Was Lenin a blanquist?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The question is in the title. I haven't really bothered with reading anything by Lenin all that much (comes of as a collection political ideologues, propositions and propaganda, from my glances) so I'm not one to comment, but many people commonly seem to suggest that Lenin supported a coup de tat by a radical working-class minority to 'lead' the masses to revolution, while many others attack this claim viciously.

Sorry if the question is simplistic, but I didn't really want to beat around the bush on the crux of what I was curious about.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Blanqui, even though he was without a doubt a genuine revolutionary, was an elitist who saw the masses of the oppressed only as an army to be regimented and commanded by a revolutionary elite. Whereas Lenin advocated a revolutionary vanguard - not a command element but an advanced detachment, who would lead by persuasion and example and thus spread socialist consciousness. A lot of people confuse the two, though.

[Creative Destruction]

Blanqui, even though he was without a doubt a genuine revolutionary, was an elitist who saw the masses of the oppressed only as an army to be regimented and commanded by a revolutionary elite. Whereas Lenin advocated a revolutionary vanguard - not a command element but an advanced detachment, who would lead by persuasion and example and thus spread socialist consciousness. A lot of people confuse the two, though.

I've admired a lot of Lenin's ideas and writings, but this is where I break with him. The reason why people "confuse" the two is because the idea of a bunch of self-appointed "professional revolutionaries" leading the people to liberation is an inherently elitist idea. I'd like to say, though, that isn't necessarily a value judgement. But Leninsts should cop to that at least if they're serious about their ideas regarding a vanguard party.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've admired a lot of Lenin's ideas and writings, but this is where I break with him. The reason why people "confuse" the two is because the idea of a bunch of self-appointed "professional revolutionaries" leading the people to liberation is an inherently elitist idea. I'd like to say, though, that isn't inherently a value judgement. But Leninsts should cop to that at least if they're serious about their ideas regarding a vanguard party.

Well, vanguards are not self-appointed. Sure, anyone can proclaim themselves to be the vanguard of the proletariat. But in order to act as the vanguard element, or a part of it, a group needs to carry out untiring political work that will resonate in broad strata of the workers and the oppressed.

Furthermore, vanguards are only elitist if you consider any notion that a group of workers has a higher consciousness than the rest of the working strata elitist. But, well, that's the reality of uneven development. But vanguards, unlike the charicature, do not seek to dragoon the rest of the class (indeed, at times they are not even formally organised).

[Aleister Granger]

No

[Geiseric]

I've admired a lot of Lenin's ideas and writings, but this is where I break with him. The reason why people "confuse" the two is because the idea of a bunch of self-appointed "professional revolutionaries" leading the people to liberation is an inherently elitist idea. I'd like to say, though, that isn't necessarily a value judgement. But Leninsts should cop to that at least if they're serious about their ideas regarding a vanguard party.

So basically if anybody other than yourself is in charge you're not okay with it, even if they're voted in, because they're part of the "self appointed" professional revolutionaries, who are doing all of the work in mobilizing the working class? Is "self appointed" another word for "organized people who work to mobilize the working class"? Because the bolsheviks were kinda voted in to the soviets, and were the only party who didn't call for the restoration of the bourgeois congress. No wonder the Kronstadters main demand was "soviets without the bolsheviks," because that would basically mean "soviets without the people who were voted in as leaders of the soviets."

[Sea]

Oh for the love of god. Did you even bother to use the search function? We've had this debate before. The result was a consensus that Lenin wasn't a Blanquist IIRC.

Carrying on the same debate over and over will not make Lenin retroactively become a Blanquist either.
The question is in the title. I haven't really bothered with reading anything by Lenin all that much (comes of as a collection political ideologues, propositions and propaganda, from my glances) so I'm not one to comment, but many people commonly seem to suggest that Lenin supported a coup de tat by a radical working-class minority to 'lead' the masses to revolution, while many others attack this claim viciously.

Sorry if the question is simplistic, but I didn't really want to beat around the bush on the crux of what I was curious about.If you think you'll get a better answer by starting a shitstorm on RevLeft than you would from becoming familiar with Lenin's life and work even at a cursory level, you're just being silly.

Also, why did you dismiss Lenin's writing as a bunch of "political ideologues [sic], propositions and propaganda"? Marx's work could easily be dismissed as the same with just as much inaccuracy, by someone who refuses to even bother with it beyond a glance!

Take, for instance, Lenin's State and Revolution. In this work, Lenin details what (according to him) the nature and role of the revolutionary state ought to be. Call it what you may, this is a rather crucial question in Marxism, and Lenin's answer should give you a good starting point in determining weather or not he was a Blanquist.

[Art Vandelay]

words

Since you mentioned it, I figured I might as well drop a link to one of the older threads which dealt with exactly this topic. Hopefully it can save some time and avoid alot of pointless polemics. I didn't look through it but, but given the time difference, I'm pretty sure anything I posted in it, would probably make me cringe now. Also, regardless of your criticisms of Lenin and 'Leninism,' the charge of blanquism (which I honestly don't think ever really existed as a revolutionary current, outside of a few decades in 19th century France, but certainly not by the 20th century and in Russia), is simply demonstrably false.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/charge-blanquism-against-t171367/index.html?t=171367&highlight=lenin+blanquist

[Sea]

But this has been a pretty good discussion so far, I will chime in tomorrow when I have more time. I hope it gets some more good posts and is not a shit storm by the time I am back. *cringe*

I really remember that thread being longer than just two pages. Maybe it's only because I have the forum set to show a buttload of posts per page..

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The "difference" between Blanqui and Lenin seems fair - Lenin certainly led a revolution which was a mass popular movement, not a conspiracy. However, the the Communist Party which was "building a socialist society" in the 30s was conspiratorial, against the peasants, any workers who wanted to organize independently, and its own members. Starving the Ukraine, killing Trotsky in Mexico, sending the majority of the Bolshevik party to Siberia and the forced relocation of "problematic ethnic groups" (to name a few Soviet policies of the 30s) were not instituted by the "working class" but by a conspiracy at the top. Even if the revolution of 1917 was not a "Blanquist" movement, it does seem that at a certain point in time the Soviet government committed to "building" socialism shared that Blanquist unaccountability to the workers they claim to be representing. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, the "Politburo" had become synonymous with political machinations and conspiracies instigated by Nomenklatura who were completely alienated from the regular workers living in the USSR.

Eventually, practically speaking, the vanguard party was in no small way alienated from the working class it was to lead. I'm not arguing that it was Lenin or that he supported this style of governance, but there was something about the way the Bolshevik party functioned, its lack of accountability to the worker's soviets, and its lack of public transparency at some point after the revolution which seemed to have the same consequence in the long term. Perhaps these later political problems in the USSR are the source of the idea that Lenin was a "Blanquist"

[Popularis]

Blanqui, even though he was without a doubt a genuine revolutionary, was an elitist who saw the masses of the oppressed only as an army to be regimented and commanded by a revolutionary elite. Whereas Lenin advocated a revolutionary vanguard - not a command element but an advanced detachment, who would lead by persuasion and example and thus spread socialist consciousness. A lot of people confuse the two, though.
You are actually hilariously wrong, most likely because you have never read whatever is available of Blanqui's writings or even a biography of the man. Blanqui was a republican of the most radical variety, an egalitarian and a committed communist. To accuse him of elitism is akin to accusing Karl Marx of Monarchism.

Lenin, in 1917, I believe:

To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. This is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted, and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism

It's telling that the Bolsheviks' only objection at being called Blanquists was "we are not Blanquists' because the Blanquists' revolutionary tactics were crude", and not "we are not Blanquists' because the Blanquists' were elitist/had no faith in the masses/weren't communist enough/whatever".

[CyM]

The "difference" between Blanqui and Lenin seems fair - Lenin certainly led a revolution which was a mass popular movement, not a conspiracy. However, the the Communist Party which was "building a socialist society" in the 30s was conspiratorial, against the peasants, any workers who wanted to organize independently, and its own members. Starving the Ukraine, killing Trotsky in Mexico, sending the majority of the Bolshevik party to Siberia and the forced relocation of "problematic ethnic groups" (to name a few Soviet policies of the 30s) were not instituted by the "working class" but by a conspiracy at the top. Even if the revolution of 1917 was not a "Blanquist" movement, it does seem that at a certain point in time the Soviet government committed to "building" socialism shared that Blanquist unaccountability to the workers they claim to be representing. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, the "Politburo" had become synonymous with political machinations and conspiracies instigated by Nomenklatura who were completely alienated from the regular workers living in the USSR.

Eventually, practically speaking, the vanguard party was in no small way alienated from the working class it was to lead. I'm not arguing that it was Lenin or that he supported this style of governance, but there was something about the way the Bolshevik party functioned, its lack of accountability to the worker's soviets, and its lack of public transparency at some point after the revolution which seemed to have the same consequence in the long term. Perhaps these later political problems in the USSR are the source of the idea that Lenin was a "Blanquist"
I think it is quite a leap to go from "I'm not saying this was lenin" to "there was something about bolshevism that led to this.

I think it's best to stick to the topic at hand rather than drag in a criticism of bolshevism to try to equate it with stalinism and then to also slur blanqui by calling that blanquism.

Blanqui was a revolutionary who exaggerated the role of conspiracy in the revolution and underestimated the role of the masses. But every revolution has an element of conspiracy. Actually the closest things to blanquism are the black bloc and guerrillaism, not bolshevism.

As for stalinism, it is telling that the entire bolshevik party leadership was murdered by Stalin. So any attempt to link the two is absurd.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You are actually hilariously wrong, most likely because you have never read whatever is available of Blanqui's writings or even a biography of the man. Blanqui was a republican of the most radical variety, an egalitarian and a committed communist. To accuse him of elitism is akin to accusing Karl Marx of Monarchism.

In Blanqui's period, republicanism, egalitarianism and communism were often espoused by elitist, conspiratorial societies, such as those led by Babeuf and Buonarroti, both of which influenced Blanqui. And actually, I have read a few texts by Blanqui. This elitist, conspiratorial orientation is apparent in all of them - even in his most democratic ones, such as the "Manual for an Armed Insurrection".


Lenin, in 1917, I believe:

[...]

It's telling that the Bolsheviks' only objection at being called Blanquists was "we are not Blanquists' because the Blanquists' revolutionary tactics were crude", and not "we are not Blanquists' because the Blanquists' were elitist/had no faith in the masses/weren't communist enough/whatever".

Did you even read the quote? It states, in the first sentence, that insurrections must not rely on conspiracies and conspiratorial societies, as Blanqui advocated.

[Geiseric]

I think it is quite a leap to go from "I'm not saying this was lenin" to "there was something about bolshevism that led to this.

I think it's best to stick to the topic at hand rather than drag in a criticism of bolshevism to try to equate it with stalinism and then to also slur blanqui by calling that blanquism.

Blanqui was a revolutionary who exaggerated the role of conspiracy in the revolution and underestimated the role of the masses. But every revolution has an element of conspiracy. Actually the closest things to blanquism are the black bloc and guerrillaism, not bolshevism.

As for stalinism, it is telling that the entire bolshevik party leadership was murdered by Stalin. So any attempt to link the two is absurd.

I don't think that he meant there was a link insomuch as the bolsheviks didn't really do outreach to most minority groups, which led to what seemed like unaccountable behavior, such as what happened in Georgia with the red army invasion led by Stalin himself, as well as some excesses on the part of the red army which weren't systematic, but still happened.

[CyM]

I don't think that he meant there was a link insomuch as the bolsheviks didn't really do outreach to most minority groups, which led to what seemed like unaccountable behavior, such as what happened in Georgia with the red army invasion led by Stalin himself, as well as some excesses on the part of the red army which weren't systematic, but still happened.
What are you talking about?

This really comes from nowhere. The bolsheviks had a very good policy on the national question and were even criticized (wrongly) by Rosa Luxembourg for going so far as to defend the right of nations to self determination up to and including the right to independence should they choose it. A huge part of the cadres were minorities. And the instigator of the Georgian crime was a Georgian, stalin.

Lenin was furious over this. This incident convinced him of the need to open a struggle against Stalin which he fell ill and could not finish.

Lenin's testament (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm)

And this remains completely irrelevant to the discussion of blanquism like I said before. If we want to discuss what caused the degeneration, we can, but it should be done elsewhere, because it was certainly not blanquism.

[Geiseric]

What are you talking about?

This really comes from nowhere. The bolsheviks had a very good policy on the national question and were even criticized (wrongly) by Rosa Luxembourg for going so far as to defend the right of nations to self determination up to and including the right to independence should they choose it. A huge part of the cadres were minorities. And the instigator of the Georgian crime was a Georgian, stalin.

Lenin was furious over this. This incident convinced him of the need to open a struggle against Stalin which he fell ill and could not finish.

Lenin's testament (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm)

And this remains completely irrelevant to the discussion of blanquism like I said before. If we want to discuss what caused the degeneration, we can, but it should be done elsewhere, because it was certainly not blanquism.

The Bolsheviks did have a good national policy during the civil war, but how do you explain the plans for a transcaucasian SSR though? That project was a massive failure and many people died because of the centralism in Moscow which developed due to partially the conditions inherited from czarism. Stalin was also a russophile as well as dzherinsky.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think it is quite a leap to go from "I'm not saying this was lenin" to "there was something about bolshevism that led to this.

I think it's best to stick to the topic at hand rather than drag in a criticism of bolshevism to try to equate it with stalinism and then to also slur blanqui by calling that blanquism.

Blanqui was a revolutionary who exaggerated the role of conspiracy in the revolution and underestimated the role of the masses. But every revolution has an element of conspiracy. Actually the closest things to blanquism are the black bloc and guerrillaism, not bolshevism.

As for stalinism, it is telling that the entire bolshevik party leadership was murdered by Stalin. So any attempt to link the two is absurd.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Yeah, Bolshevism and Blanquism aren't the same by any standard, but something happened between 1917 and 1937 (or, if you're one of those "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists", 1987) that led the Bolshevik party to fall into conspiratorial politics that were alienated from the proletariat, even if Lenin articulated a different theory. It was that conspiratorial political model that got them killed during the years of Stalin. Even if those old Bolsheviks did have the support of the working class, it didn't matter because some people in the Politburo wanted them dead, and by that point, the Politburo and not the working class ran the state.

What I'm arguing is that the Bolshevik began to express some of the same flaws over time, even if their method for instigating a revolution and organizing the working class was far from that style of politics.

[Devrim]

No wonder the Kronstadters main demand was "soviets without the bolsheviks," because that would basically mean "soviets without the people who were voted in as leaders of the soviets."

The Kronstadt mutineers never raise the demand "soviets without the Bolsheviks".

You just seem to make up more and more stuff by the day.

Devrim

[CyM]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Yeah, Bolshevism and Blanquism aren't the same by any standard, but something happened between 1917 and 1937 (or, if you're one of those "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists", 1987) that led the Bolshevik party to fall into conspiratorial politics that were alienated from the proletariat, even if Lenin articulated a different theory. It was that conspiratorial political model that got them killed during the years of Stalin. Even if those old Bolsheviks did have the support of the working class, it didn't matter because some people in the Politburo wanted them dead, and by that point, the Politburo and not the working class ran the state.

What I'm arguing is that the Bolshevik began to express some of the same flaws over time, even if their method for instigating a revolution and organizing the working class was far from that style of politics.
You're really grasping for straws here comrade.

There is a difference between the "conspiratorial methods" of blanqui and bureaucratic clique politics. One is the method of "revolutionary heroes" disconnected from the mass of the working class (black bloc anarchists and guerrillaism) and the other is the method of a rising counterrevolutionary clique attempting to establish a niche for itself and needing to kill the entire bolshevik party leadership to guarantee it.

You are dragging this in by the hair. Stalin and the party he created, which killed the bolsheviks, is irrelevant to this question. Let's go back to topic please, not everything has to be a tendency "at any price". An interesting question has quickly become reduced to the same old discussion.

[CyM]

The Bolsheviks did have a good national policy during the civil war, but how do you explain the plans for a transcaucasian SSR though? That project was a massive failure and many people died because of the centralism in Moscow which developed due to partially the conditions inherited from czarism. Stalin was also a russophile as well as dzherinsky.
You'll have to be more specific than that I'm afraid. There was a lot that happened in that SSR, none of which shows a disdain for minorities on the part of the bolsheviks. As for Stalin's attitude towards them and georgia in particular, I have dealt with that previously.

Either way, I am considering asking BOZG to split this thread, because this whole discussion remains irrelevant to the question of blanquism. Not every thread needs to be taken as an opportunity to blame the bolsheviks for the crimes of stalinism, let's stick to the topic at hand.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You're really grasping for straws here comrade.

There is a difference between the "conspiratorial methods" of blanqui and bureaucratic clique politics. One is the method of "revolutionary heroes" disconnected from the mass of the working class (black bloc anarchists and guerrillaism) and the other is the method of a rising counterrevolutionary clique attempting to establish a niche for itself and needing to kill the entire bolshevik party leadership to guarantee it.

You are dragging this in by the hair. Stalin and the party he created, which killed the bolsheviks, is irrelevant to this question. Let's go back to topic please, not everything has to be a tendency "at any price". An interesting question has quickly become reduced to the same old discussion.

Except I already differentiated between the "conspiratorial methods" of Blanqui and bureaucratic clique politics. Clearly Lenin didn't conspire to initiate a revolution without working class participation on the streets. What I'm saying is that somehow that Bolshevik party of 1917 with its democratic credentials became the party of Stalin and Brezhnev. I'm not "grasping at straws" I'm trying to see how a genuine mass movement turned into a party based around elite conspiracies anyways. If you're an anti-Stalinist, you can't deny that it's what happened to the Bolshevik party, and it happened in some point of history (perhaps after Lenin died? even then it still happened). IMO we need to analyze the "Vanguard" model to see if it creates space for a different but equally conspiratorial kind of politics after the revolution. Not to reject the vanguard model necessarily but to avoid making the same mistake twice. It's too easy to just blame everything on a "Stalinist counter-revolution" while ignoring the structural problems that made space for that "counter-revolution".

[Geiseric]

Except I already differentiated between the "conspiratorial methods" of Blanqui and bureaucratic clique politics. Clearly Lenin didn't conspire to initiate a revolution without working class participation on the streets. What I'm saying is that somehow that Bolshevik party of 1917 with its democratic credentials became the party of Stalin and Brezhnev. I'm not "grasping at straws" I'm trying to see how a genuine mass movement turned into a party based around elite conspiracies anyways. If you're an anti-Stalinist, you can't deny that it's what happened to the Bolshevik party, and it happened in some point of history (perhaps after Lenin died? even then it still happened). IMO we need to analyze the "Vanguard" model to see if it creates space for a different but equally conspiratorial kind of politics after the revolution. Not to reject the vanguard model necessarily but to avoid making the same mistake twice. It's too easy to just blame everything on a "Stalinist counter-revolution" while ignoring the structural problems that made space for that "counter-revolution".

But all the vanguard means is "the people doing the revolution." There was a vanguard in the paris commune, it was the working class who wanted to execute the ministers and royalty, and who got rid of private property. Mathematically there is no revolution without a vanguard. Lenin and Marx differentiated from the communards by perfecting the vanguard model by making it clear that the parties interests are one and the same with the working class, and that a clear theory for what is to be done after the seizure of power is a necessity. They made it clear that knowlege has to be spread through the entire working class by its most revolutionary sections, which isn't supposed to be led by a minority, otherwise the commune which was sold out by its leaders would happen again.