Steve Bannon, Trump's Top Guy, Told Me He Was A 'Leninist' Who Wants To 'Destroy the State'

[Silver Pines]

Steve Bannon, Trump's Top Guy, Told Me He Was A 'Leninist' Who Wants To 'Destroy the State'

The Breitbart executive director turned GOP leader boasted at a party about his goal of destroying the conservative establishment.

By Ronald Radosh
08/23/16

Why has the Trump campaign taken as its new head a self-described Leninist?

I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse in early 2014. We were standing next to a picture of his daughter, a West Point graduate, who at the time was a lieutenant in the 101 Airborne Division serving in Iraq. The picture was notable because she was sitting on what was once Saddam Hussein’s gold throne with a machine gun on her lap. “I’m very proud of her,” Bannon said.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Read more at:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html

[Frank Cannon]

The problem is, what type of new party does Bannon envision?

[Ghost Bear]

"Destroy the state", great... and then what?  What comes after that, Mr. Bannon?

Funny how these "destroy the state" radicals never have an answer for that question. 

[ABX]

"Destroy the state", great... and then what?  What comes after that, Mr. Bannon?

Funny how these "destroy the state" radicals never have an answer for that question. 

Rebuild it in his utopian vision. If true, interesting he chose Trump as his vessel of choice.

[Sanguine]

I dunno.  Maybe.

[ABX]

If true (big IF), a few precepts that distinguish Leninism from Marxism- very clear difference in application. Lenin called his approach the Vanguard or Democratic Centralism. (let's call these idea red flags to watch for any signs)..

The immediate aim...... is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

As epitomised in the slogan “Freedom in Discussion, Unity in Action”, Lenin followed the example of the First International (IWA, International Workingmen’s Association, 1864–1876), and organised the Bolsheviks as a democratically centralised vanguard party, wherein free political-speech was recognised legitimate until policy consensus; afterwards, every member of the Party would be expected to uphold the official policy established in consensus. In the pamphlet Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action (1905), Lenin said:

    Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party.... The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.

Lenin's simple definition of socialism is set out in his The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (September 1917): "Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the whole people".

...the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors.... An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich:... and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the ‘transition’ from capitalism to communism.

Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.

We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.... The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support. At the same time, we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness.... Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot...

...nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything, so much as to the feeling of equality, and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest — to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades.

So what to look for? Extreme bottom up nationalism, call for centralized control, stressing the need for centralized control & collectivism but calling it capitalism and democracy. A stronger central government with more power in the top leader. Extreme populism,  making the masses cry out for a leader.  Use of the term and ideas of force more often. Distrust and dismantling of the current power structure to replace it with their own.  Interestingly, Lenin was more isolationist versus Trotsky and Stalin looked externally for growth as a necessary means (Trotsky by supporting socialist revolutions and creating partnerships, Stalin by imperialism and growth through strength).  Lenin thought the best growth was initially isolating and letting Russia grow his socialist utopia within and that in turn would trigger a domino effect as others would want to follow.

[Free Vulcan]

"Destroy the state", great... and then what?  What comes after that, Mr. Bannon?

Funny how these "destroy the state" radicals never have an answer for that question. 

He thinks that's a great idea till it all crashes down and he's living in Venezuela X10, scrapping for survival. Guy has no clue.

[andy58-in-nh]

Rebuild it in his utopian vision. If true, interesting he chose Trump as his vessel of choice.

L'etat, c'est moi!

[ABX]

He thinks that's a great idea till it all crashes down and he's living in Venezuela X10, scrapping for survival. Guy has no clue.

Venezuela is a Trotsky inspired state in that, like Cuba, it is dependent on partnerships with other States to survive. Communists (and revolutionaries let's call them as they view themselves this way) don't believe that we have a Leninist State to hold up as an example (possibly China initially but Mao's cultural revolution took it down a different path and lately they have been reversing course on all that).

Stalin, and WWII, preempted the growth of Leninism. Stalin was imperialistic, Lenin was more isolationist. Stalin was not shy about calling Communism, Communism. Lenin used glorified terms like Vanguard, State Capitalism, Democratic Centralism. Lenin was bottom up while Stalin was top down.

Leninism is very dangerous in the point that the ends are the same as Marxism, the approach is different and much more populist. Because Stalin preempted it and took an iron hand approach, those who believe in Leninism believe their utopia was never allowed to grow - thus, they don't have negative examples to point to. It is subtle and dangerous.

[Silver Pines]

Yes, this admittedly could or could not be true, but I think the article is worth putting out there.  If it is true, he would likely be the master behind the dull-witted puppet, Trump.

[Cripplecreek]

Cloward Piven in action just as surely as SEIU head Andy Stern wants.

[ABX]

Yes, this admittedly could or could not be true, but I think the article is worth putting out there.  If it is true, he would likely be the master behind the dull-witted puppet, Trump.

Many of those in the top classes support Leninism/Marxism in various forms (even by another name) because it gives them the one thing they can't easily buy, power. They can buy all the cars, women, and houses they want, and that gets boring after a while, so they start craving power. Their egos are such that they know best (or so they think) and they just need the power to be able to help everyone (in their minds). But they can't do that without power.

Why do you think the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world support Socialism in some form? They know they are protected, but they can control it more. Pure Capitalism means they have to compete in the market of ideas, Collectivism/Socialism/Whateverism gives them the power to control and mold things the way they want, outside having to actually sell their ideas in the market.

Trump is dangerous in that he has the desire for power with the centralized control way of getting it, but he also knows how to manipulate the masses via populism- so in a sense, the Leninism statements kind of make sense and why they would be drawn to him.

[INVAR]

The common-denominator of nearly everyone running - is Leftist.  Hildabeast's overt Marxist Communism; Johnson's Statist Socialism (his carbon tax plan is more aggressive than Obama's); and Trump's Nationalist Populist Lenninist Fascism.

Remember what I told you folks about that velvet coup that everyone pretends never took place.

[Cripplecreek]

Many of those in the top classes support Leninism/Marxism in various forms (even by another name) because it gives them the one thing they can't easily buy, power. They can buy all the cars, women, and houses they want, and that gets boring after a while, so they start craving power. Their egos are such that they know best (or so they think) and they just need the power to be able to help everyone (in their minds). But they can't do that without power.

Why do you think the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world support Socialism in some form? They know they are protected, but they can control it more. Pure Capitalism means they have to compete in the market of ideas, Collectivism/Socialism/Whateverism gives them the power to control and mold things the way they want, outside having to actually sell their ideas in the market.

Trump is dangerous in that he has the desire for power with the centralized control way of getting it, but he also knows how to manipulate the masses via populism- so in a sense, the Leninism statements kind of make sense and why they would be drawn to him.

In my opinion Trump is just a typical Fabian socialist. Fabian socialism is the socialism of the rich who want to remake the world to make themselves even richer and the rest of us are little more than obstacles to be overcome. Its long had a home in the London School of Economics. The fabian window hangs with prestige at the London School of Economics today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window

[Bigun]

L'etat, c'est moi!

[Sanguine]

In my opinion Trump is just a typical Fabian socialist. Fabian socialism is the socialism of the rich who want to remake the world to make themselves even richer and the rest of us are little more than obstacles to be overcome. Its long had a home in the London School of Economics. The fabian window hangs with prestige at the London School of Economics today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window

And, here is said Fabian window.  (You should be able to click on it for the larger pic)



They are clearly worshiping their agenda. 

[XenaLee]

Steve Bannon, Trump's Top Guy, Told Me He Was A 'Leninist' Who Wants To 'Destroy the State'

The Breitbart executive director turned GOP leader boasted at a party about his goal of destroying the conservative establishment.

By Ronald Radosh
08/23/16

Why has the Trump campaign taken as its new head a self-described Leninist?

I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse in early 2014. We were standing next to a picture of his daughter, a West Point graduate, who at the time was a lieutenant in the 101 Airborne Division serving in Iraq. The picture was notable because she was sitting on what was once Saddam Hussein’s gold throne with a machine gun on her lap. “I’m very proud of her,” Bannon said.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Read more at:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html

So.....what the hell was Bannon doing working at Breitbart then.....considering that Andrew Breitbart was the very definition of "conservative".  Wouldn't that have been the very definition of the "enemy within" then?  And even now?  But then.... there's a lot of that going around these days.

That Trump now employs the azhole speaks volumes.

[ABX]

An interesting quote by H.G. Wells- A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and
that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.

[Bigun]

Many of those in the top classes support Leninism/Marxism in various forms (even by another name) because it gives them the one thing they can't easily buy, power. They can buy all the cars, women, and houses they want, and that gets boring after a while, so they start craving power. Their egos are such that they know best (or so they think) and they just need the power to be able to help everyone (in their minds). But they can't do that without power.

Why do you think the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world support Socialism in some form? They know they are protected, but they can control it more. Pure Capitalism means they have to compete in the market of ideas, Collectivism/Socialism/Whateverism gives them the power to control and mold things the way they want, outside having to actually sell their ideas in the market.

Trump is dangerous in that he has the desire for power with the centralized control way of getting it, but he also knows how to manipulate the masses via populism- so in a sense, the Leninism statements kind of make sense and why they would be drawn to him.

Indeed! Why else would we have a tax system endorsed by Marx and Engels in their Manifesto of the Communist Party?

The following is directly quoted from “The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx chapter II. “Proletarians and Communists” page 7. (The section in which fellow travelers are instructed as to how they should go about taking over developed countries.)

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy top wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

[Cripplecreek]

And, here is said Fabian window.  (You should be able to click on it for the larger pic)

"Remould it (The world) nearer to the heart's desire"

The fabian Society founded the London School of economics.

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself. -Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

[Bigun]

An interesting quote by H.G. Wells- A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and
that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.

H.G. Wells was a founding member of the Fabian Society!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

[Sanguine]

So.....what the hell was Bannon doing working at Breitbart then.....considering that Andrew Breitbart was the very definition of "conservative".  Wouldn't that have been the very definition of the "enemy within" then?  And even now?  But then.... there's a lot of that going around these days.

That Trump now employs the azhole speaks volumes.

If I remember correctly, Bannon was a personal friend of Andrew Breitbart, and I'm not sure how he came to be in charge after Andrew's death.

[ABX]

H.G. Wells was a founding member of the Fabian Society!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Yep, that's how I stumbled on it. We read that like a negative or a warning, Wells wrote that like a goal, that was his replacement for religion, the worship of society.

[Cripplecreek]

Yep, that's how I stumbled on it. We read that like a negative or a warning, Wells wrote that like a goal, that was his replacement for religion, the worship of society.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said "Are we not Gods in the making"

[XenaLee]

If I remember correctly, Bannon was a personal friend of Andrew Breitbart, and I'm not sure how he came to be in charge after Andrew's death.

Well....obviously.....Andrew should have chosen his close, personal friends a bit more wisely.