Spontaneous vs Induced Revolution?

[JPSartre12]

Hey comrades,

I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine who strongly supports a vanguard party. He's not quite a Leninist, but definitely has some strong Leninist tendencies. He was saying that it is possible to surgically insert one's self and his or her revolutionary party into the historical process, induce a revolution, and move forward to socialism, communism, etc.

Think of Lenin starting a revolution in agrarian, feudal Russia instead of letting the proletariat rise up spontaneously in an advanced, industrial capitalist nation.

I get the gist of the arguments for both sides, but what do you think? Do you support a Leninist approach, a vanguard party, and inducing a revolution? Or do you support the proletariat rising up inside a capitalist nation on their own?

I feel like it should be the second .... I feel like we have to let history take its course and let the proletariat revolt when its ready, instead of jumping the gun and just starting a revolution. I feel like the Leninist approach isn't the right one because you don't know if you're at the right historical moment where the revolution would actually lead to socialism.

Thoughts?

[Book O'Dead]

Do you know about socialist industrial unionism?

http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/siu_ism.html

Maybe that could solve some problems.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

From Foundations of Leninism:
1) The importance of theory.** Some think that Leninism is the precedence of practice over theory in the sense that its main point is the translation of the Marxist theses into deeds, their "execution"; as for theory; it is alleged that Leninism is rather unconcerned about it. We know that Plekhanov time and again chaffed Lenin about his "unconcern" for theory, and particularly for philosophy. We also know that theory is not held in great favour by many present-day Leninist practical workers, particularly in view of the immense amount of practical work imposed upon them by the situation. I must declare that this more than odd opinion about Lenin and Leninism is quite wrong and bears no relation whatever to the truth; that the attempt of practical workers to brush theory aside runs counter to the whole spirit of Leninism and is fraught with serious dangers to the work.

Theory is the experience of the working-class movement in all countries taken in its general aspect. Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory. But theory can become a tremendous force in the working-class movement if it is built up in indissoluble connection with revolutionary practice; for theory, and theory alone, can give the movement confidence, the power of orientation, and an understanding of the inner relation of surrounding events; for it, and it alone, can help practice to realise not only how and in which direction classes are moving at the present time, but also how and in which direction they will move in the near future. None other than Lenin uttered and repeated scores of times the well-know thesis that:

"Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1** (see Vol. IV, p. 380).

Lenin, better than anyone else, understood the great importance of theory, particularly for a party such as ours, in view of the vanguard fighter of the international proletariat which has fallen to its lot, and in view of the complicated internal and international situation in which it finds itself. Foreseeing this special role of our Party as far back as 1902, he thought it necessary even then to point out that:

"The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory"** (see Vol. IV, p. 380).

It scarcely needs proof that now, when Lenin's prediction about the role of our Party has come true, this thesis of Lenin's acquires special force and special importance.

Perhaps the most striking expression of the great importance which Lenin attached to theory is the fact that none other than Lenin undertook the very serious task of generalising, on the basis of materialist philosophy, the most important achievements of science from the time of Engels down to his time, as well as of subjecting to comprehensive criticism the anti-materialistic trends among Marxists. Engels said that "materialism must assume a new aspect with every new great discovery."2 It is well known that none other than Lenin accomplished this task for his own time in his remarkable work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.3 It is well known that Plekhanov, who loved to chaff Lenin about his "unconcern" for philosophy, did not even dare to make a serious attempt to undertake such a task.

2) Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement. The "theory" of spontaneity is a theory of opportunism, a theory of worshipping the spontaneity of the labour movement, a theory which actually repudiates the leading role of the vanguard of the working class, of the party of the working class.

The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to the revolutionary character of the working class movement; it is opposed to the movement taking the line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism; it is in favour of the movement proceeding exclusively along the line of "realisable demands, of demands "acceptable" to capitalism; it is wholly in favour of the "line of least resistance." The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.

The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favour of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favour of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of "khvostism," the logical basis of all opportunism.

In practice this theory, which appeared on the scene even before the first revolution in Russia, led its adherents, the so-called "Economists," to deny the need for an independent workers' party in Russia, to oppose the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of tsarism, to preach a purely trade-unionist policy in the movement, and, in general, to surrender the labour movement to the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie.

The fight of the old Iskra and the brilliant criticism of the theory of "khvostism" in Lenin's pamphlet What Is To Be Done? not only smashed so-called "Economism," but also created the theoretical foundations for a truly revolutionary movement of the Russian working class.

Without this fight it would have been quite useless even to think of creating an independent workers' party in Russia and of its playing a leading part in the revolution.

But the theory of worshipping spontaneity is not an exclusively Russian phenomenon. It is extremely widespread-in a somewhat different form, it is true-in all parties of the Second International, without exception. I have in mind the so-called "productive forces" theory as debased by the leaders of the Second International, which justifies everything and conciliates everybody, which records facts and explains them after everyone has become sick and tired of them, and, having recorded them, rests content. Marx said that the materialist theory could not confine itself to explaining the world, that it must also change it.4* But Kautsky and Co. are not concerned with this; they prefer to rest content with the first part of Marx's formula.

Here is one of the numerous examples of the application of this "theory." It is said that before the imperialist war the parties of the Second International threatened to declare "war against war" if the imperialists should start a war. It is said that on the very eve of the war these parties pigeonholed the "war against war" slogan and applied an opposite one, viz., "war for the imperialist fatherland." It is said that as a result of this change of slogans millions of workers were sent to their death. But it would be a mistake to think that there were some people to blame for this, that someone was unfaithful to the working class or betrayed it. Not at all! Everything happened as it should have happened. Firstly, because the International, it seems, is "an instrument of peace," and not of war. Secondly, because, in view of the "level of the productive forces" which then prevailed, nothing else could be done. The "productive forces" are "to blame." That is the precise explanation vouchsafed to "us" by Mr. Kautsky's "theory of the productive forces." And whoever does not believe in that "theory" is not a Marxist. The role of the parties? Their importance for the movement? But what can a party do against so decisive a factor as the "level of the productive forces"?...

One could cite a host of similar examples of the falsification of Marxism.

It scarcely needs proof that this spurious "Marxism," designed to hide the nakedness of opportunism, is merely a European variety of the selfsame theory of "khvostism" which Lenin fought even before the first Russian revolution.

It scarcely needs proof that the demolition of this theoretical falsification is a preliminary condition for the creation of truly revolutionary parties in the West.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm

[Peoples' War]

Spontaneity is nothing without organization, and the vanguard is nothing without spontaneous workers actions.

You can't make revolution fall from the sky, you have to take the helm when the opportunity arises, and guide the revolution into port.

Lenin respected and believed in the idea of spontaneity, but due to the circumstance in Russia, tighter organization was necessary than in the advanced capitalist nations, to take the helm in revolutionary situations.

[The Idler]

How can you have socialist society without first making socialists? Isn't it like having the pregnancy after the birth?

[Book O'Dead]

How can you have socialist society without first making socialists? Isn't it like having the pregnancy after the birth?

Chomskian!

[JPSartre12]

I guess what makes me stop and think is, if we're going to go along with exactly what Marx said, we need to get to the right point in capitalism where the means of production are sophisticated enough. We can't jump the gun and have the revolution if we're not at the historically appropriate moment - you can't really jump from agrarian feudalism like Russia to a post-capitalist and post-scarcity society if you haven't already had the historical development necessary to produce the materials, circumstances, etc wherein socialism would be possible and sustainable.

So my conundrum is how do we ever know if the revolution that we're engaging in is historically situated just so so that we're doing it right? How do we know the revolution wouldn't be more appropriate and more successful a decade later? Or a generation later?

How do we know when it is appropriate to have the proletarian revolution so that it fits perfectly into the historical dialectic?

Maybe I'm over-thinking this or not thinking about it right, but I'm rather new to this Marxist theory :) The more I learn the more Leftward i drift haha

[Ocean Seal]

How can you have socialist society without first making socialists? Isn't it like having the pregnancy after the birth?
No its not, do you genuinely think that the French revolution came into being because people understood bourgeois thought? Were the bourgeoisie even in large part acquainted with bourgeois thought?

[electrostal]

How can Marxists think in such terms?
Revolutions do not happen because some people feel like it. What matters first and foremost are of course these concrete, material circumstances and relations and so on.

[Lanky Wanker]

Waiting for revolution in the sense of "oh fuck it, we'll wait a few more hundred years" probably isn't too helpful, no.

[roy]

revolution doesn't happen because it's 'induced', successful revolution anyway. the russian revolution didn't happen because the bolsheviks wanted it to.

[Art Vandelay]

How can you have socialist society without first making socialists? Isn't it like having the pregnancy after the birth?

So people need to have the right ideas first? :rolleyes:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm

[Geiseric]

The fenrurary revolution happened without the bolsheviks, the working class saw that the SRs and Mensheviks were traitors, and the bolsheviks were the political organization willing to lead the revolution against Capitalism and the remnents of Tzarism. the bolsheviks rode the current that the working class took it on, and when the support for revolution was great enough, it was carried out. historical development isn't needed, economic development however is needed, in the sense that there has to be a proletariat. The proletarianized population in russia was about 15% of the population, opposed to about 30% in Germany, which was because Tzarism retarded the development of capitalism.

[Book O'Dead]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm

This is a really valuable article!


"The class presupposes the party, because to exist and to act in history it must possess a critical doctrine of history and an aim to attain in it"Somewhere I saw this slogan which, to me, sums up Bordiga's thoughts:
"The Principle And The Party Are One."

However, I think this requires a caveat:


"In the only true revolutionary conception, the direction of class action is delegated to the party."

On the political field.

On the economic field the direction of class action, while in harmony with the party's stated objective, is in the hands of the workers themselves, organized at the workplace and in position to overthrow and dismantle capitalist economic rule.