Lenin's Theory, Lenin's Practice and the Difference between Leninism/Anarchism

[Pogue]

OK, so we all know basically there are two main differences between libertarian socialists and the Leninist socialists. These are:

1) How a revolution is made (a vanguard with democratic centralism versus industrial unions, etc)

2) The transitionary period

Now Leninists want a state stage to defend the revolution. Anarchists/libertarian socialists don't.

But according to the original writings of Lenin and the beliefs of Trotskyists like the SWP, the socialist state is run by workers councils, so the workers hold absolute power. In such, isn't it really decentralised? This is similar to council communism or anarchism. Where theres a federation, and so 'central government' will have authority only from the workers councils/federations. Bottom up. And the workers are armed.

So where is the difference? Trotskyists want a 'socialist state' that is run by workers, with workers militias. So do anarchists. If we ignore the vanguard, is there a difference in theory? Should Leninists thus be divided between those who follow what Lenin actually wanted, and what he actually ended up doing?

I just don't see the difference. No Leninists would want unaccountable, un-elected centralised government, because they'd realise thats not workers power. They want a worker run society. Anarchists too obviously don't want this. So whats the difference between a Leninist state and the revolutionary collective of workers councils/federaitons of libertarian socialism?

[Tower of Bebel]

But according to the original writings of Lenin and the beliefs of Trotskyists like the SWP, the socialist state is run by workers councils, so the workers hold absolute power. In such, isn't it really decentralised? This is similar to council communism or anarchism. Where theres a federation, and so 'central government' will have authority only from the workers councils/federations. Bottom up. And the workers are armed.
Centralism is a broad term. It doesn't necessarily mean top-down or hierarchy. It also means discipline. It means unity. The unity we desperately need to overcome the policy of devide and rule created by capitalism. What does democratic mean? It's the openess of discussion, the right of the minority to become the majority, the right to form fractions within a certain movement, diversity in ideas, etc. all of which generates discipline and unity. When movements split it's mostly because the minority doesn't feel like it can defend it's ideas against the majority. It's mostly because of bureaucratic centralism. But bureaucratic centralism can also generate unity. Bureaucracies can surpress diversity. But this does not generate an independent workers' movement. Of course.

In other words, centralism doesn't mean that federalism or certain types of decentralization are impossible.

[Pogue]

Centralism is a broad term. It doesn't necessarily mean top-down or hierarchy. It also means discipline. It means unity. The unity we desperately need to overcome the policy of devide and rule created by capitalism. What does democratic mean? It's the openess of discussion, the right of the minority to become the majority, the right to form fractions within a certain movement, diversity in ideas, etc. all of which generates discipline and unity. When movements split it's mostly because the minority doesn't feel like it can defend it's ideas against the majority. It's mostly because of bureaucratic centralism. But bureaucratic centralism can also generate unity. Bureaucracies can surpress diversity. But this does not generate an independent workers' movement. Of course.

But still how does properly applied Leninism differentiate from Anarchism? Wouldn't the difference be really really minute?

[Tower of Bebel]

The difference partially lies in what we make of this broad description of how a workers' organization looks like. What are our strategies and what are our tactics? Here lies the difference and out of the strategy we follow and the tactics we use come all kind of practical differences (sectarianism, opportunism, (unwanted or denied) bureaucracies, fetishisms, etc.)

Marx was right when he said "with a revolutionary class comes a revolutionary theory". When the Russian proletariat rose anarchists and bolsheviks didn't fight each other over ideas as much as they do now. The revolution was rising and differences were swept away by the revolutionary proletariat. That's because "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" (Ché Guevara).

[griffjam]

Marx and Engels left their followers with an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand, there are elements of "socialism from below" in their politics (most explicitly in Marx's comments on the libertarian influenced Paris Commune). On the other, there are distinctly centralist and statist themes in their work. From this legacy, Leninism took the statist themes. This explains why anarchists think the idea of Leninism being "socialism from below" is incredible. Simply put, the actual comments and actions of Lenin and his followers show that they had no commitment to a "socialism from below." As we will indicate, Lenin disassociated himself repeatedly from the idea of politics "from below," considering it (quite rightly) an anarchist idea. In contrast, he stressed the importance of a politics which somehow combined action "from above" and "from below." For those Leninists who maintain that their tradition is "socialism from below" (indeed, the only "real" socialism "from below"), this is a major problem and, unsurprisingly, they generally fail to mention it.

So what was Lenin's position on "from below"? In 1904, during the debate over the party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Lenin stated that the argument "ureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, wherever possible . . . upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed from the top downward." [Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 396-7]
Thus it is the non-Bolshevik ("opportunist") wing of Marxism which bases itself on the "organisational principle" of "from the bottom upward," not the Bolshevik tradition (Lenin also rejected the "primitive democracy" of mass assemblies as the basis of the labour and revolutionary movements). Moreover, this vision of a party run from the top down was enshrined in the Bolshevik ideal of "democratic centralism". How you can have "socialism from below" when your "organisational principle" is "from the top downward" is not explained by Leninist exponents of "socialism from below."

Lenin repeated this argument in his discussion on the right tactics to apply during the near revolution of 1905. He mocked the Mensheviks for only wanting "pressure from below" which was "pressure by the citizens on the revolutionary government." Instead, he argued for "pressure . . . from above as well as from below," where "pressure from above" was "pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens." He notes that Engels "appreciated the importance of action from above" and that he saw the need for "the utilisation of the revolutionary governmental power." Lenin summarised his position (which he considered as being in line with that of orthodox Marxism) by stating: "Limitation, in principle, of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism." [Op. Cit., vol. 8, p. 474, p. 478, p. 480 and p. 481] This seems to have been a common Bolshevik position at the time, with Stalin stressing in the same year that "action only from 'below'" was "an anarchist principle, which does, indeed, fundamentally contradict Social-Democratic tactics." [Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 149]

It is in this context of "above and below" in which we must place Lenin's comments in 1917 that socialism was "democracy from below, without a police, without a standing army, voluntary social duty by a militia formed from a universally armed people." [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 170] Given that Lenin had rejected the idea of "only from below" as an anarchist principle (which it is), we need to bear in mind that this "democracy from below" was always placed in the context of a Bolshevik government. Lenin always stressed that the "Bolsheviks must assume power." The Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own hands." He raised the question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover, "a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity offers." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 19 and p. 90] Lenin's "democracy from below" always meant representative government, not popular power or self-management. The role of the working class was that of voters and so the Bolsheviks' first task was "to convince the majority of the people that its programme and tactics are correct." The second task "that confronted our Party was to capture political power." The third task was for "the Bolshevik Party" to "administer Russia," to be the "governing party." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, pp. 241-2] Thus Bolshevik power was equated with working class power.

Towards the end of 1917, he stressed this vision of a Bolshevik run "democracy from below" by arguing that since "the 1905 revolution Russia has been governed by 130,000 landowners . . . Yet we are told that the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik party will not be able to govern Russia, govern her in the interests of the poor." He even equated rule by the party with rule by the class, noting that "proletarian revolutionary power" and Bolshevik power" are "now one the same thing." He admitted that the proletariat could not actually govern itself for "[w]e know that an unskilled labourer or a cook cannot immediately get on with the job of state administration . . . We demand that training in th work . . . be conducted by the class-conscious workers and soldiers." The "class-conscious workers must lead, but for the work of administration they can enlist the vast mass of the working and oppressed people." Thus democratic sounding rhetoric, in reality, hide the fact that the party would govern (i.e., have power) and working people would simply administer the means by which its decisions would be implemented. Lenin also indicated that once in power, the Bolsheviks "shall be fully and unreservedly in favour of a strong state power and of centralism." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 111, p. 179, p. 113, p. 114 and p. 116]

Clearly, Lenin's position had not changed. The goal of the revolution was simply a Bolshevik government, which, if it were to be effective, had to have the real power in society. Thus, socialism would be implemented from above, by the "strong" and centralised government of the "class-conscious workers" who would "lead" and so the party would "govern" Russia, in the "interests" of the masses. Rather than govern themselves, they would be subject to "the power of the Bolsheviks". While, eventually, the "working" masses would take part in the administration of state decisions, their role would be the same as under capitalism as, we must note, there is a difference between making policy and carrying it out, between the "work of administration" and governing, a difference Lenin obscures. In fact, the name of this essay clearly shows who would be in control under Lenin: "Can the Bolsheviks retain State Power?"

As one expert noted, the Bolsheviks made "a distinction between the execution of policy and the making of policy. The 'broad masses' were to be the executors of state decrees, not the formulators of legislation." However, by "claiming to draw 'all people' into [the state] administration, the Bolsheviks claimed also that they were providing a greater degree of democracy than the parliamentary state." [Frederick I. Kaplan, Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labor, p. 212] The difference is important. Ante Ciliga, once a political prisoner under Stalin, once noted how the secret police "liked to boast of the working class origin of its henchmen." He quoted a fellow prisoner, and ex-Tsarist convict, who retorted: "You are wrong if you believe that in the days of the Tsar the gaolers were recruited from among dukes and the executioners from among the princes!" [The Russian Enigma, pp. 255-6]

All of which explains the famous leaflet addressed to the workers of Petrograd immediately after the October Revolution, informing them that "the revolution has won." The workers were called upon to "show . . . the greatest firmness and endurance, in order to facilitate the execution of all the aims of the new People's Government." They were asked to "cease immediately all economic and political strikes, to take up your work, and do it in perfect order . . . All to your places" as the "best way to support the new Government of Soviets in these days" was "by doing your job." [quoted by John Read, Ten Days that Shook the World, pp. 341-2] Which smacks far more of "socialism from above" than "socialism from below"!
The implications of Lenin's position became clearer after the Bolsheviks had taken power. Now it was the concrete situation of a "revolutionary" government exercising power "from above" onto the very class it claimed to represent. As Lenin explained to his political police, the Cheka, in 1920:
[I] "Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves." [Op. Cit., vol. 42, p. 170] It could be argued that this position was forced on Lenin by the problems facing the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, but such an argument is flawed. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, according to Lenin himself civil war was inevitable and so, unsurprisingly, Lenin considered his comments as universally applicable. Secondly, this position fits in well with the idea of pressure "from above" exercised by the "revolutionary" government against the masses (and nothing to do with any sort of "socialism from below"). Indeed, "wavering" and "unstable" elements is just another way of saying "pressure from below," the attempts by those subject to the "revolutionary" government to influence its policies. It was in this period (1919 and 1920) that the Bolsheviks openly argued that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was, in fact, the "dictatorship of the party" (the Bolsheviks modified the Marxist theory of the state in line with this). Rather than the result of the problems facing Russia at the time, Lenin's comments simply reflect the unfolding of certain aspects of his ideology when his party held power (the ideology of the ruling party and the ideas held by the masses are also factors in history).

To show that Lenin's comments were not caused by circumstantial factors, we can turn to his infamous work Left-Wing Communism. In this 1920 tract, written for the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin lambasted those Marxists who argued for direct working class power against the idea of party rule (i.e. the various council communists around Europe). Lenin had argued in that work that it was "ridiculously absurd, and stupid" to "a contrast, in general, between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 568] Here we provide his description of the "top-down" nature of Bolshevik rule:
"In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses . . . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organised in the Soviets and is guided by the Communist Party . . . The Party, which holds annual congresses . . ., is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen elected at the congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by [two] still smaller bodies . . . which are elected at the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, five members of the Central Committee to each bureau. This, it would appear, is a full-fledged 'oligarchy.' No important political or organisational question is decided by any state institution in our republic [sic!] without the guidance of the Party's Central Committee. "In its work, the Party relies directly on the [B]trade unions, which . . .have a membership of over four million and are formally non-Party. Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority of the unions . . . are made up of Communists, and carry out of all the directives of the Party. Thus . . . we have a formally non-communist . . . very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the class and the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the class dictatorship of the class is exercised." [Op. Cit., pp. 571-2]
This was "the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed 'from above,' from the standpoint of the practical realisation of the dictatorship" and so "all this talk about 'from above' or 'from below,' about 'the dictatorship of leaders' or 'the dictatorship of the masses,'" is "ridiculous and childish nonsense." [Op. Cit., p. 573] Lenin, of course, did not bother to view "proletarian" state power "from below," from the viewpoint of the proletariat. If he had, perhaps he would have recounted the numerous strikes and protests broken by the Cheka under martial law, the gerrymandering and disbanding of soviets, the imposition of "one-man management" onto the workers in production, the turning of the unions into agents of the state/party and the elimination of working class freedom by party power? Which suggests that there are fundamental differences, at least for the masses, between "from above" and "from below."

At the Comintern congress itself, Zinoviev announced that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, p. 152] Trotsky also universalised Lenin's argument when he pondered the important decisions of the revolution and who would make them in his reply to the delegate from the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:
"Who decides this question [and others like it]? We have the Council of People's Commissars but it has to be subject to some supervision. Whose supervision? That of the working class as an amorphous, chaotic mass? No. The Central Committee of the party is convened to discuss . . . and to decide . . . Who will solve these questions in Spain? The Communist Party of Spain." [Op. Cit., p. 174] As is obvious, Trotsky was drawing general lessons from the Russian Revolution for the international revolutionary movement. Needless to say, he still argued that the "working class, represented and led by the Communist Party, [was] in power here" in spite of it being "an amorphous, chaotic mass" which did not make any decisions on important questions affecting the revolution!
Incidentally, his and Lenin's comments of 1920 disprove Trotsky's later assertion that it was "[o]nly after the conquest of power, the end of the civil war, and the establishment of a stable regime" when "the Central Committee little by little begin to concentrate the leadership of Soviet activity in its hands. Then would come Stalin's turn." [Stalin, vol. 1, p. 328] While it was definitely the "conquest of power" by the Bolsheviks which lead to the marginalisation of the soviets, this event cannot be shunted to after the civil war as Trotsky would like (particularly as Trotsky admitted that in 1917 "[a]fter eight months of inertia and of democratic chaos, came the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks." [Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 242]). We must note Trotsky argued for the "objective necessity" of the "revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party" well into the 1930s.

Clearly, the claim that Leninism (and its various off-shoots like Trotskyism) is "socialism from below" is hard to take seriously. As proven above, the Leninist tradition is explicitly against the idea of "only from below," with Lenin explicitly stating that it was an "anarchist stand" to be for "'action only from below', not 'from below and from above'" which was the position of Marxism. [Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 77] Once in power, Lenin and the Bolsheviks implemented this vision of "from below and from above," with the highly unsurprising result that "from above" quickly repressed "from below" (which was dismissed as "wavering" by the masses). This was to be expected, for a government to enforce its laws, it has to have power over its citizens and so socialism "from above" is a necessary side-effect of Leninist theory.

Ironically, Lenin's argument in State and Revolution comes back to haunt him. In that work he had argued that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant "democracy for the people" which "imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists." These must be crushed "in order to free humanity from wage-slavery; their resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no freedom, no democracy." [Essential Works of Lenin, pp. 337-8] If the working class itself is being subject to "suppression" then, clearly, there is "no freedom, no democracy" for that class - and the people "will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labelled 'the people's stick'." Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 338]

So when Leninists argue that they stand for the "principles of socialism from below" and state that this means the direct and democratic control of society by the working class then, clearly, they are being less than honest. Looking at the tradition they place themselves, the obvious conclusion which must be reached is that Leninism is not based on "socialism from below" in the sense of working class self-management of society (i.e. the only condition when the majority can "rule" and decisions truly flow from below upwards). At best, they subscribe to the distinctly bourgeois vision of "democracy" as being simply the majority designating (and trying to control) its rulers. At worse, they defend politics which have eliminated even this form of democracy in favour of party dictatorship and "one-man management" armed with "dictatorial" powers in industry (most members of such parties do not know how the Bolsheviks gerrymandered and disbanded soviets to maintain power, raised the dictatorship of the party to an ideological truism and wholeheartedly advocated "one-man management" rather than workers' self-management of production). This latter position flows easily from the underlying assumptions of vanguardism which Leninism is based on.

So, Lenin, Trotsky and so on simply cannot be considered as exponents of "socialism from below." Any one who makes such a claim is either ignorant of the actual ideas and practice of Bolshevism or they seek to deceive. For anarchists, "socialism from below" can only be another name, like libertarian socialism, for anarchism (as Lenin, ironically enough, acknowledged). This does not mean that "socialism from below," like "libertarian socialism," is identical to anarchism, it simply means that libertarian Marxists and other socialists are far closer to anarchism than mainstream Marxism.

[Exploited]

As a "Leninist" I don't think that a revolution can be successful without a revolutionary party. The time-span of the revolutionary situation is simply too short to improvise. Also if there is a lack of a genuine revolutionary party which will win over the masses, the masses will eventually fall victims of the class-traitors, ie. the reformists (social democrats and/or Stalinists).

This is where the vanguard party comes into play. It is the grouping of the advanced sections of the working class , which will naturally be the leaders of any revolution, provided that they have the correct analysis .

There is also a misconception here on the part of the anarchists and the rest of the anti-Leninists. That is the role of the revolutionary party after the revolution. While I think it has an important role to play, the state and the party must be differentiated. The functionaries of the post-revolutionary state according to Lenin, are democratically elected by the workers themselves. They are recalable at any time by the workers and the positions are also rotated.
According to Engels: "If everyone is a bureaucrat, then no one is a bureaucrat".

Not all "Leninists" think that the USSR was socialist. Even Lenin himself saw this development of the bureaucracy in the USSR and fought hard against it, but unfortunately he got injured by an SR terrorist, then he got health problems and died shortly after the civil war.

The Marxists understand the conditions which led to degeneration and we do not take post-revolutionary Russia as a "model" for the future society. For the simple reason that there existed extremely different conditions back then.

I don't think that the difference between the anarchists and the marxists lies so much in the post-revolutionary period (although the differences there are big), but they lie on "how to get there". As a Marxist and as a person who lives in the real world and not dreamland, I agree with the Leninist conception of the revolutionary party .

[Pogue]

As a "Leninist" I don't think that a revolution can be successful without a revolutionary party. The time-span of the revolutionary situation is simply too short to improvise. Also if there is a lack of a genuine revolutionary party which will win over the masses, the masses will eventually fall victims of the class-traitors, ie. the reformists (social democrats and/or Stalinists).

This is where the vanguard party comes into play. It is the grouping of the advanced sections of the working class , which will naturally be the leaders of any revolution, provided that they have the correct analysis .

There is also a misconception here on the part of the anarchists and the rest of the anti-Leninists. That is the role of the revolutionary party after the revolution. While I think it has an important role to play, the state and the party must be differentiated. The functionaries of the post-revolutionary state according to Lenin, are democratically elected by the workers themselves. They are recalable at any time by the workers and the positions are also rotated.
According to Engels: "If everyone is a bureaucrat, then no one is a bureaucrat".

Not all "Leninists" think that the USSR was socialist. Even Lenin himself saw this development of the bureaucracy in the USSR and fought hard against it, but unfortunately he got injured by an SR terrorist, then he got health problems and died shortly after the civil war.

The Marxists understand the conditions which led to degeneration and we do not take post-revolutionary Russia as a "model" for the future society. For the simple reason that there existed extremely different conditions back then.

I don't think that the difference between the anarchists and the marxists lies so much in the post-revolutionary period (although the differences there are big), but they lie on "how to get there". As a Marxist and as a person who lives in the real world and not dreamland, I agree with the Leninist conception of the revolutionary party .

I'm an anarchist who lives in the real world and not dreamland.

[Bilan]

OK, so we all know basically there are two main differences between libertarian socialists and the Leninist socialists. These are:

1) How a revolution is made (a vanguard with democratic centralism versus industrial unions, etc)

Well, no, not really. Libertarian Socialists are not necessarily syndicalists, and even so, reality necessitates that the entire, or even the mass of the working class outside a period of open class struggle wont join the one industrial union, so in actual fact, the anarchists in this union will be part of the vanguard, whether they like it or not.



2) The transitionary period

There's probably less disagreement than you think. One, however, negates material conditions and clings to ideological purities at times. ;) But in the end, both are as susceptible as each other.


Now Leninists want a state stage to defend the revolution. Anarchists/libertarian socialists don't.

Doesn't matter what you want or don't want, the point is it'll be there, even if you don't recognize it as such. The proletarian state is an intrinsic part of the proletarian revolution, it is simply the manifestion of the proletarians class power. That is what the state is, an organ of class rule. The proletarian state, though greatly different from all other states, is still part of this, it is still an organ of class rule (The only difference being its goal is to suppress the class system all together, and in turn, itself)



But according to the original writings of Lenin and the beliefs of Trotskyists like the SWP, the socialist state is run by workers councils, so the workers hold absolute power. In such, isn't it really decentralised?

No, that's not decentralized, it is collective class power, and to some extent, needs to be centralised.



This is similar to council communism or anarchism. Where theres a federation, and so 'central government' will have authority only from the workers councils/federations. Bottom up. And the workers are armed.

Voila! You have just admitted your support for a state.



I just don't see the difference. No Leninists would want unaccountable, un-elected centralised government, because they'd realise thats not workers power. They want a worker run society. Anarchists too obviously don't want this. So whats the difference between a Leninist state and the revolutionary collective of workers councils/federaitons of libertarian socialism?

Admittedly, I didn't see that coming.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Doesn't matter what you want or don't want, the point is it'll be there, even if you don't recognize it as such. The proletarian state is an intrinsic part of the proletarian revolution, it is simply the manifestion of the proletarians class power. That is what the state is, an organ of class rule. The proletarian state, though greatly different from all other states, is still part of this, it is still an organ of class rule (The only difference being its goal is to suppress the class system all together, and in turn, itself)

Why do I get the feeling that you and I are moving in opposite directions (with me stressing Gemeinwesen)? ;)

[PRC-UTE]

OK, so we all know basically there are two main differences between libertarian socialists and the Leninist socialists. These are:

1) How a revolution is made (a vanguard with democratic centralism versus industrial unions, etc)

2) The transitionary period

This is too polemical to be a serious discussion. we could safely say that the majority of Leninists would see the seizure of power through industrial unions as a part of a revolution as much as any anarchists (and probably more so than a lot of anarchists around, remmeber anarchism is a "broad church"). we could also point to quite a few anarchist actions that were as "authoritarian" as the Marxists (and before someone reacts to that- I'm not making a criticism, the opposite in fact).

the point to Leninists is that it doesn't stop when the working class and unions launch revolutionary strikes- that revolutionaries need to take the next step and destroy what remains of the bourgeois state apparatus and create new structures that can defend the gains made by the revolutionary class. some anarchists agree with this to an extent, though they won't come out and say it in Marxian terms (see the Friends of Durruti manifesto to see wht I mean).

here, from what I've read on my own, not what I accept at face value from party propaganda, the real differences with Leninism and anarchism are:

1) the Leninist analysis of imperialism and why it must be confronted

2) the urgent need to develop economies that aren't yet modernised, or are in certain areas underdeveloped.

(there could of course be other important insights that I have missed, but that's what I have noticed)

from my own study, I think that although the second isn't a declared principle of Leninism by most Leninists, it did historicall differentiate the Marxist (what is usualy called Leninist on revleft lol) crowd from Anarchists. Anarchist constituencies were usually peasants or certain workers who resented the effects of modernisation. the constituencies developed by communists were usually indusrial workers. this is very clear in the Russian Revolution for instance.

[Bilan]

here, from what I've read on my own, not what I accept at face value from party propaganda, the real differences with Leninism and anarchism are:

1) the Leninist analysis of imperialism and why it must be confronted

That's a bit of a needless dichotomy in itself, as there are lots of anarchists who support the National Liberation politics, for example, Platformists.
The real difference here is the support for internationalism, or national liberation.



2) the urgent need to develop economies that aren't yet modernised, or are in certain areas underdeveloped.

Again, needless.

[PRC-UTE]

That's a bit of a needless dichotomy in itself, as there are lots of anarchists who support the National Liberation politics, for example, Platformists.
The real difference here is the support for internationalism, or national liberation.

I'm just going by history- the politics of national liberation arose within Leninism, not anarchism. And Platformists are far from consistent on the matter. they vary between some support for national liberation and then swaying into an ultra lefty position that also claims national liberation doesn't matter anyway. at least that's what Platformists have said to my face.



Again, needless.

but historically anarchism did gain support more from the peasantry than communists did, and this is reflected to an extent in their ideology.

[Bilan]

I'm just going by history- the politics of national liberation arose within Leninism, not anarchism. And Platformists are far from consistent on the matter. they vary between some support for national liberation and then swaying into an ultra lefty position that also claims national liberation doesn't matter anyway. at least that's what Platformists have said to my face.

I don't know if that's entirely true, as I wouldn't be surprised if the Korean Anarchist movement (20's, 30's?) supported National Liberation.
But that's irrelevant, I was highlighting the dichotomy is fictitious as you can find them on both sides.
also with support for it, anarkismo supports it outright, I think.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't know if that's entirely true, as I wouldn't be surprised if the Korean Anarchist movement (20's, 30's?) supported National Liberation.
But that's irrelevant, I was highlighting the dichotomy is fictitious as you can find them on both sides.
also with support for it, anarkismo supports it outright, I think.

well, I recall reading that the Korean anarchists were actually more like liberals, and not regarded as anarchists by many, but anyway.

I realise they can be found on both sides, but anti-imperialist anarchists and Leninists that are soft on imperalism are exceptions to the overall rule, they're non-representative examples generally.

Leninism arose from a certain analysis of imperialism and how this effects the prospects for a workers revolution- that's far more its lasting influence than anything else, which is my underling point.

[Devrim]

I realise they can be found on both sides, but anti-imperialist anarchists and Leninists that are soft on imperalism are exceptions to the overall rule, they're non-representative examples generally.

I think it is fair to say that the platformist current has an analysis of imperialism that is more similar to your own. They are represented by the WSM in Ireland.


And Platformists are far from consistent on the matter. they vary between some support for national liberation and then swaying into an ultra lefty position that also claims national liberation doesn't matter anyway. at least that's what Platformists have said to my face.

Anarchism isn't consistent. That is a bit of a shocker, isn't it? I would say that a lack of political clarity is actually a characteristic of anarchism


but anti-imperialist anarchists and Leninists that are soft on imperalism

Just on the wording, I don't think that our politics are soft on imperialism, and I don't think that you are anti-imperialists. I think that you are pro-imperialists.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

I think it is fair to say that the platformist current has an analysis of imperialism that is more similar to your own. They are represented by the WSM in Ireland.

there's a bit of similar jargon, but nothing concrete. No anarchist organisation in Ireland has intervened in the national liberation struggle at all.

They do have a similar analysis on the Provisionals. That the provisionals were in many ways more of a catholic defenderist phenomon than republican.

[Pogue]

Someone's said I support a state. Well I don't really see the major differences between what Anarchists want an what Leninists want, except in the name alone.

Could it be fair to say that the major difference is that Leninists are happy to consolidate power within a 'socialist' state, whereas Anarchists believe the immediate post-revolution power structure must be entirely temporary?

Its just, I simply can't see a difference outside of a few pre-revolutionary ideas, such as on imperialism.

[Cumannach]

The difference is the anarchists won't accept a hierarchical organized state, which is, unfortunately, an absolute neccesity for the tasks at hand- crushing capitalist resistance, defeating foreign intervention from other capitalists, forcibly changing the old relations of production against the opposition of all the classes that benefit from it and continually repressing capitalists and would be capitalists, organizing a planned economy. All of this requires a regular army, police, political police, intelligence agency etc. It's not pretty but that's life.

[ComradeOm]

Could it be fair to say that the major difference is that Leninists are happy to consolidate power within a 'socialist' state, whereas Anarchists believe the immediate post-revolution power structure must be entirely temporary?No, because a central aspect of the 'socialist state' is its temporary nature. The dictatorship of the proletariat is, by definition, a transient period that will (altogether now...) wither away


the urgent need to develop economies that aren't yet modernised, or are in certain areas underdevelopedVery astute. A belief in the near-inevitability, or at least desirability, of progress is very much a core, if rarely declared, component of Marxism. In a way this underpins every aspect of Marx's writings or Lenin's actions. AFAIK it is largely lacking, or at least nowhere near as central, in anarchist thinking. Which is probably why you have the likes of anarcho-primitivists or green anarchism or Makhnoism or whatever

Its interesting but not something likely to cause immediate difficulties in a revolutionary scenario

[Forward Union]

As a "Leninist" I don't think that a revolution can be successful without a revolutionary party. The time-span of the revolutionary situation is simply too short to improvise. Also if there is a lack of a genuine revolutionary party which will win over the masses, the masses will eventually fall victims of the class-traitors, ie. the reformists (social democrats and/or Stalinists).

This is where the vanguard party comes into play. It is the grouping of the advanced sections of the working class , which will naturally be the leaders of any revolution, provided that they have the correct analysis .

You've addressed the need for a revolutionary political organization, which anarchists also advocate. You haven't yet justified the need for a party or vanguard.


There is also a misconception here on the part of the anarchists and the rest of the anti-Leninists. That is the role of the revolutionary party after the revolution. While I think it has an important role to play, the state and the party must be differentiated. There's no misconception. I've read my history books.


The Marxists understand the conditions which led to degeneration and we do not take post-revolutionary Russia as a "model" for the future society. For the simple reason that there existed extremely different conditions back then.
We don't need to look post revolution. The Bolsheviks banned Syndicalist organisations n 1920, and went to war and eventually crushed the Anarchist revolution in Ukraine in the same year, while the civil war was still ongoing. While Lenin was still in power, they blocked the decision making power of the soviets down to the local level, and gave national administrative power over to capitalist advisers from Europe.

[Forward Union]

Very astute. A belief in the near-inevitability, or at least desirability, of progress is very much a core, if rarely declared, component of Marxism. In a way this underpins every aspect of Marx's writings or Lenin's actions. AFAIK it is largely lacking, or at least nowhere near as central, in anarchist thinking. Which is probably why you have the likes of anarcho-primitivists or green anarchism or Makhnoism or whatever

Why is Makhnovism comparable to Primitivism?

[ComradeOm]

Why is Makhnovism comparable to Primitivism?Its emphasis on the peasantry as opposed to the proletariat

[Forward Union]

Its emphasis on the peasantry as opposed to the proletariat

It didn't have an emphasis on Peasantry. Makhno was quite aware of the need to take the cities and other industry (like the rail for example), which they did, sending vital supplies to the Red army.

Unfortunately the Anarchists in the cities were not as well organized as those in the countryside.

Even if it did have an emphasis on organising peasants. Why would that make it comparable to Primitivism? Primitivism is an urban phenomina, that doesn't say much about organisign anything.

Furthermore, the goals of the Makhnovists were not opposed to industrialization, and were certainly not advocating the abolition of civilisation. Many of the leadership (those that weren't slaughtered by the bolsheviks) wrote about industrialization and participate in industrial unionism later.

[ComradeOm]

Unfortunately the Anarchists in the cities were not as well organized as those in the countrysideWell yes, because Makhnovism was a peasant movement. The Ukrainian cities, like most urban centres within the Russian Empire, were Social-Democratic strongholds


Even if it did have an emphasis on organising peasants. Why would that make it comparable to Primitivism? Primitivism is an urban phenomina, that doesn't say much about organisign anythingBecause both lack the typically Marxist emphasis on economic progress and the importance of the proletariat. I'm not suggesting that they are both identical, only similar in that they are examples of this absence in anarchist theory. Not to imply that that is necessarily a bad thing or a criticism of anarchism

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Lenin's ideas are far superior to anarchism a brought left-wing politics into the future

[YSR]

Its emphasis on the peasantry as opposed to the proletariat

Yeep! Emphasis on the peasantry =/= Primitivism. Primitivism encourages a return to pre-peasant societies, based on agriculture, horticulture, or hunting and gathering, depending on its explanation. The peasantry is a class that exists under specific modes of production, only a few of which overlap with that which primitivists advocate.

(Sorry this isn't really on the original topic.)

[PRC-UTE]

Yeep! Emphasis on the peasantry =/= Primitivism. Primitivism encourages a return to pre-peasant societies, based on agriculture, horticulture, or hunting and gathering, depending on its explanation. The peasantry is a class that exists under specific modes of production, only a few of which overlap with that which primitivists advocate.

(Sorry this isn't really on the original topic.)

I don't think he said that the two equate, I think he was listing various backwards tendencies amongst anarchists.

the point is many anarchists oppose modernisation and development- and a more subtle point is that today most anarchist currents (aside from syndicalists) originated in peasant movements who opposed centralisation precisely because it would undermine the peasantry as a class.

[PRC-UTE]

It didn't have an emphasis on Peasantry.

It did very much have an emphasis on peasantry. that's who they depended upon for all supplies as well as safe houses when they needed to melt away.


Makhno was quite aware of the need to take the cities and other industry (like the rail for example), which they did, sending vital supplies to the Red army.

like this:


But they could not look to Makhno for help, who later told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armored car, I will take this armored car for free and pay nothing.”56

Leon Trotsky, head of the Red Army, wrote of a similar incident:

[S]ince the Makhnovists are sitting on the railway branch-line from Mariupol, they are refusing to allow the coal and grain to leave except in exchange for other supplies. It has come about that, while rejecting the “state power” created by the workers and peasants of the whole country, the Makhnovists leadership has organized its own little semi-piratical power, which dares to bar the way for the Soviet power of the Ukraine and all of Russia. Instead of the country’s economy being properly organized according to a general plan and conception, and instead of a co-operative, socialist and uniform distribution of all the necessary products, the Makhnovists are trying to establish domination by gangs and bands: whoever has grabbed something is its rightful owner, and can then exchange it for whatever he hasn’t got. This is not products-exchange but commodity-stealing.57

source: http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml



Furthermore, the goals of the Makhnovists were not opposed to industrialization, and were certainly not advocating the abolition of civilisation. Many of the leadership (those that weren't slaughtered by the bolsheviks) wrote about industrialization and participate in industrial unionism later.

regardless of their individual motivatons, the Makhnovist constituency / base of support was in peasants whose interest lay in acquiring larger plots of land and would logically support some market policies. not collectivisation, industrialisation, or a planned economy.

historically anarchism has often appealed to classes who are under pressure or are being eliminated by the historical trends of their time. again, not all, but in a large number of cases this is true. one of the details not usuallky promoted by admirers of Makhno is that his base of support basically disappeared once the peasants demands were met by the NEP.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

regardless of their individual motivatons, the Makhnovist constituency / base of support was in peasants whose interest lay in acquiring larger plots of land and would logically support some market policies. not collectivisation, industrialisation, or a planned economy.



The Makhnovists were defending Communist social relations against Capitalist "rationalization". Marx believed that it might be possible for Russia to skip over the capitalist "phrase" because of the strong remanents of primitive Communism that remained in the countryside there, however he thought there was less and less hope of that as he grew older. An excellent Marxist analysis of the Makhnovists is found here....

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/ukraine_uk.htm