The Forbidden Fruit
26th January 2013, 22:05
Being new to this forum I now post my first serious discussion. Here I address Lenin's work What Is to Be Done? on his concepts of "freedom of criticism" and his criticsim on trade-unionist politics with regard to the vanguard proposition, of which the subject may or may not have become cliche on the communication of ideas amongst comrades of intellectual discussion. The first aspect of this thread is to analyze the profound meaning and significance of the quoted subject. The last aspect of this thread is to discuss the relationship of "freedom" in our modern world.
After Lenin identifies the "Economist" political flaws and the limiting views that remain amongst the feeble spontaneity of action, Lenin continues to distinguish between the "trade-unionist" politics and his course of action.
The following is quoted from the Trade-Unionist Politics and Social-Democratic Politics section of WITBD:
”But everyone agrees with thisˇ‘ the impatient reader will exclaim, and the new instructions
adopted by the last conference of the Union Abroad for the Editorial Board of
Rabocheye Dyelo
definitely say: ’All events of social and political life that affect the proletariat
either directly as a special class or as the vanguard of all the revolutionary forces
in the struggle for freedom should serve as subjects for political propaganda and agitation”
(Two Conferences, p. 17, our italics). Yes, these are very true and very good words, and
we would be fully satisfied if Rabocheye Dyelo understood them and if it refrained from
saying in the next breath things that contradict them. For it is not enough to call ourselves
the “vanguard”, the advanced contingent; we must act in such a way that all the other contingents
recognise and are obliged to admit that we are marching in the vanguard. And we
ask the reader: Are the representatives of the other “contingents” such fools as to take our
word for it when we say that we are the “vanguard”? just picture to yourselves the following:
a Social-Democrat comes to the “contingent” of Russian educated radicals, or liberal
constitutionalists, and says, We are the vanguard; “the task confronting us now is, as far as
possible, to lend the economic struggle itself a political character”. The radical, or constitutionalist,
if he is at all intelligent (and there are many intelligent men among Russian radicals
and constitutionalists), would only smile at such a speech and would say (to himself, of
course, for in the majority of cases he is an experienced diplomat): “Your ’vanguard’ must
be made up of simpletons. They do not even understand that it is our task, the task of the
progressive representatives of bourgeois democracy to lend the workers’ economic struggle
itself
a political character. Why, we too, like the West-European bourgeois, want to draw
the workers into politics, but only into trade-unionist, not into Social-Democratic politics.
Trade-unionist politics of the working class is precisely
bourgeois politics of the working
class, and this ’vanguard’s’ formulation of its task is the formulation of trade-unionist politics!
Let them call themselves Social-Democrats to their heart’s content, I am not a child
to get excited over a label. But they must not fall under the influence of those pernicious
orthodox doctrinaires, let them allow ’freedom of criticism’ to those who unconsciously
are driving Social-Democracy into trade-unionist channels.”
--
And the faint smile of our constitutionalist will turn into Homeric laughter when he
learns that the Social-Democrats who talk of Social-Democracy as the vanguard, today,
when spontaneity almost completely dominates our movement, fear nothing so much as
“belittling the spontaneous element”, as “underestimating the significance of the forward
movement of the drab everyday struggle, as compared with the propaganda of brilliant and
completed ideas”, etc., etc.! A “vanguard” which fears that consciousness will outstrip
spontaneity, which fears to put forward a bold “plan” that would compel general recognition
even among those who differ with us. Are they not confusing “vanguard” with
“rearguard”?
Lenin wants to avoid using the term "vanguard" in context of the opposing perspective of which remains amongst greater bourgeois influence. Altogether Lenin advises against the influence of bourgeois idealism within the core party's leadership. I have read Lenin's position on Socialism and religion in which he advocates the necessary democratic freedom of uniting the proletariat regardless of minor bourgeois elements remaining amongst the individual worker, so long as such idealism remains a private affair away from the party's movements. Lenin of course is critically-opposed to being an oppressive force on the unity of communist contributions, but he is also critical on the necessary restriction of bourgeois input. He seems to understand the process of change and is considerate about the transformation of class conflict and exploitation into freedom.
So it is overall important to distinguish the concepts of freedom (the purpose of being in a social-democracy away from exploitation) and political discipline (regarding the unity of social efforts against the corruption of bourgeois primitiveness). Living in Texas I personally feel the pressure of right-wing opposition against Leninist social-democracy as a lack of freedom. But it is ironic because the cultural identity of the typical Republican is very repetitive in nature, considering the modern right-wing book shelf consist only of bibles and Ayn Rand. So obviously freedom is meaningless when gay marriage is still under controversy, and particular scientific discussion is limited due to the sensitivity of conservative politics. Who is more free, the right-wing fascists or our efforts?
How do we combat these opposing views on freedom? Any and every response is thanked, as well as the patience of reading through this thread. I'm still developing my views on such topics.
After Lenin identifies the "Economist" political flaws and the limiting views that remain amongst the feeble spontaneity of action, Lenin continues to distinguish between the "trade-unionist" politics and his course of action.
The following is quoted from the Trade-Unionist Politics and Social-Democratic Politics section of WITBD:
”But everyone agrees with thisˇ‘ the impatient reader will exclaim, and the new instructions
adopted by the last conference of the Union Abroad for the Editorial Board of
Rabocheye Dyelo
definitely say: ’All events of social and political life that affect the proletariat
either directly as a special class or as the vanguard of all the revolutionary forces
in the struggle for freedom should serve as subjects for political propaganda and agitation”
(Two Conferences, p. 17, our italics). Yes, these are very true and very good words, and
we would be fully satisfied if Rabocheye Dyelo understood them and if it refrained from
saying in the next breath things that contradict them. For it is not enough to call ourselves
the “vanguard”, the advanced contingent; we must act in such a way that all the other contingents
recognise and are obliged to admit that we are marching in the vanguard. And we
ask the reader: Are the representatives of the other “contingents” such fools as to take our
word for it when we say that we are the “vanguard”? just picture to yourselves the following:
a Social-Democrat comes to the “contingent” of Russian educated radicals, or liberal
constitutionalists, and says, We are the vanguard; “the task confronting us now is, as far as
possible, to lend the economic struggle itself a political character”. The radical, or constitutionalist,
if he is at all intelligent (and there are many intelligent men among Russian radicals
and constitutionalists), would only smile at such a speech and would say (to himself, of
course, for in the majority of cases he is an experienced diplomat): “Your ’vanguard’ must
be made up of simpletons. They do not even understand that it is our task, the task of the
progressive representatives of bourgeois democracy to lend the workers’ economic struggle
itself
a political character. Why, we too, like the West-European bourgeois, want to draw
the workers into politics, but only into trade-unionist, not into Social-Democratic politics.
Trade-unionist politics of the working class is precisely
bourgeois politics of the working
class, and this ’vanguard’s’ formulation of its task is the formulation of trade-unionist politics!
Let them call themselves Social-Democrats to their heart’s content, I am not a child
to get excited over a label. But they must not fall under the influence of those pernicious
orthodox doctrinaires, let them allow ’freedom of criticism’ to those who unconsciously
are driving Social-Democracy into trade-unionist channels.”
--
And the faint smile of our constitutionalist will turn into Homeric laughter when he
learns that the Social-Democrats who talk of Social-Democracy as the vanguard, today,
when spontaneity almost completely dominates our movement, fear nothing so much as
“belittling the spontaneous element”, as “underestimating the significance of the forward
movement of the drab everyday struggle, as compared with the propaganda of brilliant and
completed ideas”, etc., etc.! A “vanguard” which fears that consciousness will outstrip
spontaneity, which fears to put forward a bold “plan” that would compel general recognition
even among those who differ with us. Are they not confusing “vanguard” with
“rearguard”?
Lenin wants to avoid using the term "vanguard" in context of the opposing perspective of which remains amongst greater bourgeois influence. Altogether Lenin advises against the influence of bourgeois idealism within the core party's leadership. I have read Lenin's position on Socialism and religion in which he advocates the necessary democratic freedom of uniting the proletariat regardless of minor bourgeois elements remaining amongst the individual worker, so long as such idealism remains a private affair away from the party's movements. Lenin of course is critically-opposed to being an oppressive force on the unity of communist contributions, but he is also critical on the necessary restriction of bourgeois input. He seems to understand the process of change and is considerate about the transformation of class conflict and exploitation into freedom.
So it is overall important to distinguish the concepts of freedom (the purpose of being in a social-democracy away from exploitation) and political discipline (regarding the unity of social efforts against the corruption of bourgeois primitiveness). Living in Texas I personally feel the pressure of right-wing opposition against Leninist social-democracy as a lack of freedom. But it is ironic because the cultural identity of the typical Republican is very repetitive in nature, considering the modern right-wing book shelf consist only of bibles and Ayn Rand. So obviously freedom is meaningless when gay marriage is still under controversy, and particular scientific discussion is limited due to the sensitivity of conservative politics. Who is more free, the right-wing fascists or our efforts?
How do we combat these opposing views on freedom? Any and every response is thanked, as well as the patience of reading through this thread. I'm still developing my views on such topics.