Who were the great revolutionary strategists?

[CatsAttack]

Lenin and others point out Danton but I really can't find anything written by him. Can someone recommend a book?

Obviously Trotsky was the foremost authority on revolutionary strategy in the 20th century but were there other less noteworthy strategists?

And I'm not looking for head-scratching bumpkins like Che Guevara, I'm looking for actual authority figures, no matter their political persuasion.

[Vostok17]

I am going to read Nikolai Chernyshevky' s "What Is To Be Done?" because it inspired Lenin. The book is not regarded as a great literary work (even by Chernyshevsky) but, has value for its practical vision.

[Brutus]

August Blanqui

[Hit The North]

Lenin and others point out Danton but I really can't find anything written by him. Can someone recommend a book?


I don't think danton is noted for his written work. Project Guttenberg list only one text, in French, Discours Civiques. Lenin was a big fan but I couldn't recommend any particular book about him.


Obviously Trotsky was the foremost authority on revolutionary strategy in the 20th century but were there other less noteworthy strategists?

Um, Lenin? Try Gramsci, who had a keen concern with strategy and tactics.


And I'm not looking for head-scratching bumpkins like Che Guevara, I'm looking for actual authority figures, no matter their political persuasion.
Given your fetish for leaders, why not try Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Tito, Ho Chi Minh?

Btw, Engels' military writings are highly regarded as a source for revolutionary tactics. MIA hosts them here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/war/).

[ComradeOm]

I am going to read Nikolai Chernyshevky' s "What Is To Be Done?" because it inspired Lenin. The book is not regarded as a great literary work (even by Chernyshevsky) but, has value for its practical vision.You may be disappointed. WITBD? (the novel) was never a practical handbook to revolution but a study of the revolutionary personality. Or at least one vision of it

[CatsAttack]

I don't think danton is noted for his written work. Project Guttenberg list only one text, in French, Discours Civiques. Lenin was a big fan but I couldn't recommend any particular book about him.



Um, Lenin? Try Gramsci, who had a keen concern with strategy and tactics.

Given your fetish for leaders, why not try Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Tito, Ho Chi Minh?

Btw, Engels' military writings are highly regarded as a source for revolutionary tactics. MIA hosts them here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/war/).

When it comes to revolutionary strategy its Trotsky > Lenin by miles and miles.

Gramsci was a goon. Stalin wasn't a revolutionary, Mao was a bigger bumpkin than Che, don't know about Hoxha, Tito was a loser, Ho Chi Ming was never a strategist, none of the people you listed were. Good call on Engels but it's a bit on the nose, don't you think?

[Geiseric]

I wouldn't call Gramsci a goon, he wouldn't of had a chance to carry out anything he wrote though. Clausewitz wasn't a revolutionary leader but he's wicked smart.

[ind_com]

Trotsky was such a great revolutionary strategist that he gave out the initially set date for uprising to the enemy in a fit of boasting.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I know Lenin and Kautsky had interest in Clausewitz, who was obviously not a leftists but I guess had some interesting insights in military writings.
I haven't read Clausewitz myself though, so I wouldn't be able to tell you if he still has value today.

[Geiseric]

Trotsky was such a great revolutionary strategist that he gave out the initially set date for uprising to the enemy in a fit of boasting.

Do you know how democratic centralism functions? And obviously whatever he did worked.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Do you know how democratic centralism functions? And obviously whatever he did worked.

What does Democratic Centralism have to do with this?

[ind_com]

Do you know how democratic centralism functions? And obviously whatever he did worked.

Gem.

[Ismail]

Che and Mao were educated men, but both did hold anti-Marxist ideas on strategy and tactics.

For what it's worth, Hoxha was never accused of making bad strategic or tactical decisions during the National Liberation War. Albania was the only country in Eastern Europe that the Red Army had no hand in liberating, and the only one which avoided a coalition government. Hoxha played a direct role in preventing the latter, since there were elements inside the Party and the Front that wanted such a thing.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Mao was a bigger bumpkin than Che, don't know about Hoxha, Tito was a loser

Erm, are we talking about the same Mao that repelled 3 encirclement campaigns, defeated the Japanese, and then defeated the KMT afterwards?

Doesn't sound like a bumpkin to me

[The Idler]

Trotsky was so great that Trotskyism never captured state political power anywhere.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Trotsky was so great that Trotskyism never captured state political power anywhere.

Marxism was so great that capitalism wasn't overthrown anywhere.

(See how the argument does not make sense? I'm not defending Trotsky either)

[CyM]

Trotsky was such a great revolutionary strategist that he gave out the initially set date for uprising to the enemy in a fit of boasting.

Source?

[The Idler]

Marxism was so great that capitalism wasn't overthrown anywhere.

(See how the argument does not make sense? I'm not defending Trotsky either)
Overthrowing capitalism is not a strategy.

[ind_com]

Source?

Here is what Stalin wrote in 1939.


At a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky in a fit of boasting blabbed to the enemy the date on which the Bolsheviks had planned to begin the armed uprising. In order not to allow Kerensky's government to frustrate the uprising, the Central Committee of the Party decided to start and carry it through before the appointed time, and set its date for the day before the opening of the Second Congress of Soviets. - Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)


This is indicated by Lenin's letter to the central committee of the party written on 19th October, 1917, in which he condemns Kamenev and Zinoviev.


Dear Comrades,

No self-respecting party can tolerate strike-breaking and blacklegs [Scabs—Transcriber] in its midst. That is obvious. The more we reflect upon Zinoviev's and Kamenev's statement in the non-Party press, the more self-evident it becomes that their action is strike-breaking in the full sense of the term. Kamenev's evasion at the meeting of the Petrograd Soviet is something really despicable. He is, don't you see, in full agreement with Trotsky: But is it so difficult to understand that in the face of the enemy, Trotsky could not have said, he had no right to say, and should not have said more than he did? Is it so difficult to understand that it is a duty to the Party which has concealed its decision from the enemy (on the necessity for an armed uprising, on the fact that the time for it is fully ripe, on the thorough preparations to be made for it, etc.), and it is this decision that makes it obligatory in public statements to fasten not only the "blame", but also the initiative upon the adversary? - Lenin, Letter to the Central Committee of the RSDLP(B).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Che and Mao were educated men, but both did hold anti-Marxist ideas on strategy and tactics.

For what it's worth, Hoxha was never accused of making bad strategic or tactical decisions during the National Liberation War. Albania was the only country in Eastern Europe that the Red Army had no hand in liberating, and the only one which avoided a coalition government. Hoxha played a direct role in preventing the latter, since there were elements inside the Party and the Front that wanted such a thing.

Yes, very well put. However: don't you see that Che, Mao and all the other relatively successful third world Communists were successful precisely because Marxist, Proletarian revolutionary strategies had not yet reached their historic relevancy in these places? that the independent political position of the Proletariat, for which the Marxists have always fought for, would not have a strong enough material basis in the industrially underdeveloped countries, in order to actually enact truly "correct" independent proletarian rule and Communism? I don't see how anti-marxist "tactics" can be of any concern to us. We Communists do what we must do in any situation of crisis that occurs, in order to keep history moving forward. Naturally this entails allying with class alien, backward peasant and petty-bourgeois, elements in order to secure civilization and democracy which capitalism regularly threatens.

In the good fortune of Communists in the advanced capitalist countries in Europe and America (where the concrete majority of the population are propertyless and wage dependent), we have the chance, and indeed the duty, to form and perfect the democratic internal function of an independently proletarian mass Party, not to make the same mistakes which the 20th century showed us. A Party which can, in a future time of revolutionary Crisis, securely take on the economic, social and military responsibilities of taking State power and governing a country, in the confidence of knowing it has the unified support of the left.

Have you seen the petty bickering which the bourgeois parties everywhere in the west are going through? Look at the antagonistic petty attitude Republican politicians show towards the black US President, look at the tensions between the two governing coalition Parties of Germany. The Bourgeoisie is so divided that as a result of its visibly divisive social rule, we are seeing strange reactionary primitivist, neo-fascist, crypto-fascist, neo-feudal and cultist utopian movements which will fill in this space if the left does not move towards a common Class program. 'Class Politics!' not 'Left Politics'.

[connoros]

When it comes to revolutionary strategy its Trotsky > Lenin by miles and miles.


Which is why so many Trotskyite parties have managed to wrest state power away from the national bourgeoisie in so many countries.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Which is why so many Trotskyite parties have managed to wrest state power away from the national bourgeoisie in so many countries.

Honestly, there are no Trotskyist parties, not in the usual sense. There is a varying number of sects, bureaucratic cults, propaganda groups and publishing centres that sometimes call themselves parties, but remain far below the level of the original Left Opposition (which was hardly a party itself).

Of course, this doesn't exactly let us off the hook. Trotskyism has an unfortunate history that has inculcated a culture of almost psychotic sectarianism and mass-party posturing (or, conversely, reformism and de facto popular frontism) in many Trotskyist groups.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Honestly, there are no Trotskyist parties, not in the usual sense. There is a varying number of sects, bureaucratic cults, propaganda groups and publishing centres that sometimes call themselves parties, but remain far below the level of the original Left Opposition (which was hardly a party itself).

Of course, this doesn't exactly let us off the hook. Trotskyism has an unfortunate history that has inculcated a culture of almost psychotic sectarianism and mass-party posturing (or, conversely, reformism and de facto popular frontism) in many Trotskyist groups.

That is why I say: fuck Trotsky, fuck Stalin and all other worker leaders of the 20th century. It's time for independent proletarian politics. Eurocentrism and Westerncentrism FTW.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Even if we dispense with "arguments" over certain historical leaders - and I would very much like to do that, debating whether Trotsky's or Stalin's was bigger gets us nowhere, and misses the point of Trotskyist (or Marxist-Leninist) politics - the theoretical questions that led to the division will remain. Capitalism, for example, is either a global mode of production, or a global system resulting in various regional modes of production. The revolution either develops continuously or its course can be broken into discrete stages. It would really be nice if we could discuss these issues without people fuming over certain (very unfortunate) historical events, of course. But the division would remain.

Also, the current sorry state of the Trotskyist movement is really the result of objective circumstances (the same circumstances that have resulted in, for example, a numerically very small - albeit very agreeable, if I might compliment my ideological adversaries - Maoist movement in Russia). These circumstances have mostly passed, but the culture that has resulted from them needs to be broken...

[Lenin1986]

Mao Zedong, General Zhukov, Fidel Castro, General Giap, Carlos Marighella, Carl von Clausewitz are great revolutionary strategists

[Hit The North]

General Zhukov wasn't a revolutionary strategist; he was a professional soldier in a state army.

[CatsAttack]

Trotsky was such a great revolutionary strategist that he gave out the initially set date for uprising to the enemy in a fit of boasting.


Source?


Here is what Stalin wrote in 1939.



This is indicated by Lenin's letter to the central committee of the party written on 19th October, 1917, in which he condemns Kamenev and Zinoviev.

"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."

- J. Stalin

[Ismail]

And Trotsky once said (to his American supporter Max Eastman) that Stalin was a "brave and sincere revolutionary" shortly after Lenin died.

[TheIrrationalist]

Mao Zedong, General Zhukov, Fidel Castro, General Giap, Carlos Marighella, Carl von Clausewitz are great revolutionary strategists

Of course Clausewitz isn't revolutionary strategist but his ideas were revolutionary.

[Desy]

I am going to read Nikolai Chernyshevky' s "What Is To Be Done?" because it inspired Lenin. The book is not regarded as a great literary work (even by Chernyshevsky) but, has value for its practical vision.

Wasn't V.I Lenin the author of 'What is to be done?'

[Ismail]

Wasn't V.I Lenin the author of 'What is to be done?'From no less a source than the 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

In his novel What Is to Be Done? (1862–63), Chernyshevskii described the lives of new types of persons—the “rational egoists,” who live by their own labor, lead a new kind of family life, and disseminate the ideas of socialism in practice. Among Chernyshevskii’s characters are Rakhmetov, the first professional revolutionary in Russian literature, and Vera Pavlovna, a progressive Russian woman who devotes her life to socially useful work. The novel popularized the ideas of women’s equality and artel production; foretelling the victory of the people’s revolution and depicting the coming society, the book was a synthesis of Chernyshevskii’s sociopolitical, philosophical, and ethical views and provided a practical plan of action for progressive youth. Published in the Sovremennik in 1863 because of careless censorship, the novel had a great effect on Russian society and contributed to the education of many revolutionaries.

[....]

K. Marx and F. Engels studied the works of Chernyshevskii and called him a “great Russian scholar and critic” and a “socialist Lessing” (Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 23, p. 18; vol. 18, p. 522). V. I. Lenin believed that Chernyshevskii had “made a great stride forward as compared with Herzen. Chernyshevskii was a far more consistent and militant democrat, his writings breathing the spirit of the class struggle” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 25, p. 94). Compared to the other pre-Marxist thinkers, Chernyshevskii came closer to scientific socialism. Because of the backwardness of Russian life, he was not able to attain the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels, but according to Lenin he was “the only really great Russian writer who, from the fifties until 1888, was able to keep on the level of an integral philosophical materialism” (ibid., vol. 18, p. 384).
Obviously Lenin titled his work in honor of Chernyshevsky.

[Lenin1986]

General Zhukov wasn't a revolutionary strategist; he was a professional soldier in a state army.

Zhukov was a revolutionary strategist. He and others came up with strategy's for different battles against the Nazi's. Zhukov and another man planned the Stalingrad counteroffensive which ended up decimating the German 6th Army.

[Brutus]

Zhukov was a revolutionary strategist. He and others came up with strategy's for different battles against the Nazi's. Zhukov and another man planned the Stalingrad counteroffensive which ended up decimating the German 6th Army.

By your logic General Montgomery is a revolutionary strategist.

[Ismail]

Zhukov was a revolutionary strategist. He and others came up with strategy's for different battles against the Nazi's. Zhukov and another man planned the Stalingrad counteroffensive which ended up decimating the German 6th Army.I'm pretty sure "revolutionary strategist" in the context of this thread is referring to strategists of revolution and not those who made great innovations in war strategy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Who were the great revolutionary strategists?

Enver Hoxha and Felix Dzerzhinsky.

[Lenin1986]

By your logic General Montgomery is a revolutionary strategist.

In the context I was thinking of General Montgomery would be. I was thinking along the lines of military strategy. I would see what General Zhukov achieved through his strategy's to be revolutionary. The Nazi army was armed with far superior weapons than the Red army. But yet the Red army defeated the Nazi's and General Zhukov played a major part in defeating the Nazi's.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll cast a vote for August Bebel in this thread, assuming this isn't about military strategy.

If it's about military strategy, my vote goes to Mikhail Frunze. He was ahead of Trotsky and Zhukov by miles.

[CyM]

Dear Comrades,

No self-respecting party can tolerate strike-breaking and blacklegs [Scabs—Transcriber] in its midst. That is obvious. The more we reflect upon Zinoviev's and Kamenev's statement in the non-Party press, the more self-evident it becomes that their action is strike-breaking in the full sense of the term. Kamenev's evasion at the meeting of the Petrograd Soviet is something really despicable. He is, don't you see, in full agreement with Trotsky: But is it so difficult to understand that in the face of the enemy, Trotsky could not have said, he had no right to say, and should not have said more than he did? Is it so difficult to understand that it is a duty to the Party which has concealed its decision from the enemy (on the necessity for an armed uprising, on the fact that the time for it is fully ripe, on the thorough preparations to be made for it, etc.), and it is this decision that makes it obligatory in public statements to fasten not only the "blame", but also the initiative upon the adversary? - Lenin, Letter to the Central Committee of the RSDLP(B).

I just noticed this reply.

What disgusting slander against Trotsky to present this quote this way. It is a manipulation of the truth. Lenin wrote this letter against Zinoviev and Kamenev. The quote you used comes from the fact that Trotsky had denied that a date had been set in a public speech, because he could not do otherwise and had to for secrecy make the offensive look like a defensive insurrection, and Kamenev then said he agreed with every word trotsky said. Basically, kamenev knew that trotsky was only saying this for security, and used the opportunity to use it to push his view against the insurrection, knowing full well that trotsky could not respond to him without blowing the cover.



Kamenev’s letter was a direct declaration of war against the Central Committee, and that, too, upon a question upon which nobody was joking. The situation immediately became extraordinarily acute. It was complicated by several other personal episodes having a common political source. At a session of the Petrograd Soviet on the 18th, Trotsky, in answer to a question raised by the enemy, declared that the Soviet had not set the date for an insurrection in the coming days, but that if it became necessary to set one, the workers and soldiers would come out as one man. Kamenev, sitting next to Trotsky in the præsidium, immediately arose for a short statement: He wanted to sign his name to Trotsky’s every word. That was a cunning ruse. Whereas Trotsky was juridically screening a policy of attack with a speciously defensive formula, Kamenev tried to make use of Trotsky’s formula – with which he was in radical disagreement – in order to screen a directly opposite policy.

In order to annul the effect of Kamenev’s manoeuvre, Trotsky said on the same day in a speech to the All-Russian Conference of Factory and Shop Committees: “A civil war is inevitable. We have only to organise it as painlessly as possible. We can achieve this not by wavering and vacillation, but only by a stubborn and courageous struggle for power.” All understood that those words about waverings were directed against Zinoviev, Kamenev and their colleagues.

Besides that, Trotsky referred the question of Kamenev’s speech in the Soviet to investigation by the next session of the Central Committee. In the interval Kamenev, desiring to free his hands for agitation against the insurrection, resigned from the Central Committee. The question was taken up in his absence. Trotsky insisted that “the situation created is absolutely intolerable,” and moved that Kamenev’s resignation be accepted. [2]

Sverdlov, supporting Trotsky’s motion, read a letter of Lenin branding Zinoviev and Kamenev as strikebreakers for their declaration in Gorky’s paper, and demanding their expulsion from the party. “Kamenev’s trick at the session of the Petrograd Soviet,” writes Lenin, “was something positively vile. He is in complete accord, says he, with Trotsky! But is it hard to understand that Trotsky could not, had no right, to say before the enemy any more than he did say? Is it hard to understand that ... a decision as to the necessity of an armed insurrection, as to the fact that it is fully ripe, as to its all-sided preparation, etc. ... makes it necessary in public speeches to shoulder off not only the blame, but also the initiative, upon the enemy ... Kamenev’s trick was plain petty cheating ...”

[Geiseric]

Honestly, there are no Trotskyist parties, not in the usual sense. There is a varying number of sects, bureaucratic cults, propaganda groups and publishing centres that sometimes call themselves parties, but remain far below the level of the original Left Opposition (which was hardly a party itself).

Of course, this doesn't exactly let us off the hook. Trotskyism has an unfortunate history that has inculcated a culture of almost psychotic sectarianism and mass-party posturing (or, conversely, reformism and de facto popular frontism) in many Trotskyist groups.

If they do those things they're not any more marxist than the numerous stalinoids in the bay area who are not really doing anything, but still outnumber the group I'm in. The later is actually mobilizing people for mass actions though which is the difference main difference between internet phillistines and marxists.

[Comrade Jacob]

Che and Mao.

[boiler]

Mao, Castro and Dzerzhinsky

[Tower of Bebel]

I'll cast a vote for August Bebel in this thread
I would call him a tactician instead of a strategist. Strategy wise his ideas came from Marx, Engels, (Liebknecht) and Lassalle. He was a brilliant interpreter and executor of their strategic presuppositions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would call him a tactician instead of a strategist. Strategy wise his ideas came from Marx, Engels, (Liebknecht) and Lassalle. He was a brilliant interpreter and executor of their strategic presuppositions.

Comrade, who inspired and pioneered German Social Democracy's Alternative Culture, then? Lassalle's ADAV was a political agitation machine (at least a purely political one, not a strike-ist one) and not much else. The IWMA didn't organize solidarity networks or what not.

[Art Vandelay]

My personal favorite revolutionary strategist is Lenin. I'll always have a certain affinity for Trotsky, given his ability as an orator and writer (two skills I especially admire) however Lenin was the ultimate factor during October. He not only held off right wing elements within the party, but also premature attempts by Trotsky at seizing state power. The amount of patience he displayed during October is astounding.

[Tower of Bebel]

Comrade, who inspired and pioneered German Social Democracy's Alternative Culture, then? Lassalle's ADAV was a political agitation machine (at least a purely political one, not a strike-ist one) and not much else. The IWMA didn't organize solidarity networks or what not.
While reading "Our goals" (1869), I came to the conclusion that the alternative culture policy of the early SPD was probably not a very conscious decision. August Bebel practically combined the liberal self-help societies with Lassalle's agitational drive for an independent party. But I'm not intirely sure. I still have a lot of reading to do.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, but what the liberals shied away from was using their self-help societies as vehicles for their own political "evangelism."

I guess what separates Bebel from comrades like us is that we now have more evidence to actively advocate such a decision as part of a strategic framework.

[Bea Arthur]

If you are a Trotskyist with any principles, you'd have to say Stalin. According to them, his leadership at the helm of the Red Army helped to engineer the revolutionary creation of over a half dozen workers states at the end of World War II. That's a lot more than Lenin or Trotsky.

As for me, I would have to say Bakunin.

[Brutus]

The agitation of Bakunin (and his followers) did lead to the initiation of many revolutions, but they were soon crushed. In spite of this, I'll have to agree with you on Bakunin. Stalin was a talented strategist during the civil war but the best thing he did in WW2 was to leave it to the generals.

[Volcanicity]

Castro and Dzerzhinsky

Yeah, I have all their books!

[Goblin]

Lenin and Trotsky. Though Fidel was a fine strategist as well.

[Brutus]

Lenin and Trotsky. Though Fidel was a fine strategist as well.

The Foco theory has only worked in one country- it has failed wherever else it has been used. It is hardly an example of strategic ingenuity.

[Tower of Bebel]

Yes, but what the liberals shied away from was using their self-help societies as vehicles for their own political "evangelism."

I guess what separates Bebel from comrades like us is that we now have more evidence to actively advocate such a decision as part of a strategic framework.
The political framework and one hell of a succesful approach of "combined arms". That, my friend, is his legacy. Because the co-ops were there, the trade unions were developing, universal suffrage was implemented; but who made the best use of it? The German "Marxists" a.k.a the Bebel-Liebknecht group, as opposed to both the not-so-political liberals and the sectarian Lassalleans ;)