what the different between socialism and communism

[caesarscook]

It's not a question of semantics.  LENIN uses the term vanguard in its dual meaning, which was the point Volkov was making, which you 100% missed.  The "vanguard state" is not "Lenin's version of vanguardism" which was Volkov's point. 

In the quote from Outofthenight, you will see him quote Lenin about the "vanguard of the oppressed" organizing THEIR state.  Volkov was clarifying that, in this reference, Lenin was referring to the working class and NOT the party.  But you read Volkov (as you have or have not read Lenin) through your own lens.  It's not semantic, that is to say: my argument is not "Lenin never used the phrase 'Vanguard State' (although he didn't), therefore you're wrong," rather it is that the definition you are using for "Vanguard State" is totally alien to everything he ever wrote.  He never argues theoretically for a one-party state, or even allows for the idea prior to 1918.  And I would add that you claimed he did in What is to Be Done?, which leads me to my next point.

As for "interpretation" of Lenin, I suggest you read my suggestions and you will find there is no "interpretation" involved.  Lenin was always quite explicit.  If you actually read WITBD? and came out with the conclusions that you have, then you clearly didn't understand it, as you seemed to think he calls for a one-party state somewhere in there (?!?!?!).  You shouldn't play as if you "mispoke" or something.  You simply got caught in a lie, which is at least two, counting that "millions" from the Cheka garbage.  I notice you skirted over that one, aside from some bizarre conspiracy theory and some reference to them being the same as the KGB and the GPU (you left out the NKVD), which shows you know nothing about the history of any of these organizations.  You know, you should just admit when you are caught red-handed.

"Allow me to repeat me argument. I do not support Vanguardism, as the interest of the revolutionary leaders will seep over into the Worker State, and turn it into a Vanguard State. I do not support the "Worker State" as it calls for militarism, state run capitalism and vindicates organizations like the Ghulag, Cheka and political repression. You say Lenin didn't call for a one party state, but I think his words indite themselves in his argument that the are "enemies of the people" present in political opposition."

This is so confused it's hopeless.  Someone else is going to have to take up this muddled mess.

"If this is not enough, if you don't see the flaws in his arguments, which you obviously don't, allow us to examine action. It was not Stalin, but Lenin and Trotsky who first shot strikers, banned left papers, radical organizations and party factions, sent workers and revolutionaries to the gulags, advocated and introduced one-man management and piece-work in the workplace, eliminated democracy in the military and shut down soviets who elected the 'wrong' delegates."

Ah yes, losing the Civil War would have been much better.  Do you know what happened to members of the soviets, anarchists, bolsehviks, mensheviks alike, when the Whites took a city?  If you don't see the need to increase production of war materials in order to win the bloody civil war, and to requisition food from the country to feed the starving cities, then I'm afraid I can't help you. 

As for the banning of factions, that's a very interesting separate discussion (almost worthy of a new thread), which is tied to the trade union debate at the 10th Congress.  I would, however, briefly add that the leaders of the banned faction, the Workers Opposition, were added to the CC in order to continue the discussion of the Congress, and that the Workers Opposition actually adjourned the congress so that they could go help the Red Army put down the Kronstadt Rebellion (to cut across any potential link you may want to try to make between these two things).  As for the "banning of leftist papers," I suggest you read Serge on that point.  He discusses which were banned and why and for how long, more details than your likely to get from usual anarchist propaganda.

On the question of other parties, as they were progressive banned (and unbanned) some leading Bolsheviks gave a theoretical basis for this, not just as a temporary measure, but as a historical necessity, in some of their writings (Zinoviev comes to mind).  This was not some part of Bolshevik theory, but rather was a product of its theoreticians trying to come to grips with what had become an objective fact, all other political parties had turned against the Revolution.

The reason you are ignorant of the situation in Venezuela is that Chavez is hardly the revolution, however, the revolutionary process's only real political expression thus far is to be found through the PSUV.  While Chavez is not perfect, there is not a clear successor to continue the revolutionary process in the absense of the workers' being able to take power, that means the construction of alternative organs for the expression of their democratic will, which are absent at present.  The key to the revolution, of course, lies in the occupied factories movement and in the organization of communal councils to replace the bourgeois state apparatus, but you cannnot simply will these into existence. 

As to the discussion about Chavez, the reason I suggested the starting of another thread is that the discussion of term limits is actually quite complicated and cuts across this other, unrelated discussion.  It involved a general discussion of what approach should be taken towards bourgeois democracies, and a more specific discussion as to the concrete question of term limits. 

Just briefly, I would suggest that your focus on democratic principle is far too focused on individuals.  In principle, it is not "more" or "less" democratic to have term limits or not.  For example, most European countries lack term limits, the U.S. has them.  Does that make the U.S. more democratic, even on the question of who can be president?  Columbia wants to abolish term limits, as well.  The New York Times supports it in this case, but not in Venezuela.  Why?  It's really not as simple as you seem to want to make it.  As for the broader, more general discussion about bourgeois democracy, that's another thread...too big for here.

Also, your explanation about the purging of Trotskyists is just plain wrong.  Read Trotsky's articles around '23 and the final fight he waged with Lenin against Stalin's anti-democratic bureaucratism.  The Trotskyists were purged a) for support of world revolution against Stalin's "socialist in one country", b) opposition to "the bureaucratic regime" as they called it, and c) for the industrialization policy they advocated, as opposed to Stalin's continuation and deepening of the NEP.  It had absolutely nothing to do with "leaders."  Once again, you are obsessed with individuals.

On a final point, your usage of Wikipedia is not a question of the need to use commiesrus.com or any other fictional site instead.  It's simply a way of pointing out the amateur and light-minded way in which you are treating these very important questions.  Read Lenin yourself, not selections from him as chosen by Anarchist X or a wikipedia article.

[caesarscook]

Oh, and which strikers did they shoot?  Sources?  Which anarchists were raided by the Bolsheviks in "1917 killing 500"?  Would have been hard seeing as the Maximalists were still supporting the Bolsheviks in 1917 and there was a coalition government (Bolsheviks and Left-SRs) until 1918.  Do tell.  I'm dying for the details.

[Domino_Gray]

Holy sweet naggin' Mary over here!

First off, can we please get off the attacks. I'm neither ignorant and, certainly not a liar

Volkov demonstrated the definitions of Vanguardism. I saw this. They match my own. I pointed this out. I then went on to clarify that Vanguard State is implicit of Lenin's Vanguardism. There was no lie here. No misleading defamation. No missed point. Simply the argument that Vanguardism will lead to a corrupt party controlled Worker State, otherwise referred to as "Vanguard State" or an "organ of active control over the Workers and Peasants Government." Are we all caught up now, ya patronizing eejit?

"On a final point, your usage of Wikipedia is not a question of the need to use commiesrus.com or any other fictional site instead.  It's simply a way of pointing out the amateur and light-minded way in which you are treating these very important questions.  Read Lenin yourself, not selections from him as chosen by Anarchist X or a wikipedia article."

Once again, a lovely little attack on my character. I've read the book. I cited wikiquote because it's, once again, easy to reach and easy to source. Piss off

"Ah yes, losing the Civil War would have been much better.  Do you know what happened to members of the soviets, anarchists, bolsehviks, mensheviks alike, when the Whites took a city?  If you don't see the need to increase production of war materials in order to win the bloody civil war, and to requisition food from the country to feed the starving cities, then I'm afraid I can't help you. "

Yes, because what the reds did in Ukraine to the anarchists was clearly a significantly more humane approach. I also love how you equate political oppression with what is necessary to win the war. Lovely bit of good ol' thought there.

For the citation of the anarchist repression by the Cheka and evidence of Lenin's formulation of the Vanguard State I'll compile a very short list, if for nothing then to stop you from bitching for citation.
Let's start with Grigori Petrovich Maximov.
 Then we'll continue to Nestor Mahkno.
On the 5th of January of 1918, Cheka opened fire on an unarmed group of protesters, killing 21 people.
On the 29th of October 1917, the Bolshevik repressed the Petrograd Rising.
1st of November, 1917 Lenin threatens those pushing for a coalition government "go to the sailors", and forces 5 Bolshevik coalition supporters to resign.
 Immediately upon success of the revolution, you'll find the Bolshevik take exclusive control of Sovnarcom while refusing the previously agreed upon coalition adjoinment of the LSR which effectively created, a one party state.
Further, the Constituent assembly was modified by Lenin so that it should have control of the state instead of the Soviet.
 1917- newspapers begin being shut down as "bourgeoisie", effectively implementing a crack down on free speech and free press.
 1917- The exclusively Lenin controlled Sovnacrom garnishes further executive power, and states that it does not require democratic consent.
1917- The Military Revolutionary Committee is founded. From it newspapers are shutdown. Activists are arrested. Protesters and strikers are shot in cold blood
1917- Control off the Military Revolutionary Committee is passed on to the Sovnarcom .
1917- Lenin infamously uses the term "Enemy of the People" for its first applicable use. Political oppression surges. All other parties denounce such an act as fascist, but as the order comes from the exclusively Bolshevik Sovnarcom and democracy is told to fuck off, in the name of the One Party Leninist Vanguard State.
1917- The strikers of the Committee for the Salvation of Country and Revolution are sent a signed letter from Lenin  threatening "pain of Punishment" to those who did not return to work
1917- The MRC is dissolved and replaced by the Cheka, giving even more executive control, and EXCUSIVE power to the Sovnarcom and subsequently Lenin. This painfully resembled the Tsarist Ochrana
Feb 1918- Cheka are allowed to execute without judicial process!
1918- LSR veto the Cheka's right to kill non criminals. As retribution, the LSR become one of the very first non criminals to be killed by the Cheka
1918 8th of April- 26 Anarchist clubs in Moscow are VIOLENTLY shut down by the Cheka.
1918 26th of April- The anarchist clubs are again forcefully, violently and often fatally removed by the Cheka
1918 13th of June- Anarchists are deemed by Lenin to be criminal. Cheka now begin to kill Anarchists without provocation.

Here we see the suppression of the anarchists and all other political opposition. We see the supression of the free press, protest and strikers. We see the formation, by using VANGUARDISM, of the One Party State. And the only way you can argue me is that I said "Vanguard State", instead of muddying the concept with of a true "Worker state" with that which Lenin formed. Yes, the Cheka were the precedent for the murder of Trotsky.

"This is so confused it's hopeless.  Someone else is going to have to take up this muddled mess."

I think my response to this will also be my closing argument. I came here to discuss the progression of libertarian socialism and improve my beliefs, or correct false ones through pluralism. I did not come here to have some pompous blowhard attack the semantics of my statements, and call me an ignorant liar every other word. So, in ending, blow me, pissbrain

[Domino_Gray]

btw, just to reissue one last statement. Trotsky and Lenin are collectively charged with the death of 4-5 million people through mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine.

Now, I'm not a Lenin hater. Actually, I'm a supporter of Lenin for the most part. I think a lot of what he had to say had some fantastic validity. I however do not support vanguardism. I do not support the Worker State. I certainly don't support Lenin once he was given an inch of power.

[caesarscook]

Wow!  A list.  This will be fun.  Let's go through your list, which could hardly be called "sources" or "citations."  I'll place Domino Gray's points in italics:

Let's start with Grigori Petrovich Maximov.
Unfamiliar, can't find much about him.  It appears he fled Russia and lived a nice long life.  Must have been horrendous.  I'll look into it though.  It can't hurt.

Then we'll continue to Nestor Mahkno.
Covered elsewhere (http://www.marxist.com/makhno-anarchists-kronstadt-russia.htm).   Reports from inside the Ukraine show that he ran it in a very dictatorial fashion, his brigades were little more than hooligans, and his revolutionary committee carried out executions on par with the Cheka, considering the smaller scale.  And it was he that initially broke his treaty with the Reds, NOT the other way around.

On the 5th of January of 1918, Cheka opened fire on an unarmed group of protesters, killing 21 people.
Oh wait, I think I found your source (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/cheka.html), heh, nice and objective.  We'll call it "Anarchist X" for short, j/k.  It's not very well sourced.  You'd think there'd be basic details, like who, what, when, where, and why.  I'd take this more seriously if every one of your other points wasn't totally "bunk".

On the 29th of October 1917, the Bolshevik repressed the Petrograd Rising.
Uh, what?  I'm assuming you are referring to the Old Calendar, as in the new calendar the October uprising wasn't till November.  In the Old Calendar, the uprising was on the 25th, so I'll assume that's what you are talking about.  You do realize that the anarchists (Maximalists) were still on the Bolsheviks side at this time, correct?  Heh, even your own source acknowledges that this was an OFFICER and COSSACK rebellion.  Do you understand the implications of that?  That means it WAS counter-revolutionary.  No "propaganda" here, that's from an anarchist source, and they never lie.  ;)

1st of November, 1917 Lenin threatens those pushing for a coalition government "go to the sailors", and forces 5 Bolshevik coalition supporters to resign.
Ok, now you're jumping to the other calendar.  This event I'm familiar with.  You are of course referring to Zinoviev, Kamenev, and co. (Was Stalin part of this club to?  Don't remember.)  Haha.  You see, they wanted a "coalition," because they wanted to support the existing bourgeois state (i.e. oppose the uprising).  You know what the context for the "go to the sailors" threat is, right?  The Petrograd sailors were the most leftwing revolutionary elements and they did not want a coalition with the bourgeoisie.  They wanted a smashing of the state.  Lenin was "threatening" to take the case for revolution straight to them.  You'd think an "anarchist" such as you claim to be would find that a rather novel concept.  And they weren't "forced" to do anything.  Your own source doesn't even imply this.  In fact, Lenin was quite angry with Kamenev and Zinoviev in particular, who published the insurrection plans.

Immediately upon success of the revolution, you'll find the Bolshevik take exclusive control of Sovnarcom while refusing the previously agreed upon coalition adjoinment of the LSR which effectively created, a one party state.
Well, actually, this wasn't "immediate" by any stretch.  It took about a year, and it was a process that was rapidly accelerated when a renegade member of the LSR's shot Lenin.  But eh, who am I to point blame. 

Further, the Constituent assembly was modified by Lenin so that it should have control of the state instead of the Soviet.
Uh, what?  The constituent assembly was disbanded, not "modified".  And not by "Lenin" either.  Why do you keep insisting on needlessly personalizing everything?  You realize they took votes on all this stuff, right?  It's all recorded.  Lenin was often not even in the majority, albeit not in this case.  As for this case, this actually works the opposite way from how you present it here.  The CA was disbanded because the Bolsheviks argued that the soviets were a more advanced and more democratic form of government.  If you're going to defame the Bolsheviks, at least get your argument right.  (I've heard this one a million times.)  You're supposed to call them dictatorial for disbanding the CA.  Your source spouts a half-truth when they say, "it's interesting to note that the it was envisaged by the Bolsheviks that the Constituent Assembly should control the state rather than the Soviets."  The Bolsheviks actually never "preferred" this for the reasons stated above.  The soviets were clearly a more democratic form of government, but the Bolsheviks had to go through the motions of convening a CA because that's what people wanted for awhile.  When it became clear to the workers that the power was really in the soviets, they disbanded the CA, as it had outlived its usefulness.  But the scenario you cite as your example, never happened and you don't seem to fully understand what your own source is trying to say.

1917- newspapers begin being shut down as "bourgeoisie", effectively implementing a crack down on free speech and free press.
First, I think you mean "bourgeois" in this usage, but to your point, the papers banned in 1917 were actually bourgeois.  In fact, even openly counter-revolutionary Menshevik papers were functioning into 1918.  Some anarchist organizations faced some repression in 1918, particularly gun clubs, as there was significant evidence that Tsarist forces were using their openness to train counter-revolution (see Serge, who sites specific data proving this).  But as for this point, yes, bourgeois presses were confiscated and placed under public ownership.  Go figure.

1917- The exclusively Lenin controlled Sovnacrom garnishes further executive power, and states that it does not require democratic consent.
Lenin "exclusively controlled" nothing at any point.  I'll deal with SovnarKom further down.  Heh, where does he state this?  When?  Can you provide a date, an article, anything?  Of course not, because he did no such thing.

1917- The Military Revolutionary Committee is founded. From it newspapers are shutdown. Activists are arrested. Protesters and strikers are shot in cold blood
Do you even know what the MRC was?  Anarchists were represented on the MRC, which was an armed wing established by the Petrograd Soviet for the purpose of organizing the insurrection.  This is acknowledged in your own source.  Do you oppose its formation???  Why exactly???  Are you a pacifist now?  Against the smashing of the bourgeois state?  And which protesters were shot in cold blood?  None.

1917- Control off the Military Revolutionary Committee is passed on to the Sovnarcom .
"Sovnarkom" or as the rest of us call it, the council of people's commissars, included SRs in 1917, just for the record.  This will come into play later.  I suppose you are arguing that they should have left power in the hands of the provisional insurrectionary body???  The one you just said should not have existed in the first place.  Seriously?

1917- Lenin infamously uses the term "Enemy of the People" for its first applicable use. Political oppression surges. All other parties denounce such an act as fascist, but as the order comes from the exclusively Bolshevik Sovnarcom and democracy is told to fuck off, in the name of the One Party Leninist Vanguard State.
Uh, what?  I think Robespierre would disagree with this assertion on your part, heh (giving his claim to fame to Lenin, although who knows, probably pre-dated him, too).  It's interesting that you say that democracy was told to "f*ck off" in 1917, too.  I always thought that was in 1918, j/k.  Anyway, as was mentioned, Sovnarkom was not exclusively Bolshevik.  In fact, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets ELECTED the first council of people's commissars!  You can find a blow by blow account of this Congress in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World.  Anyway, I think you are referring to this point in your source: "The term "enemies of the people" was further applied to people who engaged in sale of Vodka, in programs, in sniping from houses, in looting or just in insobriety. Plunders, marauders and speculators were also termed "enemies of the people""  Heh, if you read Serge, you'll find that the Red Guards that suppressed the Vodka episode were controlled by anarchists, heh.  And they even shot people, regrettably out of necessity.  The reason is not given in your source either.  Capitalists were flooding besieged cities with cheap alcohol in the hopes of getting all the workers drunk and making the cities more easily taken.  This is acknowledged in all the sources.  As for the Cadet Party, listed in your source, they WERE enemies of the people.  They had openly come out in favor of the White Army.  How is that NOT counter-revolutionary???  Also, no one denounced anything as "fascist" as this term was not in wide usage in Russia at the time.  I have no idea where you got that, but it is just plain wrong.  The terms of abuse leveled against the Bolsheviks were "Jacobins" or "Blanquists."  It wouldn't have even crossed people's mind to call them "fascist," that's a modern anarchist/leftist thing.

1917- The strikers of the Committee for the Salvation of Country and Revolution are sent a signed letter from Lenin  threatening "pain of Punishment" to those who did not return to work
?  Well, I can find a grand total of 4 (FOUR!) references to this committee on the whole of the Internet, all from anarchist sources (That really helps your case).  One of them (go figure) is our Anarchist X.  Lucky us.  (I'm only joking)  Well, first of all, this was a strike, by your source's own admission, organized by Mensheviks and Right-SRs (that is, the SRs that walked out of the 2nd Congress).  This is a RIGHT-WING STRIKE!!!  Why are you supporting a right-wing strike (your own source acknowledges this!)?  If there's a revolution in my country (the USA), you can bet your ass that some right-wing trade union leaders are going to call strikes.  Are we supposed to support those, too???  What if they are in an industry vital for the functioning of society?  Do you take revolution seriously or not?

1917- The MRC is dissolved and replaced by the Cheka, giving even more executive control, and EXCUSIVE power to the Sovnarcom and subsequently Lenin. This painfully resembled the Tsarist Ochrana
Hmm, I thought you said the MRC was replaced by the Sovnarcom?  It can't be both.  In fact, it was neither.  The formation of the Cheka is a complicated and uneven process, and actually initially very chaotic.  I suggest you read "Bolsheviks in Power" for an objective rundown of it (definitely not pro-Bolshevik propaganda).  You'll find that they initially were very peculiar to their locality, with some local Cheka being very ultra-left (very "off with their heads" if you know what I mean), while other Cheka branches refused to carry out ANY executions, even of known tsarist plotters.  Some areas were more corrupt and so forth.  Anyway, eventually they were brought under centralized control, but that wasn't until 1918 and it was intended to stop the chaos and fight corruption.  Lenin never had "exclusive" power over the Cheka.

Feb 1918- Cheka are allowed to execute without judicial process!
Well, in a besieged city, there's not time for judicial process, although as I said this process was uneven.  You really should read that book.  This is sort of the whole civil war justifying repression thing. Many of the anarchist workers even understood this, because they saw what happened when the Whites took a city.  Gorky's description of what they did when they captured a leftist is pretty instructive (and disgusting, I won't even repeat it here, in case anyone is eating).

1918- LSR veto the Cheka's right to kill non criminals. As retribution, the LSR become one of the very first non criminals to be killed by the Cheka
The Left SR's were not banned until after the assassination attempt later that year, not in response to their attitude to executions.  And even then, a huge chunk, not sure if it was a majority or not, split from the LSR's and formed another legal party, whose name I don't recall.  They certainly weren't summarily executed, as you seem to imply.  Your source is just plain lying on this point.  There's plenty of hard evidence to the contrary.

1918 8th of April- 26 Anarchist clubs in Moscow are VIOLENTLY shut down by the Cheka.
Serge described this in his book, "Year One," in great detail (www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/index.htm).  I'm not going to bother repeating him, as he does a better job than me.  You are of course referring to the gun clubs incidents.  The fact that I know specifically what you are referring to off the top of my head should give you some indication of just how few acts of repression there actually were.  Anyway, read the Serge book, search for "The Repression (or suppression, don't remember) of the Anarchists" or something like that.

1918 26th of April- The anarchist clubs are again forcefully, violently and often fatally removed by the Cheka
Ditto.  And you realize that the vast majority of the gun clubs that were "suppressed" were allowed to legally have their publications back in circulation within days, right?

1918 13th of June- Anarchists are deemed by Lenin to be criminal. Cheka now begin to kill Anarchists without provocation.
What?  First of all, if you're going to use a source and not cite it, you should at least give THEIR  statement accurate: "Yet on the 13 June, secret documents outlined that the department for counter revolution investigative section and intelligence unit had sections allocated to dealing with anarchists."  So, it was not "Lenin," but the Cheka.  They are not the same thing. Now, whether there were bodies to "deal with the anarchists" or not, I have no clue.  But no anarchists were killed "without provocation" and anarchism was certainly not "deemed criminal" by Lenin or by anyone else.  Hell, Lenin had Kropotkin over for a friendly fireside chat in 1918 if memory serves.  Your source's citation of the public statement by Dzershinsky that "the Cheka had nether the mandate or the desire to wage war on ideological anarchists," is in all its fundamentals correct.


In conclusion, I see no evidence of a Lenin's formation of a "Vanguard State", but a chaotic, confused, and uneven process.  And "repression" is probably overstating your evidence.  You show me a genuine revolution (a change in property relations) in history that was LESS bloody.  You won't find one.  As for your obsession, on the petty semantic side of my argument, that was NOT my argument, as I tried to make clear, and it certainly wasn't "the only way can argue" you.  In fact, all of your points are answered one by one.

If you will go through my posts, you'll see that I never called you ignorant, but point out that you are ignorant about your subject matter.  Your biggest fault appears to be your very strong opinions about things you know little to nothing about.  Because of this, it's hard to take seriously your claim that you came here to "correct false beliefs" or to challenge your pre-conceived notions when you have made no attempt to do either.  I, also, was initially very conservative about my claims as to your honesty.  "You seem like a pretty honest fellow"  "I fear your source is lying to you" etc.  But your total unwillingness to acknowledge you were wrong on basic points when you were called on them, to me, came off as dishonest.  This is when I began accusing you of lying.  Now, that I've found your source data, I actually feel kind of sorry for you and take back my claims as to your dishonesty.  You really should look elsewhere...anywhere.

[caesarscook]

btw, just to reissue one last statement. Trotsky and Lenin are collectively charged with the death of 4-5 million people through mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine.

Charged by whom?  The Black Book of Communism?  Anarchists?  Well, that number clearly includes deaths from the Civil War and Civil War induced famines, so that's hardly fair.  "State-caused" famine.  I can only assume you are referring to the hoarding of grain in the countryside by "get rich" minded peasants, which caused starvation in the cities, and then when corrective measures were taken to feed the cities, the famine caused in the countryside.  Can this really be termed "state-caused" more like capitalist-mindset caused or civil war caused.  Either one of those rather imprecise formulations seems more fair.  Also, there were no "death camps" under Lenin and Trotsky.  While the terminology was the same (gulag, which means roughly prison), the gulags under Lenin and Trotsky bore virtually no resemblance to the gulags of the 1930s.  Don't take my word for it, research it.

[BPsocialist]

BTW I think this thread should be in advanced thoery.

[caesarscook]

BTW I think this thread should be in advanced thoery.

I agree and as soon as I can figure out how to do so, I'll move it.  It also needs divided into multiple threads too.  A) Anarchism and the Early Workers' State, B) Chavez, Term Limits, and Bourgeois Democracy, C) Morality: Bourgeois and Ours, and D) The Trade Union Debate at the 10th Party Congress.  These are all very different topics that have all been mashed together into this one thread, none of which have much to do with the original question, which itself has little to do with "Introduce Yourself!".  I know I'm an "admin," but I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to message board moderating.  I'll see if I can't figure it out.

[BPsocialist]

Way-hay, staff I can walk all over!!! : )

[Domino_Gray]

Well, first off when I say words like Vanguard State and fascist, they're words that play in my head and I superimpose them. It's a really nasty habit. I recognize that's my error.

I also recognize your knowledge of Russian history VASTLY exceeds my own. As a result, I've found myself sourcing from unverifiable sources, which is humiliating to say to least.

There are key points however that i think need more addressing. I do not support the repression of the right wing. Repression is repression. The term "Enemies of the people" is nothing more than vindication, as it assumes they are the exclusive Vanguard of the People.

Now I think I've enough of putting my foot in my mouth for one week. I've been careless with my words and equally careless with where my flow of information stemmed from. I think I've some extra reading to do when it comes to some of the History of Russia. Not for the sake of conceding to the commie cry for vanguardism or the worker state(don't get your hopes up. I'm not that embarrassed just yet). Just so I've a thicker leg to stand on.

[caesarscook]

Well, first off when I say words like Vanguard State and fascist, they're words that play in my head and I superimpose them. It's a really nasty habit. I recognize that's my error.

I also recognize your knowledge of Russian history VASTLY exceeds my own. As a result, I've found myself sourcing from unverifiable sources, which is humiliating to say to least.

There are key points however that i think need more addressing. I do not support the repression of the right wing. Repression is repression. The term "Enemies of the people" is nothing more than vindication, as it assumes they are the exclusive Vanguard of the People.

Now I think I've enough of putting my foot in my mouth for one week. I've been careless with my words and equally careless with where my flow of information stemmed from. I think I've some extra reading to do when it comes to some of the History of Russia. Not for the sake of conceding to the commie cry for vanguardism or the worker state(don't get your hopes up. I'm not that embarrassed just yet). Just so I've a thicker leg to stand on.

I appreciate your honesty.  Do a wide variety of reading and come to your own conclusions.  It's healthy.

[Universal]

The difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is the lower form of communism. Socialism sweeps away the burgesses society and then communism comes and creates the classless state where everyone works together.