People who thought like you do, were caught by surprise when the revolutions erupted across North Africa and the Middle East. Marxists were not. It was said that those people were passive, that the dictators were too strong – those people were wrong. Likewise your views on the US are unnecessarily conservative, precisely given the times we are living in. You overstate the power that the media has over a population.

      As for your question: “When you ask Americans simple questions like would you want free healthcare and education of course they say yes, this is the point of my argument, why would they say yes in private but no at the ballot box ?”

      Yes propaganda plays a certain role, but actually the main reason that people vote for right-wing parties, and policies by association, is because there is no alternative for them to vote for. Is that not obvious? When there is no chance of anyone other than the Reps and the Dems getting elected people vote for the least worse option. Hence the need for an alternative based on socialist ideas and militant struggle. The Occupy movement and the movement in Wisconsin showed that such struggles can happen in the US and undoubtedly will! It’s true that the labour movement is extremely weak in the US, as it is in most countries, but it is as good a time as there has ever been for it to re-emerge.

      That’s not to say it will be easy or automatic, it won’t be. It will be a major struggle. But if everyone limits their aspirations to smal scale reforms like you do, a revolution is certainly off the cards. Fortunately I have confidence that working class people won’t do that.

      Reply
      1. Critical&Political Post author

        Yes i am conservative in the libertarian socialist sense of the term, same way people like Noam chomsky describe themselves as conservative/,, where did I rule out revolution in the next decade? i was just saying you seem to expect it faster which is impossible, and if a revolution does happen it wont be sudden or violent because violent revolution doesnt work its not 1915 anymore. well i rule out fundamental change because I live in the real world and understand 21st century politics enough to realize that in places like america fundamental change wont happen it takes steps, you might want to deny that but that is fact.
        you just seem to be stuck in this militant Marxist mindset that believes it is 1915 nd the same tactics of revolution used then can be used now, they just simply cant it is completely different world the early 20th century you tend to dwell on the past too much and not focus on the present and future , I am a realist my long term goal is an anarcho-syndicalist system but is that likely to happen in 5 or 10 years? no will it happen suddenly? no it will evolve and untll then we just need to pressure power into implementing policies that could lead to a socialis or anarchist state, for example in election I vote but for Trotsky socialist party because i feel its a step towards where i want to go, it is long term not short thats why militant marxism is finished its too mush of past dwelling not enough realism.. and it is not because there is no alternative and thats why people support right wing pasties, the fact is their is small alternative parties in most countries if the people really understood politics they’d vote for them regardless of propaganda but because most have no real understanding of it they vote using te information from mainstream media which is their only source of trying to understand , the people have a political alternative they just of no body actually educating them on alternative views, it s all goo saying your a marxist and all but that means nothing to someone who does not know what marxism is

      2. pat

        Actually from what you’ve said I meant that your ideas are conservative, in the opposite of radical sense of the term. Noam Chomsky, who acually got me interested in politics, is also not very radical when it comes to practical issues. Yes he advocates socialism in the distant future, but he has nothing to offer those of us who want revolutionary change, hence he advocates people vote for Obama and the Democrats as the least worst option – basically supporting the status quo.

        Your view of society and struggle is unfortunately influenced by post-modernist ideas. These ideas represent cynicism dressed up as a philosophy in order to stop people from atempting to try to cange society – I’m not saing you think that exactly, but that’s where your views will leave you.

        The strucure of capitalism has changed in the last 100 years, though not it’s essential character. So the idea that fundamental change in America is not possible now, even though it was possible in the past is nonsense. Also if revolutions won’t happen suddenly or violently then how do you explain the Arab revolutions that happened last year – 2011!

        Over course tactics and srategies will have to be developed for today, but te revolutionary theory is as applicable today as ever. The need for a revolutionary leadership based on a Marxist programme is crucial to the succes of any revolution – that hasn’t changed.

        Also I don’t go around telling people I’m a Marxist, I tell you because you seem to have some undersanding of what that means.

  3. pat

    If you don’t agree with Lenin’s ideas and think that there are superior ways of organising the working class to achieve a socialist revolution that’s fine, but equating Lenin and Stalin in the way that you have is not. You don’t have to be a Marxist to understand that, even Anarchist writers such as Marcel Liebman and Victor Serge could see how flawed an analysis that was. I recommend Serge’s classic, ‘From Lenin to Stalin’, which gives an insight to the revolution and its degeneration from a participant who considered himself an Anarchist in 1917.

    Nobody who has ever read Lenin’s writings could argue that he was a right-wing deviation of Marxism. In fact, the opposite was the case. Only those on the right and the left who set out, not to understand Lenin or the events around the Russian Revolution, but to discredit him – for their own ends, with their own agendas – could make such a claim.

    You say that “the destruction of the soviet councils began under Lenin not Stalin”, with the implication that the horrors that followed in the course of the 1920s and 30s was simply a continuation of the policies of Lenin. This, like most accounts of the revolution written by Anarchists, is profoundly superficial and abstract, and represents a distortion of the reality.

    Firstly, “destruction of the soviet councils”, makes it sound like Lenin wanted to put an end to the democratic movement that he led to power. This could not be further from the truth. Again, if you read what Lenin wrote and the policies he advocated you would see this. He fought against bureaucracy in the Soviets and in his party until his death. That’s not to say there were not extremely difficult tests and choices facing the Bolsheviks in power (and that mistakes were made), but they have to be considered in their context.

    The revolution had to deal with the counter-revolution that began immediately, the invasion of 16 imperialist armies, the economic blockade, the food shortages, famines and the the destruction left from the first world war. The whole basis of socialism is having enough to go around, but Russia didn’t have that. In this context, the democratic structures in the Soviets ceased to function, as the working class stopped participating in them. Who wants to go to political meetings when you’re worried about where your next meal is going to come from?

    This was the material basis of the degeneration, which the Stalinist bureaucracy was able to feed off in order to consolidate their power, destroying the legacy of Lenin and the revolution in the process. All the Bolsheviks had to rely on was the heroism of the workers who defended the gains of the revolution and the support of the working class internationally. The principal aim was to spread the revolution internationally – unfortunately, despite many attempts this didn’t happen (mainly because of the absence of revolutionary parties like the Bolsheviks in those other countries).

    To put the failure of the Russian experience down to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, is to ignore these facts and abandon the truth.

    You say, “Once more I am an anarchist i am to the left of you so stop trying to look like the radical.”

    My understanding of ‘radical’ would start from the question of who or what is more of a threat to the establishment and the capitalist system. In that sense revolutionary Marxism is much more radical than Anarchism, which in my opinion is not capable of challenging the system in any real sense. The Anarcho-Syndicalists in Spain from example joined the capitalist government in Spain when the could have / should have smashed the capitalist state.

    Reply
    1. pat

      Also those revolutionaries you mentioned who were alive at the time (Bakunin was obviously dead at the time of the revolution, he was also a vicious anti-semite), Luxemburg and Kropotkin, you should read more about what they wrote at the time.

      Luxemburg was critical of the Bolsheviks absolutely,but this is what she had to say:

      “The Bolsheviks,” she wrote, “have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of the historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.

      “What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the nonessential, the kernel from the accidental excrescences in the policies of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: ‘I have dared!’

      “This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to ‘Bolshevism.’”

      Not exactly a condemnation.

      Also let’s be clear that one of the distinguishing features of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and Rosa Lumenburg was a outright hatred and opposition to the first world war, Imperialism and the sellouts of the leaders of the Socialist International at that time. They stood against the calamity of a war that would see the lives of millions of working class youth wasted.

      Kropotkin supported this war!

      Reply
  4. Critical&Political Post author

    when did I equate Stalin and Lenin as the same ?? I respect the fact therE is huge difference between both, I was pointing out the fact the true socialism which sprang up around Russian in independent soviets was destroyed under Lenin not Stalin that’s the only time i mentioned both in same sentence.Oh stop to say Lenin was left-wing of Marxism or whatever your trying to say is ridiculous, words are different than actions his actions prove he was right wing deviation of Marxism. you just seem to be obsessed with Lenin. No I didn’t say it was a continuation of Lenin’s policies I said under Lenin such policies began,, Stalin implemented his own policies, that was not my point tho, what my point was that the idea you have that under Lenin Russia was a workers paradise and it wasn’t till Stalin came to power that things changed is nonsense because the destruction of the workers state s in the soviets began under Lenin, this destruction of workers control on the means of production is what continued on after Lenin,, and also let us be clear you say democratic movement that Lenin led to power in some aspects that is true but it insinuates that it was one movement under a common political believe which is false as you should well know their where mixed political views in the Bolshevik movement u had ant-statist Marxists, and statists, u had left opposition to Lenin and the invasion by the white armies was a cover for destruction of the soviet councils which was only done to destroy workers control and to centralize state power, and to say the soviets stopped working because of people stop attending them is nonsense the soviets where deliberately destroyed by central government I am not putting the failures of Russia down to Lenin, yes he done a great thing over throwing the tzsardom and liberated the Russian peasantry but under his control the workers state as was espoused by Marxists began to be deliberately dismantled and was continued to a more extreme by Stalin. that is a fact yes Lenin done good things for the working vlass Russians but to say he was a true Marxist is false hence te reason we call it marxist-leninist
    Im not going to get into the Spanish anarcho syndicalist downfall but to say it is because they just joined the capitalist system is nonsense and you know it, things aren’t as black and white as you think and keep up the revolutionary Marxism you wont succeed , that hurts me to say but its fact

    Yes Bakunin was dead but since he is one of the most important members of the fisrt international I mention him because he opposed state Marxism and would have opposed Lenin, and to use his anti-semiitism is a cheap shot, although i totally condemn that i take the opinion that it has no bearing on his political writings as a whole an
    d his anarchist writings, Yes Luxembourg and Kropotkin supported them at the beginning because for the same reason every left person did because they where liberating the Russian peasantry and in the Bolsheviks Luxemburg and the rest seen the chance of creating a real workers state but once in power I think you will find she had a lot of bad things to say about them too. And Kropotkin supported a revolution he opposed the Bolsheviks till his dying day sure he is known for saying “This buries the revolution,”when the Bolsheviks took power.

    Reply
    1. pat

      You said: “Oh stop to say Lenin was left-wing of Marxism or whatever your trying to say is ridiculous, words are different than actions his actions prove he was right wing deviation of Marxism.”

      Unless you think that Lenin went out everyday in Petrograd and physically stopped people from entering meetings thereby destroying the Soviets, then we can only judge his actions by the policies Lenin advocated – which thankfully happens to be in writing. Hence the reason you should read what Lenin wrote before you accept Noam Chomsky’s one-sided version of events. You should be critical of Anarchists as well as capitalists.

      Lenin was on the left of the Marxist movement at this time, that’s undoubtedly true. Again, unlike many in the movement he was part of the minority that opposed the first world war. In Russia his revolutionary ideas were contained in the slogan, “All power to the Soviets”! Meaning after the Tsar was overthrown Lenin and the Bolsheviks were alone in advocating the working class continue the revolution and take power for themselves.

      Lenin didn’t compromise with other reformist parties or with the capitalists, as every other revolutionary movement has done when in the same position – including Anarchists. If we can judge how left-wing someone is by whether or not they will overthrow capitalism, which is a pretty good measure – then Lenin was certainly on the left of the movement.

      You said: “you just seem to be obsessed with Lenin.”

      I’m not obsessed with Lenin, I’m just not going to let your slander of him go unchallenged.

      You said: “the idea you have that under Lenin Russia was a workers paradise and it wasn’t till Stalin came to power that things changed is nonsense because the destruction of the workers state s in the soviets began under Lenin, this destruction of workers control on the means of production is what continued on after Lenin”

      Yes, Russia was a relatively healthy workers state in the period after the revolution, despite having to deal with many difficulties like trying to end the first world war. To the extent that workers’ control of industry and soviet democracy existed in Russia after the revolution it was the result of the Bolsheviks programme. However it was not possible in the conditions that existsed for genuine socialism to emerge, the Bolsheviks never said it was. Their aim was to spread the revolution internaionally. When the civil war broke out it was necessary to implement the policies of War Communism to defend the revolution. This was a temp[orary measure, it should be said however that a majority of the working class supported the Bolsheviks throughout this period.

      You said: “also let us be clear you say democratic movement that Lenin led to power in some aspects that is true but it insinuates that it was one movement under a common political believe which is false as you should well know their where mixed political views in the Bolshevik movement u had ant-statist Marxists, and statists, u had left opposition to Lenin”

      Of course there were many ideas and groups involved in the revolution, Lenin was in favour of democracy in the movement, that everyone should be free to argue for their own ideas — this is what took place. What existed in Russia in 1917 was a battle for ideas, reformists, Anarchists, capitalists and revolutionary Marxists all putting forward their ideas in the Soviet movement. Lenin and the Bolsheviks won that battle for ideas, and the support of a majority in the Soviets – this was the reason that the revolution was successful.

      You said: “te invasion by the white armies was a cover for destruction of the soviet councils which was only done to destroy workers control and to centralize state power”

      This is simply not true. What you have to understand is that civil war like revolutions forces everyone to take one side or the other – either you will fight to defend the revolution or you will fight against the government and allow capitalist reaction i.e. counter-revolution – or worse fascist takeover (as was the case in Russia). Or you can do nothing, which given the balance of forces involved, usually means assisting the counter-revolution. This is the position many Anarchists took at the time, many others joined the revolution. Thankfully the working class did not listen to the Anarchists and fought to defend the government and the revolution.

      You said: “and to say the soviets stopped working because of people stop attending t
      them is nonsense the soviets where deliberately destroyed by central government.

      So you are intent on believing that the Soviets were functioning and capable of runing society i Russia during a civil war, an imperialist invasion and famine – despite all of the evidence to the contrary – becuase you think Lenin wanted to create a one party dictatorship. This is a bad distortion of what actually happened in Russia.

      You said: “Im not going to get into the Spanish anarcho syndicalist downfall but to say it is because they just joined the capitalist system is nonsense and you know it, things aren’t as black and white as you think.”

      The leaders of the CNT joined the popular front government in an alliance with capitalist parties when they could overthrown capitalism. They sold out the revolutionary working class in Spain. Why did they do that? Not because they were not genuine socialists, but because Anarchist ideas which do not understand the role of the state and the process of revolution and counter-revolution. That is why Anarchist ideas are not capable of challenging capitalism. That’s why the most revolutionary of the Anarchists in Spain – the Friends of Durrutti – adopted a Marxist position in the end.

      Reply
  5. Critical&Political Post author

    see this is what annoys me, We are bot left wingers with the same basic goals, ie. the destruction of the capitalist systems monopoly on power and wealth and the creation of a truly democratic society run by the people, but yet we would rather argue with each other than argue with right wingers and so on, we are here discussing a revolution almost 100years old that has no relevance really on current society and politics. we should be advancing ideas for a modern society instead of dwelling on political beliefs that simply cant be implemented in a 21st century society, anarchism is the most natural for of politics for humans to practice thats why I support socialism in an anarchist system because I believe power always corrupts especially at state level,instead of arguing with me who in most cases agrees with you why dont you argue with someone who doesn’t agree with you, thats where the change begins,

    Reply
    1. pat

      I don’t agree with that, for two reasons:

      1. Your understanding of Lenin and his ideas are profoundly mistaken. Likewise your understanding of the only successful workers’ revolution in history. This is vitally important as those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat the mistakes. In that sense they are relevent discussions.

      2. It’s more productive to debate with those you agree with on the final goal (in our case a stateless, classless communist society), as we can learn more useful things that way, things that are practical in the struggle we’re involved in. More so than debating with a right-winger who I have nothing to learn from and nothing to teach.

      Reply
      1. Critical&Political Post author

        tell me how the Bolsheviks coming to power was a workers revolution, yes it was in the name or working people and supported by working people but what happened that workers controlled state ? you seem to think it existed so tell me about it. im not saying lessons cant be learned from the revolution but its techniques have no real relevance on modern society since it is a completely different world than when lenin was around

        Oh yes I agree I love talking with comrades but i feel we do too much talking with each other and not enough with people who either dont agree or dont understand, we need to be more hands on, yes the European left is hands on but we can do more to educate the people on what we believe, if you see what I am saying,, I am a socialist but I am an anarchist and most reason I oppose Lenin s because anarchism opposes centralization of power and Lenin was a statist who played a roll in dismantling community control, there where many more Bolsheviks who would have done a much better job than Lenin for a workers state id advise you to advocate their beliefs rather than the WRITNGS OR SPEECHES of Lenn

      2. pat

        Have you read State and Revolution by Lenin, if you did you would see how false the idea that Lenin was in favour of a centralised state as opposed to a democratic wrkers’ state – these are Anarchist myths. You shuld not believe or accept them so readily. As Marx said, you should question everything – even anti-establishment ideas. The point of reading Lenin and other revolutionaries is that their ideas can be useful for those of us who wish to change the world – not because everything they said is gospel. Again, it would be folish in the extreme for you to dismiss Lenins ideas.

        For the record, I’m an active member of a revolutionary party and I spend far more time talking to people who are not socialists to convince them about socialism, than I do debating the Russian revlution.

  6. pat

    I’ll reply fully later, but just to say that your position is to ignore the extreme conditions that the new workers’ state was operating in.

    That quote from Rosa Luxemburg was from 1919, the year she was murdered, she was critical of the Bolsheviks at that stage as I said, but unlike you she did recognise the difficulties they faced.

    I wasn’t referring to Kropotkin’s support for the Bolshevik revolution, I was referring to his support for the Imperialist war that led to the slaughter of millions of working class youth in a war conducted for the profits of the capitalist class. And he had the brass neck for criticising Lenin! How do you square that?

    Reply
    1. Critical&Political Post author

      no i respect the conditions the revolution had to exist in but that was no reason to destroy the councils, the soviets where simply destroyed to consolidate state power and the invasion was a smoke screen to do it, Yes Rosa became soft because she came to the conclusion the the failure of the Bolsheviks was the result of the failure of the international proletariat rather but she still would have wanted better than what the Bolsheviks did, why did Kropotkin support the war? you seem to know so elabortae.its not as simple as you make it out, well Lenin seemed to square it since he allowed Kropotkin a state funeral with anarchists holding anti-lenin banners

      Reply
      1. pat

        The idea that an imperialist invasion was used as a smoke screen is ridiculous. You’re clearly not grasping the seriousness of such an event. The whole of the capitalist world joins forces to crush the onlyexisting workers’ state, because they fear the spread of socialism and you think the Bolsheviks were concerned with crushing democracy, not about defending the workers’ state. It’s Anarchist dogma, that has no basis in truth.

        The fact that Luxemburg wanted better that ‘waht the Bolsheviks did’ doesn’t really add much, that’s true but it’s a million miles away from the Anarchist position. It was also the case that Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks wanted better – unfortunately reality got in the way.

        Of course Lenin allowed a demonstrationa Kropotkin’s funeral, Anarchist were free to orgaise in Russia up until they sided with the counter-revolution. But Lenin had no time for Kropotkin’s politics. How you can compare Kropotkin, who supported the first world war, favourably with Lenin, who oppsed it, is beyhond me! And yes, opposing an imperialist, capitalist, anti-working class war is as simple as I make out!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s