Was Chomsky Correct About Lenin's Vanguardism Being Right-Wing? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15208133


The gist of the video is someone in the audience criticizes Chomsky for criticizing Lenin, and Chomsky explains why he's so critical. Lenin advocated vanguard leadership which Trotsky and more Orthodox Marxists opposed. What's interesting about this explanation is the vanguard is supposed to be composed of intellectuals, but one of the alternatives Chomsky mentions was Antonie Pannekoek who was a Dutch astronomer and intellectual himself.

The problem I have with taking Chomsky at face value here is this: https://isreview.org/issue/60/myth-leni ... index.html

There seems to be a lot of dispute as to whether or not Lenin embraced an intellectual bourgeois vanguard to lead the movement.
#15208384
XDU wrote:
yQsceZ9skQI

The gist of the video is someone in the audience criticizes Chomsky for criticizing Lenin, and Chomsky explains why he's so critical. Lenin advocated vanguard leadership which Trotsky and more Orthodox Marxists opposed. What's interesting about this explanation is the vanguard is supposed to be composed of intellectuals, but one of the alternatives Chomsky mentions was Antonie Pannekoek who was a Dutch astronomer and intellectual himself.

The problem I have with taking Chomsky at face value here is this: https://isreview.org/issue/60/myth-leni ... index.html

There seems to be a lot of dispute as to whether or not Lenin embraced an intellectual bourgeois vanguard to lead the movement.



late wrote:
A top down structure will not get you bottom up results...



We could look at the actual events that Lenin is famous for, namely the October Revolution. What *I* see is that the Bolsheviks represented real mass political sentiment on the ground:



Kornilov affair

Main article: Kornilov affair

In what became known as the Kornilov affair, General Lavr Kornilov, who had been Commander-in-Chief since 18 July, with Kerensky's agreement directed an army under Aleksandr Krymov to march toward Petrograd to restore order.[15] Details remain sketchy, but Kerensky appeared to become frightened by the possibility that the army would stage a coup, and reversed the order. By contrast, historian Richard Pipes has argued that the episode was engineered by Kerensky.[16] On 27 August, feeling betrayed by the government, Kornilov pushed on towards Petrograd. With few troops to spare at the front, Kerensky turned to the Petrograd Soviet for help. Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries confronted the army and convinced them to stand down.[17] The Bolsheviks' influence over railroad and telegraph workers also proved vital in stopping the movement of troops. Right-wingers felt betrayed, and the left-wing was resurgent. The first direct consequence of Kornilov's failed coup was the formal abolition of the monarchy and the proclamation of the Russian Republic on 1 September.[18]

With Kornilov defeated, the Bolsheviks' popularity in the soviets grew significantly, both in the central and local areas. On 31 August, the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Soldiers Deputies—and, on 5 September, the Moscow Soviet Workers Deputies—adopted the Bolshevik resolutions on the question of power. The Bolsheviks won a majority in the soviets of Briansk, Samara, Saratov, Tsaritsyn, Minsk, Kiev, Tashkent, and other cities.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_R ... lov_affair



Insurrection

Planning

On 10 October 1917 (O.S.; 23 October, N.S.), the Bolsheviks' Central Committee voted 10–2 for a resolution saying that "an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe."[20] At the Committee meeting, Lenin discussed how the people of Russia had waited long enough for "an armed uprising," and it was the Bolsheviks' time to take power. Lenin expressed his confidence in the success of the planned insurrection. His confidence stemmed from months of Bolshevik buildup of power and successful elections to different committees and councils in major cities such as Petrograd and Moscow.[21]

The Bolsheviks created a revolutionary military committee within the Petrograd soviet, led by the soviet's president, Trotsky. The committee included armed workers, sailors, and soldiers, and assured the support or neutrality of the capital's garrison. The committee methodically planned to occupy strategic locations through the city, almost without concealing their preparations: the Provisional Government's president Kerensky was himself aware of them; and some details, leaked by Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev, were published in newspapers.[22][23]
#15208389
Unthinking Majority wrote:
In a Marxist system i would assume the masses of workers should be in control, not an intellectual elite.



It's not really 'either-or' -- basically the more developed and thinking types would realistically have more political influence, just as with anything else occupational / professional.

Also:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image
#15208437
ckaihatsu wrote:
We could look at the actual events that Lenin is famous for, namely the October Revolution. What *I* see is that the Bolsheviks represented real mass political sentiment on the ground:



I was talking about you. You like top down structures like a government run economy. There are a lot of problems doing that, and you don't have answers.
#15208440
late wrote:
I was talking about you. You like top down structures like a government run economy. There are a lot of problems doing that, and you don't have answers.



A *workers* government, in *workers* interests. That's the political distinction that makes all the difference. The rest is means-and-ends.

How much time ya got? What's first on your list?


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image
#15208486
ckaihatsu wrote:
A *workers* government, in *workers* interests.



late wrote:
Just like last time...



Patrickov wrote:
Not gonna happen.



Not with *that* attitude, it won't. (grin)


Patrickov wrote:
The fundamental problem is that the "worker mindset" is too weak, and those not having worker mindset is either the bourgeois or they simply get eliminated by the fierce competition.



You're just making stuff up -- there's a huge history of labor struggle, wherever labor can be found.

Here's for *ongoing* labor struggles, currently:

https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/site_area/workers


And here's about inherent material *interests*, by respective sector in the production process:


A question for our Marxists DIAGRAM

Spoiler: show
Image



Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image

Not maybe. You are offering an example that does […]

I take it you 2 tards didn't watch the videos. 8)

America and Australia are quite similar, demograph[…]

This is not entirely partisan. Republicans are wor[…]