Was Lenin really a Marxist?

[promethean]

Lenin was wrong on many things, including the need for the proletariat to form cross-class alliances for various scenarios. He advocated national liberation but helped the British imperialists crush the Persian Socialist Soviet Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Socialist_Soviet_Republic) and formed alliances with the reactionary Turkish leader, Kemal Pasha. What else was he wrong on? How much of Marx did he really revise? Was he a revisionist?

[Q]

Lenin was wrong on many things, including the need for the proletariat to form cross-class alliances for various scenarios.
Examples? Sources?


He advocated national liberation but helped the British imperialists crush the Persian Socialist Soviet Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Socialist_Soviet_Republic)
Wikipedia makes no mention of its context and has no references. Source?


and formed alliances with the reactionary Turkish leader, Kemal Pasha.
Source?


What else was he wrong on? How much of Marx did he really revise?
I have no idea what you're on about.


Was he a revisionist?
No.

[gorillafuck]

Of course he was a Marxist.

Even if he made a lot of mistakes, that wouldn't mean he wasn't a Marxist. Marxism doesn't advocate a specific policy for every possible situation.

[Zanthorus]

Examples?

The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm)
Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/sdprg/index.htm)
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm)

And so on and so on ad nauseum.


Source?

"Socialism in One Country" Before Stalin, and the Origins of Reactionary "Anti-Imperialism": The Case of Turkey, 1917-25 by Loren Goldner (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/turkey.html)

[el_chavista]

Lenin was wrong on many things... How much of Marx did he really revise? Was he a revisionist?
Cockshott, a socialist of the 21th century, talked about Lenin in these terms on his panflet Ideas of Leadership and Democracy (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/leadershipconcepts.pdf)

The RSDLP ... responded with remarkable speed to the new situation and had, in half a year, devised a new strategy that led to the decisive victory in October 1917. It has to be said that this process of adaptation to the new situation owed a great deal to one person, Lenin, without whose insight and decisiveness, the RSDLP might have failed to take full advantage of the situation.According to Cockshott, the pitfall for the bolsheviks was their content with the representative "democracy" which turned into a government of a revolutionary oligarchy.
An avant guard is good for seizing power. From then on the workers got to organized themselves as the ruling class.

[SEKT]

From my point of view Lenin was absolutely a Marxist, as Luckas said, Marxism resides on the use of the materialist-dialectic method applied to the emancipation of the working class. The problem I have been studying on Lenin is its advocacy for extreme centralization and the opportunistic trends that showed after the bolsheviks took power in Russia. Here is a valuable response to the Lenin's panflet "left-wing” communism, an infantile disorder" by the left communist Herman Gorter. I consider this response as the more accurate against the opportunistic trends of lenninism later developed on stalinism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

[theblackmask]

I consider this response as the more accurate against the opportunistic trends of lenninism later developed on stalinism.

So then why was it written directly to Lenin in 1920? Either Gorter can see into the future, or your conceptions of Lenin are way off.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The real question is was Marx a "Marxist?"

[La Comédie Noire]

The real question is was Marx a "Marxist?"

According to Marx, the ultimate authority on Marxism, the answer is an emphatic no.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Brest-Litovsk... This sounds like something new never seen before


Your failure to understand Leninist tactics certainly cannot lead you to understanding some of his moves , no matter how badly you twisted them here. Basically , Lenin supported fighting against Capitalist enemies with all possible means. It included everything that will bring Communist advantage over Capitalists , or will buy some time. Whether it is forming temporary alliances , signing bad peace contracts , invading countries , setting typically capitalist traps etc. Anyway Idealist nightmare that some of you propagate here would bring Soviet Union , briefly , nowhere. Welcome to global politics.

I guess this was linked here like [insert number] times but here we go again

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

Many of questions here , explained by the Lenin himself , don't let the title distract you from reading at once :cool:

[La Comédie Noire]

The Bolsheviks did what they felt was right given the situation and material conditions of Russia Circa 1917. They were the most popular party with the working class by far for a reason. You can argue that a multi-socialist party government could have done better, but we have no way of knowing that now.


Lenin was wrong on many things, including the need for the proletariat to form cross-class alliances for various scenarios.

If you are talking about the peasantry then you are vastly underestimating their role in the Russian Revolution.

[gorillafuck]

The real question is was Marx a "Marxist?"
He believed in the works of Karl Marx so I'm gonna say yes.

That quote is from himself distancing himself from some French Marxists.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Lenin was influenced by Nechayev and the Nihilist movement, the Narodniks, and by Marx and Engels, as well as more.

Lenin deviated from Marx in several key points, such as Marx's materialist theory of history, and Lenin's need for a vanguard party.

Do these differences and influences make Lenin not Marxist?

No, it just means he built upon Marxism, and included other ideologies as well.

[ZeroNowhere]

According to Marx, the ultimate authority on Marxism, the answer is an emphatic no.
That was more a humorous quip to indicate that a group of French socialists who were calling themselves 'Marxists' didn't have much to do with his own beliefs. In other words, he was saying, 'If that set of beliefs is 'Marxism', then, as I do not share these beliefs, I am not a Marxist', the point being, of course, that he was Marx, and as such the name was inaccurate. He was commenting, in other words, on their views, and on their name choice only inasmuch as it implied some degree of commonality with Marx's views.

On the other hand, it would be a valid point that the word 'Marxism' has evolved to not have much necessarily to do with Marx himself, but I think that it's clear that the OP was asking about the extent to which Lenin's views were consonant with Marx's; in other words, to what extent Lenin fell under what has been termed 'Marx's Marxism'.

Anyhow, for the OP, this piece (http://libcom.org/library/economic-content-socialism-lenin-it-same-marx) may be of interest.

[Zanthorus]

Lenin was influenced by Nechayev and the Nihilist movement, the Narodniks,

What sources do you have for this? Lenin was pretty emphatically against terrorism, in eg What is to be Done?. His brother was killed for participating in a narodnik assasination attempt, and he generally saw individual terrorism as a dead end. If he didn't hold this view, it's difficult to see why he was so emphatic about building a unified socialist political party in Russia, as the existing discussion circle's of the time would've been perfectly adequate for carrying out putschist conspiracies.


Lenin deviated from Marx in several key points, such as Marx's materialist theory of history, and Lenin's need for a vanguard party.

We can argue wether Lenin's interpretation of the MCoH was correct, although I don't think Lenin's view deviates very far from that of the 'Orthodox Marxism' of the time upheld by Karl Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov and so on. 'Vanguard party' is a potentially misleading term, as it involves a contraction of vanguard tactics (as oppost to economist or 'rearguard' tactics) with the party and generally means something more than it was originally supposed to mean. But in general Marx was quite harsh on the 'economists' of his day (Proudhon and Bakunin in particular), and was the one who originally coined the phrase "every class struggle is a political struggle", so it's difficult to see how Lenin 'deviated' from Marx in any significant sense in this area.


No, it just means he built upon Marxism, and included other ideologies as well.

Again, I would be interested to see what other ideologies Lenin 'included' in his Marxism, as I was under the impression that he was fairly 'Orthodox' throughought most of his life, and during the 1914-17 period became even more orthodox than the orthodox on the question of the state. There are no problems with 'Leninism' that are not also problems with the Orthodox Marxism of Kautsky and Plekhanov.

[Vanguard1917]

Lenin was wrong on many things, including the need for the proletariat to form cross-class alliances for various scenarios.

The idea was that workers should form an alliance with other exploited classes (crucially the poor peasantry) but with the proletariat playing the leading role. This was the only feasible arrangement in a country in which the proletariat was a minority and yet sought to rule.

Further compromises with the peasantry were, of course, made as a result of economic ruin after the civil war and the isolation of what was left of the workers' government, but Lenin saw such compromises as necessary in order to save workers' rule and buy it some time under immensely adverse circumstances, realising, as a Marxist, that socialism could not be built in Russia alone and that revolution in other countries needed to break out pretty sharpish if workers' rule in Russia was to have any hope of surviving:

"[I]n Russia we have a minority of industrial workers and a vast majority of small agriculturalists. In such a country a social revolution can be definitely successful only under two conditions. The first condition is that it be supported by a modern social revolution in one of the several advanced countries. The other condition is an agreement between the proletariat which is exercising its dictatorship, or which holds the power of the State in its hands, and the majority of the peasant population.

"We know that only an agreement with the peasantry can save the Socialist revolution in Russia until such time as the revolution takes place in other countries."

- Lenin, 1921 (quoted in http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch05.htm#2)

[La Comédie Noire]

I was fucking around when I made reference to the Marx quote.

[S.Artesian]

Lenin was wrong on many things, including the need for the proletariat to form cross-class alliances for various scenarios. He advocated national liberation but helped the British imperialists crush the Persian Socialist Soviet Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Socialist_Soviet_Republic) and formed alliances with the reactionary Turkish leader, Kemal Pasha. What else was he wrong on? How much of Marx did he really revise? Was he a revisionist?

Well, yes and no.. How's that for a definitive response? Lenin was certainly correct, and certainly no revisionist when he returned to Russia in 1917, pulled Iskra away from it's near-cooperation with the Provisional Government, and endorsed "All power to the soviets." On those big things-- the independence and opposition of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie, on the need to take power, and actually overthrow the old regime, Lenin was definitely Marxist.

But yes, the realpolitik in Turkey etc aided, in fact, a pre-emptive counterrevolution against the emerging left-communists in the name of Russia's "self-interest." The thing is the self-interest of Russia as Russia was quite a different thing from the self-interest of the proletariat as a class "for itself."

However, my own personal favorite disagreement with Lenin is with his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. I describe this book, which has spawned so much junk Marxism, as the worst quasi-Marxist analysis I've ever read [I'm exaggerating of course. I've read worse].

Those interested can read more about that here (http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/2004/11/imperialism-reconsidered-reposted_16.html).

[ComradeOm]

Lenin was certainly correct, and certainly no revisionist when he returned to Russia in 1917, pulled Iskra away from it's near-cooperation with the Provisional Government, and endorsed "All power to the soviets."Incidentally, this was a stance that initially invited ridicule from Russia's Marxist community (both Bolshevik and Menshevik) and led to accusations that Lenin had become an anarchist and abandoned Marxism. Its unfortunate that this tendency to cross-reference everything to Marx's scriptures and then chalk any differences up to 'revisionism' survives to this day. Ultimately Lenin's greatest mistake was probably that he didn't go far enough in breaking with 'classical' Marxism

[IndependentCitizen]

He's more Marxist than you!

[NecroCommie]

Indeed, and to the post of ComradeOm I would like to add that both Marx and Lenin opposed dogmatism to a great extenct. That is to say, "Marxism" is a much broader concept than some particular set of policies. This would mean that we should feel encouraged to think what is best for the workers rather than what is "pure" Marxism.

There were very good reasons to ally the russian proletariat with the peasantry. Have any of you tried to lead a revolution of industrial workers in an agrarian society? Also the accusations based on soviet alliances with bourgeoisie states are quite ridiculous. In both cases we must, before judging, consider the alternatives. Do we really want to support a situation in which a newborn revolution has to be lead by a minority and wage a war on the entire world? These are not just excuses as I'd like to think such alternatives are a matter of some serious concern.

[S.Artesian]

Incidentally, this was a stance that initially invited ridicule from Russia's Marxist community (both Bolshevik and Menshevik) and lead to accusations that Lenin had become an anarchist and abandoned Marxism. Its unfortunate that this tendency to cross-reference everything to Marx's scriptures and then chalk any differences up to 'revisionism' survives to this day. Ultimately Lenin's greatest mistake was probably that he didn't go far enough in breaking with 'classical' Marxism

Actually I though that accusation made against Lenin was that he had become a "Trotskyist."

If you mean by 'classical' Marxism, the Marxism of Kautsky, Plekhanov-- then I agree. If you mean the Marxism of Marx-- I disagree.

[S.Artesian]

Indeed, and to the post of ComradeOm I would like to add that both Marx and Lenin opposed dogmatism to a great extenct. That is to say, "Marxism" is a much broader concept than some particular set of policies. This would mean that we should feel encouraged to think what is best for the workers rather than what is "pure" Marxism.

There were very good reasons to ally the russian proletariat with the peasantry. Have any of you tried to lead a revolution of industrial workers in an agrarian society? Also the accusations based on soviet alliances with bourgeoisie states are quite ridiculous. In both cases we must, before judging, consider the alternatives. Do we really want to support a situation in which a newborn revolution has to be lead by a minority and wage a war on the entire world? These are not just excuses as I'd like to think such alternatives are a matter of some serious concern.


The alliance with the peasantry-- an alliance that really was momentary, fragmented, and was severely torn by the demands of civil war is not outside the Marxism of Marx and Engels.

The agreements with bourgeois states, abandoning communists in Turkey to the tender mercies of Ataturk; working against "premature" revolution in Afghanistan in order to not antagonize the British, etc. are outside revolutionary Marxism.

If the Russian state can, as a measure of diplomatic freedom, abandon the communists of Turkey to the nationalists of Ataturk, then what does that say about the communist party running that state? What does that say about the legitimacy of the International supported and inevitability dominated by that single state? That internationalism isn't necessarily international?

The agreements with Turkey were concluded to more than secure a flank. They were intended to achieve certain commercial purposes. Now, if sacrificing communists for commercial purposes-- movement of goods and services-- is justified to preserve the existence of a "revolutionary state" in 1919-1921, then it's justified in 1923, 1927, 1936, 1939 etc.

And the result of such justification? Look around comrades, tell me what you see. -

[chegitz guevara]

World revolution had failed. They didn't merely need to secure a flank, they needed to rebuild the Soviet working class. Sometimes you need to retreat before you can advance. Remember, they'd just surrendered a huge amount of territory to Poland and Romania as well, and to Turkey. They'd just gone 15 rounds with imperialism and were so exhausted that they probably could have been easily toppled by another push.

[ComradeOm]

Actually I though that accusation made against Lenin was that he had become a "Trotskyist."I doubt anyone knew just what exactly Trotskyism comprised in those days. To quote Sukhanov, always a pleasure, on the response to Lenin's first speech on return from exile: "Of course every listener with any experience in in political theory took Lenin's formula... for purely anarchist schema". He records that Tsereteli went on to openly proclaim that Lenin sought "the throne of Bakunin", and that of the Bolsheviks only Kollontai supported his line unreservedly. Meanwhile the anarchists were surprised to find a "perfect parallelism" between themselves and Lenin in the summer of 1917

This is actually a constant thread in memoirs from the period. Its hard to overstate the degree to which Lenin had broken with the Marxism of the day


If you mean by 'classical' Marxism, the Marxism of Kautsky, Plekhanov-- then I agree. If you mean the Marxism of Marx-- I disagree.Differentiating between the two is pointless so long as you continue to codify and lay down scripture. The bankruptcy of the Second International didn't come about because the socialists failed to sufficiently adhere to Marx's writings; it was because they reduced/elevated these to the status of scripture and became obsessed with abstract formulations to keep within the letter of the law. Marxism became dogma (and those who offended were to be 'revisionists') instead of the 'living doctrine' that Marx had envisaged. And, to quote Blake, "the man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind"

Beyond the most basic precepts it is pointless to argue just what is and isn't Marxism. This is particularly true of those past revolutionaries who faced immense and unforeseen challenges while breaking new ground. Berate them for the mistakes they made, not for failing to live up to some standard of ideological purity

[NecroCommie]

The alliance with the peasantry-- ... ... is not outside the Marxism of Marx and Engels.
Where as I do not contest this claim, I would like to point out that I don't view this even relevant to anything. Once again, we must remember that what is "marxism" and whose "marxism" it is, is an issue easily dwarfed by "what is best for the working class".



The agreements with bourgeois states, abandoning communists in Turkey to the tender mercies of Ataturk; working against "premature" revolution in Afghanistan in order to not antagonize the British, etc. are outside revolutionary Marxism.

Even if they are, the real question would be: Was that action based in morality.

Now, I do not claim any expertise on the subject of soviet Turkey dealings, but to me it should be obvious that if alternatives would have been worse then the action has reasonable basis.

I don't know, but I'd guess the soviets based their decision on the civil war and the (at least hypothetically) devastating effect such intervention would have had on the red war effort. This coupled with me wondering whether soviets even had the capability to send any kind of help through the lines (The black sea filled with Turkish/white army ships and Caucasia in white control?) would indeed put the sanity of intervention in a dubious light.

[S.Artesian]

Even if they are, the real question would be: Was that action based in morality.

No, that's the issue, since the issue is never one of morality, but about what most strengthens the prospects for international revolution, which Lenin admitted was the only hope for the survival of the Russian Revolution.

Now to say that preserving, securing the flanks of the nascent dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia is what most strengthens the international revolution is to substitute an ideology for the materialist analysis of history, and for the actual course of class struggle.

It becomes an excuse for, on the international stage, class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, as opposed to "self-determination" of the revolutionary government to conduct its own relations with bourgeois governments.

Certainly we are all aware of tactical necessity, the necessity to retreat while in direct combat. We all recognize that such a necessity might even cut off our own comrades. Such a retreat was the one advocated by Lenin at Brest-Litovsk.

But that is precisely not the circumstances of the agreement with Ataturk, as the Bolsheviks were sacrificing territory while maintaining class struggle, class opposition to the bourgeoisie and the world war at Brest-Litovsk, while sacrificing class struggle, and class opposition to the national bourgeoisie of Ataturk in order to preserve property and commerce.


As you said, you don't know. And your guess is inaccurate.

[Ovi]

I think I missed the part where Marx said the state leaders should abolish any form of people power and rule over the people as they see fit.

[Devrim]

World revolution had failed. They didn't merely need to secure a flank, they needed to rebuild the Soviet working class. Sometimes you need to retreat before you can advance. Remember, they'd just surrendered a huge amount of territory to Poland and Romania as well, and to Turkey. They'd just gone 15 rounds with imperialism and were so exhausted that they probably could have been easily toppled by another push.

When had the world revolution failed by?

Had it clearly failed by November 1920, at which point the Russian party was openly talking about the friendship that existed between itself and the Kemalists?

If so, had it clearly failed by May 1920 at which point the Soviet state supplied the Kemalists with 50 cannons, 70 machine guns and 17,000 rifles, weapons which incidentally were later used to massacre communists and workers?

Devrim

[Blackscare]

Lenin was wrong on many things, including the need for the proletariat to form cross-class alliances for various scenarios.

I happen to consider myself broadly left-communist, but I think that you don't understand that there are serious material differences between places like USA and Germany, which are highly industrialized and hence better suited to Left-Com type politics, and Czarist Russia circa 1917, which was much more agrarian and backwards.

[S.Artesian]

Differentiating between the two is pointless so long as you continue to codify and lay down scripture. The bankruptcy of the Second International didn't come about because the socialists failed to sufficiently adhere to Marx's writings; it was because they reduced/elevated these to the status of scripture and became obsessed with abstract formulations to keep within the letter of the law. Marxism became dogma (and those who offended were to be 'revisionists') instead of the 'living doctrine' that Marx had envisaged. And, to quote Blake, "the man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind"

Who said the Marxism of Marx was codifying "scripture"? The Marxism of Marx is the concrete analysis of the conflicts in the capitalist organization of labor as wage-labor, and the means of production as private property, and the immanent tendencies leading to the overthrow of that organization. Actually doing that is what distinguishes revolutionary Marxism from academic or scriptured or ideological Marxism

The bankruptcy of the Second International was expressed in its inability, incapacity to grasp, and utilize those immanent tendencies requiring the overthrow of capitalism.

The bankruptcy of the 2nd International was expressed in its inability to access, connect with the changes internationally by capitalism's emergence from the period of the "long devaluation" between 1873-1896. The 2nd International never had a clue as to what "uneven and combined" development meant for class struggle.

Not far from the mark to say the first three internationals all wrecked themselves in not comprehending, practically, the significance of uneven and combined development.

[ComradeOm]

Who said the Marxism of Marx was codifying "scripture"?It wasn't, which is my point. This is what you, and everyone else who believes that Marxism can be boiled down to a set of commandments, are indulging in. Codification is a natural result of insisting that the "Marxism of Marx" remains the touchstone to which all later 'Marxists' must adhere to

As for the Second International, there are a multitude of reasons for its failure but a deficiency in its economic analysis does not rank amongst the forefront

Edit: I'll just elaborate some more and restate my point to be clear. The 'Marxism of Marx' is a vast body of literature that covers some four decades. A century ago the Marxists boiled down this down to a set of precepts and laws. This was an inevitable and understandable part of turning Marxism into a political ideology. However they then argued that this 'Marxism' was set in stone and that anyone who did not adhere to it was a revisionist or, in the case of Lenin, an anarchist. We however live in more enlightened times and have, largely, jettisoned this 'Marxism' of the Second International. In its place we've gone back to Marx's original writings, ironically with the help of Lenin, and derived a new set of laws and analyses. Those who fail to measure up to these, such as Lenin, are cast out and considered as counter-revolutionaries. Plus ça change...

Is it really so hard to accept that there are different interpretations of Marxism? This is not some sort of church from which people can be excommunicated for failing to comply with our Holy Writ. The latter evolves and is constantly added to or amended by generations of Marxists. Similarly, we have to abandon the idea that 'Marxism' is a label that automatically confers authority on a subject or even implies revolutionaryism. Its possible for Marxists to be wrong

[human strike]

Was Lenin a Marxist? No, he was a Marxist-Leninist. IMO a more interesting question would be 'was Lenin a revolutionary or a counter-revolutionary?'

[S.Artesian]

It wasn't, which is my point. This is what you, and everyone else who believes that Marxism can be boiled down to a set of commandments, are indulging in. Codification is a natural result of insisting that the "Marxism of Marx" remains the touchstone to which all later 'Marxists' must adhere to

Uhh... where have I stated, written, demonstrated that Marxism can be boiled down to a set of commandments? Other than in your little fantasy world, I mean, where you to talk out your ass and pretend it's free speech?

There is the body of Marx's work which is the critique of the conditions of labor under capitalism. There is a real content to that analysis of the accumulation of capital and the immanent limits, barriers, contradictions to that accumulation.

Of course there can be different interpretations of Marx. Big fucking deal. What counts is the content of the analysis of the conditions of capitalism and the prospects for its overthrow.

If you have a different interpretation, that's just fucking wonderful. I could care less if you cast it in stone or broadcast it on your facebook page.

Oh... and uneven and combined development is not an economic analysis. It is precisely that analysis of the conditions of labor under capitalism, but then I'm sure your "Marxism" is far more fluid and supple to ever get bogged down in anything quite so prosaic as the actual relations of classes, which is the actual reproduction of capital.

And of course it's possible for Marxists to be wrong. What is not possible is for capitalism not to be capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

Uhh... where have I stated, written, demonstrated that Marxism can be boiled down to a set of commandments?Whenever you go on about "the Marxism of Marx" and reject the Second International not for their relentless dogmatism but merely because they possessed an incomplete dogma. Its also, if you reading anything into my posts, an inevitable prerequisite of insisting that someone isn't a Marxist - distilling Marx's work into a simple checklist to be ticked off is a deeply reductionist practice. And finally, its telling that you use the terms "fluid" and "supple" as pejorative


If you have a different interpretation, that's just fucking wonderful. I could care less if you cast it in stone or broadcast it on your facebook pageOh no! You cursed on the internet. You must be well hard :glare:

[NecroCommie]

No, that's the issue, since the issue is never one of morality, but about what most strengthens the prospects for international revolution, which Lenin admitted was the only hope for the survival of the Russian Revolution.
Two points
1) When you say it is not a question of morality but a question of what is good for the revolution, you have a "silent asumption" about the good of the revolution being the definition of morality, and through that actually admitting that the question is actually about what is moral.

2) My point was about you critisizing lenin's actions not being "revolutionary marxism". To that I responded that it is irrelevant because what is or is not revolutionary marxism would be to discuss about dogma when the discussion is about the right action. To this you responded that the discussion is not about the right action but about lenin violating the right action which is intervention

To put it simply: WTF?!



Now to say that preserving, securing the flanks of the nascent dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia is what most strengthens the international revolution is to substitute an ideology for the materialist analysis of history, and for the actual course of class struggle.

It becomes an excuse for, on the international stage, class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, as opposed to "self-determination" of the revolutionary government to conduct its own relations with bourgeois governments.

Certainly we are all aware of tactical necessity, the necessity to retreat while in direct combat. We all recognize that such a necessity might even cut off our own comrades. Such a retreat was the one advocated by Lenin at Brest-Litovsk.

But that is precisely not the circumstances of the agreement with Ataturk, as the Bolsheviks were sacrificing territory while maintaining class struggle, class opposition to the bourgeoisie and the world war at Brest-Litovsk, while sacrificing class struggle, and class opposition to the national bourgeoisie of Ataturk in order to preserve property and commerce.


As you said, you don't know. And your guess is inaccurate.
Seeing that you have made no attempt to correct my knowledge a priori it would only seem unreasonable if you expected me to change my knowledge a posteriori.

[S.Artesian]

Two points
1) When you say it is not a question of morality but a question of what is good for the revolution, you have a "silent asumption" about the good of the revolution being the definition of morality, and through that actually admitting that the question is actually about what is moral.

2) My point was about you critisizing lenin's actions not being "revolutionary marxism". To that I responded that it is irrelevant because what is or is not revolutionary marxism would be to discuss about dogma when the discussion is about the right action. To this you responded that the discussion is not about the right action but about lenin violating the right action which is intervention

To put it simply: WTF?!

Yeah, WTF? We're not making moral judgments, but practical judgments on the advancement of the prospects for world revolution. You want to label that a discussion of "good" and "bad"? Be my fucking guest.

Others would label it a discussion of necessity, what is necessary to overthrow capitalism, good or bad.

I'm not interested in engaging in arguments that suggest practical questions of tactics, strategy, program, analysis, and action are really discussions of morality.

I said that sacrificing the left communists and arming Ataturk's forces of repression against the left communists was a setback, a blow against the prospects of revolution. You want to make some moral calculus of "whether the alternatives were worse," or "whether the Bolsheviks were in a position to do anything else?", that's your prerogative, but it has nothing to do with the material significance of those actions in relation to the prospects for advancing revolution.

This isn't discussing what is or is not a dogma, but about the practical tasks of the proletariat's revolution. Providing arms to national bourgeois formations to shoot communists was, 90 years ago in Turkey as anti-antithetical to that advance as China's support of Pinochet in Chile was 37 years ago

[S.Artesian]

Whenever you go on about "the Marxism of Marx" and reject the Second International not for their relentless dogmatism but merely because they possessed an incomplete dogma. Its also, if you reading anything into my posts, an inevitable prerequisite of insisting that someone isn't a Marxist - distilling Marx's work into a simple checklist to be ticked off is a deeply reductionist practice. And finally, its telling that you use the terms "fluid" and "supple" as pejorative

Oh no! You cursed on the internet. You must be well hard :glare:


Oh.. I see, because my criticism of the 2nd International doesn't conform to your criticism, mine must be dogmatic. Seems to me that the dogma is all yours. Dogmatist, heal thyself.

I don't know where I claimed somebody isn't a Marxist. Can you point that out to me-- where I actually state that? It might help if there's something concrete you can point to, rather than your make-believe tales.

There is a Marxism of Marx-- it's in all those things he wrote-- that consistent analysis of the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor. That's not dogma, that's simple recognition.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I used the terms supple and fluid sarcastically, because I don't think there's a bit of suppleness and fluidity to your pose.

[L.A.P.]

I think the better question is why marxistn00b always asks stupid question? I understand that there is no such thing as a stupid question but these ridiculous questions he/she asks would never lead to more knowledge of understanding leftism. His/her questions remind me of those annoying "what ifs" I would always hear from my cousin.

[Who?]

I think the better question is why marxistn00b always asks stupid question? I understand that there is no such thing as a stupid question but these ridiculous questions he/she asks would never lead to more knowledge of understanding leftism. His/her questions remind me of those annoying "what ifs" I would always hear from my cousin.

Stop being a dick.

[L.A.P.]

Stop being a dick.

No fuck you, it's a bit frustrating to see these "what is stalinism and how do we fight it?" and "when will the world revolution happen?" threads from him/her.

[S.Artesian]

No fuck you, it's a bit frustrating to see these "what is stalinism and how do we fight it?" and "when will the world revolution happen?" threads from him/her.

If it would make you feel better, we can change the thread title to "Where do you disagree with Lenin?" then, of course, if you did disagree with Lenin you could contribute, and if you didn't disagree with Lenin over any issue, you wouldn't need to say a thing.

In either case, I'm sure everybody's knowledge and "understanding of leftism" would benefit.

[thriller]

The Bolsheviks did what they felt was right given the situation and material conditions of Russia Circa 1917. They were the most popular party with the working class by far for a reason.

Because Bolshevik in Russian means majority, so they must have been!

[thriller]

I think the better question is why marxistn00b always asks stupid question? I understand that there is no such thing as a stupid question but these ridiculous questions he/she asks would never lead to more knowledge of understanding leftism. His/her questions remind me of those annoying "what ifs" I would always hear from my cousin.

If there are no stupid question, then what is this?

:lol:

[vyborg]

the real question to pose is: was Marx a real Leninist?

[L.A.P.]

What is your idea of "leftism"?:confused: I hope it does not include shooting people for asking questions.

How is what I'm saying relevant to my idea of leftism? I'm beginning to think you're just trolling at this point after asking when will the world revolution happen.

[Paulappaul]

Anybody interested in Lenin's prospects as a Marxist should read Anton Pannekoek's Lenin as a Philosopher it's a review of some of Joseph Dietzgen's contribution to Marxism and 2 other Philosophers that Lenin reviews in his Materialism and Empirio - Criticism. In it he basically calls Lenin a Bourgeois Materialist and that he fails to understand aspects of Marxism. Excerpts:


Lenin was quite well aware of the concordance of his views with middle-class materialism of the 19th century. For him “materialism” is the common basis of Marxism and middle-class materialism.
Lenin’s concordance with middle-class materialism and his ensuing discordance with Historical Materialism is manifest in many consequences. The former waged its main war against religion; and the chief reproach Lenin raises against Mach and his followers is that they sustain fideism. We met with it in several quotations already; in hundreds of places all through the book we find fideism as the opposite of materialism. Marx and Engels did not know of fideism; they drew the line between materialism and idealism. In the name fideism emphasis is laid upon religion. Lenin explains whence he took the word. “In France, those who put faith above reason are called fideists (from the Latin fides, faith).”



This oppositeness of religion to reason is a reminiscence from pre-marxian times, from the emancipation of the middle-class, appealing to “reason” in order to attack religious faith as the chief enemy in the social struggle; “free thinking” was opposed to “obscurantism.” Lenin, in continually pointing to fideism as the consequence of the contested doctrines indicates that also to him in the world of ideas religion is the chief enemy.


Thus he scolds Mach for saying that the problem of determinism cannot be settled empirically: in research, Mach says every scientist must be determinist but in practical affairs he remains indeterminist.


“Is this not obscurantism ... when determinism is confined to the field of ‘investigation,’ while in the field of morality, social activity, and all fields other than ‘investigation’ the question is left to a ‘subjective estimate’.” (223) ... “And so things have been amicably divided: theory for the professors, practice for the theologians!” - Lenin



Thus every subject is seen from the point of view of religion. Manifestly it was unknown to Lenin that the deeply religious Calvinism was a rigidly deterministic doctrine, whereas the materialist middle class of the 19th century put their faith into free will, hence proclaimed indeterminism. At this point a real Marxian thinker would not have missed the opportunity of explaining to the Russian Machists that it was Historical Materialism that opened the way for determinism in the field of society; we have shown above that the theoretical conviction that rules and laws hold in a realm – this means determinism – can find a foundation only when we succeed in establishing practically such laws and connections. Further, that Mach because he belonged to the middle class and was bound to its fundamental line of thought, by necessity was indeterminist in his social views; and that in this way his ideas were backward and incompatible with Marxism. But nothing of the sort is found in Lenin; that ideas are determined by class is not mentioned; the theoretical differences hang in the air. Of course theoretical ideas must be criticised by theoretical arguments. When, however, the social consequences are emphasised with such vehemence, the social origins of the contested ideas should not have been left out of consideration. This most essential character of Marxism does not seem to exist for Lenin.

The Third International aims at a world revolution after the model of the Russian revolution and with the same goal. The Russian economic system is state capitalism, there called state-socialism or even communism, with production directed by a state bureaucracy under the leadership of the Communist Party. The state officials, forming the new ruling class, have the disposal over the product, hence over the surplus-value, whereas the workers receive wages only, thus forming an exploited class. In this way it has been possible in the short time of some dozens of years to transform Russia from a primitive barbarous country into a modern state of rapidly increasing industry on the basis of advanced science and technics. According to Communist Party ideas, a similar revolution is needed in the capitalist countries, with the working class again as the active power, leading to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the organisation of production by a state bureaucracy. The Russian revolution could be victorious only because a well-disciplined united bolshevist party led the masses, and because in the party the clear insight and the unyielding assurance of Lenin and his friends showed the right way. Thus, in the same way, in world revolution the workers have to follow the Communist Party, leave to it the lead and afterwards the government; and the party members have to obey their leaders in rigid discipline. Essential are the qualified capable party leaders, the proficient, experienced revolutionaries; what is necessary for the masses is the belief that the party and its leaders are right.


In reality, for the working class in the countries of developed capitalism, in Western Europe and America, matters are entirely different. Its task is not the overthrow of a backward absolutist monarchy. Its task is to vanquish a ruling class commanding the mightiest material and spiritual forces the world ever knew. Its object cannot be to replace the domination of stockjobbers and monopolists over a disorderly production by the domination of state officials over a production regulated from above. Its object is to be itself master of production and itself to regulate labour, the basis of life. Only then is capitalism really destroyed. Such an aim cannot be attained by an ignorant mass, confident followers of a party presenting itself as an expert leadership. It can be attained only if the workers themselves, the entire class, understand the conditions, ways and means of their fight; when every man knows from his own judgement, what to do. They must, every man of them, act themselves, decide themselves, hence think out and know for themselves. Only in this way will a real class organisation be built up from below, having the form of something like workers’ councils. It is of no avail that they have been convinced that their leaders know what is afoot and have gained the point in theoretical discussion – an easy thing when each is acquainted with the writings of his own party only. Out of the contest of arguments they have to form a clear opinion themselves. There is no truth lying ready at hand that has only to be imbibed; in every new case truth must be contrived by exertion of one’s own brain.

[S.Artesian]

Being a Marxist is not being a philosopher.

If you want to criticize Lenin as Marxist, then you yourself have to do it as a Marxist... an simply saying that Russia is, became, etc. state capitalist because the wage relation has not been overthrown tell us nothing about the historical conditions of the Russian Revolution and the actions of the revolutionists in Russia confronting those conditions.

[Paulappaul]

Being a Marxist is not being a philosopher.

Marxists are Philosophers which do more then theorize, they change. So no I don't really see your point here. It's rhetoric without any weight to it.


If you want to criticize Lenin as Marxist, then you yourself have to do it as a Marxist... an simply saying that Russia is, became, etc. state capitalist because the wage relation has not been overthrown tell us nothing about the historical conditions of the Russian Revolution and the actions of the revolutionists in Russia confronting those conditions.

He actually does go into that, which is why you shouldn't be making assumptions about the piece without actually reading it:


The concordance of Lenin and Plechanov in their basic philosophical views and their common divergence from Marxism points to their common origin out of the Russian social conditions. The name and garb of a doctrine or theory depend on its spiritual descent; they indicate the earlier thinker to whom we feel most indebted and whom we think we follow. The real content, however, depends on its material origin and is determined by the social conditions under which it developed and has to work. Marxism itself says that the main social ideas and spiritual trends express the aims of the classes, i.e. the needs of social development, and change with the class struggles themselves. So they cannot be understood isolated from society and class struggle. This holds for Marxism itself.


In their early days Marx and Engels stood in the first ranks of the middle-class opposition, not yet disjoined into its different social trends, against absolutism in Germany. Their development towards Historical Materialism, then, was the theoretical reflex of the development of the working class towards independent action against the bourgeoisie. The practical class-antagonism found its expression in the theoretical antagonism. The fight of the bourgeoisie against feudal dominance was expressed by middle-class materialism [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch07.htm#n1), cognate to Feuerbach’s doctrine, which used natural science to fight religion as the consecration of the old powers. The working class in its own fight has little use for natural science, the instrument of its foe: its theoretical weapon in social science, the science of social development. To fight religion by means of natural science has no significance for the workers; they know, moreover, that its roots will be cut off anyhow first by capitalist development, then by their own class struggle. Neither have they any use for the obvious fact that thoughts are produced by the brain. They have to understand how ideas are produced by society. This is the content of Marxism, as it grows among the workers as a living and stirring power, as the theory expressing their growing power of organisation and knowledge. When in the second half of the 19th century capitalism gained complete mastery in Western and Central Europe as well as m America, middle-class materialism disappeared. Marxism was the only materialist class-view remaining.


In Russia, however, matters were different. Here the fight against Czarism was analogous to the former fight against absolutism in Europe. In Russia too church and religion were the strongest supports of the system of government: they held the rural masses, engaged in primitive agrarian production, in complete ignorance and superstition. The struggle against religion was here a prime social necessity. Since in Russia there was no significant bourgeoisie that as a future ruling class could take up the fight, the task fell to the intelligentsia during scores of years it waged a strenuous fight for enlightenment of the masses against Czarism. Among the Western bourgeoisie, now reactionary and anti-materialist, it could find no support whatever in this struggle. It had to appeal to the socialist workers, who alone sympathised with it, and it took over their acknowledged theory, Marxism. Thus it came about that even intellectuals who were spokesmen of the first rudiments of a Russian bourgeoisie, such as Peter Struve and Tugan Baranovski, presented themselves as Marxists. They had nothing in common with the proletarian Marxism of the West: what they learned from Marx was the doctrine of social development with capitalism as the next phase. A power for revolution came up in Russia for the first time when the workers took up the fight, first by strikes only, then in combination with political demands. Now the intellectuals found a revolutionary class to join up with, in order to become its spokesmen in a socialist party...


For more: Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch07.htm)

[S.Artesian]

I've read Pannekoek's book. I've read Gorters. I don't consider myself a Leninist. I don't buy the vanguard party bit. I don't buy his theory of imperialism. I don't think very much of Pannekoek's critique of Lenin. But it's been 35 years since I read it.

You might want to quote the parts where Pannekoek actually explores Russia's uneven and combined development and its relationship to the changes in international capitalism rather quote another section that is mostly about philosophy and cognition, and then discusses the attraction of Marx for theorists of an emerging capitalism. But I don't recall Pannekoek ever presenting such an analysis.

I would say we could make some real progress if we examined say, Lenin's theory of imperialism; or if we examined Lenin's statements about "state capitalism," would could even make progress if we looked at the Bolshevik MRC in the Petrograd soviet and then discussed what happened at the all-Soviet Congress.

But was Lenin a Marxist? Definitely. When it counted. And when it counted was when it came to overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

[Paulappaul]

You might want to quote the parts where Pannekoek actually explores Russia's uneven and combined development and its relationship to the changes in international capitalism rather quote another section that is mostly about philosophy and cognition, and then discusses the attraction of Marx for theorists of an emerging capitalism. But I don't recall Pannekoek ever presenting such an analysis.

Oh yeah here you go,


In Russia capitalism had not grown up gradually from small-scale production in the hands of a middle class, as it had in Western Europe. Big industry was imported from outside as a foreign element by Western capitalism, exploiting the Russian workers. Moreover Western financial capital, by its loans to Czarism, exploited the entire agrarian Russian people, who were heavily taxed to pay the interests. Western capital here assumed the character of colonial capital, with the Czar and his officials as its agents. In countries exploited as colonies all the classes have a common interest in throwing off the yoke of the usurious foreign capital, to establish their own free economic development, leading as a rule to home capitalism. This fight is waged against world-capital, hence often under the name of socialism; and the workers of the Western countries, who stand against the same foe, are the natural allies. Thus in China Sun Yat-Sen was a socialist; since, however, the Chinese bourgeoisie whose spokesman he was, was a numerous and powerful class, his socialism was “national” and he opposed the “errors” of Marxism.

Again from the very section I have been quoting.


But was Lenin a Marxist? Definitely. When it counted. And when it counted was when it came to overthrowing the bourgeoisie.




Of course Lenin was a pupil of Marx; from Marx he had learnt what was most essential for the Russian revolution, the uncompromising proletarian class struggle. Just as for analogous reasons, the social-democrats were pupils of Marx. And surely the fight of the Russian workers, in their mass actions and their soviets, was the most important practical example of modern proletarian warfare. That, however, Lenin did not understand Marxism as the theory of proletarian revolution, that he did not understand capitalism, bourgeoisie, proletariat in their highest modern development, was shown strikingly when from Russia, by means of the Third International, the world revolution was to be started, and the advice and warnings of Western Marxists were entirely disregarded. An unbroken series of blunders, failures, and defeats, of which the present weakness of the workers’ movement was the result, showed the unavoidable shortcoming of the Russian leadership.

[S.Artesian]

Tough to disagree with the characterization of the 3rd Intl, since it is pretty accurate.
Don't think that proves Lenin didn't understand capitalism, bourgeoisie, class struggle. Lenin was not quite the hegemon in the 3rd Intl. And after 1922, how much did he really participate?

[Pravda Soyuz]

Lenin was not perfect, but mostly he did what needed to be done. He led a major step forward in the history of socialism.