Leninism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Interesting article by Paul Kellogg:


Leninism is universally understood as involving an emphasis on centralism and discipline inside the workers’ party, a centralism and discipline necessary as a counter to the centralised power of the capitalist state. This article argues: 1) that Lenin’s famous centralism was a necessity imposed on all socialists of his generation because of conditions of tsarist autocracy; 2) that when given the chance during moments of revolutionary upheaval, this centralism was pushed to the background, and a heavy emphasis was placed upon democracy and debate; 3) that late in life, Lenin realised that the "Leninism'' being aggressively promoted by the Communist International was too heavily weighted towards Russian conditions, and was a barrier to the development of the left outside of Russia; and 4) that this immanent critique of actually existing Leninism was cut short and buried by the rise of Stalinism, for which an emphasis on centralism was a useful counterpart in party organisation to the authoritarianism being constructed in the Stalinist state.

The rest can be found here:

http://links.org.au/node/1407

I suspect, though, that this might need to be moved to 'Theory'...

[chegitz guevara]

I argued something similar two years ago, and Lars Lih has been for even longer. Louis Proyect has been arguing this for about 15 years. Hal Draper argued this decades ago.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, and many others did too.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This topic is full of 'ifs' and 'buts'. It is hugely subjective. Much of the pro-Lenin argument rests on the questionable claim that 1917 was a hugely popular revolution. Now, it was clearly supported, or sympathised with, by the overwhelming majority of the population. Of that there is no doubt. However, it is difficult to assess whether the October Revolution really came about because of the overriding will of the people as a whole, or because it was the endgame in the strategy of the small, vanguard party of Bolsheviks.

Personally, I am not a Leninist. I prefer, as a historian, not to work on assumptions. It is unfortunate that Lenin died in the early stages of the Socialist project in Russia. Perhaps he would have amended the clearly faltering nature of the system in terms of gross bureaucracy and centralisation, and come up with a more favourable method of industrialisation than mass, somewhat violent collectivisation as happened under Stalin. However, this is again, and I must emphasise this point heavily, a hugely subjective matter of debate, which nobody can really factually prove. As such, it is the duty of any historian to play with the facts, which were that by the time of Lenin's death, Socialism in Russia was faltering somewhat.

[pranabjyoti]

The "centralist" nature of Leninism comes from its proletariat origin. In any industrial sector, due to centralized control of production and division of labor, workers are centrally controlled. So, Lenin himself isn't the "inventor" of this "centralism". It exists in the class nature of proletariat from the time of its rise.
And the debate, the was started at the time of Marx. Engels on one of his essays, opposing those "democrats" clearly said that " steam engine is much more autocratic than Bismark and other tyrants". Which clearly means that at least Engels knows the very nature of modern industrial production and also the class, which is most closely attached to the modern mode of industrial production, i.e. the proletariat.
Regarding the revolution of 1917, I just want to say that no "mass upheaval" had been started in one fine morning by the mass, as per my little knowledge of human history. Every real "mass movement" had been planned, orchestrated and leaded by an organization, which represent a class. In case of the Russia in 1917, the Bolshevik party, on behalf of workers, orchestrated, planned and leaded the movement which ended up in the first peoples democratic revolution. If one search for a "mass upheaval", which had been done spontaneously by "mass", I better wish him/her "good luck".

[redasheville]

I argued something similar two years ago, and Lars Lih has been for even longer. Louis Proyect has been arguing this for about 15 years. Hal Draper argued this decades ago.

Hah, man Proyect's blog is great. I could do without the constant moaning about how he had the misfortune of joining the SWP, however. He once went off on an IS comrade in France simply because the comrade said that there would continue to be an IS group organized in the NPA. Apparently he's so against Leninist sectarianism that he opposes internal tendencies in revolutionary parties! OH NOES PEOPLE WITH SIMILIAR POLITICS GET TOGETHER AND DISCUSS STUFF AND WRITE ARTICLES!

[KC]

Edit

[New Tet]

[...]Regarding the revolution of 1917, I just want to say that no "mass upheaval" had been started in one fine morning by the mass, as per my little knowledge of human history. Every real "mass movement" had been planned, orchestrated and leaded by an organization, which represent a class. In case of the Russia in 1917, the Bolshevik party, on behalf of workers, orchestrated, planned and leaded the movement which ended up in the first peoples democratic revolution. If one search for a "mass upheaval", which had been done spontaneously by "mass", I better wish him/her "good luck".


That's not what Trotsky and other historians say about it. Trotsky clearly states in The History of the Russian Revolution that it was almost by accident, a fortuitous confrontation between demonstrating women, Cossacks and their officers that resulted in the initial upheaval that sparked the revolution.


"The 23rd of February was International Woman’s Day. The social-democratic circles had intended to mark this day in a general manner: by meetings, speeches, leaflets. It had not occurred to anyone that it might become the first day of the revolution. Not a single organisation called for strikes on that day. What is more, even a Bolshevik organisation, and a most militant one – the Vyborg borough committee, all workers – was opposing strikes."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch07.htm


Granted, the Mensheviks almost immediately took a leading role and the Bolsheviks were not far behind, thank-you-very-much, but what sparked the revolution was really a chance encounter between a gathering social force and the conflicted surrogates of the ancient regime.

[redasheville]

I think it has more to do with how tendencies organize and how they interact with one another than with tendencies themselves. In other words, bureaucratic parties spawn bureaucratic tendencies which battle each other with bureaucratic methods and end up splitting into several new bureaucratic parties, etc. ad infinitum.

No, this wasn't Proyect's argument at all. In fact, I have no idea what you are arguing here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I argued something similar two years ago, and Lars Lih has been for even longer. Louis Proyect has been arguing this for about 15 years. Hal Draper argued this decades ago.

CPGB comrade Mike Macnair has argued the same thing recently, but taking out the "Leninist" label and substituting it for another one (obscure to the mainstream, palatable to workers in the know-how, and controversial amongst "revolutionists"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205

[pranabjyoti]

That's not what Trotsky and other historians say about it. Trotsky clearly states in The History of the Russian Revolution that it was almost by accident, a fortuitous confrontation between demonstrating women, Cossacks and their officers that resulted in the initial upheaval that sparked the revolution.
But, please explain, without the existance of the party, how that kind of upheaveal will end up in anywhere. There is a lot of examples in history, even in Russain history, that such upheavels had started but eneded up in strengthening the Tsarist regime at the end.

[Q]

That's not what Trotsky and other historians say about it. Trotsky clearly states in The History of the Russian Revolution that it was almost by accident, a fortuitous confrontation between demonstrating women, Cossacks and their officers that resulted in the initial upheaval that sparked the revolution.
But, please explain, without the existance of the party, how that kind of upheaveal will end up in anywhere. There is a lot of examples in history, even in Russain history, that such upheavels had started but eneded up in strengthening the Tsarist regime at the end.
Without a party that can act as the organisational political voice of the working class, any uprising will indeed fail. But a revolutionary party does not make an uprising, this is a largely "spontanious" result of the class struggle, a combination of factors.

To quote Trotsky on this matter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch00.htm):

Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses themselves, can we understand the rôle of parties and leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Pran:

The problem with your idea on the small party initiating and seeing through the revolution on behalf of the workers, is that if a party is so small as to satisfy the Leninist concept of a vanguard party - and also if you factor in that much of the core of the Bolshevik party was made up of less poor intellectuals - then you can see how, despite the noblest intentions, the actions of the vanguard party can in fact go against the wishes of the proletariat.

Also, with regards to 1917, the problem is that it was not, in fact, democratic, in that the Bolsheviks did not have the support of the majority of the population. That is not to say that Socialism as a whole was not supported in Russia. Indeed, the Constituent Assembly election in 1917 show that Russia would have been on a clear path to Socialism, even had the October Revolution not occurred. I am not willing to call October a coup d'etat, don't get me wrong. It was clearly supported or at least sympathised with by large swathes of Russians, due to its socialist nature. However, the point is that it provides an early example of the unnecessary centralisation that was (excuse the pun) central to Leninism. It would be extremely difficult to establish a truly Socialist society out of a somewhat inorganic revolution led by a small central party acting on behalf of the proletariat, rather than involving fully the working class in the process of revolution.

You say. "If one search for a "mass upheaval", which had been done spontaneously by "mass", I better wish him/her "good luck.""
My response would be that perhaps this is a hole in your theory of revolution, an oversight. Indeed, it is clear that one day, hopefully sooner rather than later, Capitalism, it's institutions and all associated with it will be no more. However, this does not mean that, by default, the dogmatic vision of Socialism being ushered in by a small strata of society claiming to represent the needs of the masses, will be proven correct. It is necessary for us, all of us, to better understand how to utilise the clearly evident energy of the masses, and harness it into a directed political movement, as opposed to simply hoping that a small group will take control of the organs of the state in hte name of Socialism, and that the masses will quietly sympathise.

[ComradeOm]

This topic is full of 'ifs' and 'buts'. It is hugely subjective. Much of the pro-Lenin argument rests on the questionable claim that 1917 was a hugely popular revolution. Now, it was clearly supported, or sympathised with, by the overwhelming majority of the population. Of that there is no doubt. However, it is difficult to assess whether the October Revolution really came about because of the overriding will of the people as a whole, or because it was the endgame in the strategy of the small, vanguard party of BolsheviksSee the link in my sig. What is most important here is to note that the "small, vanguard party of Bolsheviks" is a myth. It did not exist in 1917. What was in its place was a large mass organisation with strong democratic traditions

And frankly unless you are reading Pipes or the like, there is absolutely no question that the October Revolution was "hugely popular". What it was however was a hugely popular mass activity that was conducted in an organised way (and not through the Bolsheviks - the MRC was a soviet body). What is extremely questionable is the idea that only a completely spontaneous mass gathering (see my comments on the February Revolution below) qualifies as a "revolution"


It would be extremely difficult to establish a truly Socialist society out of a somewhat inorganic revolution led by a small central party acting on behalf of the proletariat, rather than involving fully the working class in the process of revolution.An often held misconception is that the Bolsheviks somehow "forced" a centralist structure on a proletariat whose instincts called for decentralisation. In reality this is a huge red herring - it was not until the central government bodies became unrepresentative (through the degeneration of the Revolution) that people took issue with them. One notable example would be that one of the first voices to call for the creation of Vesenkha (oft maligned in later 'libertarian' histories) came from the factory committees themselves. The Russian workers themselves saw no contradiction between centralisation and Soviet power

I must write an essay on this someday


Granted, the Mensheviks almost immediately took a leading role and the Bolsheviks were not far behind, thank-you-very-much, but what sparked the revolution was really a chance encounter between a gathering social force and the conflicted surrogates of the ancient regime.See this excellent article (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/revolution.htm). The "spontaneous" aspect of the February Revolution has often been grossly overstated and, as White notes, Trotsky himself had reason to do so. Not only were the Vyborg Bolsheviks actively planning a revolution (or rising) but they were the ones who called for the march on International Women's Day. The only thing that was surprising about the February Revolution was its timing


Without a party that can act as the organisational political voice of the working class, any uprising will indeed fail. But a revolutionary party does not make an uprising, this is a largely "spontaneous" result of the class struggle, a combination of factors.Personally I prefer Gramsci's assertion that "behind 'spontaneity' lies crass mechanicalism". In this "combination of factors" it is the party, representing the most revolutionary and militant segment of the proletariat, that is the primary driver. Without such a party, and its vision of a future society, any 'revolutionary' activity invariably consists of little more than scattered risings

[pranabjyoti]

Pran:
The problem with your idea on the small party initiating and seeing through the revolution on behalf of the workers, is that if a party is so small as to satisfy the Leninist concept of a vanguard party - and also if you factor in that much of the core of the Bolshevik party was made up of less poor intellectuals - then you can see how, despite the noblest intentions, the actions of the vanguard party can in fact go against the wishes of the proletariat.
Why? The only question and matter of concern is that whether that party is representing the workers or not. I think, workers will be able enough to keep watch on the vanguard party and when it goes out of track, rectify it and put it back into original track again. Brain weighs only 1.3 kg, 1/50th or less of the total weight of an average person. But, still it is capable of controlling the whole body.

Also, with regards to 1917, the problem is that it was not, in fact, democratic, in that the Bolsheviks did not have the support of the majority of the population. That is not to say that Socialism as a whole was not supported in Russia. Indeed, the Constituent Assembly election in 1917 show that Russia would have been on a clear path to Socialism, even had the October Revolution not occurred. I am not willing to call October a coup d'etat, don't get me wrong. It was clearly supported or at least sympathised with by large swathes of Russians, due to its socialist nature. However, the point is that it provides an early example of the unnecessary centralisation that was (excuse the pun) central to Leninism. It would be extremely difficult to establish a truly Socialist society out of a somewhat inorganic revolution led by a small central party acting on behalf of the proletariat, rather than involving fully the working class in the process of revolution.
Who was the majority and how their opinion had been known?

You say. "If one search for a "mass upheaval", which had been done spontaneously by "mass", I better wish him/her "good luck.""
My response would be that perhaps this is a hole in your theory of revolution, an oversight. Indeed, it is clear that one day, hopefully sooner rather than later, Capitalism, it's institutions and all associated with it will be no more. However, this does not mean that, by default, the dogmatic vision of Socialism being ushered in by a small strata of society claiming to represent the needs of the masses, will be proven correct. It is necessary for us, all of us, to better understand how to utilise the clearly evident energy of the masses, and harness it into a directed political movement, as opposed to simply hoping that a small group will take control of the organs of the state in hte name of Socialism, and that the masses will quietly sympathise.
Well, capitalism is deteriorating and dying. But, if we wait for the "mass" to understand the dangers of capitalism and having sufficient wisdom to destroy it, perhaps our world wouldn't be suitable enough for human being. And as a part of the human race, I (and like me many others) don't just want to let it go until 50%+1 person of the world population will understand the dangers of capitalism.
One historical example: In Eighteenth century India, widows were burnt alive with their dead husbands, a custom named "sati". Raja Rammohan Roy, a social reformer, gone against it and stopped it with the help of British rulers. At that time, when the matter had to be put in the Privi Council of Great Britain, only 40 signatures had been collected against this "sati" custom, while 1000 signatures (just compares the ratio) were collected favoring the custom. As per you, Raja Rammohan Roy should have waited for that long until the "mass" of Indian people had been aware and advance enough to stop it by themselves. No matter, how many innocent women would have been burnt alive during that period.
Just visit any third world country, you will get some very good "democratic mass opinion" like "giving equal right to women is the root of all evil", "poverty and misery are the wrath of god for one's sins" etc. You may wait long enough for change of those "democratic" opinions, I can't and I hope many others like me.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

One giant failure in this theory is the claim of the existance of "stalinism", which is utter bollocks. Stalin did nothing else than continuing Lenin's policies and putting the ideas of Lenin into practice in the USSR.

[Q]

One giant failure in this theory is the claim of the existance of "stalinism", which is utter bollocks. Stalin did nothing else than continuing Lenin's policies and putting the ideas of Lenin into practice in the USSR.

Stalin used Lenin as an idol to disguise the counter-revolution in which a bureaucracy killed the young direct democracy and consolidated its dictatorship over the masses using revolutionary phraseology and a school of falsification of the ideas of Marxism. That is the essence of Stalinism.

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why? The only question and matter of concern is that whether that party is representing the workers or not. I think, workers will be able enough to keep watch on the vanguard party and when it goes out of track, rectify it and put it back into original track again. Brain weighs only 1.3 kg, 1/50th or less of the total weight of an average person. But, still it is capable of controlling the whole body.

Who was the majority and how their opinion had been known?

Just visit any third world country, you will get some very good "democratic mass opinion" like "giving equal right to women is the root of all evil", "poverty and misery are the wrath of god for one's sins" etc. You may wait long enough for change of those "democratic" opinions, I can't and I hope many others like me.

Using the former Communist GDR and USSR as examples, one can say that the body of the masses could not, indeed, keep the vanguard party aligned to it's interests. Indeed, there is a theoretical reason for this, and examples of this being born out in practice. You say that workers will be able to keep the party in line and 'rectify it'. I presume you are working on a numbers game, in that the party is just a small minority of society, vastly outnumbered by the extra-party population. However, what you overlook is that, once the vanguard party takes control of the state 'on behalf of the people', it controls all the state apparatus - military, police, secret police etc. This is as important a tool as any, and I believe Lenin recognised this (although I cannot remember the nature and origin of his quote on this). In practice, this was born out in the ill-advised nature of Stasi activities in the GDR, which one can tell from the reactions in 1989 of people at the Berlin Wall, in Leipzig and so on, that was so far out of line with the interests of ordinary people. One could also say that the coercive nature of collectivisation from 1929 onwards was against the will of even the poor peasants. Indeed, between 1928-32, despite the lack of any noticeable famine/natural disaster or any other extra-mural factor, livestock numbers halved, indicating that people in fact indulged in the gluttonous consumption of livestock, as they did not believe they would be able to keep the animals they reared for a living, once their land was collectivised.

The vast majority in Russia? Those who voted in the Constitutent Assembly elections in 1917. In excess of 35 million people voted in the elections. Just 9 million voted for the Bolsheviks. Moreover, if you want to denounce such an election as a Capitalist sham, or one that was influenced by Capitalist propaganda, consider that the largest Socialist party (SRs) got 13 million votes, whereas the largest Capitalist party (Liberal Party, I think) got less than 2 million votes. It showed that the people wanted Socialism. It also showed that there were a range of interests that needed catering for, and that the best way of doing this was a coalition of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Left SRs. The Bolsheviks, by grabbing power, were therefore doing so against the will of the people.

I highlight your last paragraph to show your contempt for popular opinion. Indeed, you severely underestimate the potential class consciousness of the masses, and your solution of a tiny minority of mostly middle class Marxist intellectuals seizing power whilst the masses idly sympathise, is dangerous in the extreme. If we take the USSR, or Russia in 1917 as an example, we can see that by voting so strongly for Socialism, the Russian proletariat was indeed extremely class conscious. Thus, there was no need for the Bolsheviks, as a vanguard party, to seize power from other Socialist parties, and against the democratic will of the people. Indeed, I hypothesise that the masses were sympathetic and perhaps even supportive of the Bolsheviks initially as they had an appetite for Socialism, but perhaps did not understand the idiomatic nature of different Socialist/Communist tendencies, and were simply happy to go along with anything that represented them under the banner of 'Socialism'.

[Homo Songun]

It's only human for some members of the losing team to second guess the playbook. Next.

[pranabjyoti]

Using the former Communist GDR and USSR as examples, one can say that the body of the masses could not, indeed, keep the vanguard party aligned to it's interests. Indeed, there is a theoretical reason for this, and examples of this being born out in practice. You say that workers will be able to keep the party in line and 'rectify it'. I presume you are working on a numbers game, in that the party is just a small minority of society, vastly outnumbered by the extra-party population. However, what you overlook is that, once the vanguard party takes control of the state 'on behalf of the people', it controls all the state apparatus - military, police, secret police etc. This is as important a tool as any, and I believe Lenin recognised this (although I cannot remember the nature and origin of his quote on this). In practice, this was born out in the ill-advised nature of Stasi activities in the GDR, which one can tell from the reactions in 1989 of people at the Berlin Wall, in Leipzig and so on, that was so far out of line with the interests of ordinary people. One could also say that the coercive nature of collectivisation from 1929 onwards was against the will of even the poor peasants. Indeed, between 1928-32, despite the lack of any noticeable famine/natural disaster or any other extra-mural factor, livestock numbers halved, indicating that people in fact indulged in the gluttonous consumption of livestock, as they did not believe they would be able to keep the animals they reared for a living, once their land was collectivised.
Though you are a student of history, but nearly all in your posts, you have missed a very important point, the point of class. So far, you still are repeating the imperialist and petty-bourgeoisie of "a small group" but never mentioned which class the group was representing? The Bolsheviks are clearly representing the "working class". The decline of CPSU was started during the reign of Khrushchev, when he declared CPSU as a party of the people, not of the workers. On that time, first the petty-bourgeoisie elements got entry into the party without check and later, by their usual nature, the leading portion of the petty-bourgeoisie turned towards the capitalism and all the oppressive measures first turned against workers and then against the "people" i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie section.
In your post, you are just repeating the imperialist BS regarding the periods of USSR. A lot has been discussed in revleft and other websites regarding the "famines" of Ukraine and the other "atrocities" of Stalin, THE GREAT OPPRESSOR AND DICTATOR.
Well, so far, you haven't mentioned about the counter revolutionary activities going on in Russia during that time. Do you the capitalist-imperialist during that phase were singing sermon in the churches?
I just want to inform you about a few facts. The cattle no had been halved because of deliberate killing of cattle by the Kulaks. The knowledge and awareness of an average Russian peasant wasn't high at the time. During that time, the Kulaks and other reactionary village sects spreads the rumor that "Bolsheviks will nationalize women", to an average Russian peasant, women were just a "commodity" and they KNOW that Bolsheviks were nationalizing "luxury commodities"; so to ENJOY the COMMODITY before their nationalization, they imposed terrible suffering on their nearest and dearest ones. Huge number of women in villages of Russia even lost their lives in the process. Well, that may explain the real nature of OPPOSITION of peasants to Bolsheviks.
Actually, by always saying the about the "mass" and the "peasants", you actually revealed your class nature of your "criticism" of Leninism, the petty-bourgeoisie class. Any Communist Party, including the Bolsheviks, take power as representative of working class, not as representative of "mass", the petty-bourgeoisie. The "mass", as petty-bourgeoisie, either have to follow the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, IT CAN NOT ORGANIZE ITSELF AS A CLASS AND TAKE AND CONTROL THE POWER.

The vast majority in Russia? Those who voted in the Constitutent Assembly elections in 1917. In excess of 35 million people voted in the elections. Just 9 million voted for the Bolsheviks. Moreover, if you want to denounce such an election as a Capitalist sham, or one that was influenced by Capitalist propaganda, consider that the largest Socialist party (SRs) got 13 million votes, whereas the largest Capitalist party (Liberal Party, I think) got less than 2 million votes. It showed that the people wanted Socialism. It also showed that there were a range of interests that needed catering for, and that the best way of doing this was a coalition of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Left SRs. The Bolsheviks, by grabbing power, were therefore doing so against the will of the people.
As per the John Reeds "Ten days that shook the world", in the last phase of revolution, the Bolsheviks and SRs made a coalition. But, later when counter revolutionary processes started all over Russia which had been backed by the capitalist-imperialist forces, the SRs were unable to take any firm stand, which Bolsheviks could do and they did. That's how the Bolsheviks GRABBED the power. Not a very unusual matter, on the face of attack of imperialism, petty-bourgeoisie vary rarely had been able to take firm stand, where they can, they could do so with firm support from working class. The "mass" of Russia really want socialism and later, after the election of CA, they found that only the Bolsheviks had the courage, strategy and will to defend SOCIALISM in Russia. THAT'S THE REAL GROUND BEHIND THE GRABBING OF POWER BY THE BOLSHEVIKS.

I highlight your last paragraph to show your contempt for popular opinion. Indeed, you severely underestimate the potential class consciousness of the masses, and your solution of a tiny minority of mostly middle class Marxist intellectuals seizing power whilst the masses idly sympathise, is dangerous in the extreme. If we take the USSR, or Russia in 1917 as an example, we can see that by voting so strongly for Socialism, the Russian proletariat was indeed extremely class conscious. Thus, there was no need for the Bolsheviks, as a vanguard party, to seize power from other Socialist parties, and against the democratic will of the people. Indeed, I hypothesise that the masses were sympathetic and perhaps even supportive of the Bolsheviks initially as they had an appetite for Socialism, but perhaps did not understand the idiomatic nature of different Socialist/Communist tendencies, and were simply happy to go along with anything that represented them under the banner of 'Socialism'.
I now have great doubt, when you have mentioned "middle class". As per Marxian view, the Middle class is the class of people, who give labor but don't sell their "ability to labor" to any capitalist or other kind of organization. Like many COMMONERS, perhaps you too have mentioned the word thinking about group of people, who have an average income. But, actually, you have no idea that CLASS ISN'T RELATED TO INCOME, BUT RATHER TO HOW ONE IS CONNECTED TO THE PRODUCTION PROCESS. A worker in the oil field can has much higher income than a small shop-owner, but he/she is worker and the shop-keeper, as per Marxist interpretation of CLASS, is the REAL MIDDLE CLASS. Why? The shop earns by selling his/her service while the worker already sold his/her ability to labor the authority of oilfield.
You want to stay with the "mass", well and good. But, I myself want to stay with workers because the working class is the master power of the present world, not the "mass". "Mass" and working class thought can and do contradict very often. Please, visit India, my country, here you will find a huge number of "mass", who think that "labors EXPLOIT the capitalists by labor union and labor movement" and huge number of "poorer part of the mass" support the idea of banning trade unions, in their opinion, trade union i.e. labor organizations are the root of all evil and the main reason of backwardness of the country. They exploit the capitalists so much that the "poor, exploited" capitalists even lack sufficient money to fend themselves and their families.

[redarmyleader]

So I will apologize in advance for not being as thorough or detailed in the discussion as some have been. I wish to be, yet cannot at the moment because my brain is kinda fried. Though I do want to mention the fact that democratic-centralism is the Leninist conception of a vanguard party - democratic in discussion and internal life, disciplined and focused in action.

I believe this discussion expresses the fundamental problem of the left that is legacy of the period of radicalization of the 1960's and 1970's. I believe that overwhelming the organizations of the 60' and 70's - be they liberal, radical, or revolutionary - never confronted with any seriousness the question of power. Sure, they put forward radical and most of the time correct positions. They were able to mobilize huge sections of the population. I mean the US was given a royal defeat that it has never fully recovered from in Vietnam thanks to this period of mass radicalization. Unfortunately, none of the organizations existing in that period was anything else but critics of the state; none of the organizations saw themselves as being in competition with the capitalist state over power.

There is a reason why the Bolsheviks took power, and the organization being democratic-centralist was one of those reasons. And how could any organization that is taking itself seriously and have an understanding of, using Lukas' term, "the actuality of the proletarian revolution" act? Centralism is required because our opponents, the capitalist, are serious about maintaining power, and the party must be efficient, focus, organized, and accountable to be effective.

What did Russia have that Germany - the home to one of the strongest Social-Democracy's in history - did not? Why was Revolution successful (we should all agree that the Czarism and the capitalist state was smashed and no longer held power, therefore making it a successful revolution) in Russia but not in Germany? A Leninist vanguard party. Luxemburg did not see the need for such a party, and she certainly was on the right side of history, fighting to uphold genuine Marxism with incredible courage, zeal, and consciousness against a most rottenly opportunistic Social-Democracy that committed a betrayal of the proletariat of an epic proportion on the one hand, and the imperialist butchers on the other. But the price she paid on the fundamental question of the conception of the party meant missed opportunities for her organization being able to give critical leadership to the German proletariat, and ultimately her life. It was not that the German police and freebooters were better killers that the Czarist state and the reactionary thugs.

I always find it interesting that most Social Democrats, in their criticism and moral condemnation of the Russian Revolution never quite point out why German Social Democracy - again, the strongest Social Democracy in history - utterly failed to take power, and while they have held offices in many a country never even come close to leading the proletariat in claiming power in there own name. Maybe someone can give me an answer in this thread.

Oh, and DemSoc, what were the Soviets? Were they a body composed up of the tiny minority, imposing themselves upon society? I find it interesting that you at no point throughout this thread mention the Soviets. Why? I am very interested in what you have to say about them. And in asking these questions I mean no personal offensive.

P.S. We who call ourselves Marxist should not be able to tolerate or recognize bourgeois moralism and its conception of "democracy". We always seek to be ahead of the masses, not behind, constantly fighting to elevate them to our level, no matter how difficult and unpopular it is at a given moment. And we do not operate on consensus; we do not need the approval of all, but the support of the majority.

Marx state in the Communist Manifesto that Communist "...are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over [my italics] the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." We are at the head, not the tail!

[ComradeOm]

The vast majority in Russia? Those who voted in the Constitutent Assembly elections in 1917. In excess of 35 million people voted in the elections. Just 9 million voted for the Bolsheviks. Moreover, if you want to denounce such an election as a Capitalist sham, or one that was influenced by Capitalist propaganda, consider that the largest Socialist party (SRs) got 13 million votes, whereas the largest Capitalist party (Liberal Party, I think) got less than 2 million votes. It showed that the people wanted Socialism. It also showed that there were a range of interests that needed catering for, and that the best way of doing this was a coalition of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Left SRsExcept that this analysis breaks down entirely when you actually look at the results. The 'mere' nine million Bolshevik votes in fact comprises virtually the entire Russian proletariat and establishes the Bolsheviks as the unquestioned party of the working class. Obviously a sea change from early 1917 and a demonstration as to the advanced revolutionary conciousness of the Russian workers. Unsurprising given that the RSDLP had always been an almost entirely urban party

On the peasant front however the CA is much less conclusive. You state off hand that the SRs, the traditional party of the peasantry, "got 13 million votes" while completely ignoring that by the time of elections to the CA the SRs no longer existed as a unified party. Despite splitting over the October Revolution, there was no time to change the ballot cards for the election and the party lists had been drawing up in September. So did over thirteen million peasants vote endorse the transfer of power to the soviets or reject the October Revolution? Based on the CA results it is impossible to tell, based on subsequent events (during the Civil War years) its clear that the majority favoured the former

So, in brief, the Bolsheviks were indeed the largest single party to triumph in the CA elections (the SRs no longer existing by 1918) or at least close in popularity to the Left SRs. The former was unquestionably the party of the revolutionary Russian working class. Taken together however these two were undoubtedly the most popular parties in Russia and constitute a clear endorsement of the October Revolution on the part of the Russian toiling classes


If we take the USSR, or Russia in 1917 as an example, we can see that by voting so strongly for Socialism, the Russian proletariat was indeed extremely class conscious. Thus, there was no need for the Bolsheviks, as a vanguard party, to seize power from other Socialist parties, and against the democratic will of the peopleExcept that the Bolsheviks did not "seize power" and your concept of the "vanguard party" bears no relation to reality. Please my my earlier post in this thread

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Prana: I do not think it makes me petty bourgeoisie, just because I am not a Leninist, and just for the reason that I have a broad definiton of who constitutes the working class.

This is clearly something that is subjective; you believe that the small vanguard party was representative of the workers, and I do not. There is little empirical proof that unquestionably proves this either way, so perhaps we can agree that this is a point to which we will have to disagree on.

With regards to Stalin, I have repeatedly stated my position on him. I have never reacted to him with the hysteria of Capitalists, you will often find me attacking people for saying 'Stalin killed 50 millino people what an idiot oh i love trotsky'. But the simple fact is that, on the other hand, you cannot disregard what he did as 'excesses' and 'mistakes'. What he did was anti-Socialist. He killed comrades to secure his own position. That much seems to be clear to all but the most avakian-led disciple, even if the true number of deaths is more likely to be anywhere between 10,000 and 1 million, as opposed to idiotic quotes of 5, 10 or even 100 million.

In terms of your last paragraph, i apologise for the use of 'middle class.' Perhaps that was my lax language again. What I was pertaining to, was that the likes of Lenin, Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev were all 'artisans', if you like. Less poor and such, whilst still a part of the working class (again I apologise and retract my use of 'middle class'), not quite your typical destitute worker that you'd find in Tsarist Russia.

[pranabjyoti]

Prana: I do not think it makes me petty bourgeoisie, just because I am not a Leninist, and just for the reason that I have a broad definiton of who constitutes the working class.
What makes your criticism of Leninism petty-bourgeoisie is the fact that instead of workers, you repeatedly mentioned "mass" and "peasants". "Mass" in itself, doesn't represent any class.

This is clearly something that is subjective; you believe that the small vanguard party was representative of the workers, and I do not. There is little empirical proof that unquestionably proves this either way, so perhaps we can agree that this is a point to which we will have to disagree on.
What matters is the question, which class the vanguard party is representing. Bourgeoisie have their vanguard parties, more than one in most of the countries, they don't need to be take power in the hand by themselves. Their representative vanguard parties can do that successfully in a "democratic" way.

With regards to Stalin, I have repeatedly stated my position on him. I have never reacted to him with the hysteria of Capitalists, you will often find me attacking people for saying 'Stalin killed 50 millino people what an idiot oh i love trotsky'. But the simple fact is that, on the other hand, you cannot disregard what he did as 'excesses' and 'mistakes'. What he did was anti-Socialist. He killed comrades to secure his own position. That much seems to be clear to all but the most avakian-led disciple, even if the true number of deaths is more likely to be anywhere between 10,000 and 1 million, as opposed to idiotic quotes of 5, 10 or even 100 million.
That "excesses" were the result of that "excessively" strainous period. At that time, there was none other than Stalin to take the leadership. As I have said before "doing wrong things were historically more important than doing right criticism in paper".

In terms of your last paragraph, i apologise for the use of 'middle class.' Perhaps that was my lax language again. What I was pertaining to, was that the likes of Lenin, Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev were all 'artisans', if you like. Less poor and such, whilst still a part of the working class (again I apologise and retract my use of 'middle class'), not quite your typical destitute worker that you'd find in Tsarist Russia.
I better suggest you to read "what is to be done". This isn't unique in the history of mankind. Robinhood, the savior of peasants from the tyrant landlords, was himself from a landlord family. Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, which was "ideology of the oppressed" for a long time, was born in a noble family. Both Marx and Engels were from a wealthy business family.
Historical characters have to be judged by "which class they represent", not by in which class they were born.

[redarmyleader]

And what are the implications of this discussion on our current epoch? Do people even see one?

[NecroCommie]

And what are the implications of this discussion on our current epoch? Do people even see one?
Many modern leninist parties swear in the name of centralism. If it is agreed that the entire practice of centralism were merely a quirk forced upon bolsheviks by the tsarist system, then it puts the necessity of centralism in other countries under question.

If on the other hand you were referring to the recent discussion about russian elections, then I have no answer.



I always find it interesting that most Social Democrats, in their criticism and moral condemnation of the Russian Revolution never quite point out why German Social Democracy - again, the strongest Social Democracy in history - utterly failed to take power, and while they have held offices in many a country never even come close to leading the proletariat in claiming power in there own name. Maybe someone can give me an answer in this thread.

Modern social democrats care little for anything else than gaining votes by differentiating themselves from the scary bad communists. The days when social democrats were an actual ideology with coherent arguments are long gone.

[NecroCommie]

Robinhood, the savior of peasants from the tyrant landlords, was himself from a landlord family.
This idea began when the landlords started to manipulate the legend. The original legend of robin hood states nothing else than him being a highway thief.

I agree with you completely, I just felt like a history nazi. :cool:

[pranabjyoti]

This idea began when the landlords started to manipulate the legend. The original legend of robin hood states nothing else than him being a highway thief.
I agree with you completely, I just felt like a history nazi. :cool:
Can you explain, why the peasants accept the idea spread by landlords? Actually, oppressed people around the world know well that their leader, in any historical period, may and will come from the oppressor class. History is full of such examples.