Why Leninism?

[Cinemarx123]

I'm having trouble understanding what makes Leninism an appealing strain of Marxist thought. It seems to me that the concept of a 'vanguard party' as the vehicle of revolution is the usurpation of the revolution from those who stand to benefit from it, who are from my understanding the proletariat. People I have talked to in one Leninist party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, have told me they advocate the existence of a state, a permanent military, a 'vanguard party', and so on. The modern nation-state is a product of oppressive economic relations is it not? Why advocate the existence of a state post-revolution, the apparatus of capitalist modes of production? Can a permanent military be useful as a revolutionary force without the proposed 'worker's state' becoming a police state?

I realize that my questions are somewhat speculative, but I figured I'd ask. These are my main grievances, and I'm looking for someone that can justify these doctrines.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm having trouble understanding what makes Leninism an appealing strain of Marxist thought. It seems to me that the concept of a 'vanguard party' as the vehicle of revolution is the usurpation of the revolution from those who stand to benefit from it, who are from my understanding the proletariat. People I have talked to in one Leninist party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, have told me they advocate the existence of a state, a permanent military, a 'vanguard party', and so on.

Well, I'm not going to get into Leninism, but there are quite a few recent discussions in learning on the subject of the state state such as in "Marxist opposition to Anarchism." The idea of the workers state is a Marxist concept, not just something that originated with the Leninists. A permanent military doesn't make any sense because the state isn't permanent.


The modern nation-state is a product of oppressive economic relations is it not?Yes:


So long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.


The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.


Cinemarx123[/b]]Why advocate the existence of a state post-revolution, the apparatus of capitalist modes of production? The state doesn't exist post-revolution, it exists during the revolution. Current states are apparatus' for the maintenance of bourgeois rule, but not all states in history. A workers state would obviously exist for the purposes of dismantling capitalism.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I think you are really looking at this from an abstract point of view- full of ideals but lacking reality.

On the state and a military. Immediately after the russian revolution, something like 20 countries invaded it. How would a revolutionary class protect itself without some authoritative body? They would simply have a foreign authoritative body imposed on them by outside agents and their domestic lackey's. This was specifically the case with Russia at least.

On Leninism. Three things most define Leninism. First is the vanguard party. The best of the best, most dedicated, most discipline comrades were charged with forming a leading body- a party- to coordinate and propel the revolution. Again, looking into Russian history, the Social Democrats were outlawed. They had to write in codes, etc. Such a party was in many ways necessary simply in this regard. Tangentially, there has never been a revolution without a leading force, often time consolidated into a single revolutionary political or political-military unit. All this yapping about leaderless revolutions are idealistic fantasies. That said, in places like America, where there is no foreseeable revolutionary movement, the idea of irrelevant self-described vanguard parties seem a bit silly.

Second (and more substantial), Leninism (at least Lenin's thought) rejected the nationalism of imperialist-nation workers. During WW1, he called out the European worker's parties for supporting their country's war effort. Lenin said that worker's ought to advocate for the defeat of their own countries as part of the revolutionary struggle. This was of course the cause of the split in the second international. Eventually, he would tie this phenomenon to imperialism itself. He would go on to describe how the national bourgeoisie of imperialist countries were able to take the profit derived from their colonies and 'buy off' portions of their own working class. Keep in mind he's talking about this around 1917. (Imperialism and the Split in Socialism is a good short one on this). Towards the last years of his active life, he began positing that the socialist revolution in the West would be ties to the "national democratic" revolutions of their colonies.

Lastly is the state. I talked about it a bit above, but you should read State and Revolution. Try to look at it from a historically perspective and from the point of view of the revolutionary Russian masses.

[Trystan]

Leninism is popular because of the (part) successes of the Russian Revolution. Of course, the context that Lenin and Trotsky wrote and acted in (i.e. underdeveloped Russia) has pretty much no relevance to those trying to make socialist revolution in industrially advanced nations like the United States and Britain, but it is still popular.

[Q]

I recently explained the need for a vanguard party in another thread. I'll just repeat that here as it already touches the often heard misconceptions:


I think you misunderstand the point of a vanguard party as you mix it up with the concept of a party within the framework of bourgeois democracy. The vanguard is the most active, militant and politically aware layer of the working class. You could say in other words, the activists of the working class. The bourgeois state has a very centralised layout, in order to counter this a centralised proletarian organisation is needed aswell; in other words an organisation which includes much of the activists. This is then the vanguard party.

An activist party then has the primary goal of organising the working class against the capitalist state. This can be done by participating in elections, but more as a tactic under certain circumstances than as a central goal.

Democracy inside a vanguard party is also of the essense. While there exists the need of centralisation, as I pointed out earlier, a vanguard party cannot function without direct democratic input by its membership of the most rigorous kind. The paradox of the vanguard party is that it is a party of leaders (of the working class) with a leadership of its own (because of the centralisation). To counterbalance too much centralisation there is then the need of democracy and thusly an active membership that participates in the political life of the party.

Now, the reason why the Bolshevik party degenerated is very simple. The rightwing leadership of Stalin & co effectively isolated the activist core of the party by opening the floodgates of the party membership so the "old guard" became a tiny minority in a sea of the masses which weren't involved in the party life at all. This in itself was a reflection of the isolation and degeneration of the Russian revolution as a whole. The activists got in a minority in the first place because of the civil war which killed many good militants, this in turn enabled opportunists and careerists from the old regime to climb up to leadership positions, further suffocating the party.

[ComradeOm]

First of all, welcome to the forum :cool:


Why advocate the existence of a state post-revolution, the apparatus of capitalist modes of production?Your problem here is not with Leninism but rather Marxism. Very quickly, according to Marxists the state is first and foremost an apparatus of class rule. It takes its form and its purpose from the ruling class. Hence a proletarian revolution will entail the destruction of the capitalist state and the creation of new proletarian state. Obviously the latter would not perpetuate capitalist modes of production

Similarly what is your problem with a military comprised of, commanded by, and working in favour of the proletariat? Once there are no more foes to combat, ie its political purpose has been fulfilled, it will simply wither away like the rest of the state

Of course, anyone who babbles on about some form of a highly centralised and uniform vanguard party being necessary has not studied the Russian Revolution. The Bolshevik party of 1917 was as far from the stereotypical image of a small band of 'close-knit revolutionaries', typically lifted from What is to be done?, as is possible

[Dave B]

Of course, anyone who babbles on about some form of a highly centralised and uniform vanguard party being necessary has not studied the Russian Revolution. The Bolshevik party of 1917 was as far from the stereotypical image of a small band of 'close-knit revolutionaries', typically lifted from What is to be done?, as is possible

V. I. LENIN, "LEFT-WING" COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDER




Let the "Lefts" put themselves to a practical test on a national and international scale; let them try to prepare for (and then realize) the dictatorship of the proletariat without a strictly ( or highly?) centralized party with an iron discipline, without the ability to master every sphere, every branch, every variety of political and cultural work. Practical experience will soon make them wiser.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LWC20.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LWC20.html)

[Tjis]

V. I. LENIN, "LEFT-WING" COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDER

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LWC20.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LWC20.html)
Lenin said it so it must be true! :blink:


Let the "Lefts" put themselves to a practical test on a national and international scale; let them try to prepare for (and then realize) the dictatorship of the proletariat without a strictly ( or highly?) centralized party with an iron discipline, without the ability to master every sphere, every branch, every variety of political and cultural work. Practical experience will soon make them wiser.
I can't spot a single argument in this sentence, only unargumented statements. What are you trying to contribute with this quote?

[ComradeOm]

Point proven. Here we have a perfect exhibit of someone whose knowledge of the Revolution extends no further than a database of unflattering quotes pruned from polemics that can be wheeled out at any time. Tell me Dave, without quoting Lenin, just what exactly do you know about the Bolshevik party of 1917? What do you know about its structures, its orientation, its membership? Given your past responses to such challenges of mine I'm guessing that the answer is "next to nothing"

You may be interested to know that I'm currently in the middle of putting together a small essay that addresses these very questions. Largely because I'm fed up of having to repeatedly deal with idiots whose idea of historical research is a quick search of MIA. Here's a small teaser in the form of an out of context quote (naturally) from a real historian:

"By the middle of 1917 [the Bolsheviks] had become an open mass party, bearing little resemblance to the disciplined elite organisation of full time revolutionaries described in What is to be done?. In the second place, neither the party as a whole or its leadership were united on the most basic policy questions" -Sheila Fitzpatrick, (2001), The Russian Revolution

[Charles Xavier]

Leninism is popular because of the (part) successes of the Russian Revolution. Of course, the context that Lenin and Trotsky wrote and acted in (i.e. underdeveloped Russia) has pretty much no relevance to those trying to make socialist revolution in industrially advanced nations like the United States and Britain, but it is still popular.


Haven't read any of Lenin, have you? For example, imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism doesn't even talk about Russia. In fact a large amount of Lenin's writings are concerning Britain, Germany and France.

[Dave B]

Well comradeOm stated himself in post 6 that;


"anyone who babbles on about some form of a highly centralised and uniform vanguard party being necessary has not studied the Russian Revolution"

The quote I gave, on its own’, from Lenin indicated that Lenin thought that is was necessary. Stating that if others thought it wasn’t then;




‘Practical experience will soon make them wiser.’



Now whether Lenin was correct or not is a separate question.


However the quote I gave was hardly out of context. In fact it came at the very end of Lenin’s pamphlet and was if anything a synopsis or concluding statement on the rest of it. As a criticism of the ‘infantile disorder’ of people who thought otherwise.

Lenin thought the party should be a ‘strictly centralized party with an iron discipline’.

There was at times dissension within the ‘inner party’ of the Bolshevik leadership.

And as my understanding of the revolution is being questioned, there was example of it with Zinoviev and Kamenev’s objection to the plan to seize power in a coup through the Bolsheviks control of the Military Revolutionary Committee.

Zinoviev and Kamenev in objecting to the idea broke ranks by revealing it in the press.

I discussed it in a thread on the Russian revolution on the libcom site thus;



So the Leninist thesis then is something like the following;

There was no Blanquist style Bolshevik conspiracy to seize power and everything was done above board and out in the open with the full knowledge and therefore support of the Petrograd Soviet.

No double dealing, gulling or lying and the Military Revolutionary Committee that carried out the coup was not in any way a mere organ of the Bolshevik central committee

The reason that people ‘knew’ or suspected that the Bolsheviks were secretly planning an insurrection was because two leading Bolsheviks had blown the whistle, thus.

E. H. Carr chapter four
Quote:



At the end of the meeting of 16 October 1917 Kamenev resigned his membership of the Central committee. Two days latter he published in Novaya Zhizn, a non-party journal of the left, a letter once more protesting in his own name and that of Zinoviev, against the decision. The letter was not only a breach of party discipline…….but a betrayal to the world of the party decision……..

Not the betrayal of an open ‘democratic’ decision, as that would be difficult.

Zinoviev and Kamenev were subsequently accused of committing a crime stike breaking and threatened with expulsion etc.




Trotsky, in an attempt to cover up Kamenev’s indiscretion, publicly denied in the Petrograd Soviet that any decision had been taken for armed insurrection.

The following is probably Trotsky’s owned sanitised version of this;


"During the last days," declared Trotsky at the end of an evening’s session of the Soviet, "the press has been full of communications, rumours, articles about an impeding action ... The decisions of the Petrograd Soviet are published and made known to everybody. The Soviet is an elective institution, and cannot have a decision which would not be known to the workers and soldiers ... I declare in the name of the Soviet that no armed actions have been settled upon by us, but if the Soviet in the course of events should be obliged to set the date for a coming-out, the workers and soldiers would come out to the last man at its summons. They say that I signed an order for five thousand rifles ... Yes, I signed it ... The Soviet will continue to organise and arm the workers’ guard." The delegates understood: the battle was near, but without them and over their heads the signal would not be given.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch41.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch41.htm)




http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/trotskys-history-russian-revolution-21102008?page=2 (http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/trotskys-history-russian-revolution-21102008?page=2)


The second of Lenin’s letters on the strike breaking Zinoviev and Kamenev is probably the following, not on the MIA

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LCC17.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/LCC17.html)

[ComradeOm]

Lenin thought the party should be a ‘strictly centralized party with an iron discipline’And was it? Can you look back and tell me whether or not Lenin was correct in this assessment? This is where its useful to step beyond the quotes and actually study the history


And as my understanding of the revolution is being questioned, there was example of it with Zinoviev and Kamenev’s objection to the plan to seize power in a coup through the Bolsheviks control of the Military Revolutionary CommitteeSo would you regard this as an example of "iron discipline"? That is, two prominent Bolsheviks 'breaking ranks' to publicly repudiate a decision made by the Central Committee?

I'll assume that you know that Kamenev resignation was not accepted and that he continued to publicly voice his opposition to the CC's decision (including in front of massed rallies during the 22 October celebrations) without any repercussions. Obviously Lenin's attempts to have both him and Zinoviev expelled from the party came to nothing. Ironically enough Kamenev had earlier been in a similar position when he first edited and then blocked Lenin's attempts to publicly criticise the Bolsheviks in newsprint (see Heroes of Fraud and the Mistakes of the Bolsheviks (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/22.htm) and Publicist's Diary (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/22a.htm)). Does this still seem like a party with "iron discipline"?

As for the "highly centralised party"... tell me, are you at all familiar with the structure of the Bolshevik party? That is, the myriad structures that comprised the organisation. Within Petrograd alone there were three major Bolshevik groups - the Central Committee, Petersburg Committee, and Military Organisation - with over a dozen regional bureaus in the provinces. Amongst the latter the CC had extremely limited influence and even the various Petrograd bodies were more or less independent. The Petersburg Committee, for example, had no hesitations about calling the CC out on an issue or applying pressure when they felt it was lagging

But hey, why bother with mere details when you can harp on about Lenin


No double dealing, gulling or lying and the Military Revolutionary Committee that carried out the coup was not in any way a mere organ of the Bolshevik central committeeAre you suggesting that it wasn't? That the MRC was not voted into existence by the Petrograd Soviet on 9 October and reconfirmed on 16 October? That its executive's membership did not include Left SRs and anarchists? That the chairman was not a Left SR? That its authority was not accepted by the Petrograd garrisons in a series of democratic votes?


The reason that people ‘knew’ or suspected that the Bolsheviks were secretly planning an insurrection was because two leading Bolsheviks had blown the whistle, thus.What a bombshell. People must have been shocked. Oh wait... here comes historical reality again

Gazeta-kopeika exclaimed on 14 October that "there is definite evidence that the Bolsheviks are energetically preparing for a coming out on October 20". Right wing papers, who had been proclaiming this since July, followed suit in the following days with Zhivoe slovo running the headline "The Bolsheviks are coming out". Perhaps Kamenev and Zinoviev had forewarned the papers as to the intention of the CC to vote against them on 16 October and their own disclosure to Novaya Zhizn on 18 October

[Dave B]

On the relationship between The Military-Revolutionary Committee and the Bolshevik CC;




Leon Trotsky, The History of the Russian revolution,Volume Three: The Triumph of the Soviets, Chapter 41, The Military-Revolutionary Committee


And thus the Military Revolutionary Committee, although it went to work only on the 20th, five days before the insurrection, found – ready to its hands – a sufficiently well organised dominion. Being boycotted by the Compromisers, the staff of the Committee contained only Bolsheviks and Left Social Revolutionaries: that eased and simplified the task. Of the Social Revolutionaries only Lazimir did any work, and he was even placed at the head of the bureau in order to emphasise the fact that the Committee was a Soviet and not a party institution. In essence, however, the Committee, whose president was Trotsky, and its chief workers Podvoisky, Antonov-Ovseenko, Lashevich, Sadovsky, and Mekhonoshin, relied exclusively upon Bolsheviks.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch41.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch41.htm)

E. H Carr, a ‘Leninist’, agreed that the Military-Revolutionary Committee was under the ‘strict’ control of the Bolshevik CC.


There is a difference between what Lenin wanted with his ‘Its my party and I will do what I want to’ and what Lenin got. Actually that went beyond just controlling the members of his party, into material and historical realities which refused to bend to his will as readily and resulted in his never ending ‘zig-zags’ in policy to accommodate it.

To try and make it clear I am not a Leninist. Therefore what Lenin thought about how to organise a political party has no impact on myself as regards to my activity or what is to be done etc. You might expect Leninists to think differently. However, I am a Marxist but would not slavishly follow everything Marx ever said and I suppose a Leninist could say the same thing about Lenin.

However what defines Leninism, and the opposition to it, is its authoritarian nature, one aspect of which is the centralised organisation of the Party. Which is reflected in the kind of government it produces.



The fear being that;


that any revolution (that) may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm)

As also ‘realised’ in;

V. I. Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government

March-April 1918



or an expression of the dull-wittedness of the petty-bourgeois democrats, of the Chernovs, Tseretelis and Martovs, who chatter about the unity of democracy, the dictatorship of democracy, the general democratic front, and similar nonsense. Those whom even the progress of the Russian Revolution of 1917-18 has not taught that a middle course is impossible, must be given up for lost.



That in the history of revolutionary movements the dictatorship of individuals was very often the expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes has been shown by the irrefutable experience of history. ……….




on the other hand, they demand of us a higher democracy than bourgeois democracy and say: personal dictatorship is absolutely incompatible with your, Bolshevik (i.e., not bourgeois, but socialist ), Soviet democracy.
These are exceedingly poor arguments.




If we are not anarchists, we must admit that the state, that is, coercion, is necessary for the transition from capitalism to socialism. The form of coercion is determined by the degree of development of the given revolutionary class, and also by special circumstances, such as, for example, the legacy of a long and reactionary war and the forms of resistance put up by the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. There is, therefore, absolutely no contradiction in principle between Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial powers by individuals.


http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm)


I am sure there are some Leninist who would say hurrah to that, you may be one of them for all I know.


This wasn’t some minor after the fact issue, the anticipation of this kind of thing was one of the two major causes of the Menshevik- Bolshevik split.

As outlined by Trotsky the Menshevik in his Maximilien Lenin article, although it was outlined or drafted by Plekhanov I believe.
;

Our Political Tasks, PART IV: JACOBINISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch05.htm)




The other being the Bolsheviks intention to involve itself in the post revolution administration of capitalism, or state capitalism as it turned out.

I quote Lenin not because I like reading it, but because I don’t expect Leninists to pay attention to anything else. It is also a standard technique to use the words of your opponents ideologues, facts, to damn themselves.

I am not quite sure what you meant by you last point but the initial plan to have an ‘insurrection’ was first discussed and agreed upon in meeting on the ‘9th October’. A meeting that Lenin actually attended in disguise. Zinoviev and Kamenvev were the only two that voted against it at that meeting.

According to Chapter four of Carr’s The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-23.

The ‘minutes’ are recorded below.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/MCCa17.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/MCCa17.html)

Although this probably drifting off into history and I likely to be split again.

[ComradeOm]

On the relationship between The Military-Revolutionary Committee and the Bolshevik CCYet on 20 October the CC rejected the suggestion that its own Military Organisation should be in control of preparations for revolution and pointedly stated that:

"All Bolshevik organisations can become part of the revolutionary centre organised by the Soviet and discuss within the Bolshevik fraction all questions which concern them" (Quoted in Rabinowitch)

This rather contradicts any suggestion that the MRC was under the "strict control" of the Bolshevik CC. Clearly the planning for revolution was delegated to the MRC and the Bolshevik members within it, a degree of decentralisation that reminds one of the Bolshevik party in general and the joint anti-Kornilov measures. Which is not to say of course that the MRC was not dominated by Bolsheviks. You are incorrect to simply dismiss the Left SR members (their presence helps explain the slow and cautious behaviour of the MRC during the first days of the revolution) but, as you note, the Mensheviks and Right SRs had washed their hands of the whole affair. Who else was going to fill in these positions? Frankly if the MRC was a Bolshevik organ then so too was the Soviet that elected it! And if the Soviet was Bolshevik then so were the factories and districts that elected members to it


I am not quite sure what you meant by you last point but the initial plan to have an ‘insurrection’ was first discussed and agreed upon in meeting on the ‘9th October’. A meeting that Lenin actually attended in disguise. Zinoviev and Kamenvev were the only two that voted against it at that meetingOn 10 October the CC committed itself to a course of insurrection. On 16 October the question was revisited in another CC meeting (how very democratic, those Bolsheviks) in which Kamenev and Zinoviev again argued for a more moderate course. Again Lenin's resolution was upheld and Zinoviev's defeated. He and Kamenvev then went public with their article in [I]Novaya Zhizn on 18 October. In the intervening period no less than two papers had already exposed, or at least claimed to, Bolshevik plans for an insurrection


E. H Carr, a ‘Leninist’, agreed that the Military-Revolutionary Committee was under the ‘strict’ control of the Bolshevik CCCarr's work, while ground-breaking at the time, is over half a century old. Carr himself remained probably the closest Western adherent to official Soviet historiography... not a good thing. Like yourself, far too many Soviet historians gave undue weight to what Lenin said or did. This includes the typical characterisation of the Bolshevik party as a 'close knit band of revolutionaries' in an attempt to force the theory of 1902 onto the more muddled reality of 1917

You've of course made the exact same error but from the opposite angle. Your conception of Leninism (that which defines it in your mind) is, to use your own words, its "authoritarian nature" and "centralised organisation". You've made up your mind that this is the case and are now projecting this judgement back through history. Because all Leninist parties have "centralised organisations" the Bolshevik party of 1917 must have had a "centralised organisation". Leaving aside the ridiculous logic, this was most patently not the case, and has been clearly established as such in virtually all recent research,. But then historical reality does not seem to have factored into this judgement of yours

And you dare to call yourself a Marxist :mad:


-----

Now that's the history out of the way. Everything else you've thrown up is, and I have to be blunt here, more or less irrelevant shit. Don't bother responding to it, although it would be a pleasant surprise to see some of it taken on board, as I've just venting my anger here


To try and make it clear I am not a Leninist. Therefore what Lenin thought about how to organise a political party has no impact on myself as regards to my activity or what is to be done etcNo, I rather think it does. Your anti-Lenin agenda is fairly transparent (what with you continual posting of irrelevant quotes) and its clearly driving your flawed and biased interpretation of the Russian Revolution


You might expect Leninists to think differently. However, I am a Marxist but would not slavishly follow everything Marx ever said and I suppose a Leninist could say the same thing about LeninYet you seem to give Lenin's words a surprising amount of weight. I am supposed to be the Leninist here and yet I have not quoted the man once. Indeed I've openly rubbished his interpretation of the Bolshevik organisation during 1917. In contrast you have quoted him no less than half a dozen times in the above post alone and assign enormous value to his words. Funny that


This wasn’t some minor after the fact issue, the anticipation of this kind of thing was one of the two major causes of the Menshevik- Bolshevik splitGod, you really will do anything to avoid talking about 1917, won't you?


I quote Lenin not because I like reading it, but because I don’t expect Leninists to pay attention to anything else. It is also a standard technique to use the words of your opponents ideologues, facts, to damn themselvesWhich would be a far more effective tactic if I gave any weight to those words. As it is you are just spewing quotes to avoid engaging me on any topic of substance


Although this probably drifting off into history and I likely to be split again.That's it, right there. Tell me, how on earth can a discussion of the Bolshevik party structure in 1917 be about anything but history? You seem to have confused me for someone who gives a feck about inane theoretical arguments and blind quote-flinging. I don't care about your feelings towards Leninism and, beyond its incredibly grating manner, I don't care how many quotes you throw out about what Lenin said about state capitalism or dictatorship or what he had for breakfast. It is not of interest to me

If you intend to challenge me then do so with historical facts and not bullshit irrelevancies. Prove to me that the Bolshevik party of 1917 was "strictly centralized party with an iron discipline". Its no news to me that Lenin was of the opinion it was, and I've already made my thoughts on that very clear, but you have singularly failed to back up your assertion with anything approaching historical analysis or fact. Its just "Lenin said this" or "Trotsky said that"... its like arguing with a feckin Stalinist

[Cumannach]

In fairness to Dave B I don't think his posts have been so hugely irrelevant in a thread called 'why Leninism', he also uses referenced quotes from several sources, I don't know why you're all lambasting him so much, even though I disagree with everything he says. I mean at least he's not a "Stalinist" :rolleyes:

[ComradeOm]

In fairness to Dave B I don't think his posts have been so hugely irrelevant in a thread called 'why Leninism', he also uses referenced quotes from several sources, I don't know why you're all lambasting him so much, even though I disagree with everything he says. I mean at least he's not a "Stalinist" :rolleyes:The quotes that he has been producing would be well suited to a theoretical discussion on party structures (that's being generous - the waffle on "dictatorship of individuals" is simply entirely irrelevant) but serve extremely limited purpose in a discussion on actual history. It is not enough to pronounce that "Lenin said so" and leave it at that

This is particularly true given my assertion in the above posts that the reality of the situation did not match Lenin's later conclusions. That is, that the Bolshevik party of was an "open mass party" and not a "strictly centralized party with an iron discipline". Now I have, in this thread and on previous occasions, challenged Dave_B to disprove this assertion. Yet all I receive in return are endless Lenin quotes of questionable relevancy. He is either unable or unwilling to go past the rhetoric and engage in an actual discussion on the actual events and actors of 1917

Now usually I have no problem with someone not being up to speed on the history - we don't all have the time on our hands that I do - and I've always been more than happy to explain or argue, through threads or pm, history and my take on certain events. However it seriously pisses me off when someone professes to have an "understanding" of historical circumstances that is derived almost entirely from polemics on MIA. Browsing what Lenin/Trotsky/whoever wrote is not the same as thorough historical research. All this is particularly true when discussing the Bolshevik party of 1917. So much bullshit has been written about the party's organisation and structure - by both advocates and detractors of Leninism - that few people actually look past the polemics and bother to read up on actual events

Its particularly maddening when said poster then decides to boast of his own Marxist credentials while studiously avoiding any actual historical analysis

[Red_Storm]

Well, I'm not going to get into Leninism, but there are quite a few recent discussions in learning on the subject of the state state such as in "Marxist opposition to Anarchism." The idea of the workers state is a Marxist concept, not just something that originated with the Leninists. A permanent military doesn't make any sense because the state isn't permanent.

Yes:





The state doesn't exist post-revolution, it exists during the revolution. Current states are apparatus' for the maintenance of bourgeois rule, but not all states in history. A workers state would obviously exist for the purposes of dismantling capitalism.
And how do u belive that the appereance of the red Burgoasie can be avoided, ( the case with Yugoslavia for example) if there is a strong state?

[davidasearles]

Comrade Om wrote:

Your problem here is not with Leninism but rather Marxism. Very quickly, according to Marxists the state is first and foremost an apparatus of class rule. It takes its form and its purpose from the ruling class. Hence a proletarian revolution will entail the destruction of the capitalist state and the creation of new proletarian state. Obviously the latter would not perpetuate capitalist modes of production

das responds:

I don't buy it at all. There is no "Marxism" on the subject worthy of the name. As late as 1891 we have Engels rambling on about the "state".

"Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state
from servants of society into masters of society — an inevitable
transformation in all previous states — the Commune made use of
two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts —
administrative, judicial, and educational — by election on the basis
of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same
electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second
place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received
by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to
anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-
hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding
mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also
added in profusion.


"This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by
A NEW AND REALLY DEMOCRATIC STATE is described in detail in
the third section of The Civil War. But it was necessary to dwell
briefly here once more on some of its features, because in Germany
particularly the superstitious belief in the state has been carried
over from philosophy into the general consciousness of the
bourgeoisie and even to many workers. According to the
philosophical notion, the state is the "realization of the idea" or the
Kingdom of God on earth, translated into philosophical terms, the
sphere in which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized.
And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and
everything connected with it, which takes roots the more readily
as people from their childhood are accustomed to imagine that the
affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be
looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the
past, that is, through the state and its well-paid officials. And
people think they have taken quite an extraordinary bold step
forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary
monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality,
however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of
one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no
less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the
proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose
worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid
having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time
as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will
be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."


Throw the entire lumber? What SPECIFICALLY is being talked about here? Nothing specific. Oh sure - standing armies, hereditary offices should go. But specifically what functions carried out by the then current state should remain? No idea whatsoever.

Lenin in State and Revolution pulls the same stunt. Go to the main heading #2 in Chapter 3:

"2. What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?"

Wouldn't we have expected to see Lenin give an answer to his own question?

Marx, Engels, Lenin, nor DeLeon could not see the answer that was smacking them right in the face.

I humbly suggest that for all of the cyclic reasoning as to the state being "an organ of class rule" that in today's economy there is nothing but the inertia of the status quo to suggest that "democratic" state legislative authority could not be used to end class rule in industrial production by allowing the workers to assume collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

After that workers shall write their own history as to what should go on the scrap heap, what should stay, what should be changed, when and how.

[Unclebananahead]

I posted this before, but I think this discussion merits re-posting it:

Do you suppose that the revolutionary struggle of the Marxists in Russia could have been victorious had it not adhered to the vanguard party principle? It's difficult to say exactly, but it is clear that it was Lenin's Bolshevik faction that led and achieved victory for the Russian Marxists. I suppose it's somewhere within the realm of possibility that Martov's approach might have yielded comparable, or even better results, but history didn't turn out that way. For those who don't know, Julius Martov was the leader of the Mensheviks, and the origin of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split was the 2nd congress of the RSDLP held in 1903.

The main split began over the question of party membership, with Lenin arguing that party members be required to be a member of one of the party's organizations, and Martov arguing that party members not be required to join a party organization, but rather just work under the party's guidance. Lenin was initially outvoted, but after the economists (reformists) and bundists (Jewish workers org) left, Lenin's side won out. It's interesting to consider that had these elements remained, the course of the Russian revolution would have been quite very much different in some respects. But, those who consider it likely that this would have been a preferable scenario yielding more favorable outcomes, should recall that the Mensheviks tended towards collaboration with liberal bourgeois parties later on (after 1905). Would anyone consider it likely then, considering the aforesaid detail, that they would have seized power and established a worker's state? Or would they have only continued to collude with the working classes' enemies, and to permit the continued existence of a provisional government that did not truly represent the interests of the majority?

Lenin's argument against Martov's position regarding party definition was a continuation of his advocacy of the role of the party as a vanguard of the working class. The major explication of this stance can be found in his 1902 pamphlet, 'What Is to Be Done?,' in which he writes, "the working class exclusively by its own efforts is able to develop only trade-union consciousness...Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers."

Despite this, Lenin later proposed a resolution at the 3rd congress of the RSDLP (1905) to make every local committee have a majority of workers; something like eight workers to every two intellectuals! Interestingly, Lenin was booed, upbraided, and even had 'What Is to Be Done?' quoted against him. Apparently, the local committee men, or 'komitetchiki' were resolutely loyal to the notion of an underground, or illegal party. Some might point at Lenin and scream, 'hypocrite!' for the supposed inconsistency he displayed, but what must be remembered and considered is that Lenin's decisions regarding how to proceed were not borne out of some sort of ideological abstraction, but rather a tactical consideration of how best the revolutionary struggle might achieve its goals. In the beginning, when many of its members were jailed, and the RSDLP was subject to considerable police persecution, the choice of a smaller, more secretive 'vanguard' was not so much an ideological choice, but a tactical one. Then a few years later, in 1905, Lenin realized that a somewhat different strategy was needed.

What must be remembered was that Lenin did not intend his writings on tactics and party organization to be applicable to ALL revolutionaries for ALL time, rather he was proposing strategies for Russian revolutionaries at the time during which he wrote. I think it goes without saying that were comrade Lenin to be with us here today, he'd recommend that any and all strategies we adopt be formed with a sober, objective analysis of actually existing conditions. What we should do is to take those elements of his contribution to revolutionary theory that apply to us today, and omit or leave behind those that do not. And moreover, it is possible that the vanguard party theory may be obsolete, but I don't think that I can say that for certain. It should be remembered that, as identified by Marx, false consciousness tends to predominate among workers. Everyday workers are subjected to subtle and not so subtle ideological indoctrination from the bourgeois superstructure: its media, culture, and religion. All of these conspire to instill false consciousness in the worker, and cause him or her to identify the interests of the bourgeoisie as their own, and to see his fellow workers as competitors, not as allies. All this tends to have a severely retardant effect upon the development of class awareness, or the realization by the worker that he is in fact a member of the proletariat, and that moreover his needs can best be met not by seeking to undermine his fellow workers, but by abolishing the system of capitalism altogether. This comrades, is what we must overcome. So if anyone has any ideas better than the vanguard theory, I'm ready to hear them out.

[davidasearles]

Uncle banana head wrote:

Do you suppose that the revolutionary struggle of the Marxists in Russia could have been victorious had it not adhered to the vanguard party principle?

das:

"The revolutionary struggle"? Victorious? More like the victory of ignorance.

[Unclebananahead]

"The revolutionary struggle"? Victorious? More like the victory of ignorance.

Just what exactly does that mean, "the victory of ignorance"? Lenin and the leaders of the Bolsheviks were all invariably highly educated, so I'm not certain where you're coming from on this.

[Dave B]

Perhaps he was thinking of something like the following;

1890, Engels to Otto Von Boenigk, In Breslau



The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment. We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., it is true, ……… we can get along perfectly well without the other "intellectuals". The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check.

You speak of an absence of uniform insight. This exists — but on the part of the intellectuals ……………. and who do not suspect how much they still have to learn from the workers...


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm)

[Unclebananahead]

What, so I am to believe and interpret, according to this quote from Engels, that the Russian revolution should have been led by "technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc."? Who is to say that the Bolsheviks had none of the above amongst their members? Moreover, the fact that Lenin was not a technician, agronomist, engineer, chemist, or architect does not imply a state of ignorance. Suppose I were to call everyone here, that isn't one of the above aforementioned specialist professionals, ignorant. I think that I would end up calling a lot of people--most likely including you--ignorant.

Anyhow, regardless of what you, or DAS think, Lenin and those associating with him managed to erect the world's first worker's state, and this worker's state, regardless of however deformed or imperfect you or anybody else think it was, managed to persist despite considerable difficulty for several decades (something like 70 years). Explain to me how ignorance can create something that persists for that long.

[PCommie]

USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba are/were all Marxist-Leninist. They are failure in the sense of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whatever the intentions of Vanguard ideology on, they lead to power-hunger, and thus are not acceptable.

-PC

[Dave B]

Well I think you are probably misreading it a bit and out of the historical context of the time with the ‘agronomist, engineer, chemist, or architect’ although that subject is interesting in itself.

I am a chemist and factory worker myself and have been for most of my life. As were both my parents for what it matters.

In Engels time most of these ‘agronomists, engineers, chemists or architects’ were in bed with the capitalist class, very bourgeois, and often taken into partnership in capitalist enterprises. And had a economic role similar to or the same as the ‘functioning capitalists’ as outlined in the chapters in Volume III on ‘Profit of Enterprise’.

Consequently, so it was felt, it was difficult to get them to join the communist movement. As it would not be possible to operate industrial socialism without these kinds of people, they thought there would have to be some mechanism to ‘force’ them to work. In fact that was one under discussed reason why they thought a ‘state’ would be necessary at first.

In fact in an unfortunate example, the Bolsheviks realised that they had that problem as well.

Interestingly Marx and Engels thought that with the development of capitalism these kinds of roles eg ‘agronomist, engineer, chemist, or architect’ would be proletarianised or just become ordinary wage labour. Which is clearly true now as I am an industrial chemist and only earn about the national average.

So Karl, probably concentrating on skilled labour in factory management and ‘commercial skills’ etc but generalising it out a bit as well in Volume III;



the more these wages of supervision, like any other wage, found their definite level and definite market-price, on the one hand, with the development of a numerous class of industrial and commercial managers, and the more they fell, on the other, like all wages for skilled labour, with the general development which reduces the cost of production of specially trained labour-power.

Footnote;

The general relaxation of conventional barriers, the increased facilities of education tend to bring down the wages of skilled labour instead of raising those of the unskilled." (J. St. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 2nd ed., London, 1849, I, p. 479.)


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch23.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch23.htm)


And;



The universality of public education enables capitalists to recruit such labourers from classes that formerly had no access to such trades and were accustomed to a lower standard of living. Moreover, this increases supply, and hence competition. With few exceptions, the labour-power of these people is therefore devaluated with the progress of capitalist production. Their wage falls, while their labour capacity increases. The capitalist increases the number of these labourers whenever he has more value and profits to realise. The increase of this labour is always a result, never a cause of more surplus-value.

Footnote;

How well this forecast of the fate of the commercial proletariat, written in 1865, has stood the test of time can be corroborated by hundreds of German clerks, who are trained in all commercial operations and acquainted with three or four languages, and offer their services in vain in London City at 25 shillings per week, which is far below the wages of a good machine. A blank of two pages in the manuscript indicates that this point was to have been treated at greater length. For the rest, we refer the reader to Book II (Kap. VI.) ("The Costs of Circulation") [English edition: Vol. II, Ch. VI. — Ed.], where various matters belonging under this head have already been discussed. — F.E.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch17.htm)

[Unclebananahead]

USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba are/were all Marxist-Leninist. They are failure in the sense of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whatever the intentions of Vanguard ideology on, they lead to power-hunger, and thus are not acceptable.

-PC
Oh? So these countries all failed to create perfect utopian societies so you deem them 'failures'? What people like you seem to fail to take into consideration is that countries which had successful Leninist led revolutions were virtually in the middle ages in terms of economic development. Frequently the largest groups in such countries are peasants, not proletarians. Peasants generally have a more backwards outlook, and don't invariably regard themselves as workers. In fact they frequently would think of themselves as 'small proprietors.' So they wouldn't necessarily have the most progressive attitude. Much of the project to build socialism in the third world is beset by this problem.

The 'Vanguard ideology' is really the only rational course when the party is driven underground through persecution, like it was at the time that Lenin advanced this idea when he wrote "What Is to Be Done?" When police are jailing your members, and beating up people that show up to marches, rallies, and public lectures, your movement invariably has to go underground, and when this happens it needs to function as smoothly and efficiently as possible to avoid disruption, security leaks, police infiltration, and the like.

If you read my earlier post, you'll please kindly note that Lenin himself changed his tune somewhat regarding this tactic, when in 1905 at the 3rd party congress of the RSDLP he called for more workers than intellectuals--a measure greatly differing from the establishment of an elite vanguard party made up of full-time revolutionaries.

[Dave B]

Hi Uncle Banana Head

There is more than a small grain of wisdom in your comment;


is that countries which had successful Leninist led revolutions were virtually in the middle ages in terms of economic development. Frequently the largest groups in such countries are peasants, not proletarians. Peasants generally have a more backwards outlook, and don't invariably regard themselves as workers. In fact they frequently would think of themselves as 'small proprietors.' So they wouldn't necessarily have the most progressive attitude. Much of the project to build socialism in the third world is beset by this problem.

This is why the orthodox Marxist response for what workers should do in this feudal situation is to assist, with caution the introduction of capitalism.

Actually Lenin and the Bolsheviks held this position in 1905 even if they took it a step further. What they wanted to do was to participate in the government or administration of bourgeois capitalism after the capitalist revolution.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm)


http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works//1905/3rdcong/13.htm#bkV08E121 (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works//1905/3rdcong/13.htm)

The Mensheviks disagreed believing, from previous experience and Engels advice, that by participating in the government of capitalism a workers party would end up disgracing themselves with ‘infamy and treachery’.

Thus from a letter 1894, Engels to Filippo Turati, In Milan which the Mensheviks used as part of their argument against the Bolsheviks.





After the common victory we might perhaps be offered some seats in the new Government--but always in a minority. Here lies the greatest danger. After the February Revolution in 1848 the French socialistic Democrats (the Reforme people, Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, Flocon, etc.) were incautious enough to accept such positions.

As a minority in the Government they involuntarily bore the responsibility for all the infamy and treachery which the majority, composed of pure Republicans, committed against the working class, while at the same time their participation in the government completely paralysed the revolutionary action of the working class they were supposed to represent.


http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm)

Of course it is one ironies of history that the Mensheviks are accused by Bolsheviks of doing what the Bolsheviks were proposing in 1905 and the Mensheviks were arguing against.

The Mensheviks were split over participating in the Provisional government, but those that were for it claimed that it as a temporary measure until the set up of constituent assembly or parliament that was scheduled for six months later, at which point expecting to not win the elections they would bow out..

Skobelev was one of the infamous Mensheviks who went into the provisional government. Not quite the kind of person and ‘politics’ one would have guessed from the Leninist interpretations of history, although I have no desire to defend Skobelev. The following is what Lenin said of him in Pravda No. 58 and 59, May 29 and 30 (16 and 17), 1917.


http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/16b.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/16b.htm)


Actually when Lenin decided to introduce state capitalism he didn’t really change the Bolshevik position much from that of 1905. Instead of administering ‘bourgeois’ or private capitalism from the ‘marble halls of power’ they just went onto of administering Bolshevik or state capitalism from the ‘marble halls of power’.

And by taking a dry and dispassionate historical materialist viewpoint of it and that history repeats itself or as;

‘
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice……..’


or over and over again.

Or as Ted Grant put it with his foot in his mouth;



Cliff himself points to the fact that in the bourgeois revolution the masses did the fighting and the bourgeois got the fruits. The masses did not know what they were fighting for, but they fought in reality for the rule of the bourgeoisie. Take the French Revolution. It was prepared and had its ideology in the works of the philosophers of the enlightenment, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc. However, they really did believe in the idealisation of bourgeois society.

They believed the codicils of liberty, equality and fraternity which they preached. As is well known, and as Cliff himself quotes Marx to prove, the French Revolution went beyond its social base. It resulted in the revolutionary dictatorship of the sans culottes which went beyond the bounds of bourgeois society. As Marx explained, this had the salutory effect of completing in a few months what would otherwise have taken the bourgeois decades to do. The leaders of the revolutionary wing of the petty bourgeoisie which wielded this dictatorship - Robespierre, Danton, etc, sincerely believed in the doctrines of the philosophers and attempted to put them into practice.

They could not do so because it was impossible to go beyond the economic base of the given society. They inevitably had to lose power and merely paved the way for bourgeois society. If Cliff’s argument is correct, one could only conclude that the same thing happened with the Russian as with the French Revolution. Marx was the prophet of the new state capitalism. Lenin and Trotsky were the Robespierres and Carnots of the Russian Revolution. The fact that Lenin and Trotsky had good intentions is beside the point, as were the good intentions of the leaders of the bourgeois revolution. They merely paved the way for the rule of the new state capitalist class.



http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm (http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm)

That is the reason why Bolshevik Russia ‘is not state capitalist’.

The Bolshevik Vanguard party (that was only about 1% of the population and was therefore neither open or mass) might start out looking a bit different to bourgeois capitalist class but end up looking the same.


"No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."



There is an interesting essay by Orwell on Burnham and the USSR etc below;

http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh (http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh)

[Unclebananahead]

So what then, in your 'esteemed opinion' is the way forward for the working people of the world? You seem quite willing to pour scorn upon what was accomplished by the Bolsheviks in the USSR, and presumably any and all similar successful revolutionaries in the world, upon the basis that the revolutionaries, 'endeavored to realize lofty ambitions that their countries respective economic bases could not feasibly yield, due to being insufficiently developed.' This view being somewhat consistent with Kautsky, Plekhanov, and other like minded so-called 'orthodox Marxists.'

But is it not a more or less established fact that in the last 100 years, revolutionary struggle has been ripest, and at its most incendiary in the post-colonial/third world, where their economies and infrastructure have been mal-developed by imperialism? Is it therefore not essential to develop and promulgate a successful theory of revolutionary struggle and socialism building geared towards the post-colonial/third world, if we wish for there ever to be in existence a political formation that can effectively challenge US imperial domination? Please let me know your thoughts on this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky had a pro-Bolshevik opinion between 1905 and 1909, then shifted towards the ever-vulgar Menshevism in 1917.

[Dave B]

Hi Uncle Banana Head re post 28

Again you have raised some interesting points.

The following opinions are pretty much my own personal ones and not particularly fixed or strongly held.

It would certainly appear that on the surface there does seem to be more radicalism amongst the working class in countries that are just starting to develop or move into the sphere of industrial capitalism when compared to first world countries for example that have a long tradition of it.

This would seem to be peculiar, especially as the first world workers tend to be better educated have more resources at their disposal and perhaps an environment of civil liberties more conducive to it. This is a favourite point of Chomsky’s I think.


One reason for it might be that it could take several generations of capitalism before a population can become fully culturally conditioned to accept capitalism and its ideology.


There was I think a similar situation in Europe about 100 years ago where the workers in Germany, new to capitalism, were much more radical than say the British workers who had had it for a while. Something that used to exasperate Engels and to some extent confuse him, as it contradicted theory in a way.

There could be another supplementary explanation that capitalism in a emerging capitalist country is just that much more brutal.

I don’t know what exactly you mean by ‘revolutions’ but perhaps to start off with we could talk about Cuba, Nicaragua and Vietnam.


I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in this area.


I think in these instances at least the rebellion of the populations was more motivated by the straightforward vicious repression of gangster states propped up by a quasi colonial super-power. And to varying extents the political flag of ‘Marxism’ that they were carried out under was a secondary consideration for most of the participants.

You could even argue I suppose that say in the case of Cuba and Nicaragua that as far as the rebellion was for greater civil liberties they were a success. In as much as what followed in that respect was an improvement on what the situation was before. Even if the bar was not set very high.

Some people could say that it could have been achieved in a different way etc. However it would be condescending to say to those that lived through the previous system and the struggle and thought it was worth it that they were stupid for thinking that. Having said that the dead don’t speak.

As you stated I think;

On the peasant thing, in general and according to ‘Marxist theory’ the so called feudal peasants tend to just want to own their own piece of land and run it like a small family petty bourgeois business. Owning their own means of production and working it and selling and trading their produce with the rest of the world like small scale family sized anarcho syndicates.

If they don’t exactly start off being petty bourgeois their economic situation would soon turn them to that so the argument goes.

There was in fact a big debate between Marx & Engels and Russian ‘socialists or communists’ circa 1880 over whether or not it was possible for Russian peasants in particular to go straight from ‘feudal or peasant’ consciousness to communist consciousness without passing through the wage labour or proletarian stage.

The idea was that in Russia the economy of the peasants or at least much or some of it was based around a commune or co-operative system. Where the peasants worked as collectives within the feudal system, I think it was called the ‘mir’ system or something.

The argument is a bit academic now I suppose hence only my passing interest in it and hazy recollection. Without re reading it there is something on it below I think.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/01/russia.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/01/russia.htm)


At one stage I think in early Marx they were advocating the nationalisation of the land so as to turn the peasants into wage workers to speed up the proletarianisation process.

That slipped into Bolshevik theory at various levels and times I think depending on how you would choose to view it.

I may be going off line for a week or so soon.

[Dave B]

“
By the way I have no desire to have my opinion ‘esteemed’ in fact that is the very kind of thing I am arguing against.

This kind of thing where intellectual hierarchies are set up established and accepted. So we get Ted Grant said this or Tony Cliff said that, trust me I am a trot intellectual.


If it was convenient I would be just as happy to post under revolving names, it is the ideas and argument that is important.

Hierarchies are bourgeois, I am better therefore I deserve more, be it attention, ranking or whatever.


Although having said that speaking for myself you can’t help finding certain peoples posts more intriguing than others, sometimes you are more interested in your opponents so it has little to do with esteem in that sense.

All this ranking system of senior revolutionary and Global Moderator shit is just a cultural part of it.




"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves."

From an address on Industrial Unionism delivered at Grand Central Palace. New York City, Dec. 18,1905.

[Trystan]

Haven't read any of Lenin, have you? For example, imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism doesn't even talk about Russia. In fact a large amount of Lenin's writings are concerning Britain, Germany and France.

Hang on a minute, I though you had no idea what I was talking about? But you are sure that I haven't read any Lenin? What are you a fucking psychic? Oh yeah, he wrote some stuff about imperialism. Pretty mediocre compared to other Marxists of that time.

[PRC-UTE]

Hang on a minute, I though you had no idea what I was talking about? But you are sure that I haven't read any Lenin? What are you a fucking psychic? Oh yeah, he wrote some stuff about imperialism. Pretty mediocre compared to other Marxists of that time.

which Marxist writing and studying imperialism in the same period would you recommend?

[Unclebananahead]

I would suppose it has to do with imperialism, the deliberate maldevelopment of the third world, and people therein being on the 'periphery of capitalism.' Global capitalism has been for some time, and still very much is currently in its imperialist stage, wherein the relationship between oppressor nations and oppressed nations assumes the character of the class struggle found in earlier stages of capitalism within capitalist nations themselves, between proletariat and bourgeoisie. It would seem only inevitable that the red flag would most frequently be raised where class oppression and human misery are the sharpest, so the fact that it is principally raised in the third world doesn't come as a surprise to me.

It remains to be seen if a large scale, broad based revolutionary movement will emerge in the US or Europe, but I myself remain doubtful. Most revolutionary movements in the first world are typically either small and ultra-leftist like the Weather Underground (narodism), or large but opportunist in nature--too willing to dilute their politics for populist appeal. The current crisis in capitalism may conceivably produce a more militant revolutionary movement, but time will tell, and that's pure speculation. Moreover, I would never advise a third world revolutionary movement to wait for such a movement in the US to emerge so as to guide them, or at least obviate the likely imperialist backlash that would come their way were they to seize power. Third world revolutionaries have the daunting task of deafeating US imperialism and its comprador proxies set before them, and they must focus completely and fully upon this task. Anything that impedes their forward movement in this regard is in my view, quite counter-productive, and possibly reactionary.