Lenin Was Not a Leninist

by Joaquín Bustelo (Solidarity, U.S.) on March 13, 2013

A comment on Paul LeBlanc’s Leninism is Unfinished — The crisis in the British SWP over the handling of rape allegations against a leading member has led to a new and wide-ranging debate on the issue of “Leninist” parties. This happened because the party’s response to critics was that it had only upheld Leninist organizational norms. I don’t think I have much to say about the rape allegations except that the comrades who have complained seem to have a very strong case, and I believe them. But I’m thousands of miles away.

I do very much have an opinion on the idea that the SWP leadership was just defending Leninism. And that opinion can be summarized in one word: Bullshit! 

At least if by “Leninism” what is meant is what Lenin believed, advocated and practiced. Quite simply, I don’t think Lenin was a “Leninist.” And I think it is baby-simple to demonstrate.

Those of us who have been around — or even worse, in — one of these groups know that nothing is more sacred than safeguarding the party’s — I mean The Party’s — internal life. Only members are allowed to access the Innermost secrets of the group — what its members really think — and mostly not even that. These are to be found in that Holy Book — err, I mean Holy stapled-together 8-1/2” X 11” booklets (and sometimes not even that) — the Truly Revolutionary Party™ Internal Discussion Bulletin.

Following is the full text of all the articles Lenin ever wrote for the internal discussion bulletin of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party, or the party’s Bolshevik wing, or the “Bolshevik Party” (which was never the formal name of a Party in the early 20th Century in Russia, but never mind), and the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks):

“”

And that is a direct word-for-word quote, except for the quotation marks, of course. And there is nothing except the quotation marks, because Lenin and his friends didn’t have an “internal discussion bulletin.” For a brief time in 1910-11, during one more effort to reunify the RSDLP, Diskussionny Listok (Discussion Bulletin) came out three times as a supplement to the Central Organ and with its own multi-tendency editorial board. But this was not an internal publication.

In the fall of 1920, on the basis of motions drafted by Lenin, a discussion bulletin and the Central Control Commission were established. But I’ve not been able to find anything Lenin wrote for that bulletin. And actually, from a very quick Googling of the Russian name, the one leader of the Russian Revolution who stood out as an author there was Stalin. No Lenin.

Instead, to his last conscious moments, Lenin insisted that big political discussions be public. The last thing Lenin ever wrote was the second part of a message to the 12th Party Congress harshly criticizing the government bureaucracy, which he finished on March 2, 1923, and, at Lenin’s insistence, was published in Pravda on March 4.

To get a feel for Lenin’s tone, let me quote a bit of the piece:

Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must first think very carefully how to combat its defects, bearing in mind that these defects are rooted in the past, which, although it has been overthrown, has not yet been overcome, has not yet reached the stage of a culture. […]

The most harmful thing would be to rely on the assumption that we know at least something, or that we have any considerable number of elements necessary for the building of a really new state apparatus, one really worthy to be called socialist, Soviet, etc.

No, we are ridiculously deficient of such an apparatus, and even of the elements of it, and we must remember that we should not stint time on building it, and that it will take many, many years.

That was Lenin, in the last thing he ever wrote, a letter to a party Congress, and to send it he didn’t put it in a bulletin, nor did he use the post office or one of those yellow inter-office mail envelopes. It was in Pravda, a newspaper. And his starting point was that their state apparatus was a piece of shit (of course, Lenin would never put it that way in a family newspaper like Pravda).

The next to the last thing he ever wrote, which was the first half of the message he addressed to the 12th party Congress, was to the effect that the Central Committee sure could use a Control Commission of 75-100 utterly dedicated and incorruptible worker- and peasant communists to participate in all its meetings and double-check everything as well as sending a few of the Control Commission members to every Political Bureau meeting to keep them honest. And in practical work his plan was to fuse them with the government’s worker and peasant inspectorate, which would be reduced in size by keeping only the best few hundred.

Our Central Committee has grown into a strictly centralised and highly authoritative group but the conditions under which this group is working are not concurrent with its authority. The reform I recommend should help to remove this defect, and the members of the Central Control Commission, whose duty it will be to attend all meetings of the Political Bureau in a definite number, will have to form a compact group which should not allow anybody’s authority without exception, neither that of the General Secretary [Stalin] nor of any other member of the Central Committee, to prevent them from putting questions, verifying documents, and, in general, from keeping themselves fully informed of all things and from exercising the strictest control over the proper conduct of affairs.”[emphasis added]

Lenin uses “control” here in the sense of verification, supervision and double-checking, not in the sense of dictating what is to be done. When you think about it, having an independent group of people looking over the shoulder of the Politburo so that its probity can be assured is hardly a statement of unequivocal confidence in the party leadership.

That is a very different “Leninism” from the one usually portrayed by the groups that claim to be Leninist. How many of these outfits have the structure that Lenin recommends, that an autonomous control commission be a watchdog over the Central Committee and the Political Bureau? I think the list is as long as the collection of articles by Lenin for internal discussion bulletins that I quoted above.

And Lenin’s plan was more audacious because he was proposing to fuse the state and party bodies, in effect removing the combined operation from under either the state or party hierarchy. And Lenin insisted — over politburo grumbling — that this all be public. In fact, I read somewhere that the politburo even considered printing up a fake Pravda with his article to give to Lenin. But, in the end, they rejected the idea.

Why did Lenin do this? Because he knew the party didn’t belong to him, the politburo, the central committee, the congress or even its members. The party belongs to its class: it is the political expression of that class social movement that has merged with the ideological reflection of that class movement: socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it.

If you think about it, this isn’t just different but the opposite of a party-building strategy. Lenin didn’t create a tool from a blueprint.

One phrase from Lenin you hear quoted over, and over and over — and without the slightest understanding — is: “Without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement.”

The way it is usually presented is not just wrong, but risible from a Marxist, materialist point of view. It is idealism of the purest water: Good ideas lead to a good outcome.

What’s the problem? That we’re missing what Lenin took for granted and was the material base for his “revolutionary theory.” A class movement, one that was becoming immediately politicized thanks to tsarist absolutism. Under those circumstances, yeah, you better have “revolutionary theory” otherwise you’re not going to get a revolutionary movement.

But “revolutionary theory” in that sense doesn’t mean Das Kapital, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, or the complete Silvio Rodriguez discography. It means understanding the class and other social relations of the space you inhabit. Knowing how far along in the development of the movement you are. Who you are, what you are, where you’re going.

You protest: “That isn’t Leninism!”

Right. Because the “Leninism” we know was mostly created and codified after Lenin’s death. And the person most centrally involved was Zinoviev, head of the Communist International who at that time had an alliance with Stalin. That is why I think it should be called “Zinovievism.”

And that’s why I say Lenin wasn’t a “Leninist.” He couldn’t have been. He died before it was invented. No one talked about “Leninism” before 1924 save perhaps in a few polemics criticizing him.

Back to the current debate. What started it was an article by a [UK] SWP leader, Alex Callinicos, titled Is Leninism Finished? The SWP dissidents (now ex-SWP dissidents) responded with Is Zinovievism Finished? and the Unrepentant Marxist Louis Proyect also responded to Callinicos with Leninism is Finished prompting Paul LeBlanc to write Leninism is Unfinished.

I’ve submitted the following comment on LeBlanc’s piece to socialistworker.org, one of the International Socialist Organization’s websites, which published his article.


My old friend Paul LeBlanc –in arguing against another old friend, Louis Proyect, who was in the U.S. SWP with myself and Paul decades ago, cites the Comintern’s 1921 resolution on the Organization and Activity of the Communist Parties as proof that there is more to Lenin’s organizational efforts than simply an attempt to build a standard social-democratic party under Russian conditions.  Paul cites that resolution again and again.

From Paul:

There is no question that Lenin was profoundly influenced by other comrades in the pre-1914 Socialist International, particularly George Plekhanov and Karl Kautsky. But his thought cannot be reduced to that. Nor did his thinking stop in 1914. In fact, the 1921 Comintern theses “The Organizational Structure of the Communist Parties, the Methods and Content of Their Work” were put forward at Lenin’s insistence. Not only did Lenin help to shape the theses (which included a substantial emphasis on democratic centralism), he also defended them after they were adopted. [6]

Apparently to present a Lenin more consistent with political points he wishes to stress, Proyect chooses to leave this and much else out of his account of the history of the Bolsheviks.

Thus far Paul LeBlanc. Yet Lenin took the extraordinary step of renouncing and denouncing that resolution, even though in the context of  his speech at the next World Congress of the Communist International, that was dragged in by the hair. After talking quite a bit about the first five years of the Russian Revolution, including a lot of what he considered mistakes, Lenin says the missteps of the capitalists have been much greater and uses that as a pretext to say the 1921 resolution that Paul cites is worse than useless.

I don’t think it will be an exaggeration to repeat that the foolish things we have done are nothing compared with those done in concert by the capitalist countries, the capitalist world and the Second International. That is why I think that the outlook for the world revolution — a subject which I must touch on briefly — is favourable. And given a certain definite condition, I think it will be even better. I should like to say a few words about this.

At the Third Congress, in 1921, we adopted a resolution on the organisational structure of the Communist Parties and on the methods and content of their activities. The resolution is an excellent one, but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say, everything in it is based on Russian conditions. This is its good point, but it is also its failing. It is its failing because I am sure that no foreigner can read it. I have read it again before saying this. In the first place, it is too long, containing fifty or more points. Foreigners are not usually able to read such things. Secondly, even if they read it, they will not understand it because it is too Russian. Not because it is written in Russian — it has been excellently translated into all languages — but because it is thoroughly imbued with the Russian spirit. And thirdly, if by way of exception some foreigner does understand it, he cannot carry it out. This is its third defect. I have talked with a few of the foreign delegates and hope to discuss matters in detail with a large number of delegates from different countries during the Congress, although I shall not take part in its proceedings, for unfortunately it is impossible for me to do that. I have the impression that we made a big mistake with this resolution, namely, that we blocked our own road to further success.

Note the world-historic context in which Lenin places his comment. The prospects for world revolution are favorable “And given a certain definite condition, I think it will be even better.”

If Paul is right that this resolution was a significant milestone in the emergence of a specific Leninist theory of organization, then perhaps we should take into account Lenin’s damning conclusion a year later: “I have the impression that we made a big mistake with this resolution, namely, that we blocked our own road to further success.”

Dumping that resolution was the “definite condition” needed for “further success.” Based on the nine decades since Lenin fell silent, I think the verdict of actual experience is quite clear: Lenin was right. What we have come to know as “Leninism” is a sect-building dead end.

{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }

Bassel Osman March 13, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Brandy Baker March 13, 2013 at 3:22 pm

I am so happy that the North Star site exists! Thank you Joaquin for this piece and NS for publishing it. And thank you Binh for your contributions in exposing modern “Leninist” practice as having little to do with the Bolsheviks.

Hopefully, we can someday have a North Star organizing conference.

Reply

Pham Binh March 13, 2013 at 4:32 pm

You’re welcome, although I have to admit your thanks rightfully belongs to Paul LeBlanc and Tony Cliff who put me onto the irreconcilable contradiction between Lenin’s practice and “Leninist” practice.

As for the organizing conference, yes, we’ll get there eventually. The North Star is but a (historically transient) means to a greater end.

Reply

Richard Estes March 13, 2013 at 4:04 pm

Great article.

Poor Lenin. The moment someone invokes Leninism to defend their actions is usually the moment that you know that they have no credibility at all. Marxists, and the left more generally, really need to get away from referencing all their actions in relation to a selected group of saints.

Beyond the problems exposed by the SWP, there is another associated with the fact that it results in a language, a form of communication, that no one outside the party can understand (which, from this article, Lenin himself apparently understood). Everything must be explained in terms of party doctrine and administrative practice, and not in the language of everyday life that people normally use.

For example (from Gregor Benton): Xiang Ying was on the wrong side of the two line struggle, and supported the ultraleftism and ultrarightism of Wang Ming instead of Mao Zedong thought. In fact, Xiang Ming had his army destroyed in South Central China in 1941, and, along with others, bore some responsibility for it.

Reply

John Reimann March 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm

I completely agree. For the majority of its history, the Bolsheviks were notorious for having factions and internal disagreements. Nor were these differing views kept “internal”. In fact, at some points some of the different factions had their own newspapers. It was only during an extremely critical juncture that factions were banned – an action which I happen to think was a mistake.

And nowadays, how can any revolutionary socialist group possibly hope to attract young people if they use some distorted vision of what democratic centralism means? But more to the point: How can the different ideas really be discussed and tested out if they are not discussed with a layer of workers who are around the group?

But I think there is an entire other aspect that we have to consider: It’s not only that a distorted view of what Lenin stood for is practiced; it’s that what he stood for and how things developed were in a particular historical context. As opposed to that period, today the mass socialist parties are no longer a pole of attraction. The workers’ movement has been flung back a hundred years. The idea that one particular group or “party” will be THE world revolutionary international doesn’t reflect present conditions. A mass workers’ international will develop a lot more like the First International than the second or third or the abortive fourth. It will contain all different trains of thought and tendencies. The working class itself will have to sort through the different approaches.

This is not to argue against the necessity of a revolutionary leadership. It’s just to say that that leadership will reflect present day conditions and develop as a result of those (changed) conditions.

Reply

Arthur March 13, 2013 at 8:53 pm

That the bizarre organization of various Trot sects has nothing in common with Leninism is hardly a new discovery.

But the quote from Lenin is seriously distorted. The following should not have been omitted for a proper understanding of the context:

“I have the impression that we made a big mistake with this resolution, namely, that we blocked our own road to further success. As I have said already, the resolution is excellently drafted; I am prepared to subscribe to every one of its fifty or more points. But we have not learnt how to present our Russian experience to foreigners. All that was said in the resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not realise this, we shall be unable to move ahead. I think that after five years of the Russian revolution the most important thing for all of us, Russian and foreign comrades alike, is to sit down and study. We have only now obtained the opportunity to do so. I do not know how long this opportunity will last. I do not know for how long the capitalist powers will give us the opportunity to study in peace. But we must take advantage of every moment of respite from fighting, from war, to study, and to study from scratch.

The whole Party and all strata of the population of Russia prove this by their thirst for knowledge. This striving to learn shows that our most important task today is to study and to study hard. Our foreign comrades, too, must study. I do not mean that they have to learn to read and write and to understand what they read, as we still have to do. There is a dispute as to whether this concerns proletarian or bourgeois culture. I shall leave that question open. But one thing is certain: we have to begin by learning to read and write and to understand what we read. Foreigners do not need that. They need something more advanced: first of all, among other things they must learn to understand what we have written about the organisational structure of the Communist Parties, and what the foreign comrades have signed without reading and understanding. This must be their first task. That resolution must be carried out. It cannot be carried out overnight; that is absolutely impossible. The resolution is too Russian, it reflects Russian experience. That is why it is quite unintelligible to foreigners, and they cannot be content with hanging it in a corner like an icon and praying to it. Nothing will be achieved that way. They must assimilate part of the Russian experience. Just how that will be done, I do not know. The fascists in Italy may, for example, render us a great service by showing the Italians that they are not yet sufficiently enlightened and that their country is not yet ensured against the Black Hundreds.[4] Perhaps this will be very useful. We Russians must also find ways and means of explaining the principles of this resolution to the foreigners. Unless we do that, it will be absolutely impossible for them to carry it out. I am sure that in this connection we must tell not only the Russians, but the foreign comrades as well, that the most important thing in the period we are now entering is to study. We are study ing in the general sense. They, however, must study in the special sense, in order that they may really understand the organisation, structure, method and content of revolutionary work. If they do that, I am sure the prospects of the world revolution will be not only good, but excellent. (Stormy, prolonged applause. Shouts of “Long live our Comrade Lenin!” evoke a fresh stormy ovation.) “

Reply

b March 14, 2013 at 5:46 am

This is basically nonsense. You need to remember that Lenin oversaw the smashing of public discussion in both the party and the Soviets after 1921. The Workers Opposition were physically dissolved, their members sacked and dispatched to far flung parts of the empire. In 1922 Lenin praised the effects of this bureauratic clampdown. Just six delegates from the WO were re-elected to that congress.
Lenin witchunted Schylapnikov for daring to raise the ban on factions in the Comintern – a nominally higher body – failing by only one vote in having him expelled. He wasn’t expelled but he was banned from re-raising his criticisms.
What Lenin’s really talking about here is the perfection of the apparatus. Even his last testament does not forsee the need for any really radical reform of the bureaucracy. In fact most of his proposed reforms were agreed after his death. Fat lot of good that did.
So less hagiography and more criticism please.

Reply

b March 14, 2013 at 5:47 am

Just to add Lenin also had Miasnikov’s small Workers Party smashed, its members arrested and deported in this period.

Reply

Louis Proyect March 14, 2013 at 5:14 pm

Just to add Lenin also had Miasnikov’s small Workers Party smashed, its members arrested and deported in this period.

That’s nothing new. Read “The Ship of Philosophers” and you will see how Lenin deported some of the country’s most respected intellectuals including Berdyaev. And Cuba censored and even jailed poets early on. The French Revolution was also intolerant toward those who did not support the Jacobin agenda. That’s what happens in revolutions. You get excess. It goes with the territory.

Our problem, however, is not that the “Leninist” left is repressing anybody in a country like Britain or the USA. It is like being worried about a mosquito biting off a limb. It’s mouth is too small. We are trying to build a really big god-damned mosquito and what stands in the way is “vanguardist” party-building norms that guarantee you will have no impact on society, benign or malign.

Reply

J.B. March 15, 2013 at 9:21 am

I agree with other commentators that, although this article is probably correct, it reeks of quasi-religious devotion to worry so much about what Lenin would and would have not done. This is the way Christians debate about the Bible. Compared to the norms, ideals and aspirations of modern Socialists, Leninism can often look counterproductive. Consider that the Soviets themselves were originally multi-party, multi-tendency organs, more like Anarcho-Syndicalism than Leninism. Lenin organized his coup on the eve of The All Soviet’s Congress (when the Soviets may have voted to take power from the Duma on a broader coalition basis), taking power for his faction and his faction alone (with the occasional inclusion and then rapid banning of a small handful of SRs). The role of the Bolshevik’s as THE vanguard party was solidified even later during the Civil War, when workers from other groupings came into the Bolshevik camp to fight with the Red Army and a state of total War Communism was necessary for victory. After the Civil War the proletariet was decimated, and the ruling party could rebuild it, and the country, along the highly centralized lines they favored. I don’t deny the importance of the Red victory in the Civil War, World War Two, or the achievements of the Soviet Union in social equality over the long run, but I don’t see why Lenin is a leader people still want to follow so closely. The broad thrust of the Russian Revolution and the initial formation of Soviet power was not made by the Bolshevik’s alone, and the value of the fact that they eventually took political power alone is highly ambiguous both morally and strategically.

Reply

Matt March 17, 2013 at 2:13 pm

“But “revolutionary theory” in that sense doesn’t mean Das Kapital, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, or the complete Silvio Rodriguez discography. It means understanding the class and other social relations of the space you inhabit.”

And understanding the class and other social relations of the space you inhabit requires a theoretical framework adequate to the task of acquiring that understanding. That is why Marx embarked upon what appears as an intellectual detour from the program first announced in the Communist Manifesto, in the production of Das Capital. In my view, Marx took this “detour” because of the perceived inadequacy of the direct historical descriptive approach to the appropriation of the material that produced the Manifesto. It would be hard to imagine otherwise how what became known as “Marxism” would become dominant in the socialist, working class and revolutionary movement from the late 19th century onward, until the end of the 1970’s. This is a decisive illustration of the effect of theory on practice.

The contents of Das Capital can also be appropriated in a hagiographic rather than critical manner. But we would be fools not to attempt a rational, objective appropriation of the most important achievements – despite all the deficiencies, some of them listed here – of the revolutionary, socialist, working class movement.

That theoretical framework was never completed to the point where it could be adequate to achieving an understanding of the sort Bustello refers to, even in Marx’s own time, much less our own of the early 21st century. Now that historical “Marxism” has lost steam since the end of the ’70’s, it is sorely in need of a coherent extension – coherent in the precise sense that it logically coheres with what is already contained in Capital – likely along the lines Marx mapped out in his 1859 Preface.

Bits and pieces have been filled in, in an ad-hoc manner, since then, particularly in the areas of the state, world market ( = imperialism) and such, but what Marx actually achieved has been treated as a more or less closed book, as with Rosdolsky, Mandel and so forth. What has largely dropped from sight are the areas Marx labeled as “landed property” (for me, rent) and most glaringly of all, that coming under the label of “wage labor” – the concrete understanding of the formation of the revolutionary subject itself!

As in the post-1848 period, this relatively “low ebb” era in the class struggle gives us a chance to catch up with that framing, just as it does on the question of revolutionary political organization and its relation to the mass movement. But don’t wait too long – the present period may be coming to an end!

Reply

free weight loss apps iphone December 3, 2014 at 10:59 am

decrease of weight, lack of inches, or lower extra fat percentage, this might indicate
a necessity to re-evaluate your plan and efforts. It’s important that you are tracking
how many calories you are taking in each day because that will
make a really large difference in how quick it is possible to get
yourself a flat stomach. Almost everyone desires a set stomach that appears great when in a swimwear, but few people have the discipline to realize a tiny waistline by exercising and proper diet.

Reply

wildstar news December 4, 2014 at 6:34 am
sudden weight loss after gallbladder surgery December 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Family and friends would be the best resource in accomplishing your goal.
By eliminating Gluten from your diet, we give our intestines a
chance to endure the harm Gluten previously caused. Almost everyone wishes for a
designated stomach that looks great a lot more a bikini, but not
enough people hold the discipline to achieve a tiny waistline by
taking exercise and proper diet.

Reply

entertainment December 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm

Towards the I type wit content around the internet, I a lot get hostile information and therefore outraged email addresses such as that do not to get your lie. I needed suppose which in turn 99% of the above email not to mention advice really are in men. One or two weeks throughout the, Also, In which it fact change. Outside the main deal and planet may well drop into a reasonably recognized customary 6 on 6 personnel deathmatch but once you a low-level characteristics you may possibly get becoming an easy niche delivered the guns, Extras and moreover lovers you get mainly competition bring about you. It may perhaps give loans to some sharks literally extremely crowded out nevertheless because criticism could possibly be increased for a lot a player vs player marketplace. Gleam secondary player vs player titled darkness showdown which could be to a importantly grander dimensions that I sooo want to give several record on but sometimes do not join up because of distressing low internet professional,Thursday’s news flashes occurs the high high heel sandals associated writings with Jared Loughner, Which often destroyed six held in your blasting which localised and in addition wounded of which sales reputation. Gabrielle Giffords wearing 2011 Tucson, Ariz. In the two caser, That were responsive to the shooter’s internal physical shape hardships”Was at their whole wits’ last part about the direction to go, Relates captain christopher Ferguson, Aprrelated toessor therapy and consequently criminal record the legal the state of nevada at global marketplace A higher educatoin institutions,
entertainment http://www.atestt.org/about-us

Reply

Zentai Suit December 8, 2014 at 6:10 am

After you have ended earning the supplemental layers, Which you’re able to use a drawstring to place them with every solo other and be stick jointly with your promenade robe skirt. That is typically a robust process for the freshman. You call up for some perseverance to acquire this done.
Zentai Suit http://myuncommonsliceofsuburbia.com/wp-content/cache/cache/

Reply

Jenny December 9, 2014 at 10:05 pm

This is a message to the webmaster. Your Lenin Was Not a Leninist website is missing out on at least 300 visitors per day. I have found a company which offers to dramatically increase your traffic to your website: http://emedikon.com/go/bz6tc They offer 500 free visitors during their free trial period and I managed to get over 15,000 visitors per month using their services, you could also get lot more targeted traffic than you have now. Hope this helps :) Take care.

Reply

learn more May 30, 2015 at 12:41 am

Can you tell us more about this? I’d care to find
out some additional information.

Reply

webmaster tools June 7, 2015 at 7:48 pm

Hey there! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout οut and ѕay I reɑlly enjoy reading tɦrough your posts.

Can үou recommend ɑny ߋther blogs/websites/forums that deal with tҺе same topics?

Ϻany thanks!

Reply

villa for rent in katameya heights June 25, 2015 at 9:07 pm

whoah this blog is fantastic i like studying your posts.
Keep up the great work! You understand, a lot of people are looking round for this information, you can help them greatly.

Reply

pożyczka online June 29, 2015 at 7:09 pm

Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your weblog
and wished to mention that I have truly enjoyed browsing your
blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing on your feed and I am hoping
you write again soon!

Reply

Mireya July 14, 2015 at 6:35 am

Hello, all the time i used to check webpage posts here in the early hours in the break of day, as
i love to gain knowledge of more and more.

Reply

Low carb diet November 2, 2015 at 6:13 pm

Hello to all, the contents present at this web page are
actually amazing for people knowledge, well, keep up
the good work fellows.

Reply

online writing contests November 4, 2015 at 11:57 am

I have read several just right stuff here. Certainly worth
bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how a lot attempt you set to create the sort of wonderful informative web
site.

Reply

niesortowana odzież używana December 17, 2015 at 5:02 pm

humanitarnej nie istnieje super nieokrzesane, przystało dopełnić wiele założeń.
Toż gdy dowodzi wydarzenie – należałoby się natrudzić.
Nikt nie testuje szlamie worów z kreacją przywiezie ruchomy van ani co szczegółowo zastaw się wytropi.
Przecież na bodajże przyjdzie w niniejszych
ekwipunkach potencjał do naciągania. Niczym
go porządnie oszukać – o owo dopilnują chytrzy
kupcowi. Skąd każdy woreczek wyeksponowany przed drzwi pozostawi zagwarantowany do sklepiku skutecznego szanuj
rozesłany do rantów wymagających

Reply

Chi March 24, 2016 at 5:42 am

The key would be to discover blogs which you appreciate
ample to see on the typical base and which you feel cozy adequate
with the cards to communicate.

Reply

grosir March 28, 2016 at 5:17 am

For hottest news youu have to pay a quick viait web and on web
I found thus web site as a finest web site for newest updates.

Reply

mp3juice June 4, 2016 at 11:23 am

I really like what you guys are usually up too. Such clever work
and reporting! Keep up the great works guys I’ve included you guys
to blogroll.

Reply

porn videos June 7, 2016 at 3:54 am

ӏ’ll іmmediately grasp your rsѕ as I can’t
in finding your emaiⅼ subscription link or e-newsletter service.
Do you have any? Kindⅼy permit me knoᴡ in order that I cߋuld subsϲribe.

Thanks.

Reply

xxx June 9, 2016 at 6:22 am

Hi my fгiend! I want to saү that this article
is aweѕome, great written and include approximately all important infos.
I’d like to peer more posts liкe this .

Reply

หนังxxx June 23, 2016 at 8:53 am

Thanks fߋr sharіng your thoughts on Grigory Zinoviev.
Regards

Reply

คลิป18 June 24, 2016 at 5:46 am

Good pоst. I’m dealing with a few of these issues as well..

Reply

free porn June 25, 2016 at 10:15 am

Hi there, I fօund yoսr ѡeb site via Google at the same time
as searching for a similar subject, your site got here up, it appeaгs to be like
great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

Hi there, just changed into ɑlert to your weƅlog via Google, and found that it’s truly informative.
I am gonna watch oսt for brussels. I’ll appreciate for those
wɦo continue this in futսre. Numerous other folks will be Ьenefited from
your writing. Cheers!

Reply

porn video June 25, 2016 at 10:17 am

An imρresѕive share! I have just foгwarded this onto а
co-worker who hаd been conducting a little research on this.
And he actually bought me breakfast due to the fact that
I fօund it for him… lol. So allow me to reword
this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for ѕpending the time to discuss this issue here on your website.

Reply

porn tube June 26, 2016 at 9:30 pm

Ꮐreat blog here! Adɗitionally yoսr site a lot up fast!
What weЬ host are yоu tҺe usе of? Can I get yߋսr affiliate hyperlink
to your host? I wish my web site loaded up as quickly as yours lоl

Reply

porn movies June 30, 2016 at 1:13 am

Great info. Lucky me Ι discovered your blog bʏ chance (stumƅleupon).
I have book-marked it for later!

Reply

หนังโป๊ฟรี July 4, 2016 at 10:46 pm

I’m not sure ᥱxactⅼy why but thiѕ weЬⅼog is loading very slow for me.
Is anyone else having this issue oг is it a problem on my end?

I’ll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.

Reply

porn videos July 7, 2016 at 10:58 pm

Tеrrific wоrk! This is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around the web.
SҺame on Google for not positioning tҺis put up higher!
Comᥱ on over and consult with my wᥱb sitᥱ . Thanks =)

Reply

คลิปโป๊ July 11, 2016 at 11:05 pm

Ꮋello, i believe that i saw you visited my blog thus i got here to go
back the want?.I am attеmpting to in finding issueѕ tߋ improᴠe my
site!I gսess its ok to use a few of your idеas!!

Reply

คลิปโป๊ August 9, 2016 at 9:48 am

Thank үou for ɑnother fantastic aгtiсle. Where else may just anybody get that type of info in such a peгfect means of writing?
I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I am at the
search for such information.

Reply

porn August 12, 2016 at 6:32 am

I’m cᥙrious to find oսt what ƅlog system you have Ƅeen using?

I’m having somᥱ small security problems with my lateѕt
blog and I would like to find something more safeguarded.
Do you haᴠe any suggestions?

Reply

xxx August 16, 2016 at 7:14 am

I jᥙst couldn’t go away your site before suggesting that I reaⅼlʏ enjoyed the usual
information a person supρly to your visitors? Is gonna be again ceaselessly in order to check up on new posts

Reply

xxx August 17, 2016 at 8:19 am

WҺat’s up, just wanted to mention, I enjoʏed tҺіs рost.
It was inspіring. Keep on poѕting!

Reply

หนังโป้ใหม่ August 28, 2016 at 10:53 pm

Whу viewers still mаkе use of to read news papᥱrs when in this technological globe all іs presented on web?

Reply

porno August 30, 2016 at 12:05 am

I was wⲟndering if you ever thoᥙght of changing thе layoᥙt
of your bloǥ? Its very well written; I ⅼove wҺat youvе got to say.
Bսt maybe you could a little more in the way of contеnt sо pеople
could conneϲt with it better. Youve got an awful lot
of text for only having one or 2 pictures. Maybe you could spaсe it out better?

Reply

porno December 8, 2016 at 1:22 am

Thеre’s certainly a lot to learn aboᥙt this topic.
I really like all the points you’ve made.

Reply

หนังโป๊xxx January 16, 2017 at 11:18 pm

Нello, i think that i saw you visited my weblog thus i came to “гeturn the faνor”.I am trying to find things to
еnhance my site!I ѕuppose its ok to use a few ⲟf ʏour ideаs!!

Reply

porn online January 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm

I am really impressed toɡether with your writing talents as smartlү as with the layout
on your blog. Iѕ this a paid subject mattеr or did yoս сustomize it your
self? Anyway keep up the excellеnt quality writing,
іt is uncommon to sᥱе a great weblog like this one nowadays..

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 5 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: