cullinane
13th November 2001, 23:36
Its long been assumed that Leninism was basically a diversion from 'pure' Marxism, in that a self-selected elite, by dint of their knowledge, dedication and selfessness have a surer grasp of the needs of the working class, than the working class themselves could posesses. The working class by itself could never transcend bourgeois ideology and in existing society was too unorganised and wretched thanks to wage labour, that they could never carry out a revolution on their own. As Gramsci says "To rely on the unique creative capacity of such a mass and not work systematically to organise an army of disciplined and conscious militants ready to assume effective responsibilty for the revolution - not to do this is a betrayal of the proletariat and an unconscious counterrevolution in advance".
Given the states control of education, media, the army etc..The path to secure the support of the working class ;lay through the prior seizure of state power; not through a majority to state power. Basically, a form of Jacobinism. Its synomymous with voluntarism - triumphing over an objective restraint.
One of the basis of Leninism is that "socialist consciousness is something introduced into the class struggle of the proletariat from without and not something that arises within it spontaneously" or "isolated from the Marxist movement, the working class becomes petty and inevitably bourgeois" as the bourgeoisies have immeasurably more means of dissemination at its disposal.
Thus one could come to the following conclusions on Leninism..and below I'll mention Marx..
Socialism is the product of the radical intelligentsia since, clearly, no workman could have written Anti-Duhring, Capital or even What is To Be Done.
Now, Marx is often portrayed as a proponent of "socialism for below" and that only the working class on their own, can emancipate themselves. But he also says this in his political writings. For example, the working class "will remain a plaything" in the hands of the ruling classes unless it is "trained by continual agitation..to undertake decisive campaign against the collective power".
Again; "the question is not what this or that proletarian or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim. The question is what proletariat is, and what, compelled to do do. Its aim and historical action is irrevocably and obviously demonstrated in its own life situation as well in the whole organisation of bourgeois society today".
Another quote "A portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who raised themselves to the level of comprehending theorectically the historical movement as a whole"" that "supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress"...These evidently are the leaders of the working class parties"who have over 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".
The above Marx quotes are from Marx and Engels selected correspondence and the holy family.
The tactic of using the 'workerphile' Marx as a dramatic foil to the elitest, manipulative Lenin has become almost a reflex with western commentators on Leninism is unconvincing, because it is far from clear that in denouncing those whole believed socialism was a natural and spontaneous outgrowth of the labour movement Lenin was at all out of accord with the spirit and actions of Marx.
We might well lament the tones of elitism, but we are wrong to attribute them to Lenin especially. It would be difficult to make sense of Marx's own life's work, his extraordinary committment to the construction of proletarian ideology, if we are to believe that he thought it would, in any case, be produced spontaneously by the workers themselves.
Regards,
Given the states control of education, media, the army etc..The path to secure the support of the working class ;lay through the prior seizure of state power; not through a majority to state power. Basically, a form of Jacobinism. Its synomymous with voluntarism - triumphing over an objective restraint.
One of the basis of Leninism is that "socialist consciousness is something introduced into the class struggle of the proletariat from without and not something that arises within it spontaneously" or "isolated from the Marxist movement, the working class becomes petty and inevitably bourgeois" as the bourgeoisies have immeasurably more means of dissemination at its disposal.
Thus one could come to the following conclusions on Leninism..and below I'll mention Marx..
Socialism is the product of the radical intelligentsia since, clearly, no workman could have written Anti-Duhring, Capital or even What is To Be Done.
Now, Marx is often portrayed as a proponent of "socialism for below" and that only the working class on their own, can emancipate themselves. But he also says this in his political writings. For example, the working class "will remain a plaything" in the hands of the ruling classes unless it is "trained by continual agitation..to undertake decisive campaign against the collective power".
Again; "the question is not what this or that proletarian or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim. The question is what proletariat is, and what, compelled to do do. Its aim and historical action is irrevocably and obviously demonstrated in its own life situation as well in the whole organisation of bourgeois society today".
Another quote "A portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who raised themselves to the level of comprehending theorectically the historical movement as a whole"" that "supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress"...These evidently are the leaders of the working class parties"who have over 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".
The above Marx quotes are from Marx and Engels selected correspondence and the holy family.
The tactic of using the 'workerphile' Marx as a dramatic foil to the elitest, manipulative Lenin has become almost a reflex with western commentators on Leninism is unconvincing, because it is far from clear that in denouncing those whole believed socialism was a natural and spontaneous outgrowth of the labour movement Lenin was at all out of accord with the spirit and actions of Marx.
We might well lament the tones of elitism, but we are wrong to attribute them to Lenin especially. It would be difficult to make sense of Marx's own life's work, his extraordinary committment to the construction of proletarian ideology, if we are to believe that he thought it would, in any case, be produced spontaneously by the workers themselves.
Regards,