Democratic Centralism. yay or nay

[Comrade Jacob]

Yay

Argue

[Comrade Njordr]

Yay...

[Q]

Moved from /theory to /learning.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

When its a revolutionary organization operating under a shadow of illegality...then yes. That was kind of the point.

But as a permanent part of governance? Nay.

[lutraphile]

When its a revolutionary organization operating under a shadow of illegality...then yes. That was kind of the point.

But as a permanent part of governance? Nay.
Wow, you articulated that much better than I could have. I think it is necessary for politics, a terrible idea in government. Once you're in power and using it, it isn't much more than a dictatorship and will lead to permanent class divides.

[G4b3n]

The structure of the theory goes against the most basic tendencies of what socialism has always been understood to be, which is a mode of production controlled directly by the working class, not their all mighty saviors in the intelligentsia.

The material conditions which necessitated these (failed) politics are long gone, and it is time for revolutionary organizations to operate from the ground up with a genuine regard for rank and file participation. Democratic centralism invites rubber stamp politics from representatives of the workers who are no more legitimate than bourgeois state representatives, which is why it was ever so obvious that Stalinism was the logical result of Leninist politics in light of the failure of international revolution.

[motion denied]

Actually socialism is the free association of producers, meaning that the working class has ceased to exist.

[Q]

"Democratic centralism" most often means bureaucratic centralism: 'internal discussion' might be allowed, but in public you have to gag yourself and toe the party line. 'Marxist-Leninists', Trotskyists and Maoists all have this understanding of what democratic centralism supposedly is.

In reality, as has been mentioned by others, wrapping up democratic, open debate is the worst thing that can happen to a socialist party: Our class doesn't get educated in the intricacies of working class politics andtherefore cannot become a political player on the world stage; the leadership can't be held to account; the membership you get is one of slavish followers, not critical thinkers.

But when did this fetish around "democratic centralism" start? Lars Lih argues that (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/972/democratic-centralism-further-fortunes-of-a-formul/) within the Bolshevik faction the whole term only was important twice in its history before 1923: In 1906-07 when there was an emphasis on democratic centralism and in 1923 when Zinoviev emphasised democratic centralism, an emphasis Leninist sects still live by today.

[Art Vandelay]

The structure of the theory goes against the most basic tendencies of what socialism has always been understood to be, which is a mode of production controlled directly by the working class, not their all mighty saviors in the intelligentsia.

Unfortunately, as was pointed out, you're quite confused here. I'm not sure where you've learnt 'the most basic' elements of socialism, or what it has 'always been understood to be,' but you're mistaken. The historic task of the proletariat is to abolish itself as a socioeconomic class - and consequentially, to abolish all socioeconomic classes, the state, and the capitalist mode of production. As a result, socialism is a society of free producers.


Democratic centralism invites rubber stamp politics from representatives of the workers who are no more legitimate than bourgeois state representatives, which is why it was ever so obvious that Stalinism was the logical result of Leninist politics in light of the failure of international revolution.

Is it true that Stalinism represents the legitimate product of Bolshevism, as all reactionaries maintain, as Stalin himself avows, as the Mensheviks, the anarchists, and certain left doctrinaires considering themselves Marxist believe? “We have always predicted this” they say, “Having started with the prohibition of other socialist parties, the repression of the anarchists, and the setting up of the Bolshevik dictatorship in the Soviets, the October Revolution could only end in the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Stalin is the continuation and also the bankruptcy of Leninism.”

The flaw in this reasoning begins in the tacit identification of Bolshevism, October Revolution and Soviet Union. The historical process of the struggle of hostile forces is replaced by the evolution of Bolshevism in a vacuum. Bolshevism, however, is only a political tendency closely fused with the working class but not identical with it. And aside from the working class there exist in the Soviet Union a hundred million peasants, diverse nationalities, and a heritage of oppression, misery and ignorance. The state built up by the Bolsheviks reflects not only the thought and will of Bolshevism but also the cultural level of the country, the social composition of the population, the pressure of a barbaric past and no less barbaric world imperialism. To represent the process of degeneration of the Soviet state as the evolution of pure Bolshevism is to ignore social reality in the name of only one of its elements, isolated by pure logic. One has only to call this elementary mistake by its true name to do away with every trace of it.

Bolsevism, in any case, never identified itself either with the October Revolution or with the Soviet state that issued from it. Bolshevism considered itself as one of the factors of history, its “Conscious” factor – a very important but not decisive one. We never sinned on historical subjectivism. We saw the decisive factor – on the existing basis of productive forces – in the class struggle, not only on a national scale but on an international scale.

When the Bolsheviks made concessions to the peasant tendency, to private ownership, set up strict rules for membership of the party, purged the party of alien elements, prohibited other parties, introduced the NEP, granted enterprises as concessions, or concluded diplomatic agreements with imperialist governments, they were drawing partial conclusions from the basic fact that had been theoretically clear to them from the beginning; that the conquest of power, however important it may be in itself, by no means transforms the party into a sovereign ruler of the historical process. Having taken over the state, the party is able, certainly, to influence the development of society with a power inaccessible to it before; but in return it submits itself to a 10 times greater influence from all other elements in society. It can, by the direct attack by hostile forces, be thrown out of power. Given a more drawn out tempo of development, it can degenerate internally while holding on to power. It is precisely this dialectic of the historical process that is not understood by those sectarian logicians who try to find in the decay of the Stalinist bureaucracy a crushing argument against Bolshevism.
In essence these gentlemen say: the revolutionary party that contains in itself no guarantee against its own degeneration is bad.

By such a criterion Bolshevism is naturally condemned: it has no talisman. But the criterion itself is wrong. Scientific thinking demands a concrete analysis: how and why did the party degenerate? No one but the Bolsheviks themselves have, up to the present time, given such an analysis,. To do this they had no need to break with Bolshevism. On the contrary, they found in its arsenal all they needed for the explanation of its fate. They drew this conclusion: certainly Stalinism “grew out ” of Bolshevism, not logically, however, but dialectically; not as a revolutionary affirmation but as a Thermidorian negation. It is by no means the same. - Leon Trotsky; Stalinism and Bolshevism, 1937.

[G4b3n]

Unfortunately, as was pointed out, you're quite confused here. I'm not sure where you've learnt 'the most basic' elements of socialism, or what it has 'always been understood to be,' but you're mistaken. The historic task of the proletariat is to abolish itself as a socioeconomic class - and consequentially, to abolish all socioeconomic classes, the state, and the capitalist mode of production. As a result, socialism is a society of free producers.



Is it true that Stalinism represents the legitimate product of Bolshevism, as all reactionaries maintain, as Stalin himself avows, as the Mensheviks, the anarchists, and certain left doctrinaires considering themselves Marxist believe? “We have always predicted this” they say, “Having started with the prohibition of other socialist parties, the repression of the anarchists, and the setting up of the Bolshevik dictatorship in the Soviets, the October Revolution could only end in the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Stalin is the continuation and also the bankruptcy of Leninism.”

The flaw in this reasoning begins in the tacit identification of Bolshevism, October Revolution and Soviet Union. The historical process of the struggle of hostile forces is replaced by the evolution of Bolshevism in a vacuum. Bolshevism, however, is only a political tendency closely fused with the working class but not identical with it. And aside from the working class there exist in the Soviet Union a hundred million peasants, diverse nationalities, and a heritage of oppression, misery and ignorance. The state built up by the Bolsheviks reflects not only the thought and will of Bolshevism but also the cultural level of the country, the social composition of the population, the pressure of a barbaric past and no less barbaric world imperialism. To represent the process of degeneration of the Soviet state as the evolution of pure Bolshevism is to ignore social reality in the name of only one of its elements, isolated by pure logic. One has only to call this elementary mistake by its true name to do away with every trace of it.

Bolsevism, in any case, never identified itself either with the October Revolution or with the Soviet state that issued from it. Bolshevism considered itself as one of the factors of history, its “Conscious” factor – a very important but not decisive one. We never sinned on historical subjectivism. We saw the decisive factor – on the existing basis of productive forces – in the class struggle, not only on a national scale but on an international scale.

When the Bolsheviks made concessions to the peasant tendency, to private ownership, set up strict rules for membership of the party, purged the party of alien elements, prohibited other parties, introduced the NEP, granted enterprises as concessions, or concluded diplomatic agreements with imperialist governments, they were drawing partial conclusions from the basic fact that had been theoretically clear to them from the beginning; that the conquest of power, however important it may be in itself, by no means transforms the party into a sovereign ruler of the historical process. Having taken over the state, the party is able, certainly, to influence the development of society with a power inaccessible to it before; but in return it submits itself to a 10 times greater influence from all other elements in society. It can, by the direct attack by hostile forces, be thrown out of power. Given a more drawn out tempo of development, it can degenerate internally while holding on to power. It is precisely this dialectic of the historical process that is not understood by those sectarian logicians who try to find in the decay of the Stalinist bureaucracy a crushing argument against Bolshevism.
In essence these gentlemen say: the revolutionary party that contains in itself no guarantee against its own degeneration is bad.

By such a criterion Bolshevism is naturally condemned: it has no talisman. But the criterion itself is wrong. Scientific thinking demands a concrete analysis: how and why did the party degenerate? No one but the Bolsheviks themselves have, up to the present time, given such an analysis,. To do this they had no need to break with Bolshevism. On the contrary, they found in its arsenal all they needed for the explanation of its fate. They drew this conclusion: certainly Stalinism “grew out ” of Bolshevism, not logically, however, but dialectically; not as a revolutionary affirmation but as a Thermidorian negation. It is by no means the same. - Leon Trotsky; Stalinism and Bolshevism, 1937.

I was more referring to how socialism is achieved than what it is, thank you for pointing out that error.

But I am more than familiar with the trotskyite line on what Stalinism is and how it developed, I simply disagree. Perhaps you would like to make your own original argument on how the theoretical principles of democratic centralism show inclusion of rank and file members? Which was actually the primary point to my argument, the point on Stalinism was actually insignificant.

[IrishAnarchist]

nay

dosnt work, any attempts so far have failed. I think considering that revolutionary groups from different parts of the world have been trying to put it into practice within their organizations and going on to using it when they take power. The majority of states that used it have collapsed and no longer exist, mainly due to the people living under the rule of these states were totally pissed off at the lack of democracy. Democratic centralism only benefits the Central committee of the party, it doesn't help to organize society in a better way to its organized in bourgeois fashion.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not supposed to organise society. It's supposed to organise the party.

How do you have any meaningful organisation if the different bits of the organisation can have different policies and perspectives?

Should abiding by the rules and principles of the organisation be a criterion for being a member of the organisation?

If not, should fascists be allowed to join communist groups?

If you don't think they should, where do you draw the line?

If you agree to a decision-making process, are you bound by that process even if it produces results you disagree with?

If you aren't, what's the point of the process?

[Bee]

At this point in my intellectual and political development I have mixed feelings in regards to Leninist organization.

[Blake's Baby]

What is 'Leninist organisation', and what do you think are the problems it poses?

[IrishAnarchist]

It's not supposed to organise society. It's supposed to organise the party.

How do you have any meaningful organisation if the different bits of the organisation can have different policies and perspectives?

Should abiding by the rules and principles of the organisation be a criterion for being a member of the organisation?




The organizing party tend to use it to organize society, it has been done repeatedly by Leninist groups.

I think abiding by most of the prinicples of an organisation should be a criterion.

[Blake's Baby]

I still don't know what you and Bee mean by 'Leninist'.

To me, the primary meaning of 'Leninist' is 'accepting the principle of the right of nations to self-determination'. So what do you mean by 'Leninist'?

If you are arguing that political organisations can be substitionist, I don't disagree. If you're arguing that political organisations are always substitutionist, I don't agree.

[IrishAnarchist]

By Leninist I mean vanguard party and vanguardism. Im not arguing that political organisation are always substitutionist, Im in a political movement myself, I totally support and totally agree with the need for organisations. But i do think political organisations can be substitutionist. Which has been the case in USSR, the eastern bloc countries, China and all the other states that called themselves marxist-leninist.

[Blake's Baby]

Substituting the term 'vanguard' for the term 'Leninist' isn't a lot of help, as I don't know what you mean by 'vanguard' either. I'm a vanguarddist; I believe that the working class needs to organise itself in a political organisation. You're in a political organisation, so by my definition you're a vanguarddist. But you're criticising 'vanguardism'. So what do you think it means?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yay, of course. :)

[IrishAnarchist]

Substituting the term 'vanguard' for the term 'Leninist' isn't a lot of help, as I don't know what you mean by 'vanguard' either. I'm a vanguarddist; I believe that the working class needs to organise itself in a political organisation. You're in a political organisation, so by my definition you're a vanguarddist. But you're criticising 'vanguardism'. So what do you think it means?

Im not substituting vanguardism for leninism, but vanguardism is a major part of leninism. Im not a vanguardist, I dont seek to organize the wokers into a hierarchical organisation and i dont want to seize power for them, which is implicit in vanguardism. Im not disagreeing with you that the working class needs to organize themselves in an organisation, I think they should organize themselves in many organisations. I believe like the old saying says "the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself."

Lenin said something like the workers could only develop revolutionary consciousness by the party injecting its politics into the working class, they could only develop trade union conciseness through their own power.

So therefore revolution would be impossible without the party.

The Leninist party see themselves as being the most class conscious in society they believe they should influence and organize the most revolutionary class conscious of the workers into a vanguard party, the vanguard party will lead the people in revolution and the political and social campaign because its the only way the people can take power.

This is well and good, but what happens in reality is the leadership of the party is made up of small elite clique of intellectuals, the party picks and choose who's allowed join the party, they pick who the revolutionary proletariat are.

When the Bolsheviks vanguard party took state power, they seen the workers and peasants werent up to the job of running the means of production and society themselves. So since the Bolsheviks seen themselves as the vanguard they seen themselves as more up to the job of running the means of production than the actual workers.

They also believed since they were the vanguard of the proletariat their leadership was unquestionable. They used this to justify banning all opposition including the workers. The Bolsheviks party led over society it created and directed all policy, the workers didnt get a look in (Basically an elitist rule). The Bolsheviks didnt create a dictatorship of the proletariat as they claimed but instead created state capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

Im not substituting vanguardism for leninism, but vanguardism is a major part of leninism. Im not a vanguardist, I dont seek to organize the wokers into a hierarchical organisation and i dont want to seize power for them, which is implicit in vanguardism. Im not disagreeing with you that the working class needs to organize themselves in an organisation, I think they should organize themselves in many organisations. I believe like the old saying says "the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself."..

I don't think what you're arguing is implicit in 'vanguardism', and you sound like a 'vanguardist' to me.

The Communist Manifesto says that some workers come to an understanding of capitalism and the working class's potential to overcome it before others. This means that are 'first' - they are quite literally the advance guard of the working class.

The revolutionary organisation is the working class trying to forge a tool that it can use in the process of revolution. That tool is the union of revolutionary workers.

I agree that the Bolsheviks presided over state capitalism in Russia and fused themselves with the state. It's difficult to see what the alternatives were though. Once the revolution had failed, reaction was inevitable. I agree, that reaction didn't have to come through the Bolshevik Party. But the Bolsheviks substituted themselves for the working class because they thought that by political will and organisation, they could prevent the counter-revolution. Not in order to implement it.

[IrishAnarchist]

I don't think what you're arguing is implicit in 'vanguardism', and you sound like a 'vanguardist' to me.

I think it is.


The Communist Manifesto says that some workers come to an understanding of capitalism and the working class's potential to overcome it before others. This means that are 'first' - they are quite literally the advance guard of the working class.

The revolutionary organisation is the working class trying to forge a tool that it can use in the process of revolution. That tool is the union of revolutionary workers.

There is no doubt there is different levels of conciseness amongst workers,I think this is a good point against vanguardism, revolutionaries need to organize together to try help influence some workers and not lead them, as against the vanguardist approach of the revolutionary party leading the workers. Im not against the idea of some workers taken lead but Im against the idea institutionalized leadership, I think Marx is talking about actual workers leading themselves and not intellectuals leading them.


I agree that the Bolsheviks presided over state capitalism in Russia and fused themselves with the state. It's difficult to see what the alternatives were though. Once the revolution had failed, reaction was inevitable. I agree, that reaction didn't have to come through the Bolshevik Party. But the Bolsheviks substituted themselves for the working class because they thought that by political will and organisation, they could prevent the counter-revolution. Not in order to implement it.

They may not have meant it but it happened and happened with other revolutions. The vanguardist form of organizing created it I believe.

Lenins ideas in "what needs to be done?", is vanguardism goes by the assumption that the workers cant emancipate themselves. This contradicts Marxs idea that the emancipation of the working class can only be carried out by the workers themselves. In the same book Lenin is basically writing the perfect justification of the party dictatorship over the working class.

The structure of the leninist party reflects the structure of capitalist society.

[motion denied]

I mean even anarchists (Makhno, Arshinov, Malatesta, Bakunin) were vanguardists. And that's not bad.

Even those who concur with you that "the structure of the leninist party reflects the structure of capitalist society" (Castoriadis, Socialisme ou Barbarie) see the need for a vanguard.

Down with horizontalism! Join the Party today!

[IrishAnarchist]

What do you see a vanguard as being?

Again Im not against the idea of some workers taken lead but Im against the idea institutionalized leadership, as is the chase with Leninist party dictatorships. The workers need to lead themselves and not intellectuals leading them.

None of them people youv mentioned wanted to seize state power or execute state power for the workers. And none of them thought workers revolution was impossible without them or without a vanguard party. But they did support workers self-management and decision making from below as being vital to a workers revolution.

[Q]

Before we keep going around in circles, may I suggest we have multiple definitions in this thread regarding vanguardism?


Substituting the term 'vanguard' for the term 'Leninist' isn't a lot of help, as I don't know what you mean by 'vanguard' either. I'm a vanguarddist; I believe that the working class needs to organise itself in a political organisation. You're in a political organisation, so by my definition you're a vanguarddist. But you're criticising 'vanguardism'. So what do you think it means?

Ok, so here we have the classical Marxist definition that sees 'vanguards' as politically aware stratums in the population. A proletarian vanguard therefore is the politically aware layer of the working class. A political organisation that seeksto organise and educate workers for the aims of socialism can be called then a vanguard party and can indeed consist out of millions of people.


Im [sic] not a vanguardist, I dont [sic] seek to organize the wokers into a hierarchical organisation and i [sic] dont [sic] want to seize power for them, which is implicit in vanguardism.

Ok, so here we see the anarchist definition of 'vanguardism' where these are equated to small, conspirational and/or hierarchical cliques that defines much of the far left today.

Different concepts. Pick a side.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it is.



There is no doubt there is different levels of conciseness amongst workers,I think this is a good point against vanguardism, revolutionaries need to organize together to try help influence some workers and not lead them, as against the vanguardist approach of the revolutionary party leading the workers. Im not against the idea of some workers taken lead but Im against the idea institutionalized leadership, I think Marx is talking about actual workers leading themselves and not intellectuals leading them...

And? This 'leading' by the workers who have a 'different consciousness' is what a vanguard is. So by the definition of the word 'vanguard' that I understand, you're a vanguardist.



...
They may not have meant it but it happened and happened with other revolutions. The vanguardist form of organizing created it I believe.

Lenins ideas in "what needs to be done?", is vanguardism goes by the assumption that the workers cant emancipate themselves. This contradicts Marxs idea that the emancipation of the working class can only be carried out by the workers themselves. In the same book Lenin is basically writing the perfect justification of the party dictatorship over the working class.

The structure of the leninist party reflects the structure of capitalist society.

Lenin wrote 'What is to be done?' in 1901. Do you really think he was holding on to the same conceptions 16 years later, when he was demanding 'all power to the soviets'?

[Q]

Lenins ideas in "what needs to be done?", is vanguardism goes by the assumption that the workers cant emancipate themselves. This contradicts Marxs idea that the emancipation of the working class can only be carried out by the workers themselves. In the same book Lenin is basically writing the perfect justification of the party dictatorship over the working class.
Nope. I suggest you actually read the work itself, as opposed to bad commentary about it. For good commentary (that is, well argued, well referenced, well researched) I highly suggest Lenin Rediscovered - 'What is to be done?' in context by Lars T Lih. He also provides a better translation from original Russian.

In a nutshell: What is to be done? was a very specific polemic in a very specific time, arguing orthodox Marxist strategy under Russian conditions of the tsarist police state.

[IrishAnarchist]

Nope. I suggest you actually read the work itself, as opposed to bad commentary about it. For good commentary (that is, well argued, well referenced, well researched) I highly suggest Lenin Rediscovered - 'What is to be done?' in context by Lars T Lih. He also provides a better translation from original Russian.

In a nutshell: What is to be done? was a very specific polemic in a very specific time, arguing orthodox Marxist strategy under Russian conditions of the tsarist police state.

I have read Lenins work, I will get a copy of that books and give it a read.

When I read it that was the slant I got off it

[IrishAnarchist]

Lenin wrote 'What is to be done?' in 1901. Do you really think he was holding on to the same conceptions 16 years later, when he was demanding 'all power to the soviets'?

I think he must have. Maybe he did believe it when he demanded all power to the soviets. But in the end the workers didn't get power though

[DOOM]

I mean even anarchists (Makhno, Arshinov, Malatesta, Bakunin) were vanguardists. And that's not bad.

Even those who concur with you that "the structure of the leninist party reflects the structure of capitalist society" (Castoriadis, Socialisme ou Barbarie) see the need for a vanguard.

Down with horizontalism! Join the Party today!

This

Opposition to revolutionary organizing is mostly liberal whining about muh authoritah.
I mean, you don't have to be Leninist or even a Bordigist to understand that organizing is crucial.

[IrishAnarchist]

This


I mean, you don't have to be Leninist or even a Bordigist to understand that organizing is crucial.

I totally agree

[Blake's Baby]

I think he must have. Maybe he did believe it when he demanded all power to the soviets. But in the end the workers didn't get power though

'In the end'? In the end, the counter-revolution drowned the revolution. Was that because Lenin had the wrong idea?

Or was it because a revolution that only encompasses one country has already failed?

[IrishAnarchist]

'In the end'? In the end, the counter-revolution drowned the revolution. Was that because Lenin had the wrong idea?

Or was it because a revolution that only encompasses one country has already failed?

It wasn't just Lenin that had the wrong idea, it was the Bolshevik party and its way of organizing I believe to be wrong.

Id put the failure of the revolution more less down to the Bolshevik and their way of organizing and the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries. There was also other elements that would have also played a part in the demise of the revolution. But the fact the Bolshevik took over the means of production played a major part in it.

[Blake's Baby]

It wasn't just Lenin that had the wrong idea, it was the Bolshevik party and its way of organizing I believe to be wrong...

OK - I don't think that the Bolsheviks were by any means the perfect organisation but I think that this question is secondary to others.


... Id put the failure of the revolution more less down to the Bolshevik and their way of organizing and the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries...

This is the crux of the matter for me. Do you think, if the Bolsheviks had been organised differently/the Bolsheviks had had no part in the revolution in Russia (and therefore couldn't have injected their bad conceptions into it), that the revolution could have succeeded, even if the revolution failed to spread to other countries?

To me that's the most important thing to which every other factor is in the end irrelevant. If the revolution fails to spread, no policy or tactic adopted by anyone in one country is going to save it. Even if (as I've said in other posts on this topic before) Lenin and Trotsky were ultimately wise and made of rainbows and kittens, a revolution limited to one country will fail. There was nothing Lenin, Trotsky, Makhno, Emma Goldman or anyone else could have done about that.

The most important country for the progress of the revolution was, in 1917-21, Germany; and the revolution was defeated there. So, if you want to, blame Luxemburg and Liebknecht, Pannekoek, Ruhle, and Gorter for failing to provide necessary leadership to the German proletariat; blame Noske, Ebert and Scheidermmann for instituting the 'socialist' German counter-revolution, blame the Freikorps for massacring the German workers and communists as the spearhead wielded by the 'socialists'; blame Kautsky and Bernstein, for their failures in the earlier period to establish a Marxist basis for the SPD; or blame the German working class itself for failing to go as far as the workers in Russia did. But I don't see how Lenin and Trotsky can be blamed for the defeat of the revolution on the streets of Berlin.



...
There was also other elements that would have also played a part in the demise of the revolution. But the fact the Bolshevik took over the means of production played a major part in it.

The actions of the Bolsheviks shaped the degeneration and defeat of the revolution in Russia, they didn't cause it. Without them, the revolution would have been defeated anyway. To think otherwise is, I think, a concession to Stalinism (Stalinism says 'socialism in one country is possible, and this is it'; your theory says 'socialism in one country is possible, but this is not it'- and the difference between them is only a matter of policy), and also a kind of inverted 'great men of history' approach - 'if only it were not for the evil Lenin, we could have had a nice revolution' - which again is a mirror of Stalinism - 'it is thanks to the great Lenin that we had a nice revolution'.

Revolutions are brought about by classes in motion, not conspirators. The world revolutionary wave of 1917-27 failed because the working class was not capable of overthrowing the world capitalist order. Saying that the fault lies in the place that went furthest along that road (as far as it could go in one country) seems wrong-headed to me.

[IrishAnarchist]

OK - I don't think that the Bolsheviks were by any means the perfect organisation but I think that this question is secondary to others.



This is the crux of the matter for me. Do you think, if the Bolsheviks had been organised differently/the Bolsheviks had had no part in the revolution in Russia (and therefore couldn't have injected their bad conceptions into it), that the revolution could have succeeded, even if the revolution failed to spread to other countries?

To me that's the most important thing to which every other factor is in the end irrelevant. If the revolution fails to spread, no policy or tactic adopted by anyone in one country is going to save it. Even if (as I've said in other posts on this topic before) Lenin and Trotsky were ultimately wise and made of rainbows and kittens, a revolution limited to one country will fail. There was nothing Lenin, Trotsky, Makhno, Emma Goldman or anyone else could have done about that.

The most important country for the progress of the revolution was, in 1917-21, Germany; and the revolution was defeated there. So, if you want to, blame Luxemburg and Liebknecht, Pannekoek, Ruhle, and Gorter for failing to provide necessary leadership to the German proletariat; blame Noske, Ebert and Scheidermmann for instituting the 'socialist' German counter-revolution, blame the Freikorps for massacring the German workers and communists as the spearhead wielded by the 'socialists'; blame Kautsky and Bernstein, for their failures in the earlier period to establish a Marxist basis for the SPD; or blame the German working class itself for failing to go as far as the workers in Russia did. But I don't see how Lenin and Trotsky can be blamed for the defeat of the revolution on the streets of Berlin.




The actions of the Bolsheviks shaped the degeneration and defeat of the revolution in Russia, they didn't cause it. Without them, the revolution would have been defeated anyway. To think otherwise is, I think, a concession to Stalinism (Stalinism says 'socialism in one country is possible, and this is it'; your theory says 'socialism in one country is possible, but this is not it'- and the difference between them is only a matter of policy), and also a kind of inverted 'great men of history' approach - 'if only it were not for the evil Lenin, we could have had a nice revolution' - which again is a mirror of Stalinism - 'it is thanks to the great Lenin that we had a nice revolution'.

Revolutions are brought about by classes in motion, not conspirators. The world revolutionary wave of 1917-27 failed because the working class was not capable of overthrowing the world capitalist order. Saying that the fault lies in the place that went furthest along that road (as far as it could go in one country) seems wrong-headed to me.


I pretty much agree with you. I dont think Lenin is evil, I think the Bolsheviks were victims of the circumstances,the conditions, their way of organizing and the times they were in. Your spot on the revolution was doomed to faile since it never spread. I believe the revolution failed over many reasons for me the 2 big reasons are the revolution not spreading and not being successful in other countries like Germany (I dont blame Luxemburg or German Marxists for the failure of the German revolution); and the way the Bolsheviks organized.

Its hard to tell what way things would have went if the German revolution was successful. Its hard to tell what way the Russian revolution would have turned out if the Bolsheviks organised differently or if another group would have took power. Its way to simplistic to lay all the blame on Lenin and the Bolsheviks. But i reckon the Russian revolution would be talked about a lot differently today if the soviets stayed autonomous and ran by the workers, workers had took power and owned and ran the means of production for the benefit of themselves.

[Bakunin's Apprentice]

No, the means of production should be used by anyone however they want.

[IrishAnarchist]

To me that's the most important thing to which every other factor is in the end irrelevant. If the revolution fails to spread, no policy or tactic adopted by anyone in one country is going to save it. Even if (as I've said in other posts on this topic before) Lenin and Trotsky were ultimately wise and made of rainbows and kittens, a revolution limited to one country will fail. There was nothing Lenin, Trotsky, Makhno, Emma Goldman or anyone else could have done about that.



The whole point to a workers revolution is that the workers take power not a minority group or party, so even if "Lenin and Trotsky were ultimately wise and made of rainbows and kittens", it would make no difference the revolution would be more than likely doomed if its been left in the hands of a bureaucracy. As I already said the point is the workers take power and there is common ownership over the means of production and hierarchy and class are abolished.

Makhno and Emma Goldman didnt seek to gain power themselves or for the groups or movements they were in. They struggled so the workers could take power, they didnt want to make decisions for workers in matters of their lives or try tell them how to live.

[motion denied]

No, the means of production should be used by anyone however they want.

Even privately?

[Art Vandelay]

No, the means of production should be used by anyone however they want.

And this is a perfect example of the petite-bourgeois tendencies present in many (albeit not all) anarachists - especially ones which unfortunately populate this forum. What you advocate here has nothing in common with socialism or proletarian politics - that much is for sure. This line of argumentation - that the means of production should be freely available to anyone (a baffling comment from an ostensible socialist) as opposed to being under the control of the proletariat and, after class society has been superseeded, society as a whole - is nothing short of a defence of property rights.

[Blake's Baby]

The whole point to a workers revolution is that the workers take power not a minority group or party, so even if "Lenin and Trotsky were ultimately wise and made of rainbows and kittens", it would make no difference the revolution would be more than likely doomed if its been left in the hands of a bureaucracy. As I already said the point is the workers take power and there is common ownership over the means of production and hierarchy and class are abolished.

Makhno and Emma Goldman didnt seek to gain power themselves or for the groups or movements they were in. They struggled so the workers could take power, they didnt want to make decisions for workers in matters of their lives or try tell them how to live.

Even if the working class held on to power in Russia (and my point about Goldman and Makhno was not that they were necessarily trying to take power, but they were putting up alternatives to Bolshevik ideological hegemony), as I said earlier that even the Bolsheviks had not been at all involved in the revolution but it had happened anyway (unlikely in my view), even if nothing bad at all had happened or been allowed to intrude, no wrong conceptions, no conspiracies, nothing to disturb the course of the revolution as it progressed in Russia, it would inevitably still have failed if it did not spread.

If that is the case, then the 'Russian' revolution (really, the Russian part of the world revolution) did not fail in Russia. It failed everywhere else.