No Revolution Is Pure

[Rakhmetov]

Lenin maintained that no revolution was "pure", and communists would have to unite with other disaffected groups in order to overthrow existing social order(s). Those who scoff at "backward" sectors are doing a great disservice to the revolutionary cause by assuming a "lefter than thou" pose. Liberals, social democrats, anarchists, communists and others who are at different levels of political development will have to come together and hammer out a consensus of tactics aimed at destroying reactionaries and conservative forces.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Lenin maintained that no revolution was "pure", and communists would have to unite with other disaffected groups in order to overthrow existing social order(s). Those who scoff at "backward" sectors are doing a great disservice to the revolutionary cause by assuming a "lefter than thou" pose. Liberals, social democrats, anarchists, communists and others who are at different levels of political development will have to come together and hammer out a consensus of tactics aimed at destroying reactionaries and conservative forces.

I've always been somewhat precarious about the conflict between idealism and realism. When I first became a Marxist, I was incredibly idealist - in fact I still am fairly idealist (just look at my tendency...), however, over time I've slid to a more pragmatic approach to Marxism. I accredit that mostly to my discovery of Nietzsche and Foucault, both of whom are deep critics of idealism and morality.

I've especially come to revere and respect Lenin, who in all honestly, was one of the most intelligent and pragmatic individuals to have ever lived. I think Lenin always had the dream of achieving a pure revolution in his mind, however, he came to terms with the fact that such a revolution wasn't going to "happen over-night". When it was necessary to enact non-marxist policies to preserve the gains made by the working class, he did so (ex: NEP). In the end, I think every revolutionary needs to make some compromises - hence Marx's quote "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." However, one also needs to keep in mind Trotsky's quote, "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”

PS. My favorite play ever (Sartre's Dirty Hands), is an interesting work for anybody interested in this issue.

[Rafiq]

This is correct.

[Lee Van Cleef]

I've always been somewhat precarious about the conflict between idealism and realism.
I agree with both of you that it is of paramount importance to keep a realistic mindset. Unless somehow the vast majority of the populace became well-read Marxists prior to the revolution, any revolutionary would have to deal with many elements whose ideas may not be 100% agreeable. It is also vital to be able to properly analyze the situation at hand, and be able to make appropriate decisions. Theory is called theory for a reason. In practice, things may not play out just as thinkers had thought.


PS. My favorite play ever (Sartre's Dirty Hands), is an interesting work for anybody interested in this issue.
Indeed, this is my favorite as well, and is very thought-provoking in regards to this issue of pragmatism.

[zimmerwald1915]

Ideally, there is nothing wrong with this position. The problem arises when people use it to justify collaboration with 'progressive' or 'less evil' sectors of the bourgeoisie.

[CAleftist]

I only object to alliances with "liberals."

They are bourgeoisie, who wish to preserve their power.

[Kiev Communard]

The only class bloc that is justified is the coalition of manual workers, small peasants (farmers), clerical workers and proletarian intellectuals in general with petty bourgeoisie ("self-employed"). The efforts to somehow extend this to some kind of "people's front" with "progressive" bourgeois or managerial strata are bound to backfire due to the incompatibility of the interests of the participants of such "front" and the fact that bourgeoisie may much easily make use of its proletarian "allies" than the latter can do with it, because of the superior resources and connections the disaffected bourgeois still possess.

[Rakhmetov]

I only object to alliances with "liberals."

They are bourgeoisie, who wish to preserve their power.

That was the attitude Stalin adopted when he told the German communist party not to make any alliances with the Social Democrats and liberals. That led Hitler and nazis to easily come to power.