Leninism as a petit-bourgeois ideology

[Guardia Rossa]

Could it be identified as so? Lenin was clearly petit-bourgeois and his bolshevik comrades were mostly P-B aswell.

WARNING, WARNING: I am not a thing, ideologically. After some years of titoism, into leninism, into "post-trotskysm" and "pan-bolshevism", into "confederationist neo-leninism", I still haven't found a ideology for myself.

[Tim Cornelis]

clearly [citation needed]

[Armchair Partisan]

That's silly. It's like saying capitalism is a proletarian ideology because most of its adherents are workers.

[BIXX]

That's silly. It's like saying capitalism is a proletarian ideology because most of its adherents are workers.
While I don't really care either way...

Coilding it be said that the founders of leninism being petite bourgeois makes it a petite bourgeois ideology just like the founders of capitalism being bourgeois make capitalism a bourgeois ideology? It has nothing to do with adherents, and everything to do with creators.

I don't care really if it is or isnt tbh, why does it matter.

[Sinister Intents]

Not really, it's more Lenin's application of Marxism to the Russian situation, you could say it's adherents are [insert social class]

[Armchair Partisan]

While I don't really care either way...

Coilding it be said that the founders of leninism being petite bourgeois makes it a petite bourgeois ideology just like the founders of capitalism being bourgeois make capitalism a bourgeois ideology? It has nothing to do with adherents, and everything to do with creators.

I don't care really if it is or isnt tbh, why does it matter.

I think it has mostly to do with the content of the ideology above all. That many Bolsheviks were petit-bourgeois is simply a result of the fact that the proletariat, at that time, had even less access to knowledge than today (most of the population, especially the working class and the peasantry of course, was illiterate, and forget things like the Internet).

Whether one is a Leninist or an ardent opponent of it, I think we can agree that if there is one social class that does not benefit from Leninism, it is the petit-bourgeoisie. Leninism, as it was practiced, stifled free enterprise in favor of a state capitalist system, of which a new haute-bourgeois class did eventually develop.

[Art Vandelay]

Coilding it be said that the founders of leninism being petite bourgeois makes it a petite bourgeois ideology just like the founders of capitalism being bourgeois make capitalism a bourgeois ideology? It has nothing to do with adherents, and everything to do with creators

No. What constitutes the social character of a movement or 'ideology,' is not what socio-economic class it's creators or adherents belong to, but rather which socioeconomic class' interests are represented/manifested in said movement/'ideology.' The fact that many of the Bolsheviks came from the declassed intellegistia does not make 'Leninism' petite-bourgeois, anymore than Engels being a factory owner makes Marxism the embodiment of the interests of the bourgeoisie.

[G4b3n]

This is coming from an anti-Leninist:

Leninism is not a petty-bourgeois ideology. The idea of Leninism in its essence is undoubtedly proletarian. We can talk application, historical context, and a million other factors, but the idea is what it is. The petty-bourgeoisie is a distinct class with its own distinct interests, even if petty bourgeois ideologues are confused on what these interests are. But sometimes Marxists like to forget this and use it a slur word against each other, which is obviously just childish.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Everyone calls things they don't like "petit-bourgeois".

[G4b3n]

Everyone calls things they don't like "petit-bourgeois".

Well, some so called "radical" ideology legitimately does farther petty-bourgeois class interests. These criticisms could be made about Maoism in certain contexts. The term isn't always a slur, but yea, it does tend to end up that way sometimes.

[Guardia Rossa]

Ok, thanks, just wanted to know what you guys think.

[Tim Cornelis]

While I don't really care either way...

Yeah man, you care so little about politics you spend your free time discussing it. What an edgemaster nihilist. :rolleyes:

[BIXX]

Yeah man, you care so little about politics you spend your free time discussing it. What an edgemaster nihilist. :rolleyes:
I mean I just don't care about if someone considers leninism a petite bourgeois ideology for as someone posted earlier its just a name we call things we dislike.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not really sure what we're talking about when the word Leninism is used. What is Leninism exactly? Interestingly though, it is the case that under his leadership of the Soviet Government the creation of small private businesses were permitted. The New Economic Policy also gave peasants permission to sell their surplus grain, making some of them very wealthy.

[Asero]

I'm not really sure what we're talking about when the word Leninism is used. What is Leninism exactly? Interestingly though, it is the case that under his leadership of the Soviet Government the creation of small private businesses were permitted. The New Economic Policy also gave peasants permission to sell their surplus grain, making some of them very wealthy.

Though people like to conflate Lenin and the policies of the Bolsheviks under his leadership as being Leninist, doing so ignores the historical root of Leninism as an ideology. Leninism goes beyond Lenin. Leninism as a codified ideological framework was born at the beginning with the death of Lenin himself. Because Lenin never properly anointed a successor, the the leaders of the various factions within the Communist Party each posited that they were the true successor to the legacy of the mighty Lenin. Stalin's faction called themselves the Marxist-Leninists, and Trotsky's faction called themselves the Bolshevik-Leninists. Stalin was able to win this battle of legitimacy partially because that the spats that he had with Lenin were not of the same magnitude as the spats Trotsky had with Lenin (Lenin, at one point, called Trotsky 'Judas-Trotsky'), and also because Stalin had very little writings of his own compared to Trotsky enabling Stalin to posit himself as simply reiterating Lenin. The ideological relationship of Stalin to Lenin was similar to the relationship between Plato and Socrates.

No one can deny that Lenin as an ideological current would not have existed if not for the Russian Revolution, the political shockwaves around the world that that resulted from Red October, and because of Lenin's theoretical texts giving rallying cry to national liberation movements in the East against foreign imperialist domination.

[Asero]

Everyone calls things they don't like "petit-bourgeois".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJFdVJu-m4

I am the leader of the workers
And I'll tell you why the Left is suspect
Because there's something you don't understand
Only my line is correct
'Cause I am the vanguard of the masses
And all of you should just follow me
If you doubt my analysis
You must be in the petty bourgeoisie

[Comrade Jacob]

Most Fascists are proletarians, therefore fascism must be a proletarian ideology right? Nope.

[Asero]

Most Fascists are proletarians, therefore fascism must be a proletarian ideology right? Nope.

Don't encourage him. Diogenes believes that National Socialism is just Nationalist Socialism.

http://bit.do/DiogenesIsACompleteFuckingIdiot

[G4b3n]

I'm not really sure what we're talking about when the word Leninism is used. What is Leninism exactly? Interestingly though, it is the case that under his leadership of the Soviet Government the creation of small private businesses were permitted. The New Economic Policy also gave peasants permission to sell their surplus grain, making some of them very wealthy.

There was no mention of the NEP in Lenin's theoretical work prior to seizing power, he saw that has a temporary measure unique to Russia's underdeveloped capitalism and also within the context of a soon to come wider proletarian revolution, so the NEP has little to do with Leninism as an ideology Also, when people just say "Leninism" I always assume they are referring to the theoretical works of Lenin, his conception of Imperialism and political organization, and nothing more (like Mao, Trotsky, etc).

[The Feral Underclass]

There was no mention of the NEP in Lenin's theoretical work prior to seizing power, he saw that has a temporary measure unique to Russia's underdeveloped capitalism and also within the context of a soon to come wider proletarian revolution, so the NEP has little to do with Leninism as an ideology Also, when people just say "Leninism" I always assume they are referring to the theoretical works of Lenin, his conception of Imperialism and political organization, and nothing more (like Mao, Trotsky, etc).

Well, in my experience many Marxists have argued there is no such thing as Leninism, only the application and realisation of Marxism. But yeah, I agree the NEP isn't part of "Leninism" if the conception of Leninism is just stuff he said before he was in power. In my view, however, if we are going to try and talk about "Leninism", I think it's necessary to take the whole of Lenin and that includes the ideas he actually applied in practice.

[Rafiq]

To claim something that no one previously thought is petite-bourgeois requires an explanation: did they have petite-bourgeois backgrounds? Maybe, but that is absolutely meaningless, unless being Bolsheviks was a mere extension of their class interests in the immediate sense (i.e. the Bolsheviks were formed to benefit the petite-bourgeoisie). The Bolsheviks were in no way petite-bourgeois.

[19carmen17]

Well, in my experience many Marxists have argued there is no such thing as Leninism, only the application and realisation of Marxism. But yeah, I agree the NEP isn't part of "Leninism" if the conception of Leninism is just stuff he said before he was in power. In my view, however, if we are going to try and talk about "Leninism", I think it's necessary to take the whole of Lenin and that includes the ideas he actually applied in practice.

Well the ideas applied by Lenin in practice were specific to the set of circumstances Soviet Russia was in at the time of their application, and often had to be applied despite being abstractly undesirable. Lenin's theoretical principles (e.g. the notion of the vanguard party) could broadly work in any revolutionary situation, while a measure like the NEP was highly specific and therefore not part of the broad Leninist doctrine.


I mean I just don't care about if someone considers leninism a petite bourgeois ideology for as someone posted earlier its just a name we call things we dislike.

Only if we don't know what we're talking about. Some ideologies are genuinely petit-bourgeois in class character, and someone could criticise an ideology claiming to be proletarian (like all the variants of market "socialism") by saying that it is in fact petit-bourgeois. But when this criticism is based on the leading theorists of an ideology allegedly being petit-bourgeois, as people have pointed out, the term is being misinterpreted.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It seems funny to me that nobody has brought up Lenin's conception of the party (and its consequences) in this thread.
I confess to not knowing my Lenin well enough to appropriately quote-mine or split hairs on this, so I'm just introducing this as a point I'd like to see other folk grapple with. Does the "party of professional revolutionists" have an implicitly petit-bourgeois character?
I'd actually argue that it's not the case - I think if we're going to critique the class character of Leninism, we ought to look at it as a labour aristocratic ideology, like social democracy (from which it sprang). In the act of constituting a party of professionals, the Leninist vanguard party produces a distinct strata with its own set of interests separate from the class as a whole in terms of its priorities.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say "Leninism" in its "pure" (e.g. pre-/non- Maoist formulations) is not particularly distinct from social democracy other than a tactical/practical preference for guns over ballots.
I confess this is somewhat at odds with "The State and Revolution" - but I think it's pretty safe to say that Maoists are the only "Leninists" who take "The State and Revolution" at all seriously. The Bolsheviks did a pretty shit job of "smash[ing]" the state, and it seems like the majority of their ideological successors weren't that interested in it either (with some notable exceptions in cases where seizing the state proved militarily impossible - civil war Greece, Colombia, etc.).

[Rafiq]

I'd actually argue that it's not the case - I think if we're going to critique the class character of Leninism, we ought to look at it as a labour aristocratic ideology, like social democracy (from which it sprang).

What's the problem here? The problem is that the labor aristocracy, as it was conceived, was distinct not because it constituted a hierarchy between those who represented workers, and workers themselves (something that existed in the Paris Commune and all anarchist projects), but because it went on to become an integral part of the reproduction of capitalism. The labour aristocracy embodied the taming of labor by capital, and they merely enjoyed the fruits of this. So this is what separates Bolshevism from social democracy (what it would become, that is) - Bolshevism was capable of destroying the bourgeois state, social democracy reproduced its conditions of power.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Well, some so called "radical" ideology legitimately does farther petty-bourgeois class interests. These criticisms could be made about Maoism in certain contexts. The term isn't always a slur, but yea, it does tend to end up that way sometimes.

The entire concept of the petit-bourgeoisie and "petit-bourgeois ideology" is dumb. It's a muddled concept riddled with issues. Both broad-liberal and extreme-conservative ideologies could be considered "petit-bourgeois". Even the notion of what consititutes the "petit-bourgeoisie" is unsubstantive.

[Tim Cornelis]

The entire concept of the petit-bourgeoisie and "petit-bourgeois ideology" is dumb. It's a muddled concept riddled with issues. Both broad-liberal and extreme-conservative ideologies could be considered "petit-bourgeois". Even the notion of what consititutes the "petit-bourgeoisie" is unsubstantive.

Just because a concept is muddled doesn't mean it should be discarded. It can potentially be improved and specified. But why is it a problem that some strands of 'extreme-conservative' and 'liberal' positions (as well as some far-left ones even) can be considered petty bourgeois? And how is the notion of what constitutes the petty bourgeoisie "not substantive"?

[Rafiq]

The entire concept of the petit-bourgeoisie and "petit-bourgeois ideology" is dumb. It's a muddled concept riddled with issues. Both broad-liberal and extreme-conservative ideologies could be considered "petit-bourgeois". Even the notion of what consititutes the "petit-bourgeoisie" is unsubstantive.

Perhaps on the contrary it is your idealist ideological taxonomy which is truly muddied, where two currents which share the same critically ideological foundations are deemed at the opposite spectrum of politics because one is "broad-liberal" and one is "extreme-conservative". This is worthlessly ambiguous. There is very little, in conduct, in pathological constitution, and in their particular political idiosyncrasy with respect to their own cultural and political conditions, which separates an American libertarian from a European Fascist. We can most certainly understand this as petite-bourgeois, because it maintains an opposition to the existing order but from the standpoint of previous conditions of existence. This is the petite-bourgeoisie.

I cannot possibly fathom how something like conspiracy theories can be conceived as anything else than petite-bourgeois. I cannot possibly fathom how something so simple as the notion of the small capitalist, something recognized EVEN BY BOURGEOIS-LIBERALS as a distinct phenomena, the old archetype of the local small business, is deemed muddied.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What's the problem here? The problem is that the labor aristocracy, as it was conceived, was distinct not because it constituted a hierarchy between those who represented workers, and workers themselves (something that existed in the Paris Commune and all anarchist projects), but because it went on to become an integral part of the reproduction of capitalism.

I think you're playing fast and loose with "represent" here - I think that representation (in which decision making power is ceded) and delegation (in which the conveying of decisions, and other specific tasks are handed to particular persons on a limited basis) are distinct, and while anarchist projects certainly feature the latter, I think they certainly aim to avoid the former. As for the Paris Commune, it wasn't a project of avowed anarchists, so, while anarchists may see much hopeful in it, it seems a bit silly suggest that anything which existed in the Paris Commune (money, for example) is characteristic of anarchism.


The labour aristocracy embodied the taming of labor by capital, and they merely enjoyed the fruits of this.

Agreed. Which is precisely what the Bolsheviks did, when we look at the USSR in the context of global capitalism.


Bolshevism was capable of destroying the bourgeois state, social democracy reproduced its conditions of power.

On the contrary, the Bolsheviks produced the conditions for the bourgeois state. It's not like 1991 came out of nowhere, and suddenly capitalists emerged ex nihilo and smashed the socialist state. If there's a difference of note, it's that the Bolsheviks had to start from a particular place which had its own quirks of "(under)development" - but the result was essentially the same.