Leninism & Imperialism

[DaComm]

Hello. I consider myself an avid Leninist/Learner, as in, I totally agree with a Vanguard Party and Democratic Centralism and how Lenin turned the Tsarist Russia into a democratically funtioning Soviet State under the orchestration of a Communist Party. However, I was recently reading about Lenin's idea of Imperialism, and honestly I am a bit be-fuddled. I comprehend his statement of the use of Imperialism to create a proletarian aristocracy to put an end to subversive thought/action. I comprehend this, but then I ask, why would Lenin choose Russia as a site of revolution if it is not a victim of Imperialist countries, and if it was, then Lenin proposed it more realistic for a revolution to occur there because of the more general hostility toward Capitalism and lack of a proletarian aristocracy, in that case if a subordinate country to an imperialist one had a common revolutionary consensus, why would a vanguard be necessary? NO DEBATES, I request straight-forward answers that help me to learn. To prevent a debate, hows about an authoritarian Socialist respond to this? Much obliged.

[28350]

Hello. I consider myself an avid Leninist/Learner, as in, I totally agree with a Vanguard Party and Democratic Centralism and how Lenin turned the Tsarist Russia into a democratically funtioning Soviet State under the orchestration of a Communist Party. However, I was recently reading about Lenin's idea of Imperialism, and honestly I am a bit be-fuddled. I comprehend his statement of the use of Imperialism to create a proletarian aristocracy to put an end to subversive thought/action. I comprehend this, but then I ask, why would Lenin choose Russia as a site of revolution if it is not a victim of Imperialist countries, and if it was, then Lenin proposed it more realistic for a revolution to occur there because of the more general hostility toward Capitalism and lack of a proletarian aristocracy, in that case if a subordinate country to an imperialist one had a common revolutionary consensus, why would a vanguard be necessary? NO DEBATES, I request straight-forward answers that help me to learn. To prevent a debate, hows about an authoritarian Socialist respond to this? Much obliged.

Simplified:
I am a Leninist.
Part of Lenin's works on imperialism confuse me, specifically how Russia falls in as an exploited country.
Also, since imperialist exploitation of countries polarizes classes and furthers class consciousness, why was a vanguard in Russia (or in any exploited nation) necessary if there was a common working-class desire for revolution?
I don't want a tendency war - only authoritarian socialist responses, please.
Thanks.

[DaComm]

Essentially that is the idea, and please do respond.

[A.R.Amistad]

Well, I sure hope a shitstorm of liberals doesn't ensue, but while things are still civil, I'll explain the theory of the labor aristocracy as simply as I can. The labor aristocracy is the upper crust of the proletariat in terms of wages. The labor aristocracy arises in imperialist nations where capital is enriched so much that some worker's are payed around the same as a member of the petty-bourgeoisie. Generally speaking, this small upper layer of the working class is less class conscious, since they identify with the petty-bourgeoisie more than their own class. However, their prosperity is brought about by a combination of the severe exploitation of labor in subordinate, oppressed nations, and imo, the limited extent successful reforms and labor-union victories won by the collective actions of the working class in the bourgeois-republics. This means that the working class of the oppressed nations play a vital role in arousing class consciouness. Still, I believe the labor aristocracy can play a major part in the revolution. Seeing as they are better paid, they will have access to better education, can pay more money to support the revolution and are slightly less likely to be intimidated by the bourgeoisie. In many cases it is very good conditions, not just bad ones, that inspire revolutions. Hope this helped some.

[DaComm]

Well...sort of. I have learned something from your post, do not despair, although I meant to ask that if Imperialism would ideally make workers of an opressed, super-exploited, subordinate nation rather hostile to Capitalism, and thus self-arouse class consciousness (because of immense exposure to capitalism at it's worst), would this sort of make Vanguardism unecessary in less-developed countries, like Lenin predicted Vanguards were necessary? This is where I require elaboration.

[A.R.Amistad]

Well...sort of. I have learned something from your post, do not despair, although I meant to ask that if Imperialism would ideally make workers of an opressed, super-exploited, subordinate nation rather hostile to Capitalism, and thus self-arouse class consciousness (because of immense exposure to capitalism at it's worst), would this sort of make Vanguardism unecessary in less-developed countries, like Lenin predicted Vanguards were necessary? This is where I require elaboration.

No, because often the oppressed nationalities won't come to communist conclusions, but instead to bourgeois-nationalist conclusions. This is why we Bolsheviks support the self-determination of nationalities. But we believe that a vanguard Marxist party is needed to ensure that the revolution is progressive and so it has a link to international revolution, since the revolution must be international and the world proletariat needs a party that represents their interests as a whole. Also, since I uphold the theory of Permanent Revolution, I believe that only the proletariet of the oppressed nationalities can lead the democratic-revolution and the bourgeoisie cannot. Therefore, a revolutionary proletarian vanguard party is naturally needed.

[DaComm]

Ok, thats half. But before I get to the other half, what do you mean "bourgeois-nationalist". Keep in mind I'm still a learner :P. Also, why did Lenin consider Russia prime for Communist Revolution?

[A.R.Amistad]

"Bourgeois-nationalism" is distinguished by oppressed-nationalism because bourgeois nationalists simply fetishize the captalist Nation-State, and is the typical, buffoonish patriotism you will hear in the US. It hold that all of the social problems are not class based, but external and foreign, and that classes should live in harmony according to the laws and traditions of the nation-state. However, revolutionary nationalism is the nationalism of oppressed nationalities (such as Palestine) who recognize that they need to set up a nation state separate and independent of Imperialist oppression and domination The Marxist view is that national-revolutions of the oppressed weaken the capitalists and are therefore allies of the working class. It also is an opportunity for the proletariat of the oppressed nationalities to inspire the proletariat to revolution in all of the industrialized nations. Still, all nationalism (support of the nation state) needs to eventually dissapear with nationalism altogether and internationalism must come first for the revolutionary proletariat.

Think of it like a stack of cards. Take out the oppressed base of the cards by revolution and the top becomes weak. The you get revolution. Thats essentially what our view is on Imperialism and the National Question.

[DaComm]

Much obliged, however I still have one last question...whyd id Lenin view Russia as needing a revolution?

[Bonobo1917]

I feel like an intruder on this thread, not being an "authoritarian socialist". But I'm tryiing to answer a part of the question, without wanting to encourage tendency warfare here.
I think Lenin thought of the whole world as an imperialist capitalist system (or becoming one), needing revolutionary overthrow. Reason: world capitalism is a class society, with all the injustices and horrors this implies. He did not "choose" Russia as a place for having a revolution. Rather, he felt the need for revolution where he grew up, happened to live in Russia, so started to do something about that need in that country where he lived.

[DaComm]

Lenin stated it more realistic to bring about revolution in a subordinate country, if this is the case, why so is it that he revolted in Imperial Russia?

[S.Artesian]

Or... Lenin didn't "choose" Russia, Lenin didn't "transform" Russia. It was the uneven and combined development of Russian-- advanced industrial production concentrated in certain cities in the midst of backward relations of agriculture and landed labor that produced the Russian Revolution, as the means of production, i.e the growth of industry, had come into conflict with the relations of production, the private property in agriculture that absolutely constrained the growth of a domestic market, access to labor etc.

Marx identifies exactly this conflict between means and relations of production as the overture to revolution.

And as for imperialism, I might just be the case that Lenin's analysis is flawed-- the empirical data is flawed and incomplete, the theoretical conclusions are just wrong. If that's a discussion of interest to anyone, I'd be more than willing to continue it. If however the thread begins with an assumption of the accuracy of Lenin's theory-- then there's not much point to continuing.

[Bonobo1917]

Lenin revolted in Imperial Russia 1. because he happened to live there, and 2. because, for Lenin, it was not just a matter of subordinate countries, but subordinated - oppressed, exploited - people. Well, their were quite a lot af such exploited and oppressed peaople - workers, peasants, many others - in Russia. Oppressed and exploited by the ruling class, the Czarist state, in league with international - especially French - capital. Against that exploitation and oppression, Lenin thought that revolution was necessary. On this specific point, I tend to agree :-)

[A.R.Amistad]

not to mention the fact of WWI, and how a major military force like Russia backing out could inspire world revolution amongst the proletariat of the belligerent nations.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

"Bourgeois-nationalism" is distinguished by oppressed-nationalism because bourgeois nationalists simply fetishize the captalist Nation-State, and is the typical, buffoonish patriotism you will hear in the US. It hold that all of the social problems are not class based, but external and foreign, and that classes should live in harmony according to the laws and traditions of the nation-state. However, revolutionary nationalism is the nationalism of oppressed nationalities (such as Palestine) who recognize that they need to set up a nation state separate and independent of Imperialist oppression and domination

This is exactly correct, though I'd like to elaborate. OP, think of bourgeois nationalism as Idi Amin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_amin) from Uganda, and think of revolutionary nationalism as Thomas Sankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara) from Burkina Faso. Bourgeois nationalists often make appeals to tradition, religion, culture, and hatred/opposition to the colonizer on the basis that there is an "other" (non-Ugandan, non-Christian, non-Black, non-heterosexual, etc.) oppressing the people. To the bourgeois nationalist, the colonizer is not unjust because he oppresses, he is unjust because he oppresses as a foreigner. We can see this same attitude manifest itself in the US in groups like the Nation of Islam. They aren't against exploitation or hierarchy, they are just against exploitation by the other.

A lot of this explains why bourgeois nationalists end up capitulating to imperialism in a new form in which the dependent state maintains only an empty facade of autonomy. Whereas a figure like Sankara identified Burkina Faso as a country actively in opposition to imperialism, bourgeois nationalists often identify themselves and the country as opposed to a particular imperialist power, at least from my understanding.

Huey P. Newton summarizes the difference well in this interview (http://www.hippy.com/php/article.php?sid=76).

[DaComm]

Last Question. Ok so it is more logical to start a revolution in an opressed nation because ti will weakent he Capitalist System. What would happen if in the Capitalist country, the imperialist one, what would happen if it's labor aristocracy was not existent because it lacked a country to super-exploit?

[S.Artesian]

Last Question. Ok so it is more logical to start a revolution in an opressed nation because ti will weakent he Capitalist System. What would happen if in the Capitalist country, the imperialist one, what would happen if it's labor aristocracy was not existent because it lacked a country to super-exploit?

I don't think we get to choose. It's logical to work towards a revolution where ever you happen to be.

As for the "labor aristocracy" and imperialism-- Lenin's contention that such an aristocracy owes its existence to "bribery" from "superprofits" of imperialism is, to be charitable, highly debatable.

The US certainly extracted a significant amount of profits from Latin American during the Reagan/Bush era of the 80s, 90s, and the US working class didn't exactly benefit from that, did it?

[DaComm]

Perhaps A.R.Amistad could answer my question?