Reply to Xexizy’s “Why The Russian Revolution Failed”

My video:

Replying to:

Xexizy’s Arguments:

  • Xexizy first says that leninism wants the state takes the means of production and eventually gives them to the workers.
    • This is wrong because what Leninism actually advocates is that the workers control the state, and the state plans the economy for the workers. What does “giving the means of production to the workers” even entail? Decentralization? Because that can only be done to a certain extent before it becomes inefficient. Centralization is needed for optimum planning and resource allocation. [1]
  • Xexizy then claims Stalinism seeks to have the state hold the means of production permanently.
    • If this were true, how come the workers did control their own enterprises, [2] [3] and it was Stalin who fought for the party to give more control to the soviets? (With his wishes being denied because of fear of counter-revolutionaries entering the soviets with fascism rising in Europe). [4]
  • Xexizy claims that Leninism is intended to be in a capitalist country that is first world.
    • To quote Lenin: “A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.” From this, we can deduce that Leninism doesn’t “intend” there to be a revolution anywhere, due to its scientific nature it realizes that revolution can only occur where it’s possible, which it was in Russia at the time.
  • Xexizy then claims that because the majority of Russians were peasants, they therefore couldn’t participate in democracy because of lack of information. This implies there was little democracy in the USSR.
    • The notion that the people had no voice in the USSR is absurd, especially on top of the claim that they couldn’t vote because they didn’t know what was going on in the country because that’s a problem for all democratic systems. How the soviets dealt with this, and how they gave the people power, was the have soviets at local levels whose members were appointed by the people, and then more centralized soviets to control the rest of the state. [5] With this, the USSR was a clear example of proletarian dictatorship. [6]
  • Next, Xexizy claims that socialism in Russia was impossible because of the majority peasant situation and the people wouldn’t know what best suits their needs so they would be walked all over by party members, and this implies that the USSR was never socialist.
    • For the notion that the USSR wasn’t planned in the interest of the workers, one has to only look at the facts of what happened to refute this. The USSR guaranteed employment, [7] allowed workers to control their workplaces to the highest extent possible as to guarantee their satisfaction at work, [8] [2] gave citizens a right to healthcare, and a right to higher education. [9] [7] Why would any of this be true if the workers didn’t have power in the USSR?
  • Xexizy says Lenin didn’t think socialism was possible in Russia
    • This can be refuted with one quote: “Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture… Permit me to conclude by expressing the conviction that, difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and no matter how many difficulties it may entail, we shall all—not in one day, but in the course of several years—all of us together fulfil it whatever happens so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia” (LENIN, Speech At A Plenary Session Of The Moscow Soviet November 20, 1922) and by this time, the European revolution had long since failed [10]
  • Xexizy claims that by the time the workers did have the knowledge to participate in democracy (whatever that means) the USSR had already degenerated into the “bureaucratic clusterfuck” we all know today,
    • This once again implies that the USSR wasn’t democratic, which I have already established that it was, and that the economy wasn’t planned for the workers, when in reality it was. [11] In order for one to claim the USSR was not socialist, you would have to establish that there was a class that was benefiting in large profits by owning the means of production from another that was working it, and this simply wasn’t the case in the USSR. [3] [7]
  • Xexizy does a little jab a Stalin where he says that Stalin basically ruled the Eastern Bloc with an iron fist, when in reality many of the Eastern Bloc countries had autonomy and lots of socialist policies [12] and were only partially economically controlled by the USSR to pay off war debts, and even at that they were not so controlled by the USSR that the Union could be considered imperialist, or non socialist. [3]


Going off the assumption that Xexizy is a trot, it is clear that he does not understand very basic Leninist theory. Most importantly, I want to emphasize that there is no time where “the state takes control of the means of production then hands them to the workers” because the state “owning the means of production” is really the workers because the workers are represented by the state, and this is only because the state’s planning committee is the only body that can process all the information to plan an efficient economy, so rapid decentralization would be a detriment. And even at that, the workers did have substantial control over economic policies and their own enterprises.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s