Leninist Theory

[Lyev]

I have a fair few questions concerning the Bolsheviks, Leninism and 'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat'.

I've pretty much finished reading The State and Revolution and, well, Lenin can be quite authoritarian at times. In fact, I think I remember reading a quote of his where he was quite open about it. He said something like there's nothing more authoritarian than armed revolutionaries forcing their will upon another class, or something like that.

One of my questions is does revolution have to involve the dictatorship of the proletariat? Are there any Marxist doctrines that offer any other form of less authoritarian means of revolution? I'm OK with it if there isn't, I'll accept dictatorship if it's necessary. Oh, and by the way, was the Paris Commune a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

My third question is- Were the Bolsheviks ever true advocates of proper communism? Or was it a Leninist adaption? Or is this question too open and subjective?

And my last question is- why does Lenin have such a vehement hate for Kautsky?

All replies are appreciated, thanks for patience. :)

[chegitz guevara]

There's no point in overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie if you aren't going to replace it by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The point being, that every state is a dictatorship of one particular class. A socialist democracy will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, the absolute rule of the worker class.

Lenin may have said something about armed revolutionaries forcing their will upon another class, but I don't think that's what he wrote. I just finished rereading TSaR, myself. Lenin points out that the State is armed suppression of another class. A revolution is replacing one class' state with another class', in this case, the bourgeoisie's suppression of the workers is replaced with the workers suppression of the bourgeoisie. It cannot be anything but. The capitalists cannot allow the workers freedom, or the workers would simply vote the capitalists away. The workers cannot allow the capitalists freedom, or they'd try and overturn the revolution.

Your third question is really moot. For most of its history, the Bolsheviks weren't advocating socialism as much as they were advocating the overthrow of Tsarism. When Lenin wrote TSaR, he was making the argument that simply overthrowing the Tsar wasn't enough, that the bourgeois state must be overthrown as well.

Finally, as to why Lenin was so mad at Kautsky? It's because when the German Social Democratic Parliamentary deputies met to discuss whether they would vote for war credits or not (for WWI), they decided to do so, and Kautsky agreed not to blast them for it like they deserved. Kautsky latter sided against the workers revolution in Russia, too. Kautsky had been the unquestioned leader of Marxism. Even Lenin considered himself a Kautskyist. Then he betrayed Marxism. So yeah, Lenin was a little upset.

[Gustav HK]

He said something like there's nothing more authoritarian than armed revolutionaries forcing their will upon another class, or something like that.


That is from Engel´s "On authority".



Oh, and by the way, was the Paris Commune a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?


Yes, Marx and Engels saw it as an example of dictatorship of the proletariat.
But Marx did also stress, that it wasn´t socialist in the economics, but it was still the dictatorship of the proletariat in the administrative structure.

The economic policy of the Paris Commune could be classified as modern social-democratic.

[Lyev]

There's no point in overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie if you aren't going to replace it by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The point being, that every state is a dictatorship of one particular class. A socialist democracy will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, the absolute rule of the worker class.

Lenin may have said something about armed revolutionaries forcing their will upon another class, but I don't think that's what he wrote. I just finished rereading TSaR, myself. Lenin points out that the State is armed suppression of another class. A revolution is replacing one class' state with another class', in this case, the bourgeoisie's suppression of the workers is replaced with the workers suppression of the bourgeoisie. It cannot be anything but. The capitalists cannot allow the workers freedom, or the workers would simply vote the capitalists away. The workers cannot allow the capitalists freedom, or they'd try and overturn the revolution.

Your third question is really moot. For most of its history, the Bolsheviks weren't advocating socialism as much as they were advocating the overthrow of Tsarism. When Lenin wrote TSaR, he was making the argument that simply overthrowing the Tsar wasn't enough, that the bourgeois state must be overthrown as well.

Finally, as to why Lenin was so mad at Kautsky? It's because when the German Social Democratic Parliamentary deputies met to discuss whether they would vote for war credits or not (for WWI), they decided to do so, and Kautsky agreed not to blast them for it like they deserved. Kautsky latter sided against the workers revolution in Russia, too. Kautsky had been the unquestioned leader of Marxism. Even Lenin considered himself a Kautskyist. Then he betrayed Marxism. So yeah, Lenin was a little upset.

Thanks, chegitz, I bet I seem pretty dumb now. I get it totally; It's why communism is stateless. Thanks. By the way what does moot mean? I'm from England, it might be some American colloquialism that I'm missing lol.

That is from Engel´s "On authority".

Yes, Marx and Engels saw it as an example of dictatorship of the proletariat.
But Marx did also stress, that it wasn´t socialist in the economics, but it was still the dictatorship of the proletariat in the administrative structure.

The economic policy of the Paris Commune could be classified as modern social-democratic.

Oh right, cheers Gustav. I actually read that quote second hand, I think it was in Marx for Beginners by Rius. By the way, does anyone know any decent, unbiased literature on the Paris Commune?

[New Tet]

I have a fair few questions concerning the Bolsheviks, Leninism and 'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat'.

I've pretty much finished reading The State and Revolution and, well, Lenin can be quite authoritarian at times. In fact, I think I remember reading a quote of his where he was quite open about it. He said something like there's nothing more authoritarian than armed revolutionaries forcing their will upon another class, or something like that.

I think that he was paraphrasing Marx or Engels, both of whom wrote stuff like that during their battle with Bakunin for control of the International. All revolutions are authoritarian, armed or otherwise.


One of my questions is does revolution have to involve the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Oh, yes! The bourgeois revolution/s were very authoritarian. Why would ours not be? Before the thing is over--if it ever happens--some unfortunate capitalists will have to be put down for their own good.

It seems inevitable that the capitalist class, such as it is, will have to put up a fight before their system gives up the ghost. Fascism is their line on sand, I'm afraid.



Are there any Marxist doctrines that offer any other form of less authoritarian means of revolution? I'm OK with it if there isn't, I'll accept dictatorship if it's necessary. Oh, and by the way, was the Paris Commune a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

Socialist Industrial Unionism as advocated by the SLP is, in my opinion the way out of most of our need to resort to violence.


My third question is- Were the Bolsheviks ever true advocates of proper communism? Or was it a Leninist adaption? Or is this question too open and subjective?

IMHO, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks (with the possible exception of Stalin and his cohorts) were ALWAYS true advocates of 'proper communism', that is, Marxian socialism. I won't besmirch the memory of Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov and others by doubting their sincerity and good intentions.


And my last question is- why does Lenin have such a vehement hate for Kautsky?

I personally don't believe that Lenin ever hated Kautsky. Lenin disagreed with him because Kautsky anticipated that the Bolshevik revolution would not produce socialism but a new form of class-divided society.


All replies are appreciated, thanks for patience. :)

[Q]

On the Lenin-Kautsky relationship, Lars Lih wrote an excellent book called "Lenin Rediscovered, What is to be done? in context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&dq=kautsky%20lih%20erfurt&source=gbs_navlinks_s)" (you can buy it here (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/product_info.php?products_id=1591)). At the recent Communist University event, hosted by the CPGB, Lih spoke on this topic several times: here (http://vimeo.com/6191002), here (http://vimeo.com/6188759), here (http://vimeo.com/6185755) and here (http://vimeo.com/6183931).

Truly fascinating stuff.

[New Tet]

On the Lenin-Kautsky relationship, Lars Lih wrote an excellent book called "Lenin Rediscovered, What is to be done? in context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&dq=kautsky%20lih%20erfurt&source=gbs_navlinks_s)" (you can buy it here (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/product_info.php?products_id=1591)). At the recent Communist University event, hosted by the CPGB, Lih spoke on this topic several times: here (http://vimeo.com/6191002), here (http://vimeo.com/6188759), here (http://vimeo.com/6185755) and here (http://vimeo.com/6183931).

Truly fascinating stuff.

It's probably disappointing to some of the European comrades that beyond vague references, Lih stays aloof of a frank, free and open discussion about unionism and its indispensability to the movement for socialism. In fact, it seemed to me that he would "choke" up as if the Aesopian socialism of
Lenin's youth were still necessary in our time, if you know what I mean.

Beyond that, the guy's very erudite and his exposition of the theme of rediscovering Kautsky through Lenin's (and Russian!) eyes sounds like a fascinating and relevant exercise in historical materialism. And what history!

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Lenin hated Kautsky because he loved Kautsky's books." (Lars Lih)

[New Tet]

"Lenin hated Kautsky because he loved Kautsky's books." (Lars Lih)

In much the same way that Picasso "hated" Matisse.

[New Tet]

By the way, does anyone know any decent, unbiased literature on the Paris Commune?

I'm afraid that you'd better hone up on your English, buddy. Read and re-read The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm), then watch Report from the Paris Commune (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA5E19218AC87D7F&search_query=The+Commune) and you'll understand the Civil War.

Or maybe you'll watch it first and read it later; either way it's fresh stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5UjXpynCbI&feature=PlayList&p=FA5E19218AC87D7F&index=0
This shit reads as if Marx had met Dick Cheney in person:

"All the chorus of calumny, which the Party of Order never fail, in their orgies of blood, to raise against their victims, only proves that the bourgeois of our days considers himself the legitimate successor to the baron of old, who thought every weapon in his own hand fair against the plebeian, while in the hands of the plebeian a weapon of any kind constituted in itself a crime. " [1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch06.htm)]

[Drace]

By "dictatorship of the proletariat", I thought Marx meant that the proletariat would have full control of the state itself. As in a "dictatorship" owned by the proletariat...Instead of the other way around.

[Q]

By "dictatorship of the proletariat", I thought Marx meant that the proletariat would have full control of the state itself. As in a "dictatorship" owned by the proletariat...Instead of the other way around.
The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the antagonism of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" we live under today. In other words: it is the class hegemony over society that is expressed here. It's actual political form of the DOTP is that of a direct democracy.

[chegitz guevara]

Thanks, chegitz, I bet I seem pretty dumb now.

Not at all. :) Everyone starts from somewhere. At one time I was a Republican (Conservative in your country).


Thanks. By the way what does moot mean? I'm from England, it might be some American colloquialism that I'm missing lol.

"Moot" means "no longer relevant." It's a legal term, not a colloquialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oooh! That's a refreshing kind of turn (ex-GOPers instead of ex-Dems or ex-Greens)!

[chegitz guevara]

You'll see less and less of that. When I considered myself a Republican, there were still liberals in the party. I'm dating myself. ;)

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that he was paraphrasing Marx or Engels, both of whom wrote stuff like that during their battle with Bakunin for control of the International. All revolutions are authoritarian, armed or otherwise.That was Engels. He was referring to the fact that the expropriation of the expropriators means the enforcement of the will of one class over another. It was a pretty impressive piece of sophistry.


Before the thing is over--if it ever happens--some unfortunate capitalists will have to be put down for their own good.Yes, it will be very threatening when Bill Gates shows up to throw coins at us.


But Marx did also stress, that it wasn´t socialist in the economics, but it was still the dictatorship of the proletariat in the administrative structure.Of course the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialist; in a classless society, there is no class rule. There wouldn't be much point in revolution if you had already abolished capitalism.