What is to be Done, Marxist-Leninists and reformism

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

In Lenin’s What is to be Done, much is made of how the proletariat must avoid ‘spontaneity’ as this leads to trade unionism, and thus the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie, i.e. trade unionist reformism plays into the hands of the capitalist state. This seems to me to be contrary to the reformist policies followed by pretty much all Marxist-Leninist factions.

I can see that the ‘vanguard’ is somehow supposed to take care of the political welfare of the proletariat and prevent them from blindly following their trade unionist consciousness, but I can’t see any evidence of this happening now. In fact, the trade unions are affiliated to the neoliberal Labour Party in the UK. Am I missing something?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, the SPGB considers any action except election propaganda for the SPGB to be reformism, so of course every single socialist group that is not the SPGB turns out to be "reformist" under such criteria.

Lenin never claims that the proletariat should "avoid spontaneity" (what would that even mean?), but that spontaneous action by those segments of the proletariat that have not been organised into a socialist party can, at best, result in trade-union consciousness, unlike economists who expect full class consciousness to arise from purely economic, spontaneous struggles.

[vizzek]

Lenin never claims that the proletariat should "avoid spontaneity" (what would that even mean?), but that spontaneous action by those segments of the proletariat that have not been organised into a socialist party can, at best, result in trade-union consciousness, unlike economists who expect full class consciousness to arise from purely economic, spontaneous struggles.

Which was proven wrong by his very own revolution. to think that in this day and age the proletariat can only achieve "trade union consciousness" on its own is ridiculous and not backed up by anything.

[Marxaveli]

I think about the 'trade union consciousness' question a lot, and I am still unsure. Ultimately, I think workers can go beyond TUC without the use of a vanguard. I look at myself as an anecdote, in that I obtained class consciousness (if purely by chance) through my education, when I discovered Marx in a political philosophy class and was fascinated with his work, so I did further investigating and ultimately became a communist. But this means little, because its just that: anecdotal. How do we achieve this on a much larger scale so we can organize ourselves into a political force? I think about this quite often, and I am still unsure, and haven't even come close to being able to outline a possible cohesive model for a solution. I would like to hear from more knowledgeable comrades.

Sometimes when I see all the extreme false consciousness around me, like people calling Obama a socialist, I can't help but think that maybe Lenin was right after all. Yet as an Orthodox Marxist, I can't bring myself to support a vanguard, because it is just too elitist in my opinion (even if that isn't the case in appearance, it still is in essence).

[Comrade #138672]

I think about the 'trade union consciousness' question a lot, and I am still unsure. Ultimately, I think workers can go beyond TUC without the use of a vanguard. I look at myself as an anecdote, in that I obtained class consciousness (if purely by chance) through my education, when I discovered Marx in a political philosophy class and was fascinated with his work, so I did further investigating and ultimately became a communist. But this means little, because its just that: anecdotal. How do we achieve this on a much larger scale so we can organize ourselves into a political force? I think about this quite often, and I am still unsure, and haven't even come close to being able to outline a possible cohesive model for a solution. I would like to hear from more knowledgeable comrades.

Sometimes when I see all the extreme false consciousness around me, like people calling Obama a socialist, I can't help but think that maybe Lenin was right after all. Yet as an Orthodox Marxist, I can't bring myself to support a vanguard, because it is just too elitist in my opinion (even if that isn't the case in appearance, it still is in essence).Did your own research involve reading the work from a lot of leading Marxists, who worked very hard to spread their revolutionary work?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Which was proven wrong by his very own revolution.

How?

[Dave B]

There is considerably misunderstanding or misrepresentation about ‘What Is To Be Done’ was about, or more to the point what it is was arguing against.

First of all it was mostly concerned about the political tactics in Russia re Marxists and what they should do.

It was arguing against a trend called ‘economism’ which seemed to ‘mostly’ attract those on the ‘Menshevik’, or to be ,‘Menshevik’ wing of the party.

The ‘Bolsheviks’ had their own variant of it apparently.

The Economists

The ‘economists’ didn’t like ‘Lenin’s’ stagiest theory ie that the primary objective of theoretically enlightened Marxists was to work for the overthrow of feudalism and the Tsar in Russia and to facilitate the introduction of capitalism.

In fact the ‘Menshevik economists’ then didn’t like Lenin’s stagiest theory any more than modern neo Leninists do today.

The Menshevik ‘economists’ couldn’t stomach the ‘paradox’ of telling the workers that what they needed to do was put the capitalist class in political power in Russia.

Or to put it another way 'to say' that that was inevitable as part of the Marxist theory of economic development etc etc.

Not that these ‘economists’ rejected the Marxist theory, it was more about what to do about it.

The ‘economists’ position was to let the inevitable replacement of feudalism and the Tsar by the capitalist stage look after itself; after all it was inevitable.

And concentrate on supporting trade union struggles and immediate economic demands of the workers in capitalism under feudalism/ the Tsar.

For the anti old Leninist ‘economists’ the workers under Tsarist Russia and later after the ‘democratic revolution’ would ‘spontaneously’, in a gradual way, arrive at same level of understanding in their own way, through ‘trade union struggles’, without and in spite of the intelligentsia that had already obtained that ‘knowledge’, in advance, from reading Marx’s books.

So the ‘economists’ position was let the ‘historical process’ take its ‘natural course’ and just support the working class in its own immediate (economic) aspirations.

And leave out the awkward theoretical considerations about the necessity for the full development of mature capitalism before communism was possible, and for that matter what communism was.

For Lenin and his 'anti economist' Bolsheviks that was why it was important to have a centralised control of the party by a theoretical elite of book reading intellectuals.

Because a democratic populist grass roots party in feudal Russia might get side tracked by a ‘working class struggle economic, contra, capitalist class party’ and loose sight of the immediate ‘political’ necessity in Russia of displacing feudalism with full blooded capitalism.

Something that could only be appreciated by theoretical Marxists and a fraction of the advanced Russian working class.


It is ironic that allegedly, from this admittedly very narrow perspective, that the virulently anti Leninist SPGB seems to have more in common with old Leninism than its more modern version.

In the sense that the SPGB is accused of placing more emphasis on ‘theory’ and what communism is, and even the theory of stageism itself etc.

But once feudalism is cast off and unfettered capitalism is in place however the stageist model becomes redundant and the SPGB didn’t operate under feudalism.


The Narodniks, Left SR’s and Anarchists

There was another viewpoint in Russia, re the above, that a ‘socialist revolution’ was possible in feudal Russia.


A position retrospectively adopted by modern neo leninists.

This in fact was even more virulently opposed by Lenin than the ‘what ever will be, will be’ and let the ‘capitalist revolution look after itself’ approach of the ‘Menshevik’ economists.


So in summary modern neo Leninists are a composite of anathemas to old Leninism, an amalgam of Narodism/anarchism re what was possible in Russia.

And modern neo-Leninism’s ‘spontaneous’ development of consciousness through ‘economic struggle’ over and against ‘theoretical’ understanding.

Although neo-Leninism has accommodated the idea of an elite ‘theoretical’ understanding in wishing to direct, presumably, the ‘spontaneous’ development of consciousness through ‘economic struggle’.

Nothing is black and white, but the SPGB turns on its head the Bernstien position; where he concludes his conclusion and as a synopsis of his whole position.


“To me that which is generally called the ultimate aim of socialism is nothing, but the movement is everything”,For the SPGB the ‘ultimate aim of socialism is everything’.

I will ‘appreciate’ anyone, these days, who dares to speak of the ‘ultimate aim of socialism’.

Even, in desperation, those like Lenin, who proposed to arrive at it by the gradual reform of state capitalism.

On stageism;

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm


In 1918 Lenin flipped to a fusion of SR ‘spontaneity’ position


If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated.

For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme.

Some Social-Democrats, who are inclined to yield to spontaneity, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole. The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel the Social-Democratic Party in such a position to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself……….
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm


And the Bernstien one of reforming state capitalism in an evolutionary way, or building socialism.

As the menshevik Trotsky predicted in his last missing chapter of ‘Our Political Tasks.’.


There were rightwing and leftwing economists, some of the rightwing economists, who were also founders of the Russian SDLP, took a pro capitalist viewpoint that is not that dissimilar to the one that is generally attributed to the ‘Mensheviks’.

The SPGB position right or wrong, is that of Engels in 1895;



The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul.


The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work that we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm#n449

.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

Thanks Dave.


Did you actually read What is To Be Done or did you pull that off of wikipedia?

I've only had time to skim read What is to be Done. I'll give it a more thorough read through when I've finished Capital Vol 1.

[Q]

Thanks Dave.



I've only had time to skim read What is to be Done. I'll give it a more thorough read through when I've finished Capital Vol 1.

My advise would be to dive into "Lenin Rediscoverd - What is to be done? in context (http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Rediscovered-Context-Historical-Materialism/dp/1931859582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369690786&sr=8-1&keywords=lenin+rediscovered)" (lol, Amazon seems to have a bug, listing the paperback at $1700 :lol: ).

[Tower of Bebel]

In Lenin’s What is to be Done, much is made of how the proletariat must avoid ‘spontaneity’ as this leads to trade unionism, and thus the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisieAu contraire. Lenin applauds the sponanious outbursts of the working class. He even gives examples of class conscious workers who use these spontaneous outbursts to start organising. Lenin's problem is formed by the social democrats who stick with it, who tail the movement.


I can see that the ‘vanguard’ is somehow supposed to take care of the political welfare of the proletariat and prevent them from blindly following their trade unionist consciousness, but I can’t see any evidence of this happening now.Unlike the popular interpretation of WITBD, Lenin does not believe workers are inherently reformist, trade unionist or bourgeois. Spontaneous outbursts rather tend to follow the route of least resistance. When the bourgeois state crumbles (wars, ....) , this can equally have a revolutionary outcome. The task of the social democrat of WITBD was to use that power. Not to divert but to use it.


Am I missing something?What do you mean by reformist policies of Marxist-Leninists in the first place? To me the problem is not that they work in trade unions that are affiliated to Labour. My problem is that many don't seem able to formulate demands that represent a bridge between between now and the futur. Many don't dare to pose the question of who owns the means of production, let alone the question of power. Some say "tax the rich" as a means to solving the crisis. But you can't solve the crisis if it's inherent to the system, and taxing won't make the rich lose their power.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

My advise would be to dive into "Lenin Rediscoverd - What is to be done? in context (http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Rediscovered-Context-Historical-Materialism/dp/1931859582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369690786&sr=8-1&keywords=lenin+rediscovered)" (lol, Amazon seems to have a bug, listing the paperback at $1700 :lol: ).

A little out of my price range. Listed on Amazon UK at £1,965. :lol:

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

Au contraire. Lenin applauds the sponanious outbursts of the working class. He even gives examples of class conscious workers who use these spontaneous outbursts to start organising. Lenin's problem is formed by the social democrats who stick with it, who tail the movement.

I probably should have finished reading WITBD before posting :)


What do you mean by reformist policies of Marxist-Leninists in the first place? To me the problem is not that they work in trade unions that are affiliated to Labour. My problem is that many don't seem able to formulate demands that represent a bridge between between now and the futur. Many don't dare to pose the question of who owns the means of production, let alone the question of power. Some say "tax the rich" as a means to solving the crisis. But you can't solve the crisis if it's inherent to the system, and taxing won't make the rich lose their power.

In my view, reforms appease the working class to keep them happy and working, which oils the wheels of the capitalist system. That is not to say that I don't think workers should improve their working conditions, of course they should. I just think that mixing calls for reforms within an overall revolutionary agenda muddies the water, and dilutes the revolutionary aims. Even if revolutionary groups working for reforms don't lose sight of the ultimate aim of the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system, the workers supporting those revolutionary groups may not even be aware of what the ultimate aim is.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Which was proven wrong by his very own revolution.



It wasn't 'his' revolution.

'He' wasn't even in Russia when it was happening.

The fact you believe that the bonapartist myth of great leader Lenin 'proved "his" revolution wrong' is fairly generalistic. What about other factors? The multi-imperialistic "civil war" in which every developed country in the world fed the White Russian military machine? The fact that Russia was left isolated from the rest of the world right up until after world war II? The fact that millions upon millions of Russian workers were slaughtered in the years between 1920 and 1940?

The fact that movements were brutally shut down in countries like Hungary and Germany, and that from the Soviet Unions' depths were now emerging capitalist classes from the farms and countrysides?

Nope. Clearly there were no other factors to this conflict. It was all the fault of the Great master Lenin, and thus this means that communism fails.

[Dear Leader]

Organization without spontaneity is useless. Spontaneity without organization is useless.

End of story.

[vizzek]

It wasn't 'his' revolution.

'He' wasn't even in Russia when it was happening.

The fact you believe that the bonapartist myth of great leader Lenin 'proved "his" revolution wrong' is fairly generalistic. What about other factors? The multi-imperialistic "civil war" in which every developed country in the world fed the White Russian military machine? The fact that Russia was left isolated from the rest of the world right up until after world war II? The fact that millions upon millions of Russian workers were slaughtered in the years between 1920 and 1940?

The fact that movements were brutally shut down in countries like Hungary and Germany, and that from the Soviet Unions' depths were now emerging capitalist classes from the farms and countrysides?

Nope. Clearly there were no other factors to this conflict. It was all the fault of the Great master Lenin, and thus this means that communism fails.

great job misinterpreting my post completely...maybe next time it would be a good idea for you to look at the context before passing judgement and coming off like a pompous ass.

my point was that the russian working class had already gone militant before the bolsheviks and other left parties could even get their acts together. lenin's rhetoric did a 180, as he realized that the soviets represented a real vehicle for proletarian revolution in russia. it was certainly not "his" revolution as if he controlled and directed it, but it was attributed to his name (my original point).