Sie sind auf Seite 1von 72

FEbruary 1917 and August 1947- Reply to Indian Maoist April 25, 2011 at 11:13am

Dear Abhinav

of revolution from German Marxism, copiously. In fact, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky

before Lenin it is Plekhanov, who imported the ‘two stage theory’

much

all agreed that the forthcoming revolution in Russia was bourgeois-democratic in essence.

The dispute was this: Plekhanov and behind him Mensheviks thought that working class is numerically weak in Russia, therefore the first turn was for bourgeois to take power and carry out a democratic revolution. Lenin thought that bourgeois cannot take power in the forthcoming revolution as it is too weak to carry out a democratic revolution, and therefore the bourgeois-democratic revolution would bring a combined dictatorship of workers and peasants to power. So even though Lenin adhered to two- stage theory of revolution, but it was different from the Menshevik formula.

Trotsky disputed these propositions, proposing that the Russian revolution would bring the dictatorship of the proletariat to power, even before it could take power in Europe.

As bourgeois came to power in February revolution through Kerensky regime, instead of workers and peasants, the old Leninist formula was discredited.

Bourgeois established its power in February revolution, by default as both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks supported the provisional government for their own reasons. Mensheviks supported it for obvious reason as they thought that bourgeois is legitimate claimant to power, as it was its turn to take power at first stage of the two stage revolution. All Bolshevik leaders except Lenin, supported the Kerensky regime, without qualification, as they look at the February regime as the combined dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. That’s why Pravda under Stalin continued to issue appeals to workers and peasants to elect their representatives to the provisional government.

Lenin was alone in Bolshevik party to oppose the Kerensky regime as the regime of bourgeois. As Lenin pointed out bourgeois without any real power, succeeded to establish the power because working class failed to take it in February. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and behind them the Working class was misled by the two stage theory, to believe that it cannot establish its dictatorship. So the February regime was not historically legitimate.

This is somewhat, that happened in 1947, with bourgeois coming to power without any resistance from working class, rather the CPI collaborating with Nehru regime. Brief resistance in Telangana and its line was severely criticized by Stalin. Bourgeois neither could have taken power nor it could take the revolution further.

When you say that 1947 represented first stage of revolution, to fit in your stagist theory as democratic revolution, you may intend or not, but you attribute a revolutionary role to Indian bourgeois, and impliedly to British colonialists also, being the chief architects of 1947 regime. It was not a democratic revolution, but strangulation of it at the hands of colonialists with national bourgeois betraying the freedom movement.

Neither 1947 represents a democratic revolution, nor there was or is any place of such democratic revolution in any form whatsoever. Only conceivable revolution could have been and can be carried out under the leadership of the working class and can succeed only with working class establishing its dictatorship supported by peasantry.

Your idea that the bourgeois measures like land reforms through laws carried out upto 1970 and all that represent half way solution to the democratic tasks, is absolutely absurd and makes you the cheerleaders for bourgeois, may be half-hearted, after the CPI . On the contrary, bourgeois measures have deepened the contradictions and aggravated the crisis in agriculture to its zenith, instead of presenting a solution to it.

Your proposition that 1947 represents the first stage, though in a distorted way, i.e. democratic revolution- is not only politically flawed but is through and through reactionary and grossly opportunist. All democratic tasks- question of nationalities, caste, poverty, medievalism, land reforms, etc. remain unresolved and fall essentially to the share of proletariat. Impending revolution in India is bourgeois-democratic in essence so far as it faces these huge tasks, but it is socialist as it would be headed by proletariat and proletariat would establish its dictatorship. However, there is no steel was to separate the democratic tasks from the socialist ones, so unlike Stalinists and Maoists we propose that the victorious proletariat would enter upon socialist tasks in a permanent revolution while finishing the democratic tasks. The two merge in one upon the proletariat taking to power.

Share

4 people like this.



Gerald Joseph Downing The following extract from Workers Power’s 2007 series is very good, in my view, as it shows that when Lenin arrived back In Petersburg in April 1917 although the entire Central Committee of the Bolsheviks were supporting the two stage revolution and the Provisional Government in the second level of leadership and in the ranks of the party, particularly in the industrial centre of the city, Vyborg, they were already demanding the prosecution of the revolution to its conclusion, which Lenin articulated in the April Theses. : “by mid-March rank and file worker Bolshevik cells in the Vyborg district were voting for calls to expel the Pravda leadership from the party”.

And it should be pointed that if two stage revolutions was so wrong in 1917 and 1947 that it is still wrong in Egypt, Libya, Syria etc today. Workers Power advocates a

‘democratic

revolution’

in

this

entire

region

now.

http://www.workerspower.com/

/56/tinyurl.com/index.php

The Russian Bureau of the exiled Central Committee – comprising Alexander Shlyapnikov, Vyacheslav Molotov and P A Zalutsky – veered between several different positions. At first they called for Provisional Revolutionary Government to be formed, from above, by the parties represented on the Soviet executive. Its agenda was to be confined to the “three whales” of Russian Social Democracy’s minimum programme:

the eight-hour day, the democratic republic and the confiscation of landed estates and their transfer to the peasantry, as well as preparing a constituent assembly.

Once again the perspective was of a purely democratic stage, beyond which the revolution could not go. Indeed initially this led them to ban leaflets issued by the more “left” Vyborg district calling for the formation of a soviet-based government from below. However this perspective of a pact with the other Soviet parties ran into a major obstacle. The Mensheviks and SRs, far from wanting to participate in a workers government with the Bolsheviks, wanted to enter one with the bourgeois parties, the Constitutional Democrats (Cadets) and the even more conservative Octobrists. Both of these parties wanted to carry on the war effort at all costs.

The rapid realisation of this fact pushed the Russian Bureau to the left and by 22 March it was characterising the Soviets as the embryos of a new state power.

It was the editorial board of the Bolshevik daily paper Pravda that occupied the most right-wing stance within Bolshevism. Edited by Joseph Stalin, M N Muranov and Lev Kamenev, the paper declared on 7 March: “As far as we are concerned, what matters now is not the overthrow of capitalism but the overthrow of autocracy and feudalism.”

Stalin reasoned: “The Provisional Government has, in fact, assumed the role of

At present, it is not in our

defender of the conquests of the revolutionary people

interest to force events by hastening the eviction of bourgeois strata who, inevitably,

will

us.”

one

day

detach

themselves

from

On 15 March, Kamenev used Pravda’s pages to advocate conditional support for Russia’s war effort now that the autocracy had been overthrown. Small wonder then that by mid-March rank and file worker Bolshevik cells in the Vyborg district were voting for calls to expel the Pravda leadership from the party.

This confusion was partly a product of the contradictions of Bolshevism’s previous position that the bourgeois revolution, though it should be led by the workers and peasants (unlike the Mensheviks who insisted the bourgeoisie must lead it) must end

in a “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”. This government was to constitute a self-limited stage, distinct from the socialist revolution. Yet February 1917 saw the logic of the mobilised masses’ demands pushing beyond the minimum programme of the democratic republic. The soviets, militia and factory committees were the embryo of a new type of state, whose content was working class democracy, transcending the limits and forms of bourgeois democracy.

In their own particular ways the contending Bolshevik factions were either attempting to limit the struggle to the terrain of democratic demands (the Petrograd Committee and Pravda) or were striving to go beyond this (Vyborg and the Russian Bureau), but were as yet incapable of consistently posing this as a programmatic goal.

Shock

at

Finland

station

Lenin announced his change of position publicly immediately on his return from exile to everyone at the reception at the Finland Station. The Menshevik Chkheidze, at the head of the Petrograd Soviet’s official welcoming party, pleaded with Lenin to play his

part

in

“the

closing

of

the

democratic

ranks”.

Lenin, to his consternation, ignored his words and declared to the crowd: “The world-

wide socialist revolution has already

capitalism may crash. The Russian Revolution accomplished by you has paved the way and opened a new epoch. Long live the world-wide socialist revolution.”

Any day now the whole of European

It was Lenin who was able to transcend the limitations of the old Bolshevik programme and perspective. And it is testimony to the vitality and strength of the Bolshevik cadres, as historically constituted since 1903, as well as to the open and democratic debate in the party that led to its programmatic re-armament at the crucial hour.

This refutes the Stalinist myth that Bolshevism was always monolithic, that temporary factions and factional struggle were alien to it. Likewise it refutes the Menshevik and anarchist dogma that Bolshevism was rigid and inflexible, incapable of learning from the revolutionary masses. It is, in short, the practical proof of the correctness of democratic centralism – ensuring full democratic debate and then a focused and

disciplined

carrying

out

of

a

decision once taken.

Why had Lenin changed his perspective on the historic tasks which the Russian Revolution could accomplish? His writings during the war, especially Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) led him to see that Russia was one, albeit exceptionally weak, link in the chain of world imperialism. It was not just a backward country – it was one entire historic stage behind Western Europe, thus awaiting its bourgeois revolution in order to progress to capitalism. Of necessity, therefore, the programme of an ongoing Russian Revolution could no longer be conceived of in the

terms of an isolated national and democratic revolution, but instead as a component of the international revolution against capitalism itself. April 25, 2011 at 12:21pm



Dave Bedggood Rajesh I gree with you that India's 'independence' was nothing of the sort it was a reactionary decolonisation. Partition destroyed national unification and entrenched and caste divisions. On the general point of 2 stage revolution. I think you need to emphasise why the national bourgeoisie is too weak to make a bourgeois revolution in the epoch of imperialism. The imperialists had already partitioned and repartitioned the world by 1917. Russia was a special sort of imperialism under the Tsar (according to Lenin a special form of state monopoly finance capital), and the February revolution did fall to the bourgeoisie by default and could only stay in power in a bloc with imperialism. Lenin understood this because he had theorised imperialism. This bears on those who argue today that national bourgeois in colonies and semi-colonies have any interest in fighting imperialism. They don't. So any military bloc with them against imperialism is premised on a political bloc, a popular front, such as Downing and the 'third worldists' make with Gaddifi. April 25, 2011 at 3:44pm · 2



Rajesh Tyagi I am so thankful to you comrades gerald joseph and dave bedggood April 25, 2011 at 3:48pm



Abhinav Sinha Every revolution is a part and component of the proletarian revolution against the global capitalist system. That doesn't make Lenin a party to the Trotskyite theory of world revolution. Secondly, what Com. Gerald Joseph has written in his reply, overlooks and quotes Lenin selectively. Lenin himself believed that what the Bolshevik Party accomplished in Russia was a two stage revolution. Here is what Lenin stated in the "Report on Work in the Countryside" adopted by the Bolshevik Party's eighth congress:

"In October 1917 we seized power together with the peasants as a whole. This was a bourgeois revolution, in as much as the class struggle in the rural districts had not yet developed. As I have said, the real proletarian revolution in the rural districts began only in the summer of 1918. Had we not succeeded in stirring up this revolution our work would have been incomplete. The first stage was the seizure of power in the cities and the establishment of the Soviet form of government. The second stage was one which is fundamental for all socialists and without which socialists are not socialists, namely, to single out the proletarian and semi-proletarian elements in the rural districts and to ally them to the proletariat in order to wage the struggle against the bourgeoisie in the countryside. This stage is also in the main completed." Clearly enough, the tasks of democratic and socialist revolution were not mixed from the very beginning and Lenin sees clear-cut two stages of revolution.

April 25, 2011 at 11:15pm



Abhinav Sinha Here is another quote from Lenin which clearly demonstrate Lenin's belief in the two-stage theory: "The complete victory of the present revolution will mark the end of the democratic revolution and the beginning of a determined struggle for a socialist revolution. Satisfaction of the present-day demands of the peasantry, the utter rout of reaction and the achievement of a democratic republic will mark the utter limit of the revolutionism of the [peasant] bourgeoisie, and even that of the petty bourgeoisie, and the beginning of the proletariat's real struggle for socialism. The more complete the democratic revolution, the sooner, the more widespread, the cleaner, and the more determined will the development of this new struggle be. The slogan of a "democratic" dictatorship [of the workers and peasants DL] expresses the historically limited nature of the present [democratic] revolution and the necessity of a new struggle on the basis of the new order for the complete emancipation of the working class from all oppression and all exploitation. In other words, when the democratic bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie ascends another step, when not only the revolution but the complete victory of the revolution becomes an accomplished fact, we shall "change" (perhaps amid the horrified cries of new and future Martynovs) the slogan of the democratic dictatorship to the slogan of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the full socialist revolution." April 25, 2011 at 11:15pm



Abhinav Sinha The main problem with the Trotskyite theory is that it takes the seizure of state power by the working class as the definition of socialist revolution. Thats wrong! The seizure of state power by working class doesn't necessarily establish a Socialist System. Thats what we call deductive method. We cannot deduce the character of the Social Formation by the character of the state. April 25, 2011 at 11:23pm



Abhinav Sinha Look what Lenin writes about the two-stage revolution in 1918 (Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky) : "The Bolsheviks remained loyal to Marxism and never tried (in spite of Kautsky, who without a scrap of evidence, accuses us of doing so) to "skip" the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Bolsheviks, first of all, helped the most radical, most revolutionary of the bourgeois-democratic ideologists of the peasants, those who stood closest to the proletariat, namely the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, to carry out what was in effect nationalisation of the land. On October 26, 1917, i.e., on the very first day of the proletarian, socialist revolution, private ownership of land was abolished in Russia. This laid the foundation, the most perfect from the point of view of the development of capitalism (Kautsky cannot deny this without breaking with Marx), and at the same time created an agrarian system which is the most flexible from the point of view of the

transition to socialism. From the bourgeois-democratic point of view, the revolutionary peasants in Russia could go no further: there can be nothing "more ideal" from this point of view, nothing "more radical" (from this same point of view) than nationalisation of the land and equal land tenure. It was the Bolsheviks, and only the Bolsheviks, who, thanks only to the victory of the proletarian revolution, helped the peasants to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution really to its conclusion. And only in this way did they do the utmost to facilitate and accelerate the transition to the socialist revolution." April 25, 2011 at 11:24pm



Abhinav Sinha I guess that to show a marriage between Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" and Lenin, the Trotskyites today burn a lot of calories to show that Lenin disowned the two stage theory, which in fact was a contribution of Lenin to the general strategy and tactics of proletarian revolution. April 25, 2011 at 11:25pm · 1



Abhinav Sinha Writing in November 1918, a year after the coming to power of a workers and peasants' government in Russia, Lenin explained that the proletarian revolution created the foundation for the "most perfect" development of capitalism precisely because it helped the peasants "to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution really to its conclusion" by nationalising the land and thus turning it into a commodity, i.e., making it available to be rented from the state. April 25, 2011 at 11:26pm



Abhinav Sinha For understanding the difference between Trotsky's theory of "Permanent Revolution" and Lenin's two stage theory, read an article on the following link: http://links.org.au/node/141 April 25, 2011 at 11:30pm



Abhinav Sinha Lenin's two stage theory does not simply mean that first we will have a democratic revolution and then a socialist one. It specifically says that in the stage of Imperialism, the national bourgeoisie in the backward capitalist countries, colonial and semi-colonial countries is either not in a position, or not willing to fulfill the democratic task and therefore the initiative has to be taken by the proletariat. Thus, the theory of PDR, under the leadership of proletariat and by an alliance between the peasantry and proletariat. This revolution will establish what Lenin called a 'democratic dictatorship'. Only after the accomplishment of this stage can we move towards the second stage. In the theory of PDR, there is no wall of China between the two stages. But there ARE two stages. Thats the basic tenet of the two stage theory of Lenin. April 25, 2011 at 11:35pm



Abhinav Sinha Lenin estimated that workersí uprisings in the West, especially in Germany would be helpful to the Russian revolution. But when these failed, he became even more determined to encourage the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the East and place them within the framework of the world proletarian revolution. Thus, soon after the victory of the October revolution, he proceeded to form the Third International in 1919 in order to promote the building of proletarian revolutionary parties in both the imperialist countries and the dominated countries.

On the occasion of the first anniversary of the Third International at a meeting of the

said,

Moscow

soviet

in

1920,

Lenin

"In the early period of the revolution many entertained the hope that the socialist revolution would begin in Western Europe immediately when the imperialist war ended; at the same time when the masses were armed there could have been a successful revolution in some of the Western countries as well. It could have taken place had it not been for the split within the proletariat of Western Europe being deeper and the treachery of the former socialist leaders greater than had been imagined."

Lenin wrote the preliminary draft theses on the national and colonial questions and on the agrarian question for the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920.

At the Congress, he delivered the report on the national and colonial questions, where

he

made

the

following

important points:

1.

It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic

movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consists of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relations. It would be utopian to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can emerge from them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without giving it effective support.

2. It will readily be understood that peasants living in conditions of semifeudal dependence can easily assimilate and give effect to the idea of Soviet organization. It is also clear that the oppressed masses, those who are exploited, not only by merchant capital but also by the feudalists, and by a state based on feudalism, can apply this weapon, this type of organization, in their conditions too. The idea of Soviet organization is a simple one and is applicable, not only to proletarian, but also to

peasant

feudal

and

semifeudal

relations.

3. The question was posed as follows: are we to consider as correct the assertion that

the capitalist stage of economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance towards progress is to be seen since the war. We replied in the negative. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments

come to their aid with all the means at their disposal--in that event it will be erroneous to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of development.

Trotsky betrayed the Bolshevik revolution by stubbornly seeking to make it dependent on the workersí uprisings in Germany and in other imperialist countries, and by being

contemptible of the oppressed nations and peoples, especially the peasantry in Russia and other backward countries and by failing to understand and attacking the theory

and

practice

of

the two-stage revolution.

Faithful to the legacy of Lenin, Stalin stood forthrightly for socialism in one country, availing of every possible support not only from the proletariat in imperialist countries but also from the oppressed peoples and nations outside the imperialist countries. And he paid close attention to the work of the Third International.

The propagation of the two-stage revolution by Lenin and Stalin would bear abundant fruit in the form of peopleís democracies in Asia and Eastern Europe after World War II. The colonies and semicolonies proved to be the more fertile ground for the victory of the armed revolution led by the proletariat than in the imperialist countries.

The peopleís democracy in China was the most important of the revolutionary crop because of the huge population and size of the country and more importantly because here was to be seen the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to socialism and the heroic effort to consolidate socialism against revisionism and the danger of capitalist restoration. The Chinese revolution under Mao Zedongís leadership grew in importance as modern revisionism took hold of the Soviet Union starting in 1956. April 25, 2011 at 11:43pm



Abhinav Sinha Today, in most of the countries, that are weak links, hot spots and flash lights of revolution, the first stage of democratic task has been fulfilled. These countries like Turkey, Mexico, Egypt and also India, the democratic tasks have been fulfilled. In a number of these countries these tasks have not been fulfilled in a revolutionary way, but a gradual process after the transfer of power from the colonialists into the hands of the bourgeoisie. April 25, 2011 at 11:45pm



Abhinav Sinha "It was the Bolsheviks who strictly differentiated between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution: by carrying the former through, they opened the door for the transition to the latter. This was the only policy that was revolutionary and Marxist." (V.I. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, November 1918)

April 25, 2011 at 11:48pm



Abhinav Sinha Lenin first formulated the political line contained in the April Theses while he was in exile in Switzerland in a series of letters written between March 7 (March 20) and March 26 (April , 1917, which were only published for the first time in 1924. And yet before Stalin and Kamenev arrived back in Petrograd on March 13 (March 26), 1917, the Bolshevik leadership inside Russia, basing itself on the perspectives that they had always fought for (the "democratic dictatorship"), had set out a political line which was fundamentally identical to the one which Lenin presented in his April Theses. The proof of this is the following comment by Lenin, written on March 15-16 (March 28-29) for a lecture which he gave to Swiss workers in Zurich:

"The papers have published an extract from the Manifesto of our Central Committee, issued in St. Petersburg on March 18 [March 5 Old Style -- DL]. It demands a democratic republic, the eight-hour day, confiscation of the landed estates and their

transfer to the peasants, confiscation of grain stocks, immediate peace negotiations, conducted not by the government of Guchkov and Milyukov, but by the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. This Soviet, in the view of the Manifesto, is the real revolutionary government (Lenin added that The Times correspondent, too, speaks of two governments in Russia). Peace negotiations are to be conducted not with the bourgeois governments, but with the proletariat of all the warring countries. The Manifesto calls upon all workers, peasants, and soldiers to elect delegates to the

Soviet

of

Workers'

Deputies."

These are the only really socialist, really revolutionary tactics. April 26, 2011 at 12:00am



Abhinav Sinha A lot of Trotskyites argue that in 'April Theses' Lenin disowned the theory of two stage revolution. But the truth is that from 1903 to 1919 the Bolshevik Party was following the program of Democratic Revolution. Lenin's call for a 'commune

state' in the April These doesn't amount to Lenin's abandonment of two-stage theory. It becomes clearly evident from the Lenin's proposal of change in the Bolshevik program in 1919. At the April 24-29 (May 7-12), 1917 conference of the Bolshevik Party, where the perspectives outlined in the April Theses were endorsed by the big majority of the 133 voting delegates and 18 outgoing members of the Central Committee, Lenin put forward the following proposed change to the party program in his "Resolution on the

Question of

Programme":

Revising

the

Party

"Amending the theses and clauses dealing with the state; such amendment is to be in the nature of a demand for a democratic proletarian-peasant republic (i.e., a type of state functioning without police, without a standing army, and without a privileged bureaucracy), and not for a bourgeois parliamentary republic."

Lenin's resolution simply proposed changing the program to specify exactly what sort of "democratic republic", what "type of state", the Bolsheviks should fight for, i.e., a state of the Paris Commune type. At the conference Lenin pointed out that such a state "is a dictatorship, i.e., it rests not on law, not on the formal will of the majority, but on direct, open force",(36) the force of the armed proletariat and the peasantry. In speaking to the above-cited resolution, Lenin explained that "the point is not what an institution is called, but what its political character and structure is. By saying `proletarian-peasant republic', we indicate its social content and political character", i.e., it would be a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. April 26, 2011 at 12:06am



Abhinav Sinha In the above quote, you can clearly see, that even in 1919, Lenin was firm on his theory of two stage revolution. April 26, 2011 at 12:06am



Abhinav Sinha Trotskyites claim that "in the April 1917 polemical exchanges with Kamenev, Lenin, while calling for the dumping of the `democratic dictatorship'

attempted to outflank his opponent by denying that the call for a Commune State was a call for socialist revolution". Trotskyite try to "guard their back", because they knows that at the April conference Lenin put forward a "Resolution on the Current Situation"

which

stated:

"Operating as it does in one of the most backward countries of Europe amidst a vast population of small peasants, the proletariat of Russia cannot aim at immediately

putting

into

effect

socialist

changes."

Instead of such changes, Lenin advocated that upon coming to power the soviets should carry to completion the bourgeois revolution (e.g., nationalisation of the land) and introduce a series of measures transitional to the socialisation of the ownership of large-scale production (e.g., nationalisation of the banks and capitalist marketing cartels). April 26, 2011 at 12:10am



Abhinav Sinha Let's then look at how Lenin presented his perspectives in a pamphlet

written well after the debate with Kamenev had been resolved, i.e., in his September 1917 pamphlet The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It. In this pamphlet

Lenin

observed

that:

"All the belligerent countries, suffering as they are from the extreme burdens and hardships of the war, suffering -- in one degree or another -- from economic chaos and

famine, have long ago outlined, determined, applied and tested a whole series of control measures, which consist almost invariably in uniting the population and in setting up or encouraging unions of various kinds, in which state representatives participate, which are under the supervision of the state, etc

These

principal

measures

are:

(1) Amalgamation of all banks into a single bank, and state control over its operations,

or

nationalisation

of

the

banks.

(2) Nationalisation of the syndicates,

i.e.,

the

largest,

monopolistic

capitalist

associations

(sugar,

oil,

coal,

iron

and

steel,

and

other

syndicates).

(3)

Abolition

of

commercial

secrecy.

(4) Compulsory syndication (i.e., compulsory amalgamation into associations) of

industrialists,

merchants

and

employers

generally.

(5) Compulsory organisation of the population into consumers' societies, or encouragement of such organisation, and the exercise of control over it." April 26, 2011 at 12:10am

of control over it." April 26, 2011 at 12:10am  Abhinav Sinha After noting how these

Abhinav Sinha After noting how these measures were being carried out during the war in other imperialist countries (Germany, France, Britain) in a reactionary- bureaucratic manner, Lenin argued that the rampant war-profiteering of the rich could only be combatted through the imposition of such control measures by "the organisation of the oppressed classes, the workers and peasants, the masses, into unions", adding: "This requires a revolutionary dictatorship of the democracy, headed by the revolutionary proletariat". He observed that:

"What has been said so far may easily arouse the following objection on the part of a reader who has been brought up on the current opportunist ideas of the Socialist- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Most measures described here, he may say, are already in effect socialist and not democratic measures!"

Answering

such

an

objection,

Lenin

wrote:

"Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism.

"That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-

monopoly

capitalism.

"And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class -- in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state- monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

"Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

"For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

"Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

"Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy -- and then it is a step towards socialism." April 26, 2011 at 12:27am



Abhinav Sinha The long quotation of Lenin clearly shows what he believed. He never abandoned the two-stage theory. Poor Trotskyites in their attempt to show that Trotsky was the true heir of the legacy of Lenin or he was the true comrade of Lenin, desperately try to show that Lenin abandoned the two-stage theory and became a believer in the Trotskyite theory of revolution. But thats too difficult a task for them because history stands against them. April 26, 2011 at 12:40am



Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, now you have exposed the inability of Maoists to think, in

absolute terms

all

that you have quoted from lenin in your nine notes above endorses

Trotsky's theory

in

your desperation, you have forgotten what you are saying

you

are

arguing that Ocotber revolution was split in two stages??? its limit of inability to

think

listen! this is exactly what we are

saying

took a step

forward in splitting the october into two

the unfinished tasks of

and october was

bourgeois revolution were completed under proletarian dictatorship

even

mensheviks saw february and october as two stages

now

and october were not two stages

rather

u

februray

not a 'democratic dictatorship of two classes' but exclusively proletarian dictatorship

was this dictatorship which

is what lenin is

resting upon alliance of workers and poor peasants

entered upon socilaist tasks, finishing the democratic ones

it

this

saying

this

is what trotsky has argued

this

is what we are trying to nail in your

brains

this

is what you are refusing to understand

lenin's

reply to kautsky is

refutation of the same allegation which Maoists are making agaunst trotsky that he

skips the bourgeois revolution

is what we are arguing

abt indian revolution

bourgeois democratic tasks is absolute opportunism to glorify bourgeois that under its

lenin

is arguing against your positions

eactly against it

to him, but now i m so sure that you did not learn anything from Lenin n even any serious reader of the above citations from leni n would immediately come to understand that lenin is talking about october revolution and the unfinished tasks of

my laugh, you say

bourgeois revolution compelted by proletarian dictatorship

am very sure that you never read Trotsky beacuse of your aversion

that ocotber revolution is bourgeois democratic in content

assumption that countries like Egypt have completed

lenin

refutes it

can't

u understand when lenin says

this

what u have typed here

your

rule bourgeois democratic tasks are completed

I

lenin

re-read

is not arguing in favour of two stage theory but

to

october was 'democratic dictatorship' and not 'proletarian dictatorship'?? i still suggets

inductive and

deductive slogans are not going to advance ur undestanding even an inch forward on the one hand you say bolsheviks strictly differentiated between the two stages, on the

think beofre

saying

you go and read lenin at least and try to understand from him

these

just

other hand u say ther eis no chinese wall between the two

now

you have become totally self-contradictory

and

who said there would be

no democratic revolution in russia

that revolution in russia was bourgeois-democratic

tasks before it were concerned

dictatorship in october

like lenin and even mensheviks, all agreed

far as

was socilaist in its form as it brought proletariat to dictatorship was neither established in februray nor

trotsky

none

said it is socilaist

so

it

democraitc

in october

political

alliance of proletariat and peasantry is another thing, dictaorship

just other

there

cant be joint dictatorship of two socila classes

in

alliance one would

course resting

upon the alaiance of proletariat and the peasantry. you say trotskyists think that

where you deducted that??? its absolutely

the contrary it was trotsky who proposed that proletarian dictatorship

incorrect

dictate the other

october

was dictatorship of proaltariat in thsi sense

from

of

proletarian dictatorship is socilaism

on

would complete the bourgeois democratic revolution

revolution

April 26, 2011 at 12:59am · 1

that

means the task of this

and

this not as a separate stage, but as prelude to socilaist tasks



Rajesh Tyagi sorry for typos April 26, 2011 at 1:00am



Abhinav Sinha Read whole of my posts and then write. Otherwise it becomes non- sensical. Reply concretely. Instead of being sorry for typos, read and write carefully.

April 26, 2011 at 1:02am



Rajesh Tyagi you are putting your assumptions in the mouth of Trotsky and wihotu

even taking pain to go through his theory of permanent revolution, have set out to

criticise it

give

me a single quote from trotsky where he says that proletarain

dictatorship means socilaism

rather

he is the only leader in 1904 who proposed that

the bourgeois democratic revolution in India would bring proletairat to power,

establishing its dictatorship

don't

get perplexed, maintain your cool and then think

what we are saying

it

is Stalinists and Maoists who are intermingling the two-

dictatorship of proletairat and socialism with each other, deducting conclusion that because in backward countries productive forces are not developed for building

socilaism therefore proletairat cannot come to power

this

is their flawed

argument

and

you are relying exactly upon our argument

this

is our argument

against Stalinists and Maoists

you

just tell me if lenin has said anywhere after october

1917 that the power established by october was 'democraitc dictatorship' of two

classes

i

repeat 'dictatorhsip' to repel any doubts

abhinav

you ppl are proceeding on

assumptions and heresy abt trotsky and his thoery of permanent revolution

read

it at

least once

you

can disagree with him, but you cannot impose something upon him

against which he had fought all his life

entire

theory of permmanent revolution, as

against Mensheviks and their later progenies Stalinists and Maoists, rests upon this

pivot, that in backward countries bourgeois democratic revolution would be

accomplished under the dictatorship of proletariat

it

is you people who argue that in

India, Egypt etc. these democratic tasks have been completed by bourgeois

rule

opportunism

of 3rd degree

this

is the stance of CPI, this is hat school of

Stalinism has taught you

i

still recommend to re-read the texts of lenin quoted by you

above, they are invaluable, try to understand them, they speak against Menshevism

and Stalinism

and

word for word endorse the theory of permanent revolution

when

lenin says that by carryin gout the democraitc revolution bolsheviks opened the door to

socialist revolution, he is exaclty endorsing the theory of permanent revolution

this

is

what trotsky waqs arguing

while

mensheviks thought that bourgeois revolution would

be acrire dunder the dictatorhsip of capitalists, bolsheviks thought it would be under

democratic dictatorship of tow classes, but in fact it was carried out under dictatorship

of one class- the proletariat taking power in october

this

is the theory of permanent

revolution

thats

why trotsky says that the tempo of revolution will be different in

different countries according to strength of its proletariat to accomplish it, but it would

be proletarian-socialist in its character so afr as all over the owlrd this revolution has to

be carried out under the leadership of the proletiariat

so

dont read trotsky from

Stalinist schools

just

read him in his texts

your

knowledge of trotsky is based upon

Maoist rumours and not the texts of debates

lenin

is absolutely right in all that you

quoted, but you are absolutely wrong in deducting these conclusions April 26, 2011 at 1:22am

 



Rajesh Tyagi you quote lenin in 1918 to say that the october revolution has perfected

capitalism in agriculture and not destroyed it

that proletariat laid most perfect foundation for capitalism after coming to

power

there was still no question of building socialism in one country as if october revolution was building capitalism in russia understand, not lenin's April 26, 2011 at 1:32am

means that pre-capitalist production relations were destroyed while

is saying

you

are misreading lenin

but

this

lenin

which

you want to read it is your inabilty to



Rajesh Tyagi now look your plagiarism, you added your words with lenin's. In his

proposal lenin never said that the republic of workers and peasants is the democraitc

dictaotrship of workers and peasants

you added ur words alongside inverted

commas so cleverly that the reader would read them as words of lenin. Fact is that the

workers-peasant government or the workers-peasants republic was the political foindation of the dictatorship of the proletariatm which it exercised through its party and

workers' soviets

Don't

you really understand the difference between the workers-

peasants government or republic and the dictorship of workers

that

was the real

issue

as

to who in this worker-peasant alliance would have its

dictaorship??

peasantry

if historically doomed

cannot

establish its dictatorship

so

dictatorship would be of basic classes of capitalist society worker or bourgeois

this

is

the cire lesson of russian revolutions

of

february and october

lenin

never spoke abt

two class dictatorship after february 1917 misreading of texts by Stalinists and Maoists April 26, 2011 at 1:43am

this

phrase now rests only upon



Rajesh Tyagi abhinav don;t get mad at bankruptcy of ideas, its not your fault, its the school from which you are learning all crap April 26, 2011 at 1:44am · 1



Rajesh Tyagi i have read your posts very carefully and have properly dealt with each and every point April 26, 2011 at 1:47am



Rajesh Tyagi "democratic dictatorship headed by the proletiariat" - ok tell me what it means?? it means in simple world dictatorship of the proletariat followed by the

peasantry

matter

ends

April 26, 2011 at 1:51am

 



Rajesh Tyagi otherwise tell me what was the need for qualification 'headed by the

proletariat'

essentially incorrect April 26, 2011 at 1:54am

is

but

you are reading it as a joint dictatorship of two classes

which



Rajesh Tyagi this is the rule of interpretation that a qualification must be read to alter the meaning what comes without it April 26, 2011 at 1:57am



Rajesh Tyagi wihtout dictaotrship how proletariat can ensure its 'heading' over the revolution? so whatever name u give to the alliance of proletariat and peasatry, the core issue is that proletariat must establish its dictatorship in that alliance wihtout which the revolution is doomd to fail April 26, 2011 at 2:02am



Rajesh Tyagi read this quote which you had pasted above without yourself going thru it, it makes everything clear: "In October 1917 we seized power together with the peasants as a whole. This was a bourgeois revolution, in as much as the class struggle in the rural districts had not yet developed. As I have said, the real proletarian

revolution in the rural districts began only in the summer of 1918. Had we not succeeded in stirring up this revolution our work would have been incomplete. The first stage was the seizure of power in the cities and the establishment of the Soviet form of government. The second stage was one which is fundamental for all socialists and without which socialists are not socialists, namely, to single out the proletarian and semi-proletarian elements in the rural districts and to ally them to the proletariat in order to wage the struggle against the bourgeoisie in the countryside. This stage is

also in the main completed."

 

It

says in the first instance that the october

revoltuion is made in cities and not the villages, it was carried out to villages thereafter,

yet it is bourgeois democratic

lenin

is not talking of two stages-democratic and

socialist here, he is talking of city insurrection and its carrying to villages

thereafter

this

has nothing to do with 'stagism' which we are debating

except

that it

shows that proletariat took power first, established its dictatorship in the cities and

bourgeios democratic tasks were accomplished in villages much later

this

is the

course of revolution we are stressing everywhere

 

in

stark opposition to

Maoists

who

want to encircle the cities from villages

but

you read somehting else

in it :- i quote you "Clearly enough, the tasks of democratic and socialist revolution

were not mixed from the very beginning and Lenin sees clear-cut two stages of revolution." does it contain any sense at all??? April 26, 2011 at 2:16am



Rajesh Tyagi abhinav!! it is never too late to correct yourself April 26, 2011 at 2:17am



Abhinav Sinha Well! If its never late, you would have corrected yourself. My reply never said that October Revolution was building capitalism. It was Lenin's characterization and periodization of the October Revolution, which Trots find hard to swallow. It was a quote, not my word. Don't be baffled! Correct yourself. And once again: READ CAREFULLY BEFORE REPLYING! April 26, 2011 at 3:21am



Dave Bedggood First point, the bourgeois revolution cannot be led by the bourgeoisie in the epoch of imperialism as the national bourgeoisie are servants of the imperialists. Imperialist super exploitation contradicts bourgeois democracy. Second point, this means that only the proletariat can complete the bourgeois revolution, not as a 'new' bourgeoisie completing capitalism which will mean nothing but the self-exploitation and self-oppression of the working class, but as a workers revolution transitional to capitalism. Third point, Trotsky arrived at this view in 1904. Before 1917 Lenin still thought that a transitional stage of a bourgeois revolution where workers led all the peasants including the bourgeois peasants was necessary because capitalism has not differentiated the peasantry sufficiently into classes. Fourth Point, this view is widely misunderstood as a 'bourgeois stage' in the revolution. All the Bolshevik leadership in April 1917 understood this as a bourgeois stage that had to be completed to prepare the conditions for the socialist revolution. They were thus Mensheviks. Many of them, Stalin principally, remained Mensheviks at heart. The US SWP under Barnes reverted to this position. The Australian Green Left follows this stageist view. Fifth point, by April 1917 Lenin was convinced that the poor peasants could be won from the rich peasants behind a workers revolution and came out with his new April Theses 'Workers to Power'. This was because he now saw that the poor peasants could be won to the working class with the promise of land to the tillers. Conclusion: The April Theses state clearly the Bolshevik position against the Menshevik position. In the epoch of imperialism only the working class leading the poor peasants (and other oppressed classes) can complete the bourgeois democratic tasks as part of the socialist revolution. April 26, 2011 at 6:07am · 1



Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, your plank is not leninism, but anti-trotskyism

even bothering to understand first what are the core

disputes between different tendencies in russian revolution

Mao reflected in his thesis 'on new democracy' based on 'bloc of four classes' national

of

fighting against the bourgeois they propose collaboration with it, not only in China and

bourgeois included is outright betrayal of Maoists of the working class

twisting lenin repeatedly

collaborationist idea of

for that you are

without

the

instead

and PDR are recognition of failure

of Stalinism in its application to backward countries and an attempt to adapt to

dispute which had come up in

the russian revolution was as to the nature and role of national bourgeois in the

colonial countries- which have

it was inseparably

thought that revolution would

reproduce itself copiously in backward countries on the pattern of european revolutions

of the 19th century

disagreed with proposition

and disputed bourgeois leadership of it

lenin

took a step ahead of mensheviks, but did not break decisively till February 1917 from

the idea of weaknes sof the proletairat

idea of lenin

the battle for power was essentially to be between the

where were the peasants

in this?? peasantry having immense social weight in russian society was to play a

if

poor peasantry remained leaned to peasant bourgeois, the bourgeois would be in power and resultantly a brake upon the revolution, if poor peasantry sided with

proletariat it wa sthen turn for the proletariat to rule and accomplish the revolution the two stage theory of the revolution was based upon the exclusion of the possibility of

coming of the proletariat to power

in positive clearly demoinstrated wihtout any pale of doubt that the revolutions can take place only under the leadership of the proletairat growing into its dictatorship after seizue of power, whatever the nature of old regime may be and irrespective of the

was to

was new thing

in world history

does not mean that the 'bourgeois democratic' tasks would ignored

ot bourgeois democratic revolution would be skipped. It meant that the make up of

as the february in a negative way and october

decisive role in reovolution

implies that it can be

and cannot come to power alone

russia was weak to carry out a revolution on its own

bourgeois would lead them as in their view proletariat in

entered upon capitalist stage of development late in time

bound the question of nature of reovlution

countries of belated historic developement

Trotskyism, while backstabbing it simultneously

India, but everywhere in the backward world

NDR

real

backward

with

Mensheviks

where

lenin

l

lenin also thought that proletairat was weak

so

so

he proposed the 'two class dictatorship'

February revolution was decisive refutation of

'disctatorship'

so

there

can't be two class dictatorship

so

this

but

exercised by one class only bourgeois and the proletariat

was the idea of trotsky

this role was neither independent nor leading one

but

stage of development of productive forces in individual countries advance "uninetrruptedly" under the dictatorship of the proletairat

it

revolution

this

revolution in all coountries of the world, developed or undeveloped would be same, i.e. under the dictatorship of the proltariat, but the tempo of progrees of the revolution would be different in different countries of the world, depending upon the tasks before

is the theoiry of

permanent revolution

of the revolution under whose class dictatorship the revolution was to be accomplished, therefore revolutio would not be split in two separate compartments like in old bourgeois revolutions where the revolutions were compartmentalised due to the

essence is that because now proletariat was to be the leader

the revolution and the balance of real frocs to carry them out

this

its

lead of bourgeois in first stage, now the revolution was to advance uninterurptely under

was this dictatorship which

in the

sense to skip the first stage but to complete it "uninterruptedly" under the dictaorship of

the bourgeois

was the

the very sam epower, the dictaotrship of the proletariat

excluded the split of revolution in two stages and merged them into one

it

not

it

thus

the chinese wall between the two stages eliminated

as two different stages of

revolution separated by their leadership , but as two tasks taken one after the other in this sense democratic tasks instead of constituting a diffenrent stage of revolution, would constitue a prelude to the next tasks-the socilaist ones and would facilitate

them

the task of seizure of power before enteringonto the socilaist tasks was

eliminated

the proletariat did not have to revolt once again for a socialist revolution and

same proletariat who was to carry out the two tasks

not

so

this

uninterrupted revolution is the core of theory of permanent

revolution April 26, 2011 at 9:38am



Rajesh Tyagi after understanding the essence of dispute, now you can proceed to take your stand and dispute the propositions of trotsky and lenin whatever April 26, 2011 at 9:42am



Dave Bedggood Line 9 in my comment 'capitalism' should be 'socialism'. April 26, 2011 at 9:56am



Rajesh Tyagi October revolution shows that numeric strength of proletariat is of no consequence, rather its social and economic weight in capitalist world as a whole,

makes it capable to take power in all countries, and makes all countries susceptible

and ripe for proletairan revolutions

building of socialism, proletariat cannot skip the bourgeois democratic tasks they

and this cannot

it

howeevr Stalinists

and Maoists both think that proletariat is weak in backward countries and thus they turn

to bourgeois for help

seek a national boiurgeois against

imperialism, ignoring that all sections of national bourgeois are tagged with world

capitalism

Chinag Kai Shek, Nehru, Sonia, Mamata, Lalu etc etc. This degeneration and naked

political opportunism is the direct fallout of this misreading of revolutionary

course

is in fact no section of bourgeois national or foreign which can play any

progressive role in any part of the world

this bankruptcy of

Stalinism and Maoism, but shy of admitting that the line you toes for decades is

seek to argue that

the bougeois democratic tasks have been accomplished by the bourgeois in its own

way

fact, this bourgeois

has not accomplished any of the tasks partially or completely, rather has aggravated all

like Feb 1917 in russia, but thru betrayal of this mass struggle

the bourgeois which did not eevn come to power on the back of a revolution

politically bogus, worst position is taken by your group abhinav

and propose a progressive role for the bourgeois

both Stalinist and Maoists dispute this

proletarian

dictatorship however does not mean

in backward countries

neither

have to be completed to lay the basis for addressing the socilaist ones

be accomplished in one country alone

especially

was possible for Russian or Chinese nor for the indian proletariat

idea

of Mao for a national bloc of four classes, which incuded

they

bourgeois is based on this flawed proposition

so

there

they continue to find that national progressive bourgeois in Kerensky,

but

realising

u

In

by

anti-trotskyist prejudice and the total blindness emanating out

of this prejudice prevents you even from understanding a,b,c of revolutionary

marxism

you remained

contributor in strangling and marginalising the working class of the world in your own

way

revoltion and the fourth international, reserves for you a place in revolutionary future, alongside those, whom coming generations would look at with hate April 26, 2011 at 10:07am

rabid support to Stalinism and Maoism and your opposition to Permanent

bourgeois and to justify your degraded Stalinist/ Maoist past

NDR, PDR are the apologies to remian adherent with sections of

old contradictions

your

your

where

your



Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, by adhering to sections of national bourgeois, crediting them

with accomplishment of the democratic tasks in countries like in India and Egypt, you in

fact adhere to imperialists themselves

with

whom this national bourgeois is in

collaboration

your

position thus becomes position of prachanda, who immediately

after forming govt in Nepal, advocated a separation of two stages of the revolution by

at least two decades

and

invited the Nepali Congress to join the government under

him

history

kicked this Maoist disciple out for his criminal adherence to enemies of the

working class

Nepali

Maoists have made mockery of themselves

like

the Indian

Maoists who exchanged letetrs with Chidambaram for buying peace with bourgeois

and got their leader 'azad' riddled with bullets

your

idea is more laughable than all,

you say that bourgeois democratic tasks have been completed under bourgeois rule, instead of saying that they are more complicated today than ever, because of

adaptation of medieval structures of indian economy and society by world

capitalism

these

democratic tasks not only survive but the contradictions at their basis

have become so sharp that they provide an instant basis and necessary support and

logistics for the proletariat to take power agaimnst the bourgeois

e.g,

kashmir and

lalgarh

the

enmeshing of world capitalsm with medieval structures has created an

explosive situation, a ready base for proletarian overturn

but

you turn your back upon

it

you

say no democratic task survives as bourgeois has completed them in its own

way

this

is cheerleading for the bourgeois rule

its

real time glorification

and

still you

say you are Marxists

you

are outright Mensheviks

 

April 26, 2011 at 10:27am · 1

 



Abhinav Sinha Rajesh Ji, My plea once again will be, instead of answering without reading, you should first read what Lenin said. I've given a lot of quotations from Lenin, and that too from the period following the October Revolution. But you are more concerned about defending Trot position, instead of understanding what Lenin said. There can be no marriage between Lenin and the anti-Marxist "left" theory of Permanent Revolution, despite all kinds of intellectual somersault that you have been performing since the beginning of this week! Read properly, then write! Do not be obsessed with the idea of defending yourself. Its never late to correct yourself! As Brecht said, 'Everything changes! You can make a new beginning with your every

breath!' So even a chronic patient of Trotskyism can change! You just need to study carefully! April 26, 2011 at 1:36pm



Abhinav Sinha One more thing! Shed the habit of erecting an imaginary effigy to give vent to your intellectual frustration. I never said that national bourgeois can be an ally today. So stop puking non-sense. I clearly said that we are in the epoch of Socialist Revolution. That means I believe that no part of bourgeoisie will become an ally of the Revolution. There will be a 3-class alliance for the Revolution. So stop misquoting. Reply to the quotes of Lenin that I've given. Thats very cowardly of you, to by-pass the quotations of Lenin to prove your point by hook or by cook. Thats intellectual dishonesty. Either you don't understand Lenin at all, or, you have forgotten the basic tenets of intellectual ethics. April 26, 2011 at 1:39pm



Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav you don't understand even what you are cut-pasting here to

compensate that bankruptcy you are bordering on abuses

without

nay application of

your own mind you are mechanically reproducing quote after quote

and

getting more

and more frustrated

lenin

is not sum total of handful of quotes, but represents the soul

of russian revolution which developed in diallectical conflict of ideas and

hypothesis

which

were

dealt with

by

the

history in its

own way

endorsing

and

rejecting them

but

you want to look at the history as if its blueprint was prepared by

lenin, revolution marched on it and we get the october

 

dear

brother its not like

that

idea

of lenin liike that of all others were mere hypothesis before 1917

and

were

tested on the touchstone of february and october

but

you want to sing a song bereft

of all historic experience

u

chrn out and out the old hypothesis which revolution had

rejected

i

gaain repeat that in saying that bourgeois has completed the democratic

tasks partially after 1947, you are betraying marxism

u

clearly cited egypt and

countries of middle east to say that 'bourgoeis tasks are complete there'

now

you

can't take about turn

so

you attribute progressive role to bourgoeis in middle east and

asia

this

is what Stalin and Mao have done

now

totally exposed before your own

associates whom you called here

you

are getting frustrate and are bordering on

abuses

god

may help you brother

April 27, 2011 at 2:15am

 



Abhinav Sinha Read the quotes again! If you don't understand, get yourself any good textbook companion to Lenin's works. April 27, 2011 at 5:20am



Abhinav Sinha Learn to take criticism. And to know what is abusing, read your posts again. April 27, 2011 at 5:21am



Rajesh Tyagi lol abhinav i will sure seek one April 27, 2011 at 8:52am

thanx

for advisory anyway!!

 



Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav

your problem is that you want to understand the history

through lenin, instead of understanding lenin through history

you

are concerned

solely what lenin has said about history and not how the history dealt with lenin so

you end up inside a blind tunnel with both ends closed

so

you go on reading lenin's

texts like 'gita path' chanting his propositions like religious rhymes, without caring what

remains valid or invalid, after they are put to test of history in 1905, and Feb-Oct

1917

this

self-imposed ignorance of historical experience leaves you blind to the

reality and your whole politics thus does a dis-service to the proletariat by misdirecting it on the lessons of the past and tasks of present and path of the future April 28, 2011 at 9:23am



Rajesh Tyagi upto 1917 lenin did not have the real experience of proletarian

revolutions, but we do have

so

we don't need any hypothesis

we

can conveniently

rely upo the concrete experience

at

which you turn your your back

to

chant the

rhymes of old texts, lile vedic mantras

and

thereby reach at conclusions which were

discrdited by the real revolutions and abandoned by lenin

instead

of understanding

the apparent conflict between the positions of lenin before he saw a real revolution and

after he experenced it, you falsely and artificuialy reconcile the two

having

ultimately

what can be termed only a caricature of revolutionary marxism in your hand April 28, 2011 at 9:29am



Abhinav Sinha Not to have regard for history is a classical trait of all the Trots. History clearly shows the success of most of Lenin's ideas. His epochal contributions on the theory of Party (on which Trotsky was rebuked by Lenin), understanding of Imperialism (which holds true to present day), critique of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism (on which account, Lenin again rebuked Trotsky, in context of the debate with Workers' Opposition), exposure of revisionism and successful leadership of the October Revolution have been recognized universally, and proven correct by the history. What happened to Lenin? Nothing wrong particularly! His teachings are relevant even today. When you are encircled by the quotations of Lenin, which refute Trotsky and show the real place of Trots in history, then you want to talk about history. You said in the beginning of the debate, that October Revolution is an established fact! I agree (though it doesn't make it less an experiment!). And it became an established and

accomplished fact due to the leadership of Lenin. History has dealt quite fairly with Lenin. That is why this abbreviation ML is the dividing line between revolutionary Marxism and the revisionism and "left" deviation of Trots. What do you think how history dealt with Trotsky, by the way? Trots are the laughing lot of the entire working class movement. Because, they are not one with the working class movement. They are 'other' for the workers; nothing more than big-mouthed good-for-nothings. There is not a single working class movement in this world since the October Revolution, that has been led by Trotskyiites. It makes a mockery of you yourself, Tyagi Ji! There is one humble suggestion again! And not only for you, but all the Trots! IT WOULD BE BEST FOR ALL THE TROTS ALL OVER THE WORLD, NOT TO TALK ABOUT HISTORY! A VIEW ON HISTORY DEVASTATES THE PERSONA OF TROTSKY AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF TROTSKYISM. NEVER A SUCCESS, AND IT'LL NEVER BE. Because revolutions are made and led by those who believe in praxis, not by those good-for-nothing, big-mouthed passive radicals who are "left" in thought and idle or right (which is in fact the same thing objectively: idleness and silence is the tacit support of the status quo); and who are bent over making virtual "World Revolution" on the virtual "World Wide Web". In reality, Trotskyism cannot be caricatured, because it is itself a caricature. And another thing! You again have not read the quotations of Lenin carefully! That is the problem with all the Trots. Read the date of the quotations. These quotations are of the post-revolutionary period, when Lenin had experienced the revolution. Please! Please!! Develop a habit to read carefully! You believe in expounding away crap without reading something that matters. Read Lenin carefully, even his writings of the post-revolutionary period. Again I'll say, that to understand them, buy a good textbook companion of Lenin's writing. Read the dates of the quotation again. And also, read history properly! You'll see the real place of Trotsky and Trotskyiites in history. Do not try to be foolishly judgemental about history without reading it! You are welcome to the History Department of Delhi University! I'll help you become a guest member of the P.S. Gupta library, which is meant only for researchers! I'm a Phd student there. We've a great collection on Russian Revolution! Read history and then think about the place of Trotsky and Trots in history, not only of the Soviet Union, but of the world! April 28, 2011 at 2:22pm · 1



Sunny Singh "We know only one science: The Science of History" (German Ideology) April 28, 2011 at 6:19pm



Rajesh Tyagi Abhinav, I quote you

all the Trots"

"History clearly shows the success of most of Lenin's ideas"

of lenin's ideas failed in history

right and which wrong

follow what did not succeed and was proved wrong

"Not

to have regard for history is a classical trait of

You

say,

so impliedly few

you are shy of telling which history proved

tell

me honestly, does it have any real political sense?

Irony

however

agreed

they

is that Stalinists and Maoists, both epigones of leninism,

turn their back upon

lenin's turn away from

'stagism' in April thesis

theory

spitting out your frustration over the offensive Trotskyist movement has taken on the

the two stage

have time and again cited our activity on 'world wide web', obviously

everything that was proved right in lenin by history

like

you

follow what was thrown to dustbin

i.e.

you

most advanced platform of speech in our times i.e. world wide web. Your accusation

that we dominate the www is though frustrated, biut a sure recognition of the fact that it

is in confirmity with

historic domination of revolutionary marxism at the most advanced platforms of

is no doubt that

the most class conscious and advanced layers of proletairta in the world are our

audience

and maoist propaganda today

you have

are no takers for stalinist

expression provided by contemporary science and technology

is we who lead at the most advanced platform in the world i.e

this

there

just

compare yourself with it for a moment

same

there

people who write also read it

as

repeated it several times so i have to say that hopefully you do not understand the

difference between 'workers opposition' and 'left opposition' in russia

i

fail to

understand what Trotskyism has to do with 'workers opposition'

both

may be

intermingled in your mind, but in fact they are astronomically different

for

your kind

information understanding of lenin and trotsky on imperialism is same

you

say you

despite your kiddish

all

important turns of rusisan history including februray and october, lenin and trotsky were together against menshevik and bolshevik leaders including Stalin April 28, 2011 at 6:21pm

rhetoric you could not give a single quotation which refutes trotsky

encircled me with lenin's quotations which refute trotsky

but

rather

on



Sunny Singh I thought Trotskyites know how to deduce

but Mr. Rajesh Tyagi is

failing even to do that

Why not read again Mr. Typos

Its good to look in mirror but

you should not forget that the image u perceive is inverted reflection. Do not rotate in your vicious circles. April 28, 2011 at 6:32pm



Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, in support of two stage theory you had started from citing

february as the first stage in your two stage formula

charcterisation of february government and the criminal support to it by all bolshevik leaders, including Stalin, which lenin opposed tooth and nail, first you fell silent and

when i confronted you on

but

then ended with quoting lenin that it was october which was split in two

when

i drew

your attention to this

you

simply skipped the issue and again started abusing

I quote

you, "Do not try to be foolishly judgemental about history without reading it! You are welcome to the History Department of Delhi University! I'll help you become a guest member of the P.S. Gupta library, which is meant only for researchers! I'm a Phd student there". This shows your abusive mindset saturated with petty bourgeois

arrogance

these university

Ph.Ds in history been able to produce intelligents, we would have

been having a whole army of reovlutionists

departments produce on mass scale, confused and obedient servants for

had

unfortunately

capitalism

work, that would have gone to your credit

crushing defeat in debate, is of no use at all

history dealt with trotsky!! what that manner is? till his end, trotsky like lenin fought for

was shot by SR and trotsky by

Stalinist agent

all petty bourgeois men and women

on the earth, trillions in numbers, you relish this bureaucratic authority of Stalin and

Mao

of the past

is what you say success story of Stalinism

and Maoism

fact is that Stalinists destroyed the russian revolution, which you admit was an

accomplished fact

me, after driving

out trotsky and annihilating all top bolshevik leaders in fake moscow trials, who was

sititng in Kremlin??? who was commanding the Comintern??? whose policies inflicted defeat after defeat upon the world proletariat??? was it Stalin or Trosky??? April 28, 2011 at 6:46pm

the

you introduced yourself identifying with some of your revolutionary

this demonstration of false pride after a

point out the manner in which

had

but

you

lenin

defence of foundations of revolutionary marxism

as

they become head of their bureaucratic state

if

movement today only to this extent

you

a true petty bourgeois you are leaned towards Stalin and Mao, as

as

you cannot win it in India, at least you can identify yourself with this authority

that

imparts consolation to you

this

in

fact Stalinists today are interested in

say trotskyists did not head any remarkable workers movement

and

they rpevented the working class from coming to power in

tell

China, Germany, Spain, India, Iran, Iraq and so on and so forth



Rajesh Tyagi you say trotsky made himself a laughing stock

yes

the kremlin

bureacracy and behind it the bureucracies in the national CPs led by imerialist agents

like SA Dange, laughed at trotsky

only

to be laughed at by history upon

themselves

today

when we look back we find these rascals completely exposed

yes

trotsky was defeated by Stalin

but

so was defeated the world working class

trotsky

could be defeated by Stalin as bureaucracy gained upper hand in russia due to

temporary defeats of working class in europe

it

was in this backdrop of defeat of world

working class that trostky was defeated and driven out of russia

but

then wasn't lenin

driven out by kerensky in the same manner? does it porve kerensky was right and lenin was wrong?? you are overwhelmed with the bureaucratic power Stalin succeded

to seize for himslef in kremlin

you

do not understand that with this seizure of pwer by

stalin, the fate of world working class was also seized April 28, 2011 at 6:55pm

 



Rajesh Tyagi tell me now which working class movement Stalinists or Maoists had led

to success the world over, after the russian revolution??? bureucratic overturn in China led to 'deng', cuban experiment established a nationalist petty bpourgeois power in

preventing the world

knows

that Stalinists and later Maoists, annihilated the left oppositionists not only in russia,

contrast to shameful

collaboration of Stalinist CPI with british colonialists, read the program and politics of

but the world over, in collusion with bourgeois governments

working class from presenting its solution to the crisis in these contries

Cuba in whose mirro image had emerged the chavez regime

all

In

world

with

Dange's letter its is very clear that the Stalinist CPI upon direct instructions from Stalin

was spying upon the freddom fighters, including trotskyist BLPI

was leading demonstration of workers in support of naval mutineers

opposing it, assisting the congress delegation of Patel and Zinnah Stalinists, from whom Maoists claim their own legacy April 28, 2011 at 7:07pm · 1

is the hisotry of

Stalinist CPI was

the glorious BLPI

and

come to understand with it, what revolutionary marxism is

at

the time when BLPI

this



Rajesh Tyagi ignore typos April 28, 2011 at 7:07pm

plz

 



Rajesh Tyagi so dont quote lenin, with your flawed interpretations, come to history, i

say again and defend Stalinism and Maoism if you can

its

not trotsky but you

Stalinists and Maoists, who would be made a real laughing stock

Both

Stalinists and

Maoists are kicked out from the world politics today

thier

bureaucratic power

machines have evaporated

their

collaborator bourgeois is in acute crisis

but

still

retains power

irony

is that even disciples of Stalinism, feel shy of claiming themselves

stalinists openly

their

ranks are sqeezing

more

class conscious workers and youth

are turning their back upon Stalinists and Maoists, which they claim general crsis of

revolutionary movement in their publications

the

fact is that the crisis is of Stalinism

and Maoism

and

with them in crisis, the blockade they created for more than a 3/4th

centruy is opening

trotskyists

are in the forefront of revolutionary ranks

as

you admit

it, we are dominating the world wide web, what more can be recognition of our

victorious tirade April 28, 2011 at 7:18pm

 



Rajesh Tyagi sunny forget me, try to understand and say something if you want me to

understand you

dont

indulge in exclusively teasing game

hun

and

if you find the

whole image so inverted

plz

dont waste your time here, rather in spirit of a true

maoist

leave

the world wide web for us tritskyists and you 'go to the masses'

why

are you getting trapped in our activity, i.e. www lol April 28, 2011 at 7:25pm

 



Rajesh Tyagi abhinav, you have rightly quoted lenin saying that october revolution

there can be

no better refutation of the two stage menshevik theory (as mensheviks stuck to it from

beginning to end)

say that october would proceed from

this is what

february was a failed

lenin and trotsky boith meant

would complete the bourgeois democratic tasks and go over to socialism

in fact the advocates of two stage theory all over the world attribute

to

the two stages to february and october

bourgoeis democratic to proletarian socialist is absolutely correct position

this

is what we are arguing

that

revolution because its bourgeois leadership and despite the fact that the real power,

the arms, were in the hands of workers

won directly by the masses, but this revolution failed because of bourgeois leadership and failure of menshevik and bolshevik leaders to understand the true dynamics of

february revolution

this is

quote shows that he does not give any credit to february

regime in carrying out any democratic tasks, which he says october would do

exactly theory of permanent revoilution

was absolutely reactionary

compromise and outright betrayal by the bourgeois, during a wave of suppression of

the freedom movement

is again outright

betrayal

unmindfully

is against leninist spirit and spirit of the quote you gave here

a bourgeois coming to power as agency of imperialism, can resolve

the democratic tasks, even partially??

crisis everywhere

and ends at it

Stalinists and Maoists agree in crediting the bourgeois with its progressive role, albiet

you don't understand

limited

despite your factional disputes for leadership (lol!) all of you

is your ploitics, which starts from achievements of bourgeois

the truth is that it has aggravated the

though

Tsar was ousted and liberties could be

lenin's

August

1947 was not even february where

it

masses won anything with armed authority in hands

still

you said in clear terms that bourgeois rule in india after

this

1947 has carried out democratic tasks in deformed manner

this

how

this

and

instead

you

fail to understand the real mechanics of 1947

as

either february or october April 28, 2011 at 8:11pm · 1

rather

have only impressionistc and blurred ideas



Sunny Singh You keep circling around

comrade

and please dont get teased

just wanted to ask you to take a tangential jump in to spiral acceleration April 28, 2011 at 8:14pm



Rajesh Tyagi and from where to get electrotonic spread of excitatory currents with that traqpping of Maoism??? lol April 28, 2011 at 8:19pm



Rajesh Tyagi sunny biophysics won't take to far in that limited role in understanding of historical phenomenon April 28, 2011 at 8:21pm

as

the natural sciences play a



Rajesh Tyagi Read this article: http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/ April 28, 2011 at 10:21pm

/stalinism-and



Abhinav Sinha Rajesh Ji, do you ever get tired of molesting history and facts? Read Lenin's quotations again. He clearly argues that there are two stages in the revolution. Now if you are stubborn enough not to understand Lenin, even he can't help you personally! You've given a classical statement about your presence on the internet and

your divine satisfaction with it! Well, I can't expect anything else from a Trot! You keep the lead in the "most advanced medium", we'll be satisfied with the working class, 90 percent of which has no access to internet. So be merry in your virtual space. As I said earlier, those who cannot lead and accomplish revolution in one country, start talking about "world revolution", even worse, on the World Wide Web. Well, we are not frustrated at all Mr. Tyagi. Instead, we're happy that Trot pollution in only for the perverts on the WWW, and has not contaminated the working class movement. Well, even if it tries, it cannot affect the working class movement. As one of readers has commented, you keep going around in circles. He is right: try to take a tangential jump into spiral acceleration! And about Lenin's rights and wrongs. April 29, 2011 at 2:33am · 1



Abhinav Sinha Well, that was a way of speech. Lenin was right on all issues, because the issues on which he was not right, he corrected himself very soon. Because he was a master dialectician. He never missed the other factor. That why he was so clear about the "left" wing deviation of Trotsky all the time! Now you can say whatever you like about Maoists; it doesn't really matter. Because, they are mostly involved in real revolutionary praxis. They don't have the time and opportunity to organized "world workers' state" on the WWW! Thirdly, the bourgeois revolution started with the February Revolution. It could not be fulfilled by the bourgeoisie completely. It was a bourgeois revolution in the sense that it overthrew the monarchy. Lenin was very clear about it. When Lenin characterizes the October Revolution, he makes it clear that the October Revolution was obliged to fulfill the unperformed tasks of the bourgeois revolution. And every Socialist Revolution will be like that for that matter. As Marx said, bourgeoisie never fulfills all of its political promises. The real slogans of the French Revolution can become a reality only after the Socialist Revolution. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a democratic revolution. Lenin's periodization pertains only to the October Revolution. It never denies the February Revolution, the status of a democratic revolution, though an incomplete one. April 29, 2011 at 2:42am



Abhinav Sinha What else can I say? You have a bad habit of not reading carefully. Read the quotations once again. And don't be frustrated with my invitation to read history in the History Department. It was genuine. Secondly, do not have such a dislike for historians. If all history is written incorrectly, then you write a new Trot history of the world! But even for that you'll need to read carefully. Cultivate the habit of reading carefully. April 29, 2011 at 2:44am · 1



Abhinav Sinha Read the debate about Workers' Opposition Mr. Tyagi. When Kollontai and Shlyapnikov of 'Workers' Opposition' argued that the State should be trade

unionized; that means, unions should be made completely autonomous and should be given the tasks of the State, Trotsky argued that Unions should be instruments of the Proletarian State; Trotsky argued that the Trade Unions should be Statised. That means the State and Party should have total control over Unions and their autonomy should be finished. Lenin argued against both these extremist positions. Lenin rebuked Trotsky on two accounts. First, he said that the Soviet State depends a lot on the worker-peasant alliance and therefore the Trade unions cannot be Statized because Trade Unions are exclusive organizations of working class and they would consider and defend only the rights of the workers. Russian Revolution cannot go ahead without the worker-peasant alliance and the Trade Unionization of the State will kill this alliance. Secondly, Trade Unions should not be given the functions of the State because these are the only institutions that can fight against the bureaucratic tendencies prevalent withing the workers' state; these are 'schools of communism'. Lenin argued that Trotsky is a Statist and "left" adventurist. He said that Trotsky is plagued with severe bureaucratic distortion. Lenin also argued against the position of 'Workers' Opposition' and said that it amounts to liquidationism and anarcho- syndicalism. Please carefully read the debate around the 'Workers' Opposition'. Your question that what Trotsky has to do with 'Workers' Opposition' shows that you have not even read the works of Trotsky properly, leave alone Lenin! First read the original source, and then venture into debate! Otherwise, you'll be obliged to face the kind of criticism that will sound to your Trot ear as abuse! April 29, 2011 at 2:55am · 1



Abhinav Sinha Your claims that Maoism has been thrown out of politics is laughable and ridiculous. Just say this to anybody, and you'll be funnier than Steve Martin! Almost everywhere in this world, in all country, the real class struggle is led by the Maoists. In most of the countries their programmatic understanding is wrong. But unlike, Trots they do have a program and in comparison to Trots, that makes them members of much superior league. They have a program (though a wrong one, the program of NDR, whereas, everywhere in this world we are in the stage of SR) because they at least intend to achieve revolution in the real world. They are sacrificing their lives and fighting. They are at least not like the big-mouthed good for nothing idler Trots, who are stuck with "the most advanced medium"! Ha! Enjoy your political perversions on the net. We're not at all concerned about that. Your claims about Maoism means nothing even to a loitering stray animal! Leninists and Maoists are there in the real class struggle! They don't give a damn, what Trots say about them. They have never and they will never! In fact, you are frustrated with this fact that they don't give a dime to what the Trots say! I guess thats the pain of the Trots: being ignored by the real Communists! Don't be frustrated! Join us! We give heed to those who are concerned and involved with praxis, apart from the WWW! April 29, 2011 at 3:02am · 1



Abhinav Sinha