Burying Bolshevism

[The Idler]

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5564

For somebody who came to Marxism on his own, not through any socialist sect, I find the continued obsession with the Russian Revolution and the effort to model contemporary socialist organizations on “the Party of Lenin” (to borrow a line from the old Soviet anthem) bewildering. Not least because—as Pham Binh, Lars T. Lih, Louis Proyect and others have argued—“Leninism” has little to do with Lenin and the RSDLP, the true heirs of which all “Marxist-Leninists” (i.e., Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists) claim to be. What is more bewildering is the idea that the organizational structure and tactics of the Bolsheviks, who were operating in largely agrarian Tsarist Russia, can or should be a guide for socialists today in advanced capitalist countries.

...

[Comrade #138672]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a future revolution will not have much to do with Bolshevism. Still, we can learn a lot from them.

[Rafiq]

What is more bewildering is the idea that the organizational structure and tactics of the Bolsheviks, who were operating in largely agrarian Tsarist Russia, can or should be a guide for socialists today in advanced capitalist countries.


What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

Weren't most soldiers peasants though?

[red flag over teeside]

It's probably useful to read Gorters letter to Lenin to see why expecting the Russian revolution of 1917 to play out in Western Europe was wrong.

[goalkeeper]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

Perhaps it a point would have been that the highly repressive political climate of of Tsarist Russia necessitated the sort of party described in WITBD? which many "Leninist" sects use as a blueprint for how their own parties should operate (ignoring that the Bolshevik party didnt even conform to this in 1917 anyway)

For many it seems that 1917 has turned into the highpoint of human history; its practice being the aim for which all should aspire and follow. This view was understandable in the early to mid 20th century, but the idea that Trotsky, Lenin, or Zinoviev can tell people today the best means by which to carry out socialist revolution seems silly.

edit: case in point: http://www.revleft.com/vb/censure-zinoviev-t178358/index.html
How the Bolsheviks should have acted nearly 100 years ago being used to justify present day party politics.

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps it a point would have been that the highly repressive political climate of of Tsarist Russia necessitated the sort of party described in WITBD? which many "Leninist" sects use as a blueprint for how their own parties should operate (ignoring that the Bolshevik party didnt even conform to this in 1917 anyway)

This is simply false. Just now, over 100 years later, are we finally getting WITBD properly translated and put into context. Only now are we finally gaining an understanding on what it was that Lenin meant in the text.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Well, criticism is always valid, but what bothers me is the criticism for the sake of criticism. I mean, the author claims that 'Leninism' is dead but offers nothing but vague words such as the following:


Rather than being weighed down by Leninist organizational forms and norms, and by Leninist slogans and costumes, socialists today need to begin the real work of building a mass socialist movement fit for present conditions—not those of Tsarist Russia. Leninism has been tried. It has failed. It is time to try something else.


The author also writes:



To hear them say it, the success of the Russian Revolution is almost entirely due to the “organizational forms and norms associated with Leninism”; Lenin unlocked the secret to revolutionary success, and what we must do is apply it. This same account is applied to explain the degeneration into reformism of the social-democratic parties of the Second International: the Social Democrats had the wrong type of party, which is why they became reformist; the Bolsheviks had the right type of party, which is why they were able to seize power when the time was right (the particular historical circumstances in which the Russian Revolution took place are looked at almost as an afterthought).


Who even says that?

[goalkeeper]

This is simply false. Just now, over 100 years later, are we finally getting WITBD properly translated and put into context. Only now are we finally gaining an understanding on what it was that Lenin meant in the text.

Well if you think a properly translated text from 100 years ago is now going to help you organise for the revolution properly, good for you. I, however, am a bit sceptical.

The only importance that can come from better analysis and translation of WITBD is for historical purposes. THis statement perhaps leaves me open to the charge that why don't i just ignore the even older writings of Marx, but the value of Marx's writings are larger theoretical issues which are more enduring than a pamphlet on political organisation. I would throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism, they are pretty irrelevant to understanding the nature of the world economy and militarism today.

[Red Enemy]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).
In that, we must also recognize the failure of the German model in Germany.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Well if you think a properly translated text from 100 years ago is now going to help you organise for the revolution properly, good for you. I, however, am a bit sceptical.

The only importance that can come from better analysis and translation of WITBD is for historical purposes. THis statement perhaps leaves me open to the charge that why don't i just ignore the even older writings of Marx, but the value of Marx's writings are larger theoretical issues which are more enduring than a pamphlet on political organisation. I would throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism, they are pretty irrelevant to understanding the nature of the world economy and militarism today.

I think Lenin, and every other influential marxist, should not be thrown away. If marxism is not a religion, if it is the concrete analysis of a concrete situation, theory must emerge from passed and actual practical experiences and contradictions. Lenin's book on Imperialism, for example, may not explain imperialism today, but it shows the development of imperialism; it gives the foundation to understand today's imperialism.

Learn from the classics does not mean follow everything written in there.

[blake 3:17]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

But what needs to be understood is that a large portion of the most radical sections of the urban industrial proletariat were those closest to the peasantry -- most often young workers/peasants who went back and forth between city and country.

[Art Vandelay]

In that, we must also recognize the failure of the German model in Germany.

Of course and we must analyse why and under what conditions did the German SPD stray from the organizational foundation that they layed and the Bolsheviks continued on, leading to their success in 17'.

[Art Vandelay]

Christopher Hitchens once said that the first condition which should exist before any polemics can be engaged in, is that each side should be able to succinctly and accurately articulate the oppositions viewpoint; I must say that I think you fail in this regard and as a former anti-Leninist (I used to be in the 'Fuck Lenin' usergroup on Revleft, I do understand anti-Leninism; an infantile paradigm that I am glad I overcame).


Well if you think a properly translated text from 100 years ago is now going to help you organise for the revolution properly, good for you. I, however, am a bit sceptical.

Skepticism is a good thing comrade, however you actually have to engage with the theories before refuting them.


The only importance that can come from better analysis and translation of WITBD is for historical purposes.

This is simply false, as is the accusation in the article the the organizational model of the Bolsheviks could only be successful in the largely agrarian Russia in the early 1900's. This ignores the fact that the RSDLP, was in fact based off of the German SPD which was tailored for Germany, one of the most industrialized capitalist countries in the world.


THis statement perhaps leaves me open to the charge that why don't i just ignore the even older writings of Marx, but the value of Marx's writings are larger theoretical issues which are more enduring than a pamphlet on political organisation. I would throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism, they are pretty irrelevant to understanding the nature of the world economy and militarism today.

I'm guessing that if you're willing to 'throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism' (not that I don't have my own critiques of them as well, after all no work is a holy gospel) then you probably don't have much of an understanding of imperialism and exactly what it entails.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course and we must analyse why and under what conditions did the German SPD stray from the organizational foundation that they layed and the Bolsheviks continued on, leading to their success in 17'.
In what way did this organizational foundation change actually? From what I read about the period and the party, there was actually organizational continuity, and not an abrupt rupture which could then be decried as "betrayal" (though, for sure, I can understand the shock and outrage of revolutionaries when the party finally gave its blessing to the biggest bloodbath yet - and capitalism with it; but that does not mean that this reaction is something more than a gut reaction, clinging to the failing revolutionary tradition of the movement).

So in what way did this "straying" occur?

[Art Vandelay]

In what way did this organizational foundation change actually? From what I read about the period and the party, there was actually organizational continuity, and not an abrupt rupture which could then be decried as "betrayal" (though, for sure, I can understand the shock and outrage of revolutionaries when the party finally gave its blessing to the biggest bloodbath yet - and capitalism with it; but that does not mean that this reaction is something more than a gut reaction, clinging to the failing revolutionary tradition of the movement).

So in what way did this "straying" occur?

I'll have to get back to you on this, as its been a long time since I've seen the resources outlining it. I'll have to ask Grenzer or someone else for a link.

[Conscript]

Why bury what a lot of revolutionary theory is based off of?

[Let's Get Free]

Some Leninists just dont want to learn from the lessons of history that are staring them in the face and, as somebody said, if you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The so called state capitalist road to socialism we now know is a complete dead end - a historical cul de sac. We are not in 1905 Tsarist Russia anymore. We now need to move on from endlessly repeating the same tired old dogmas of Bolshevism and look at the world with fresh eyes

[Red Enemy]

Some Leninists just dont want to learn from the lessons of history that are staring them in the face and, as somebody said, if you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The so called state capitalist road to socialism we now know is a complete dead end - a historical cul de sac. We are not in 1905 Tsarist Russia anymore. We now need to move on from endlessly repeating the same tired old dogmas of Bolshevism and look at the world with fresh eyes
Honestly, you've been refuted over and over again.

Move on.

[Let's Get Free]

Honestly, you've been refuted over and over again.


so has Leninism

[Art Vandelay]

so has Leninism

I don't understand why you pop into every single thread dealing with relatively the same subject matter and instead of actually engaging with what 'Leninists' are saying (Leninism doesn't exist by the way) you just regurgitate rhetoric over and over and over. Like seriously just stop already. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I love engaging in polemics with people of opposing viewpoints (me and VMC have been having some solid discussions lately) but you don't even contribute or add anything. So honestly starting contributing something of theoretical substance or just stop spamming the board with your rhetoric.

[Rational Radical]

The fact is, Lenin should be looked at as a historical figure (he's a revolutionary for liberating the russian people from tsarist oppression and implementing soviet democracy for a certain period of time) and not a theoretician for 21st century socialism/communism,since as many have said, russia's backward conditions and international problems led him to make decisions that were non-socialist. What we,as socialist in the 21st century, need to focus on is how to progress,educate and popularize our ideas among the working class the best possible way.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't understand why you pop into every single thread dealing with relatively the same subject matter and instead of actually engaging with what 'Leninists' are saying (Leninism doesn't exist by the way) you just regurgitate rhetoric over and over and over. Like seriously just stop already. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I love engaging in polemics with people of opposing viewpoints (me and VMC have been having some solid discussions lately) but you don't even contribute or add anything. So honestly starting contributing something of theoretical substance or just stop spamming the board with your rhetoric.

Apologies, as you are absolutely right. However, you'll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm for debating Leninists who are stuck at about 1860-1917, who have still not advanced beyond the period of anti-tsarist populism

[Red Enemy]

Apologies, as you are absolutely right. However, you'll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm for debating Leninists who are stuck at about 1860-1917, who have still not advanced beyond the period of anti-tsarist populismYet, you can't debate someone who doesn't identify as a Leninist/holds views FAR from the mainstream Leninist views on the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks, vanguard party, national liberation, and other such things.

[Astarte]

Apologies, as you are absolutely right. However, you'll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm for debating Leninists who are stuck at about 1860-1917, who have still not advanced beyond the period of anti-tsarist populism

The truth is though, Leninism has proven to be, globally and historically, the most influential and successful form of struggle against capitalism. The question shouldn't be "whether or not to bury Bolshevism", but with how much or how little orthodoxy we want to apply the historical lessons of Leninism to the future theoretical development of Marxism.

[skitty]

Has anyone found admirable work being published today? The most recent stuff I've read are the Situationists, Invisible Committee and Hardt/Negri.

[Art Vandelay]

Apologies, as you are absolutely right. However, you'll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm for debating Leninists who are stuck at about 1860-1917, who have still not advanced beyond the period of anti-tsarist populism

That is nothing but a caricature of 'Leninists.' I've already outlined in this thread, how the RSDLP was based off of the organizational model of the German SPD (which was tailored for one of the most advanced capitalist countries in the world) but I don't really expect anything more from you at this point. But by all means continue with the strawmen, not engaging with opposing viewpoints and enjoy your willful ignorance. Once again I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but you quite obviously haven't engaged with any pro-party Marxist viewpoints. Personally (and I'm not claiming to be very theoretically advanced) but I've read from pro-capitalist, utopian socialists, anarchists, Marxists, etc...perspectives. Until you engage with both sides of a debate, you'll never be able to know where you truly stand.

[Red Banana]

I don't understand why you pop into every single thread dealing with relatively the same subject matter and instead of actually engaging with what 'Leninists' are saying (Leninism doesn't exist by the way) you just regurgitate rhetoric over and over and over. Like seriously just stop already. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I love engaging in polemics with people of opposing viewpoints (me and VMC have been having some solid discussions lately) but you don't even contribute or add anything. So honestly starting contributing something of theoretical substance or just stop spamming the board with your rhetoric.

I checked, just to make sure, and this thread is about burying Bolshevism, not about taking personal jabs at members, which is more akin to spamming than expressing anti-Leninist views could ever be.

He raises a a valid point in that what many people refer to as "Leninism" is irrelevant outside of early 20th century Russia. That was a few posts ago and he didn't get any answer except for "you've been refuted so many times" and "just stop already". This kind of needless hostility does nothing to help make productive discussion.

[Art Vandelay]

I checked, just to make sure, and this thread is about burying Bolshevism, not about taking personal jabs at members, which is more akin to spamming than expressing anti-Leninist views could ever be.

He raises a a valid point in that what many people refer to as "Leninism" is irrelevant outside of early 20th century Russia. That was a few posts ago and he didn't get any answer except for "you've been refuted so many times" and "just stop already". This kind of needless hostility does nothing to help make productive discussion.

You'd be wise to read the thread before commenting...

Rafiq:


What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

Myself:


This is simply false. Just now, over 100 years later, are we finally getting WITBD properly translated and put into context. Only now are we finally gaining an understanding on what it was that Lenin meant in the text.


This is simply false, as is the accusation in the article the the organizational model of the Bolsheviks could only be successful in the largely agrarian Russia in the early 1900's. This ignores the fact that the RSDLP, was in fact based off of the German SPD which was tailored for Germany, one of the most industrialized capitalist countries in the world.

So until I get an answer to this, which has continually been brought up, that the RSDLP model was not only applicable to agrarian conditions, but was in fact based of the German SPD, an advanced capitalist country, I'll continue calling out his rhetoric for what it is. I'm close to losing my patience here, but I've been trying to be better with that lately; however when you can't even read the thread and then come in all high and mighty accusing me of ignoring other peoples questions and making personal attacks, when in fact its my points that aren't being addressed (because it doesn't conveniently fit into the rhetorical anti-Leninist narrative) it kinda pisses me off.

[Red Banana]

I've already outlined in this thread, how the RSDLP was based off of the organizational model of the German SPD (which was tailored for one of the most advanced capitalist countries in the world)

You didn't really outline or explain how it was based off of the SPD, you just said that it was in an earlier post. Even then, the point still stands; why should an organizational model tailored for the material conditions of early 20th century Germany, then customized for tsarist Russia, have any relevance for the international labor movement in the 21st century?

[Art Vandelay]

You didn't really outline or explain how it was based off of the SPD, you just said that it was in an earlier post. Even then, the point still stands; why should an organizational model tailored for the material conditions of early 20th century Germany, then customized for tsarist Russia, have any relevance for the international labor movement in the 21st century?

Early 20th century Germany was an advanced capitalist country, while obviously the organizational model needs to be updated for current material conditions, I don't believe that I (advocating updating the organizational model which lead to the only successful dictatorship of the proletariat the world has ever seen) am the one who needs to do much explaining, as opposed to you advocating completely throwing away said organizational model.

This doesn't even get to the point that even 'coup d'etat' admitted to not offering anything useful to the discourse, just continue to spam his rhetoric. But by all means continue to attack me, who while may holding an opinion you disagree with, adds theoretical substance to threads and can engage in discussion with people of opposing viewpoints. :rolleyes:

[CyM]

What, precisely, is "outdated" about Bolshevism?

The striving to build a politically cohesive party, tightly knit together on revolutionary ideas? The method of local branches tied into a strong united organization with a consistent political outlook as opposed to loosely knit federation pulling in different directions? The idea of "paper as organizer", which is linked to that united political perspective? The idea of building this organization on a professional basis?

What exactly is at issue here? I see none of these ideas which scream: "WARNING: FOR PEASANT USE ONLY!"

[Red Banana]

Early 20th century Germany was an advanced capitalist country, while obviously the organizational model needs to be updated for current material conditions, I don't believe that I (advocating updating the organizational model which lead to the only successful dictatorship of the proletariat the world has ever seen) am the one who needs to do much explaining, as opposed to you advocating completely throwing away said organizational model.

This doesn't even get to the point that even 'coup d'etat' admitted to not offering anything useful to the discourse, just continue to spam his rhetoric. But by all means continue to attack me, who while may holding an opinion you disagree with, adds theoretical substance to threads and can engage in discussion with people of opposing viewpoints. :rolleyes:

The Bolshevik organizational model ostensibly failed, so I really have no qualms over binning it.

And I don't really care what coup d'état thinks about his own posts, I just don't like how shitty you get with people sometimes. I'm not trying to attack you, I like most of your posts, you do bring substance to the debates for sure, but just please try to be more polite.

[Art Vandelay]

The Bolshevik organizational model ostensibly failed, so I really have no qualms over binning it.

And I don't really care what coup d'état thinks about his own posts, I just don't like how shitty you get with people sometimes. I'm not trying to attack you, I like most of your posts, you do bring substance to the debates for sure, but just please try to be more polite.

Yeah I do get shitty with people sometimes, something that I've been trying to get better with. But this is a message board and I have less patience among professed radicals then I do among the working class. Deal with the substance of what I say, rather then how I say it. I appreciate your concern over whether or not I hurt others feelings, but I am sure they are more then capable of letting me know when I do and am sure they have thicker skin then letting some random on a forum get to them. But in all honesty, if I conduct myself in a inappropriate manner I'm sure the BA will infract me (something that has yet to happen) and quite frankly my lack of patience and occasional outbursts have nothing to do with this thread.

Now you've made a blanket statement: 'the organizational model of the Bolsheviks was an abject failure' but haven't really provided any info to support this claim. Given that this thread is about burying the Bolsheviks, now would be a good time to add some substance to this thread; something it has been lacking from the anti-Bolshevik crowd.

[Le Socialiste]

What, precisely, is "outdated" about Bolshevism?

The striving to build a politically cohesive party, tightly knit together on revolutionary ideas? The method of local branches tied into a strong united organization with a consistent political outlook as opposed to loosely knit federation pulling in different directions? The idea of "paper as organizer", which is linked to that united political perspective? The idea of building this organization on a professional basis?

What exactly is at issue here? I see none of these ideas which scream: "WARNING: FOR PEASANT USE ONLY!"

Okay, for one: thank you! You've essentially summed up my thoughts on the matter, saving me a lot of time. ;)1

Secondly, I am perplexed at the increasingly dismissive means of debate utilized by some people here, namely those who reject 'Leninism' as an outdated, moribund model. Even this argument doesn't bother me so much as the way it is presented. The framework is worthy of consideration; it's the content that's the problem. Coup d'etat, this is the 4th or 5th time I've seen you dismiss 'Leninism'/Bolshevism as an historically outdated model, a nostalgic throwback to a 'period of anti-tsarist populism'. In this instance, 9mm is right: you're doing nothing but spamming the threads at this point. At this particular juncture, you might consider substantiating these claims or cease making them, because you're not doing yourself any favors by repeating them w/o evidence.

Both 9mm and Rafiq have brought up excellent points that beg addressing. I think it's a mistake to view Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory and praxis through solely historical lenses; he made several important theoretical and organizational points that remain as applicable today as they were then - albeit perhaps not in their totality. The core principles that CyM outlined still stand. Instead of rejecting these outright, we ought to engage with them through thought and practical experience, promoting the creativity, flexibility, and fluidity of the 'Leninist' model as built by the Bolsheviks themselves. Just because we're in the 21st-century doesn't mean Leninism is suddenly obsolete. As Paul LeBlanc said very recently: "Leninism is unfinished."

[Red Banana]

Yeah I do get shitty with people sometimes, something that I've been trying to get better with. But this is a message board and I have less patience among professed radicals then I do among the working class. Deal with the substance of what I say, rather then how I say it. I appreciate your concern over whether or not I hurt others feelings, but I am sure they are more then capable of letting me know when I do and am sure they have thicker skin then letting some random on a forum get to them. But in all honesty, if I conduct myself in a inappropriate manner I'm sure the BA will infract me (something that has yet to happen) and quite frankly my lack of patience and occasional outbursts have nothing to do with this thread.

Now you've made a blanket statement: 'the organizational model of the Bolsheviks was an abject failure' but haven't really provided any info to support this claim. Given that this thread is about burying the Bolsheviks, now would be a good time to add some substance to this thread; something it has been lacking from the anti-Bolshevik crowd.

It's not really about having people's feelings hurt, it's just that Internet tough guys are really annoying.

Onto the Bolsheviks, while I do agree that they, at least for a while, helped achieve a successful dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the means to an end, not an end in itself), their organizational model, obviously, did not lead to socialism. The end result was state-capitalism, and I know people will point the Russian civil war and the absence of international revolution as reasons why it descended into state-capitalism, not the organizational model, and they have a point, but if the organizational model couldn't cope with the problems it faced in its day, then it obviously wasn't fit to the task, and something different needed to be done.

[subcp]

Has anyone found admirable work being published today? The most recent stuff I've read are the Situationists, Invisible Committee and Hardt/Negri.

The communisation camp (Endnotes, Riff-Raff, etc.), Gilles Dauve, a lot of the stuff from Internationalist Perspectives, Nihilist Communism/other stuff from the Dupont duo. I find agreement with some of the stuff coming from the PCI (an organization which was a stone's throw from the Situationists, operaists, and the tradition from which people like Camatte and Dauve came from, not to mention some of the communisation milieu; and a touchstone for the non-Bordigist left which spawned groups like IP).

Bolshevism has been sublimated (lessons learned, corpses stepped over): all the rest is reenactment.

[Le Socialiste]

It's not really about having people's feelings hurt, it's just that Internet tough guys are really annoying.

Onto the Bolsheviks, while I do agree that they, at least for a while, helped achieve a successful dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the means to an end, not an end in itself), their organizational model, obviously, did not lead to socialism. The end result was state-capitalism, and I know people will point the Russian civil war and the absence of international revolution as reasons why it descended into state-capitalism, not the organizational model, and they have a point, but if the organizational model couldn't cope with the problems it faced in its day, then it obviously wasn't fit to the task, and something different needed to be done.

Do you think the outcome would be different with a non-Leninist organizational model?

[Art Vandelay]

It's not really about having people's feelings hurt, it's just that Internet tough guys are really annoying.

I really never try and act like an 'internet tough guy' and hope that is not how I come across. I have a short fuse and it gets worse as my mental health gets worse, but I'm like 155 lbs, am tall and lanky, and haven't been in a fight since I was in elementary school; I'm not tough and I never profess to be.


Onto the Bolsheviks, while I do agree that they, at least for a while, helped achieve a successful dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the means to an end, not an end in itself), their organizational model, obviously, did not lead to socialism. The end result was state-capitalism, and I know people will point the Russian civil war and the absence of international revolution as reasons why it descended into state-capitalism, not the organizational model, and they have a point, but if the organizational model couldn't cope with the problems it faced in its day, then it obviously wasn't fit to the task, and something different needed to be done.

While you are correct that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a ends in itself, your analysis has one glaring flaw. Unless you're a supporter of the theory of 'socialism in one country' then the failure of the international revolution cannot be overlooked. Until the Bolsheviks were aided by a revolution in an advanced capitalist country, all they could do was hold on for dear life. The dictatorship of the proletariat, let alone socialism, cannot last in an isolated area; there is only so long (and it really isn't that long, I'm talking a couple of years max) that it can survive before counter-revolution starts to overthrow the gains of the revolution (which in the USSR, found its ideological expression in the policies of Joseph Stalin). Your analysis, while commenting on certain material conditions (civil war, etc.), doesn't acknowledge or account for the full scope of what the Bolsheviks were facing.

[subcp]

Your analysis doesn't while commenting on certain material conditions (civil war, etc.) doesn't acknowledge or account for the full scope of what the Bolsheviks were facing.

Isn't that the main reason why it's still being discussed; they won, nominally held power until 1991; if not for that accident of history, would it be such a central topic? It's hard to imagine any other historical event or idea tying up communists attracted to Marxism into such knots if not for that.

[Art Vandelay]

Isn't that the main reason why it's still being discussed; they won, nominally held power until 1991; if not for that accident of history, would it be such a central topic? It's hard to imagine any other historical event or idea tying up communists attracted to Marxism into such knots if not for that.

I would argue that any genuine Bolshevik presence (the revolutionary proletarian class interests they represented) had been overthrown and defeated by the mid 20's; so no they didn't win, they were tragically defeated.

[Le Socialiste]

Isn't that the main reason why it's still being discussed; they won, nominally held power until 1991; if not for that accident of history, would it be such a central topic? It's hard to imagine any other historical event or idea tying up communists attracted to Marxism into such knots if not for that.

But the Communist Party of 1991 bore hardly any resemblance to its political forebear of 1917. Organizationally, theoretically, and politically it became the expressive vehicle of the counterrevolution by the late '20s-early '30s, as manifested by Stalin and other reigning reactionary elements.

Edit - Never mind, 9mm beat me to the punch.

[subcp]

I agree with you- but the nominally Marxist state and bureaucracy with continuity going back to 1917 lasted almost 80 years; weighing on communists since then. If it had been drenched in blood and defeated, would it be any more particularly noteworthy than the November Revolution, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Shanghai Commune, etc? This allure of success and material continuity leaves us haunted by a spectre of 'real existing socialism' which makes the 'Russian Question' this preeminent hobby horse generation after generation. It's hard to believe Lenin would be so highly regarded if he met a fate like Luxemburg.

No ones arguing that the existence of the Soviet Union, Stalinism, etc. could have happened without the February and October revolutions, right? It's debatable when revolutionary communist content had been strangled out of the party and revolution, but it almost sounds like you're arguing that the fSU has no link to 1917 and the Bolshevik Party, it's a bit disorienting.

[Astarte]

It's not really about having people's feelings hurt, it's just that Internet tough guys are really annoying.

Onto the Bolsheviks, while I do agree that they, at least for a while, helped achieve a successful dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the means to an end, not an end in itself), their organizational model, obviously, did not lead to socialism. The end result was state-capitalism, and I know people will point the Russian civil war and the absence of international revolution as reasons why it descended into state-capitalism, not the organizational model, and they have a point, but if the organizational model couldn't cope with the problems it faced in its day, then it obviously wasn't fit to the task, and something different needed to be done.

Do you really believe a situation of collective property where an elite managed to position themselves at the top of society owing to their political power over the state apparatus rather than accumulated capital, without the ability to control relative surplus value or independently decide how the totality of the extracted surplus value of the labor of society was actually used is actually capitalistic in any honest sense of the word? I take issue with the statement that Leninism did not introduce collective property and did not abolish capitalism as a mode of production for the majority of the duration of the existence of the USSR ... I think "state-capitalism" in the USSR is poor theory and historical analysis at best... So, I still say Leninism was and is the only theory which managed to establish a situation of power which collectivized property for any meaningful duration of time.

[Red Banana]

I really never try and act like an 'internet tough guy' and hope that is not how I come across. I have a short fuse and it gets worse as my mental health gets worse, but I'm like 155 lbs, am tall and lanky, and haven't been in a fight since I was in elementary school; I'm not tough and I never profess to be.



While you are correct that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a ends in itself, your analysis has one glaring flaw. Unless you're a supporter of the theory of 'socialism in one country' then the failure of the international revolution cannot be overlooked. Until the Bolsheviks were aided by a revolution in an advanced capitalist country, all they could do was hold on for dear life. The dictatorship of the proletariat, let alone socialism, cannot last in an isolated area; there is only so long (and it really isn't that long, I'm talking a couple of years max) that it can survive before counter-revolution starts to overthrow the gains of the revolution (which in the USSR, found its ideological expression in the policies of Joseph Stalin). Your analysis, while commenting on certain material conditions (civil war, etc.), doesn't acknowledge or account for the full scope of what the Bolsheviks were facing.

The absence of international revolution was one of, if not the most important contributor to the demise of the USSR, yes, but that only further reveals their failure at exporting the revolution, something they obviously were not up to the task of doing. Had they been more efficient in doing so, things might have turned out very differently.

@Le Socialiste: There is no way for me to know. Obviously the Leninist organizational model they used failed, but had they used a revised or altered version of it where needed, it is possible that it could have worked, a non-Leninist model could have worked as well if it were able to face the challenges of those times, but again, who knows? My guess is as good as yours.

[Le Socialiste]

Wait, where'd The Idler go? Isn't s/he the one who started this thread?

[Art Vandelay]

The absence of international revolution was one of, if not the most important contributor to the demise of the USSR, yes, but that only further reveals their failure at exporting the revolution, something they obviously were not up to the task of doing. Had they been more efficient in doing so, things might have turned out very differently.

I'm sorry but this is makes absolutely no sense, it falls in the line of the caricaturisation of Trotsky's opinion that he wanted to export the revolution on the end of a bayonet, which of course was not his opinion what so ever. The emancipation of the working class, must be the work of the working class itself. The Bolsheviks could never have 'exported' the revolution. They could offer whatever material and educational support possible (which they did), but the task of the German revolution fell to the German proletariat and their party, not the Bolsheviks.

[CyM]

They held power more or less until Lenin's death. Then they were rounded up and executed by Stalin. Still the only example of any party establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm waiting to see what the "other" methods would be, and what other party has similar experimental evidence to provide.

Otherwise, this is very similar to an inventor not having found the right fuse for the bulb and saying let's forget about trying to invent lightbulbs altogether, the last one burned out!

[Red Enemy]

Pardon the incoherent nature of this, I'm fairly tired.

The biggest problem I have with the anti-Leninists is they are blatantly ignorant and unwilling to acknowledge the material conditions and context of the October revolution and thereafter. There are some, like Red banana, who seem to be trying to have a conversation, and that's awesome.

When we get down to looking at Russia, looking at party/proletariat organization, and looking at context we realize that Russia was fucked. From the underdeveloped nature of Russian Capital, to civil war which decimated the proletarian population, to bureaucratic deformities within the Bolshevik party structure, to the -- and most importantly -- failure of the German (and world) revolution. All of these things caused a great impact on the decisions made by the Bolsheviks; from War Communism, to NEP.

The dictatorship of the proletariat was short lived -- if not quite fully consolidated --, and I would say ended between 1919-1921 in the wake of civil war. We can criticize the actions of the Bolsheviks in this, but it's also important to understand WHY this occurred. Let us look at further context:

Peasantry as a threat to socialism and Proletarian Class interests:

We had food shortages in the beginning, peasants hording what they had harvested, white armies occupying agricultural areas. This lead to the forceful acquisition of foodstuffs from peasants to feed the urban populace, thus creating a hostile air (clearly showing the class interests of the peasantry is not the same as the proletariat).

This was early on. Even from the beginning, with the agrarian reform that let the peasants take the land, there was appeasement to the peasantry. The peasantry was needed to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat, to help overthrow the bourgeoisie, and maintain hegemony.

The roles played by the peasantry is huge, and we see it go right through to the NEP and beyond, as we see a peasant middle class of landowners, who fought tooth and nail to keep their land from being socialised.

Parties as a threat to socialism and Proletarian Class interests:

The Bolsheviks faced threats from the other parties as well, who represented interests that were NOT proletariat -- but still managed to retain support from numbers of proletarians. For instance, the Mensheviks and Right SR's supported a return to the constituent assembly and bourgeois government of Kerensky, going so far as the support the white's against the Red Army. The right SR's carried out terrorist activity in support of that, and also joined the white forces.

The Left SR's, while being involved initially with the Bolsheviks and with plans for a "coalition" soviet government, resigned from their positions in the wake of Brest-Litovsk. With that, Left SR's essentially revolted, plotting the assassination of a German official, with plans to keep the war between Germany and Russia going, along with other terrorist activities. They occupied Cheka barracks, and had a force of 2000 (?) soldiers. A battle between Red Army forces and the Left SR Army saw the defeat of the Left SR forces, and eventually seen by 1919, the end of the Left SR party, with most of it going into the Bolsheviks -- the organization of the Left SRs had little to do with the plots and uprising.

Counter Revolution as a threat to Proletarian Class interests:

So, in this, a civil war in which most of the proletarian population who fought in the civil war, were killed. This was a huge slash in the population of proletarians in Russia, further seeing the interests of the peasantry begin to become clear to the peasantry itself -- and everyone else, and resistance mounted against the proletarian nature of Bolshevism.

This civil war was the red army of the Bolsheviks on one side, and the white army of reaction and capital (both foreign and domestic -- including Japanese, American and British).

Hopes that Russia would be saved:

Lastly, we must understand the role the "coming revolution" in Germany, and therefore the world, played in the actions of the Bolsheviks.

Lenin had said that Russia was doomed if the German's did have revolution. It was this revolution that was always in the back of Lenin and the Bolsheviks minds when it came to decisions -- (Soon, we will be pulled out of this mess by a proletariat who has overthrew the bourgeoisie in the advanced nations -- no more appeasing the peasantry, no more isolation, the ability to rapidly expand industry).


Underdeveloped Capital as a threat:

Too lazy....Maybe I'll fill it in tomorrow...you get the point...

[Red Banana]

I'm sorry but this is makes absolutely no sense, it falls in the line of the caricaturisation of Trotsky's opinion that he wanted to export the revolution on the end of a bayonet, which of course was not his opinion what so ever. The emancipation of the working class, must be the work of the working class itself. The Bolsheviks could never have 'exported' the revolution. They could offer whatever material and educational support possible (which they did), but the task of the German revolution fell to the German proletariat and their party, not the Bolsheviks.

Fair enough, though I never claimed the revolution could have been exported at the end of a bayonet, I do see your point. But wouldn't this mean that the Bolsheviks were doomed from the start, and that a different model would be needed to help ignite international revolution, rather than just one national revolution in Russia? Also, if it was modeled after the SPD, and the success of the revolution ultimately laid in German workers' hands, why are we even looking to the Bolsheviks, shouldn't the SPD (pre WWI) be of more value to us?

[Ostrinski]

To say that I'm skeptical of Lih's attempts to portray the Bolsheviks as a carbon copy of the pre-war SPD would be an understatement. Perhaps it is true that Lenin's dream was to turn the Bolsheviks into the SPD, but I'm not sure how much evidence there is that he actually succeeded.

I'm only about sixty pages into Lenin Rediscovered but I am making it a point to take it with a grain of salt as I have been told that he tactically leaves out information.

[CyM]

Fair enough, though I never claimed the revolution could have been exported at the end of a bayonet, I do see your point. But wouldn't this mean that the Bolsheviks were doomed from the start, and that a different model would be needed to help ignite international revolution, rather than just one national revolution in Russia? Also, if it was modeled after the SPD, and the success of the revolution ultimately laid in German workers' hands, why are we even looking to the Bolsheviks, shouldn't the SPD (pre WWI) be of more value to us?

You're going about this all wrong. The bolsheviks never wanted to be a national organization (all-russia would be the proper term, since there were so many nationalities in Russia).

The betrayal of the 2nd international left them isolated, and they had to build forward more or less alone. The Zimmerwald internationalists were their closest co-thinkers, but they were also isolated, and furthermore confused. Many of them would capitulate in the coming years

Then there are the real left internationally, people like Rosa and Karl in Germany, who agreed with the bolsheviks politically and broke with the opportunists eventually. Unfortunately, no one understood Lenin's method until it was too late. Rosa only began building a cohesive organization around the time she broke from the social democrats, after years of arguing against the need for one. Whereas Lenin had gathered a certain group around him far before the official break with the opportunists. And far before the revolution, more than a decade of preparing the cadres politically.

Rosa went into the german revolution with a group of young energetic communists who had zero experience and had only just broken with opportunism. She was outweighed by the ultraleft mood that gripped her youthful rank and file, and forced into an insurrection she believed was premature and a mistake. She died for that mistake, and so did the german revolution.

The problem was not that the bolsheviks "failed to export". The problem was that they were only able to build a new international after the revolution. Not enough countries had a bolshevik party.

Today, the task is to build an international with deep roots across the world, using the methods of the bolsheviks.

That is the only way to ensure the revolution spreads internationally.

[The Idler]

Wait, where'd The Idler go? Isn't s/he the one who started this thread?
Sorry will try to reply to some points.

[Left Voice]

While I don't quite agree with the force with which the author of the article in the first point makes his point, I think there is value in taking a step back and looking at the implications for today's working class.

To me, it's about relevance. Not relevance in the sense that discussions and understandings of Leninism has no role to play - indeed, it would be churlish to sweep this important element of revolutionary history under the rug. But relevance in the sense of how the modern working class identifies with this discussion. A discussion about such aspects of socialist history makes for fascinating reading for the likes of us, but the regular working class person is likely more concerned with putting food on the table, job security, being robbed of entitlements while bankers get paid public money in bailouts, LGBT rights, racism to name a few. In the face of the failure of capitalism and the increasing squeezing of the working class, it is the role of the revolutionary left to demonstrate the relevance of the left to the working class. This is even more imperative in the face of the rise of reactionary ideologies such as Golden Dawn. Understanding socialist theory and history is important if we're to have a basis on which to move forwards, but it's important not to get too hung up on the history of the Bolsheviks if the left is to maintain focus on the challenges of today.

As for the critique of the Leninist democratic-centralist party model, this is nothing new but the problems within the SWP right now suggest a complete breakdown of any democracy within the party. It is possibly not unreasonable to use this as grounds for a critique of democratic-centralism, but a potential creep towards oligarchy is hardly a problem exclusive to this party system.

[l'Enfermé]

To say that I'm skeptical of Lih's attempts to portray the Bolsheviks as a carbon copy of the pre-war SPD would be an understatement. Perhaps it is true that Lenin's dream was to turn the Bolsheviks into the SPD, but I'm not sure how much evidence there is that he actually succeeded.

Lih has made no such attempts at all and no one claims that he has, except for left-wing sectarians.

[Art Vandelay]

Lih has made no such attempts at all and no one claims that he has, except for left-wing sectarians.

Spot on. To say that Lih attempts to make the Bolsheviks out to be exactly like, or a 'carbon copy' as Ostrinski says, of the German SPD, is simply ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. The point is that the Bolsheviks weren't attempting to create a party of the 'new type,' as it goes in the Lenin myth, but rather were continuing on the organizational structures of the 2nd international, albeit adapted to Russia's conditions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, if it was modeled after the SPD, and the success of the revolution ultimately laid in German workers' hands, why are we even looking to the Bolsheviks, shouldn't the SPD (pre WWI) be of more value to us?

That's the comradely and strategic point that many posters here are having difficulties accepting.

Anyway, as a note for you, Ostrinski, and others: the "Bolshevism" of the first four Congresses of the Comintern is organizationally irrelevant to workers today, even when Lenin tries to stress parts of the SPD model (because it's now in a corrupted form). Even Old Bolshevism is organizationally irrelevant to proletarian demographic majorities. There's only one institutional model viable enough to adapt to modern circumstances.

[DasFapital]

dammit ismail! get in here and defend the gains of socialism against the revisionist slander!

[Astarte]

What remains relevant about Leninism is the need to A. arouse the mass political consciousness in the proletariat insofar as they realize that they have interests of their own part from capitalism on the basis of a collectivized system of property with the proletariat democratically planning the means of production; i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat and B. The need to do so on the platform of a MASS POLITICAL MOVEMENT of the proletariat as a class in alliance with the petty bourgeoisie ... I believe that in this day and age this is done primarily by waging the Gramscian 'war of position' - keep agitating and organizing among the proletarians - keep educating both the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie.

[Rocky Rococo]

This point is made repeatedly in the course of this discussion:


the fact that the RSDLP, was in fact based off of the German SPD which was tailored for Germany, one of the most industrialized capitalist countries in the world. to the point where I thought I'd research it. What I found was that in 1914, while Germany may indeed have been one of the most advanced industrial societies of its time, 35% of its population was still engaged in agriculture. (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWinGermany.htm)

For perspective (and this took a surprising amount of time to find), an example of a contemporary society where 35% of the workforce is in agriculture is the Philippines. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS)

[Ismail]

dammit ismail! get in here and defend the gains of socialism against the revisionist slander!What "gains of socialism" are being discussed? All I see is side A claiming that proletarian vanguards are bad, and side B claiming that proletarian vanguards are good. Anyone who advocates side A is wrong and will continue to tail movements like Occupy Wall-Street and other "spontaneous" endeavors, advancing no concrete goals and representing nothing in particular except themselves as individual "communists."

As for the first post, one would have to believe that vast majority of communists in Western Europe and North America from the founding of the Comintern in 1919 and onwards were adhering to something only operative "in largely agrarian Tsarist Russia," and that any other sort of effort to organize the working-class would have produced anything but worse results.

[RedSun]

What "gains of socialism" are being discussed? All I see is side A claiming that proletarian vanguards are bad, and side B claiming that proletarian vanguards are good. Anyone who advocates side A is wrong and will continue to tail movements like Occupy Wall-Street and other "spontaneous" endeavors, advancing no concrete goals and representing nothing in particular except themselves as individual "communists."

As for the first post, one would have to believe that vast majority of communists in Western Europe and North America from the founding of the Comintern in 1919 and onwards were adhering to something only operative "in largely agrarian Tsarist Russia," and that any other sort of effort to organize the working-class would have produced anything but worse results.

Spot on. History and the actual crisis itself proved that Lenin was right about his critic of the revolutionary spontaneity and the need of a vanguard party.

What many people fails to see is that Lenin conceived the Bolshevik party to capture the state through revolutionary means and not through electoral means. That is why he preferred a small revolutionary party over a mass party type.

[Art Vandelay]

This point is made repeatedly in the course of this discussion:

to the point where I thought I'd research it. What I found was that in 1914, while Germany may indeed have been one of the most advanced industrial societies of its time, 35% of its population was still engaged in agriculture. (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWinGermany.htm)

For perspective (and this took a surprising amount of time to find), an example of a contemporary society where 35% of the workforce is in agriculture is the Philippines. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS)

Once again, however, no one is claiming we should carbon copy the German SPD organizational model to modern material conditions...

[Art Vandelay]

Spot on. History and the actual crisis itself proved that Lenin was right about his critic of the revolutionary spontaneity and the need of a vanguard party.

What many people fails to see is that Lenin conceived the Bolshevik party to capture the state through revolutionary means and not through electoral means. That is why he preferred a small revolutionary party over a mass party type.

This simply has no grounding in reality.

[redredred]

Ignore that nastiness, Coup. You are right. We need to live in the present.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What remains relevant about Leninism is the need to A. arouse the mass political consciousness in the proletariat insofar as they realize that they have interests of their own part from capitalism on the basis of a collectivized system of property with the proletariat democratically planning the means of production; i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat and B. The need to do so on the platform of a MASS POLITICAL MOVEMENT of the proletariat as a class in alliance with the petty bourgeoisie ... I believe that in this day and age this is done primarily by waging the Gramscian 'war of position' - keep agitating and organizing among the proletarians - keep educating both the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie.

Excuse me? In alliance with the petit-bourgeoisie? What happened to class independence?

[Ostrinski]

Lih has made no such attempts at all and no one claims that he has, except for left-wing sectarians.Oh? His portrayal of Lenin as a tame liberal and firm proponent of the mass party can leave one fooled. Therefore our gratitude extends all that it can toward the grand wizards of social proletocracy for lighting ablaze that way which was once as dark as night.

[Ostrinski]

Spot on. To say that Lih attempts to make the Bolsheviks out to be exactly like, or a 'carbon copy' as Ostrinski says, of the German SPD, is simply ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. The point is that the Bolsheviks weren't attempting to create a party of the 'new type,' as it goes in the Lenin myth, but rather were continuing on the organizational structures of the 2nd international, albeit adapted to Russia's conditions.Motherfucker what? Intellectual dishonesty? Ignorance? How much of the book have you read?

[RedSun]

This simply has no grounding in reality.


You perhaps wanna look at the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in 1903 and particularly the membership issue between Lenin and Martov. I can provide sources to back this if you want.

[subcp]

Can anyone think of sources to compare SPD membership and organizational methodology to compare with the debate at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, where Lenin's organizational document is part of the appendix, and Martov's draft (MIA says that the final version is lost to history) is in the Organizational section of the Congress documents?

Is the distinction in 'card-carriers' vs politically mature and dedicated militants apparent at any time in the German SPD? It would appear that it is not based on the size and trajectory of the SPD. I've not yet anything from Lih, but from the talk of the 'party of a new type' as myth, I think the historical documents are the best chance at getting to the root of this.

The development of a minoritarian perspective of the communist minority does have a specific Bolshevik lineage (in my opinion), which went into the forming of the Third International and later into post-war communist organizations (not the official CP's). I think that is an important legacy of Bolshevism that is very applicable today- although how it was carried out in the past and what it became is not ideal in any way. So what do those who seem very learned on the pre-war SPD or those who read Lih's work and were convinced by it have about this?

[Rafiq]

In that, we must also recognize the failure of the German model in Germany.

Oh, should we? The German model (in Germany) was extremely effective, the SPD itself was extremely effective in building revolutionary consciousness. Indeed the failure in Germany was not a product of the german model, but a product of the renege of the second international, which was not a product of the organizational and tactical practices utilized by the SPD. If you are referring to the German revolution of 1919, better yet, the german model had already been abandoned.

[Rafiq]

What remains relevant about Leninism is the need to A. arouse the mass political consciousness in the proletariat insofar as they realize that they have interests of their own part from capitalism on the basis of a collectivized system of property with the proletariat democratically planning the means of production; i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat and B. The need to do so on the platform of a MASS POLITICAL MOVEMENT of the proletariat as a class in alliance with the petty bourgeoisie ... I believe that in this day and age this is done primarily by waging the Gramscian 'war of position' - keep agitating and organizing among the proletarians - keep educating both the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie.

What? The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class, even by the standards of the bourgeoisie! There are just as much, if not more of an obstacle that the revolutionary proletariat will have to face. Of course there are exceptions, for example, in the third world where the rural petite bourgeoisie may very well not be categorized as petite bourgeois but as remnants of feudalism, of the peasantry.

[Rafiq]

Oh? His portrayal of Lenin as a tame liberal and firm proponent of the mass party can leave one fooled. Therefore our gratitude extends all that it can toward the grand wizards of social proletocracy for lighting ablaze that way which was once as dark as night.

While the provocation is uncalled for, I've been reading the book and while Lih is correct on most occasions I do agree that there is a great failure in capturing the radical, revolutionary spirit within the Bolsheviks, one that separated them even from the pre-war SPD. A better question is this: Why must the mass party and this total, merciless revolutionary spirit (one that compelled Lenin to sympathize anarchists who were smeared by 2nd international figures) be incompatible?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rafiq, my only disappointment with Lih's gigantic work is that the subject of class independence wasn't discussed more thoroughly. Otherwise, I wouldn't see so much ignorance of the SPD's workers-only voting membership policy, especially in trying to adapt the SYRIZA model.


Can anyone think of sources to compare SPD membership and organizational methodology to compare with the debate at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, where Lenin's organizational document is part of the appendix, and Martov's draft (MIA says that the final version is lost to history) is in the Organizational section of the Congress documents?

I'm not sure about membership, and I'm also not sure about the entirety of organizational methodology. However, one key aspect of the latter is covered in Vernon Lidtke's The Alternative Culture. All the cultural societies, recreational clubs, and other worker institutions the SPD organized weren't mentioned by either Lenin or Martov in their rather isolated debate on "membership."


Is the distinction in 'card-carriers' vs politically mature and dedicated militants apparent at any time in the German SPD? It would appear that it is not based on the size and trajectory of the SPD.

Actually, there just might have been that distinction. While officially the definition of "membership" involved paying dues and being involved personally in party organizations, there were the basic questions of how frequently branch meetings were held and how frequently the card-carriers attended. It's not so much the "militants" but rather the cadres, activists, and full-timers.


The development of a minoritarian perspective of the communist minority does have a specific Bolshevik lineage (in my opinion), which went into the forming of the Third International and later into post-war communist organizations (not the official CP's).

Actually, that strategic minoritarianism continued on into the official CPs as well.

[Astarte]

What? The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class, even by the standards of the bourgeoisie! There are just as much, if not more of an obstacle that the revolutionary proletariat will have to face. Of course there are exceptions, for example, in the third world where the rural petite bourgeoisie may very well not be categorized as petite bourgeois but as remnants of feudalism, of the peasantry.

The petty bourgeoisie are a divided class. In revolutionary crisis situations they split - the bottom, more progressive layers go with the proletariat - the upper layers, which for example exploit wage labor and more so identify with the bourgeoisie ideologically will go with the big capitalists. The symbol of the hammer and sickle actually is even a symbol of the alliance between the proletariat and small peasantry - who were a petty land owning (petty bourgeois) class.

Let us examine a few excerpts from Lenin's State and Revolution for proofs of what Lenin himself believed the class nature of the revolutionary forces which were to dispose of capitalism would be:


In this connection, the following measures of the Commune, emphasized by Marx, are particularly noteworthy: the abolition of all representation allowances, and of all monetary privileges to officials, the reduction of the remuneration of all servants of the state to the level of "workmen's wages". This shows more clearly than anything else the turn from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to that of the oppressed classes, from the state as a "special force" for the suppression of a particular class to the suppression of the oppressors by the general force of the majority of the people--the workers and the peasants. And it is on this particularly striking point, perhaps the most important as far as the problem of the state is concerned, that the ideas of Marx have been most completely ignored! In popular commentaries, the number of which is legion, this is not mentioned. The thing done is to keep silent about it as if it were a piece of old-fashioned “naivete”, just as Christians, after their religion had been given the status of state religion, “forgot” the “naivete” of primitive Christianity with its democratic revolutionary spirit.


and again


Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, won't that be centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?

and so on


In Europe, in 1871, the proletariat did not constitute the majority of the people in any country on the Continent. A "people's" revolution, one actually sweeping the majority into its stream, could be such only if it embraced both the proletariat and the peasants. These two classes then constituted the “people”. These two classes are united by the fact that the "bureaucratic-military state machine" oppresses, crushes, exploits them. To smash this machine, to break it up, is truly in the interest of the “people”, of their majority, of the workers and most of the peasants, is "the precondition" for a free alliance of the poor peasant and the proletarians, whereas without such an alliance democracy is unstable and socialist transformation is impossible.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm#s2

Thus you see, if Lenin was referring to the peasantry as anything other than petty land owners i.e. petty bourgeois who do not exploit labor, but rather operate on a pre-capitalistic mode, he would not have said oppressed classes, but rather simply "oppressed class". It is clear that the proletariat is the hegemonic class in the social revolution against capitalism, but this is not to say that the other oppressed classes like the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie do not also play an auxiliary, supporting role - to think anything otherwise is stupid ultra-leftism and amounts to pushing and alienating potential class allies into the hands of the reactionary camp. It is ridiculous and only amounts to assinine and shallow accusatory rhetoric to think that an alliance between the proletariat and the most oppressed layers of the petty bourgeoisie in this day and age would somehow inhibit the class independence of the proletariat since they are today the largest class in most every society and even when they were only a minority class, as in Russia, at the vanguard of the revolution, and even still were in reality only semi-proletarians with a vanguard party leadership which overwhelmingly was socially derived from the petty bourgeoisie itself, it still managed to maintain its class independence in the situation of the DoP.

[subcp]

I'm not sure about membership, and I'm also not sure about the entirety of organizational methodology. However, one key aspect of the latter is covered in Vernon Lidtke's The Alternative Culture. All the cultural societies, recreational clubs, and other worker institutions the SPD organized weren't mentioned by either Lenin or Martov in their rather isolated debate on "membership."The reason this is so important is that it formed the basis of what is expected of an individual pro-revolutionary communist- a distinction which developed into a minoritarian perspective of the role of communists in the class struggle (albeit with many, many mistakes and bumps along the way throughout the 20th century). But if the SPD was the model, and there is all of this 'controversy' over texts like WITBD I am curious where these ideas come from, if it is from another source of inspiration and not a uniquely Bolshevik perspective. I'm operating under the assumption or understanding that it was originated in the socialist Russian's in exile community, specifically in the 2nd Congress debates between Lenin and Martov, which laid the basis for work by people like Pannekoek and Bordiga in the Third International, then picked up later by others.


1. A member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is one who accepts the Party’s programme, supports the Party financially, and renders it regular personal assistance under the direction of one of its organisations. - Martov's draft


1. A Party member is one who accepts the Party’s programme and supports the Party both financially and by personal participation in one of the Party organisations. - Lenin's draft

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/rules.htm

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/appendix.htm

We're on completely opposite 'sides' of that debate here (mass movement, 'class independence', minority party, etc.), however tracing this organizational form to the Bolsheviks is important to say there are aspects of Bolshevism which are relevant for contemporary communists (or if one is opposed to this idea, to argue this element of Bolshevism is not relevant).

[Art Vandelay]

Motherfucker what? Intellectual dishonesty? Ignorance? How much of the book have you read?

Quit acting like a dick towards me. The amount of flaming you've thrown my way lately is really unfit for a mod. Between this, randomly calling me 'motherfucker' for no apparent reason and allusions you made to me being a sociopath (promptly running away from the conversation and not addressing my point, showing how idiotic that comment was), you've appeared to grow some sort of grudge towards me. Which is fine, I don't really care, however I'm just uncertain where the animosity comes from, since we always seemed to be on good terms.

Now as to your actual question, I haven't read the entire book yet, since I haven't had to money to purchase it. What I have done, however, is to read the first chapter which is available for free online, read the summations of the work posted by comrades in the 'Lenin Re-discovered' user group (including the excellent summation by Grezner before his recent political shift) as well as watch the CPGB videos of Lih at communist university (of which there are 4, I am fairly certain but this is off of the top of my head) dealing with the organizational structure of the Bolsheviks, the relationship between Lenin and Kautsky, etc. On top of this, lately I have also been enjoying Paul LeBlanc talks from Communist University, roughly dealing with the same subject matter (although having slight disagreements with Lih). I've never claimed to be the most theoretically sound member of the board, but I am hardly talking out of my ass.

So how about you start dealing with the substance of what I am saying (or don't address it I don't care, but then just stop the flaming) and stop acting like a childish prick.

Edit: what is truly humorous about all of this, is that most of this animosity towards 'orthodox' Marxists is coming from former Kautsky revivalist themselves, the irony is palpable.

[Art Vandelay]

You perhaps wanna look at the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in 1903 and particularly the membership issue between Lenin and Martov. I can provide sources to back this if you want.

There was no split in 1903, but yes I know full well what you are referring to.

[RedSun]

There was no split in 1903, but yes I know full well what you are referring to.

I believe there was. The differentiation between the two trends born in that year at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP.

[Red Enemy]

Oh, should we? Yeah, I just said that.


The German model (in Germany) was extremely effective, the SPD itself was extremely effective in building revolutionary consciousness. Indeed the failure in Germany was not a product of the german model, but a product of the renege of the second international, which was not a product of the organizational and tactical practices utilized by the SPD. If you are referring to the German revolution of 1919, better yet, the german model had already been abandoned.In the beginning the SPD certainly was effective in building revolutionary consciousness! I do not doubt that.

However, certain failures in organization, and a underestimation of spontaneity, led to the party being overtaken by revisionist, reformist, and outright anti-Marxist elements. That revolutionary consciousness it attracted into it's membership soon stagnated, and non-revolutionary elements became prominent.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh? His portrayal of Lenin as a tame liberal and firm proponent of the mass party can leave one fooled. Therefore our gratitude extends all that it can toward the grand wizards of social proletocracy for lighting ablaze that way which was once as dark as night.
One would expect that you could have replied without flamebaiting me, in a comradely fashion. Why the hostility?

I don't know exactly where you're getting this "tame liberal" bullshit(Lenin Rediscovered is not some Ultra-left pamphlet filled with beautiful phrases and rhetoric about r-r-r-revoluton, it's a serious historical work, not political propaganda) from, but just consider this crap about Lenin not being a proponent of the mass-party. You're saying that Lenin was not in favour of mass-parties, even though, in history, he is most famous for being the leader of a political party which counted hundreds of thousands(and later, millions) of working-class communists in its ranks? Really? How many members does a political party have to have in order to qualify as a "mass-party"? 20 million? 30? 50?

Come on, comrade.


Motherfucker what? Intellectual dishonesty? Ignorance? How much of the book have you read?
That's uncalled for.

[l'Enfermé]

I believe there was. The differentiation between the two trends born in that year at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP.
He means that there were no separate parties until around 1917.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We're on completely opposite 'sides' of that debate here (mass movement, 'class independence', minority party, etc.), however tracing this organizational form to the Bolsheviks is important to say there are aspects of Bolshevism which are relevant for contemporary communists (or if one is opposed to this idea, to argue this element of Bolshevism is not relevant).

OK, but Lenin here wanted to adopt the SPD's rules on membership. Keep in mind that all the Iskra folks knew all too well what the SPD did to prevail over something called the Anti-Socialist Laws.

[Le Socialiste]

Lenin was far from an organizational fetishist; his conception of these models and methods were heavily dependent on the conditions of whatever period the party developed in. Thus clandestine methods of organization were given priority in times of severe repression and illegality, but by and large abandoned as inapplicable during revolutionary periods. Were the Bolsheviks influenced by the historical relevance of the SPD model? Undoubtedly, as many on the revolutionary left were. But to say Lenin and co. sought a carbon copy (as some comrades have argued) isn't altogether true.

[Le Socialiste]

Motherfucker what? Intellectual dishonesty? Ignorance? How much of the book have you read?

What is this? Seems a little uncalled for...:confused:

[Red Enemy]

What is this? Seems a little uncalled for...:confused:
He called Comrade Ostrinski "intellecutally dishonest".

It was a warranted response.

[Art Vandelay]

He called Comrade Ostrinski "intellecutally dishonest".

It was a warranted response.

Well he was entirely distorting my opinion...

[Art Vandelay]

What is this? Seems a little uncalled for...:confused:

Ostrinski has got beef with me for some reason; something about being a mindless DNZ drone or something like that.

[Le Socialiste]

Regardless of what caused it, Ostrinski's response felt...excessive. That said, I hold both him and 9mm to be valued contributors to this board; it's unfortunate that this is occurring between them. In any event, can we agree to perhaps deal with this outside the current thread (maybe PMs would suffice as an alternative)?

[Art Vandelay]

Regardless of what caused it, Ostrinski's response felt...excessive. That said, I hold both him and 9mm to be valued contributors to this board; it's unfortunate that this is occurring between them. In any event, can we agree to perhaps deal with this outside the current thread (maybe PMs would suffice as an alternative)?

I've already addressed him through VM's. Unless he has any more insults to hurl my way, I consider the matter resolved.

[subcp]

He means that there were no separate parties until around 1917

Is this exclusively argued by Lih, or is it a commonly held historical perspective (from certain tendencies or groups)? It's just that many sources claim that the differences that began in 1903 built until around 1912 when a definitive split happened (and both main factions maintained the name RSDLP(m) and (b) as distinct organizations). The 'original sin' in 1903 and 1912 split are definitive aspects of certain 'communist creation stories' regarding the lineage of post-war and contemporary organizations- where certain concepts come from.


OK, but Lenin here wanted to adopt the SPD's rules on membership. Keep in mind that all the Iskra folks knew all too well what the SPD did to prevail over something called the Anti-Socialist Laws.

Of course domestic conditions were an important part of practical organizational methods- I'm just not sure that it is apt to call widely believed (or accepted) histories of Bolshevism/left socialism that led to the Third International myths or to bury them/throw them out because it wasn't what the historical actors may or may not have wanted to do in their time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Were the Bolsheviks influenced by the historical relevance of the SPD model? Undoubtedly, as many on the revolutionary left were. But to say Lenin and co. sought a carbon copy (as some comrades have argued) isn't altogether true.

Excuse me? Who on this board or amongst the historian community is suggesting that Old Bolshevism sought a carbon copy of the SPD?

[Le Socialiste]

Excuse me? Who on this board or amongst the historian community is suggesting that Old Bolshevism sought a carbon copy of the SPD?

What's with the 'excuse me'? Have you been genuinely insulted or surprised by my comment? If so tone it down comrade. ;)1

When I say the Bolsheviks weren't a carbon copy of the SPD, I'm referring to what I've perceived to be an underlying emphasis on the latter's organizational impact on the former; that is, that the two closely resembled each other. I simply don't hold that to be true. Regardless of intent the Bolsheviks did not grow to become the Russian answer to the SPD - something which, I'd argue, aided them greatly as an organization. It's certainly true that members like Lenin and others were greatly influenced by Kautsky and Plekhanov, drawing upon their tradition, but I think there's a tendency to overstate this influence - especially prior to the events of 1917.

[Art Vandelay]

What's with the 'excuse me'? Have you been genuinely insulted or surprised by my comment? If so tone it down comrade. ;)1

When I say the Bolsheviks weren't a carbon copy of the SPD, I'm referring to what I've perceived to be an underlying emphasis on the latter's organizational impact on the former; that is, that the two closely resembled each other. I simply don't hold that to be true. Regardless of intent the Bolsheviks did not grow to become the Russian answer to the SPD - something which, I'd argue, aided them greatly as an organization. It's certainly true that members like Lenin and others were greatly influenced by Kautsky and Plekhanov, drawing upon their tradition, but I think there's a tendency to overstate this influence - especially prior to the events of 1917.

I am fairly sure my comrades utterance of 'excuse me' was due to the fact that some in this thread, have attempted to paint, those with our political persuasions, with a broad stroke; emphasizing the fact that our conviction is that the Bolsheviks were a 'carbon copy' of the German SPD. While this is not your opinion, it has been the stated opinion of others in this thread. Once again I stand by my prior statement, that those who characterize 'orthodox' Marxists as such, are simply ignorant to the positions articulated, or else being intellectually dishonest. Your argument, however, does not fall under said category.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's with the 'excuse me'? Have you been genuinely insulted or surprised by my comment? If so tone it down comrade. ;)

I did feel genuinely insulted, but I'll cool off. :)

[rednordman]

Ffs! this is a forum dedicated to left wing politics yet people are championing the idea of "burying" the best ever and most successful attempt at producing a communist society in human history so far. Sure they did some things very badly wrong but who the fuck are any of you people to suggest better? all i see on this web forum is a whole league of self righteous assholes basically agreeing with everything america and the rest of the west has told you. Thus you will only ever produce something that the rest of the world could destroy easily...hundreds of miles easier than they did with Bolshevism.

[The Idler]

The argument against "suggesting anything better" made to the Russian socialist movement in 1903 would have buried Bolshevism before it even started. Unless however you are arguing Bolshevism was a broad continuation of Social Democracy under specific Russian conditions which somehow I think you are not.

You trap yourself with your own argument.

Incidentally, the argument that the rest of the world defeated Bolshevism is a Reaganite myth. Don't be so gullible as to believe everything America and the West tell you!

[hashem]

no non Bolshevik tendency has ever lead a successful revolution. all of significant communist activities which gained mass support were guided by Bolshevism and failed or became corrupted when they abandoned it.

these facts cant be accidental.

[The Idler]

No but they are ahistorical, since no Bolshevik tendency had ever lead a successful revolution when it was formed in 1903. Would that have been a valid argument against Bolshevism then?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Which revolution was the successful one again?

[Art Vandelay]

Which revolution was the successful one again?

The ones which lead to the only successful implementations of a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, ie: Paris Commune, October Revolution.

Now obviously they ended in tragic failure (for reasons those coming from an un-materialist paradigm are unable to grasp), so I personally wouldn't call them successful (I'm assuming he's an M-L); but I'm guessing you knew exactly what he meant and were just making an attempt at humor.

[MarxArchist]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition.

Yes but Lenin and much of the subsequent theory/practice which is based on his attempts in Russia, in my opinion, are what need to be criticized if not almost completely left to history.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The ones which lead to the only successful implementations of a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, ie: Paris Commune, October Revolution.

The Paris Commune implemented genuine dictatorship of the proletariat? As far as I am aware they didn't even colectivise.

[Art Vandelay]

The Paris Commune implemented genuine dictatorship of the proletariat? As far as I am aware they didn't even colectivise.

Sorry to just drop quotes on you, but I'm to lazy to write anything substantive at the moment, so I'll just leave you with some thoughts on the matter, from Freddy:


Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


The Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts—administrative, judicial, and educational—by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And, in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates [and] to representative bodies, which were also added in profusion.


The State is at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Sorry to just drop quotes on you, but I'm to lazy to write anything substantive at the moment, so I'll just leave you with some thoughts on the matter, from Freddy:

But those still don't answer my questions!

[Geiseric]

But those still don't answer my questions!

Well collectivization happened in Russia after the N.E.P. was in effect for a decade, however by your definition during the N.E.P. there ceased to be a dotp. The commune came around as a result of a revolution, whichmakes it a DotP in the same way that revolutionary france (the first revolution) was a Dot bourgeoisie and early proletariat, who may of not had time to distribute the aristocracy's land at first.

[Geiseric]

Which revolution was the successful one again?

Until the revolution was isolated, in the mid to late 1920s, the Russian revolution was successful in establishing and maintaining the first state that was the result of direct workers democracy. The fSU was the result of a workers revolution, they couldn't get rid of the stuff that was won until the 1990s.

[Art Vandelay]

But those still don't answer my questions!

I'm sorry. Could you list your questions for me?

[vanukar]

Well collectivization happened in Russia after the N.E.P. was in effect for a decade, however by your definition during the N.E.P. there ceased to be a dotp. The commune came around as a result of a revolution, whichmakes it a DotP in the same way that revolutionary france (the first revolution) was a Dot bourgeoisie and early proletariat, who may of not had time to distribute the aristocracy's land at first.

It's kind of silly from both a Marxist and a historical viewpoint to say that the French Revolution succeeded in establishing a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." There was no conscious effort by the French bourgeoisie to create a state of their own, it just happened as a result of the actions of the French masses.