How is Marxism-Leninism "bourgeois"?

[Broviet Union]

I am not a proponent of Bolshevism, obviously, but I tend to see it as a fundamentally misguided attempt to establish a socialist society as opposed to anything bourgeois.

[tuwix]

First of all, I don't think Leninism has much to do with Marxism. The term Marxism-Leninism is used only to amplify intellectually Leninism. But Leninism don't have much to do with Marxism because Marxism says about socializing means of productions, but Leninism nationalize them.

Secondly, nationalizing of production mean's caused a creation of new upper class which was new bureaucracy. The bureaucracy was a real owner of production mean's. They took a position of new bourgeoisie. And this is why Leninism can be considered as bourgeois

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't regard Leninism as contrary to Marxism. Marxism likewise holds that the means of production will be nationalised by a workers' state. Leninism does not differentiate from this. I would say that Bolshevist practice is, in fact, contrary to Leninism. I do not regard Leninism as "bourgeois".

I do regard Marxism-Leninism, or Stalinism, and all subsequent developments that germinated from this political tradition as a sort of bourgeois-socialism. While they uphold, to one extent or another, the advocacy of a socialist society, they do so to a larger extent through the prism of a bourgeois paradigm (as opposed to Marxist analysis, which they seek to marry with their implicit bourgeois paradigm). Consequently, they reconcile socialism with bourgeois concepts such as the nation-state, monetary-commodity exchange, heads of state, etc. They frequently uphold such bourgeois concepts, for instance in referring to Syria, they call for the respect for its national sovereignty and claim Assad to be the legitimate head of state.

[reb]

It's bourgeois because it served the interest of a bourgeois state. Everything about it is about serving this bourgeois state from the revisionist idea that commodity production, wage labor and classes exist in the lowest stage of communism, to it's policy on imperialism, it's ideas revolving around the state, the party and class relationship and so on. It has nothing to do with marxism beyond using it as rhetoric. Stalinists are just apologists for this capitalist state, from it's suppression of the working class, to the atrocities committed by it's army, it's reinforcement of bourgeois relations, torture and murder. Stalinists are just social-democratic capitalists at the best of times with their constant appeals to the stalinist welfare state.

[reb]

Marxism likewise holds that the means of production will be nationalised by a workers' state.

"Marxism" as a dogmatic ideology does say that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Marxism-Leninism" was a term created and used by the Stalinist bureaucracy after Lenin's death to justify its parasitical and exploitative nature. Because this system had nothing to do with neither Marxism nor Leninism (Bolshevism), it is often called Stalinism instead of "Marxism-Leninism." Stalinism, as counterrevolutionary as it was, vehemently fought against other proletarian revolutions (China (1925-27), Spain, Eastern Europe (after WW2), and more), and brought the USSR itself to capitalism right before WW2. It can't be considered anything but counterrevolutionary and bourgeois.

[Le Socialiste]

There is nothing inherently bourgeois about Leninism, nor can it be explained away as a vulgar revision - or deviation - from Marxism. Of course, it helps to differentiate between non-Stalinist Leninism (Bolshevism) and the more recognized mantra of Marxism-Leninism, which essentially sought to tie in and formalize Stalinism as the logical successor to the Marxist tradition. These two terms, it must be said, represent two widely divergent strands of thought. Whereas Leninism may be considered a continuation of Marxism with its twin emphases on forming a revolutionary countercurrent against the devastation(s) wrought under capitalism and commitment to revolution, Stalinism traces its origin back to the initial upswell of internal counterrevolutionary currents of the period - many of which arose out of the stagnation and failures of radical movements abroad. What revolutionary figures like Lenin, Luxemburg, et al. understood was that the working-class remained the only true vehicle through which the total transformation of society could be successfully achieved, and that this project required the formation and simultaneous development of an experienced, revolutionary body of militants capable of shaping and abetting subsequent manifestations of struggle with the intention of preparing the class for future confrontations with the bourgeoisie. Stalinism, however, originated as a response to the weakening of the international proletarian movement and the stagnation of what had been a revolutionary situation. Caught between the twin aftermaths of two ruinous wars on one hand, and total isolation on the part of most major world powers hostile to the revolution on the other, the Bolsheviks entered into a crisis that - as we now know - resulted in the ascendency and later entrenchment of Stalinism.

I'd be more than happy to continue discussing this if others wish. I will conclude by saying that folks like Tuwix and Reb have put forth a form of Leninism that Lenin, Trotsky, and others of the period would find completely unrecognizable to what they themselves envisioned and fought for. We ultimately shouldn't put too much emphasis on the words and actions of individual actors within the wider historical struggle, but we should attempt to pinpoint what leading theorists and revolutionists got right. We should also strive to objectively define various strands or trends of theory without letting our disagreements cloud our judgements. I don't consider Stalinism to be counterrevolutionary simply because I dislike Stalin, but because of its historical role and makeup within the wider context of the Russian revolution's decline and degeneracy. I also don't think Stalinism (or Marxism-Leninism) represents an accurate, much less natural, continuation of what Marx or Lenin laid out in their own writings, given its total disregard for what these two men argued for. To conflate Leninism, then, with Stalinism remains a major mistake made by many a committed activist or militant.

In the end, Leninism is no more a bourgeois ideology than Marxism is. Did Lenin and others within that particular tradition make mistakes as far as theory and tactics go? Of course. We should also be capable of covering those errors without falling into the belief that these words or actions represent more than they actually do. I encourage the OP and others to read my latest 'blog' post ("A Defense of Leninism") for more information, though I would like to reiterate I am still more than willing to continue this discussion - should people want to.

[tuwix]

I'd be more than happy to continue discussing this if others wish. I will conclude by saying that folks like Tuwix and Reb have put forth a form of Leninism that Lenin, Trotsky, and others of the period would find completely unrecognizable to what they themselves envisioned and fought for.

I like making people happy and even more I like making more than happy. :) Then I ask some question:

Who did introduce censorship in Russia after October Revolution?
Who did introduce secret police (CheKa) after October Revolution?
Who did combat grass-roots socializing the means of productions as it is described in Peter Arshinov's "History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918-1921)" and replacing it by bureaucratic structures who become new upper class?

The answer is very obvious.

And it is very convenient to believe in romantic legend about October Revolution which was only distorted by Stalin. But there were fundamental errors made before Stalin was near to become a dictator...

[Tim Cornelis]

"Marxism" as a dogmatic ideology does say that.

Care to elaborate? It seems pretty tied up with the essence of the Marxist analysis of the state, social classes, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[goalkeeper]

Because essentially they have acted as substitutes for the bourgeoisie and private capital's failings in underdeveloped regions of the world. The actual historical function of all Marxist-Leninist regimes has been to drag underdeveloped states where capital has not yet penetrated fully (particularly in the area of agriculture) into modernity through building a modern nation state with rationalised institutions, social provisions citizens, and an integrated economy in which wage-labour and commodity production prevails predominantly. These were tasks the bourgeoisie carried out in the first capitalist states in the 18th-19th century but largely failed to be able to do so in other states. Once these tasks were carried out the Marxist-Leninist regimes tottered for a bit then abdicated from power and history.

You could call them bourgeois because their primary concern and function was bourgeois economic modernisation and nation building. This is even partially admitted by some Stalinists when they go on about how Stalin turned a backward peasant nation to the second biggest industrial state on earth (or the best is 'they achieved what Britain did in the industrial revolution in just a few years'), or China has gone from downtrodden 'semi-feudal semi-colonial' nation to powerful industrial nation etc.

[reb]

There is nothing inherently bourgeois about Leninism

Yes, there is, the whole working class can only attain trade union consciousness and the concept of the vanguard party. Leninists are the worst ones to ask about this because they have completely no idea what "leninism" is, can't see it's a dogma and don't understand what's bourgeois about their understanding of class and party.


We ultimately shouldn't put too much emphasis on the words and actions of individual actors within the wider historical struggle,

Yes, let's totally ignore the historical implications and actions of Lenin and the bolsheviks and instead just look at things completely out of context and reduced to an abstraction. That's totally a marxist way of doing things.

[reb]

Care to elaborate? It seems pretty tied up with the essence of the Marxist analysis of the state, social classes, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Apart from the fact that introducing the idea of "nationalization" into the concept of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat opens up a whole host of ideological icebergs that are big enough to sink any coherent theory, you're arguing that this is a main thing in "marxism" but it's only a main thing in dogmatic readings of Marx even though there are plenty of examples as to this not always being the case with marxists. And the fact that you are also arguing a theory of the state shows what sort of dogmatism you are following because Marx never elucidated a coherent theory of the state.

[Tim Cornelis]

Apart from the fact that introducing the idea of "nationalization" into the concept of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat opens up a whole host of ideological icebergs that are big enough to sink any coherent theory, you're arguing that this is a main thing in "marxism" but it's only a main thing in dogmatic readings of Marx even though there are plenty of examples as to this not always being the case with marxists. And the fact that you are also arguing a theory of the state shows what sort of dogmatism you are following because Marx never elucidated a coherent theory of the state.

Admittedly, this is an elaboration which I asked for, but I should've asked for an explanation. Why is it "dogmatic"? It seems, because you disagree with it but you've have not provided an argument for why it's dogmatic.

[Le Socialiste]

Tuwix, I will respond to your questions at a later point today. I was going to attempt to answer you first, but Reb's comments demand my immediate attention.


Yes, there is, the whole working class can only attain trade union consciousness and the concept of the vanguard party. Leninists are the worst ones to ask about this because they have completely no idea what "leninism" is, can't see it's a dogma and don't understand what's bourgeois about their understanding of class and party.

Let's address your first argument here, and break down Lenin's meaning behind 'trade union' consciousness. Admittedly, this remained a point of concern for me ever since I first began reassessing my own understanding(s) of Leninism and the interrelationship between party and class. It's a tricky statement, one which has proven problematic for many on the revolutionary left. Its served as yet another source of contention amongst those who'd assert Leninism remains a theoretical dead-end, insofar as its conception(s) of the role of the party within the wider class and state are concerned.

So, what did Lenin mean when he argued that workers could only attain trade union consciousness? We should first highlight what he did mean, if only to fully flesh out Lenin's standing on the question of working-class consciousness. Referencing the necessity for the inclusion of "large numbers of working-class and intellectual young people to the [socialist] movement," Lenin placed great weight on the role of workers as able leaders of the 'revolutionary movement.' These workers, Lenin asserted, must be capable of "overcoming all obstacles placed in the way of our work. . .and capable of serving all the requirements of the working masses, who are spontaneously striving towards socialism and political struggle" (emphasis added).

There are two points in this brief passage that beg greater attention from us, as they essentially contradict two of some of the more common longstanding distortions of Lenin's thought. First, it becomes clear that Lenin believed in the revolutionary leadership of the working-class, not just intellectuals, within the wider emancipatory movement. Second, we see that he thought workers were 'spontaneously' striving toward socialism and political struggle. More to the point, Lenin held to the key Marxist principle time and again at different points in the Bolshevik's evolution as a mass party (during which he was often ignored and marginalized) that "[T]he emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working classes themselves."

What, then, could Lenin have meant when he wrote workers could only attain trade union consciousness, and that the role of the revolutionary party was to bring socialist ideology from without? We must first recognize that this wasn't a new assertion, especially when viewed within the context of those made by multiple Russian theorists prior to What Is To Be Done? George Plekhanov, eighteen years before Lenin's seminal work, had been claiming that "the socialist intelligentsia. . .must become the leader of the working class in the impending emancipation movement, explain to it its political and economic interests and also the interdependence of those interests and must prepare them to play an independent role in the social life of Russia." He further stressed that the Social Democrats (as revolutionary socialists then referred to themselves as) "will bring consciousness into the working class" and without that it is "impossible to begin a serious struggle against capital."

Pavel Axelrod, similarly, wrote in 1898 that "Social Democracy organizes the Russian proletariat in an independent political party," further arguing that "the proletariat, according to the consciousness of the Social Democrats themselves, does not possess a ready-made, historically elaborated social ideal. . .without the energetic influence of the Social Democrats, [this] may cause our proletariat to remain in its condition as a listless and somnolent force in respect of its political development."

So we see that Lenin certainly wasn't inventing the wheel (much less reinventing, as this conception of the interrelationship between class and party remained a popular one early on in the RSDLP's history). What he meant by this statement, however, easily remains one of the more common distortions of Leninist theory. In What Is To Be Done? Lenin elaborates: "The working class spontaneously gravitates toward socialism: nevertheless, most widespread (and continuously and diversely revived) bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree. . .But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination." Lenin went on, explaining that ". . .the younger the socialist movement in any given country, the more vigorously it must struggle against all attempts to entrench non-socialist ideology, and the more resolutely the workers must be warned against the bad counsellors who shout against 'overrating the conscious element', etc."

At last, we arrive at the question of trade union consciousness. Given the all-pervasive elements of bourgeois ideology in capitalist society, Lenin writes, "the adherents of the 'labor movement pure and simple', . . .opponents of any non-worker intelligentsia (even a socialist intelligentsia), are compelled, in order to defend their positions, to resort to arguments of the bourgeois 'pure trade-unionists'. . .All worship of the spontaneity of the working-class movement, all belittling of the role of the 'conscious element', of the role of Social Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers."

It helps to understand that Lenin is essentially rejecting the economic-determinist notion that workers will automatically become revolutionary socialists; rather, they must be similarly won to socialist ideas through the twin links of participatory struggle and the work of socialist agitators and organizers. More to the point, Lenin isn't promoting ahistorical ideals - nor is he advocating that socialist ideas originate outside the working-class movement. Instead, he is basically describing a historical situation (with reference to Russia) in which "we had both the spontaneous awakening of the working masses, their awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with Social-Democratic theory and straining towards the workers. As Paul Le Blanc pointed out in Lenin and the Revolutionary Party, it is the "transcendence of this reality, not its celebration, that What Is To Be Done? was designed to facilitate."

Thus, we may find that the understanding of Leninism as an elitist, substitutionist method of assessing working-class movements and organization are, to put it mildly, misplaced. As an aside, Lenin wasn't the organizational fetishist later militants assumed him to be. One of the key markers of Lenin's political thought was the recognition that any revolutionary party or grouping must be capable of responding to the shifts of class society and wider capitalist superstructure. This necessitated a form of organization capable of adaptation and flexibility, so as to better ensure the party's longevity and responsiveness within the wider class struggle. So we may find in times of high political consciousness and action, Lenin urged party members to "open the gates" - so to speak - in order to more effectively facilitate the entry of greater numbers of workers into the revolutionary movement.

Above all else, however, Lenin stressed the need for said workers to be active participants and leaders, both within all layers of the party and wider class. Perhaps most significantly, he expressed the need for all internal debates and disagreements occurring within the party to be aired publicly for all to see: "[A]ll theoretical errors and tactical deviations of the Party are most ruthlessly criticized by experience itself, which enlightens and educates the working class with unprecedented rapidity. At such a time, the duty of every Social Democrat is to strive to ensure that the ideological struggle within the Party on questions of theory and tactics is conducted as openly, widely and freely as possible, but that on no account does it disturb or hamper the unity of revolutionary action of the Social-Democratic proletariat. . ."

In periods of bourgeois reaction and repression, often coupled with a reversal of political consciousness amongst the class, Lenin spoke of the need to 'close ranks' and impose more stringent forms of party organizing so as to protect the membership from the threat of external manipulation (many revolutionary parties were confronted with the reality of state infiltration and sabotage, especially within tsarist Russia).


Yes, let's totally ignore the historical implications and actions of Lenin and the bolsheviks and instead just look at things completely out of context and reduced to an abstraction. That's totally a marxist way of doing things.

I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. What I was attempting to put forth was the argument that while revolutionists like Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, and others remain some of the more influential thinkers and agitators of the revolutionary movement, these people still had to fight and argue for their ideas within the wider struggle as well as their respective organizations. Figures like Lenin and Luxemburg were often dismissed or ridiculed for their positions, but managed to win others over to their perspective(s) through the twin methods of debate and praxis. Nowhere did I advocate that we ignore the historical implications of Lenin's and the Bolshevik's actions, nor did I say we should view things out of context. What I did put forward was the notion that these theorists were forced to piecemeal their respective ideas in response to various moments and stages of struggle (or in the absence thereof), and often had to go back and reassess prior arguments in light of new developments.

Much like how we've been attempting to gain a greater understanding of our present period, folks like Lenin were formulating their ideas and theories in accordance with the shifts and movements of the wider class. As Marxists, we shouldn't fall under the false assumption that these were omnipotent, faultless players in the movement, but recognize that their theories were as much an attempt at understanding the developments of capitalism - and how to fight it - as ours are.

[spiritof56]

It was bourgeois because commodity production still existed, and there was no plan or even any thought towards destroying it. Money, wage-labor and trade were all the name of the game.