5 ms·

Thank you for giving an answer. But you know, the original idea of Marxism was that the revolution would take place in the advanced industrial states, which hav

Thank you for giving an answer. But you know, the original idea of Marxism was that the revolution would take place in the advanced industrial states, which have the greatest military power and so would not face this sort of threat. But when that failed to happen Lenin switched to the idea of revolution in preindustrial nations, which would lack that military strength. He predicted this would be safe for Russia because imperialism had run out of options and would collapse in the great war, and then revolution in the advanced nations would take place and protect Russia. And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries. In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning. So what is your scenario? Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? And what about Trotsky's argument that Democratic centralism inevitably leads to dictatorship? Also, since you defended Chomsky, does he ever directly discuss Marxism-Leninism? My impression is that he is not one, and if that is the case why did he think that M-L regimes might turn out good?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries With Russia, within roughly a year every major player involved in WWI had declared war on the Reds. Threats from the facists came much later, when I'd argue the entire revolution was over. In general though, Lenin's personal ambition had seemed to be his driving force for most of his revolutionary career, which is why I'm skeptical of it's ideal outcome as well. >In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning I agree, but I think the hostility from capitalist countries has an overbearing influence on the kind of atrocity filled resulting states. >Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? I don't really support a violent revolution anywhere, and have moved into the "slow change" side of revolution. As for the rest, I also suspect that Democratic centralism is a flawed premise, and view Lenin's disbanding of the soviets as proof he was aiming for a dictatorship. As for Chomsky, I don't think he is one. This discussion was how he doesn't think the revolution was wholly bad, as the propaganda makes it out to be, but he was hardly praising it either. I'm not really sure why you started this conversation about Marxism-Leninism if I'm honest.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  I started this discussion about Marxism-Leninism because I believe that Marxist-Leninist countries invariably turn brutal, for various reasons (and you seem to basically agree with me). That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs. And that being the case people should not be defending him. I think this is part of a much larger problem. I think everyone should have an understanding of Marxism-Leninism and what is right or wrong about it. One of many reasons everyone needs to understand Marxism-Leninism is that China continues to be considerably influenced by it. I am in my 70's, and it used to be a fair amount of the population had this understanding, but nowadays very few people do. This has happened partly because the left, both pro-and anti-communist, has basically stopped explaining it to people. One consequence is mistakenly defending people like Chomsky when they go wrong due to poor ideological understanding. I think there are various reasons the left has stopped explaining Marxism-Leninism, but I think it is very unfortunate and am angry at them for this, and I take every opportunity to explain it, and in fact I am planning on someday writing an article on it. Let me add it's nice to talk to someone who understands these issues far better than most people do.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs From Chomsky's viewpoint, the drop in population had two likely causes. Cambodian atrocities, or the lingering effect from the known US atrocities/possibly still ongoing ones. When the only reports pinning it on Cambodia comes through refugee statements made to the US, Chomsky thought independent verification was necessary. As for the rest of your post, I've made myself clear that I'm not a proponent of Leninism. That said, Marxism-Leninism never had the strong or lasting influence you claim. It was used to foster the revolution, and then pulled out for various political uses. Any violence inherent in the ideology is shared by most revolutionary creeds. During the nineteenth century, it was assumed that any "liberal" revolution would also inevitably turn brutal as well. And as for wanting the "left" to explain Marxism-Leninism, most of the left experience the same twelve years of propaganda on the subject as the right. I don't see this drastic difference between the sides.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries With Russia, within roughly a year every major player involved in WWI had declared war on the Reds. Threats from the facists came much later, when I'd argue the entire revolution was over. In general though, Lenin's personal ambition had seemed to be his driving force for most of his revolutionary career, which is why I'm skeptical of it's ideal outcome as well. >In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning I agree, but I think the hostility from capitalist countries has an overbearing influence on the kind of atrocity filled resulting states. >Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? I don't really support a violent revolution anywhere, and have moved into the "slow change" side of revolution. As for the rest, I also suspect that Democratic centralism is a flawed premise, and view Lenin's disbanding of the soviets as proof he was aiming for a dictatorship. As for Chomsky, I don't think he is one. This discussion was how he doesn't think the revolution was wholly bad, as the propaganda makes it out to be, but he was hardly praising it either. I'm not really sure why you started this conversation about Marxism-Leninism if I'm honest.

woodandsteel 6y ago
I started this discussion about Marxism-Leninism because I believe that Marxist-Leninist countries invariably turn brutal, for various reasons (and you seem to basically agree with me). That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs. And that being the case people should not be defending him. I think this is part of a much larger problem. I think everyone should have an understanding of Marxism-Leninism and what is right or wrong about it. One of many reasons everyone needs to understand Marxism-Leninism is that China continues to be considerably influenced by it. I am in my 70's, and it used to be a fair amount of the population had this understanding, but nowadays very few people do. This has happened partly because the left, both pro-and anti-communist, has basically stopped explaining it to people. One consequence is mistakenly defending people like Chomsky when they go wrong due to poor ideological understanding. I think there are various reasons the left has stopped explaining Marxism-Leninism, but I think it is very unfortunate and am angry at them for this, and I take every opportunity to explain it, and in fact I am planning on someday writing an article on it. Let me add it's nice to talk to someone who understands these issues far better than most people do.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >That being the case, Chomsky should have assumed from the beginning that reports that Cambodia was brutal were probably accurate, and I assume he didn't because he has some mistaken ideological beliefs From Chomsky's viewpoint, the drop in population had two likely causes. Cambodian atrocities, or the lingering effect from the known US atrocities/possibly still ongoing ones. When the only reports pinning it on Cambodia comes through refugee statements made to the US, Chomsky thought independent verification was necessary. As for the rest of your post, I've made myself clear that I'm not a proponent of Leninism. That said, Marxism-Leninism never had the strong or lasting influence you claim. It was used to foster the revolution, and then pulled out for various political uses. Any violence inherent in the ideology is shared by most revolutionary creeds. During the nineteenth century, it was assumed that any "liberal" revolution would also inevitably turn brutal as well. And as for wanting the "left" to explain Marxism-Leninism, most of the left experience the same twelve years of propaganda on the subject as the right. I don't see this drastic difference between the sides.