The charge of Blanquism against Lenin?

[Rooster]

Let's debate! I know that people who support Luxemburg might have something to say about this but I don't have Leninism or Marxism. And I've barely began the selected works that I have. I know that Marx and Engels both held negative views on this type of revolutionary activity. This seems to be a quite a heavy part of marxism-leninsim with their concept of a vanguard. Who's got an opinion on this?

[Blanquist]

Let's debate! I now that people who support Luxemburg might have something to say about this but I don't have Leninism or Marxism. And I've barely began the selected works that I have. I know that Marx and Engels both held negative views on this type of revolutionary activity. This seems to be a quite a heavy part of marxism-leninsim with their concept of a vanguard. Who's got an opinion on this?

Here is what Trotsky said on the subject


The rules of Blanqui were the demands of a military revolutionary realism. Blanqui’s mistake lay not in his direct but his inverse theorem. From the fact that tactful weakness condemns an insurrection to defeat, Blanqui inferred that an observance of the rules of insurrectionary tactics would itself guarantee the victory. Only from this point on is it legitimate to contrast Blanquism with Marxism. Conspiracy does not take the place of insurrection. An active minority of the proletariat, no matter how well organised, cannot seize the power regardless of the general conditions of the country. In this point history has condemned Blanquism. But only in this. His affirmative theorem retains all its force. In order to conquer the power, the proletariat needs more than a spontaneous insurrection. It needs a suitable organisation, it needs a plan: it needs a conspiracy. Such is the Leninist view of this question.


From his observations and reflections upon the failure of the many insurrections he witnessed or took part in. Auguste Blanqui derived a number of tactical rules which if violated will make the victory of any insurrection extremely difficult, if not impossible. Blanqui demanded these things: a timely creation of correct revolutionary detachments, their centralised command and adequate equipment, a well calculated placement of barricades, their definite construction, and a systematic, not a mere episodic, defence of them. All these rules, deriving from the military problems of the insurrection, must of course change with social conditions and military technique, but in themselves they are not by any means “Blanquism” in the sense that this word approaches the German “putschism,” or revolutionary adventurism.

[Manic Impressive]

Or was Lenin a Bakuninist? Conspiratorial groups, minority revolutions. Something Lenin, Blanqui and Bakunin all shared which is contrary to Marxism.

They're obviously not the same but there are similarities on this point. Their supporters cry that it is the most successful way to capture the state and history proves them right. The only problem is what to do when the state is captured. As Engels said; From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.

In Lenin we see Engels fears realized

[Koba Junior]

Or was Lenin a Bakuninist? Conspiratorial groups, minority revolutions. Something Lenin, Blanqui and Bakunin all shared which is contrary to Marxism.

They're obviously not the same but there are similarities on this point. Their supporters cry that it is the most successful way to capture the state and history proves them right. The only problem is what to do when the state is captured. As Engels said; From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.

I would be interested in seeing a direct quote from Engels on the subject. That being said, I disagree that Lenin's view of party vanguardism is contrary to Marxism. I would disagree, also, that vanguardism represents a "minority" revolution.

[Manic Impressive]

I would be interested in seeing a direct quote from Engels on the subject. That being said, I disagree that Lenin's view of party vanguardism is contrary to Marxism. I would disagree, also, that vanguardism represents a "minority" revolution.
sure here ya go http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm

Also the vanguard is a minority, that's literally what it means, a majority cannot be a vanguard.

[Rooster]

I would be interested in seeing a direct quote from Engels on the subject. That being said, I disagree that Lenin's view of party vanguardism is contrary to Marxism. I would disagree, also, that vanguardism represents a "minority" revolution.


Originally Posted by Engels

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government at a time when society is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the measures which that domination implies. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the degree of antagonism between the various classes, and upon the level of development of the material means of existence, of the conditions of production and commerce upon which class contradictions always repose. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him or the stage of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to the doctrines and demands hitherto propounded which, again, do not proceed, from the class relations of the moment, or from the more or less accidental level of production and commerce, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus, he necessarily finds himself in a unsolvable dilemma. What he can do contradicts all his previous actions and principles, and the immediate interests of his party and what he ought to do cannot be done. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whose domination the movement is then ripe. In the interest of the movement he is compelled to advance the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with talk and promises, and with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. He who is put into this awkward position is irrevocably lost.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch06.htm


Originally posted by Marx

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[Brosip Tito]

I'll get involved in this conversation when I get home from work!

[Koba Junior]

sure here ya go http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm

Also the vanguard is a minority, that's literally what it means, a majority cannot be a vanguard.

Thank you for the link, comrade. I see that you did, in fact, directly quote Engels earlier. What I mean, though, that vanguardism is not a "minority" revolution is that the vanguard party represents the directing force driving revolutionary action correctly. By what means can the proletariat seize political power from the bourgeoisie without an organization of representative individuals? The power of the bourgeoisie, as it stands, is fairly centralized, and, at least in the beginning, practical considerations suggest that the proletarian dictatorship will have to be centralized, as well.

[Manic Impressive]

and ofc


“the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself”

“the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

Brooster beat me too it with the Engels quote, exactly the one I was thinking of comrade

[Leftsolidarity]

“the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself”

“the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

I don't see how this disproves the theory of a vanguard. The vanguard is the protector and driving force of the working class but it is still a class-wide revolution.

[Rooster]

Thank you for the link, comrade. I see that you did, in fact, directly quote Engels earlier. What I mean, though, that vanguardism is not a "minority" revolution is that the vanguard party represents the directing force driving revolutionary action correctly. By what means can the proletariat seize political power from the bourgeoisie without an organization of representative individuals? The power of the bourgeoisie, as it stands, is fairly centralized, and, at least in the beginning, practical considerations suggest that the proletarian dictatorship will have to be centralized, as well.

So you do support the idea of a small revolutionary party using the state to create socialism?

[Manic Impressive]

Thank you for the link, comrade. I see that you did, in fact, directly quote Engels earlier. What I mean, though, that vanguardism is not a "minority" revolution is that the vanguard party represents the directing force driving revolutionary action correctly. By what means can the proletariat seize political power from the bourgeoisie without an organization of representative individuals? The power of the bourgeoisie, as it stands, is fairly centralized, and, at least in the beginning, practical considerations suggest that the proletarian dictatorship will have to be centralized, as well.
That's a big assumption though, that the vanguard necessarily represents the entire class. It does so because it is acting on behalf of the working class, in the interests of the working class.

This would change this

“the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

To this

“the proletarian movement is the dependent movement on the vanguard party representing the directing force which drives revolutionary action correctly, in the interest of the immense majority”.

There are plenty of other theories on how a majority acting in the interests of the majority can bring about a revolution. But as I said the easiest way or if you prefer the most practical way is the minority way but unfortunately it's succeeded in capturing the state but failed in achieving it's goals every time due to the need of imposing a revolution onto the working class.

[Koba Junior]

So you do support the idea of a small revolutionary party using the state to create socialism?

I support the idea of a revolutionary vanguard party seizing political power for the proletariat and systematically deconstructing the bourgeois state while constructing an apparatus of socialist administration of production.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Or was Lenin a Bakuninist? Conspiratorial groups, minority revolutions. Something Lenin, Blanqui and Bakunin all shared which is contrary to Marxism.

I agree that this characterizes Blanqui (of course) and Bakunin but I disagree about putting Lenin into this same category. The Russian Revolution was not based on "conspiratorial groups and minority revolutions". The revolution would never had succeeded if it wasn't for proletariat support. Every group that seeks to overthrow the state is "conspiratorial" so this charge is baseless. The minority revolution is a baseless charge as well. While the October Revolution may not have been fought widely, per se, but the masses knew it was happening. Between the February and October revolutions the Bolshevik party grew more than 20 times. One of the Central Committee members actually leaked the fact that the Bolsheviks were thinking of insurrection to daily newspapers days before the act. The Bolsheviks made the proposal to the soviets as well.


They're obviously not the same but there are similarities on this point. Their supporters cry that it is the most successful way to capture the state and history proves them right. The only problem is what to do when the state is captured. As Engels said; From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.

In Lenin we see Engels fears realized

The authoritarian (yes, this term is not good out of class context, blah blah blah you know what I mean) paths the Bolsheviks took had to do more with material conditions than the way they took power, and in fact for 6 months to a year after the success of the revolution there was mass democracy in the soviets, etc. etc. In fact, the Bolsheviks were the only party that supported the poor peasants forcibly taking land from the feudalistic landlords and rich peasants before the nationalization was approved by the central government. With civil war, sabotage, famine, invasion, etc. of course democracy took a blow.

I do now consider myself a Leninist. Do I agree with everything he did? Of course not, Lenin was not a god and he made mistakes. I hate the idealistic and glorified version of Lenin upheld by many Leninists. It also seems that the Bolsheviks, for all their mistakes, were the best and most revolutionary group to take power in Russia at the time.

[ComradeOm]

Or was Lenin a Bakuninist? Conspiratorial groups, minority revolutions. Something Lenin, Blanqui and Bakunin all shared which is contrary to MarxismWhy would you describe the Bolshevik party of 1917 as a "conspiratorial group" or the revolt itself as a "minority revolution" (itself an oxymoron)?

The myth of the 'vanguard party' remains exactly that - a myth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html). The actual form that the vanguard took in 1917 - which we should probably mention when discussing Lenin - was not a minority group of intellectuals plotting to seize power. What is was was a broad grouping of the most radical worker organs (soviets, Red Guards, unions, factory committees, etc) which coalesced under the political banner of the Bolsheviks

This was as far from a secret cabal of conspirators or dedicated circle of disciplined revolutionaries as both Western and Soviet sources would have you believe

[Aurora]

meh Lenin was accused of all sorts of nonsense, from the left he was a Blanquist from the Right he was an Anarchist, both without substance.

What can't be denied is that the workers and peasants of Russia sent 105 Bolsheviks to the All Russian Congress of Soviets in June and 390 in October.

[Koba Junior]

There are plenty of other theories on how a minority acting in the interests of the majority can bring about a revolution. But as I said the easiest way or if you prefer the most practical way is the minority way but unfortunately it's succeeded in capturing the state but failed in achieving it's goals every time due to the need of imposing a revolution onto the working class.

I made a small correction, italicized, as I assumed you'd meant a minority acting in the interests of the majority. Now, I wholeheartedly disagree that revolutionary vanguards have consistently failed in achieving their goals. For example, I believe that the pre-Khrushchevite Soviet Union and Socialist Albania both represented the successful construction of socialism through the implementation of correct Marxist-Leninist ideology. However, I do agree that there is an immense problem with highly centralized political power following the construction of socialist administration. Revisionism tends to infiltrate bodies far removed from the proletarian experience. Even before the construction of socialism, highly centralized political power carries the risk of revisionist infection. I would cite Maoist China as an example, a country I believe is halted at the bourgeois-democratic stage of revolution.

The solution to this problem will be far from simple. On the one hand, the seizure of power from the bourgeoisie demands focused organization, which in turn necessarily means representative administration. On the other hand, highly centralized political power carries with it the risk of becoming removed from the proletarian experience, thus losing sight of the goals of socialist revolution.

[Omsk]

So you do support the idea of a small revolutionary party using the state to create socialism?


I don't have the time to explain you the basic ML views,but related to this question: We support a vanguard party of the proletariat (Not a small revolutionary party,but the most militant mass leadership wing of the proletariat.) in the struggle in which it's most important goal is to destroy the bourgeois state,the bourgeois military,the bourgeois police,the bourgeois system and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. And what should the Vanguard party be? - The Party as the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat.

The Party is also the main instrument of the proletariat with which it can uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat and further advance the goals of the people.

[ComradeOm]

meh Lenin was accused of all sorts of nonsense, from the left he was a Blanquist from the Right he was an Anarchist, both without substanceAnd from the left. One of the ironies of 1917 is that some anarchists in Petrograd had come around to the idea that Lenin had returned to Russia a 'semi-anarchist'. That was a charge also levelled by others, particularly Mensheviks, within the RSDLP, so radical was his departure from established Marxist orthodoxy

[Manic Impressive]

I agree that this characterizes Blanqui (of course) and Bakunin but I disagree about putting Lenin into this same category. The Russian Revolution was not based on "conspiratorial groups and minority revolutions". The revolution would never had succeeded if it wasn't for proletariat support. Every group that seeks to overthrow the state is "conspiratorial" so this charge is baseless. The minority revolution is a baseless charge as well. While the October Revolution may not have been fought widely, per se, but the masses knew it was happening. Between the February and October revolutions the Bolshevik party grew more than 20 times. One of the Central Committee members actually leaked the fact that the Bolsheviks were thinking of insurrection to daily newspapers days before the act. The Bolsheviks made the proposal to the soviets as well.
Blanqui, Bakunin and every other revolutionary who thought the same way relied on working class support, the 33 of Blanqui couldn't very well do it all on their own without support. The russian revolution was not the proletariat acting to overthrow the small amount of capitalism that they had. They were fighting to overthrow the Tsar. The working class, the majority were not fighting for socialism/communism. As a Leninist you know that this cannot be the case as the working class can only become trade union concious under capitalism, right?



I do now consider myself a Leninist. Do I agree with everything he did? Of course not, Lenin was not a god and he made mistakes. I hate the idealistic and glorified version of Lenin upheld by many Leninists. It also seems that the Bolsheviks, for all their mistakes, were the best and most revolutionary group to take power in Russia at the time.
Marxist-Leninists take heed of this. Left coms are your friends especially the Italian ones. Bordiga = Stalin with good economics ;)

[Koba Junior]

It goes without saying that Lenin was merely human and so was fully capable of error. That being said, for all potential error, I believe the people of what would become the Soviet Union benefited greatly from his revolutionary considerations and understanding of Marxism.

[Manic Impressive]

I made a small correction, italicized, as I assumed you'd meant a minority acting in the interests of the majority.
No I meant what I said, there are some that stuck to the Marxist view. My party for one. The De Leonists, and the Dutch/German Left coms and various anarchist tendencies. Obviously other types of anarchists are vanguardist in the Bakuninist sense.

[Rooster]

I don't have the time to explain you the basic ML views,but related to this question: We support a vanguard party of the proletariat (Not a small revolutionary party,but the most militant mass leadership wing of the proletariat.) in the struggle in which it's most important goal is to destroy the bourgeois state,the bourgeois military,the bourgeois police,the bourgeois system and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. And what should the Vanguard party be? - The Party as the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat.

The Party is also the main instrument of the proletariat with which it can uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat and further advance the goals of the people.

I enjoy how you have taken your time to write nothing.

[Rooster]

It goes without saying that Lenin was merely human and so was fully capable of error. That being said, for all potential error, I believe the people of what would become the Soviet Union benefited greatly from his revolutionary considerations and understanding of Marxism.

Isn't this essentially a cop-out social-democratic view point?

[Omsk]

I enjoy how you have taken your time to write nothing.

I fully answered your question regarding the role of the Vanguard party in the struggle against the bourgeois state.

[ComradeOm]

The russian revolution was not the proletariat acting to overthrow the small amount of capitalism that they had. They were fighting to overthrow the Tsar. The working class, the majority were not fighting for socialism/communismI'm mightily confused. All those proletarian bodies (again: soviets, factory committed, unions, worker militias, etc) that agitated against the Provisional Government (note: not the Tsar) and issued declarations and carried slogans explicitly calling for a socialist society, they were... well, what? Figments of my imagination? Ignorant proles misled by Bolshevik fancy-speak? Explain please

Because from where I'm standing it looks like a broad based movement developed amongst Russia's working class that rallied to the Bolsheviks and other explicitly revolutionary groups. And not to overthrow a Tsar who had already been overthrown :confused:

[Koba Junior]

I enjoy how you have taken your time to write nothing.

He adjusted his monocle and stroked a white cat in his lap before turning around to face our comrade in his swivel chair. "You amuse me," he chuckled.

[Koba Junior]

Isn't this essentially a cop-out social-democratic view point?

That human beings are capable of error? Or that the Soviet Union owed a great debt to Comrade Lenin?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The russian revolution was not the proletariat acting to overthrow the small amount of capitalism that they had. They were fighting to overthrow the Tsar. The working class, the majority were not fighting for socialism/communism.

Between February and October this changed, as noted by other posters.


Marxist-Leninists take heed of this. Left coms are your friends especially the Italian ones. Bordiga = Stalin with good economics ;)

I never claimed to be a Bordigaist. I am interested in his theories, yes, as most left communists are. Bordiga is not "Stalin with good economics". This claim is ridiculous and unfounded.

[Koba Junior]

No I meant what I said, there are some that stuck to the Marxist view. My party for one. The De Leonists, and the Dutch/German Left coms and various anarchist tendencies. Obviously other types of anarchists are vanguardist in the Bakuninist sense.

Tread carefully, because we clearly disagree on what the Marxist view of the problem actually is.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'm mightily confused. All those proletarian bodies (again: soviets, factory committed, unions, worker militias, etc) that agitated against the Provisional Government (note: not the Tsar) and issued declarations and carried slogans explicitly calling for a socialist society, they were... well, what? Figments of my imagination? Ignorant proles misled by Bolshevik fancy-speak? Explain please

Because from where I'm standing it looks like a broad based movement developed amongst Russia's working class that rallied to the Bolsheviks and other explicitly revolutionary groups. And not to overthrow a Tsar who had already been overthrown :confused:

And ComradeOm for the win!:D

[Rafiq]

Let's debate! I know that people who support Luxemburg might have something to say about this but I don't have Leninism or Marxism. And I've barely began the selected works that I have. I know that Marx and Engels both held negative views on this type of revolutionary activity. This seems to be a quite a heavy part of marxism-leninsim with their concept of a vanguard. Who's got an opinion on this?

Blanq, to my knowledge, believed a revolution should be carried out by Elite human revolutionaries, in secrecy and in a conspiritorial manner. This, on the contrary to a mass party movement, wouldn't have a strong class base and by definition, wouldn't be a proletarian revolution, but a revolution of a bunch of benevolent academics.

The Vanguard party, although would be, as the word states, a centralized Vanguard, wouldn't by any means carry out the act of a revolution in a conspiratorial or secret manner, it would be a mass party movement with a strong class base to it.

[Rafiq]

Many of you are missing the point: The only reason the Russian Revolution was a minority revolution, of a minority party, was simply because the Proletariat itself was a minority in contrast with the massive Peasant Populace.

[Koba Junior]

Many of you are missing the point: The only reason the Russian Revolution was a minority revolution, of a minority party, was simply because the Proletariat itself was a minority in contrast with the massive Peasant Populace.

It is true that there was relatively little capitalist development in that part of the world. Where feudalism persists, there isn't any proletariat in the Marxist sense. I believe that, according to Marx's analysis of feudalism, the revolutionary class to transform society was, in fact, the rising capitalist bourgeoisie, whose growing power threatened the power of the aristocratic class. This made socialist revolution in Russia kind of tricky, but the Bolsheviks pulled it off.

[Rafiq]

It is true that there was relatively little capitalist development in that part of the world. Where feudalism persists, there isn't any proletariat in the Marxist sense. I believe that, according to Marx's analysis of feudalism, the revolutionary class to transform society was, in fact, the rising capitalist bourgeoisie, whose growing power threatened the power of the aristocratic class. This made socialist revolution in Russia kind of tricky, but the Bolsheviks pulled it off.

The problem was that, though, parts of Russia were indeed already industrializing and Capitalists were in a position of class dictatorship already. It was the phase not between Feudalism and Capitalism, but one of the lower phases of Capitalism, I suppose. In 1913 it was the fastest industrializing country on the planet.

Russia was indeed ripe for revolution: It just heavily depended on the fate of revolutions abroad in order to survive.

[Koba Junior]

The problem was that, though, parts of Russia were indeed already industrializing and Capitalists were in a position of class dictatorship already. It was the phase not between Feudalism and Capitalism, but one of the lower phases of Capitalism, I suppose. In 1913 it was the fastest industrializing country on the planet.

Russia was indeed ripe for revolution: It just heavily depended on the fate of revolutions abroad in order to survive.

By that time, capitalists had indeed become the dominate class, but the vestiges of feudalism clearly persisted as evidence by the very existence of the peasantry. You would not disagree, I am sure, that the revolution in Russia faced a complicated predicament in this regard.

[Rafiq]

By that time, capitalists had indeed become the dominate class, but the vestiges of feudalism clearly persisted as evidence by the very existence of the peasantry. You would not disagree, I am sure, that the revolution in Russia faced a complicated predicament in this regard.

It did, of course. But the Bourgeoisie at that time was by no means revolutionary.

The Russian revolution, and especially it's aftermath, faced catastrophic problems because of this.

[Koba Junior]

It did, of course. But the Bourgeoisie at that time was by no means revolutionary.

The Russian revolution, and especially it's aftermath, faced catastrophic problems because of this.

I don't think the problems the revolution faced were "catastrophic." After all, it was successful in seizing political power for the proletariat, and the Soviet Union before the advent of revisionism was the model of socialist production.

[Ocean Seal]

Does the charge of Blaquism actually matter? Is it not ultimately a personal charge deprived of any genuine historical analysis? It is essentially to claim that Lenin was an opportunist? Perhaps the best answer is, so what... He couldn't have lead a Blanquist coup, certainly not with the immense pressures against him. Because he could not, he did not. The working class in great presence took to the streets to engage in the revolutionary process and ultimately the material conditions laid the basis for socialist revolution. There is no argument against that. For how long it sustained socialism, whether socialism was achieved, the distribution of state power can all be rigidly assessed, but to believe that 1917 was not a workers revolution, rather a coup by Lenin, Trotsky, and the likes is nothing more than bourgeois propaganda.

[Rafiq]

I don't think the problems the revolution faced were "catastrophic." After all, it was successful in seizing political power for the proletariat, and the Soviet Union before the advent of revisionism was the model of socialist production.

At least one million perished as a result of the Russian civil war. They barely were successful. The war led to famine and other disastrous problems. It was indeed catastrophic.

Lenin even predicted this in The impeding catastrophe but believed he could combat it successfully.

[Koba Junior]

At least one million perished as a result of the Russian civil war. They barely were successful. The war led to famine and other disastrous problems. It was indeed catastrophic.

Lenin even predicted this in The impeding catastrophe but believed he could combat it successfully.

And yet socialism in the Soviet Union saw the republics become the only power on Earth capable of challenging the hegemony of the United States for a time. Forgive me for being contrary, but whatever catastrophes were brought about by the revolution seem to have been mitigated.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm mightily confused. All those proletarian bodies (again: soviets, factory committed, unions, worker militias, etc) that agitated against the Provisional Government (note: not the Tsar) and issued declarations and carried slogans explicitly calling for a socialist society, they were... well, what? Figments of my imagination? Ignorant proles misled by Bolshevik fancy-speak? Explain please

Because from where I'm standing it looks like a broad based movement developed amongst Russia's working class that rallied to the Bolsheviks and other explicitly revolutionary groups. And not to overthrow a Tsar who had already been overthrown :confused:
Yes the French revolution was obviously a communist working class revolution as well because of all those proletarian bodies who supported it.....oh wait...no it wasn't. Working class support does not a socialist revolution make. In fact every revolution must have the support of a mass of the working class. What makes a communist revolution is socialist conciousness. Now Lenin thought that this would be impossible, as the workers can only achieve trade union conciousness. Was he wrong about that? Because it seems as though you are saying that the Russian working class had achieved socialist conciousness. How do you reconcile this contradiction?



I never claimed to be a Bordigaist. I am interested in his theories, yes, as most left communists are. Bordiga is not "Stalin with good economics". This claim is ridiculous and unfounded.
ICC, Bordiga lite with the worst bits of Dutch Left communism thrown in. But you're right I was a little unfair on Bordiga, how about this? Bordiga = Stalin with good economics and more internationalism.

fix'd

[Koba Junior]

What makes a communist revolution is socialist conciousness. Now Lenin thought that this would be impossible, as the workers can only achieve trade union conciousness. Was he wrong about that? Because it seems as though you are saying that the Russian working class had achieved socialist conciousness. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

I'd be interested in reading a direct quote from Lenin on this subject. That being said, I'd also be interested in discussing why a specifically socialist consciousness is needed for a communist revolution, rather than allowing such a consciousness to arise once the socialist mode of production has become dominant.

[Geiseric]

Blanquism means that a revolution can happen without mass revolutionary consciousness, and there was revolutionary consciousness when Lenin and the vanguard of the proletariat took power, thus it's untrue to call him a Blanquist.

Blanquism is closer to ultra leftism with a group of "communist intellegencia," at the head of the supposed revolution instead of the masses. The Russian Revolution was in terms of theory led by Lenin and the other ex bourgeois who could afford a revolution, but their program was accepted and carried out by the working class, meaning there was no Blanquism. If anything it was the most democratic revolution to happen in terms of what the masses of the proletariat wanted done.

[Manic Impressive]

I'd be interested in reading a direct quote from Lenin on this subject. That being said, I'd also be interested in discussing why a specifically socialist consciousness is needed for a communist revolution, rather than allowing such a consciousness to arise once the socialist mode of production has become dominant.

“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”


The spontaneous working class movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and working class trade unionist politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics

Sure that seems like a good discussion.

[Koba Junior]

Sure that seems like a good discussion.

It seems like socialist consciousness occurs post-revolution. That being said, revolutionary consciousness must necessarily occur before a revolution takes place. Are these two consciousnesses one and the same?

[ComradeOm]

Yes the French revolution was obviously a communist working class revolution as well because of all those proletarian bodies who supported it.....oh wait...no it wasn't. Working class support does not a socialist revolution make. In fact every revolution must have the support of a mass of the working class. What makes a communist revolution is socialist conciousnessAgain, you have me at a disadvantage. Perhaps you can point out to me the flood of declarations and resolutions that emerged from French working class bodies that explicitly called for a socialist revolution and the transfer of powers to worker organs...? And when exactly did the bourgeois leaders of the French Revolution promise a socialist society?

But then who are you to assert that all those Russian workers who were forming worker bodies and openly joining/supporting parties that explicitly called for a socialist revolution did not have the required conciousness? Were they all fools? Were they all duped by the Bolsheviks? Were they so stupid that all those resolutions, marches, meetings and calls for revolution actually marked an absence of "socialist conciousness"? I find that conclusion - that the mass of explicit calls for socialism - is somehow indicative of a lack of conciousness to be entirely bizarre


Now Lenin thought that this would be impossible, as the workers can only achieve trade union conciousness. Was he wrong about that? Because it seems as though you are saying that the Russian working class had achieved socialist conciousness. How do you reconcile this contradiction?One of the really strange things that I find about those who adopt an 'anti-Leninist' stance (both right and left) is the degree to which they lap at Lenin's feet. You will find few Stalinists who pay as much attention to Lenin's words as his detractors. Hey, let's not bother with the actual events of 1917, we've got out of context quotes from 1902!

Get lost. I've no problem accepting that Lenin was wrong and I've got no problem in noting that his position actually changed between 1902 and 1917. What I do take issue with is your unfound charges about the supposedly 'Blanquist' nature of the Russian Revolution that flies in the face of all evidence and seemingly hinges on your interpretation of what Lenin had written over a decade earlier. Take your Lenin fetish out of this thread

[Rafiq]

ICC, Bordiga lite with the worst bits of Dutch Left communism thrown in. But you're right I was a little unfair on Bordiga, how about this? Bordiga = Stalin with good economics and more internationalism.

fix'd

Well, this is beyond absurd. How in any way is Bordiga, a Marxist theoretician, comparable with Stalin, the head of a Bourgeois state? For not Morally criticizing Stalin, as any good Marxist would not, is Bordiga worthy of ridicule?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Bordiga = Stalin with good economics and more internationalism.

fix'd

Okay, you are obviously an intelligent person so please stop saying stupid shit.

[jookyle]

I think the comparison comes after the revolution, as in, when the Bolsheviks assumed power. They centralized authority to themselves and their leaders. So in that sense, they became that "communist intelligentsia" and became above the masses.

[Geiseric]

I think the comparison comes after the revolution, as in, when the Bolsheviks assumed power. They centralized authority to themselves and their leaders. So in that sense, they became that "communist intelligentsia" and became above the masses.

you mean they became the leadership? Lenin and most of the other bolsheviks agreed on taking only a workers wage in pay, so I don't think that for a while they were really materially above the masses. Stalin had to bribe the politicians to go along with the purges and the centralisation of power in the Bureaucracy, but that was obviously different and I don't uphold that.

[jookyle]

They may not have been above the masses as far as pay goes but as far as power goes they were. It may not have been as centralized(or in the same way) as Stalins, but the party and it's higher ups still had more concentrated power over the masses.

[Geiseric]

Well that "concentrated power," was given to them by the masses, they wouldn't have it unless the bolsheviks were supported by the population. I don't see how centralisation is a bad thing either, if you need things to be organized you need a strong central government which can organize things around the whole country.

[jookyle]

Just because a person, or groups, power is given to them by consent doesn't mean they use it well. Shouldn't the party be working towards facilitating control of the proletariat rather than controlling the proletariat?

[Manic Impressive]

Well, this is beyond absurd. How in any way is Bordiga, a Marxist theoretician, comparable with Stalin, the head of a Bourgeois state? For not Morally criticizing Stalin, as any good Marxist would not, is Bordiga worthy of ridicule?
Don't be too harsh on comrade Stalin he occasionally said some things of worth. I can find you a response from Stalin to a bit by De Leon where Uncle Joe schools him on the LTV. Anyway the differences between Bordiga and Stalin are internationalism and objection to reforms, now obviously that constitutes a big difference. However, Bordiga was probably more totalitarian than Stalin and much more so than Lenin. He makes them look like committed democratists in comparison. His absolute contempt for working class autonomy or sense of them actually reaching a socialist understanding is evident throughout his works. I don't see things going much differently if Bordiga had been in charge, except for less capitalism


Okay, you are obviously an intelligent person so please stop saying stupid shit.
I'm just trying to soften some Marxist Leninists opinions towards Bordiga and Left Communism. If they dig the dictatorship and authoritarianism of a paterfamilias then they should check out Bordiga. If they think Lenin was an improvement on Marx then Bordiga is an improvement on Lenin.

[Manic Impressive]

One of the really strange things that I find about those who adopt an 'anti-Leninist' stance (both right and left) is the degree to which they lap at Lenin's feet. You will find few Stalinists who pay as much attention to Lenin's words as his detractors. Hey, let's not bother with the actual events of 1917, we've got out of context quotes from 1902!
So you're a Leninist who doesn't see any value in Leninist theory. BAHAHAHAHA. Unfortunately for me you just go to prove Lenin correct by showing your trade union conciousness. I find it hilarious that you think that Marxist-Leninists pay less attention to Leninist theory than I do. I thought that Marxist-Leninism was the continuation of Leninist theory? If you don't even pay attention to Leninist theory then WTF is your theory? You have none, you literally become what many suspect you to be members of a Soviet Union re-enactment society and Red Alert fanboys.


Get lost. I've no problem accepting that Lenin was wrong and I've got no problem in noting that his position actually changed between 1902 and 1917. What I do take issue with is your unfound charges about the supposedly 'Blanquist' nature of the Russian Revolution that flies in the face of all evidence and seemingly hinges on your interpretation of what Lenin had written over a decade earlier. Take your Lenin fetish out of this thread
No. You get lost. I'm trying to have a decent discussion with Koba Junior but you're reacting with ad mon attacks and generally making an arse of yourself. If you don't agree with Lenin on this subject then good for you. We're in agreement on that point, that's all you needed to say. If you think his position had changed then show me. Find a quote where Lenin contradicts what he'd said earlier, go for it I'm intrigued, prove me wrong if you can otherwise STFU.

[ComradeOm]

His absolute contempt for working class autonomy or sense of them actually reaching a socialist understanding is evident throughout his worksThere's a deep irony here given that your own contempt for working class organisation shines through in your blase dismissal of the Russian workers' movement in 1917. Puppets on a string, their words and actions apparently signifying nothing at all. Much easier to focus on quoting individual intellectuals than bothering yourself with details such as the emergence of a mass socialist and revolutionary movement. What Lenin wrote in 1902 is clearly of much greater importance than a mass and open party in 1917


So you're a Leninist who doesn't see any value in Leninist theory. BAHAHAHAHAHow does that follow from the above? In fact, hold that thought and we'll deal with me first

I'm a Leninist who doesn't accept that Lenin was some infallible god. I'm a Leninist who treats Lenin's works as a constantly evolving body and not holy scripture in which every word is sacred. I'm a Leninist who values some of Lenin's work as immensely valuable contributions to Marxist theory but isn't afraid to jettison others as mistaken

But you... well, I don't think you can even understand that above paragraph. Your response to my post is telling: either someone is a Lenin worshipping doctrinaire or one is a Lenin hating doctrinaire. Hence you feel free to dismiss my failure to bite on your (increasingly tiresome) 'trade union conciousness' bait as "a Leninist who doesn't see any value in Leninist theory". The idea that I simply disagree with Lenin on that point or (more accurately) simply don't consider it relevant to the question at hand does not compute for you

And that's because 'Leninism' for you and your ilk is nothing more than a strawman propping up your own inane politics. It's why you quote WITD? in this thread, it's why you have a Lenin quote in your signature, it's why you know nothing about 1917 beyond what Lenin wrote. 'Leninism' for you is a crutch and, as I noted, ironically you pay as much attention to him as any Stalin fanboy

The alternative - actually placing Lenin in the historical context and employing just an iota of intelligence - would require actually justifying, or even questioning (!), your ideology and a worldview that didn't automatically peg others into nice little boxes. Plus not being comfortably ignorant. That latter one really annoys me: the sort of person who when confronted with reality chooses to ignore it favour of the safety of his own little theory


No. You get lost. I'm trying to have a decent discussion with Koba Junior but you're reacting with ad mon attacks and generally making an arse of yourself. If you don't agree with Lenin on this subject then good for you. We're in agreement on that point, that's all you needed to say. If you think his position had changed then show me. Find a quote where Lenin contradicts what he'd said earlier, go for it I'm intrigued, prove me wrong if you can otherwise STFU.And why would I quote Lenin? Is he the only source of information that you accept? And is WITD? an acceptable source for 1917?

I understand that you find it more comfortable talking with a Stalinist (see above) but you made some claims in this thread that you have singularly failed to back up. You have clearly stated that "The working class, the majority were not fighting for socialism/communism" and that the Russian workers did not possess the necessary class conciousness to effect a socialist revolution. Do you still maintain that this is the case? And if so, given the evidence suggesting otherwise, why?

The onus here is not on me to prove you wrong - not least because I've no intention in getting on a quote-wanking content - but you to back up your words and demonstrate how the Bolsheviks in 1917 were Blanquist. If you can't do that then I'd question just what you are doing in this thread


You have none, you literally become what many suspect you to be members of a Soviet Union re-enactment society and Red Alert fanboys.It's true that I don't come here for the stimulating intellectual conversation :glare:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Manic Impressive give some facts and quotes to back up your claims and maybe then i'll respond. Otherwise, I am guessing that you read that Bordiga criticized making democracy a fetish and assumed the rest.

[Koba Junior]

I'm just trying to soften some Marxist Leninists opinions towards Bordiga and Left Communism. If they dig the dictatorship and authoritarianism of a paterfamilias then they should check out Bordiga. If they think Lenin was an improvement on Marx then Bordiga is an improvement on Lenin.

I sometimes do honestly wonder why I come around here if all I have to read is stuff like this.

[Art Vandelay]

I sometimes do honestly wonder why I come around here if all I have to read is stuff like this.

Just think about what everyone thinks when they have to read your posts. Just kidding, but seriously there was no need for that comment (or my own responding to it).

But this has been a pretty good discussion so far, I will chime in tomorrow when I have more time. I hope it gets some more good posts and is not a shit storm by the time I am back.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I would be interested in seeing a direct quote from Engels on the subject. That being said, I disagree that Lenin's view of party vanguardism is contrary to Marxism. I would disagree, also, that vanguardism represents a "minority" revolution.


The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class movement of every country, that section which pushes forward all others

This is quite clear statement of Karl Marx and Engels on the "Leninist" Vanguard on page 43-44 of the Communist Manifesto.

[JPSartre12]

So you do support the idea of a small revolutionary party using the state to create socialism?

I feel as if the idea of a vanguard itself is inherently bad because it consists of those acting in the name of the proletariat, not the the proletariat itself acting.

I'm neither a Leninist or a Blanquist, so I may be completely wrong :blink:

[Leftsolidarity]

I feel as if the idea of a vanguard itself is inherently bad because it consists of those acting in the name of the proletariat, not the the proletariat itself acting.

I'm neither a Leninist or a Blanquist, so I may be completely wrong :blink:

The vanguard is the more political developed and dedicated proletariat.

[Grenzer]

I'm neither a Leninist or a Blanquist, so I may be completely wrong :blink:

Well if you're a member of the DSA like your profile says, then you're just an ordinary reactionary.

The problem is that there is nothing about the idea of a vanguard party which espouses the idea that the party itself must take power. A good deal of us are opposed to that idea and recognize it needs to the working class itself, not the party(which is never going to be as broad as the class itself) that takes power.

[Geiseric]

Well if the party is legitimized as the class part of the proletariat by obtaining a majority in the workers councils with the minimum amount of abstentions from the working class voters, there really isn't a difference.

[JPSartre12]

The problem is that there is nothing about the idea of a vanguard party which espouses the idea that the party itself must take power. A good deal of us are opposed to that idea and recognize it needs to the working class itself, not the party(which is never going to be as broad as the class itself) that takes power.

Oh, I was under the impression that an integral part of the theory of a vanguard party was that the party should seize control of the state in the name of the proletariat. Is this incorrect?

How can there be the idea of a vanguard party, but not the idea of that party taking power?

[Ostrinski]

There are multiple views on the task of the vanguard party.

[l'Enfermé]

The vanguard party doesn't seize political power on behalf of the proletariat. The vanguard party is made up of socialist workers, if it seizes power, it's the proletariat which is seizing power, not some party that's an external alien to it.