Lenin: 75 Years Dead

[SonofRage]

A just read an interesting article over at Infoshop (an anarchist website) that I think does a good job debunking Lenin. Here's an excerpt:



Starting with What Is To Be Done? (1902) Lenin said: “the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness.” Lenin argued that socialist consciousness had to be brought to the working class by professional revolutionaries rather than a parliamentary party, drawn mainly from the petty-bourgeoisie, and organised as a vanguard party. But in 1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared the opposite:

“When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois” (www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm).


http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?...3/12/25/4202952 (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/12/25/4202952)

Thoughts?

[ComradeRobertRiley]

From my experiances with workers id have to go with Lennin

[BOZG]

Edit: Sorry I completely misread the quote and my reply was on the basis of that misreading. Will try get back and make a proper point later.

[SonofRage]

wow I was expecting more input.

[SonofRage]

Anyone? Bueller?

[Yevgraf]

If for no other reason, a revolutionary vanguard is necessery to counterpoise, nay more to act as an antidote towards, the 'labour aristocracy' and other reactionary elements within the organised working class.

As for the assertion that the conception of having a vanguard party has petty-bourgeois origins, I think is extremely ironic coming from an anarchist source; http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/anarchy.html

[SonofRage]

What about the apparent contradiction between what Lenin espoused and what Marx and Engels wrote?

[Yevgraf]

I don't see any contradiction. The revolutionary vanguard is sort of like the steering wheel of the working class movement, not the movement in itself, distinct and seperate.
A Socialist revolution is not going to happen without the precondition of working class support. Therefore, the function of having a vanguard is not to somehow create a revolution out of thin air, but rather to adapt and evolve itself(without resorting to opportunism or reformism) in line with ever-changing situations faced by the labour movement generally.

As Marx writes in the Manifesto;

They[Communists] 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 mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


In essence, through neutralising the reactionary role of the labour aristocracy(the influence of which is to be found most often within trade unions, hence reducing the level of potential class conscious to trade union conscious) the road is cleared by the vanguard for the proletariat to emancipate itself from wage-slavery.

[Guest1]

I love it, you say that there's no contradiction, then in the same breath you say that workers need the vanguard to help them attain class consciousness. That's exactly what the quote said must be fought against.

Anyways, here's the keys to my life, and the lives to millions of other workers, could you, and a handful of your friends, make sure the "labour aristocracy" isn't out to get us? While you're at it, take my money and build yourself a couple of mansions, then kill my friends and bill me for the bullets. I'm sure they were counter-revolutionaries, don't worry. I trust you :)

[Saint-Just]

The people who wrote this obviously did not try to make the same point you are making or they have not researched this subject thoroughly and thus do not possess the necessary knowledge to comment on it.

1. Marx and Engels made the same observation as Lenin (EDIT: this realisation came late on in their lives and does not stand in contradiction to the quote at the start of this topic, although the implications this idea has may well stand in contradiction). That is, workers could easily fall into trade union conscioussness and never develop a revolutionary conscioussness if they sought change through conciliation with the bourgeoisie i.e. trades unions. Lenin recognised that not only was this true but that history had shown that workers tended to almost always fall in to this trap; the concept of a clandestine group of middle-class intellectuals working as full-time revolutionaries was the solution to this problem. You could suggest that Marx may have come to the same conclusion.

2. Leninism is 'Marxism in the age if imperialism'. Leninism is based on Marxism and holds some contradictions to Marxism. Leninism is Marxist, not Marxian; that is to say it does not follow Marx verbatum. As such pointing out that Leninism is not Marxism is something that Lenin pointed out himself.

Also, looking at the first point you can see that Leninism may have been the natural development of Marxism.

[redstar2000]

The revolutionary vanguard is sort of like the steering wheel of the working class movement, not the movement in itself, distinct and separate.

A peculiar "steering wheel" that steers itself without regard to the passengers--the working class--in the vehicle.

I hope a "car" like that comes with a good "warranty"!


In essence, through neutralising the reactionary role of the labour aristocracy (the influence of which is to be found most often within trade unions, hence reducing the level of potential class conscious to trade union conscious) the road is cleared by the vanguard for the proletariat to emancipate itself from wage-slavery.

You'd never guess from their practice.

Whenever they can, Leninist parties have positively slobbered over the chance to get elected to leadership in the trade unions...whereupon, as often as not, they have plunged enthusiastically into opportunism, careerism, mucking about in bourgeois electoral politics, and generally behaving as...labor aristocrats.


Leninism is 'Marxism in the age of imperialism'.

If I've heard this banality once, I've heard it a million times. Does anyone have a clue as to what it is supposed to actually mean?

Did imperialism "spring into existence" in 1902? Did imperialism not exist in the 19th century when Marx and Engels were active?

If a "vanguard party" is somehow "necessary" because of the existence of imperialism, then why didn't Marx and Engels advocate that? They had plenty of opportunities to do so. They could easily have said, for example, that the defeat of the Paris Commune was due to the absence of a "vanguard party".

They didn't say that...or anything even approaching that, publicly or privately.

Why not?


...the concept of a clandestine group of middle-class intellectuals working as full-time revolutionaries was the solution to this problem. You could suggest that Marx may have come to the same conclusion.

And if we had some ham, you could "suggest" that we have some ham and eggs...if we had some eggs.

Marx and Engels were, on the whole, contemptuous of clandestine middle-class "revolutionary" conspiracies--indeed, that was one of their main criticisms of 19th century anarchism.

Their "bias" was clearly toward mass movements of the working class.

So is mine.

:redstar2000:

Trivia: that "oneparty" site is apparently another Stalinist "netparty"...hardly a site for any kind of reasonable critique of anarchism. Yes, "Uncle Joe" thought anarchism really "sucked"...what a surprise!

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

What I am saying is that this 'socialist' analysis of Leninism is not a good one. It criticises Leninism on the grounds that it holds some contradictions to Marxism. Lenin was aware that he had said Marx was wrong about certain things.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 30 2003, 11:24 AM
Lenin was aware [of] that[,] he had said Marx was wrong about certain things.
That would seem to be the main point of disagreement between the vanguardists and the non-vanguardists. While the Leninist think that Leninism is the natural evolution of Marxism, the non-vanguardists see it as either a poor analysis or perhaps even a perversion.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 11:00 PM
A just read an interesting article over at Infoshop (an anarchist website) that I think does a good job debunking Lenin. Here's an excerpt:



Starting with What Is To Be Done? (1902) Lenin said: “the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness.” Lenin argued that socialist consciousness had to be brought to the working class by professional revolutionaries rather than a parliamentary party, drawn mainly from the petty-bourgeoisie, and organised as a vanguard party. But in 1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared the opposite:

“When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois” (www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm).


http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?...3/12/25/4202952 (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/12/25/4202952)

Thoughts?

By A.Dmitriev

You, guys, incorrectly do " throw stones " in Lenin
from this side. He is guilty not in
it about what here it is spoken. Proletarians without
the help of their political party really
can grow up to only comprehension of the
economic interests. The problem consists
not in theoretical development of proletariat, but
that a class of proletarians - not
party! - was engaged in the government
and by that carried out CLASS but not
party domination in a society. During time of Lenin
the government still carried in itself
a print of class domination. But stalinism
has perverted true idea of dictatorship of proletariat,
has transformed it into idea of domination of communist
party above all classes.
It is represented, in the future it can occur so.
After achievement of the State power - as
a victory in bourgeois elections or as
result of armed revolt, it's unimportantly
- the Communist Party publicly should declare, that it
will be engaged in the government
as a party till organ of class
dominations of proletariat will be created.
It is thought, the preparatory period for
the organization of this transition from class
domination of bourgeoisie to class domination of
proletariat can not borrow time more than a
year. Further the Communist Party should declare, that it
recognizes freedom of elections, but makes them not
abstract - national but class.
The last means, that in a society of
PROLETARIAN socialism the electorates of
two basic opposite classes -
proletariat and bourgeoisie and two intermediate
classes - half-proletarians and half-bourgeoisie come to light.
Total, four electorate groups come to light ,
which choose freely and independently from each other
but proportionally to their number the CLASS representatives
in parliament.
Not in Soviet, notice pls! Namely in parliament.
Which in case of its formation on the class principle,
and also by virtue of the greatest number
a class of proletarians will be not so bourgeois, but
proletarian parliament.

Whether the class (electorate) of proletarians will elect
the most of representatives from party (parties)
of communists to THEIR parliament? If communists
can prove to electorate of proletarians, that they
are capable to protect and really protect not only
interests of party, but also interests of a class of proletarians,
so yes. If can not - so no.
Perhaps, the nonparty part of proletarians could be mistaken.
Anything terrible is not present in it. If they nave been mistaken - then
they will be corrected. The main thing is that proletarians not
have given in on cunning of bourgeoisie and have not missed
from the hands the class domination in a society,
organized with the help of formation and
functioning of parliament on a class
basis.

(translation into Russian in the coding Cyrillics Windows)

Âû íåïðàâèëüíî, ðåáÿòà, "êèäàåòå êàìíè" â
Ëåíèíà ñ ýòîé ñòîðîíû. Îí âèíîâàò ñîâñåì íå â
òîì, î ÷åì çäåñü ãîâîðèòñÿ. Ïðîëåòàðèè áåç
ïîìîùè ñâîåé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ïàðòèè äåéñòâèòåëüíî
ìîãóò äîðàñòè òîëüêî äî îñîçíàíèÿ ñâîèõ
ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ èíòåðåñîâ. Ïðîáëåìà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ
íå â òåîðåòè÷åñêîì ðàçâèòèè ïðîëåòàðèàòà, à â
òîì, ÷òîáû èìåííî êëàññ ïðîëåòàðèåâ - íå
ïàðòèÿ! - çàíèìàëñÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì óïðàâëåíèåì
è òåì ñàìûì îñóùåñòâëÿë ÊËÀÑÑÎÂÎÅ, à íå
ïàðòèéíîå ãîñïîäñòâî â îáùåñòâå. Ïðè Ëåíèíå
ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ âëàñòü åùå íåñëà â ñåáå
îòïå÷àòîê êëàññîâîãî ãîñïîäñòâà. Íî ñòàëèíèçì
èçâðàòèë âåðíóþ èäåþ äèêòàòóðû ïðîëåòàðèàòà,
ïðåâðàòèë åå â èäåþ ãîñïîäñòâà íàä âñåìè
êëàññàìè êîììóíèñòè÷åñêîé ïàðòèè.
Ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, â áóäóùåì äåëî ìîæåò áûòü
ïîñòàâëåíî òàê.
Ïîñëå ïðèõîäà ê ãîñóäàðñòâåííîé âëàñòè - â
ðåçóëüòàòå ïîáåäû íà áóðæóàçíûõ âûáîðàõ èëè â
ðåçóëüòàòå âîîðóæåííîãî âîññòàíèÿ, íå ñóòü
âàæíî - êîìïàðòèÿ äîëæíà ïóáëè÷íî çàÿâèòü, ÷òî
áóäåò çàíèìàòüñÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííûì óïðàâëåíèåì
êàê ïàðòèÿ äî òåõ ïîð, ïîêà íå áóäåò ñîçäàí
îðãàí êëàññîâîãî ãîñïîäñòâà ïðîëåòàðèàòà.
Äóìàåòñÿ, ïîäãîòîâèòåëüíûé ïåðèîä äëÿ
îðãàíèçàöèè ýòîãî ïåðåõîäà îò êëàññîâîãî
ãîñïîäñòâà áóðæóàçèè ê êëàññîâîìó ãîñïîäñòâó
ïðîëåòàðèàòà íå ìîæåò çàíÿòü âðåìåíè áîëüøå
ãîäà. Äàëåå êîìïàðòèÿ äîëæíà îáúÿâèòü, ÷òî
ïðèçíàåò ñâîáîäó âûáîðîâ, íî äåëàåò èõ íå
àáñòðàêòíî-íàðîäíûìè, à êëàññîâûìè. Ýòî
ïîñëåäíåå îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî â îáùåñòâå
ÏÐÎËÅÒÀÐÑÊÎÃÎ ñîöèàëèçìà âûÿâëÿþòñÿ ýëåêòîðàòû
äâóõ îñíîâíûõ ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûõ êëàññîâ -
ïðîëåòàðèàòà è áóðæóàçèè è äâóõ ïðîìåæóòî÷íûõ
êëàññîâ - ïîëóïðîëåòàðèåâ è ïîëóáóðæóàçèè.
Èòîãî, âûÿâëþòñÿ ÷åòûðå ýëåêòîðàëüíûõ ãðóïïû,
êîòîðûå è âûáèðàþò ñâîáîäíî è íåçàâèñèìî äðóã
îò äðóãà, íî ïðîïîðöèîíàëüíî ñâîåé ÷èñëåííîñòè
ñâîèõ ÊËÀÑÑÎÂÛÕ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé â ïàðëàìåíò. Íå
â ñîâåò, çàìåòüòå! À èìåííî â ïàðëàìåíò.
Êîòîðûé â ñëó÷àå ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ åãî ïî êëàññîâîìó
ïðèíöèïó, à òàêæå â ñèëó íàèáîëüøåé ÷èñëåííîñòè
êëàññà ïðîëåòàðèåâ áóäåò óæå íå áóðæóàçíûì, íî
ïðîëåòàðñêèì ïàðëàìåíòîì.
Áóäåò ëè êëàññ (ýëåêòîðàò) ïðîëåòàðèåâ èçáèðàòü
â ÑÂÎÉ ïàðëàìåíò áîëüøèíñòâî ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé îò
ïàðòèè (ïàðòèé) êîììóíèñòîâ? Åñëè êîììóíèñòû
ñìîãóò äîêàçàòü ýëåêòîðàòó ïðîëåòàðèåâ, ÷òî îíè
ñïîñîáíû è äåéñòâèòåëüíî çàùèùàþò íå òîëüêî
ïàðòèéíûå, íî è èíòåðåñû êëàññà ïðîëåòàðèåâ, òî
äà. Åñëè æå íå ñìîãóò - íåò. Ïðè ýòîì âîçìîæíî,
÷òî íåïàðòèéíàÿ ÷àñòü ïðîëåòàðèåâ îøèáåòñÿ. Â
ýòîì íè÷åãî ñòðàøíîãî íåò. Îøèáåòñÿ - ïîòîì
ïîïðàâèòñÿ. Ãëàâíîå, ÷òîáû ïðîëåòàðèè íå
ïîääàëèñü íà õèòðîñòè áóðæóàçèè è íå óïóñòèëè
èç ñâîèõ ðóê êëàññîâîå ãîñïîäñòâî â îáùåñòâå,
îðãàíèçóåìîå ñ ïîìîùüþ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ è
ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ ïàðëàìåíòà íà êëàññîâîé
îñíîâå.

À.Äìèòðèåâ.

[The Feral Underclass]

he died in 1924...that makes it 80 years