Serious Discussion on Leninist Theory

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Here is an article about the value of Leninism. (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/DefenseofLeninism.pdf) It is an interesting article, and I want to have a serious discussion on Leninist thought.

1. Your thoughts on the article
2. Why the Leninist idea of the vanguard party is/isn't necessary for an industrialized country like the United States
3. The importance/non-importance of democratic centralism
4. The necessary implementation/mistake of the the NEP
5. Was the one-party state of necessity for the period and is it relevant now?
6. Was the Red Terror of necessity and is it relevant now?

I do not want a Stalin vs. Trotsky discussion. This is not what this thread is meant for. I want to encourage serious debate on these topics. If people want to add topics to the list above I can edit the post and add them if they are good suggestions.

[Threetune]

Thanks for posting that. I’d be happy to join in when I’ve read it. A serious widespread debate on this, warts and all, is long overdue.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Bump

1. I thought the article was very good and to the point.
2. I have for a long time considered it not necessary for industrialized countries but I am now questioning that belief and open to Leninist ideas.
3. Read above
4. I still think that the NEP was a mistake and not necessary (unlike the implementation of "War Communism" during the Civil War). I think strives should have been made at this time for more workers' control.
5. Unsure on this point, but I feel it probably was of necessity to the Bolsheviks (though not 100% sure). I do not feel it is relevant now.
6. I feel that this wasn't of necessity and was a mistake, yet I see why and understand completely why Lenin implemented the Cheka, Red Terror, etc. At the same time, I never feel that it is right nor would I ever want a government to have extra-judicial executions whether I support said government or not.

[Omsk]

I still think that the NEP was a mistake and not necessary (unlike the implementation of "War Communism" during the Civil War). I think strives should have been made at this time for more workers' control.



On what do you base this view?


I feel that this wasn't of necessity and was a mistake, yet I see why and understand completely why Lenin implemented the Cheka, Red Terror, etc. At the same time, I never feel that it is right nor would I ever want a government to have extra-judicial executions whether I support said government or not.

What should have been done when the Tzarists started to execute thousands of leftists?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

On what do you base this view?

I think that the NEP allowed for the formation of a new ruling class, one that had been developing under the implementation of War Communism do to the extraordinary conditions of the Civil War, Foreign Invasion, etc. but had not solidified itself yet. I think the NEP solidified the formation of this new class. I in no way agree that it was a necessary retreat.




What should have been done when the Tzarists started to execute thousands of leftists?

Defeat their armies, try the surviving Tzarist fighters in court, and execute or imprison those found guilty.

[Rooster]

You can see where they were coming from with the NEP. I don't think they were in a position, nor had the ability, to do otherwise. The revolution ended the old blocks preventing capitalist accumulation. The problem is that the social base wasn't in a majority way socialist, with the part that instigated the wanting more of a reformist platform (peace, bread and land). To continue with this advance towards socialism meant that this social base had to be eroded, with the Bolsheviks thinking they could do this through state power. This is probably why a lot of Marxist theory was distorted; to fit in with the Bolsheviks situation. So if you have a dotp, a class society operating on a capitalist mode of production without a mass dictatorship of a proletariat class but one of a party over a vast area which wasn't proletariat and including those large sections of the proles that didn't want to go further.

[Omsk]

I think that the NEP allowed for the formation of a new ruling class, one that had been developing under the implementation of War Communism do to the extraordinary conditions of the Civil War, Foreign Invasion, etc. but had not solidified itself yet. I think the NEP solidified the formation of this new class. I in no way agree that it was a necessary retreat.




All right.But:


I in no way agree that it was a necessary retreat.

On what do you base this view?



Defeat their armies, try the surviving Tzarist fighters in court, and execute or imprison those found guilty.


All of this was done.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

All right.But:



On what do you base this view?

While at this time their was still some internal and external threats, it was peaceful enough (of course, in my opinion) to start instituting workers' control, etc.




All of this was done.

So?

I don't mind discussing these points (hell, that is why I made the thread!) but I would like to discuss the other points as well and not just these 2 points.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Really, nobody wants to discuss this? I think a civilized discussion about Leninism is long overdue.

[Grenzer]

Omsk is quite right: the NEP was fully necessary.

Not only was it necessary, it was actually an advance towards the construction of Socialism as opposed to what existed before. The so-called "War Communism"(which was neither socialism nor communism) ravaged the peasantry to the point of bringing them to open revolt. The NEP was required to further diminish the power of the markets, constrain the petit-bourgeoisie, and give the country time to rebuild and the peasants the time to recover from the devastation of war. This period was required to lay the basis for the destruction of the "Kulaks" and the period of agricultural collectivization and industrialization.

Denying the necessity of the NEP is simply delusional; it's not like Lenin could snap his fingers and magically conjure a new mode of production out of thin air.

"Leninism" doesn't exist. It's a term which has dozens of different uses depending on the context; all of which are too loaded. You could simply say "the ideas of Lenin", but that's so vague as to be meaningless.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The NEP was required to further diminish the power of the markets, constrain the petit-bourgeoisie, and give the country time to rebuild and the peasants the time to recover from the devastation of war. This period was required to lay the basis for the destruction of the "Kulaks" and the period of agricultural collectivization and industrialization.


Exactly how did it do this, especially the bolded section?

[Grenzer]

Exactly how did it do this, especially the bolded section?

By limiting the conditions that allow them to become bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Omsk is quite right: the NEP was fully necessary.

Not only was it necessary, it was actually an advance towards the construction of Socialism as opposed to what existed before. The so-called "War Communism"(which was neither socialism nor communism) ravaged the peasantry to the point of bringing them to open revolt. The NEP was required to further diminish the power of the markets, constrain the petit-bourgeoisie, and give the country time to rebuild and the peasants the time to recover from the devastation of war. This period was required to lay the basis for the destruction of the "Kulaks" and the period of agricultural collectivization and industrialization.

Denying the necessity of the NEP is simply delusional; it's not like Lenin could snap his fingers and magically conjure a new mode of production out of thin air.

"Leninism" doesn't exist. It's a term which has dozens of different uses depending on the context; all of which are too loaded. You could simply say "the ideas of Lenin", but that's so vague as to be meaningless.

Yes, Lars Lih noted that the NEP was seen by even many Bolsheviks as an advance over the "war communism" that had much continuity with the czarist war economy.

[Grenzer]

Yes, Lars Lih noted that the NEP was seen by even many Bolsheviks as an advance over the "war communism" that had much continuity with the czarist war economy.

It is strange how there are certain.. circles which distort the NEP into being some reactionary thing. From my understanding, during the period of the Civil War, many factories remained under private ownership. It was the NEP which nationalized many of them and brought them under the control of the state. Unless one prefers private property, then I'm not entirely sure what there is in regards to the NEP to complain about. One might say that it just didn't go far enough, but that's having very unrealistic expectations.

I'm not sure why they call the Civil War economy "war communism", but that may have something to do with the myth that the NEP was a "capitulation".

In which text does Lars Lih write about the NEP? I'd be curious to read about it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is strange how there are certain.. circles which distort the NEP into being some reactionary thing. From my understanding, during the period of the Civil War, many factories remained under private ownership. It was the NEP which nationalized many of them and brought them under the control of the state. Unless one prefers private property, then I'm not entirely sure what there is in regards to the NEP to complain about. One might say that it just didn't go far enough, but that's having very unrealistic expectations.

I'm not sure why they call the Civil War economy "war communism", but that may have something to do with the myth that the NEP was a "capitulation".

In which text does Lars Lih write about the NEP? I'd be curious to read about it.

^^^ http://www.revleft.com/vb/jules-guesde-lenin-t102192/index.html

[Mr. Natural]

Yes, Anti-Capitalist, this is an important thread and thanks for it. But it is also a very complex topic, and I'll just add a few thoughts to the NEP discussion for the moment.

I believe we all agree that the Soviet Union was born under the most difficult circumstances. The war communism that resulted was then extraordinarily harsh, especially to the peasantry. It is then my understanding gleaned from a couple of recently read books that the major beef the Kronstadt sailors had was the horrendous conditions they witnessed when they went home on leave to their peasant communities.

Lenin saw all this and much more and knew the Soviet Union couldn't continue in this manner, hence the NEP. Was the NEP a bad choice or the only choice? May we never have to make such no-win decisions, ourselves.

As for a vanguard party--only in the sense that revolutionaries are needed to facilitate working class consciousness. The workers, though, must ultimately organize themselves from the bottom up, as does the rest of life. Only in such a process and organization do the popular roots maintain contact with the overarching canopy and is proletarian democracy achieved.

In practice, democratic centralism has proved to be all centralism and no democracy, I believe.

My red-green best.

[Revolution starts with U]

It is strange how there are certain.. circles which distort the NEP into being some reactionary thing. From my understanding, during the period of the Civil War, many factories remained under private ownership. It was the NEP which nationalized many of them and brought them under the control of the state. Unless one prefers private property, then I'm not entirely sure what there is in regards to the NEP to complain about. One might say that it just didn't go far enough, but that's having very unrealistic expectations.

I'm not sure why they call the Civil War economy "war communism", but that may have something to do with the myth that the NEP was a "capitulation".

In which text does Lars Lih write about the NEP? I'd be curious to read about it.

Are you implying that state commodification is any less capitalism than private commodification?

[JAM]

I don't see NEP as a retreat or anything like it but rather the prove that you cannot skip stages during the revolutionary process. This was Lenin (and Stalin too) position prior to 1917 although he changed it for strategical reasons (the provisional government was too weak and the czarist forces were preparing to takeover the country again).

NEP was crucial to avoid the collapse of the soviet economy and to permit the establishment of the planned economy years later with the extraordinary results that the five years plans achieved in the 30's.

The problem with NEP was the fact that it wasn't promoting the industrialization process in Russia. That was the main concern among the Bolsheviks and the reason why it was dropped so soon.

[Caj]

1. Your thoughts on the article

I thought it was a good article, and I agree with it for the most part. I didn't agree with the attempted justification of the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion, though.


2. Why the Leninist idea of the vanguard party is/isn't necessary for an industrialized country like the United States

I think the vanguard party was essential for the material conditions of 1917 Russia, a semi-feudal, backward peasant country with an undeveloped working class. For a modern industrialized country, however, I see no reason why a vanguard party (in the Leninist sense) would be necessary or even beneficial.


3. The importance/non-importance of democratic centralism

Democratic centralism was a necessary tactical move on the part of the Bolsheviks to ensure unity and avoid factionalism in the midst of devastating conditions (civil war, isolation, etc.). Tactics such as democratic centralism are still relevant in my opinion and will undoubtedly have to be adopted by certain working class parties facing conditions similar to those of the Bolsheviks.


4. The necessary implementation/mistake of the the NEP

I think the proletarian dictatorship in Russia had dissolved by the time of the institution of the NEP.


5. Was the one-party state of necessity for the period and is it relevant now?

Unsure, but I tend to think it was necessary considering that other major parties were supporting counter-revolution.


6. Was the Red Terror of necessity and is it relevant now?

I think it was necessary. Measures such as those of the Red Terror would, I think, be necessary today as well given counter-revolution on the scale that faced the Bolsheviks in 1917.

[Brosip Tito]

Are you implying that state commodification is any less capitalism than private commodification?
I don't think he's arguing that Soviet Russia was socialist, like a ML would.

[Rafiq]

I think that the NEP allowed for the formation of a new ruling class, one that had been developing under the implementation of War Communism do to the extraordinary conditions of the Civil War, Foreign Invasion, etc. but had not solidified itself yet. I think the NEP solidified the formation of this new class. I in no way agree that it was a necessary retreat.

Listen, you are missing the point. You cannot simply attack the very introduction of the NEP on behalf of Lenin, you must find the source. This act of course was of absolute necessity and there was nothing that could have been done otherwise.

But really, dump the Idealism, go to the end. Of course the NEP was the final signifier of the capitalist mode of production being retaining, etc. But of what value is this signification? Of little!

We should be asking in what conditions, in what material premise necessitated the NEP?

1. The Civil War's destructive toll on the Russian, and former Russian Empire's economy (ies)

2. The Revolution's isolation and opening of Foreign capital to avoid the isolation of the economy.




Defeat their armies, try the surviving Tzarist fighters in court, and execute or imprison those found guilty.



Again, this is all too Idealist. Had the Bolsheviks been able to simply defeat their armies and try fighters in court, they most definitely would have. The point is this: No armies would have been defeated without the Red Terror and the mighty Cheka to institute it. You cannot be like those soft Liberals during the French Revolution who suggested anything could have happened otherwise from Jacobin terror. No, if you want a revolution, you better be able to defend it at all costs, no matter what.

The Tzarist Fighters are not the ones, for the most part who were tried by Cheka courts. Most who were tried were spies, saboteurs, etc. But even if this was a case external from this very fact, the time and resources to try them in court was not available. You have to understand their situation, there was no time for anything.

[Art Vandelay]

I think my biggest beef with Leninism was their "belief" that socialism could be established without the majority of workers becoming socialists and developing class consciousness (which is undeniably a revision of Marx). He also knew the Marxist view of what socialism was, wageless and moneyless, yet this would also be changed in his lifetime.

He believed that an enlightened minority could, in advance of workers gaining class consciousnesses, capture state power an administer socialism from above (almost reminiscent of Blanqui). It was this conception of the Vanguard which has perhaps more than anything else (along with the movements which it spawned) has helped set back revolution for the past century.

I hope Robbo203 comes into this thread and clears some things up, because I think he could offer some insightful comments. I remember the last Leninist thread that had any good discussion and he had some fantastic posts. Perhaps his best comment, and the one which sums it up best, is this one:


Why did the whole Lenist detour prove such a disaster? Well quite simply for this reason and this, Im afraid, is what Leninnists and their various offshoots tend alway to overlook: in capturing power in advance of majority of workers becoming socialists this can only mean one thing - you are stuck with capitalism. Whether you like it or not you are obliged to administer capitalism since there is no way you can yet introduce socialism.

This is where the problem arises. In administering capitalism you are compelled by the very nature of the system itself to promote the interests of capital against those of wage labour. Thats how capitalism ticks after all - through the exploitation of wage labour by capital. Leninists claim to be materialists but , you know , it strikes me that they are really rank idealists in denying this simple stark fact of life. They think socialist intentions and cleaving to the nomenclauture of socialist revolution will somehow carry more weight than material reality, that if you keep on repeating to yourself that the Bolshevik revolution was a socialist revolution often enough this will somehow make it so. It wont.

[Rafiq]

I don't think he's arguing that Soviet Russia was socialist, like a ML would.

The point is not simply "Achieving Socialism" and analyzing the several measures, that of which would be a "Step forward" or "guaranteeing" this. The point is to retain a proletarian dictatorship, and nothing more. Really, all one has to do is analyze the Russian situation and you'd find yourself under this conclusion: There can not be a talk of Socialism in an Isolated Revolution. The possibility of it was slim to begin with, and the immediate abolishing of capitalism was never a strict goal of the Bolshevik Party. Such was quite unrealistic from the very beginning.

[L.A.P.]

In all honesty, the Russian Revolution was doomed to fail from the very beginning without the success of the German Revolution. A proletarian dictatorship was needed in a developed superpower like Germany, Russia didn't even fully industrialize yet. Technically, it was the Soviet Union that established full industrial capitalism in Russia, something the Russian Empire was too backwards and outadated to do. This necessarily isn't even a bad thing, in a strictly historical sense, since industrialization is necessary for progress.

[Grenzer]

Are you implying that state commodification is any less capitalism than private commodification?

Where the fuck did I say it wasn't capitalism?

I said it is a necessary step in the building of socialism. Unless you think socialism can be reached while the means of production are privately owned, which is what you seem to be implying.

Nationalization is needed for a quantitative step towards socialism, but it is still capitalism.

[Grenzer]

He believed that an enlightened minority could, in advance of workers gaining class consciousnesses, capture state power an administer socialism from above (almost reminiscent of Blanqui). It was this conception of the Vanguard which has perhaps more than anything else (along with the movements which it spawned) has helped set back revolution for the past century.

Unfortunately this is nothing but a distortion of Lenin's thoughts. He never for one moment believed an elitist clique could establish socialism.

What the Bolsheviks supported early on, was the building of socialism in one country, which is extremely different from believing it could actually be achieved. Of course the revolution was going to be fucked because it was isolated, and capital could not be overcome.

What you just described is essentially Stalinism. Quite different from Lenin's conceptions in a number of ways.

The conception of the vanguard party as a small clique of cadres is also a distortion. This is how the Bolshevik party operated early on, but this changed by 1910. Stalinists tend to anachronistically take the idea of conspiratorial cadres to justify their tendency towards bureaucratic centralism.

[Manic Impressive]

The anti working class basis of all Leninist ideologies

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals

[Grenzer]

The anti working class basis of all Leninist ideologies

That's not really the basis of any "Leninist" ideology. No Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, or Bordigists believe socialism will be established by a clique of bourgeois intellectuals. Well maybe a small number Stalinists and Maoists do, but not others.

Hate to tell you comrade, but this is a pretty poor straw man..

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree in regards with Lenin. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

Where the fuck did I say it wasn't capitalism?

I said it is a necessary step in the building of socialism. Unless you think socialism can be reached while the means of production are privately owned, which is what you seem to be implying.

Nationalization is needed for a quantitative step towards socialism, but it is still capitalism.

I didn't say you said that; I asked the question if that was what you were saying.

I'll ask this of you, like I am asking it of Rafiq in another thread; why does my critiquing your post (or asking question to clarify it) constitute me taking the contra position of yours?

So no, that's not what I am implying. Socialism cannot be reached while the means of production are privately owned, or state owned. Nationalization does nothing to change the structure of capital, and so I don't see why it is any more necessary for socialism than private ownership.

Capitalism may be needed for a quantitative step towards socialism, but why is nationalization?

[A Marxist Historian]

Here is an article about the value of Leninism. (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/DefenseofLeninism.pdf) It is an interesting article, and I want to have a serious discussion on Leninist thought.

1. Your thoughts on the article
2. Why the Leninist idea of the vanguard party is/isn't necessary for an industrialized country like the United States
3. The importance/non-importance of democratic centralism
4. The necessary implementation/mistake of the the NEP
5. Was the one-party state of necessity for the period and is it relevant now?
6. Was the Red Terror of necessity and is it relevant now?

I do not want a Stalin vs. Trotsky discussion. This is not what this thread is meant for. I want to encourage serious debate on these topics. If people want to add topics to the list above I can edit the post and add them if they are good suggestions.

1. I glanced briefly at the article, but it is merely the ISO making its occasional stab at Leninist/Trotskyist orthodoxy on purely historical questions. There is nothing to be gained through reading it that those familiar with Lenin and Trotsky's ideas already will notice. But I didn't notice anything particularly unexceptionable about the article, I'd guess I'd agree with just about everything in it.

2. The idea that a Leninist vanguard party is any less necessary in a country like the US is odd. Given the backwardness of so much of the US working class, this is the last place where you'd want to see a "party of the whole class."

And you have to have some kind of a party to lead a revolution, as revolutions are political events, and parties are the vehicle for politics.

Purely spontaneous disorganized revolutions always fail, unless they throw up a political leadership in the course of the revolutionary process to take the leadership. Just look at the "Arab Spring," which has gone down the tubes so rapidly. Or Occupy for that matter.

Best to start creating a party in advance rather than trusting to luck.

3. Democratic centralism is very important, especially since almost all workers organizations, especially labor unions in the USA, are bureaucratically centralized. Centralism is a practical necessity to win in a modern industrialized country with such a powerful, experienced and intelligent a ruling class as the American ruling class. The obvious failure of the "horizontal" methods so popular in the Occupy movement should make that clear to everyone at this point.

The question is not centralism, but democracy. I advocate democracy, therefore I advocate democratic centralism.

4. The NEP, as the article explains, was an absolute necessity, people were starving and you were starting to have popular uprisings vs. the ultraleft policy of "war communism."

5. Again as the article explains, the only "necessity" of a "one party state" was because all other major parties had gone over to counterrevolution. What it doesn;'t mention is that all the compdting left parties in Russia, and there were zillions of them, split, with their left wings usually going over to the Bolsheviks and joining them.

It was only after Lenin died that the idea that a one party state was "Leninism" was formulated by Zinoviev. There is nothing intrinsically "Leninist" about it.

6. As to the Red Terror under Lenin, the article is fairly decent about that.

Will we need a Red Terror after we overthrow the capitalists? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Such things are best avoided, but that is really not up to us, it's up to the capitalists.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You can see where they were coming from with the NEP. I don't think they were in a position, nor had the ability, to do otherwise. The revolution ended the old blocks preventing capitalist accumulation. The problem is that the social base wasn't in a majority way socialist, with the part that instigated the wanting more of a reformist platform (peace, bread and land). To continue with this advance towards socialism meant that this social base had to be eroded, with the Bolsheviks thinking they could do this through state power. This is probably why a lot of Marxist theory was distorted; to fit in with the Bolsheviks situation. So if you have a dotp, a class society operating on a capitalist mode of production without a mass dictatorship of a proletariat class but one of a party over a vast area which wasn't proletariat and including those large sections of the proles that didn't want to go further.

The "proles" wanted to go further, in fact pretty often the Bolsheviks had to try to hold workers back when they wanted to chase the engineers out of the factories etc. Utopian dreams of total social transformation were extremely popular in the very revolutionary Russian working class of 1917.

The trouble was that workers were a small minority in a poor and very socially backward country, meaning that the kind of utopian measures of the early period of "war communism" were impractical, resulting in food shortages and every other kind of problem. Peasant insurrections and the more backward workers going on strike to demand higher rations that the regime couldn't provide.

This is why the Mensheviks argued against a workers revolution in the first place. The Bolshevik answer, first formulated by Trotsky before he became a Bolshevik, was that the Bolshevik Revolution was not intended to be a Russian Revolution, but the initial spark for world revolution.

So the task of the Bolsheviks was to hold out until that world revolution happened.

And it did. Without the workers insurrections in Germany and Austro-Hungary in 1918 that overthrew the Kaiser and the emperor, the Bolshevik regime would have been snuffed out almost immediately. And, over time, the impetus of the Bolshevik Revolution resulted in half the population of this planet under self-described "communist" regimes.

But the German, Austrian and Hungarian revolutions were defeated, and the immediate revolutionary impetus of 1917 did not result in *immediate* spreading of the Revolution, but rather to a fascist backlash.

So the revolution degenerated. And, not wanting this instantly to turn into another Stalin/Trotsky thread, I will leave it at that.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

It is strange how there are certain.. circles which distort the NEP into being some reactionary thing. From my understanding, during the period of the Civil War, many factories remained under private ownership. It was the NEP which nationalized many of them and brought them under the control of the state. Unless one prefers private property, then I'm not entirely sure what there is in regards to the NEP to complain about. One might say that it just didn't go far enough, but that's having very unrealistic expectations.

I'm not sure why they call the Civil War economy "war communism", but that may have something to do with the myth that the NEP was a "capitulation".

In which text does Lars Lih write about the NEP? I'd be curious to read about it.

Eh? That's a very odd description of the NEP indeed. Where did you get this extremely unusual understanding? Certainly not from anything Lenin had to say about it! He by the way is the person who coined the phrase "war communism," I think.

Or from any historical works I'm familiar with.

E.H. Carr is a good objective historian on "war communism" and the NEP, you should read what he has to say. Or any historian, really, of any ideological persuasion.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I think my biggest beef with Leninism was their "belief" that socialism could be established without the majority of workers becoming socialists and developing class consciousness (which is undeniably a revision of Marx). He also knew the Marxist view of what socialism was, wageless and moneyless, yet this would also be changed in his lifetime.

He believed that an enlightened minority could, in advance of workers gaining class consciousnesses, capture state power an administer socialism from above (almost reminiscent of Blanqui). It was this conception of the Vanguard which has perhaps more than anything else (along with the movements which it spawned) has helped set back revolution for the past century.

I hope Robbo203 comes into this thread and clears some things up, because I think he could offer some insightful comments. I remember the last Leninist thread that had any good discussion and he had some fantastic posts. Perhaps his best comment, and the one which sums it up best, is this one:

You should actually read some of what Lenin had to say, rather than just repeating what they tell you in school.

Lenin did not believe in government by "an enlightened minority," he believed in the rule of the working class. As it happened, the workers were a small minority of the Russian population, so in that sense it meant the rule of "an enlightened minority," namely the workers.

He also believed in creating a vanguard party of the most enlightened, advanced workers, to lead the workers in the seizure of power. But he always saw the Soviet state as a state of the workers, not a party-state. Indeed in his last years he was very concerned that the Soviet state was bureaucratizing, was turning into a "bureaucratically-deformed" workers state as he put it in the 1921 trade union discussion, in which non-working class elements were gaining greater influence.

His last big public statement was his last speech at a party congress, which is very relevant to this discussion, every one of the questions we are discussing. He says at one point,

"In the sea of people we are after all but a drop in the ocean, and we can administer only when we express correctly what the people are conscious of. Unless we do this the Communist Party will not lead the proletariat, the proletariat will not lead the masses, and the whole machine will collapse."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

It's a pretty long speech, and much in it requires familiarity with the Russian scene of the year 1922, but check it out!

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The anti working class basis of all Leninist ideologies

That quote by Lenin is just common sense, and when first written wasn't even controversial, it's only later that various people tried to portray it as "anti working class."

If you seriously think that the working class is spontaneously socialistic, without the necessity of organization of revolutionary socialists to spread the socialist word, then why aren't we living under socialism now?

I spent decades of my life as a trade union activist, and if there was any sign of "spontaneous socialism" in any workplace I ever worked in, that would have made me very happy.

-M.H.-

[SpiritiualMarxist]

1. Your thoughts on the article
2. Why the Leninist idea of the vanguard party is/isn't necessary for an industrialized country like the United States
3. The importance/non-importance of democratic centralism
4. The necessary implementation/mistake of the the NEP
5. Was the one-party state of necessity for the period and is it relevant now?
6. Was the Red Terror of necessity and is it relevant now?


1. The article is a typical trotskyist analysis of Lenin. Personally, I have no critique of the Lenin pre-revolution, nor his writings. My critique is of his and the Central Committee's actions while in leadership The article mentions Krondstat, but in an apologetic point of view. Fact of the matter is Lenin crushed them instead of incorporating them in the name of "party unity." Just like he crushed the Worker's Opposition (which most pro-lenin organizations simply don't mention as clearly displayed in this article). This is important because the key thing about "democratic centralism" is the leaders are supposed to be instantly recallable and what not. But if you look into the history, Worker's Opposition and syndicalists were written off by the Central Committee and given the boot, their votes ignored and just defeated in the name of Party Unity.

Source: libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition

2. I'm ok with the Vanguard Party ideology as long as the party doesn't become the government. But honestly, I don't think a Vanguard Party revolution is doable in the US because we're too populated, too spread out, most people are too indoctrinated and lastly, we're too comfortable.

3. Democratic Centralism sucks, put in perspective of the Central Committee vs Syndicalist. Central Committee accused these guys as being bureaucratic themselves right. But look at it this way, you have workers being told what to do by people who aren't them. Sooner or later, they're gonna get fed up if you're telling them that its democracy. They will trust people they know more so than a group of people intellectuals in the capital who haven't walked a mile in their shoes. People have to be involved in the decision making if you want democracy.
This is why you have so many people leave democratic centralistic socialist organizations. You inevitably have a small group of guys deciding the actions of the collective without the avenue for any real opposition.

Democratic Socialism may work for ideologically like minded people but it will definitely not work when you have people come from all walks of life with diverse backgrounds, such as how a large country is composed. How one treats opposition is key to survival.


4. NEP is not that controversial in my book, it was the result of leaving the economic decisions in the hands of centralists so what do you expect.

5. The question focuses on post-revolution as its obvious to me that pre-revolution, its best to act in unity. I prefer workers and communities controlling things as much as possible so I would prefer to see no parties at all, best to avoid group think imo.

6. No opinion.

Here's my whole thing. Nobody's perfect but I think its infinitely more productive to learn from mistakes than to pretend like someone is a saint. For example, I like marx a lot but I think he has flaws in his analysis of revolutionary potential of the lumpen-proletariat. I'm personally against Idolization of people.

[Revolution starts with U]

That quote by Lenin is just common sense, and when first written wasn't even controversial, it's only later that various people tried to portray it as "anti working class."

If you seriously think that the working class is spontaneously socialistic, without the necessity of organization of revolutionary socialists to spread the socialist word, then why aren't we living under socialism now?

I spent decades of my life as a trade union activist, and if there was any sign of "spontaneous socialism" in any workplace I ever worked in, that would have made me very happy.

-M.H.-

The question is; if you're trying to get to "working class rule" and the working class is only capable of "trade union consciousness," who are you to say working class rule would be anything other than trade union consciousness?
If communsim is the end goal, rather than what we percieve the end of working class rule will be, than Marxism becomes an ideology, and not an analysis of capitalism.

[A Marxist Historian]

The question is; if you're trying to get to "working class rule" and the working class is only capable of "trade union consciousness," who are you to say working class rule would be anything other than trade union consciousness?
If communsim is the end goal, rather than what we percieve the end of working class rule will be, than Marxism becomes an ideology, and not an analysis of capitalism.

Lenin dosn't say that workers are only capable of trade union consciousness!

He says that trade union consciousness is what spontaneously arises among workers in the course of the class struggle.

Socialist consciousness, as Marx explained in the Communist Manifesto, corresponds to the objective class role of the proletariat, as it is a propertyless class that can only gain its liberation through the abolition of class society. But what workers automatically, spontaneously realize through the class struggle is simply that their position in class society should be improved.

Because of the division of labor between physical and mental labor in capitalist society, ideas come originally not from the working class, but from the intellectuals, whose role in society is to generate and spread them, who aren't workers.

Marx talks about this too in the Communist Manifesto, when he says that as capitalism goes into crisis, a section of the bourgeois intelligentsia will go over to the workers.

In the course of class struggle, the workers are the only class who will discover that socialist ideas correspond to their class interests.cBecause it is only for them that this is true. That is why, according to Marx and Lenin, a socialist revolution can only be carried out by the working class.

Clear?

-M.H.-