Lenin, Censorship and Soviets

[condor]

Two mildly related questions. Does anyone know the extent of censorship under Lenin? Could you argue Lenin's ban on factions within Soviets coupled with democratic centralism allowed the rise of bureacracy and careerism?

[fire_mat99]

All communist nations and capitalism nations use censorship because of opposition of force.It is my understannding that at that time when the Soviets started they thought it will start in one nation and spread to others nations and did not know too much about Nazi germany or extreme right and this was biggest reason why the USSR is not here.

That look why communist failed in history.

-Nazi germany
-extreme right like in US today and moving more to right
-phenomenon of supernatural and extreme religious
-socialism in one country
-Stalin tyrant days
-China

When the Soviets started they thought it start in one nation and spread to others nations with out this opposing force.If you remove the UK,US and Nazi germany the world would be 100 % communist .

The problem with socialism in one country is the country is isolated from other very hostile country that will not trade fair or at all and will spread propagada to destroy the country and thus you need censorship to stop the propagada .Just look at Cuba the US embargo and other not fair trade and US that tried to invade Cuba.You also have to look at capitalist do not want to do businesses with them or set up shops that is not own by them and the money is not going to the capitalist .And you also have to look at the US propagada .

Other thing is China that started of has communist and is now capitalism with a ruling class.Other thing that left a bad image was the Stalin tyrant days and North korea.

The Nazi germany and extreme right tried to stop the left and how they did it where political and economic .Also using the army and propagada .

[Gerald Krasner]

I am not sure as to the exact accuracy of the things you talk about, however, I am sure that moves Lenin made did indeed encourage bureaucracy etc. However it is important to place this in its historical context and look at it in a dialectical way. Bureaucracy is not some absolute evil, equally evil for all times and places and therefore to be condemed at all opportunities. Bureaucracy itself is in fact a necessary historical outcome of certain conditions, epecially nations where the class struggle cannot be resolved by capitalism and thus a mighty (bonapartist) state institution mediates between the two, suffocating both classes at the same time, whilst itself constantly undermining its own position by ultimately strengthening the ruling class by defending private property.

Although bureacracy in USSR was of course not sitting between capitalists and workers, as capitalism was dead, we can see that its role consisted in mediating between the workers who had taken power, but whose depressed material situation prevented them from actually effectively wielding it, and the capitalist counter-revotion. Hence the dicisive victory of the bureaucracy's position was really a result of particularly the devastating Civil War.

Lenin and Trotsky of course would have been loathe to give more power over to the bureaucracy and away from the working class who they had tirelessly fought for over decades, however Lenin was a reallist and not a utopian. Worker's democracy and the building of socialism are not abstract ideals sent from heaven or the mind which must be arbitrarily stuck to at all moments, but are the final, heroic outcomes of millenia of brutal class struggle. They therefore have very real historically necessary conditions, without which they cannot exist. Trotsky said that "socialism needs democracy as a body oxygen", and likewise workers democracy needs high productivity and a confident, organised working class, both of which are clearly lacking in Russia in 1920s and for which no amount of heroic adventurism from individuals could bring back. Therefore, it would be unfair and utopian to blame Lenin's actions upon himself, as if they were simply subjective mistakes with no objective restrictions and determinants - the hand of history unfortunately forced Lenin to use bureaucratic measures to fight of the brutal and reactionary counter-revolution, because without the mass movement of a confident working class these were the only means at his disposal. It is a sad fact of history but one that must be placed in its context.

Dan

[fire_mat99]

[I am not sure as to the exact accuracy of the things you talk about, however, I am sure that moves Lenin made did indeed encourage bureaucracy etc. However it is important to place this in its historical context and look at it in a dialectical way. Bureaucracy is not some absolute evil, equally evil for all times and places and therefore to be condemed at all opportunities.

What I was trying to say is Lenin did not know what Stalin was like and what he was going to do or the power of the state and did NOT understand extreme right like Nazi Germany,extreme right like in the US today and UK.

What I'm trying to say is people today that want communism WILL HAVE TO look at history and fix the problems or history will repeat.If you make a communism state now than how do you stop other tyrant like Stalin or an other China,North Korea or state abuse ?

How do you deal wilth extreme right like in the US today or the UK ? How do you deal with propaganda from the US? What do you do if you have a US embargo or not good trade?

What do you do if  businesses from a other country say yes I will buy this from you if you do this for me? How do you deal with the bourgeoisie or  potential bourgeoisie

Bureaucracy itself is in fact a necessary historical outcome of certain conditions, epecially nations where the class struggle cannot be resolved by capitalism and thus a mighty (bonapartist) state institution mediates between the two, suffocating both classes at the same time, whilst itself constantly undermining its own position by ultimately strengthening the ruling class by defending private property.

No bourgeoisie is bad they own the means of producing wealth and is regarded as exploiting the working class.

Although bureacracy in USSR was of course not sitting between capitalists and workers, as capitalism was dead, we can see that its role consisted in mediating between the workers who had taken power, but whose depressed material situation prevented them from actually effectively wielding it, and the capitalist counter-revotion. Hence the dicisive victory of the bureaucracy's position was really a result of particularly the devastating Civil War.

The commuinist party ministers became CEO they ran and control stuff in the USS and became a bourgeoisie.

[fire_mat99]

Lenin and Trotsky of course would have been loathe to give more power over to the bureaucracy and away from the working class who they had tirelessly fought for over decades, however Lenin was a reallist and not a utopian. Worker's democracy and the building of socialism are not abstract ideals sent from heaven or the mind which must be arbitrarily stuck to at all moments, but are the final, heroic outcomes of millenia of brutal class struggle.

How can yo say Lenin or trotsky was fightin with the working class or give power to the bourgeoisie?

They therefore have very real historically necessary conditions, without which they cannot exist. Trotsky said that "socialism needs democracy as a body oxygen", and likewise workers democracy needs high productivity and a confident, organised working class, both of which are clearly lacking in Russia in 1920s and for which no amount of heroic adventurism from individuals could bring back.

Well because the commuinist party ministers became the rulling class.

Therefore, it would be unfair and utopian to blame Lenin's actions upon himself, as if they were simply subjective mistakes with no objective restrictions and determinants - the hand of history unfortunately forced Lenin to use bureaucratic measures to fight of the brutal and reactionary counter-revolution, because without the mass movement of a confident working class these were the only means at his disposal. It is a sad fact of history but one that must be placed in its context.

The thing is you have to look at history and come up with a fix to the problems.

[goat414]

One thing about censorship in the USSR that is not commonly know is that Stalin censored some 40% of Lenins writings, I have found that most stalists turn pale when i tell them that......

[fire_mat99]

One thing about censorship in the USSR that is not commonly know is that Stalin censored some 40% of Lenins writings, I have found that most stalists turn pale when i tell them that......

I'm sure Stalin censored any thing that was going to get him out of power.