"It is true that prior to the October Revolution Lenin had agitated

for [a] strictly disciplined party of professional revolutionaries as

the condition sine qua non for the conquest and maintenance of power.

Nevertheless, throughout his career, including the five years of his

active life after the victory of October, Lenin never managed to

organize such a "monolithic" party. Nor was it ever more than a pious

wish with him which he constantly violated. Bolshevism, born of

polemics and factionalism, flourished throughout the twenty years of

its Leninist period on arguments and dissensions. It was only after

Lenin's death, after Stalin's ruthless police measures had strangled

the Bolshevik party, after the red colour of pulsing life had been

drained from its veins, that it assumed the rigidity of a mummified

corpse."

L. Trotsky, Trotsky's Notebooks, 1933-35, Writings on Lenin,

Dialectics and Evolutionism, Philip Pomper and Yuri Felshtinsky, pp.

27-28. This book, by Pomper and Felshtinsky, is a very important

piece of original scholarly research. The two editors have done a

very systematic job of collating Trotsky's notes from 1933-35, which

are in the Trotsky papers at Harvard University. These notes

particularly relate to matters of philosophy and natural science, and

to Trotsky's attitude to Lenin during the period when he was

preparing to write a major biography of Lenin, which unfortunately

never happened. The notes from Trotsky's papers give considerable

insight into Trotsky's thinking about events in which he had been an

important participant.

"The day before the conference, we arranged a meeting of the active

workers of the Helsingfors Committee, at which we decided on the

general plan for conducting the conference and also on the agenda. It

was decided to propose S.A. Garin as chairman of the conference, as

he was the most prominent and best known figure in Helsingfors. But

as Garin could not be present at the conference all the time, it was

decided to put the general guidance of the conference in my hands by

electing me as deputy chairman.

"In the Committee, there were two points of view on the question of

the political situation, one more moderate, approaching the point of

view of Comrade Kamenev at that time, and the other more

revolutionary, based on the famous thesis published by Lenin

immediately on his arrival from abroad. The representative of the

first point of view was Kirill Orlov, and of the second, Antipov. In

order to deal with all sides of this most important point of the

agenda, it was decided to have both points of view submitted, and let

these two speakers deal with the question.

"The conference opened the next day in the hall of the house of the

Governor-General. A large number of delegates was present. There were

representatives from almost every ship stationed in Helsingfors.

There were also many guests among whom was the figure now well known

to me -- the notorious Khilyani [Khilyani was a Menshevik]. However,

this time he discreetly kept in the background."

A. Ilyin-Genevsky, From February to October, pp. 41-42. (Published in

English in the Soviet Union, c.1926)

The above observation by Trotsky in the mid-1930s, in which he draws

harsh lessons from the development of Stalinism, is in sharp conflict

with the lessons drawn by Doug Lorimer in Links, 24. Ilyin-Genevsky's

account of the relatively public Helsingfors conference of the

military supporters of the Bolshevik Party adds further weight to

Trotsky's case. That was the party that led the revolution in all its

turbulent, contradictory development.

The discussion of Marxist organisation is not exactly new territory.

Nevertheless, on a world scale we are now in a position to illuminate

general theories of "Leninism" from the common practices and

experiences of dozens of "Leninist" groups, organisations and

parties. This historical record stretches from the time of the first

codification of "Leninist" doctrine, essentially by Zinoviev in the

early to mid-1920s, through its counter-revolutionary Stalinist

perversion, to the experience of various modern "Leninist" sects, up

to the present. It's a singular tribute to the revolutionary memory

of Lenin and Trotsky, and lesser, but still important,

revolutionaries such as James P. Cannon and Zinoviev, that across the

planet, militants of organisations large and small, and numerous

individuals, should be discussing their organisational ideas and

political perspectives with intense enthusiasm.

Also attached is a bibliography of important books on Lenin and Leninism.

This article also contains a discussion of a recent upheaval in the

DSP youth group, Resistance, and a current dispute in the Australian

Socialist Alliance. In two parts, Part II to follow soon.

Full: http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Ozleft.html

It was Lenin who invented Stalinism, He's the guy 'Ol Joe learnt all his tricks from.

40 million dead later, there are still fools out there who think Lenin has anything of value for anyone.

Pathetic.

These insights, yeah, that's it. Fantastic, amazing and unbelievable.

Please post the origin of these gems of yours. Perhaps you speak Russian or have lived there or have done extensive research.

Otherwise I will consider you an opinionated moron. Thank you.

Hit the books, sonny boy. Lenin invented the terror state in the Soviet Union. He used the "completion of the Revolution" to justify thr summary execution of anybody who he considered an opponent. He was just as ruthless as Stalin. You sas sacks on the Left call Bush a "war criminal" but your hero Vladimir the Impaler was the real thing.

Touting Lenin's concept of government is a bit like recommending Bill Clinton as a chaperone for someone's pretty 19 year old daughter.

Ridiculous and pathetic.

So much for your opinion.

You're an ignorant, lazy moron without anything but your silly unsupported opinion. I know Lenin was responsible for defending the revolution from an armed invasion of

troops from Briton and the United States but you probably didn't know about that either.

Any parrot can repeat things they have heard.

But they're bird brains.

lenin sucks. go back to china.

I glad Barney has such a intellectual heavy weight to help him out.

I laff at your latte-sipping antics, s**tbird liberals.

Your attempts to support all things retarded and proven failures like affirmative traction, lenin, soviets, trotsky, the other lenon, red china, stalin, susan sarandon's sagging can, anti-vietnam victory, anti-free market, pro-illegal immigration, crippling taxarion and gay marriage are like watching the Three Stooges handling paint cans-n-ladders, only far less amusing.

Maybe you should all make up some fake skinhead cyberattacks at this site, the way that lying nutball professor recently trashed her own car and made up stories. Then you can waste even MORE time at 'hate crime' rallies instead of learning something.

We are learning what an asshole you freepers are.

What an idiodic, pointless diatribe.

You need more fiber in your diet.

The Firesign Theater were regular performers on KPFK. There's always been a range of (and raging) opinions about both these guys.

It's a real contrast to the poverty of thought presented by the ocupationally functional drug addicts on conservative talk radio. Makes me wonder if what they are conserving is time spent actually thinking.

"It's a real contrast to the poverty of thought presented by the ocupationally functional drug addicts on conservative talk radio. Makes me wonder if what they are conserving is time spent actually thinking. "

First of all, I've always liked firesign theatre.

But your point that leftist radio is in any way more open than conservative radio is simply foolish.

I listen to ALOT of talk radio when I'm in the car for work. I'll wager I listen to ALOT more KPFK than you listen to "conservative" hosts. I could be wrong but that's my bet. Some conservative hosts are definetly buffoonish (Hannity), some downright intolerable(Limbaugh). The same goes for KPFK. Both sides have their agendas. Both sides wear them on their sleeve. You know what you're going to get before you even turn it on. To say that either of them are more "open" and objective than the other is just not true.

That's why I listen to both.

moron trivia, quirky leftist impersonations, decent insight , liberal tolerating, and whatever.....

Why don't you just read up on the history of the Soviet Union rather than try to justify Lenin's atrocities by calling me stupid.

Educate yourself, kiddo. Doras feasa fiafraigh.