Will there be a unified theory of revolution?

[el_chavista]

Reading the threads about Trotsky/Stalin and about the URSS downfall one can but recall Shapinov's proposition on a "neobolshevik" beyond this endless controversy. All I grasp is the self evident fact that revolution theory can't be already complete. I have these naive questions of mine:


Is Leninism a subset of the revolutionary theory just dealing with crushing the bourgeoisie state power?
After seizing power like in Russia 1917, only an anarchist revolution could drive the soviets to a real communist society?

[robbo203]

Reading the threads about Trotsky/Stalin and about the URSS downfall one can but recall Shapinov's proposition on a "neobolshevik" beyond this endless controversy. All I grasp is the self evident fact that revolution theory can't be already complete. I have these naive questions of mine:


Is Leninism a subset of the revolutionary theory just dealing with crushing the bourgeoisie state power?
After seizing power like in Russia 1917, only an anarchist revolution could drive the soviets to a real communist society?


Leninism advocates a vanguardist or elitist conception of revolution and is completely at variance with the marxian idea that the working class must emancipate itself. Not only that, Lenin advocated state capitalism which he later miscalled socialism on the grounds that it was a necessary transitional stage to communism. It is nothing of the sort. It is in fact a dead end going nowehere. State capitalism is still capitalism and is not going to deliver socialism.

There is very little of practical use or benefit that socialists can learn from Leninisim. A unified theory of revolution requires that we jettison Lenin and Leninism. Lenin was a mere bourgeois revolutionary, a socialist revolution requires that we raise our sights higher

[Sawtooth]

Leninism advocates a vanguardist or elitist conception of revolution and is completely at variance with the marxian idea that the working class must emancipate itself. Not only that, Lenin advocated state capitalism which he later miscalled socialism on the grounds that it was a necessary transitional stage to communism. It is nothing of the sort. It is in fact a dead end going nowehere. State capitalism is still capitalism and is not going to deliver socialism.

The NEP was quite in line with Marxist theory, in my mind. Much moreso than the Bolsheviks' original aims. After all, Marxist theory dictates that capitalism must build up wealth and infrastructure so that communism can exist, doesn't it? Russia essentially went directly from Feudalism to Socialism. Of course it wasn't going to work.

I agree that Leninism doesn't make much sense in general, especially outside the context of Russia. But don't be too hard on the guy, he was still better than most politicians.

[el_chavista]

My point is that Leninism is a very handy tool for seizing politic power. What could be more emotive and inspiring than an organized vanguard of professional revolutionaries? But after seizing the state, the party itself seems to become an obstacle for people finally conquering real democracy. Then it looks like only anarchism can finish the job.

[ComradeOm]

But after seizing the state, the party itself seems to become an obstacle for people finally conquering real democracy. Then it looks like only anarchism can finish the job.No. That's a typical anarchist critique (and the basis of many others) but one that is horribly simplistic. It ignores both the myriad other factors that influenced the course of the Russian Revolution (not least the class composition of the country) and the fact that the Bolshevik party of 1917 looked nothing like the monolithic centralised party that it is often portrayed as. I'm currently in the middle of writing a short essay, which I hope to post on RevLeft, that deals with the latter

As for the idea of anarchism "finishing the job", that's nonsense. First and foremost, the number of Russian workers who would have labelled themselves as anarchists in 1917 was negligible. Individual anarchists tend to crop up in the histories (ironically often marching side by side with the Bolsheviks) but as a group/organisation they were virtually non-existent when compared to the other socialist groups. So the idea that anarchism was 'needed' in the soviets is really a non-starter

What is more valid to ask is whether a 'unified' socialist position - comprising elements from Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs, and maybe anarchists - was required. This was the undoubted choice of the Russian proletariat and large sections of the Bolsheviks themselves (particularly Kamenev's faction) who were continually in favour of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet, representing all the parties of the soviets, seizing power. The idea of the Bolsheviks 'going it alone' was not even discussed prior to the July Days and ultimately when they did seize power it was with the approval of the Soviet, in a democratic vote. The problem with this 'unified' strategy, and one realised by Lenin when he surveyed the Soviet's response to the July Days, was that the moderate Mensheviks and SRs were simply not revolutionary. They did not favour social revolution and when it did occur, and they lost the vote at the Second Congress, they simply walked out and abandoned the soviets. The problem was not Bolshevik intransigence or greed but the counter-revolutionary and liberal nature of the other socialists

[Tower of Bebel]

Reading the threads about Trotsky/Stalin and about the URSS downfall one can but recall Shapinov's proposition on a "neobolshevik" beyond this endless controversy. All I grasp is the self evident fact that revolution theory can't be already complete.
I was thinking of Ché Guevara when I read the title:

This is a unique revolution which some people maintain contradicts one of the most orthodox premises of the revolutionary movement, expressed by Lenin: "Without a revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement." It would be suitable to say that revolutionary theory, as the expression of a social truth, surpasses any declaration of it; that is to say, even if the theory is not known, the revolution can succeed if historical reality is interpreted correctly and if the forces involved are utilized correctly. Every revolution always incorporates elements of very different tendencies which, nevertheless, coincide in action and in the revolution's most immediate objectives.

Is Leninism a subset of the revolutionary theory just dealing with crushing the bourgeoisie state power?It depends on the type of Leninism you're referring to. Ideally there shouldn't have been any sort of marxism called "Leninism", because "Leninism" as a very distinct theory or interpretation of Marx reflects the fact that there are splits within both the workers' and communist movement that seem unsurmountable. Leninism in context is a reflection of Marxism (for the Russian working class)
After seizing power like in Russia 1917, only an anarchist revolution could drive the soviets to a real communist society?A working class revolution drives soviets to a real communist society. It doesn't really mather what people call it (either anarchist, Marxist or Leninist). It was justified for Marx and Engels to claim that socialism (communism) can only be the work of the working class itself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A "unified theory of revolution" would have to be more or less along Kautskyist, revolutionary-centrist lines: organizing the workers' movement, spreading class consciousness by various socio-cultural means (like the SPD's social "state within the state"), posing the question of power here and now without either conning the masses into "action" or selling out to reformist coalitionism and to other forms of class collaborationism.

[Diagoras]

Reading the threads about Trotsky/Stalin and about the URSS downfall one can but recall Shapinov's proposition on a "neobolshevik" beyond this endless controversy. All I grasp is the self evident fact that revolution theory can't be already complete. I have these naive questions of mine:


Is Leninism a subset of the revolutionary theory just dealing with crushing the bourgeoisie state power?
After seizing power like in Russia 1917, only an anarchist revolution could drive the soviets to a real communist society?



To your title question, the answer is no. There are many ideological schisms all along the political spectrum, and the Left has to contend with competing and often incompatible ideas within any revolutionary scenario or schema.

Leninism is a number of things. The answer to your question will depend upon the ideological assumptions of those answering.

Assuming that achieving any real form of socialism in Russia circa 1917 was even possible, there is an inherent conflict between the Leninist notions of "seizing power" and anarchist notions of "seizing power". If you have already "seized power" by Leninist means, and the primary polity is a state operating over directly democratic institutions like the mir or the soviet, then anarchism has already been squelched to the degree that it existed. An anarchist revolution in such a scenario would have been the dismantling of the traditional state apparatus in favor of directly democratic institutions, rather than a simple change of uniforms. Of course, the anarchist influence in the revolution of 1917 was a minority, at least in most of Russia proper, so the possibility of such institutions being sustained in the face of competitive groups and ideologies was not likely. It fared much better in other areas of Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, but we can thank Lenin, Trotsky & co. for fairly effectively stabbing them in the back there, and crushing any threat of an alternative anarchist communist force.