Would Lenin vote for the Democrats?

[DekuScrub]

I recently came across this Lenin quote:


When a socialist really believes in a Black-Hundred danger and is sincerely combating it—he votes for the liberals without any bargaining, and does not break off negotiations if 2 seats instead of 3 are offered him. For instance, it may happen that at a second ballot in Europe a Black-Hundred danger arises when the liberal obtains, say, 8,000 votes, the Black-Hundred representative or reactionary, 10,000, and the socialist 3,000. If a socialist believes that the Black-Hundred danger is a real danger to the working class, he will vote for the liberal. We have no second ballot in Russia, but we may get a situation analogous to a second ballot in the second stage of the elections. If out of 174 electors, say, 86 are of the Black Hundreds, 84 Cadets and 4 socialists, the socialists must cast their votes for the Cadet candidate, and so far not a single member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has questioned this.

The blogger who introduced it seemed to be suggesting that Lenin would advocate working in the Democratic Party in the present day United States. Does anyone who might know more about Lenin or the context he was speaking in think this is a fair reading? Because it would seem to go against the grain of what most Trotskyist groups preach re the Democratic Party.

[Q]

Tactics aren't strategy.

Could Lenin conceivably call for a vote on the Democrats? Sure. No tactic is ever really out of the window, too taboo to be considered. Taboos are really just a hindrance to our movement, limiting our capabilities.

But is a strategy of voting Democrat time and again does pose a hindrance. It undermines our political independence if we keep saying that the Democrats are the lesser evil, compared to the Republicans. This should all be obvious really.

And I'm assuming that you're US based and are talking of those Democrats.

[Rafiq]

Thing of the Arab Spring - could Socialists vote for bourgoeis-liberals in hopes to hinder the threat of the Islamists? Such a situation is comparable to the political conditions of the Russian Empire.

That is to say, just as Marx said when he attacked the "true" Communists, such unequivocal working class political independence could only exist with the pre-supposition of modern bourgeois society, something that was lacking in Prussia, but existing in France. To mimic the French in Prussia would therefore be an act in favor of the Prussian aristocracy and the Prussian reaction.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

As it stands, the Republicans are in no way comparable to the proto-fascist Black Hundreds and contextually the Democrats are not comparable to the bourgeois liberal organisations of 1905's Russia in terms of relative 'progressiveness' either.

[DekuScrub]

Thanks for the responses!

[DekuScrub]

Thanks for the responses!

[lutraphile]

I think certainly for the social democratic part of the party- Sanders, Warren, Feingold.

Outside that, a big part is seriously how scary the Republican is to me and probably most leftists. In Clinton-Christie, I'd probably vote third party. In Clinton-Cruz, I'd just sob silently in the voting booth and vote for Clinton.

I feel like most people who say they'd never vote Democratic don't quite get how awful segments of the GOP are. Ted Cruz is literally part of a Christian cult that believes in the transfer of all wealth to righteous Christians (http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/ted-cruzs-father-suggested-his-son-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think certainly for the social democratic part of the party- Sanders, Warren, Feingold.
I don't think they're a significant wing of the Democratic Party, in fact I think the only reason they are ever brought up is in order to draw in left-wing activists by 'legitimising' the Democratic Party, an organisation which has firmly been, and remains, a party of capital and will always be a force arrayed against the movement for socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

It is a matter of independent working class organisation.

An independent working class organisation might call for a vote on a bourgeios politician. What it cannot do is to dissolve itself among a bourgeois political organisation - in which case it would lose its independence.

Luís Henrique

[Sharia Lawn]

All these answers are pretty much dancing around the question. Lenin called for these sorts of agreements after the propagandizing and elections had already taken place. They were agreements between already selected delegates in a process that was no longer subject to public input or participation. They did not violate the political independence of the working class any more than peace treaties between a workers' state and a bourgeois state, in order to preserve the workers' state, do.

What you are suggesting is that Lenin's tactical bloc, forced by the undemocratic nature of elections under the Tsar, was tantamount to him calling for workers to vote for the Cadets, something he never did.

[VivalaCuarta]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/jan/20.htm

Read the article and decide for yourself.

The point Lenin is making is that the Mensheviks betrayed the workers by entering into an electoral bloc with alien class parties, and that the Bolsheviks were right to oppose these blocs.

Lenin argues that the danger of Black Hundreds (pogromist-monarchists) being elected in St. Petersburg is an absurd bogeyman used to gather support for a bourgeois party, the Cadets.

All that is conveniently left out of this quote, which seems like it was carefully curated by a cynical popular-frontist "theoretician" for the purpose of getting "communists" to vote for some bourgeois party.

Nevertheless, in the quoted paragraph, Lenin does repeat, in the way of reaffirming Socialdemocratic orthodoxy, that the socialists would vote for a bourgeois liberal against a real threat of monarchist reaction. (Are the U.S. Republicans monarchists?)

I think Lenin was wrong here, and this error of his was an early symptom of the party's wrong orientation towards the "Democratic [i.e. bourgeois] Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry" that Lenin repudiated in the April Theses.

[consuming negativity]

Tactics aren't strategy.

Could Lenin conceivably call for a vote on the Democrats? Sure. No tactic is ever really out of the window, too taboo to be considered. Taboos are really just a hindrance to our movement, limiting our capabilities.

But is a strategy of voting Democrat time and again does pose a hindrance. It undermines our political independence if we keep saying that the Democrats are the lesser evil, compared to the Republicans. This should all be obvious really.

And I'm assuming that you're US based and are talking of those Democrats.

reply to the bolded: aren't they the lesser evil, though? yes, voting for evil is voting for evil, and yes, the party is representative of bourgeois interests first and foremost (commoners can't even go to the party's convention), but are their policies not usually preferable? i mean, should we really decide not to vote in favor of things that we want because doing so continually would undermine us? not that that's wrong, i just don't think it undermines us at all to do everything we can, even if we know it probably doesn't matter. i think being willing to try anything says something good about us. what do you think?

[The Intransigent Faction]

reply to the bolded: aren't they the lesser evil, though? yes, voting for evil is voting for evil, and yes, the party is representative of bourgeois interests first and foremost (commoners can't even go to the party's convention), but are their policies not usually preferable? i mean, should we really decide not to vote in favor of things that we want because doing so continually would undermine us? not that that's wrong, i just don't think it undermines us at all to do everything we can, even if we know it probably doesn't matter. i think being willing to try anything says something good about us. what do you think?

I think that what we want can't be voted for, at least not in bourgeois parliaments or senates. I think that "being willing to try anything" isn't necessarily "good", but potentially harmful. I think that "preferable" doesn't count for much and could even be a slippery slope enabling a shift of mainstream politics further to the right.

Would Lenin have voted for, or called on the people to support, Democrats in the contemporary United States? Probably not. Would he have called for a United Front against impending fascism? Probably.

[Faust Arp]

He wouldn't, absolutely.

There is a big, big qualitative difference between the two dichotomies. On the one hand, you have the opposition between diehard supporters of a semi-feudal tzarist regime and bourgeois liberals with the goal of definitely killing feudalism and replacing it with a fully capitalist system - the latter possess the capability to move history forward and advance it to the next stage. On the other hand, you have Democrats vs Republicans - both guardians of the capitalist system, but with somewhat different approaches towards preserving it. While the Dems might be more progressive when it comes to certain individual issues, they don't possess a significant qualitative edge over the GOP and aren't more progressive in a historical materialist sense. Also the claims that the Tea Party or even Republicans in general are fascist are nothing but hysterical scaremongering resulting from a lack of knowledge over what fascism really is. And no matter what off-the-wall opinions people like Ted Cruz might possess, they absolutely don't have a capability to systematically enforce them.

One more thing: a partnership between a working class party and the Democrats against a fascist force wouldn't be a United Front, but a Popular Front - the United Front unites only working-class organizations, and the Dems sure as hell ain't one. So I'm not sure Lenin would support even that.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I can imagine some lurker seeing the title of this thread and wanting to use it for their right wing blog about how the democrats are really communists

[Armchair Partisan]

I can imagine some lurker seeing the title of this thread and wanting to use it for their right wing blog about how the democrats are really communists

That would imply that those kind of people care to do research or cite any of their claims.

[Sibotic]

To be fair, it might be partially Lenin attempting to distance himself from his own reputation relating him to groups such as the Black Hand, etc., as a sort-of violent and terroristic thing, although nothing compared to the groups and states we have today of course. I don't see how 'threat' would exactly resonate with the situation of the US elections, however, if anything the threat to the US comes from outside of them, in some sense. So the answer to your question would be 'No,' that is, that Lenin would not vote for the Democrats.

[CyM]

If you're talking about Bernie Sanders, keep in mind that the Labour Representation Committee began as a caucus within the Liberal party, organized to put forward Labour candidates on the Liberal ticket.

Sanders could be the beginning of something very important in the US and we should not be so quick to dismiss. Go to the rallies and meet the radical youth there. Speak to them about the limitations of the democrats, the need for a mass party of Labor, and the need for revolutionary socialism.

It's your duty as a revolutionary not to ignore the masses on the move.

That doesn't mean joining the democrats, but it does mean going where the masses are. Something is happening here, and if he remains in the democrats they will crush it. But criticizing from the sidelines is easy and irrelevant. Shoulder to shoulder is the only place the radicalized masses will listen to you from.

[Sibotic]

Sanders is unlikely to be the beginning of anything, if anything their brand was furthered by Kucinich among others years ago. That they adopt different rhetoric or speak differently may have other, more important sources. In any case, the masses needn't speak to be heard, 'go where the masses are' in this context could just be an attempt at presenting as overly local a wider struggle. I think that there are different, more restrained or defeated masses at the moment who are limited to shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but campaigning against the Democrats in any context is slightly different to voting for them, especially given that Sanders is unlikely to see out the primaries, being at this point a bit too mild for that. Putting forwards 'Labour Candidates on a Liberal Ticket' could be as much an illusion or form of co-option as anything else, one would probably agree, as would assuming Democratic supporters or those of Sanders to be as radical as socialists and other Parties, keeping in mind that the Democrats themselves are something of an anaethetised Party, with Clinton, one of the non-candidates from 2008, being favourite for the nomination with very little to recommend them specifically or enthusiasm about them generally as a candidate for Democrats.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Does anybody here advocate isolating ourselves and not getting involved where there are hundreds or thousands of radicalizing workers or young people?

This is the accusation we hear lodged at people who want to maintain revolutionary principles. There is no problem with going to the Bernie Sanders rallies...to stand outside of them, among the masses entering and exiting them, to talk to and distribute literature exposing Sanders, the bourgeois party for which he operates, and the bourgeois system for which that party operates. There is no isolation in this activity.

What really seems to be the criticism is that we aren't going to go to the Sanders rally to give some kind of support to Sanders. No, we won't. He represents illusions workers and young people have in the bourgeois system. The task of revolutionaries is to try to help shatter those illusions. Cozying up to Sanders would reinforce those illusions, including the biggest illusion that major progressive structural change to the capitalist economy will occur not as a result of class struggle against the bourgeoisie but by electing the right bourgeois politician.

[Tim Redd]

What really seems to be the criticism is that we aren't going to go to the Sanders rally to give some kind of support to Sanders. No, we won't. He represents illusions workers and young people have in the bourgeois system. The task of revolutionaries is to try to help shatter those illusions. Cozying up to Sanders would reinforce those illusions, including the biggest illusion that major progressive structural change to the capitalist economy will occur not as a result of class struggle against the bourgeoisie but by electing the right bourgeois politician.

I think it's possible to both 1) thoroughly expose capitalism and 2) advocate a tactical vote for Democrats/Democratic Socialists in order to thwart the specifics of the Republican agenda.

[VivalaCuarta]

I think it's possible to both 1) thoroughly expose capitalism and 2) advocate a tactical vote for Democrats/Democratic Socialists in order to thwart the specifics of the Republican agenda.

"thoroughly expose capitalism" is one of those blatherous phrases. Wow, not just expose, but thoroughly expose? Wow.

You may expose, you may thoroughly expose, you may totally expose, you may over expose, you may resolutely expose, but you don't oppose capitalism if you vote for it. In fact, you support capitalism.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

I think it's possible to both 1) thoroughly expose capitalism and 2) advocate a tactical vote for Democrats/Democratic Socialists in order to thwart the specifics of the Republican agenda.


Really? How do you "thoroughly expose" capitalism by telling workers to vote for a party that supports capitalism explicitly and proudly? That sounds to me like creating illusions among workers that certain ways of supporting capitalism deserve our applause.

[Tim Redd]

"thoroughly expose capitalism" is one of those blatherous phrases. Wow, not just expose, but thoroughly expose? Wow.

You may expose, you may thoroughly expose, you may totally expose, you may over expose, you may resolutely expose, but you don't oppose capitalism if you vote for it. In fact, you support capitalism.

Not sure why you went off about "thoroughly". Obviously what I mean is that a true and honest appraisal of capitalism is given to the masses.

If the true nature of capitalism is explained by communists and they explain why we should tactically vote for Democrats why is that not a valid activity on the part of communists when undertaken?

The holocaust of environmental, financial, worker safety deregulation, anti LBGT equality, anti-choice, anti-affirmative action events that Republican dominance would commence is worth tactically voting against them. And these consequences can be explained to the masses even as we explain that what is really needed is revolution. The masses are not stupid and incapable of having an overall understanding and acting tactically as you and Spectre seem to imply.

Having a capitalist political environment whose policies are mostly fashioned by the Republicans is more of an immediate day to day economic and political burden on the masses and impediment to revolution than a capitalist environment mostly fashioned by Democrats. It's as simple as that. Of course I want thorough-going proletarian revolution as soon as possible, but I don't see tactically adopted democratic tolerable and favorable policy as an enemy of what's best long term revolutionary wise.

E.g I want marriage equality now and not put off for who knows when if the Republication position prevailed in the Supreme Court decision. Ditto Affordable Health Care despite its terrible warts favoring Big Pharma and the fact that we need a single payer system that can set all healthcare prices. And this goes on and on wrt Supreme Court decisions. And then it applies similarly to laws passed by state legislatures. It's very stout to say I won't vote for candidates of any bourgeois party, but when immediate day to day improvements in the lives of the masses and in terms of political liberties fail to come about due to Republican policies it is extremely damaging to the masses and political movement for genuine socialist revolution.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

If the true nature of capitalism is explained by communists yet they explain why we should tactically vote for Democrats why is that not a valid thing to be undertaken.

Because Marxists understand that people learn by taking part in the class struggle and seeing how others take part in the class struggle as a basis for comparison. If you tell workers that you are anti-capitalist but to vote for the supposedly lesser bourgeois evil, you are telling them that influencing the bourgeois state is the strategic center of your vision. You are clouding the most important dividing line between revolution and reformism, that the state is not a neutral entity. It is an instrument for the ruling class to exploit and oppress the workers.

Reforms are not given from on high by the capitalist state. They are won by workers opposing that state and the mode of production it protects. Trying to game the electoral system to get goodies from one of the bourgeois parties blurs and obscures this important message and creates the illusion that the exploited have shared interests with a wing of the exploiters' political representatives.

[Tim Redd]

Because Marxists understand that people learn by taking part in the class struggle and seeing how others take part in the class struggle as a basis for comparison. If you tell workers that you are anti-capitalist but to vote for the supposedly lesser bourgeois evil, you are telling them that influencing the bourgeois state is the strategic center of your vision.

False. While I'm telling the masses that their strategic interests lie in making revolution, I'm also telling them that voting for Democrats in various elections is in their tactical favor.


You are clouding the most important dividing line between revolution and reformism, that the state is not a neutral entity. It is an instrument for the ruling class to exploit and oppress the workers.Sure the state is fundamentally an organ of their suppression. We should affirm that while also explaining to the masses that voting for Democrats will sometimes make possible certain state policies that favor the masses right now.

We can at the same time make clear to the masses that fundamentally we require revolution to realize the future that will really and long term free us.

[Sibotic]

'Tactical' does not mean short-term any more than 'strategic' means long-term, a tactic is conditioned by the overall strategy. Voting for the Democrats in this connection wouldn't be particularly related to the strategy, if anything it would counteract that on your own part, and is getting involved with a movement which was at odds with such a thing. This seems to be more about limiting class struggle than anything, though, which is in a certain sense irrelevant. In promoting voting for the Democrats, one is basically muddying the waters as far as what one's aim is, or limiting this to an aim within capitalism rather than otherwise, which is in itself limiting; not to mention that one would of course have to then turn against the Democrats as soon as they were running the state, having supported such, which is a bit strange having urged support of them this far. Nor is it much help to help the state mollify workers or present a face of capitalism which apparently favoured them, given that the whole system was in fact the problem. In any case, presenting the proletariat with a bourgeois panacea where proletarian interests are preserved by the bourgeois state is to abstract from the nature of capitalism as well as its tendencies towards crisis, etc., which made such things unsustainable. At a certain point it needn't matter, of course, since we're talking about the Democrats and not a Party which is assumed to be a major change from the other Party or the 'Republicans,' at least ultimately.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

False. While I'm telling the masses that their strategic interests lie in making revolution, I'm also telling them that voting for Democrats in various elections is in their tactical favor.

It's a tactic that undermines a central tenet of the strategy. You'd telling workers to oppose capitalism by politically supporting a bourgeois party that champions it. When the strategic goal is diffuse and doesn't differentiate your political tactics on a practical level from the advocates of capitalism, guess what that makes your strategic goal? Window dressing for bourgeois politics. It's what the IWW used to call "pie in the sky" socialism. One day you'll get it. In the meantime, never mind all that. We have a bourgeois election to win, comrade! But yeah, that's not making the parliament the centerpiece of struggle at all. Sure it's not.


Sure the state is fundamentally an organ of their suppression. We should affirm that while also explaining to the masses that voting for Democrats will sometimes make possible certain state policies that favor the masses right now.

We can at the same time make clear to the masses that fundamentally we require revolution to realize the future that will really and long term free us.Yes, we'll make it clear to the toiling masses that the bourgeoisie and its political reps don't share our interests by telling the workers to vote for them. Good idea. I'm sure the lesson will sink in quickly for them.

[Tim Redd]

Quote from Tim Redd:

Sure the state is fundamentally an organ of their suppression. We should affirm that while also explaining to the masses that voting for Democrats will sometimes make possible certain state policies that favor the masses right now.


It's a tactic that undermines a central tenet of the strategy. You'd telling workers to oppose capitalism by politically supporting a bourgeois party that champions it. When the strategic goal is diffuse and doesn't differentiate your political tactics on a practical level from the advocates of capitalism, guess what that makes your strategic goal? Window dressing for bourgeois politics. It's what the IWW used to call "pie in the sky" socialism. One day you'll get it. In the meantime, never mind all that. We have a bourgeois election to win, comrade! But yeah, that's not making the parliament the centerpiece of struggle at all. Sure it's not.

Yes, we'll make it clear to the toiling masses that the bourgeoisie and its political reps don't share our interests by telling the workers to vote for them. Good idea. I'm sure the lesson will sink in quickly for them.

Quote from Tim Redd:
Sure the state is fundamentally an organ of their suppression. We should affirm that while also explaining to the masses that voting for Democrats will sometimes make possible certain state policies that favor the masses right now. We can at the same time make clear to the masses that fundamentally we require revolution to realize the future that will really and long term free us. ...While I'm telling the masses that their strategic interests lie in making revolution, I'm also telling them that voting for Democrats in various elections is in their tactical favor.

Quote from Spectre:
It's a tactic that undermines a central tenet of the strategy. You'd telling workers to oppose capitalism by politically supporting a bourgeois party that champions it. When the strategic goal is diffuse and doesn't differentiate your political tactics on a practical level from the advocates of capitalism, guess what that makes your strategic goal? Window dressing for bourgeois politics. It's what the IWW used to call "pie in the sky" socialism. One day you'll get it. In the meantime, never mind all that. We have a bourgeois election to win, comrade! But yeah, that's not making the parliament the centerpiece of struggle at all. Sure it's not.

You seem to have no belief that the masses can understand issues and make informed decisions. On the other hand I think they can distinguish between and relate strategic versus tactical issues and courses of action.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

You seem to have no belief that the masses can understand issues and make informed decisions. On the other hand I think they can distinguish between and relate strategic versus tactical issues and courses of action.
I don't think that's a fair statement. I do believe the working masses can understand issues and make informed decisions. That requires that they be informed though by people who come to consciousness first, so that a decision can be made without defaulting to the dominant capitalist perspective of how political change is made. That is how a revolutionary movement will begin to grow, workers learning in struggle alongside socialist workers.

Supporting a capitalist party isn't a tactic that contributes to a revolutionary anti-capitalist strategy. It is a tactic to bind the workers to capitalism and the idea that capitalist parties are fighting for them. It undermines anti-capitalist strategy by suggesting that workers' interests can be reconciled with support for capitalism, as evidenced in the capitalist party that supposedly deserves working class support. That's not a baby step on the road to revolution. It contradicts the starting principles on which a revolutionary movement must grow if it is ever to have a chance of leading a revolution.

[hashem]

that quote is clear enough. "When a socialist really believes in a Black-Hundred danger and is sincerely combating it—he votes for the liberals". that means if there is serious danger from ultra reactionary anti democratic political forces and voting for liberal democrats can stop their advance, in this situation socialists should vote for liberals. but if there is no such danger or liberals are unable or unwilling to stand against it, there is no reason to vote for them.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Yeah he probably would just so he could piss off the orthodox trots on revleft.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Yeah he probably would just so he could piss off the orthodox trots on revleft.

You think he wouldn't be the owner of the Orthodox Trotskyism tendency group?

[Faust Arp]

You think he wouldn't be the owner of the Orthodox Trotskyism tendency group?

Naw, he said that the NEP was the introduction of state-capitalism. :P

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Naw, he said that the NEP was the introduction of state-capitalism. :P

Orthodox Trotskyists disagree with this?

[Faust Arp]

Orthodox Trotskyists disagree with this?

I know many that do. Also I never saw Trotsky himself ever mentioning that the USSR ever went through a period of state capitalism, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Luís Henrique]

You think he wouldn't be the owner of the Orthodox Trotskyism tendency group?

He would.

But then "orthodox" Trotskyism would be vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaastly different from what it is now.

Luís Henrique

[VivalaCuarta]

Naw, he said that the NEP was the introduction of state-capitalism. :P

This old Cliffite canard again? You should admit that your "theory" is a unique innovation and stop trying to blame it on Lenin. This sort of quote chopping is very Stalinist, and we all know that Cliffites are not Stalinists, god help them!

Yes, Lenin occasionally used the term State Capitalism. But Cliffite "state capitalism" as a supposed new social class structure, in which the state functionaries are "capitalists" in one big centrally-planned "firm," the supposed owners of supposed capital who own nothing and administer a machinery of production that does not act according to the laws of capital? First of all the NEP would not qualify as "state capitalism" under the Cliffite theory. No, the NEPmen were actual capitalists, who owned actual small capital, tolerated for the time being by a workers state, not bureaucratic functionaries of the workers state who administered something which was claimed to be capital.

[Tim Redd]

No, the NEPmen were actual capitalists...not bureaucratic functionaries of the workers state who administered something which was claimed to be capital.

Bureaucratic functionaries claiming to be active in a worker's state who actually administered the capital of a capitalist society occurred in Russia from about the mid 50's to 1991. After '91 another form of capitalist state appeared in Russia.

The nature of the political line guiding a society is decisive in determining what kind of society exists overall. It isn't public vs private ownership that determines the nature, but rather what the overall purpose of the society is about. That is why socialism continues to exist when an actual dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) exists as determined by line, despite the fact that the dotp may temporarily allow/promote private ownership per the NEP.

The essence of the dotp is political hegemony by a political line that overall leads to achieve classless society and the elimination and of all exploitation and oppression as rapidly as possible.

[Faust Arp]

This old Cliffite canard again? You should admit that your "theory" is a unique innovation and stop trying to blame it on Lenin. This sort of quote chopping is very Stalinist, and we all know that Cliffites are not Stalinists, god help them!

Yes, Lenin occasionally used the term State Capitalism. But Cliffite "state capitalism" as a supposed new social class structure, in which the state functionaries are "capitalists" in one big centrally-planned "firm," the supposed owners of supposed capital who own nothing and administer a machinery of production that does not act according to the laws of capital? First of all the NEP would not qualify as "state capitalism" under the Cliffite theory. No, the NEPmen were actual capitalists, who owned actual small capital, tolerated for the time being by a workers state, not bureaucratic functionaries of the workers state who administered something which was claimed to be capital.

In the first half of the 20th century, the term "state capitalism" among Marxists was used for economic systems ranging everywhere from New Deal USA, through fascist corporatism, to the USSR itself. But it's understood that the term actually encompasses two distinct categories - "state monopoly capitalism" (where state-sponsored corporations and cartels hold a monopoly on the internal market) and "bureaucratic state capitalism" or "state capitalism" in a narrower sense (where it's the state bureaucracy itself which controls most - not necessarily all - of the economy). These categories aren't necessarily monolithic, but could easily be put on a triangular spectrum of sorts together with "free market capitalism" as the third polarity (bureaucratic state capitalism and free market might superficially appear to be compleste opposites, but Titoist Yugoslavia serves as a fine counterpoint). In any case, some "laws of capital" which were observed in market systems are obviously not going to exist in economies without an internal market, but that doesn't change the fact that they operate on capitalist foundations. Also, it wasn't the allowance of small capitalists in itself that which made NEP-era USSR capitalist, but the gearing of economic goals from the satisfaction of needs towards profit/abstractly taken economic growth - the NEPmen were merely a consequence of that switch.

Here's an excerpt from Bukharin's The Politics and Economics of the Transitional Period:


In the system of state capitalism the economic subject is the capitalist state, the collective capitalist. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the economic subject is the proletarian state, the collectively organised working class, “The proletariat organised as state power.” Under state capitalism, the production process is that of the production of surplus value which falls into the hands of a capitalist class, which tries to transform this value into surplus product. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat the production process is a means for the planned satisfaction of social needs. The system of state capitalism is the most complete form of exploitation of the masses by a handful of oligarchs. The dictatorship of the proletariat makes any exploitation whatsoever altogether unthinkable, as it transforms collective capitalist property and its private capitalist form into collective-proletarian “property”! Notwithstanding their formal similarity, these are diametrical opposites in content. This antagonism determines also the antagonism of all the parts of the systems under discussion, even if formally they are similar. Thus, for instance, the general labour duty under state capitalism means the enslavement of the working masses; as against this, under the dictatorship of the proletariat it is nothing but the self-organisation of labour by the masses; in the former case the mobilisation of industry means the strengthening of the power of the bourgeoisie and the strengthening of the capitalist regime, while in the latter it means the strengthening of socialism. Under the state capitalist structure all the forms of state compulsion represent a pressure which will assure, broaden and deepen the process of exploitation, while state compulsion under the dictatorship of the proletariat represents a method of building up communist society. In short, the functional contradiction between the formally similar phenomena is here wholly determined by the functional contradiction between the systems of organisation, by their contradictory class characteristics.

This sounds an awful lot like the USSR and "old Cliffite canards" about it, right? And it was written in 1920! Either this "Cliffite" theory isn't as much of a unique novetly as you claim it to be, or a time traveller was involved.

As for Lenin himself, here are some excerpts from his report The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments (bolding mine):


Even if all of you were not yet active workers in the Party and the Soviets at that time, you have at all events been able to make, and of course have made, yourselves familiar with decisions such as that adopted by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee at the end of April 1918. That decision pointed to the necessity to take peasant farming into consideration, and it was based on a report which made allowance for the role of state capitalism in building socialism in a peasant country; a report which emphasised the importance of personal, individual, one-man responsibility; which emphasised the significance of that factor in the administration of the country as distinct from the political tasks of organising state power and from military tasks.



The New Economic Policy means substituting a tax for the requisitioning of food; it means reverting to capitalism to a considerable extent—to what extent we do not know. Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when compared with the number we have offered) and leasing enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy; for the abolition of the surplus-food appropriation system means allowing the peasants to trade freely in their surplus agricultural produce, in whatever is left over after the tax is collected—and the tax~ takes only a small share of that produce. The peasants constitute a huge section of our population and of our entire economy, and that is why capitalism must grow out of this soil of free trading.


The whole question is who will take the lead. We must face this issue squarely—who will come out on top? Either the capitalists succeed in organising first—in which case they will drive out the Communists and that will be the end of it. Or the proletarian state power, with the support of the peasantry, will prove capable of keeping a proper rein on those gentlemen, the capitalists, so as to direct capitalism along state channels and to create a capitalism that will be subordinate to the state and serve the state.

From these quotes, it's obvious that Lenin recognized that NEP meant the restoration of capitalism in Russia, but hoped that a left-wing government could steer it towards the interests of the working class and eventually rerail it towards socialism. But he also knew that it took more than simply having "correct" people holding power in the party and the government, and that it will take organized mass struggle, as can be seen from another excerpt from the same document:


Either organised proletarian power—and the advanced workers and a small section of the advanced peasants will understand this and succeed in organising a popular movement around themselves—in which case we shall be victorious; or we fail to do this—in which case the enemy, being technologically stronger, will inevitably defeat us.

Lenin's and the opinion of some orthodox Trotskyists on the nature of the NEP period are obviously incompatible. Even if we do accept that NEP was capitalist (and thus not a workers' state - how can a workers' state be capitalist?) while what came after NEP was a "degenerate workers' state", it absolutely cannot hold unless we subscribe to the absurd notion that Stalin somehow magically gave power back to the workers, but his restoration of the workers' state was degenerate cuz Stalin.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Obviously Bukharin and Lenin used the term "state capitalism" in two different ways. Lenin had in fact read Bukharin's work, and broadly disagreed with it. The manner in which he used the term state-capitalism was set out in "The Tax in Kind":

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.
But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
Let us enumerate these elements:
(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
(3)private capitalism;
(4)state capitalism;
(5)socialism.
Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.
The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.
It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism”? Between the fourth and fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declarations. Today, however, the purely French approach to the question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can arouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois octopus now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.


As for the notion that the NEP was a "restoration of capitalism", capitalist social relationships already existed in Russia. People often have an extremely wrong idea about War Communism; it was not a giant nationalised economy (as I have heard people claim) but a state-run wartime economy where enterprises were only nationalised for reasons of external politics (negotiations with Germany) or efficiency. And what separates the economics of the transitional period from capitalism is not that the law of value operates, but that it is curtailed by the law of planning.

[Comrade Jacob]

Lenin would've voted for Bernie Sanders :lol:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Although, let it never be said that we're afraid to go against Lenin when we think he was wrong. Just ask us about the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry". Or rather don't, we tend to foam at the mouth and no one needs to see that so late in the evening.

[Fourth Internationalist]

From these quotes, it's obvious that Lenin recognized that NEP meant the restoration of capitalism in Russia, but hoped that a left-wing government could steer it towards the interests of the working class and eventually rerail it towards socialism. But he also knew that it took more than simply having "correct" people holding power in the party and the government, and that it will take organized mass struggle, as can be seen from another excerpt from the same document:

The position that the NEP meant the restoration of capitalism (as opposed to the allowing of some free trade in part of the economy) implies that capitalism can be brought in or out of existence by mere policy changes within the existing state structure, unless you think the NEP meant some sort of social counterrevolution that overturned the workers state presiding over a transitional economy.

[Art Vandelay]

The position that the NEP meant the restoration of capitalism (as opposed to the allowing of some free trade in part of the economy) implies that capitalism can be brought in or out of existence by mere policy changes within the existing state structure

Indeed and it's a reoccuring theme that state-cap theorists of all stripes, for all their wiggling, can't get around; namely, that a proleterian dictatorship that had overturned capitalist property relations, underwent capitalist restoration without violent and open eruptions of class angagonisms. It's what Trotsky characterized as running the film of reformism in reverse.

[Tim Redd]

Indeed and it's a reoccuring theme that state-cap theorists of all stripes, for all their wiggling, can't get around; namely, that a proleterian dictatorship that had overturned capitalist property relations, underwent capitalist restoration without violent and open eruptions of class angagonisms. It's what Trotsky characterized as running the film of reformism in reverse.

Is there some law that because a process begins violently it must end violently? Is there a law of reality that because a process begins one way it can't end in another way? I've never heard of it and neither has any scientist.

Socialism ended that way in both the Soviet Union in the 50's after Stalin's death and China in 1976 upon Mao's death. It wasn't a mostly violent upheaval but the nature of the state and society underwent a qualitative change.

[Tim Redd]

Although, let it never be said that we're afraid to go against Lenin when we think he was wrong. Just ask us about the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry". Or rather don't, we tend to foam at the mouth and no one needs to see that so late in the evening.

What's not to like about the (as Lenin called it) the " *revolutionary* democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry " in the appropriate circumstances? See Lenin on this at:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm

Everything can't be the maximum program at times. Sometimes transitions and intermediate forms are required before reaching and never under emphasizing the maximum program - the abolition of classes, the abolition of the political state and in those circumstances the elimination of all exploitation and oppression.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Is there some law that because a process begins violently it must end violently? Is there a law of reality that because a process begins one way it can't end in another way? I've never heard of it and neither has any scientist.

A social revolution could theoretically be non-violent, but the chance of that occurring is basically none because the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression. Thus, it makes sense to talk about the lack of violence and class conflict when capitalism is supposedly being restored and a dictatorship of the proletariat is supposedly collapsing.


Socialism ended that way in both the Soviet Union in the 50's after Stalin's death and China in 1976 upon Mao's death. It wasn't a mostly violent upheaval but the nature of the state and society underwent a qualitative change.

The nature of a state does not change because of the death of one person within that state structure, even if that one person is the Beloved Helmsman.

[StromboliFucker666]

I'm sure this has probably already been said and better but I'll post anyway.

He would under certain circumstances. For example, if voting for the democrats (or a similar party) would help stop a group like ISIS, he probably would. If the ISIS example doesn't suit your tastes, let's look historically. In the context he was writing in, the opposition was a feudal tsarist regime and the people in question were liberals that wanted to put in liberal capitalism. In America, the democrats and republicans are both very similar although one is a tiny bit more progressive.

[Comrade #138672]

Lenin would support Western imperialism?

[Tim Redd]

A social revolution could theoretically be non-violent, but the chance of that occurring is basically none because the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression. Thus, it makes sense to talk about the lack of violence and class conflict when capitalism is supposedly being restored and a dictatorship of the proletariat is supposedly collapsing.

Seems you wanted to write: "Thus, it makes sense [NOT] to talk about..."

You are making a circular argument - you are asserting as fact the point we are contending over when you say, "the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression".

I'm claiming that no, the restoration of capitalism can take place without a large bloodshed event and I'm using SU-1954 and China-1976 as evidence. Certainly the events for instance in China 1976 didn't just fall from the sky. The whole point of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966 was to oppose capitalist restorationist forces. There was an ongoing struggle already between the proletariat and capitalist restoration, especially since the mid-50's when China converted from the Chinese version of Lenin's "Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry" to the higher level Dictatorship of the Proletariat. So there was a struggle going on before the qualitative change of power takeover by the capitalist forces in 1976 and the situation made a leap in favor of the capitalist forces upon the major change in affairs due to Mao's death.


The nature of a state does not change because of the death of one person within that state structure, even if that one person is the Beloved Helmsman.

I just indicated that it wasn't just about the events around Mao's death, but about a long term, relatively bloodless struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist restorationist forces in years prior to Mao's death. Recall that Engels talks about smaller quantitative changes becoming major qualitative change/leaps in Dialectics of Nature. The qualitative change of the restoration of capitalism in China that happened upon Mao's death in 1976 was a precipitation point of events that had played out for years before his death.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Seems you wanted to write: "Thus, it makes sense [NOT] to talk about..."

You are making a circular argument - you are asserting as fact the point we are contending over when you say, "the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression".

I'm claiming that no, the restoration of capitalism can take place without a large bloodshed event and I'm using SU-1954 and China-1976 as evidence. Certainly the events for instance in China 1976 didn't just fall from the sky. The whole point of the Cultural Revolution that began in 19966 was to oppose capitalist restorationist forces. There was an ongoing struggle already between the proletariat and capitalist restoration, especially since the mid-50's when China converted from the Chinese version of Lenin's "Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry" to the plain Dictatorship of the Proletariat. So there was a struggle going on before the qualitative change of power takeover by the capitalist forces in 1976 and the situation made a leap in favor of the capitalist forces upon the major change in affairs due to Mao's death.

My argument would have been circular if I had said "they use violence because they always will use violence." You don't understand what I said, which was that since the capitalists have always used violence (I am, of course, discounting the intra-bureaucratic fights that the Stalinists/Maoists like yourself speak of as "revolutions") against revolution/for counterrevolution and because, as 9mm says, social revolutions have always involved open eruptions of class antagonisms rather than simply being bureaucratic changes from within the state structure, it makes sense to look for these things when identifying revolutions and counterrevolutions. Marxists don't think the state can be changed from one form of class rule to a new class's rule from within the old state. The state needs to be destroyed and a new one created in social (counter)revolution.


I just indicated that it wasn't just about the events around Mao's death, but about a long term, relatively bloodless struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist restorationist forces in years prior to Mao's death. Recall that Engels talks about smaller quantitative changes becoming major qualitative in Dialectics of Nature. Mao's death was a precipitation point of events that had played out for years before his death.

Proletarians and capitalists in 'socialist' China?

"Socialism means the abolition of classes." - Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm)

"We shall have socialism when there are no classes, when all the means of production belong to the working people." - Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/feb/04.htm)

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat." - Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jan/10.htm)

[Tim Redd]

My argument would have been circular if I had said "they use violence because they always will use violence."

That is basically what you wrote: (quote of you Fourth International) "the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression".

The bourgeoisie uses both violent and non-violent means of struggle as does the proletariat. You claim that any change in power from one class to another would necessarily have involved major violent struggle. I say that due to dogmatic blinders you refuse to acknowledge the actual fact of a mostly non-violent change in class power that occurred in Soviet Union-1953 and China-1976.

Again these events didn't just occur, but were the result of years long chain of events happening before the specific change events in Soviet Union-1953 and China-1976.

Have you no sense of nuance sir? No sense of seeing that qualitative change can occur without riotous fanfare based upon the outcome of events that happened over the course of years? Think deeply and get a grip. Loose the Trot dogmatism and feel better because you then will see the correct line and not a Trot caricature of social affairs and history.

Again where's the scientific theory from any field that says because something begins with a bang it must end with a bang? Or vice versa. Become a more accurate and nuanced thinker. Drop the Spartacist League Trot nonsense way of thinking if you really want to grow your mind for revolutionary change.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That is basically what you wrote: (quote of you Fourth International) "the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression".

That statement means that all past social revolutions (note: this does not include intra-bureaucratic struggles that don't overthrow the state but are nonetheless considered by some to be counterrevolution from 'socialism' back into capitalism) have involved violence, open eruptions of class antagonisms, and ultimately the collapse of the state, thus it makes sense to look for these things when identifying them. Perhaps it would be more clear if I changed "always uses" to "has always used" to ensure that it is clear that I am basing my position on past history?


The bourgeoisie uses both violent and non-violent means of struggle as does the proletariat. You claim that any change in power from one class to another would necessarily have involved major violent struggle. I say that due to dogmatic blinders you refuse to acknowledge the actual fact of a mostly non-violent change in class power that occurred in Soviet Union-1953 and China-1976.

Again these events didn't just occur, but were the result of years long chain of events happening before the specific change events in Soviet Union-1953 and China-1976.

First, can you explain what you think "non-violent means of struggles" are, as opposed to "violent means of struggles"?

Secondly, it is you who is being dogmatic if politically disagreeing with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Redd Thought (http://www.risparty.org/Risp_Thought.htm) constitutes dogmatism. It has always been the dogmatic "anti-dogmatists" who hate principled political positions, other than their own of course.

Thirdly, it is amazing to me that 'socialist' China and the 'socialist' USSR had changes in class power when socialism is a classless society, according to Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky.


Have you no sense of nuance sir? No sense of seeing that qualitative change can occur without riotous fanfare based upon the outcome of events that happened over the course of years? Think deeply and get a grip. Loose the Trot dogmatism and feel better because you then will see the correct line and not a Trot caricature of social affairs and history.

Again where's the scientific theory from any field that says because something begins with a bang it must end with a bang? Or vice versa. Become a more accurate and nuanced thinker. Drop the Spartacist League Trot nonsense way of thinking if you really want to grow your mind for revolutionary change.

Perhaps I should start my own political party, add my own name to the long strand of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Narcissist thought", and then accuse all people who disagree with me of being dogmatists.

[Tim Redd]

Perhaps I should start my own political party, add my own name to the long strand of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Narcissist thought", and then accuse all people who disagree with me of being dogmatists.

Not everyone - just you and the other Sparto-Trots.

[Tim Redd]

Lenin would support Western imperialism?

Tactically perhaps, but not strategically in a way that would harm the long term interests of the global proletarian movement.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Tactically perhaps, but not strategically in a way that would harm the long term interests of the global proletarian movement.

From which of his writings or actions would you conclude this? What do you mean by tactical support?

[Tim Redd]

From which of his writings or actions would you conclude this? What do you mean by tactical support?

"Tactically" meaning in this or that area, the Bolsheviks position may coincide with the position of one or more capitalist countries or capitalist blocks. All the while understanding that long term the long term interests of the proletarian movement are 180 opposite those of capitalist countries, or capitalist blocks.

in 1921 Lenin backed the New Economic Program which brought about a tactical (short, non long term) effort that was directed to promoting and building socialism in the Soviet Union in the long run.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

"Tactically" meaning in this or that area, the Bolsheviks position may coincide with the position of one or more capitalist countries or capitalist blocks. All the while understanding that long term the long term interests of the proletarian movement are 180 opposite those of capitalist countries, or capitalist blocks.

in 1921 Lenin backed the New Economic Program which brought about a tactical (short, non long term) effort that was directed to promoting and building socialism in the Soviet Union in the long run.

Lenin's support of the NEP is not the granting of political support to the bourgeoisie or the giving of military support to imperialist ventures.

[Emmett Till]

Seems you wanted to write: "Thus, it makes sense [NOT] to talk about..."

You are making a circular argument - you are asserting as fact the point we are contending over when you say, "the capitalist class always uses violence to defend/restore their system of exploitation and oppression".

I'm claiming that no, the restoration of capitalism can take place without a large bloodshed event and I'm using SU-1954 and China-1976 as evidence. Certainly the events for instance in China 1976 didn't just fall from the sky. The whole point of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966 was to oppose capitalist restorationist forces. There was an ongoing struggle already between the proletariat and capitalist restoration, especially since the mid-50's when China converted from the Chinese version of Lenin's "Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry" to the higher level Dictatorship of the Proletariat. So there was a struggle going on before the qualitative change of power takeover by the capitalist forces in 1976 and the situation made a leap in favor of the capitalist forces upon the major change in affairs due to Mao's death.

I just indicated that it wasn't just about the events around Mao's death, but about a long term, relatively bloodless struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist restorationist forces in years prior to Mao's death. Recall that Engels talks about smaller quantitative changes becoming major qualitative change/leaps in Dialectics of Nature. The qualitative change of the restoration of capitalism in China that happened upon Mao's death in 1976 was a precipitation point of events that had played out for years before his death.

The toppling of the Gang of Four a "large bloodshed event"? What are you smoking, I want some.:laugh:

The Cultural Revolution was a large bloodshed event, in which, by the way, Chinese workers were on one side, largely sympathizing with Deng etc., and "cultural revolutionary" fanatical Maoist students were another.

And Tienanmen Square was a large bloodshed event.

But out of both of these (the first a huge scale internal party squabble, the second a failed attempt by working people and students to clean up the mess Mao's party has made) Mao's Chinese Communist Party ended up on top. Mao's face is on 100 renminbi notes. So by your criteria, which are essentially correct, if China is capitalist now then it was capitalist under Mao, which is anarchist nonsense.

Basically, the same party which took power in 1949 is in power now, and the nature of the state has not changed. What has changed are government policies, the current leaders are super-Bukharinists.

[Tim Redd]

The toppling of the Gang of Four a "large bloodshed event"? What are you smoking, I want some.

Read more carefully, I said precisely the opposite:


I'm claiming that no, the restoration of capitalism can take place without a large bloodshed event and I'm using SU-1954 and China-1976 as evidence.

[-=56=-]

[QUOTE=DekuScrub;2839574]Would Lenin vote for the Democrats? QUOTE]

As long the Democrats would have brought communism/were influential/and a means to, the answer is.

Lenin knew that in order for such to happen he/the party/etc. are going to have to compromise. Hence Новая экономическая политика (NEP).